Alternatively, other potential riders prioritize safety and comfort over directness and efficiency to varying degrees. Sport and recreational riders, who make up a small but growing demographic in some cities, will choose routes or lanes only if they are comfortable and safe. Non-captive commuters, also rare but with high potential for growth, have priorities between the two extremes: they will cycle only if there is a reasonably efficient route to get from A to B, but only if there is a minimum threshold of safety. Ideally, new cycling infrastructure should be direct, efficient, safe and comfortable. However, the priorities of expected user groups must be considered, particularly in the phasing of a large-scale cycling network.
2. Unsafe, inefficient, and/or uncomfortable cycling infrastructure lacking proper lighting, drainage, paving, etc. deters use by both captive and potential riders. Perception of directness, efficiency, safety and comfort is key. Existing riders will only use cycle infrastructure if it is a better alternative to riding on the road, and potential riders will only make the switch if it is a better (and safer) alternative to driving a car, two-wheeler, public transportation, or walking. Design solutions must therefore address both the large scales (directness, efficiency and connectivity) and small scales (safety and comfort). In most all Indian cities, the vast majority of cyclists are captive riders, and in most cases, this is a large enough group to focus on to initially establish a critical mass of cyclists. Projects therefore must be designed first for the priorities of this demographic: directness and efficiency.
Directness, Efficiency & Connectivity Directness must be carried out on all scales. On the city scale, the first cycle tracks should focus on the routes that see the heaviest cycling traffic, typically extending from high-density working-class neighborhoods to common destinations for those captive riders, such as markets and city centers.
54