Fort William Feb 2012

737 views

Published on

Cycling Scotland course on planning and designing for cyclists. The course was held in Fort William and looked at the local area and identified improvements to the local cycle routes.

Published in: Education, Sports
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
737
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 1
  • 1
  • Each trainer is to complete this section for the specific training activity
  • These are the subjects we will be covering today
  • These are the subjects we will be covering today
  • These are the subjects we will be covering today
  • These are the subjects we will be covering today
  • So why should we design for cyclists? Why not let them just be part of the road network or path network. Touch on a module presented by Jim Riach on Policy.
  • WHY?? Cycle action plan for Scotland Professionals agreed if we have money the following should gain the most investment – On Road – Off Road Add to that the questionnaires filled in stated segregation from traffic Later we will look at what that actually means as people can not see reducing cars may help them
  • Flip Chart – Using roads and footways?
  • Flip Chart – Using roads and footways?
  • The wider range of disabilities and access requirements is included in the first category. Question: do you agree with this hierarchy? Question: motorcycles are not included – where do you think they might fit? There is no right model as some authorities may choose to change the order of the first three depending on such issues as topography etc
  • Flip Chart – Name types of users we design for.
  • Cyclists – come in all shapes and sizes – The question is can we be grouped into one design group? Discuss? Discuss on Flip Chart – Points for grouping them together – Points for not grouping them together
  • Specialist Equipment
  • In terms of what we are here for today we wish to design for all of the above but if we had all afternoon I would discuss how each of the trips would influence design but I only have a short time so here is have my own family review. Recently I have had to change behavior as have my family. Neighborhood - I now have Ruaridh behind me. Previously I would go to Morrison's or the Coop on road with the use of the off road on the way back. Now I use the footway to access the great NCN near my house. Commuting - Father – No longer in a job that needs a car to get between construction sites. He now cycles to work. Infrastructure has changed his route. Avoids the hills and asks for help at junctions. Schools – I am not there yet only 4 years to go Day Trips – Father in law had a triple bypass so requires to get some exercise. We again use the NCN beside us to have a leisure ride down to lochwinnoch. We need a café. Touring / Sports – Bro is over in Perth Australia so has no weather complaints but he has cycled all over Scotland MTB/Sportives/24 hour races coast to coast so will go anywhere on a bike and has commuted all his life so again does so 12 months a year.
  • The five core principles are set out here and explored in more detail in the following slides. They may be found in Local transport Note 02/08 DfT 2008 Note: this is almost identical to guidance contained within Cycling by Design. The order and wording is slightly different but the principles remain the same. Exercise – What do they mean?
  • Networks should allow people to go where they want (all destinations accessible by bike) Routes and key destinations should be clearly signed There should be the minimum practicable delay at crossings and unavoidable detours kept to a minimum Trip-end facilities, such as parking, should be clearly signed and ‘tuned’ to the likely length of stay Note that slide shows an off-road example
  • Like pedestrians, cyclists should be able to virtually get to the very front door of their destination. In addition the network itself should be accessible without barriers created by other highway management activities Cycle routes should form a network linking trip origins and destinations (including public transport interchanges) Routes should be continuous and as direct as possible in terms of both journey time and distance There should be provision for crossing busy roads and other barriers including priority crossing of side roads where the route is off-road Opportunities that give cyclists advantage in terms of journey time, distance and permeability should be exploited through the use of routes through, shopping centres, parks and housing estates not available to motor vehicles
  • Better still, full time access along defined routes within pedestrian areas can help to minimise the potential for conflicts.
  • Routes should be safe in terms of both interaction with other traffic and in terms of personal safety. Infrastructure must not only be safe but also perceived to be safe. Whilst this scheme may give cyclists permeability and advantage, their very presence my deter those with impaired mobility, especially if they are blind or partially sighted. Equally there will be times of day when cyclists feel they are at risk from those hidden from view during the hours of darkness despite the presence of lighting. Clearly the maintenance of the trees and shrubs alongside this cycle track will play a major role in this. Traffic volumes should be reduced so that other cycle friendly measures that might not otherwise be viable may be considered Carriageway road space should be redistributed and difficult/conflicting movements accommodated Maintenance of the infrastructure is essential as is the proper maintenance of lighting, vegetation clearance etc to remove the fear of crime Trip end facilities such as parking should be sited where users feel safe
  • Routes should be safe in terms of both interaction with other traffic and in terms of personal safety. Infrastructure must not only be safe but also perceived to be safe. Whilst this scheme may give cyclists permeability and advantage, their very presence my deter those with impaired mobility, especially if they are blind or partially sighted. Equally there will be times of day when cyclists feel they are at risk from those hidden from view during the hours of darkness despite the presence of lighting. Clearly the maintenance of the trees and shrubs alongside this cycle track will play a major role in this. Traffic volumes should be reduced so that other cycle friendly measures that might not otherwise be viable may be considered Carriageway road space should be redistributed and difficult/conflicting movements accommodated Maintenance of the infrastructure is essential as is the proper maintenance of lighting, vegetation clearance etc to remove the fear of crime Trip end facilities such as parking should be sited where users feel safe
  • Facilities should meet or exceed design standards for width, gradients, and surface quality and cater for all types of user, especially where shared with pedestrians and those whose mobility is impaired ‘ Flush’ kerbs at crossings should be flush and not subject to ponding at the carriageway edge Well drained and maintained surfaces should be provided that are regularly swept clear of debris ‘ Comfort’ is also enhanced when free from the fear of crime
  • The creation of priority routes through attractive surroundings is an encouragement to cycle. Aesthetically pleasing, well maintained routes free from sign clutter that fit in well with their surrounding areas and avoid situations where users feel their personal security is at risk help to make cycling an attractive alternative to unnecessary car use
  • Coherence – On your door step linking you to destinations. Easy to navigate Direct – Time saving, benefit to allow the behavior change Safety – Reduce perceived and actual risk, FEEL SAFE Comfort – Surfacing, Width etc Attractive – Fit with it surroundings
  • Taking from this morning session I would like to have an exercise with the following table Hand Out Table – I would like us to rank the priorities of each of the following users against design principle. Split you into groups – list available –
  • Peter to Read out Groups Split into your groups a joint exercise first – Just shout out design manuals you know of and use at present. Summarise the flip chart by grouping the manuals Then split into your groups I would ask within your field how would you use the manuals?
  • Each trainer is to complete this section for the specific training activity
  • List of the manuals above So how do I use them? Again an information sheet is available and will be sent out and is available on our web
  • Over the years Sustrans has developed guidelines for the design and construction of off road cycle ways. These tend to be philosophical as well as specifications. The greenway guide was developed primarily to be used by partners on the connect 2 projects although it is fully relevant to any other greenway project. The guide covers technical aspects such as designing of gradients etc and also talks about wider aspects such as monitoring and land arrangements. The NCN guidelines in muchly superseded by the likes of cycling by design it was written to provide a standard for the development of the NCN and still has uses in the standards to be used for NCN routes. Making ways for the bicycle is the early Sustrans design and construction guidance and has useful information on path construction techniques.
  • List of the manuals above So how do I use them? Again an information sheet is available and will be sent out and is available on our web
  • List of the manuals above So how do I use them? Again an information sheet is available and will be sent out and is available on our web
  • Sustrans produces a range a TINs designed for internal use – however many of these are available for partners from Sustrans staff. The information sheets are availible on the Sustrans website under resources but many of these are out dated and superseded by other guidance. TINs cover a range of subjects: Speed humps for motorcycles Alternatives to statutory guidance Signing – which has lots of examples and standards Aggregates for paths Path surfaces – discussing the merits and problems of different types of materials Access controls and barriers Trees Side road crossings Zebra Crossing Toucan Crossings
  • List of the manuals above So how do I use them? Again an information sheet is available and will be sent out and is available on our web
  • Note: Local transport Notes (LTN) are not policy within Scotland but nevertheless provide a good source of guidance reflecting the best practice to be adopted when providing for cyclists. See also Cycling to the Future and Cycling by Design for additional policy and guidance. What are their characteristics? – shout them out It is important to understand that cyclists are not an homogenous group and their needs will differ accordingly: Confident in most on-road situations May seek some segregation at difficult junctions and on link with high speed traffic May be willing to sacrifice directness to avoid difficult traffic conditions by using lighter trafficked routes and may well travel more slowly than regular cyclists. May require segregated direct of-road routes between residential areas and schools where suitable on-road solutions are not available This category includes disabled people using hand cranked machines and others using tricycles, child buggies tandems etc. It is important to recognise that all of the above categories may be found on the same route at the same time, for example on a housing estate road at the beginning of their journey or where a number of routes pass through a complex junction. Equally, more vulnerable users, such as elderly cyclists whose ability to compete with other traffic is declining but whose mobility depends on their use of a bike, may welcome the opportunity to stay off busy roads in much the same way as inexperienced cyclists. It should not, therefore, be assumed that cyclists are always a homogeneous group or that a route has a single journey purpose. Similarly, it can not be assumed that traffic safety and personal security are always the most important design requirements when dealing with journeys that have a time-critical purpose such as catching a train or bus.
  • 1. Mitigate the physical severance caused by the M8 Anderston Interchange by the creation of a traffic free route for pedestrians and cyclists travelling from Anderston and the West End into the heart of the City Centre 2. Segregating cyclists and pedestrians from traffic by creating a traffic free route to encourage lapsed cyclists, children and less confident cyclists to try cycling in what they perceive to be a safer environment 3. Significantly improving multi-modal transport interchange by delivering a quality walking and cycling route to Glasgow Central Rail Station 4. Improve access to jobs, education, leisure by low cost and sustainable travel modes for residents living in Anderston, one of the most deprived areas of the country 5. Expand and enhance the local cycle network, connecting into the quality existing routes such as The Colleges Cycle Route, the Forth & Clyde Canal and NCN 7 and provide opportunities for healthy active travel and reduce carbon emissions associated with trips under 5km between the West End and the City Centre
  • Yes or No – No sitting on the fence
  • How do we improve on road cycling within the road of Edinburgh Discuss 20mph zones being promoted by Edinburgh. So we have highlighted the hierarchy of provision but we still require to install lanes on some of the roads within Edinburgh. In your groups can you take the following 4 roads One – Standard 7.3m wide road – no on road parking Two – New housing estate (designing streets) Three – Two lane traffic with the promotion of a bus lane Four – 9m wide road with on street parking
  • 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.
  • 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
  • Kerb-segregated cycle lane Standard Width (m)* Comments Desirable Minimum Width 2.0 Typically operates satisfactorily for flows of up to 200 cycles per hour. The minimum width that should be considered to permit cyclists to pass each other. With-flow or contra-flow lane Absolute Minimum Width 1.5 Typically operates satisfactorily for flows of up to 100 cycles per hour. Desirable Minimum Width 3.0 Typically operates satisfactorily for two-way flows of up to 300 cycles per hour and will permit some overtaking. Two-way lane Absolute Minimum Width 2.0 The minimum width that should be considered to permit cyclists travelling in opposite directions to pass each other. Operates satisfactorily for twoway flows of up to 200 cycles per hour.
  • 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.
  • As does this example even if the use of the solid white line to segregate the cycle lane from the parking is incorrect
  • An additional aid within LTN 2/05 is the diagram which compares the cycle flows on a link with traffic speed and provides guidance on the type of facility appropriate for a given set of circumstances. This is based upon Dutch guidance originally found in the CROW manual ‘Sigh up for the bike’ but has subsequently been revised by Sustrans and in the London Cycle Network Design Manual with a simplified version set out in the LTN It should be noted that figures for traffic volumes and speed have been deliberately omitted from this diagram. This is to emphasis the fact that there is no exact correlation between these and the most appropriate facilities to employ. It is also important to remember that the first course of action must be to consider what can be done to reduce speeds and flows before referring to this diagram for guidance on what to implement (if anything). Put more simply this is not a diagram that may be used without applying thought to the process.
  • Just to get us back in the mood before we go onto the hierarchy of provision – question?
  • Yes or No – No sitting on the fence
  • There is no single ‘right’ answer. As vehicles within the meaning of the law bicycles are vehicles and are entitled to use the carriageway except where prohibited (by traffic regulation order, bylaw or certain classes of road i.e. motorway. It is also obvious that it is not a realistic proposition to create wholly segregated facilities to link the front door of every home with the front door of every destination. Whilst it may seem reasonable to think that cyclists will be inherently safer when segregated from other traffic this takes no account of the fact that cyclists are most at risk at junctions where over 70% of accidents occur involving cyclists (DfT figures). Studies also show that cyclists are more at risk when cycle tracks cross side roads than if they had remained on the carriageway. Not all off-road facilities adequately cater for the inevitable return to the carriageway or the need to achieve a safe means of joining cycle tracks that involve a right turn. All of these issues add up to a more un-safe off-road environment than is often experienced on the carriageway. It is also worth mentioning that studies have shown that those people who ride solely on off road cycle paths have poor road skill that do not fit them well for mixing with other traffic when they do meet it.
  • Yes or No – No sitting on the fence
  • Thanks to Alan – So taking what the council have in place can we discuss the use of Zebra Crossings
  • Any prizes for what type of crossing this is? Any ways of improving the symbols?
  • Designing for a range of users presents challenges and guidelines are available from a number of perspectives. The
  • The requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 are likely to have an impact on cycle facilities, especially where use is shared with pedestrians. The purpose of the following section is to highlight the importance of the Act rather than give a detailed explanation. Where detailed guidance is required, delegates consult their authority’s disability access officer
  • Designing for a range of users presents challenges and guidelines are available from a number of perspectives.
  • The following examples create the opportunity to learn from things that authorities have not done well.
  • Cycle lanes are not panaceas: drivers often feel that where they exist cyclists have been provided with their own space no further allowances need to be made. This means that they can often end up with traffic passing more closely than where there is no lane. Clearly cycle lanes as badly maintained as this are no only a potential hazard for the users they make a disturbing statement about how the local authority views the needs of cyclists.
  • Cycle lanes should not be interrupted to create parking spaces in this manner as such practices only bring such facilities into disrepute amongst motorists and cyclists alike
  • Cycle lanes with neither rhyme nor reason only serve to discredit cycle facilities
  • Signs that provide an opportunity to see a route in the context of the wider network are a valuable feature, especially for visitors. However, few are likely to follow the identified route to the town centre in this instance.
  • ‘ Cyclists dismount’ signs are almost never justified: certainly not as in this case on a new estate road where cyclists are being asked to dismount at every access to the sites along it’s length. This is particularly true where the cycle track is being created alongside a traffic calmed carriageway.
  • Some surprises come even more abruptly to a cyclist’s attention. Quite apart form the obvious, this slide serves to illustrate the fact that many of those cyclists who rely on cheap bikes for their mobility, especially the elderly, often ride small wheeled bicycles. These cyclists are particularly vulnerable to such poor design and detailing
  • In this city cyclists have to contend with poorly created facilities blocked by many pieces of street furniture but also the problems of poor maintenance of highway drainage adding to their woes
  • In this city cyclists have to contend with poorly created facilities blocked by many pieces of street furniture but also the problems of poor maintenance of highway drainage adding to their woes
  • Not all of these subjects are dealt with
  • IHT– Cycle Audit and Review, Review – largely an output based, tick-box process, resource intensive activity. Despite the resource implications this is a valuable tool for the assessment of existing roads when determining how cycle friendly they are and what measures are necessary to improve matters. The IHT Guidelines for Cycle Audit and Review may be regarded as the industry standard for this process. This is dealt with in greater detail in the module on Cycle Audit.
  • The purpose of this slide is to show that different audit procedures identify different stages to audit. It is acknowledged that they are carried out for different reasons and some stages may in effect be combined but it is worth noting that only two set out to determine whether the concept of the scheme meets the objectives of the audit. Furthermore, only one seeks to monitor the effectiveness of a scheme after t it has been in operation for a period of time. The audits are as follows: Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Non Motorised User Audit IHT Safety Audit IHT Cycle Audit Concise Pedestrian and Cycle Audit (Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority) Oxfordshire County Council Vulnerable Road User Audit (no details are provided of this audit – the purpose is provide an example of one known to exist) Edinburgh uses this as well Cyclability – CS developed tick sheet All the books/leaflets are available for review Note: The IHT process is considered to be the most applicable for local roads in Scotland.
  • This feasibility process differs from the traditional feasibility study by involving key stakeholders from the outset – more details may be had from the LTN team at the London Borough of Camden Consultation (including with other local authority departments) and engagement with local user groups is an important part of network development. The aspirations of other departments (planning proposals, school developments, public transport liaison etc) can all inform and influence the forward planning of the network. Local users can often provide a valuable insight into cyclists’ routes and behaviour, especially at problem junctions (and routes that avoid them).
  • To be completed by individual trainers.
  • To be completed by individual trainers.
  • Fort William Feb 2012

    1. 1. WELCOME A tailor made local authority training package  
    2. 2. Argyll and Bute & Highland COUNCIL TRAINING DAY Providing training to deliver solutions
    3. 3. MODULE 2: PLANNING AND DESIGNING FOR CYCLISTS <ul><li>22 nd February 2012 </li></ul><ul><li>Fort William </li></ul><ul><li>Peter Leslie </li></ul>Providing training to deliver solutions
    4. 4. Questions? Name Job Role Achievement in Work Question on Designing for Cyclists
    5. 5. WHAT WILL YOU LEARN TODAY?
    6. 6. LEARNING OUTCOMES <ul><li>Be aware of and be able to: </li></ul><ul><li>Design for cyclists </li></ul>
    7. 7. LEARNING OUTCOMES <ul><li>Be aware of and be able to: </li></ul><ul><li>Design for cyclists </li></ul><ul><li>Summarise Shared Use DDA (Equality) Compliance </li></ul>
    8. 8. LEARNING OUTCOMES <ul><li>Be aware of and be able to: </li></ul><ul><li>Design for cyclists </li></ul><ul><li>Summarise Shared Use DDA (Equality) Compliance </li></ul><ul><li>Key Aspects of Design Manuals </li></ul>
    9. 9. LEARNING OUTCOMES <ul><li>Be aware of and be able to: </li></ul><ul><li>Design for cyclists </li></ul><ul><li>Summarise Shared Use DDA (Equality) Compliance </li></ul><ul><li>Key Aspects of Design Manuals </li></ul><ul><li>On site Review (inc Signage) </li></ul>
    10. 10. Designing for Cyclists in your Area
    11. 11. Policy Drivers <ul><li>Sustainability & Climate Change </li></ul><ul><li>Health </li></ul><ul><li>Peak Oil </li></ul><ul><li>Economics </li></ul><ul><li>Congestion </li></ul>
    12. 12. Long distance Routes in particular for your councils <ul><li>Sustainable tourism development </li></ul><ul><li>Stimulate local businesses </li></ul><ul><li>Local community interest: knowledge and exchanges </li></ul><ul><li>Healthy Living-encourages physical activity </li></ul><ul><li>Improvements of environment: green corridors </li></ul>
    13. 13. The model of spending
    14. 14. The results in NE case study area for 2006 NSCR – NE England (2006) using the model Tourism demand 67,826 Groups @ 2.36 average group size 6631 Spending Euro3.8 million
    15. 15. Local Cycle/Shared use Routes <ul><li>Argyll and Bute Council </li></ul><ul><ul><li>8 Communities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Hitrans </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Active Travel Audits </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Highland Council </li></ul><ul><ul><li>European Funding </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. Council Promotion
    17. 17. Sustrans Report – Recent Funding http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sustrans-near-you/scotland/scotland-news <ul><li>In 2010 an indicative spend by recreational and touring cyclists is estimated at almost £100million. </li></ul><ul><li>Using the World Health Organisation’s Health Economy Assessment Tool (HEAT) it is estimated that in 2010 the Network contributed £60million in health benefits. </li></ul><ul><li>Cost to benefit ratios based on STAG appraisal range from 1.4:1 to 12.7:1. </li></ul><ul><li>LOCAL BENEFIT </li></ul>
    18. 18. CAPS <ul><li>At Cycling Scotland’s November 2007 conference delegates voted for a National Cycling Action Plan </li></ul><ul><li>In May 2008 Stewart Stevenson MSP announced the launch of the Cycling Action Plan for Scotland. </li></ul><ul><li>February 2009 the Minister announces that the vision for CAPS is that “By 2020 10% of all journeys taken in Scotland will be by bike” </li></ul>
    19. 19. Cycle Action Plan for Scotland CAPS
    20. 20. THE PRINCIPLES <ul><li>Hierarchy of Users </li></ul>
    21. 21. Hierarchy of Users <ul><li>Any ideas? </li></ul>
    22. 22. Hierarchy of Users <ul><li>Any ideas? </li></ul>
    23. 23. HIERARCHY OF USERS <ul><li>Pedestrians and those with impaired mobility </li></ul><ul><li>Cyclists </li></ul><ul><li>Public transport users (including taxis) </li></ul><ul><li>Goods and service deliveries </li></ul><ul><li>Car borne shoppers </li></ul><ul><li>Car borne commuters and visitors </li></ul>
    24. 24. Types of Users <ul><li>Any ideas? </li></ul>
    25. 26. TYPES OF CYCLISTS TO DESIGN FOR <ul><li>Skill Level </li></ul><ul><ul><li>• Novice; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>• Intermediate; and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>• Experienced. </li></ul></ul>(Based on CBD 2010)
    26. 27. Journeys completed by Cyclists <ul><li>Neighbourhood </li></ul><ul><li>Commuting </li></ul><ul><li>School </li></ul><ul><li>Day Trips </li></ul><ul><li>Touring </li></ul><ul><li>Sports </li></ul>(Based on CBD 2010)
    27. 28. DESIGN PRINCIPLES – CDB 2010 <ul><li>Coherence </li></ul><ul><li>Directness </li></ul><ul><li>Safety </li></ul><ul><li>Comfort </li></ul><ul><li>Attractiveness </li></ul>
    28. 29. Exercise Capture your thoughts Design Principles
    29. 30. Coherence <ul><li>- Continuous </li></ul><ul><li>Link origins and destinations </li></ul><ul><li>Legible signing </li></ul><ul><li>Consistent colours </li></ul>
    30. 31. Directness <ul><li>Minimise delays </li></ul><ul><li>Follow desire lines </li></ul><ul><li>Give advantage </li></ul>
    31. 32. Directness - Defined routes in areas can minimise conflict
    32. 33. SAFETY <ul><li>Personal security </li></ul><ul><li>Lighting </li></ul><ul><li>Rural Aspects </li></ul><ul><li>Information (Recovery) </li></ul>
    33. 34. SAFETY <ul><li>Traffic safety </li></ul><ul><li>Perceived </li></ul><ul><li>Actual </li></ul>
    34. 35. COMFORT <ul><li>No debris </li></ul><ul><li>No obstructions </li></ul><ul><li>Flush kerbs </li></ul><ul><li>Traffic and climate mitigation </li></ul>
    35. 36. ATTRACTIVENESS <ul><li>- Complementary </li></ul><ul><li>Integrated </li></ul><ul><li>Inviting landscaping </li></ul>
    36. 37. Design Principles <ul><li>Coherence – </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Door step </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Directness – </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Time Saving </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Safety – </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Feel Safe </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Comfort – </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Surface </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Attractiveness – </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Fit Surroundings </li></ul></ul></ul>
    37. 39. Design Manuals <ul><li>Group Exercises </li></ul><ul><ul><li>List the design manuals you currently use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What information would you look for within the manual and how would you use the manuals? </li></ul></ul>
    38. 40. www.satinonline.org
    39. 41. Active Travel Design Manuals <ul><li>Netherlands - Crow – Design manual for bicycle traffic </li></ul><ul><li>UK – DFT – Cycle Infrastructure Design </li></ul><ul><li>Scotland – TS - Cycling By Design 2010 </li></ul>
    40. 42. Sustrans Publications - Guidelines <ul><li>Connect 2 and Greenway Design Guide – 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>The NCN – Guidelines and Practical Details -1997 </li></ul><ul><li>Making Ways for the Bicycle – 1994 </li></ul><ul><li>www.sustrans.org.uk/resources </li></ul>
    41. 43. Active Travel Design Manuals <ul><li>UK – TFL – London Design Standards </li></ul><ul><li>Scotland – TS – Designing Streets </li></ul>
    42. 44. Active Travel Design Internet <ul><li>www.cyclingengland.co.uk </li></ul><ul><li>www.ctc.org.uk/Benchmarking </li></ul><ul><li>www.cyclingresourcecentre.org.au/ </li></ul><ul><li>www.fietsberaad.nl/ </li></ul>
    43. 45. Sustrans Publications – Notes <ul><li>Technical Information Notes – Current - Available from Sustrans </li></ul><ul><li>Information Sheets – Some are Dated - Available from Website </li></ul>
    44. 46. Path Construction <ul><li>Countryside Access Design Guide </li></ul><ul><li>Lowland Path Construction </li></ul><ul><li>Upland Path Management </li></ul><ul><li>Scottish Access Technical Information Network (SATIN) </li></ul>
    45. 47. Other Design Manuals <ul><li>Equestrian – </li></ul><ul><ul><li>British Horse Society </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>www.iprow.co.uk </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disabled Users </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fieldfare Trust </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>http://91.135.228.71/$sitepreview/phototrails-dev.org/default.cfm?walk=Devon-Way---Fishcross-to-Devonside&page=trail&walk_id=70 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Walker </li></ul><ul><ul><li>www.livingstreets.org.uk/scotland </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cyclist </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Natural Surface Trails by Design </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Trail Solutions - IMBA </li></ul></ul>
    46. 48. <ul><li>Any questions? </li></ul>Coffee / Tea
    47. 49. Workshop 1 – Actual Route Objectives <ul><li>Remove Physical Barrier </li></ul><ul><li>Segregated Facility </li></ul><ul><li>Quality Infrastructure – Central Station – Destination </li></ul><ul><li>Deprived Area </li></ul><ul><li>Active Travel and Route Connections </li></ul>
    48. 50. <ul><li>Workshop – On/Off Road Design </li></ul><ul><li>On/Off Road Design – Split into your groups and discuss the provisions including the width of cycle facility you would install on North Claremont Street and Berkeley Street: </li></ul>
    49. 51. <ul><li>Workshop - On Road Design </li></ul><ul><li>Waterloo Street </li></ul><ul><li>One Way Street – Towards M8 </li></ul><ul><li>3 Travelling Lanes – Bus Stops/Route </li></ul><ul><li>North Side of Street – Horizontal Parking </li></ul>
    50. 52. Existing Route - Characteristics Town Centre Grid Plan Main East / West Links Origin / Destination Route set by Bridge and Station
    51. 53. <ul><li>Workshop – On Road Design </li></ul><ul><li>On Road Designs – Split into your groups and discuss the provisions including the width of cycle facility you would install on Waterloo Street: </li></ul>
    52. 54. REDISTRIBUTION OF THE CARRIAGEWAY Lane Width?
    53. 55. REDISTRIBUTION OF THE CARRIAGEWAY Lane Width?
    54. 56. REDISTRIBUTION OF THE CARRIAGEWAY Lane Width?
    55. 57. REDISTRIBUTION OF THE CARRIAGEWAY Lane Width?
    56. 58. REDISTRIBUTION OF THE CARRIAGEWAY Lane Width?
    57. 59. Tables and Design Aids
    58. 60. <ul><li>Cycle Lane Through Road Junction </li></ul><ul><li>Munich, Germany </li></ul>Photo: Raheel Khan
    59. 61. Cycle Lane Through Bus Stop Dublin, Ireland Photo: Tom Bertulis
    60. 62. <ul><li>Coloured Cycle lane across junction </li></ul><ul><li>Copenhagen, Denmark </li></ul>Photo: Tom Bertulis
    61. 63. <ul><li>Innovative speed hump with cycle bypass </li></ul><ul><li>Copenhagen, Denmark </li></ul>Photo: Tom Bertulis
    62. 64. <ul><li>Cycle lane, Door opening strip </li></ul><ul><li>Glasgow, Scotland </li></ul>Photo: Tom Bertulis
    63. 65. <ul><li>Cycle Lanes with cycle bypasses on both sides Ayr, Scotland </li></ul>Photo: Tom Bertulis Photo: Tom Bertulis
    64. 66. <ul><li>Double Cycle Lane on approach to junction </li></ul><ul><li>Glasgow, Scotland </li></ul>Photo: Tom Bertulis Photo: Tom Bertulis
    65. 67. <ul><li>Door opening strip </li></ul><ul><li>Dublin, Ireland </li></ul>Photo: Tom Bertulis
    66. 68. <ul><li>Coloured 2.5m Cycle Lane Through Road Junction </li></ul><ul><li>Munich, Germany </li></ul>Photo: Raheel Khan
    67. 69. <ul><li>Centre Cycle lane </li></ul><ul><li>London, England </li></ul>Photo: Tom Bertulis
    68. 70. 2 metre wide Cycle Logo Copenhagen, Netherlands Photo: Tom Bertulis
    69. 71. 2 metre wide Cycle Logo Copenhagen, Netherlands Photo: Tom Bertulis
    70. 72. <ul><li>Cyclist in Cycle-Bus lane </li></ul><ul><li>Edinburgh, Scotland </li></ul>Photo: Tom Bertulis
    71. 73. Cycle Lane along Motor Vehicle Lane and Tram line Amsterdam, Netherlands Photo: Tom Bertulis
    72. 74. Cycle Lane through Road Junction Berlin, Germany Photo: Tom Bertulis
    73. 75. Cycle lane Crossing with Elephant’s Feet Markings Amsterdam, Netherlands Photo: Tom Bertulis
    74. 76. <ul><li>Bus-Cycle-Taxi Lane </li></ul><ul><li>Glasgow, Scotland </li></ul>Photo: Tom Bertulis
    75. 77. Cycle lane Amsterdam, Netherlands Photo: Tom Bertulis
    76. 78. THE HIERARCHY OF PROVISION Stakeholders and Users – Wish us to invest money in off road networks
    77. 79. <ul><li>ARE CYCLISTS SAFER ON </li></ul><ul><li>OFF-ROAD CYCLE TRACKS? </li></ul>
    78. 80. NO. <ul><li>(the long answer: it depends) </li></ul>
    79. 81. … PROVIDING CYCLE TRACKS IS ONE OF YOUR LAST CHOICES <ul><li>Hierarchy of Provision </li></ul><ul><li>(1) Traffic Reduction </li></ul><ul><li>(2) Traffic Calming </li></ul><ul><li>(3) Junction Treatment </li></ul><ul><li>(4) Carriageway Redistribution </li></ul><ul><li>(5) Segregated Facilities </li></ul><ul><li>(6) Conversion of Footway </li></ul>First Priority Last Priority
    80. 83. <ul><li>So what is the solution? </li></ul>
    81. 84. Photo by Rob Marshall, ERCDT
    82. 85. Photo by Rob Marshall, ERCDT
    83. 86. Other Options Cycling by Design Side Road Crossing – Bend Out There are other options but due to it being adjacent to a trunk road this was preferred
    84. 87. Photo by Patrick Lingwood, ERCDT
    85. 88. Other Options Side Road Crossing – Surfacing On Road Give Way Markings
    86. 90. Crossings Design Site Specific One size does not fit all Crossing Attributes Simple Field of Vision for All users Decision Making Cycling by Design Transport for London
    87. 91. Signing Routes <ul><li>What must we comply with? </li></ul><ul><li>What is there to help us? </li></ul>
    88. 92. Signing Routes <ul><li>Who should we be signing for? </li></ul><ul><li>What should would be signing? </li></ul><ul><li>How do we get our message across? </li></ul>
    89. 93. Directional signing with route number for cyclists Glasgow, Scotland Photo: Tom Bertulis
    90. 94. <ul><li>“ Cyclists Rejoin Road” Sign </li></ul><ul><li>Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland </li></ul>Photo: Tom Bertulis
    91. 95. <ul><li>“ Cycle Lane Look Both Ways” Sign </li></ul><ul><li>Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland </li></ul>Photo: Tom Bertulis
    92. 96. <ul><li>“ Cyclists and Pedestrians Only” marking along beachfront pathway </li></ul><ul><li>Troon, Scotland </li></ul>Photo: Tom Bertulis
    93. 97. <ul><li>Shared use sign </li></ul><ul><li>Glasgow, Scotland </li></ul>Photo: Tom Bertulis
    94. 98. Signing Routes <ul><li>Sustrans – Technical Information - Note 5 </li></ul><ul><li>It must comply with TSRGD </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Liability / Risk </li></ul></ul>
    95. 99. <ul><li>Lunch </li></ul>
    96. 100. Instead of us going on about the different users we would like to show you the following video. We think this shows the different users perspective and requirements. Remember by 2025, disabled people will have the same opportunities and choices as non-disabled people on travel choices http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/road/Roads-for-All-Conference-2010-video Disable Discrimination Act Compliance
    97. 101. <ul><li>Transport Scotland - </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/strategy-and-research/publications-and-consultations/j11185-00.htm </li></ul>
    98. 102. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1995 Fieldfare Trust - http://www.fieldfare.org.uk
    99. 103. Devon Way Audit - Promoting Countryside Access for Disabled People - Phototrails http://91.135.228.71/$sitepreview/phototrails- dev.org/default.cfm?walk=Devon-Way---Fishcross-to-Devonside&page=trail&walk_id=70
    100. 105. <ul><li>Site Visit </li></ul>
    101. 106. <ul><li>Discuss </li></ul><ul><li>Site Visit </li></ul><ul><li>Sheets </li></ul>
    102. 107. PLANNING AND DESIGNING FOR CYCLISTS- GOOD AND BAD (MOSTLY) PRACTICE <ul><li>Some learning opportunities </li></ul>
    103. 108. LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
    104. 109. LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
    105. 110. LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
    106. 111. LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
    107. 112. LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES David Kemp
    108. 113. LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
    109. 114. LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
    110. 115. LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
    111. 116. SUMMARY <ul><li>We’ve looked at: </li></ul><ul><li>The key principles of providing for cyclists (including the hierarchy of solutions) </li></ul><ul><li>How to plan, identify and implement a cycle network The impact of the Disability Discrimination Act and shared use principles </li></ul><ul><li>How to differentiate between good and bad practice </li></ul>
    112. 118. <ul><li>Your turn </li></ul>Action Plan and Course Evaluation
    113. 119. Cycle Audit and Review
    114. 120. Key Audit Stages and Types x x            Cyclability   x x x   x x OX CC VRU (Edinburgh)     x x x x   COPECAT     x x x   x IHT CA     x x x x   IHT SA     x x x     DMRB NMU 7.After 1-3 years 6.Post-opening 5.Substantial completion 4.Detailed design 3.Preliminary design 2.Feasibility study 1.Design brief Audit Types 
    115. 121. Latest Information <ul><li>John Parkin – University of Bolton – Risk Assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Designing for Streets – Quality Audits </li></ul><ul><li>Local Authority – How do you audit/review cyclists? </li></ul>
    116. 122. PLANNING THE NETWORK - TOOLS <ul><li>London Cycle Network CRISP Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>C ycle </li></ul><ul><li>R oute </li></ul><ul><li>I mplementation & </li></ul><ul><li>S takeholder </li></ul><ul><li>P lan </li></ul>
    117. 123. FINAL QUESTIONS? Providing training to deliver solutions
    118. 124. THANK YOU Peter Leslie Providing training to deliver solutions

    ×