There is a long-standing superstition that cycle tracks should not be built alongside motorways. But the experience of administrations who have dared to think differently shows that, in many cases, it is often the best option in terms of safety and comfort. In this article, the European Cyclists’ Federation (ECF) takes a look at how and why this is the case.

Case study: F203 vs Chaussée de Louvain, Belgium

If you cycle towards the European Quarter or the centre of Brussels from the northwest suburbs of Kraainem and Zaventem, you will have two main route options: Chaussée de Louvain (former national road N2), which is equipped with cycle lanes, or the just-opened cycle highway F203 along the E40 motorway, which features a “corona cycle lane” on the motorway itself.

On the 4 km section between the R22 and R21 roads, the F203 cycle highway crosses motorised traffic only five times. Two of the crossings are regulated by traffic lights and one has been redeveloped to ensure priority for cyclists. The biggest one, at Avenue des Communautes, could have been easily avoided altogether if the cycle highway was integrated in the motorway design from the very beginning, but more on this later.

Intersections with motorised traffic along the two compared routes.

The alternative route, along Chaussée de Louvain, involves more than 20 intersections with motorised traffic, including nine major intersections with traffic lights. On top of that, on large sections of the route cycle lanes are located next to parking lanes, where a cyclist needs to constantly watch out for cars manoeuvring or opening doors. Where there is no parking lane, there are driveways and garage entrances. There are also 20 pedestrian crossings, and often the pedestrians enter the cycle lane straight from behind a parked car.

This comparison does not mean to imply that the cycling infrastructure should not exist on Chaussée de Louvain. It is necessary for access to shops and services located along the street. But for through cycle traffic – cycling from the suburbs to the city centre – the cycle highway along the E40 motorway is much safer and more comfortable.

Corona cycle path on the E40 motorway.

Intersection of F203 with Bareelstraat, redeveloped to safe standard: carriageway narrowed to 1 lane, raised crossing.

Cycle lanes on Chaussée de Louvain.

Is this a trend already?

Several other cycle highways in Belgium are located along similar roads, for example, F28 entering Brussels from the northwest along the A12 motorway, FR10 following the Antwerp ring road (R10) or F40 along an expressway (R4) west of Ghent.

Elsewhere, the most popular cycle highway in Copenhagen – Farum route – also follows a motorway.

In Netherlands, cycle highways take numbers from the parallel motorways. Interestingly, the planned F15 route shows that the costs of cycling infrastructure can be reduced as much as three times by integrating it in the design of a motorway extension.

A cycle highway is also planned as a part of the fast tram project connecting Luxembourg City with the southern region of the country, alongside the A4 motorway.

In many locations a cycle track along a motorway is the safest and most comfortable choice. Of course, there are also other options where a parallel itinerary is more logical, such as along a railway, river or canal. Nevertheless, including cycle routes in major infrastructural investments should be a general principle rather than an exception. To this end, ECF is working on better integrating cycling into the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) guidelines, currently under revision.

Need for national and international coordination

Coming back to F203, it is an interesting case also for another reason. While most of the cycle highway and the corona cycle path had been ready by summer 2020, there remained a 500 metre gap in the middle, between Tollaan and Avenue des Communautes, rendering the whole route nearly useless. The missing link was located on the border between the Brussels Capital Region and Flanders.

While most of the 4 km route was completed in summer 2020, the 500 metre section crossing the regional border was delayed until 2022, significantly limiting the usability of the infrastructure for 2 years.

While this gap has already been fixed thankfully, in many other places cycling infrastructure still ends “in the middle of nowhere”, at an administrative border, something that is not so common on rails or roads. This is another issue that can easily be addressed with the ongoing TEN-T revision, by including EuroVelo, the European cycle route network, in the TEN-T. Procedures and communication channels created to coordinate the development of EuroVelo on national and international levels can also be applied to other routes.

Interested in learning more about why cycling and EuroVelo should be included in the upcoming revision of the TEN-T guidelines? Check out our landing page for more information!