Designing & Planning for Cycling, Phil Jones & Adrian Lord

HeadingMADE
Planning and Designing for Cycling
May 2015
Phil Jones and Adrian Lord,
Phil Jones Associates
With Acknowledgements to Transport for London/Urban Design London

HeadingContent
• Background Information
• Planning for cycling
• Cycling on Links
• Birmingham Cycle Revolution
Lunch
• Junctions and crossings
• Signs and markings/Construction/Cycle parking
• Design Exercise

Heading
Background Information

HeadingWhat about you?
Tell us about your organisation and role
• What’s your level of experience in designing for cycling?
• Do you regularly make everyday trips – for work, shopping, visiting friends -
by cycle?
• If you do…why?
• If you don’t…why not?
• Are you typical?
• What about others?

HeadingWhy Grow Cycling?
Benefits
• To Society
– Health costs
– Congestion relief
– Environmental improvement
– Economic benefits
• Personal
– Well being, weight loss
– Cost
– Speed and convenience
– Pleasure
The Department of Health
estimates physical inactivity
costs London’s PCTs more
than £105m per year.

Heading
Quantified health impacts
Road traffic casualties
Road traffic deaths
Attributed respiratory and coronary illnesses due to air pollution
road traffic noise (eg sleep disturbance)
Other health impacts
sedentary car dependent lifestyles in place of walking and cycling
non-attributed respiratory and coronary illnesses, cancers, osteoporosis, diabetes
loss of independent mobility (eg children and the elderly)
reduced access to affordable healthy diets
reduced access to health services
social isolation due to community severance
loss of green spaces to motor traffic
Climate change - vector-borne disease , migration etc…
Other impacts yet unidentified
Source – Dr Adrian Davis
The Morbidity and Mortality Iceberg

HeadingHealth Benefits - Evidence
• Physical activity has a “strong dose-response relationship with health
outcomes”
• In other words…
• Any increase in activity is good for you!
• Many studies, eg
– Copenhagen study
– People cycling to work;
– 28% reduction in mortality

Heading
Measuring Health Benefits –
World Health Organisation HEAT tool
• Endorsed by Department for
Transport
• Monetises health benefits of more
walking and cycling
• Used to justify Governement
funding– eg Cycle City Ambition
Grant

HeadingTransport/environmental benefits
• Reduction in car use – less
– Congestion
– Emissions, Noise
– Collisions etc
England data (2013)
• 67% of trips less than 5 miles
• 55% made by car
• 33% on foot!
• But only 2% by cycle

HeadingWhat’s happening to cycling?

HeadingCycling
• Low level compared to other European countries
• Long term decline, slight overall increase lately
• But some areas of rapid growth (eg London) and
high cycle use (eg Cambridge)
• Strong potential for growth if conditions are right

Growth in cycling in London
2005/06 – 34%
2013/14 – 26%
2013/14 – 74%
2005/06 – 66%
Summer
Winter
2000
2014

Heading
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
GB Cycle Traffic 1949 to 2013 –
Billion Veh Km

HeadingGender – walking, England
Netherlands England and Wales

HeadingGender – cycling, England

HeadingGender – cycling, Netherlands

HeadingCasualties
• 84% of cyclist casualties at or near a junction (2010)
• Of those
– 64% at T/staggered junction
– 21% at Crossroads
– 10% at Roundabout/Mini
– 24% with signal control

Heading
Cycle Safety: Assessing and reducing conflict
2011 collision data
1. Other vehicle turns right across path of P/C
2. P/C and other vehicle travelling alongside each
other
3. Other vehicle turns left across the path of P/C
4. P/C hits open door / swerves to avoid open
door of other vehicle.
5. Other vehicle fails to give way or disobeys
junction control & collides with P/C
6. Other vehicle runs into rear of P/C
Common collision types resulting in cyclist KSIs:
1 4 52 3 6

USA
GERMANY
UK
NETHERLANDS
Long term trend in fatalities and KSI in London
Pucher and Buehler,2008
SLIGHT
SERIOUS
FATAL

HeadingCopenhagen - a leading cycling city
Copenhagen Modal Split - All Trips (2006)

HeadingWhy do Copenhageners cycle ?
It’s faster 55%
It’s more convenient 33%
It’s healthy 32%
It’s cheap 29%
’Good way to start the day’ 21%
Shortest route to work 10%
Environment/climate 9%

Heading
%
TfL – Attitudes Towards Cycling 2011

Heading
Understanding Walking and Cycling –
Research by Lancaster University
...from our analysis of the influence of the
physical environment on walking and cycling it is
clear that traffic is a major deterrent for all but the
most committed cyclists.
“I am not comfortable at all with cycling. I am
always scared of the traffic around me.”
(Molly, Leicester)
“My ideal would be if it were possible, transport
wise, for cycle paths to be absolutely physically
removed from roads as in a proper kerb
separating cyclists from traffic...” (Holly,
Lancaster)

HeadingWhat types of scheme are we delivering?
Cycle-specific improvements:
• On-carriageway facilities
• Off-carriageway facilities
• Traffic management changes
• Off-highway routes (Greenways)
All positive for cycling

Heading
Non cycle-specific highway schemes
• Highway ‘improvement’ schemes
• Streetscape improvements
• Developer funded S278/S106 schemes
• Road safety/Traffic calming schemes
Must also be positive for cycling
How do we ensure conditions for cycling are
improved in everything we do?

HeadingCyclists’ Five Needs
• Coherence
• Directness
• Safety
• Comfort
• Attractiveness
Routes that connect and take you
where you want to go;
without undue deviation or delay;
that are and feel safe;
are smooth and easy to use
with minimum physical and
mental effort; and
in pleasant surroundings

HeadingCoherence
• continuous and connected network
• with no gaps or weak points
• consistent level of service route-by-route
• a legible network that makes it obvious
– where the route is,
– how it continues and
– who has priority where

HeadingDirectness
• routes that link key destinations in the shortest and
quickest way possible
• geometry takes account of the speeds that cyclists
want to travel at ride
• areas that are permeable to cyclists with exemptions
from traffic restrictions
• cycle parking close to destinations

HeadingSafety
• High levels of actual and subjective safety
• separation and protection from motor traffic
where necessary
• separate cycle movements at larger junctions
• low-speed and motor vehicle-restricted
environments where possible
• places that feel safe to cycle at any time of the
day or night

HeadingComfort
• a high standard of construction with a smooth riding
surface
• intuitive and comfortable transitions between
different kinds of facilities
• facilities with adequate width, allowing for different
kinds of cycle and overtaking/riding side-by-side
• undulations, gradients, deflections and pot holes
are minimised

HeadingAttractiveness
• tidier, decluttered streets
• cycling facilities well integrated with other street functions
• integrated into wider environmental enhancements,
careful detailed design of elements such as kerbs, road
markings and surfacing
• high quality, secure cycle parking facilities

Heading
Dimensions of design cyclist
1475
1650

HeadingPrimary and Secondary Riding Positioning

HeadingBeyond the bicycle…
“The Equality Act (2010) requires authorities to
make reasonable adjustments to remove barriers
for disabled people. This …covers disabled
cyclists as well as pedestrians”
“Cycles are often used as mobility aids…some
disabled cyclists use non-standard cycles, some
do not, but are not able to walk or carry their
cycle…”

HeadingWales Active Travel Design Guidance

Heading
W = power (w)
Cv = speed of the bicycle (m/s)
ηmech = mechanical efficiency of the bicycle
Σm = mass of rider and machine (kg)
g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s^2)
Cr = coefficient of rolling resistance
s = gradient (%)
a = acceleration of the bicycle (m/s^2)
mw = effective rotational mass of the wheels and the tyres (kg)
CD = aerodynamic drag coefficient
A = frontal area of rider and machine (m^2)
ρ = density of air (kg/m^3)
Cw = headwind (m/s)
Designing to minimise the effort required to cycle

Heading
Conversion of food
into propulsive force
via the crank shaft
Design
interventions
Heat loss to
muscles and
environment
Bicycle
efficiency,
ability to
maintain
speed
Bicycle speed range 0 – 83mph
Road
surface &
Rolling
resistance
Acceleration
Gradient
Air
resistance
Mass of rider
and bicycle and
effect of gravity
Manufacturer
improvements
Smooth surfacing
eg. SMA
Avoid stop/start
Provide less steep
alternatives
Avoid exposure
Reduce area

HeadingThree Types of Good Cycle Route:
• Paths/tracks/lanes on busier streets with a
degree of separation appropriate for motor
traffic flows/speeds and the demand for cycling.
• Quiet streets with max 30kph/20mph speed
limits and often restrictions on motor vehicle
access, particularly for through traffic
• Routes free from motor traffic (e.g. bicycle-only
streets, paths in parks and along old railway
lines, country paths) but still frequently
connected to the rest of the network

HeadingWales Active
Travel Guidance

HeadingNetwork Density
• Ideally – 250m between routes
• Will take time – 500m to 1000m initially

HeadingInformation Gathering
• Where are people travelling by bike now?
• Origins and Destinations
• Perceived barriers
• Views on existing routes
• Requests for new routes
• Quality of existing network

HeadingMapping the Network
• Identify key origins and destinations
• Cluster Os and Ds where sensible
• Plot desire lines
• Decide on route type
– Primary: corridors between neighbourhoods, town centres
– Secondary: routes serving key attractors such as major employers,
schools, colleges etc
– Local routes: basic network along quieter streets that fill in the network

HeadingRoute Assessment
• Convert Desire Lines to routes
– Choose most direct route available
– Is the route already acceptable for cycling?
– If not, can it be made so?
– Use Audit tool to assess route quality and potential route quality
– If not, choose the next most direct route

HeadingRoute Assessment, Contd
• Must consider existing motor traffic conditions
• Speeds and volumes of traffic should not be regarded as fixed
– Reduce volumes through filtered permeability
– Reduce speeds through traffic calming
– Use appropriate segregation to suit remaining speeds and volumes

Heading
• Measurable criteria, grouped by
Design Principle
• Developed from IHT tool, Go
Dutch matrix, emerging TfL best
practice
• Applicable to individual schemes,
options or route choices
• Adjustable to fit different route
types
Level of Service

Heading
Cyclist Level of Service Assessment Tool
Low level scores on criticalfactors must be mitigatedthrough realignment or highway layout changes irrespectiveof high scores in other categories
Measurement Score (for reference) ROUTE/LINK/JUNCTION SCORE
Principle Factor Indicator 0(Red) 1 (Amber) 2 (Green)
Safety
Collision risk
Left/right hook at junctions
Side road junctions frequent
and/or untreated. Major
junctions conflicting
movements not seperated
Side road junctions fewer
and with effective entry
treatments. Major junctions
route alignment stream
conflicts seperated
Side roads closed or treated
to blend in with footway.
Major junction all conflicting
streams seperated
6
Critical
Collision alongside or from
behind
Cyclists in unrestricted
traffic lanes or cycle lanes
less than 2m wide
Cyclists in semi segregated
cycle lanes at least 2m wide
on carriageway
Cyclists away from
unrestricted traffic
6
Critical
Kerbside activity (bus stops,
parking loading) or collision
with open door
Frequent kerbside activity
on nearside of cyclists –
narrow/no cycle lanes
Less frequent kerbside
activity on nearside of
cyclists – wide cycle lanes
Segregated cycle lanes
(floating kerbside activity)
when frequent or no
kerbside activity 6
Critical
Other vehicle fails to give
way or disobeys signals
Poor visibility, route
continuity across junctions
and understanding of
priority
Clear route continuity
through junctions / good
visibility and understanding
or priority. Cyclist priority
across minor junctions
Cycle priority at signalled
and uncontrolled junctions
2
Feeling of safety
Separation from heavy
traffic
Cyclists in unrestricted
traffic lanes or cycle lanes
less than 2m wide
Cyclists in cycle lanes at
least 2m wide on
carriageway
Cyclists away from
unrestricted traffic
2
(If not segregated) Speed of
traffic
85% percentile greater than
25mph
85% percentile 20-25mph
85% percentile less than
20mph 6
Critical
(If not segregated) Volume
of traffic expressed as
Vehicle Risk Unit (VRU)
>5000 VRU per day 2000-5000 VRU per day <2000 VRU per day
6
Critical
Interaction with heavy traffic
(HGVs and buses)
Frequent interaction
between cyclists and
HGVs/buses
Occasional interaction
between cyclists and
HGVs/buses
No interaction between
cyclists and HGVs/buses
6
Critical
Social safety
Risk/fear of crime
High fear of crime due to
ambush spots, loitering,
poor street maintenance
Low fear of crime as open,
well designed and
maintained area
No fear of crime as high
quality streetscene and
pleasant interaction 2
Lighting Large stretches of darkness Small stretches of darkness Route lit thoroughly 2
Isolation
Route passes far from other
activity
Route always close to
activity
Route always overlooked
2
Highway environment
behaviour
Highway design encourages
aggressive user behaviour
Highway design controls
behaviour
Highway design encourages
civilised behaviour through
negotiation and forgiveness 2
SAFE – Objective and Subjective (48/100points)

Heading
• Wales Audit Tool based on LCDS
• Cycling – max score 50, must achieve 35 to be
‘Active Travel Route

HeadingJunction Assessment Tool

HeadingCycling on new developments
• Quiet streets, cyclists can share the road
• Primary routes need dedicated cycling space with priority over side
roads, not shared use paths

HeadingPlain links - routes without cycle facilities
• Max 5000 vehicles/24 hours, ideally <2500 (Wales guidance)
• 85th percentile speeds < 30mph (ideally sub 20mph/limit)
• No formalised cycle lanes or tracks necessary

HeadingCycle symbol only for route continuity

HeadingFiltered permeability
• Providing advantage to cycle
traffic by exemptions from
general restrictions
• Can create large network
with minimal capital
expenditure
• May be difficult to achieve
politically
• Can polarize local opinion

HeadingAchieving permeability
• Two-way cycle traffic on streets which
are one-way for motor traffic
• Point closures open for cycle traffic
• Allowance in vehicle restricted areas
• Parkland short-cuts
• Barriers overcome

HeadingOne-way streets/gyratories
• Can result in significant diversion for
cyclists
• Can create increased traffic speeds
• Review need for one-way/gyratory
systems generally
• Permit two-way cycle flow where possible
if they are retained
– Exemptions from one-way
– Contraflow lanes can be provided
– But not always necessary

Heading
Shared Space and Home Zones
• Increasing experience of Shared Space
– Reduction in distinction of different parts
of the highway
– Reduction in traffic management/control
features
– Can involve shared surfaces
• Can work well for cyclists (and pedestrians) if
speeds are low - < 20mph
• Home Zones always suitable for cycling

HeadingLeonard Circus, Hackney

HeadingVehicle restricted areas
Default should be to permit cycling as are
usually
• Attractive
• Safe
• Direct
Need to manage potential conflict with
pedestrians:
• TRL report 583 - Cyclists slow down
in presence of pedestrians

HeadingTraffic Lane Widths for mixed cycle/motor traffic
 Traffic lanes used by cyclists should not be 3.65m (12 feet) wide
 Narrower lanes (< 3.2m) will reduce speeds and overall carriageway width,
and require drivers to pull around cyclists.
 Wide nearside lanes of 4.0-4.5m width provide adequate space to pass
cyclists

HeadingTraffic Lane Widths
 ‘Tight Shared’ at low flows
- 5.5m to 6.4m overall carriageway width (2.75m to 3.2m lanes)
- encouraging 20mph traffic speeds
 ‘Cycle Space Provision’ at medium and higher flows
- Minimum 8m overall carriageway width (4m lanes)
- 9m if moderate/high level of HGVs – 3m lane + 1.5m cycle lane
 Avoid lane widths of 3.2m to 3.9m
 Multiple lanes, provide 4.5m on nearside

HeadingCorner Radii
 Tight corner radii should be used in urban
areas to reduce speed of turning traffic.
 Side road entry treatments also reduce
turning speeds

HeadingOn-Carriageway Facilities (Cycle Lanes)
• Increase drivers’ awareness of
cyclists
• Encourage drivers to leave space
for cyclists
• Legitimise passing slow moving
traffic on offside
• Encourage lane discipline by
cyclists
• Help confirm a route for cyclists

HeadingTypes of Cycle Lane
• Advisory
• Mandatory
• Light Segregated
• Contraflow
(but may not need a lane!)

HeadingAdvisory cycle lanes
• No TRO or statutory consultation needed
• Less signing clutter
• Can be used:
– adjacent to parking bays (with buffer),
– across junctions, and
– where motor vehicles may encroach
– eg on narrow roads.
• Other traffic can legally enter cycle lane
• No powers to enforce against moving vehicle encroachment

Heading
Advisory cycle lane with no centre line

HeadingCycle Streets
• A Street dominated by cyclists
• General traffic for access only
• Overtaking limited by design

HeadingMandatory cycle lanes
• For exclusive use by cyclists during
specified hours of operation
• Motorists can be subjected to law
enforcement if they enter the lane
• Added physical protection can be
provided (light, segregated lanes)
• TRO currently needed – but DfT
proposes to remove this
requirement in TSRGD 2015
• Cannot be used where other
vehicles are permitted to cross the
lane
• More signing required than advisory
lanes – but not under new TSRGD

HeadingMandatory cycle lane within bus lane

HeadingLight Segregation
• Worldwide phenomenon –
Protected Bike Lanes
• Supported in Mayor’s Vision for
Cycling
• Cycling infrastructure for
austere times
• Many types of divider available

HeadingLight segregation: International examples

HeadingIndicative use of light segregation (20mph)

HeadingLight Segregation - Advantages
It is cheap <10% of costs of heavy segregation
It is adaptable and flexible
It gets new people cycling
It pleases all road users
It unites both schools of cycling
It is perfect for trial layouts
It has been a worldwide success
It has the potential to transform cycling in the UK without waiting 40 years to
catch up with the Dutch
It is sensitive to pedestrians and street context
It requires no regulation or legal changes to install

Light Segregation Rating
Protection: How protected do cyclists feel
and what is the expected level of
encroachment.
Installation cost: How much does the
treatment cost per km
Durability: How well does the treatment
stand up to general traffic impacts
Aesthetics: How well does the treatment
blend with a quality street approach
Protection Cost
Durability Aesthetics
Protection Cost
Protection Cost

1.Buffer lane with studs
Protection Cost

2.Wands
Protection Cost

3.Turtles
Protection Cost

4.Lacasitos (Tobys)
Protection Cost

5.Armadillos
Protection Cost

6.Orcas
Protection Cost

7.Hedgehogs
Protection Cost

8.Floating parking
Protection Cost

9.Barriers
Protection Cost

10.Planters
Protection Cost

11.Rigid bollards
Protection Cost

Heading2-way cycling on one-way streets
• Cycle tracks or mandatory cycle
lanes where traffic flows are
moderate to high
• Advisory or no cycle lanes
where traffic flows are low
• ‘Signing the Way’ (Oct 11)
authorised new signs:
• Widths down to circa 3.5m with
no cycle lane

HeadingCycle lanes along kerbside parking
• Advisory cycle lanes outside
marked bays
• Allow sufficient width for
opening doors – minimum 0.5m
• Continue cycle lane across
short gaps in parking bays

HeadingStepped Cycle Lanes
• Some examples in the UK
• Encouraged by Local Transport Note 1/12
• Legally, mandatory or advisory lane depending
on marking used (if any)
• Greater perceived protection/attractiveness
• Higher cost
• Used extensively in Denmark

HeadingKerb Segregated Cycle Lanes
• Protected from traffic by upstand
• High level of perceived safety/
attractiveness
• Barrier for pedestrians
• Legally a cycle track –
strictly speaking requires order to make
one-way
• Difficulty of sweeping/gritting
• Constrains capacity for cyclists and
general traffic
• Need to think carefully about junctions

HeadingDirection of operation
• Two-way, unless made one-way by TRO
• Central broken white line aids lane discipline
on two-way tracks
• Difficulties with priority at side roads

HeadingCycle lanes into cycle tracks
• Transition should be clear,
smooth, safe and comfortable for
cyclists
• Minimise speed change
• Avoid sharp vertical and horizontal
deviations for cyclists

HeadingCycle lanes at bus stops
• Often cycle lanes are terminated
at bus stops, and recommence at
the far end of the cage
• Not a good solution
• Consider scope to route cycle
lanes outside a bus stop cage

HeadingCycle tracks at bus stops
• Ensure clarity over use of space
available
• Continue cycle track or change
to unsegregated shared use on
approach
• Consider increasing space by
removing bus bays

Heading
• Best where traffic flows and speeds are
high, and frontage activity low
• Less suitable if frequent interruptions to
cycle priority/side roads
• Consider whether one-way or two-way
operation is appropriate
• Often need to move lighting columns or
other street furniture to achieve suitable
cross-section
Off-carriageway, on-highway tracks

HeadingShared Use Footways
• LTN 1/12 says white line segregation is ineffective
• Simply converting a footway with little other consideration often
leads to a poor facility for all users
“Routes will be wide enough to cope with higher volumes of cyclists,
and designed to reduce conflict between pedestrians and bikes.
Confusing shared pavements will be avoided” Mayor’s Vision

HeadingEffective segregation from pedestrians in urban areas
• More comfortable for both groups
• Allows higher cycle speeds
• But segregation requires more width
• Unsegregated facilities reduce potential speeds and flows for cycling

Heading
But shared use works well in rural areas

HeadingAnd provides more capacity/less clutter in complex places

Heading
Greenways/Off-Highway Routes
• Routes through parks and green spaces,
along waterways
• Can be excellent cycle routes
• Issues:
– Connectivity
– Social safety
– Lighting
– 24 hour access

HeadingHorizontal curvature
• Avoid instantaneous changes of
direction – 4m minimum radius
• Consider local widening and banking on
corners
• Better in this instance to avoid bends
and link track to raised table crossing.

HeadingSpeed control measures on links
• Deviating cycle track to break
straight alignment
• Slow markings or warning signs
• Less than smooth surface
dressing
• Humps
• Don’t use staggered barriers or
A frames!

Heading Birmingham Cycle Revolution

Cycling in Birmingham
• 1-2% mode share
• Busiest routes have about 500- 600 cyclists per day
• 75% growth in 5 years and increasing rate of growth since 2012
• Mainly male, young, ‘sporty’ but gradually changing
• Largest numbers in SW quarter
• There is relatively little infrastructure

Overview – Birmingham Cycling Revolution
• City Council secured £24m Cycle City Ambition Grant (CCAG) funding to
deliver the Phase 1 in 2013-16 (approx. 100km of new/improved routes).
• Focus on delivering on- and off-highway cycle infrastructure improvements
on network within 20 mins cycling time of city centre.
• Main roads, quieter parallel streets, city centre, local links, cycle parking,
20mph areas, canal towpaths, green routes, private cycle parking and cycle
loan/hire schemes.
• Subsequent funding awarded in 2014 (Phase 2) and 2015 (Phase 3) to
consolidate and extend by 2018.

Partnership with Canal and River Trust

Top Cycle Location - Partnership with schools and
employers

Access to Bicycles – Community Partnerships

Part of a wider city vision – Birmingham Connected

City Centre – Permeable and Legible
• Newhall St to New St link via Bennetts Hill – North to South
• Five Ways to Lancaster Circus – West to East
• Safer crossings of Ring Road – major junctions and mid link
• Connecting up radial routes that join the Queensway

Introduction to the Site Visit
• Queensway and Park St area
• Number of cycle routes converge at Albert St / Fazeley St
• University area is big attractor
• HS2 one station
• Moor St bus interchange
• Access to city centre

Exercise
• Link from University to East End Park
• East End Park to Moor St
• Junction – Moor St Queensway and Jennens Rd
• Public Realm – Albert St
• Accommodating bus, cycle, pedestrian, deliveries, private
traffic

HeadingJunctions and crossings

HeadingPrinciples of junction design
Junctions need to be designed to
• Minimise delay
• Minimise hazard by managing conflicting
movements in time or space
• Accommodate all users
With specific reference to cycle traffic:
• Need to consider all cycle movements
• Minimise number of motor traffic lanes
• Reduce motor vehicle speeds
• Eliminate or manage conflict with motor traffic
• Raise drivers’ awareness of cyclists
• Guide cyclists’ and drivers’ movements

HeadingManaging conflicts
• The number of conflicts at a
junction increases with the
number of movements
• Conflicts may be reduced by
separation in space or time
• Or by integration in advance of
the junction
Crossing conflict
Merging conflict
Diverging conflict

HeadingIntegration versus Segregation
• Integration can be appropriate when
speeds and flows not high
• Integrating cycle and motorised traffic
minimises the number of conflicts and can
improve actual safety
• Segregated facilities necessary at
busy/complex junctions
• Segregation should not mean a loss of
priority for cycle traffic

HeadingPriority junctions - casualties
• Most common junction type
• 53% of cycle casualties (T-junctions, cross-roads)
2011-13
• Cyclists vulnerable to turning motor traffic
Cycle KSIs at junctions (2011-2013):
• Vehicle turns right across cyclist path (14%)
• Vehicle turns left across path of cyclist (9%)
• Vehicle fails to give way (6%)

HeadingPriority junctions - issues
Issues for cyclists:
• Moving ahead through a priority junction:
• Turning right into and out of junctions:
• Any turn moving across more than one lane or
one busy lane will be uncomfortable.

Heading
• Reduce speed on link
• Reduce speed on turning
• Reduce number of traffic lanes
• Keep corner radii tight
• Use 90 degree approach
• Avoid left turn merges and diverges
• Closing side roads
• Making side roads one-way out
• Right turn refuges for cycles
Priority junctions – beneficial measures

Heading
• Side Road Entry Treatments have
benefit for both pedestrians and cyclists
• TRL study showed significant reduction
in cycle collisions with SRET
• Reduce speed of traffic entering and
exiting minor road
• Beneficial when cycling is
o on carriageway,
o in cycle lane,
o in cycle track
Priority junctions – Side Road Entry Treatment

HeadingCycle lanes and symbols at priority junctions
• Use 1010 markings at junction
• Aim to provide extra 0.5m buffer space
past side roads
• If 1.5m lanes definitely use SRET
• Cycle lane may be coloured to
emphasise its presence
• If not possible to provide adequate cycle
lane, interrupt lane at junction and use
1057 symbols in primary position

HeadingSegregated lanes and tracks at priority junctions
• Options for maintaining cycle priority
through priority junctions:
– “Bending out”, giving space for
turning vehicles to yield
– Track becomes lane at junction
– Continue track away from
carriageway without deviation

HeadingTwo way tracks at side roads not preferred

HeadingBending out, space to yield

HeadingTrack becomes lane at junction

Heading
Continue track without deviation

HeadingContinuous footway and cycleway

HeadingCrossings
• Important to provide continuity of off-carriageway cycle routes
across busy roads
• A crossing is simply a junction where one or more arms only
carries cycle traffic
• Priority Crossings
• Zebra Crossings
• New ‘Shared Use’ Crossings
• Signal Controlled Crossings
– Standalone cycle only
– Toucan
– Integrated into overall junction control

HeadingCycle priority crossings without signal control
• Signing defines who has priority
• Options:
– Road narrowing
– Central islands
– Traffic calming
– Coloured surfacing
– Vertical give way signs
• Cycle route has to be on road
hump to have priority
• Hump requirement expected to
be removed in 2015

HeadingCycling Zebra in TSRGD 2015

Heading‘Shared Use Cycle/Pedestrian Crossing’

HeadingCycle track zebra
• No beacons/zig zags
• Expected in TSRGD 2015

HeadingSignal-controlled cycle crossings
• Toucan crossings
• Parallel cycle and pedestrian crossings
• Elephant footprints can only be used at signal
controlled crossings
• Currently require authorisation
• DfT indicating that authorisation will not be
requirement in TSRGD 2015

HeadingRoundabouts and Gyratories

HeadingRoundabouts
• UK roundabouts rarely comfortable
for cyclists
• Typical designs bad for cycle safety
and comfort
– Multi-lane entries
– Wide circulatories
– Easy, fast exits
– Free flow left turn slips
Yet:
• Dutch practice prefers roundabouts
• Less stop/start, effort, delay

Heading
• Reduce speeds on the approaches
• Reduce speeds through the junction
• Reduce number of traffic lanes to one
• Reduce size of junction
• Keep entry and exit radii tight
• Avoid left turn slips
• Provide off-carriageway tracks
• Raise driver awareness of cyclists
Roundabouts – beneficial measures

HeadingContinental geometry
• Approaches and exits perpendicular
• Entries and exits ~4 m wide
• Entry and exit radius ~10m
• Entry path curvature <100m
• Diameter 25-35 metres
• Central island 16-25 metres
• Circulating carriageway 5-7 metres
• See Traffic Advisory Leaflet 9/97

HeadingCompact Roundabout
• Included in DMRB TD 16/07
• Similar to Continental, but less cycle-
friendly
• Smaller island diameter

HeadingContinental geometry
• At low flows/speeds, cyclists can remain on
carriageway
• Indicative upper limit for on-carriageway
cycling – 6000-8000 vpd junction throughput
• Less subjectively safe than off-carriageway
tracks, however

Heading
Radegund Road, Cambridge

HeadingCycle markings on circulatory – primary position

Heading
Implied roundabout, Bexleyheath

HeadingExternal Cycle Tracks
• Greater subjective safety if cycling
provided for off-carriageway
• Continental/compact geometry makes it
easier to provide tracks
• Key question: Provide priority at
crossings?
• Use one-way tracks if priority
• Two way tracks with grade-separated, no-
priority or signal-controlled crossings

HeadingDutch Roundabout without priority

HeadingDutch Roundabout with priority
41m
54m

HeadingCycling Zebra, legal from March 2015

HeadingSignalised Crossings
• Large delays if need to
cross several arms
• 2-way track reduces
problem
• Staggered crossings a
further problem

HeadingSignalised Roundabouts
• General benefits from signals
• Hold the left turn -
Wandsworth
• Cross or circumnavigate
central island via ped/cycle
track
• Can use signalised nodes to
‘bike with traffic’

HeadingOne stage cycle crossings
• Cyclists cross in one stage
• During short all-red for motor traffic

HeadingTwo stage ped/one stage cycle

Heading
Queens Circus, Wandsworth

HeadingWandsworth
Queens Circus, Wandsworth

HeadingGrade Separation at Roundabouts

HeadingSignals (including signalised crossings)

HeadingBenefits of signal-controlled junctions
• Advantageous for cycle traffic,
• They can gain priority in the
stream by moving to the front of
the queue
• Conflicts can be removed using
separate stages

HeadingAdvanced stop lines
• Advantages
– Places cycle traffic ahead and in line of
sight of motorised traffic if arriving during
red phase
– Can make right turning easier
– Reduces chance of being squeezed by
left turning motorised traffic
– Prioritises cycle traffic
• Disadvantages
– Of little value during green stage
– Can encourage cyclists to be in conflict
with turning traffic
– Potential effect on intergreens
• Max. 5 metres deep
• Can be fed by a cycle lane or gate
(TSRGD 2011)

HeadingLeft Hooking at Signals

Heading
• Part-width ASLs already in use – likely to gain general
authorisation in TSRGD
• Cyclists will legally be able to cross first stop line
• Integrated early release signals are being trialled
• Possibilities for ASL depths greater than 7.5m?
(does not currently feature in draft TSRGD)
Advanced stop lines - developments

HeadingLow level signals
• Currently being trialled at TRL
• Appear in consultation draft of
TSRGD
• Will give much more flexibility in
cycle signalling
• On street at Bow Roundabout

HeadingOn-street trial at Bow roundabout

HeadingCycle track entering junction
• Signals designed in normal way
• Detection of cycle traffic by
loops or microwave

HeadingTwo stage turns
• Default solution in Copenhagen
• Relies partly on give way on
turning rules
• Legally possible in UK

HeadingInformal two-stage right turn

HeadingTwo stage turns in Southampton

HeadingTwo Stage Turns - Off Street Trials

HeadingTwo Stage Turns - On Street Trials

HeadingSign Types
• Flag type signs at simple road
junctions
• Map type signs at more
complex junctions
• Cycle sign details can be
added to normal direction
signs

HeadingCycle specific signing
• To show where cyclists can
legally go
• To promote cycling and raise its
status
• To keep drivers out of cyclists’
space
• To encourage lane discipline
• To warn other road users of
cyclists

HeadingConfusing and unnecessary signs: to be
avoided
• 958.1 Advanced warning
sign for with-flow cycle lane
ahead
• 962.1 Cycle lane on road
at junction ahead
• 965 End of lane, route or
track
• 966 Cyclists dismount
• 1058 (marking) END

HeadingDirection signing
• Strategic destinations: well known
locations, from five miles away)
• Local destinations: e.g. stations, leisure
centres, libraries
• Closest destination should be listed at
the top
• Include distances at key junctions

HeadingTypes of direction signs

HeadingDesign considerations
• Use smallest practical text and
plate size – normally 30mm x-
height, can be 25mm to reduce
sign size if necessary
• Incorporate in general direction
signing on main roads
• Use road markings and surface
treatments as alternative to post
mounted signs
• Many signs (e.g. photo) not
compliant with TSRGD but can be
useful.

HeadingSurface markings
• Can be good way to communicate
information to cyclists
• No TROs for: cycle symbols,
‘Keep Clear’ markings, hatching
and chevrons, and these can be
helpful

HeadingConstruction and surfacing

HeadingOn-carriageway routes
• Choice of surface material depends on location
• Materials range from SMA and HRA to graded
aggregate
• SMA better (smaller stone and negative texture)
• Default choice should be black bitumen with
cycle logos

HeadingOff-carriageway routes
• Machine laid for good
longitudinal profile
• Cyclists simply will not use off-
road routes with poor riding
surface
• May have to use a surface type
for environmental reasons

HeadingLighting
• Cyclists may have concerns about
personal security
• Consider aesthetic and conservation
issues in parks and along green
corridors
• Consider sub-surface up-lighters and
bollard mounted lights
• Monitor vandalism
• Solar-powered equipment may be
suitable

HeadingCycle Parking
Cycle parking should:
• Support any type of bike
• Enable both frame and front
wheel to be secured
• Not pose a danger to pedestrians
Recommended
locking practice

HeadingLocation
• Close to the destination
• Surveillance and lighting
• Same side of a main road
• Access from all directions,
including on foot
• Mitigate identified risks

HeadingLocation at different destinations
• Shopping streets: small groups at
50m intervals
• High volume visitor attractions:
large cycle parks
(shelters/lockers)
• Education/work sites: adequate
provision within the site (use the
planning system)
• Rail and tube stations: CCTV,
covered stands or lockers

HeadingWe’re done!
On your bike...

Designing & Planning for Cycling, Phil Jones & Adrian Lord

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Designing & Planning for Cycling, Phil Jones & Adrian Lord

Semelhante a Designing & Planning for Cycling, Phil Jones & Adrian Lord (20)

Mais de Design South East

Mais de Design South East (20)

Último

Último (20)

Designing & Planning for Cycling, Phil Jones & Adrian Lord