2013 11-11 Planning and Designing for Cyclists

Planning and
Designing for Cyclists
Peter Leslie – Senior Engineer

Learning Outcomes
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.

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

3

Loon fae Aberdeen

150km of routes designed
and installed

Numerous more
reviewed/audited

Why was I not on site for the
M77 / M74 / AWPR?
Change Behaviour

Cycle Action Plan for Scotland
Sustrans (Funding)
CSGN - Planning

You - What is your role
How do you look to
change behaviour In
your work

Appin – Car Park

Cycle Action Plan for Scotland

Introduction
Presentation Content
• Why Cycling by Design?
• The Evolution of Cycling by Design
• A Tour of the Document
• The Cycle Audit Process

• Summary

9

25/11/2013

Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide

Why Cycling by Design?

‹#›

25/11/2013


Trunk Road Cycling Initiative

Policy

•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

Led to the Creation of Cycling by Design 1999
11

25/11/2013


CAPS

Policy

•Launched June 2010 by
Transport Minister
•Contains 17 Actions to
Promote Cycling in Scotland
• Skills Development
• The Network
• Delivery

•Multi-agency Approach

Vision: By 2020, 10% of All Journeys Taken in Scotland by Bike
12

25/11/2013


CAPS

Policy

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

CBD is the Design Guidance outlined in CAPS
13

25/11/2013


Road Safety

Policy

•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”

14

25/11/2013


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
15

25/11/2013


Scotland PLC

National Cycle Network

Tourism

Trunk Road Network

High Interaction between NCN and Trunk Road Network
16

25/11/2013


Public Health

Policy

Obesity Route Map Action
Plan, March 2011:
•to deliver the Cycle Action
Plan for Scotland
•to maintain and extend the
National Cycle Network
•ensuring development plans
take into account walking and
cycling

17

25/11/2013


Planning

Policy

New development must:
•be accessible by cyclists
•make best use of or add to
existing cycle networks, or
create new networks
•prioritise walking and
cycling above motorised
modes

Important for Development Management
18

25/11/2013


Designing Streets

Policy
• 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

CBD Compliments Designing Streets
19

25/11/2013


Disability Discrimination

Policy
• Cyclist facilities often shared
with pedestrians

• Gradients and crossfalls
• Dropped kerbs and crossing
points
• Wheelchair and mobility
scooter users
• Visually impaired users

CBD Guidance has Access for Disabled People Built In
20

25/11/2013


Why Cycling by Design?

Policy

Cycling by Design aims to Implement these Policies for Cyclists
21

25/11/2013

Cycling by Design - 2010 Edition

Why Cycling by Barriers to Cycling
Design?

Policy

What is the principal factor that deters you from
What factors deter you from cycling / cycling more often?
cycling/ cycling more often?
50
Barriers to Cycling

40

What factors deter you from cycling / cycling more ofte
50

30

%

40

29

30

%

26

20

29

26

20
10
7

6

6

Not
enough
road
space

Lack of
good
routes

No
access
to bike

10

10

0
Danger
from
traffic

10
7

6

6

Not
enough
road
space

Lack of
good
routes

No
access
to bike

10

12

10

0
Danger
from
traffic

Journey Weather
Too
time too
physical
long

Other

Infrastructure Related Issues - 49% of Responses
Good Quality Design an Imperative!
22

25/11/2013


Journey Weather
Too
time too
physic
long

Evolution of Cycling by Design

‹#›

25/11/2013

Cycling by Design - 2010 Edition

Background

Cycling by Design

• 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

24

25/11/2013


2010 Update Process

Cycling by Design

Technical Guidance
1999 Consultation
Comments received

Cycling by Design 1999

Independent Review Fife
Council
City of Edinburgh Council
Glasgow City Council
Forestry Commission
Sustrans

25

25/11/2013

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

Disability
Discrimination Act
Transport Scotland’s Good Practice
Guide for Roads

Good Practice Design
Examples

Technical Expertise
Cycle Designers, Roads Designers,
Accessibility experts, Economists,
Planners, Environmental Consultants,
Maintenance experts, Road Safety Auditors

East Renfrewshire
Clackmannanshire
City of Edinburgh
Fife
Dumfries & Galloway
Argyll & Bute
Highland


Key Changes

Cycling by Design
• Revisit aim of the document:
technical guidance not policy

• Technical update of design guidance
• Incorporate Scottish good practice
• Improve navigation
• New definitions of terminology

• Clear definition of minimum widths
• Rationalisation of design speeds
• Taking the pragmatic view

26

25/11/2013


A Tour of The Document

‹#›

25/11/2013


Document Tour


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
28

25/11/2013


Document Tour


1. Introduction
3. Geometric Design
8. Cycle Parking
Appendices
29

25/11/2013


Planning for Cyclists

Overview
Workshop

• Cyclists’ Needs & Trip
Purposes
• Core Design Principles
• Hierarchy of Measures
Review
• Link Specification Guide

• Network Planning Process

30

25/11/2013


Hierarchy of Measures

31

25/11/2013



On or Off Carriageway?

32

25/11/2013



Network Planning Process

33

25/11/2013



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

Document Tour


1. Introduction

3. Geometric Design
8. Cycle Parking
Appendices

37

25/11/2013


Geometric Design

Overview
Workshop
• Cycle Design Speed
What would you use as a
design speed?
Review

• Visibility Parameters
• Alignment

38

25/11/2013


Geometric Design

Design Speed & Visibility
Visibility Envelope

Visibility Envelope

Eye Height
2.2m max

Eye Height
2.2m max

1.0m
(min)

1.0m
(min)

Eye Height
2.2m max

1.0m
(min)

2.2m

Stopping Sight Distance

Dynamic Sight Distance

Stopping Sight Distance

Dynamic Sight Distance

Network hierarchy
Design parameter
Long distance/
commuter
Design Speed (kph)
Minimum Dynamic Sight Distance (DSD) (m)
Minimum Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) (m)

39

25/11/2013


Local access

30

20

65

45

35

25

Geometric Design

Design Speed & Visibility
Y-Distance
(Refer to Table 3.3)

Y-Distance

Carriageway

Visibility Envelope

X-Distance
Cycle
Route

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
40

25/11/2013


Vertical & Horizontal Alignment

Geometric Design
Network hierarchy

Design parameter

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

Desirable Minimum Crest (k)

14.1

6.8

Absolute Minimum Crest (k)

5.3

1.3

Vertical alignment

Sag values are not likely to be a controlling factor at cycle speeds and are, therefore, not
specified.
Gradient

41

25/11/2013

3%

3%

Absolute Maximum*
Crossfall

Desirable Maximum

7%

7%

Absolute Maximum

2.5%

2.5%


Vertical Alignment - DDA

Geometric Design

Location

Gradient

General cycle facility

Desirable Maximum

3%

Absolute Maximum

5%
7%

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%

*DDA Implication – Gradients Above 5% are Considered a Ramp
42

25/11/2013


Over 5m*
Over 10m*

Over 5m*
Over 10m*

Facilities for Disabled People

Rest Areas on an Off-road Route

43

25/11/2013


Geometric Design

Rest Areas on a Bridge Structure

Document Tour


1. Introduction

3. Geometric Design
8. Cycle Parking
Appendices

44

25/11/2013


Traffic Volume & Speed

Overview

• Appropriate Carriageway
Conditions
• Traffic Management
• Traffic Calming

• Rural Situations

45

25/11/2013


Carriageway Conditions


Good Conditions: <3,000 veh/day and <35kph 85th %ile speed
46

25/11/2013



Traffic Management
Various features may be used to
create road closures:
- Extended footway
- Landscape planters/tree planting
- Permanent and lockable bollards
- Emergency gates

Bollards

Two way road

Build-out may be provided to prevent
parked cars obstructing cyclists.

1.5m Desirable Minimum
1.2m Absolute Minimum
Diag No.955

Diag No.616

Minor Road Closure

Bollards
Build-out may be provided to
prevent gap being obstructed by
parked cars.

Bollards

Diag No.616

Diag No.955

False One-way Street

Presumption Cyclists Exempt from Access Restrictions & One Way Streets
47

25/11/2013



Traffic Calming
Clearance strip of min 0.5m
width to discourage
encroachment on cycle lane

Verge marker posts

Cycle
Lane

3.0m

1.5m desirable min
1.2m absolute min

Crossing point
where appropriate
Verge marker post

Verge marker post

1.5m desirable min
1.2m absolute min

Cycle
Lane
Verge marker posts

Segregation kerb of min 0.5m width
to prevent vehicles encroaching on
cycle lane.

Central Island

Pinch Point
Verge marker posts

W
A

Verge marker posts

Chicane

Desirable Min 1.5m, Absolute Min 1.2m – But don’t forget the Gullies!
48

25/11/2013


Rural Situations


Diag No. 619

Diag No. 816

Diag No. 620

Diag No. 954.4

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

Road closure or gate. Gate
can be left locked or unlocked.
Typical Restricted Access Plan
1.2m min
1.5m
preferred
max.

Optional
cattle grid

Typical Gated Road Closure

49

25/11/2013


Document Tour


Introduction

2. Geometric Design
7. Cycle Parking
9. Construction & Maintenance
Appendices

50

25/11/2013


Carriageway Space

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

51

25/11/2013


Carriageway Space

Cycle Lanes

52

25/11/2013


Carriageway Space

Cycle Lanes

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
53

25/11/2013


Carriageway Space

Cycle Lanes
Diag. 1057 at regular intervals
over length of parking bays
Diag. 1040.4 hatching.
1 in 10 taper

Diag.
1004
Coloured
surfacing

Footway
Parking bays
Refer to Table 5.3
Refer to Table 5.2

Parking bays
Diag 1024
(1600 high)

Footway

Standard
Desirable
Minimum
Absolute
Minimum

Width
(m)

Comments

1.0*

Ensures that a cyclist does not need to deviate if a car door is opened
fully.

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.

54

25/11/2013


Carriageway Space

Dealing with Bus Stops
Back of
footway

Nominal footprint of
bus shelter 4.0m x 1.05m.

Nominal 12m

Bus Layby

Mandatory
cycle lane

Mandatory
cycle lane

Advisory
cycle lane

Tactile Paving
& Drop kerbs

2m desirable min
(1.5m absolute min)

Tactile Paving
& Drop kerbs

Kerb-face
inlet gullies

Footway

Refer to
Table 5.2
Mandatory cycle lane

Mandatory
cycle lane

bus shelter 4.0m x 1.05m

bus shelter 4.0m x 1.05m.

Kerb face
inlet gullies

Back of footway

ramp
3.6m

ramp
1.8m

ramp
1.8m

0.5m
Mandatory
cycle lane

ramp
3.6m

0.5m
Refer to
Table 5.2

Access kerb & transitions
Nominal 7.6m

Mandatory
cycle lane

Guidance on On/Off-Street Transitions also Given
55

25/11/2013


Carriageway Space

Bus Lanes
Standard

Width (m)

Optimal Width

Desirable
Minimum Width

4.6

4.25

Absolute
Minimum Width

Limiting Width

4.0

3.0 – 3.2

Comments*
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.

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.

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.

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
56

25/11/2013


Workshop 3 – Route Objectives

57

Workshop 3 – Route Objectives – 5 minutes

You are the Local Authority
Who would you design it for – Change Behaviour?
What would be your 3 main objectives of the project?

58

Workshop 3 – Actual Route Objectives

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

59

Existing Route - Characteristics
Town Centre
Grid Plan
Main East / West Links
Origin / Destination
Route set by Bridge and Station
60

Workshop 4 - On Road Design
Waterloo Street
One Way Street – Towards M8
3 Travelling Lanes – Bus Stops/Route
North Side of Street – Horizontal Parking
61

Document Tour


1. Introduction
3. Geometric Design

8. Cycle Parking

Appendices

62

25/11/2013


Off-Carriageway Facilities

Overview

• Principles
• Cycleways
• Cycle Paths
• Vehicle Restricted Areas
• Access Controls

63

25/11/2013



When to Segregate?
1000 peds/hr/metre width (0.2 peds/m length/m width)

2m
width
50m length
2m
width
50m length
2m
width
50m length
2m
width
50m length
2m
width
50m length

Based on a walking pace of 5km / hr

Combined density
(users/hr/m)*
< 100

Shared use is usually appropriate (cycles give way).

101 – 199
> 200

64

25/11/2013

Recommended arrangement

Segregation may be considered.
Segregation should be considered.



Segregated Cycleways
Footpath

Segregated
Cycleway

'Start' and 'End'
tactile area

Reminder tactile
area

2.4m

Carriageway

Shared Cyclepath

2.4m

0.8m

0.8m

2.4m

Segregated
Cyclepath

2.4m

Ladder tactile

Tramline tactile

Max 50mm
vertical kerb
Pedestrians
Only

SEGREGATED BY KERB
Cycles Only

Cycles Only

Pedestrians
Only

Pedestrians
Only

65

25/11/2013


1.0m
Verge

SEGREGATED BY CENTRAL
DELINEATOR STRIP (NOTE 2)

Cycles Only

SEGREGATED BY VERGE


Shared Cycleways
Facility
Segregated
cycleway or
cyclepath

Width (m)

One way cycles only

Comments

*
**

The running width required that is free from obstructions such as debris,
gullies, line markings and street furniture.

Desirable
Minimum

3.0

Operates satisfactorily for two-way flows up to 300 cycles per hour.

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.

Desirable
Minimum

2.0

The minimum width in normal circumstances to permit unobstructed passage
by opposing wheelchairs.

1.5

Acceptable over short distances in specifically constrained environments,
such as at bus stops or where obstacles are unavoidable (Transport Scotland
2009).

Desirable
Minimum

3.0

Typically regarded as the minimum acceptable for combined flows of up to
300 per hour.

Absolute
Minimum

Pedestrian and cycle
space

1.5

Absolute
Minimum
Shared
cycleway or
cyclepath

Operates satisfactorily for one-way flows of up to 150 cycles per hour with
minimal overtaking anticipated.

Absolute
Minimum
Pedestrian only
space

2.0

Absolute
Minimum
Two way cycles only

Desirable
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
66

25/11/2013



Cyclepaths

67

25/11/2013



Access Controls
Preferably two gaps

Lockable/removable
bollard for maintenance

Gap 1.2m absolute min
1.5m Preferred max

3.0m desirable min

2.0m desirable min
1.5m absolute min
Note: Rider meets barrier on left hand side first

68

25/11/2013


Document Tour


1. Introduction
3. Geometric Design

8. Cycle Parking

Appendices

69

25/11/2013


Junctions & Crossings

Overview

• Crossing Assessment
• At Grade Junctions &
Crossings

• Grade Separated Junctions &
Crossings

70

25/11/2013


Extent of warning
contrasting colour
treatment


Footway

At-Grade Crossing - Urban

Diag No.950
Note: Distance plate Diag
No.572 may be applied.
Reflective bollards

Min 10m

Build-out
Diag No.956

Cyclepath

Cyclepath
Coloured surface preferred

Diag No.956

Footway

Buff coloured blister tactile

Diag No.950

Dimensions for Central Islands also Provided
71

25/11/2013


At-Grade Crossing - Rural
Cycles
crossing
XXX yds

Cycles
crossing
XXX yds

Diag No.950 with supplementary
plate to diagram No. 950.1


Edge of carriageway marking

Verge
Admiral™ or similar
specification bollards

Chicane
Refer to Note 1

Diag No.1012.1
(width of line 150mm)
55m

10m

Diag No.956

2.5m
absolute
minimum
5.75m min

Diag No.956
Verge
High Friction Surfacing
(black calcined bauxite)
should only be used on
roads with speed limits
> 40mph

Rumble strips
(15mm height, vertical
face not to exceed 6mm)

Cycles
crossing
XXX yds

72

25/11/2013

Cycles
crossing
XXX yds



At-Grade Crossing - Dual


Variable width

Cycles
crossing
XXX yds
White Admiral™ or similar
specification bollards
3.0m min
Diag No.956


10m desirable minimum

Chicane
Refer to Note 1

Min 10.0m
Extent of warning
contrasting colour
treatment

2.5m absolute
min.

Min 5.0m

Verge

Diag No.956

Cycles
crossing
XXX yds

73


25/11/2013

Drop kerb at crossing point
to be flush with carriageway.



Side Road Crossings


Diag No.602

Diag No.956

Bendout

Absolute min 2.5m
(Refer to note 1)
Diag No.956
Restrict on-street parking
to ensure visibility

Diag No.950
Note: Distance plate Diag
No.572 may be applied.

74

Diag 610
Illuminated Bollard

25/11/2013

3.0m desirable minimum
(Refer to note 2)



Roundabouts
a) COMPACT ROUNDABOUT
FOR USE BY MIXED TRAFFIC
ICD range of 25m-35m

Single lane entry and
exit width (4.25m)
Minimal flares on entries
Narrow circulating
lane width (5-7m)

Central overrun area
may be provided

Red coloured
blister tactile

Entry and exits are perpendicular
to the centre of roundabout

Central island diameter
range of 16-25mm
Ladder tactile
Toucan crossing
(staggered)
Tramline and ladder tactiles to
indicate segregated cycleway
Segregated cycleway
facility

Shared cycleway

Priority crossing

Ladder tactile

For transitions refer
to Figure 6.8

75

25/11/2013

It is recommended that the cycleway
should be two-way wherever possible.

Cycle lanes

b) ROUNDABOUT WITH
CYCLEWAYS



Grade Separation
Pedestrians

Cycles
(Refer to Table 6.2 and 6.3)

1.4m

Central delineator strip
FIGURE 7.17A : NEW BRIDGE SECTION

Existing parapets should be retained subject
to safety audit and monitoring
2.0m min one way
3.0m min two way

0.5m Clearance where practical

Shared cycleway

Where required, consideration should
be given to reducing carriageway lane
widths in order to widen the cycleway.

FIGURE 7.17B : EXISTING ROAD BRIDGE SECTION

76

25/11/2013


Document Tour


1. Introduction
3. Geometric Design
8. Cycle Parking

Appendices

77

25/11/2013


Cycle Parking

Overview

• Planning for Cycle Parking
• Location and Access
• Detailed Design

78

25/11/2013


Planning for Cycle Parking

• Basic Requirements
• User Requirements
• Demand and Capacity
Requirements

79

25/11/2013


Cycle Parking

Cycle Parking

Location & Access

• Proximity to Destinations
• Security
• On-street/Off-Street

80

25/11/2013


Cycle Parking

Detailed Design
0.9m

2.0m Desirable Min
1.8m Absolute Min

1.8m Absolute
minimum
clearance

2.0m Desirable Min
1.8m Absolute Min

1.2m Desirable Min
1.0m Absolute Min
Sheffield
stands

0.6m Desirable Min
0.5m Absolute Min

2.5m Desirable
minimum
clearance

1500mm

0.9m

1500mm

1500mm

In Line Configuration

1500mm

1500mm

Parallel Configuration

1900mm

Unit height : 1400mm
Door Opening : /50mm
Door Arcs : 95°

650mm

Recommended 1500mm access aisles around three sides of units.

81

25/11/2013


Note: All dimensions are in millimetres

900mm typ.

1500mm


Document Tour
1. Introduction

3. Geometric Design

8. Cycle Parking
Appendices
82

25/11/2013


Public Transport

Overview

• Importance of Integration
• Bike and Ride
• Cycle Carriage
• Public Cycle Hire

83

25/11/2013


Public Transport

Integration

• Links to Rail Stations
• Parking at Stations
• Buses, Coaches & Ferries
• Cycle Hire Schemes

84

25/11/2013


Document Tour


1. Introduction

3. Geometric Design

8. Cycle Parking
Appendices

85

25/11/2013


Construction/Maintenance

Overview

• Sustainability
• Construction within
Carriageway

• Construction outwith
Carriageway
• Lighting
• Maintenance Regime

86

25/11/2013



Cycleway

Margin. (refer to note iii)
Surface Course
Kerb detail as
required

Typical road drainage
Refer to note ii
375x150mm Class ST1
concrete kerb foundation
and haunch

Binder Course
Subbase

Fall=2.5%

FORMATION
200x50mm flat-topped
P.C heel kerb, laid flush

300x100mm Class ST 1
concrete kerb foundation and haunch

87

25/11/2013



Rural Cyclepath

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.

Formation to be sprayed with approved
non-toxic weedkiller

Minimum 100mm deep sub-base of
Type 1, compacted to refusal.

Desirable width of
soft verge 500m

Geotextile

FORMATION
2500mm Shared cyclepath
3500mm

Absolute minimum width of Type 1
verge to be 300mm. Desirable
minimum width to be 500mm.

88

25/11/2013


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.

500mm

Maintenance - Sweeping

89

25/11/2013



Maintenance - Cutting

90

25/11/2013



Document Tour


1. Introduction

3. Geometric Design
8. Cycle Parking
Appendices

91

25/11/2013


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

92

25/11/2013


Avoiding Imbalanced Needs

Source: David Owen / Warrington Cycle Campaign

93

25/11/2013



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.

Key Objective – Meeting the Needs of Cyclists
94

25/11/2013


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
95

25/11/2013


Process Overview

Cycle Audit in Action

Objective Setting and Context Report

Preliminary Design Audit
(Stage 1 Cycle Audit)
Detailed Design Audit

Post-Construction Audit
Progression from Each Stage only after Project Sponsor Approval
96

25/11/2013


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

97

25/11/2013


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

98

25/11/2013



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?
99

25/11/2013



Document Tour
1. Introduction

3. Geometric Design
8. Cycle Parking
Appendices

100

25/11/2013


Appendix A

Appendices

• 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

101

25/11/2013


Appendix B

Diag No 955
Route for use by pedal cycles only

Diag No 958
With-flow bus lane ahead

Appendices

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 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 958.1
With-flow cycle lane ahead

• General design principles on
signs and markings
• Sign sizes
• Avoiding ambiguity and
coherence

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

• Legislation and guidance
• Examples

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 962.2
Contra-flow bus lane which pedal
cycles may also use on road at
junction ahead

102

25/11/2013

Diag No 952.1
Cycle lane on road at junction
ahead or cycle track crossing road

Diag No 968
Parking for pedal cycles


Evolution of Cycling By Design
Beyond 2010 Edition

‹#›

25/11/2013


Beyond CBD 2010

Evolution
• 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

104

25/11/2013


Summary

‹#›

25/11/2013


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

106

25/11/2013


Are we different from the market leaders
CROW vs CBD?
107

Cycling Scotland 2012 Conference
Think Bike Workshop

108

How to design Bicycle facilities
Safety

Directness

Cohesion

5 main
requirements

Comfort

Attractiveness
109

Sustainable Safety

Function
of road

Function, form and use
in balance, from road safety
point of view

Design
of road
function:
design:
use:

Use
of road

use of the road as intended by the road authority
the physical design and layout properties of the infrastructure
actual use of the infrastructure and behaviour of the road user

110

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

111

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

112

Time

Traffic lights at National Museum:
20 cars in 40 seconds
> 50 cyclists in 10 seconds
114

Junction / crossing

Multi lane roundabout:

Single lane roundabout:

Outside build-up area
Priority to cars

117

Why monitor cycling?
 To measure impact on overarching objectives
 To measure and demonstrate trends and
progress
 To account for the use of funds at local and
regional level
 To demonstrate links with other
projects/departments

120

 What do you monitor and why?

121

The Basics of Monitoring
 In essence, there are two levels:
– Strategic:
• Vision, Aim, Mission, etc.

– Specific:
• Objectives, Targets, Goals, etc.

123

Strategic – Vision, Aim, etc.
 What is the aspiration? What are you aiming for?
– More people on bikes…?
– More people active…?

124

Vision - Active Travel, Active
Scotland
“Our vision is for walking or cycling to be the
natural choice for short journeys, creating a
healthier, socially inclusive, economically
vibrant, environmentally friendly Scotland.”

125

Getting More Specific – Objectives
 Objectives
– Specific, measurable steps
– What do you want to happen?
“To increase the number of children cycling to
school”

126

Targets
 Targets
– Results to be achieved
– Mostly quantifiable
“To increase the number of children cycling to
school by 15%”

127

Targets (2)
 SMART
– Specific
– Measurable
– Achievable
– Realistic
– Time-bound
 Establish a baseline!
128

Targets (3)
 Inputs
– Resources used
• “Amount of time spent training children to cycle”

 Outputs
– Measurable activities, things we make/do
• “Length of on-road cycle network”

 Outcomes
– Impacts from outputs, benefits of what we
make/do
• “Number of children cycling to school”
129

Targets (3)
 Indicators
– Help measure the target:
•
•
•
•

“number of children cycling to school”
“number of children receiving cycle training”
“number of bicycles repaired”
“number of cyclists on a particular road”

130

Targets Summary


Do:
–

Have a number of SMART targets

–

Have a plan that identifies targets and how they all link
together

–

Use both output and outcome performance indicators



Do NOT:
–

Have few and/or ill-defined targets

–

Rely on output performance indicators alone

–

Use a limited range of monitoring techniques

–

Have no idea what you are monitoring

132

Assessment
 What are the impacts of what we are doing and
how are we doing in each aspect?
 Use tools to help assess:
– STAG
– HEAT
– SROI
– National Assessment

133

Assessment - STAG
 Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG)
– When?
• Gov‟t funding, support or approval for proposals to
change transport system

– What?
• Environment, Safety, Economy, Integration,
Access and Social Integration

– Who?
• SG, LAs, developers and transport operators
www.transportscotland.gov.uk/stag
134

Assessment - HEAT
 WHO Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT)
– When?
• To understand economic impact of health benefits
from cycling and walking
– What?
• Savings in costs and mortality from walking/cycling
interventions
– Who?
• Anyone, but limited to adults and better at „population
level‟

www.heatwalkingcycling.org
135

Assessment - SROI
 Social Return on Investment (SROI)
– When?
• Understanding social impacts of interventions

– What?
• Measure the difference made to people‟s lives and
the level of impact

– Who?
• Third sector normally

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/
15300/SROI and http://www.sroi-uk.org/

136

Assessment – National Assessment
 National Assessment of Cycling Policy
– When?
• Assess the policies in place in LAs to support
cycling

– What?
• Looks at three elements: Planning, Action and
Monitoring

– Who?
• Local Authorities (and Nat‟l Parks in future)
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/
15300/SROI and http://www.sroi-uk.org/

137

Evaluation
 Comparative by nature
– past with present ( baseline data or starting
point or recall of where things were in
comparison with now)
– comparing examples of similar projects or
programmes

138

Evaluation










Did we do what we planned to do? If not, why not?
What worked? Why?
What did not work? Why?
What difference, if any, does the project make? How
have things changed over time and for whom ?
Is the project meeting needs? Whose needs?
What do users/members/beneficiaries think about the
work?
Is the donor's money well spent? Is it achieving what the
donor intended?
What could we do differently?
How can we use the learning to develop the work?

139

The Final Stage
 Doing something to act on the learning – MAKE
CHANGES!
 Without the final stage the evaluation is
useless

140

Worked example…
 What is/are the vision/objectives/targets you
work towards in your organisation?
 What if vision/objectives/targets change
abruptly?

141

By 2020, 10% of all
journeys in
Scotland will be by
bike.
What do you think the 10%
is now? Comments…

142

National Picture – Scotland Performs

143

 Objectives
– Wealthier and Fairer
– Safer and Stronger
– Smarter
– Greener
– Healthier
Which of these are relevant to cycling? Why?

144

 16 National Outcomes
– Key words for cycling...
•
•
•
•
•

“sustainable places”
“communities”
“environment”
“environmental impact”
“employment opportunities”

145

 50 National Indicators, cycling relevant?
– “Increase the proportion of journeys to work made
by public or active transport”
– “Reduce Scotland‟s carbon footprint”
– “Increase physical activity”
– “Reduce traffic congestion”
– “Increase people‟s use of outdoors”
– “Reduce premature mortality”
– “Increase proportion of healthy weight in children”
146

National Picture – CAPS (2010)
 10% of journeys in Scotland by bike by 2020
 Local authorities
– CAPS Delivery Forum
– Other action-specific forums
 Other organisations
– CS, Sustrans, Transport Scotland
 Other forums?
– NCIG, CPG, Vulnerable Road Users, etc.

147

Local Authority Picture
 32 different ways of doing things…

148

Local Authority Picture - Edinburgh
 Active Travel Action Plan
 “By 2030, to make Edinburgh‟s transport system one of
the most environmentally friendly, healthiest and most
accessible in northern Europe…” – Transport 2030
 Objectives
– Better health; Better road safety; Better environment;
Benefits to businesses; Wider economic benefits
 Targets (by 2020)
– Cycling: 10% overall; 15% to work
– Walking: 35% overall; 22% to work

149

What about data?









Scottish Household Survey
Scottish Recreation Survey
Hands Up Scotland Survey
Bikeability Scotland data
Local cycling counts (automatic/manual)
Local surveys (e.g., Citizen Panels)
Project specific/event specific feedback
On and on…

150

The Big Picture?
 Making sense of it all

151

Monitoring Cycle Use - MVA
 Review current information sources
– Desktop
– Consultation
 Make recommendations on appropriate methods for
LAs and others on collecting information for
monitoring progress against SG targets/vision

152

Monitoring Cycle Use – MVA (2)
 Consultation
– 40 stakeholders and key partners
– View on key aspects
– Awareness of relevant datasets
– How project could benefit
– Views on „good‟ and „bad‟ practice

153

 Datasets and SHS
– Good potential for existing data, but not sure how
best to use it
– Are datasets relevant at local level?
– Inconsistency on questions
– Support for HUSS
 Auto/manual counters
– Main focus at a local level
– Issues with consistency of data, resource and
maintenance
154

 Resource and budgets
– Limited and stretched resource
– Neglect of data collection and maintenance
– Not always a priority
– Concerns on ability to match fund

 STANDARD GUIDANCE REQUESTED!

155

So what do you monitor?









Manual counts
Automatic counts
School travel
Cycle parking/usage
Census
Household surveys/travel diaries
User surveys
Others?

156

MONITORING TOOLKIT
Manual counts:
 Can give a detailed picture
of cycle usage over a short
period
 Can be used to validate
automatic counts
 Care needs to be taken in
the location of counts

157

MONITORING TOOLKIT
Automatic cycle counts:
 Can give a detailed picture of
cycle usage over time
 Can be used to validate
manual counts

 Care needs to be taken in the
siting of counters, especially
on-road cycling

158

MONITORING TOOLKIT
Automatic cycle counts:
 Are generally more statistically reliable

 Off-road counts alone may give a skewed
picture
 Data can be collected remotely

159

MONITORING TOOLKIT
School travel counts:
 Can be effective and represent
an important target area
 Helps to reinforce children‟s
enthusiasm
 Ideally should be carried out as
part of a school travel plan

160

MONITORING TOOLKIT

Travel plan surveys:
 Can be effective and represent an
important target area
 Help to reinforce the organisation‟s
commitment
 Questionnaires should gather both
qualitative and quantitative data on cycling
 High response rate achievable
 Allows for an incremental approach to
provision e.g. parking

161

MONITORING TOOLKIT
Before and after monitoring:
 Should be carried out on all new
schemes
 Useful to establish precedents for
similar schemes elsewhere
 May not be representative of whole
authority
 Capital costs for automatic counters
can be found as part of overall
scheme

162

MONITORING TOOLKIT
Counts of cycle parking use:
 Can be carried out at specific
locations, such as health centres
 Can help to assess the
effectiveness of policies to
encourage cycling to these
destinations
 If carried out regularly can be used
as a proxy for overall cycling levels

163

MONITORING TOOLKIT
Census information:
 Measures journeys to work only
 Unparalleled accuracy of local information on
these journeys
 Useful to assess relative levels in different local
authority areas
 Unsatisfactory for assessment of objectives,
since monitoring only occurs every 10 years

164

MONITORING TOOLKIT
Household surveys / travel diaries:
 Useful data on attitudes (e.g. satisfaction and
perception) as well as usage
 Also information on modal choice factors
 Can measure background factors, such as car
ownership, income levels and place of work
but …

165

MONITORING TOOLKIT
Household surveys / travel diaries:
 Need high level of respondents to be
statistically reliable
 Most useful carried out in conjunction with
regular usage monitoring
 National Travel Survey add-ons are possible but
expensive - only feasible in large urban areas

166

MONITORING TOOLKIT
User surveys:
 Can provide useful data on user
attitudes, especially satisfaction
and perception
 Need to be targeted carefully
 Are useful if looking at reasons for
choice of mode and route

167

Worked example…
 What about the 10%?
– Who are we measuring?
– What is a „journey‟?
– How do we measure those journeys as a proportion
of all journeys?
– What are some limitations?

168

Monitoring Cycle Use
 MVA Recommendations/findings:
– Any reporting of cycling mode share needs to
incorporate other modes as well
– Household-based travel diary
– Phrasing matters! „Usual mode‟ questions are
biased against cycling
 Other datasets can inform other targets, but they do
not feed into the 10%!

170

Monitoring Cycle Use (2)
 Healthier
– HUSS, recreational trips, total trips/commuting trips,
casualty/KSI
 Greener
– Total trips/commuting trips, HUSS
 Wealthier
– Total trips/commuting trips, tourism, cycling related jobs
 Safer
– 20mph zones, casualty/KSI
 Smarter
– Improved school performance, productivity

171

Taking Monitoring Forward
 Establishing a set of indicators to support monitoring the
10%
 But is it enough? No! So let‟s look at a few more things:
– Cycling to work/education
– Cycling to school
– Cycle training (adults and children)
– Safety
– Health
– Economic benefit
– Return on investment
– Environmental impacts
172

Using Monitoring to Access Funding
 Varies depending on funding source, but cycling cuts
across many things
 Examples
– Cycling Scotland
• Bikeability Scotland, Support Plus – How many schools are
delivering on-road training now? How many will deliver on-road
training as a result of the funding?
• Cycle Friendly & Sust. Communities – Project aims, modal
share changes, emissions, impact on sustainability in
community, project partners, + or – outcomes, barriers?

– Sustrans
• Accurate stats on usage and benefits, auto- or manual counts,
surveys of users.
173

Worked example…
 What types of monitoring would help you in
delivering cycling?
– Think about: partners, funding opportunities
 What should you monitor to help „future-proof‟
delivery of cycling?

174

Summary
 Strategic as well as specific
 Targets – Link to outcomes
 Ensure that you do monitor, but be clear on WHY you are
monitoring
 Ensure that what you monitor provides evidence to
support your vision and objectives

 Cycling cuts across many departments, utilise this to
the fullest

175

Relate this to Funding
Who are the funders for cycle projects at present?

Funders
Government / Transport Scotland
Sustrans
Leader
Awards for All
Local Authorities
For further information review Spokes Briefing

How much do they each
contribute?
The government through Transport Scotland / Sustrans
are still the predominate funder for active travel
projects
http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2012/10/spokesbulletin-114/

Sustrans – Community Links
Yesterday I provided information from my own projects
how monitoring has allowed me to provide job
satisfaction.

Project Summary
Show Origin and Destinations
Places of Interest
Design – Use their manuals

Project Endorsement
Community Council
Primary School
Sports Clubs

Match Funding
RTPS
Other Council Projects
Community Funding
Celebrities

Aims and Benefits
Using existing counts (nearby data)
Hands Up Survey
But how to turn them around
Money Talks – North Sea Cycle Route – £33 a day

Stop Moaning
Justify a larger spend?
STAG – Project for a Bypass

We need to prove projects using the data which is of a
benefit to the projects.
Adrian Davies / John Parkin

School Links
Bikeability
Transport Hubs
Get the providers to endorse the project
Council Departments
Sounds daft but Access Officer, Planner and Parks
for instance

Community Engagement
Opportunities to see the project and participate
Equal Input / Influence

Monitoring
Discussed this at length yesterday

I maintain get a counter in your bid

Deliver and Phasing
Make sure the title includes Phase 1 – Prove you have
further projects.

Funders
Other Funders
Leader
CSGN
Active Places – 2014
Awards for All
Local Authority - CWSS

Summary
Taken you through funding application
So what are the next steps for you and Cycling
Scotland?

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

2013 11-11 Planning and Designing for Cyclists

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (11)

Semelhante a 2013 11-11 Planning and Designing for Cyclists

Semelhante a 2013 11-11 Planning and Designing for Cyclists (20)

Mais de Cycling Scotland

Mais de Cycling Scotland (12)

Último

Último (20)

2013 11-11 Planning and Designing for Cyclists