Health, wellbeing and new cycling infrastructure: A mixed methods study of health, wellbeing, and health economic impacts of large-scale new cycling infrastructure in three English regions outside London

Research Question: What are the impacts on travel behaviour, health and wellbeing of new, high quality cycling infrastructure schemes in three English regions? What are the implications for transport and health policy? Background: Under 1% of passenger distance in Britain is cycled, but in 1952, this figure was 11% (or 1/4 of trips). In other European countries and cities, cycling has partially rebounded, and there would be large health gains if England can follow suit. London has recently built higher-quality dedicated cycling infrastructure, and the city now makes up 17% of km cycled in Britain (from 10% in 1993). New national design guidance is based on London’s approach, and other city regions are creating major funding packages from devolved budgets. Design and Methods: This research will evaluate new high-quality cycling infrastructure across three English regions (Greater Manchester, West Midlands, West Yorkshire). In the quantitative component, a longitudinal survey with three follow-up waves will generate evidence from across the regions. Regions have ambitious five-year plans, but not all schemes will happen, so our method does not rely on implementation of any specific scheme. At baseline we will recruit individuals in households within a buffer zone of all planned schemes, achieving 15,000 repeat respondents allowing us to identify a plausible short-term rise (+1.8 min/wk) in population cycling. This design can incorporate other policy changes potentially affecting travel behaviour, such as new Low Emission Zones. We will study health and health economic outcomes from changes in travel behaviour including via physical activity, emissions, injuries, and subjective wellbeing pathways. Equity analysis of scheme planning and implementation will cover diversity and small-area deprivation. A substantial qualitative component responds to (i) the need for more evidence about new cyclists’ experiences and how cycling shapes subjective wellbeing, and (ii) a lack of in-depth research into inequalities in cycling uptake and experiences, and how new infrastructure affects marginalised communities. For (i) we will interview 75 new cyclists using photo- and map-based prompts. For (ii), co-led by our PPI co-applicants, we will collaborate with local partners to iteratively co-design research with specific communities of interest, selected in Year 1 from ethnic minority communities and disabled residents likely to be differentially affected by new infrastructure. In-depth qualitative research with 60 participants (cyclists and non-cyclists) from the locally selected groups will allow us to explore community experiences. Patient and Public Involvement: There are no patients per se but service users who may (as cyclists or not) be affected by new infrastructure. Their involvement is critical given under-representation of marginalised groups in cycling and in local authority engagement. Our PPI co-applicants and partners will be involved throughout, from recruitment advice to interpretation of findings and dissemination, and Strand 2 of our qualitative research involves local organisations and communities directly in co-design. Dissemination: Alongside high-impact academic publications, we will use diverse channels to secure wider impact (e.g. project events, blogs, podcasts, bulletins, news articles). For instance, reporting to stakeholders our early findings on equity gaps in cycling provision, helping them improve planning processes.