Ultralocal Cycling

Over the past five years, Scott Carver has researched the relationship between Transit Oriented Development and bicycles in the world’s most transit-rich city, Tokyo. Staggering differences between Japanese and Australian obesity statistics can be substantially attributed to differences in urban form. The bicycle is an intrinsic component of the Tokyo lifestyle, fundamental to the upbringing of children and the ability of people to age in place.

Notable in the Tokyo context is the intimate and seamless relationship between cycles and pedestrians. Fundamentally different to long-haul lycra cycling, and the politics of cycleways that dominate Australian thinking, Ultralocal Cycling engages virtually everybody in everyday movement around neighbourhoods. This results in a radical reinvention of urban form with streetscapes that are served by architectural, retail and civic amenity that is more tactile, safer and more culturally productive than our suburban model.

A new agenda needs to be embraced into the urban design debate in Australia that focuses on the immense consequences of tiny trips taken by children, mothers, commuters, the elderly and the fashion-conscious as we inevitably adapt Australian cities to a less energy-consumptive future.

The term ‘ultralocal’ is used here to describe a finer grained neighbourhood unit than is usually implied by the term ‘local’ as we might use it alone to describe say, a Local Government area. In Sydney for example, ‘ultralocal’, if seen, as being prescribed by road hierarchies, would be a neighbourhood between Arterial and Sub-arterial Roads, uncomplicated by broader metropolitan mobility demands, perhaps even a neighbourhood bounded by Collector Roads.

Japanese cities describe their local government areas as ‘ku’ and then define neighbourhoods at a much finer grain as ‘cho’. An ultralocal neighbourhood would be the equivalent of the ‘cho’, a walkable neighbourhood, sometimes characterised by local distinguishing features, history or shared memory.

In Japan these neighbourhoods are generally well serviced by metro rail, which has fostered activity-rich and amenity-rich pedestrian environments that transcend roads as defining boundaries. Cycling is an integral part of functional, social and cultural behaviour in the ‘cho’. There has been a great deal of interest recently here in Australia in European bicycle planning through the excellent examples provided by cities such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam. However, we should not forget that the world’s most transit-rich city, Tokyo, is on our doorstep and demonstrates a rich array of alternative shared space possibilities for active and safe public domains.

Dense Japanese cities are full of pleasant surprises for the Australian suburban mindset. Among these is the fact that streets are quieter, cleaner and safer than Australian cities and, challengingly, I have never seen a dedicated cycle path in Japan and I have only seen small children wearing safety helmets.

Ultralocal Cycling is a different category to Commuter Cycling While we are witnessing a rapid rise in the use of bicycles in Australia, most growth and most discussion centres on Recreational Cycling and Commuter Cycling. Ultralocal Cycling, as described here, is currently unimaginatively trapped in the category generally known as Utility Cycling. Oblivious of its benefits to the health of individuals and communities, this limiting description falls far short of embracing the exciting and radical ways that 

Ultralocal Cycling can change the way we use our cities and hence, change the nature of the cities themselves. Most transport initiatives regarding bicycles are focused on the creation of – dedicated cycleways and cycle lanes as part of roadways. This is largely because our people need to commute, from suburbs to centres, over the same distances travelled by car.

This inevitably puts the bicycle in competition with the car for space and since, in the interests of safety there is a need to minimise potential conflict between the two modes, dedicated pathways for the exclusive use of bicycles are an obvious and attractive solution.

While it is awkward to say this at the national cycling conference, we must understand that for the purposes of creating a culturally rich and safe public domain, the dedicated cycleway and the destination-driven cyclist are as useless as roads and the motorist.

While cyclists remain physically isolated from property boundaries there is diminished potential for the cyclist to stop, shop or interact with and nurture the offerings of the city. Our public domain has been stripped of interest by the disengaged, disinterested eye of the motorist. The commuter cyclist is generally as disinterested as the motorist.

From an urban design perspective we have to be more interested in the Ultralocal Cyclist than the commuter. We need the cyclist off the road and onto the footpath where he and she can brush up against property boundaries and by doing so foster trade, landscaped edges, social interaction and community engagement.

Tweet