Bikes in Oxford. Photo by Haydon on Unsplash
by Mel Cairns, Postgraduate Researcher at Centre for Transport and Society
I’d like to share some reflections after an interesting ‘Cycling at Teatime’ cycle tour and seminar showcasing cycling infrastructure in Oxford on 8th December 2025. The tour was led by Patrick Lingwood, formerly Active Travel team leader at Oxfordshire City Council, and he made the case for his ‘Oxford Approach’ of quickways and quietways by demonstrating how it feels to use each type of infrastructure to ride through the city.
Quickways and quietways
The quickways and quietways approach, inspired by London’s network of cycle superhighways and quietways, aimed to provide cyclists with two different types of routes to connect the city centre with various suburban areas. Quickways are wide, good quality, on-road cycle lanes connecting the city centre with several outer suburbs. They minimise stopping and provide space for overtaking, affording more streamlined journeys for faster and more confident cyclists. Quietways use quiet and traffic-calmed residential streets to offer a more peaceful journey away from heavy traffic, albeit with more turns and stopping. In both cases, the highway infrastructure is amended to shape driver behaviour as well, for example using narrower lanes for motor traffic to encourage slower speeds.
My riding experience
I was impressed by the extent and connectivity of the network as well as the contrast between the quickways and quietways in terms of the sensory experience and effort efficiency. The quickways enabled faster riding with greater efficiency because the surfaces were smooth and stopping was minimised. Although they were on the carriageway, most of the cycle lanes were wide enough, and the traffic slow enough, to minimise that ‘close pass’ feeling of some on-road lanes. That said, some of the unfamiliar junction layouts felt a little vulnerable to navigate, even with Patrick’s instructions.
The quietways, in contrast, were more relaxing because of the lower level of traffic noise and the visual interest of the historic buildings and gardens. However, there was more ‘friction’ in the journey, due to more frequent slowing and stopping, and wayfinding required more attention.
Pros and cons of integrating infrastructure for cycling and nature
My research is about cycling and nature, and a small rain garden and a brook were the main natural features taken in by the tour. The rain garden, enthusiastically pointed out by a local councillor, had been implemented as part of an active travel infrastructure scheme and brought a small area of pleasant planting to a fairly urban street. The brook, alongside which a pretty narrow pedestrian path had been opened up to cyclists, was mentioned because of the unfortunate occurrence of multiple cyclists falling into it. Not the positive experience of waterside cycling I had expected! But the offering of streamlined, efficient main road routes and quieter, slower more experiential ones chimes with the different preferences of my research participants; quieter urban routes were valued for the opportunity to dial down the attention required to navigate heavy traffic and to tune in more to aspects of the surroundings like birdsong and garden flowers.
Woman cycling in Oxford. Photo by Sharad Sreenivas on Unsplash
Alternative approaches
After the tour, we were promised fisticuffs as Patrick’s approach was subject to response, critique and discussion by Mariam Draaijer, CEO of Joyriders, an inclusive cycling organisation based in London, and Robin Tucker from Oxfordshire Cycle Network. Mariam argued that women, children and other minoritised groups are already disadvantaged by the transport system and that it’s vital that new infrastructure is built to meet their needs. Whereas Patrick’s quickways and quietways approach had been focused primarily on enabling existing cyclists to cycle more journeys, by creating an extensive network of routes that most people could use, Mariam advocated for higher quality routes that everyone would use. Meeting the needs of the most vulnerable road users means that new infrastructure can be used by everyone, which is a fairer way to spend transport funding and avoids exacerbating existing transport and access inequalities.
Robin perhaps represented a middle view, as he shared ambitions and plans for cycling links between most of Oxfordshire’s market towns. He presented the problem of active travel funding and the compromises invited by the astronomical cost of installing one section of segregated cycleway to meet the inclusive needs Mariam raised. Such a cycleway might be of very limited benefit without a wider network – which could be installed to a less inclusive standard across the whole area for a similar cost.
So, what do I think about this? It’s a head-scratcher!
Of course, in an ideal world, there would be funding to do it all, but unfortunately this isn’t the world we currently face. While I feel strongly that inclusion should be the default priority, spending most of the funding on gold-standard segregated infrastructure that will benefit only a tiny proportion of people in ways that are very limited without a wider network seems neither prudent nor just.
One size doesn’t fit all
That said, Robin made this specific case for Oxfordshire, and I don’t think that these kinds of decisions should be made with a one-size-fits-all approach – the local context is a crucial factor. If one piece of segregated infrastructure would take up a large chunk of the budget but fill a strategic gap in an existing network that benefits the most vulnerable, for example creating safe routes to a school, then that’s quite a different proposition. As are situations where an area is very likely to benefit from additional new infrastructure funded through developers in the near future.
Changing culture
In presenting the quickways and quietways approach, Patrick emphasised the use of insights about the culture and profile of local cyclists to inform design and maximise usage of new cycle routes and infrastructure. CTS Research Fellow in Active Travel and Micromobility, Dr. Eda Beyazit agrees on the importance of culture here:
“I understand your uncertainty about segregated infrastructure when budgets are limited (as they usually are). Last year, I interviewed two staff members from the World Bicycle Relief. Having heard about their experience, especially in rural areas of the Global South, I also tend to agree with you (and Robin) that segregated infrastructure would not be the sole solution to inclusivity (especially when the network is not connected). Segregated lanes can be so beneficial for both inexperienced and experienced riders in terms of safety and confidence but they may not be enough to encourage relatively more vulnerable groups to cycle. As you say, cycling culture is also something that should be considered when planning cycle routes – it’s not a situation that ‘if we build it, they will use’.”
So, what’s the answer?
In summary, in the absence of sufficient funding to offer fully segregated networks, I’m won over by Patrick’s approach of using local insights to maximise cycling trips with cheaper infrastructure that is not segregated but reduces the speed and volume of motor traffic to improve actual and perceived safety. However, I asked CTS Emeritus Professor of Transport Engineering John Parkin for his perspective on this debate. He emphasised the difficult decisions facing planners with insufficient funding for cycling:
“Unfortunately, if you are not going to be able to spend the required amount to create a comprehensive network of the right quality, you will end up with a compromise. Whatever you install will limit in some way the proportion of the population who would otherwise be able or willing to cycle, likely affecting some sections of the population more than others. This is the worst aspect of it.”
Eda suggests a possible solution could be:
“To couple the implementation of ‘quietways’ with promotional campaigns to make them more of a space for less-experienced riders, women and children to appreciate cycling while staying safe. I believe one thing we need to realise is that change doesn’t happen overnight. This could eventually help build a case for cyclist priority roads and segregated lanes as we need to make such business cases for active travel!”
This blog was written by Mel Cairns, with kind input from Emeritus Professor John Parkin and Dr. Eda Beyazit.
Mel Cairns is a Postgraduate Researcher at Centre for Transport and Society. Her current research explores the role of nature in cycling experiences and decision-making. She has previously worked on research and measurement relating to place-based wellbeing and sustainability.
This is a personal reflection on the event; I hope I have accurately represented the speakers’ perspectives but any errors in the above are my own.