2014 03-13 Planning and Designing for Cyclists

Planning and
Designing for Cyclists
Peter Leslie – Senior Engineer

By the end of this workshop, candidates will be able to:
1. Discuss current policy and guidance aiding the
delivery of cycle infrastructure in Scotland.
2. Identify design principles for planning and designing
for cyclists.
3. Explain the basic principles of retrofitting cycle route
design into existing infrastructure.
Learning Outcomes

3
By 2020, 10% of all
journeys in
Scotland will be by
bike.

180km of routes designed
and installed
Over 800km
reviewed/audited
Loon fae Aberdeen

Change Behaviour
Why was I not on site for the
M77 / M74 / AWPR?
Cycle Action Plan for Scotland
Sustrans (Funding)
CSGN - Planning

How would you look to
change people towards
cycling in Aberdeen?
You - What is your role

New Bridge for Cyclists
Park and Bike
Segregation along the
Parkway?
You - What is your role

10
Active Travel Design Manuals
 Netherlands - Crow – Design manual for
bicycle traffic
 UK – DFT – Cycle Infrastructure Design
 Scotland – TS - Cycling By Design 2010

11
Active Travel Design Manuals
 UK – TFL – London Design Standards
 Scotland – TS – Designing Streets

12
Sustrans Publications - Guidelines
 Connect 2 and Greenway Design Guide – 2007
 The NCN – Guidelines and Practical Details -1997
 Making Ways for the Bicycle – 1994
 Greenways design guide
 Audit before payment
 Practical example
 www.sustrans.org.uk/resources

26/03/201413 Cycling by Design – A User’s Guide
Introduction
Presentation Content
• Why Cycling by Design?
• The Evolution of Cycling by Design
• A Tour of the Document
• The Cycle Audit Process
• Summary

‹#› 26/03/2014 Cycling by Design – A User’s Guide
Why Cycling by Design?

Trunk Road Cycling Initiative
•Trunk Road Cycling Initiative
launched November 1995
•Five Actions Detailed in Office
Instruction 3/96
• Trunk Road/NCN Development
• Co-operation with Sustrans
• Redetermination of footways
• A74(M) Cycleway
• Consideration of cyclists in all
new schemes
Policy
Led to the Creation of Cycling by Design 1999

CAPS
•Launched June 2010 by
Transport Minister
•Contains 17 Actions to
Promote Cycling in Scotland
• Skills Development
• The Network
• Delivery
•Multi-agency Approach
Policy
Vision: By 2020, 10% of All Journeys Taken in Scotland by Bike

CAPS
CBD Supports several CAPS
actions, but especially:
Action 8: To promote the use of
planning policy, access
legislation and design guidance
to a wide range of professionals;
and to promote the outcomes of
access legislation in the form of
leisure activities.
Outcome 8: More well designed,
accessible cycling facilities
across Scotland
Policy
CBD is the Design Guidance outlined in CAPS

Road Safety
•Cyclists recognised as having
less protection if an accident
occurs
•Accidents involving
vulnerable users including
cyclists one of four main
accident types
•Action 11: “…improve
cycling provision with cycle
friendly design”
Policy

Scotland PLC Tourism
VisitScotland figures (2003):
• Cycle tourism responsible
for 1 million trips to
Scotland (8% of all visitors)
• Revenue from cycle
tourism: £219 Million
• 50% increase in cycle
tourism by 2015
• Scotland is a world leader
in mountain biking
• Sustrans National Cycle
Network

Scotland PLC Tourism
National Cycle Network Trunk Road Network
High Interaction between NCN and Trunk Road Network

Designing Streets
• Complements principles
• Encourages direct and
coherent routes for cyclists
• Has presumption in favour of
cyclists at access controls
• Promotes permeability
• Recognises at low volume/low
speed dedicated facilities
may not be required
• CBD intended for wider area
application, not just
residential streets
Policy
CBD Compliments Designing Streets

26/03/201422 Cycling by Design - 2010 Edition
Why Cycling by Design? Policy
Cycling by Design aims to Implement these Policies for Cyclists

Barriers to Cycling
What factors deter you from cycling / cycling more often?
29
7 6 6
10
26
10
12
0
10
20
30
40
50
Danger
from
traffic
Not
enough
road
space
Lack of
good
routes
No
access
to bike
Journey
time too
long
Weather Too
physical
Other
%
Barriers to Cycling
What factors deter you from cycling / cycling more ofte
29
7 6 6
10
26
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
Danger
from
traffic
Not
enough
road
space
Lack of
good
routes
No
access
to bike
Journey
time too
long
Weather Too
physic
%
What is the principal factor that deters you from
cycling/ cycling more often?
Why Cycling by Design? Policy
Infrastructure Related Issues - 49% of Responses
Good Quality Design an Imperative!

‹#› 26/03/2014 Cycling by Design - 2010 Edition
Evolution of Cycling by Design

Background
• Cycling by Design originally
published 1999 as a
consultative draft
• Updated June 2010
• Contains information on
cyclists’ needs, network
planning, geometric
standards and cycle audit
• Consideration mandatory on
the Trunk Road network
• Commended for use by local
authorities and others
Cycling by Design

2010 Update Process
Cycling by Design 1999
Technical Expertise
Cycle Designers, Roads Designers,
Accessibility experts, Economists,
Planners, Environmental Consultants,
Maintenance experts, Road Safety Auditors
Disability
Discrimination Act
Transport Scotland’s Good Practice
Guide for Roads
Independent Review Fife
Council
City of Edinburgh Council
Glasgow City Council
Forestry Commission
Sustrans
Good Practice Design
Examples
East Renfrewshire
Clackmannanshire
City of Edinburgh
Fife
Dumfries & Galloway
Argyll & Bute
Highland
Technical Guidance
UK Cycle Design Guidance (DfT, TfL,
Lancashire, Nottinghamshire,
SESTRANS, Edinburgh)
UK Roads Design Guidance (DMRB,
Transport Scotland)
European Cycle Design Guidance
(CROW, Malmo, Copenhagen, Danish
Cycle Parking)
Cycling by
Design 2010
1999 Consultation
Comments received
Cycling by Design

‹#› 26/03/2014 Cycling by Design – A User’s Guide
A Tour of The Document

1. Introduction
2. Planning for Cyclists
3. Geometric Design
4. Traffic Volume & Speed
5. Allocating Carriageway Space
6. Off-Carriageway Facilities
7. Junctions & Crossings
8. Cycle Parking
9. Public Transport Integration
10.Construction & Maintenance
11.Cycle Audit System
Appendices
Document Tour

26/03/201429
Overview
Workshop
• Cyclists’ Needs & Trip
Purposes
• Core Design Principles
• Hierarchy of Measures
Review
• Link Specification Guide
• Network Planning Process
Planning for Cyclists
Cycling by Design – A User’s Guide

26/03/201430
Hierarchy of Measures Planning for Cyclists

26/03/201431
On or Off Carriageway? Planning for Cyclists

26/03/201432
Network Planning Process Planning for Cyclists

Skill Level
Skill Level
• Novice;
• Intermediate; and
• Experienced.

Journeys completed by Cyclists
• Neighbourhood
• Commuting
• School
• Day Trips
• Touring
• Sports
(Based on CBD 2010)

Design Principles
• Coherence –
• Door step
• Directness –
• Time Saving
• Safety –
• Feel Safe
• Comfort –
• Surface
• Attractiveness –
• Fit Surroundings

26/03/201436
1. Introduction
3. Geometric Design
8. Cycle Parking
Appendices
Document Tour

26/03/201437
Overview
Workshop
• Cycle Design Speed
What would you use as a
design speed?
Review
• Visibility Parameters
• Alignment
Geometric Design

26/03/201438
Design Speed & Visibility Geometric Design
1.0m
(min)
Eye Height
2.2m max
Visibility Envelope
Dynamic Sight Distance
1.0m
(min)
Eye Height
2.2m max
1.0m
(min)
2.2m
Eye Height
2.2m max
Visibility Envelope
Stopping Sight Distance
Dynamic Sight Distance Stopping Sight Distance
Design parameter
Network hierarchy
Long distance/
commuter
Local access
Design Speed (kph)
30 20
Minimum Dynamic Sight Distance (DSD) (m)
65 45
Minimum Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) (m)
35 25

26/03/201439
Design Speed & Visibility Geometric Design
Cycle
Route
Visibility Envelope
Carriageway
Y-Distance
(Refer to Table 3.3)
Y-Distance
X-Distance
Junction/Crossing Visibility Splay
‘X’ distance (m) Control and Comments
4.0m Cycle route approach to a road – Desirable Minimum
2.0m Cycle route approach to a road – Absolute Minimum
1.0m ‘Jug handle’ crossing* – Absolute Minimum
85th Percentile speed of main
road vehicles (kph)
120 100 85 70 60 50 30
Y-Distance (m) * 295 215 160 120 90 70 35
Also Reduced Values for Cycle/Pedestrian Networks in CBD

26/03/201440
Vertical & Horizontal Alignment Geometric Design
Design parameter
Network hierarchy
Long distance/
commuter
Local access
Design Speed (kph) 30 20
Minimum Dynamic Sight Distance (DSD) (m) 65 45
Minimum Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) (m) 35 25
Horizontal alignment Desirable Minimum Radius (m) 25 15
Minimum Bellmouth Radius at junctions
(m)
4.0 4.0
Vertical alignment Desirable Minimum Crest (k) 14.1 6.8
Absolute Minimum Crest (k) 5.3 1.3
Sag values are not likely to be a controlling factor at cycle speeds and are, therefore, not
specified.
Gradient Desirable Maximum 3% 3%
Absolute Maximum* 7% 7%
Crossfall Absolute Maximum 2.5% 2.5%

26/03/201441
Vertical Alignment - DDA Geometric Design
Location Gradient
General cycle facility Desirable Maximum 3%
Absolute Maximum 5%
7%
Over 5m*
Over 10m*
On the immediate approach to priority junctions Absolute Maximum 3%
On the approach ramp to a bridge or subway
(7% also requires speed controls)
Desirable Maximum 3%
Absolute Maximum 5%
7%
Over 5m*
Over 10m*
*DDA Implication – Gradients Above 5% are Considered a Ramp

26/03/201442
Facilities for Disabled People Geometric Design
Rest Areas on an Off-road Route Rest Areas on a Bridge Structure

26/03/201443
1. Introduction
3. Geometric Design
8. Cycle Parking
Appendices
Document Tour

26/03/201444
Overview
• Appropriate Carriageway
Conditions
• Traffic Management
• Traffic Calming
• Rural Situations
Traffic Volume & Speed

26/03/201445
Carriageway Conditions Traffic Volume & Speed
Good Conditions: <3,000 veh/day and <35kph 85th %ile speed

26/03/201446
Traffic Management Traffic Volume & Speed
1.5m Desirable Minimum
1.2m Absolute Minimum
Twowayroad
Build-out may be provided to prevent
parked cars obstructing cyclists.
Various features may be used to
create road closures:
- Extended footway
- Landscape planters/tree planting
- Permanent and lockable bollards
- Emergency gates
Diag No.955
Diag No.616
Bollards
Diag No.616Diag No.955
Build-out may be provided to
prevent gap being obstructed by
parked cars.
Bollards
Bollards
Minor Road Closure
False One-way Street
Presumption Cyclists Exempt from Access Restrictions & One Way Streets

26/03/201447
Traffic Calming Traffic Volume & Speed
Central Island
Pinch Point
1.5m desirable min
1.2m absolute min
Segregation kerb of min 0.5m width
to prevent vehicles encroaching on
cycle lane.
Crossing point
where appropriate
Cycle
Lane
1.5m desirable min
1.2m absolute min
Cycle
Lane
Clearance strip of min 0.5m
width to discourage
encroachment on cycle lane
Verge marker postVerge marker post
3.0m
Verge marker posts
Verge marker posts
W
A
Verge marker posts
Verge marker posts
Chicane
Desirable Min 1.5m, Absolute Min 1.2m – But don’t forget the Gullies!

26/03/201448
Rural Situations Traffic Volume & Speed
Road closure or gate. Gate
can be left locked or unlocked.
Field Access
Signs and combinations of signs to be used for
restricted access to roads. Further options include:
- Weight/width restrictions
- "unfit for Motor Traffic" sign
- "Road Closed...Miles Ahead" sign
- "Gated Road" sign
1.2m min
1.5m
preferred
max.
Optional
cattle grid
Diag No. 619 Diag No. 816
Diag No. 620 Diag No. 954.4
Typical Restricted Access Plan
Typical Gated Road Closure

26/03/201449
Introduction
2. Geometric Design
7. Cycle Parking
9. Construction & Maintenance
Appendices
Document Tour

26/03/201450
Overview
Workshop
• Cycle Lanes
Width of Lanes?
• Kerb Segregated Cycle Lanes
Two Way verus One Way
• Bus Lanes
Width?
• Cycle Lanes at Bus Stops
Design out the issue
Carriageway Space

26/03/201451
Cycle Lanes Carriageway Space

26/03/201452
Standard Width (m) Comments
Maximum Width 2.5*
Lanes of this width should be used where cycle flows are expected to be >150 cycles/
peak hour and therefore cycles overtaking within the lane can be expected.
Desirable Minimum Width 2.0*
The minimum width that should be considered for a cycle lane with width for cyclists to
pass each other.
Absolute Minimum Width 1.5**
The running width of the lane should be free from obstructions such as debris and unsafe
gullies.
* Cycle lanes over 2.0m wide in areas of car parking may attract drivers to park in them. Physical barriers, mandatory lane markings
or parking and loading restrictions can prevent this.
** Lane widths narrower than 1.5m can present a hazard to cyclists and motor vehicle drivers. Only in exceptional circumstances
should widths down to 1.0m be considered where it is safe to do so – for example where stationary traffic blocks the route to an advance stop line
and the proposed lane is safe from obstructions such as gullies.
Similar Tables also Provided for Contraflow and Kerbed Cycle Lanes

Diag. 1040.4 hatching.
1 in 10 taper
Refer to Table 5.2
Diag 1024
(1600 high)
Diag.
1004
Diag. 1057 at regular intervals
over length of parking bays
Coloured
surfacing
Parking bays
Parking bays
Refer to Table 5.3
Footway
Footway
26/03/201453
Standard
Width
(m)
Comments
Desirable
Minimum
1.0*
Ensures that a cyclist does not need to deviate if a car door is opened
fully.
Absolute
Minimum
0.5
Will require a cyclist to deviate within the cycle lane if a car door is
opened. The cycle lane width in this case should be at least 1.5m,
otherwise the cyclist will need to leave the cycle lane to avoid
collision.
* Where required, a clearance strip of 1.5m will permit access for disabled people, without affecting cyclists using an adjacent lane.

26/03/201454
Dealing with Bus Stops Carriageway Space
Nominal footprint of
bus shelter 4.0m x 1.05m.
Mandatory
cycle lane
Advisory
cycle lane
Mandatory
cycle lane
Back of
footway Nominal 12m
Bus Layby
bus shelter 4.0m x 1.05m
2m desirable min
(1.5m absolute min)
Kerb-face
inlet gullies
Refer to
Table 5.2
Footway
Tactile Paving
& Drop kerbs
Tactile Paving
& Drop kerbs
Mandatory
cycle lane
Mandatory cycle lane
Back of footway
Refer to
Table 5.2
Access kerb & transitions
Nominal 7.6m
bus shelter 4.0m x 1.05m.
ramp
1.8m
ramp
1.8m
Mandatory
cycle lane
Mandatory
cycle lane
0.5m
ramp
3.6m
ramp
3.6m
0.5m
Kerb face
inlet gullies
Guidance on On/Off-Street Transitions also Given

26/03/201455
Bus Lanes Carriageway Space
Standard Width (m) Comments*
Optimal Width 4.6
This width allows a bus to pass a cyclist within the bus
lane. A 1.5m wide advisory cycle lane may be provided
within the bus lane if considered desirable.
Desirable
Minimum Width
4.25
Although a bus is still able to pass a cyclist within the bus
lane, safe passing width is affected and this width of lane
should only be provided over short distances. A 1.2m
wide advisory cycle lane may be provided within the bus
lane if desirable.
Absolute
Minimum Width
4.0
An Absolute Minimum width of 4.0m allows cyclists to
pass stopped buses within the bus lane but may
encourage unsafe overtaking of cyclists by buses,
particularly where the adjacent traffic lane has queuing
traffic.
Limiting Width 3.0 – 3.2
The width of the bus lane to prevent overtaking within the
lane itself. A bus will be required to straddle adjacent
lanes to pass a cyclist, thereby encouraging safe
overtaking.
Lane Widths between 3.2m and 4m Should be Avoided

26/03/201456
1. Introduction
3. Geometric Design
8. Cycle Parking
Appendices
Document Tour

26/03/201457
Overview
• Principles
• Cycleways
• Cycle Paths
• Vehicle Restricted Areas
• Access Controls
Off-Carriageway Facilities

26/03/201458
When to Segregate? Off-Carriageway Facilities
1000 peds/hr/metre width (0.2 peds/m length/m width)
50m length
2m
width
Based on a walking pace of 5km / hr
50m length
50m length
50m length
50m length
2m
width
2m
width
2m
width
2m
width
Combined density
(users/hr/m)*
Recommended arrangement
< 100 Shared use is usually appropriate (cycles give way).
101 – 199 Segregation may be considered.
> 200 Segregation should be considered.

26/03/201459
Segregated Cycleways Off-Carriageway Facilities
Carriageway
2.4m
2.4m
2.4m
Footpath
Segregated
Cycleway
0.8m 0.8m
Shared Cyclepath
Reminder tactile
area
'Start' and 'End'
tactile area
2.4m
Segregated
Cyclepath
Tramline tactile Ladder tactile
Max 50mm
vertical kerb
SEGREGATED BY KERB
SEGREGATED BY CENTRAL
DELINEATOR STRIP (NOTE 2)
SEGREGATED BY VERGE
Pedestrians
Only
Cycles Only1.0m
Verge
Cycles Only
Cycles Only
Pedestrians
Only
Pedestrians
Only

26/03/201460
Shared Cycleways Off-Carriageway Facilities
Facility Width (m) Comments
Segregated
cycleway or
cyclepath
One way cycles only Desirable
Minimum
2.0 Operates satisfactorily for one-way flows of up to 150 cycles per hour with
minimal overtaking anticipated.
Absolute
Minimum
1.5 The running width required that is free from obstructions such as debris,
gullies, line markings and street furniture.
Two way cycles only Desirable
Minimum
3.0 Operates satisfactorily for two-way flows up to 300 cycles per hour.
Absolute
Minimum
2.0* Operates satisfactorily for two-way flows of up to 200 cycles per hour free
from obstructions such as debris, surface gullies, line markings and street
furniture.
Pedestrian only
space
Desirable
Minimum
2.0 The minimum width in normal circumstances to permit unobstructed passage
by opposing wheelchairs.
Absolute
Minimum
1.5 Acceptable over short distances in specifically constrained environments,
such as at bus stops or where obstacles are unavoidable (Transport Scotland
2009).
Shared
cycleway or
cyclepath
Pedestrian and cycle
space
Desirable
Minimum
3.0 Typically regarded as the minimum acceptable for combined flows of up to
300 per hour.
Absolute
Minimum
2.0** Can operate for combined flows of up to 200 per hour but will require cycles
and pedestrians to frequently take evasive action to pass each other.
* Widths as low as 1.5m may be acceptable over short distances where there is no alternative.
** In particularly constrained situations or for combined flows of less than 100 per hour, a width of 1.5m may be considered over short distances
where no alternative is available.
Guidance also Provided for Clearances to Fixed Objects

26/03/201461
Cyclepaths Off-Carriageway Facilities

26/03/201462
Access Controls Off-Carriageway Facilities
Preferably two gaps
1.5m Preferred max
Gap 1.2m absolute min
Lockable/removable
bollard for maintenance
3.0m desirable min
Note: Rider meets barrier on left hand side first
2.0m desirable min
1.5m absolute min

26/03/201463
1. Introduction
3. Geometric Design
8. Cycle Parking
Appendices
Document Tour

26/03/201464
Overview
• Crossing Assessment
• At Grade Junctions &
Crossings
• Grade Separated Junctions &
Crossings
Junctions & Crossings

26/03/201465
At-Grade Crossing - Urban Junctions & Crossings
Diag No.956
Diag No.956
Build-out
Footway
Coloured surface preferred
Min 10m
Diag No.950
Note: Distance plate Diag
No.572 may be applied.
Diag No.950
Extent of warning
contrasting colour
treatment
CyclepathCyclepath
Reflective bollards
Footway
Buff coloured blister tactile
Dimensions for Central Islands also Provided

26/03/201466
At-Grade Crossing - Rural Junctions & Crossings
Diag No.956
Verge
Diag No.956
Verge
Rumble strips
(15mm height, vertical
face not to exceed 6mm)
High Friction Surfacing
(black calcined bauxite)
should only be used on
roads with speed limits
> 40mph
Edge of carriageway marking
Diag No.1012.1
(width of line 150mm)
Diag No.950 with supplementary
plate to diagram No. 950.1
XXX yds
crossing
Cycles
55m
XXX yds
crossing
Cycles
XXX yds
crossing
Cycles
XXX yds
crossing
Cycles
2.5m
absolute
minimum
Chicane
Refer to Note 1
5.75m min
10m
Admiral™ or similar
specification bollards

Diag No.956
Drop kerb at crossing point
to be flush with carriageway.
Variable width
Verge
Diag No.956
10mdesirableminimum
3.0m min
Chicane
Refer to Note 1
2.5mabsolute
min.
Min 10.0m
Extent of warning
contrasting colour
treatment
Min 5.0m
Cycles
crossing
XXX yds
Cycles
crossing
XXX yds
specification bollards
White Admiral™ or similar
26/03/201467
At-Grade Crossing - Dual Junctions & Crossings

26/03/201468
Side Road Crossings Junctions & Crossings
Buff coloured blister tactile Diag No.956
3.0m desirable minimum
Diag No.956
Diag No.602
Absolute min 2.5m
(Refer to note 1)
Diag No.950
Note: Distance plate Diag
No.572 may be applied.
Restrict on-street parking
to ensure visibility
Bendout
Diag 610
Illuminated Bollard
(Refer to note 2)

26/03/201469
Roundabouts Junctions & Crossings
a) COMPACT ROUNDABOUT
FOR USE BY MIXED TRAFFIC
Central overrun area
may be provided
Single lane entry and
exit width (4.25m)
Narrow circulating
lane width (5-7m)
Toucan crossing
(staggered)
Segregated cycleway
facility
Priority crossing
Cycle lanes
Shared cycleway
b) ROUNDABOUT WITH
CYCLEWAYS
ICD range of 25m-35m
Entry and exits are perpendicular
to the centre of roundabout
Central island diameter
range of 16-25mm
Minimal flares on entries
It is recommended that the cycleway
should be two-way wherever possible.
Red coloured
blister tactile
Ladder tactile
For transitions refer
to Figure 6.8
Ladder tactile
Tramline and ladder tactiles to
indicate segregated cycleway

26/03/201470
Grade Separation Junctions & Crossings
Pedestrians Cycles
Central delineator strip
1.4m
FIGURE 7.17A : NEW BRIDGE SECTION
3.0m min two way
2.0m min one way 0.5m Clearance where practical
Shared cycleway
FIGURE 7.17B : EXISTING ROAD BRIDGE SECTION
Existing parapets should be retained subject
to safety audit and monitoring
Where required, consideration should
be given to reducing carriageway lane
widths in order to widen the cycleway.
(Refer to Table 6.2) (Refer to Table 6.2 and 6.3)

26/03/201471
1. Introduction
3. Geometric Design
8. Cycle Parking
Appendices
Document Tour

26/03/201472
Planning for Cycle Parking
• Basic Requirements
• User Requirements
• Demand and Capacity
Requirements
Cycle Parking

26/03/201473
Location & Access
• Proximity to Destinations
• Security
• On-street/Off-Street
Cycle Parking

26/03/201474
Detailed Design Cycle Parking
Sheffield
stands
1.8m Absolute
minimum
clearance
0.9m
1.2m Desirable Min
1.0m Absolute Min
0.6m Desirable Min
0.5m Absolute Min
2.0m Desirable Min
1.8m Absolute Min
2.0m Desirable Min
1.8m Absolute Min
0.9m
2.5m Desirable
minimum
clearance
1500mm
1500mm
Parallel Configuration
1500mm
In Line Configuration
Recommended 1500mm access aisles around three sides of units.
Note: All dimensions are in millimetres
650mm 900mm typ. 1500mm
1900mm1500mm1500mm
Unit height : 1400mm
Door Opening : /50mm
Door Arcs : 95°

26/03/201475
1. Introduction
3. Geometric Design
8. Cycle Parking
Appendices
Document Tour

26/03/201476
Overview
• Importance of Integration
• Bike and Ride
• Cycle Carriage
• Public Cycle Hire
Public Transport

26/03/201477
Integration
• Links to Rail Stations
• Parking at Stations
• Buses, Coaches & Ferries
• Cycle Hire Schemes
Public Transport

26/03/201478
1. Introduction
3. Geometric Design
8. Cycle Parking
Appendices
Document Tour

26/03/201479
Overview
• Sustainability
• Construction within
Carriageway
• Construction outwith
Carriageway
• Lighting
• Maintenance Regime
Construction/Maintenance

26/03/201480
Cycleway Construction/Maintenance
Fall=2.5%
Surface Course
Binder Course
Subbase
300x100mm Class ST 1
concrete kerb foundation and haunch
200x50mm flat-topped
P.C heel kerb, laid flush
FORMATION
Kerb detail as
required
375x150mm Class ST1
concrete kerb foundation
and haunch
Typical road drainage
Refer to note ii
Margin. (refer to note iii)

26/03/201481
Rural Cyclepath Construction/Maintenance
Minimum 60mm deep layer of DBM
(14mm stone). Path to have minimum
2.5% camber on dismantled railway, fall
to suit tie-ins at disused road.
2500mm Shared cyclepath
Formation to be sprayed with approved
non-toxic weedkiller
Minimum 100mm deep sub-base of
Type 1, compacted to refusal.
Use additional Type 1 to blind off any
exposed geotextile, and build up edge
of path. Difference between level of
path edge and verge to be between
40mm and 60mm.
Desirable width of
soft verge 500m
Geotextile
3500mm
500mm
Absolute minimum width of Type 1
verge to be 300mm. Desirable
minimum width to be 500mm.
FORMATION

26/03/201482
Maintenance - Sweeping Construction/Maintenance

26/03/201483
Maintenance - Cutting Construction/Maintenance

26/03/201484
1. Introduction
3. Geometric Design
8. Cycle Parking
Appendices
Document Tour

26/03/201485
Trunk Road Audit Process Cycle Audit Overview
• Cycle Audit part of wider audit
process on Trunk Roads
• Road Safety Audits and
Accessibility Audits also
undertaken
• Key Principle – Designers design,
Auditors audit
• Audits to advise Designers/Project
Sponsor of issues for consideration
• Final decisions on priorities taken
by the Designer/Project Sponsor,
not the Auditors
• Audits need to be seen in the
context of the scheme as a whole

26/03/201486
Avoiding Imbalanced Needs Cycle Audit Overview
Source: David Owen / Warrington Cycle Campaign

26/03/201487
Audits in Scotland
The objectives of Cycle Audit are as follows:
• To ensure that the current and future needs of cyclists within a
scheme are recognised and developed;
• To ensure that the infrastructure provided for cyclists is in
accordance with current best practice; and
• To ensure that there are no elements of infrastructure within a
scheme that will endanger or unnecessarily impede cyclists or
other users.
Cycle Audit Overview
Key Objective – Meeting the Needs of Cyclists

26/03/201488
Roles & Responsibilities
Project Sponsor
• Key responsibility: approval
• Agreeing the terms of reference for the scheme
• Providing appropriate background information
• Approves proposed Design Team Cycle Auditor
Design Team Leader
• Key responsibility: facilitation.
• Ensure that the objectives of the scheme are fully understood by team
• Ensures audit findings process flows through to the design itself
• Proposes the Design Team Cycle Auditor
Design Team Cycle Auditor
• Key responsibility: to set cycling objectives and audit design against them
• Consults with stakeholders, analyses & gathers of background data
• Available to discuss issues and advise design team – a continuous process
Cycle Audit Overview

26/03/201489
Process Overview
Objective Setting and Context Report
Cycle Audit in Action
Preliminary Design Audit
(Stage 1 Cycle Audit)
Detailed Design Audit
Post-Construction Audit
Progression from Each Stage only after Project Sponsor Approval

26/03/201490
Context Report
• Undertaken before design
commences
• Aim: to provide designers
with an understanding of
cyclists’ needs
• Review trip patterns
• Generators/attractors
• User characteristics
• Opportunities and constraints
• Consult with stakeholders
• Define scheme objectives

26/03/201491
S1 & S2 Design Audits
• Undertaken at key points in
design process
• Aim: to check that design
meets with defined
objectives
• Demonstrate to Project
Sponsor that cyclists’ needs
are being met
• Check compliance with
current best practice
• Highlight scheme constraints
where limitations may apply
for consideration

26/03/201492
Post Construction Audit
• Undertaken once scheme in
use
• Aim: check the detail
• Have objectives been met in
practice?
• How are cyclists using the
scheme?
• Is the route clear as expected?
• Is the quality of infrastructure
right?
• Did anything change during
construction?
• Are Improvements Possible?

26/03/201493
1. Introduction
3. Geometric Design
8. Cycle Parking
Appendices
Document Tour

26/03/201494
Appendix A
• Details key features of
principal legislation
• Roads (Scotland) Act
• Road Traffic Regulation Act
• Town & Country Planning
(Scotland) Act
• Land Reform (Scotland) Act
• Disability Discrimination Acts
1995 and 2005
• Equality Act 2010
Appendices

26/03/201495
Appendix B
• General design principles on
signs and markings
• Sign sizes
• Avoiding ambiguity and
coherence
• Legislation and guidance
• Examples
Appendices
Diag No 955
Route for use by pedal cycles only
Diag No 956
Route for use by pedal cycles
and pedestrians only
Diag No 957
Route comprising two ways, separated
by the marking shown in Diag No. 1049
or 1049.1 or by physical means, for use
by pedal cycles only and by pedestrians
Diag No 958
With-flow bus lane ahead
Diag No 958.1
With-flow cycle lane ahead
Diag No 956
With-flow bus lane which pedal cycles may
also use. Note: Any vehicle may enter the bus
lane to stop, load or unload where this is
not prohibited
Diag No 959.1
With-flow cycle lane
Diag No 960
Contra-flow bus lane.
Note: Any vehicle may enter the
bus lane to stop, load or unload
where this is not prohibited.
(Cycle symbol may be added
below the bus symbol)
Diag No 960.1
Contra-flow cycle lane
Diag No 962.1
Cycle lane on road at junction
ahead or cycle track crossing road
Diag No 963.1
Cycle lane with traffic proceeding from right
(Sign for pedestrians)
Diag No 952.1
Cycle lane on road at junction
ahead or cycle track crossing road
Diag No 962.2
Contra-flow bus lane which pedal
cycles may also use on road at
junction ahead
Diag No 968
Parking for pedal cycles

‹#› 26/03/2014
Evolution of Cycling By Design
Beyond 2010 Edition

26/03/201497
Beyond CBD 2010
• Account will be taken of future
legislation/design changes
• Learning from implementation
• Comments welcomed from
users of the document, cycling
groups and individuals
• Document will evolve over
time
• Acknowledgement that UK
research base limited
• Further research may be
undertaken
Evolution

‹#› 26/03/2014
Summary

26/03/201499
Summary
• CBD 2010 incorporates changes to legislation, latest best
practice and stakeholder comment
• Document includes simpler navigation; more focus on
guidance rather than policy
• Clearer definitions and emphasis on cyclist needs
• Cycle Audit system - an objective led approach
• Complements Other Scottish Government Policy
• Requirement on Trunk Roads
• Commended to others
• Understanding needs is key to success

100
Are we different from the market leaders
CROW vs CBD?

101
Cycling Scotland 2012 Conference
Think Bike Workshop

102
How to design Bicycle facilities
Safety
Attractiveness
Directness
Cohesion
Comfort
5 main
requirements

103
Sustainable Safety
Function, form and use
in balance, from road safety
point of view
function: use of the road as intended by the road authority
design: the physical design and layout properties of the infrastructure
use: actual use of the infrastructure and behaviour of the road user
Function
of road
Design
of road
Use
of road

104
Road categorization
 Through roads: Long distance traffic
 Distributor roads: Connects areas
 Access roads: Access to properties
 Urban area:
 Distributor road
 Access road
Consequences:
•Network
•Routes
•Sections
•Junctions

105
1970’s: Turning point
Workshop - What changed their mind?

107
Traffic lights at National Museum:
20 cars in 40 seconds
> 50 cyclists in 10 seconds
Time

110
Single lane roundabout:
Outside build-up area
Priority to cars
Multi lane roundabout:
Junction / crossing

TP&E 2013/14 - Initial Design (Funding)
Design - Issues
• Car Parking
• Residential
• Railway Stations
• Shop - Hubs
• Side Roads
• Existing Design
(Monoblock)
• Driveways
• Drainage (Cost)
• White Lining (Removal)
• Existing Surface

Review
Segregation
Question – What type of segregation?

TP&E 2013/14 - Initial Design (Funding)
Review
Segregation

What type?
Segregation (Recent)
1) Ireland – Design Manual
2) London
3) Barcelona
4) Glasgow

Design Considerations
·Bus Corridor (3.2m)
·Development (Cala and Waitrose)
·Segregated Cycle Infrastructure
·Behaviour Change
·Local Hub Design (Kessington and Hillfoot)
·Links with existing network
·Residential Car Parking
·Junction Capacity
Considered during Initial Design
• Cost
• Drainage
• Underground Services – Water

Workshop
Which segregation and why
What would you do at the hubs?
Shared Space / Segregation?
What would you do at driveways?

120
Route Objectives
1. Remove Physical Barrier
2. Segregated Facility
3. Quality Infrastructure – Central Station –
Destination
4. Deprived Area
5. Active Travel and Route Connections

121
Existing Route - Characteristics
Town Centre
Grid Plan
Main East / West Links
Origin / Destination
Route set by Bridge and Station

122
Workshop - On Road Design
Waterloo Street
One Way Street – Towards M8
3 Travelling Lanes – Bus Stops/Route
North Side of Street – Horizontal Parking

123
Workshop – On Road Design
On Road Designs – Split into your groups
and discuss the provisions including the
width of cycle facility you would install on
Waterloo Street:

125
Workshop
Junctions and Crossings

126
Workshop - Crossing
Waterloo Street
Side Road Entrances
Pedestrians

The floor is open to you to question or
discuss any of the topics we’ve discussed
Thank You

2014 03-13 Planning and Designing for Cyclists

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie 2014 03-13 Planning and Designing for Cyclists

Ähnlich wie 2014 03-13 Planning and Designing for Cyclists (20)

Mehr von Cycling Scotland

Mehr von Cycling Scotland (12)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

2014 03-13 Planning and Designing for Cyclists