Cambridge has done some wonderful stuff, but it is a small place with a semi-pedestrianised university campus/world heritage site for a town centre. An investigation could very possibly be highly informative. However, in terms of cycle planning, I would anticipate that you need to hire someone who is a historical expert in multi-century land use planning, examining the role of a fairly unique local job market+civic culture centred around the University and then a mass of pioneering high-tech firms, not a "bike-lanes expert". (e.g. it has no city-centre train station, it didn't build a ring-road or through-roads, 1km west of the centre is basically a swamp- the contemporary cycle rates go further back than late 20th century bike campaigning, although the Cambridge Cycle Campaign as been locally invaluable and materially influences the rest of the UK campaigning network.)
Adding to the wider debate, I'd say that any examination of best practice case studies needs to include the political context or the design choices become incomprehensible. I don't necessarily mean high-level political theory, just the local specificity. For example, the De Beauvoir filtered permeability in London's Hackney was initially installed as a means of preventing kerb crawling, not cycle promotion (can't re-find the link to the blog by the Councillor responsible, sorry). On London's cycle superhighway 3 I'm sure that there are reasons that the vertically segregated lane suddenly changes to being on the other side of the road. There is inevitably a proper article to be written about why London's W-E and N-S superhighways were put along the routes they were, and the design/political compromises this addressed.
|