MCM Cycle Demonstration - Glasgow (Mar 12)

  • 362 views
Uploaded on

On/Off Road Cycle Infrastructure Review - Urban …

On/Off Road Cycle Infrastructure Review - Urban
Venue: Glasgow - Cycling Scotland Office
Site Visit: Glasgow Connect 2 Cycle Infrastructure

Presentation about the use of segregated cycle facilities designed and built in Glasgow.

More in: Education , Sports
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
362
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    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.
  • Money is no issue, Scotland Obesity, You need to change behaviour 3 main objectives, modal split, European experience CBD – LTN 2/08
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Hierarchy of Provisions
  • Hierarchy of Provisions
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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 –
  • Hierarchy of Provisions
  • But first consider this: A truly cycle friendly environment does not depend upon ‘visible’ cycle-specific measures such as cycle lanes and advance stop lines. It is created by the reduction of traffic speeds and volumes within an area to the point that the road network is suitable for all users without fear or intimidation by other users. So how do we provide this kind of environment? …
  • 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
  • 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.
  • Any prizes for what type of crossing this is? Any ways of improving the symbols?
  • Thanks to Alan – So taking what the council have in place can we discuss the use of Zebra Crossings
  • 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
  • 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?
  • 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?
  • 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.

Transcript

  • 1. A tailor made localauthority trainingpackage WELCOME 1
  • 2. Glasgow Connect 2 - TRAINING DAYProviding training todeliver solutions 2
  • 3. MODULE: Connect 2 –Demonstration Project – UrbanSetting March 2012 Glasgow – CS Office Peter Leslie Providing training to deliver solutions 3
  • 4. WHAT WILL YOU LEARN TODAY? 4
  • 5. LEARNING OUTCOMESBe aware of and be able to: Reference Design Manuals 5
  • 6. LEARNING OUTCOMESBe aware of and be able to: Reference Design Manuals Set Route Objectives 6
  • 7. LEARNING OUTCOMESBe aware of and be able to: Reference Design Manuals Set Route Objectives Review On/Off Road Review Contra Flow/Lanes 7
  • 8. LEARNING OUTCOMESBe aware of and be able to: Design Principles Set Route Objectives Review On/Off Road Contra Flow/Lanes Review Signing of Routes 8
  • 9. Agenda for Today 9
  • 10. Questions?NameJob DescriptionAchievement in the last monthQuestion on Learning Point 10
  • 11. Connect2 - Big Lottery FundedSustrans Connect2 is part funded by the BigLottery Fund grant after the UK public votedthe scheme the winner of the Peoples MillionsLottery contest on ITV1 in December 2007.http://www.youtube.com/user/SustransL 11
  • 12. Headline Objective•will overcome major barrierssuch as roads, rivers, andrailways•will create new bridges andcrossings linking to walkingand cycling networks in 79communities UK-wide 12
  • 13. Usage Objective6 million people within one mileas many as 1 million pupils will benefitover a million journeys a weekpotentially saving 70,000 tonnes CO2/yr 13
  • 14. Scotland’s Involvement4 Local Authorities Dumfries and GallowaySouth Lanarkshire Glasgow City Council Perth and Kinross 14
  • 15. CompletionRoutes are due to be completed byMarch 2013 15
  • 16. “Bridge to Nowhere”Built 1960Anderston ShoppingComplexNever Completed 16
  • 17. Start/End Point -- Central Station -- Kelvingrove Park 17
  • 18. Workshop 1 – Route Objectives 18
  • 19. Workshop 1 – Route Objectives – 5 minutesYou are the Local AuthorityWho would you design it for?What would be your 3 main objectives ofthe project?Using the manuals - Can you identify whatthey promote as the main routeobjectives? 19
  • 20. Sustrans Report – Recent Fundinghttp://www.sustrans.org.uk/sustrans-near-yo In 2010 an indicative spend by recreational and touring cyclists is estimated at almost £100million. Using the World Health Organisation’s Health Economy Assessment Tool (HEAT) it is estimated that in 2010 the Network contributed £60million in health benefits. Cost to benefit ratios based on STAG appraisal range from 1.4:1 to 12.7:1. LOCAL BENEFIT 20
  • 21. Workshop 1 – 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 21
  • 22. Design Manuals  Group Exercises  List the design manuals you currently use  What information would you look for within the manual and how would you use the manuals? 22
  • 23. www.satinonline.org 23
  • 24. Active Travel Design Manuals  Netherlands - Crow – Design manual for bicycle tr  UK – DFT – Cycle Infrastructure Design  Scotland – TS - Cycling By Design 2010 24
  • 25. Sustrans Publications - Guidelines Connect 2 and Greenway Design Guide – 2007 The NCN – Guidelines and Practical Details -1997 Making Ways for the Bicycle – 1994 Greenways design guide Audit before payment Practical example www.sustrans.org.uk/resources 25
  • 26. Active Travel Design Manuals  UK – TFL – London Design Standards  Scotland – TS – Designing Streets 26
  • 27. Active Travel Design Internet  www.cyclingengland.co.uk  www.ctc.org.uk/Benchmarking  www.cyclingresourcecentre.org.au/  www.fietsberaad.nl/ 27
  • 28. Sustrans Publications – Notes Technical Information Notes – Current - Available from Sustrans Information Sheets – Some are Dated - Available from Website 28
  • 29. Path Construction Countryside Access Design Guide Lowland Path Construction Upland Path Management Scottish Access Technical Information Network (SATIN) 29
  • 30. Other Design Manuals Equestrian –  British Horse Society  www.iprow.co.uk• Disabled Users • Fieldfare Trust • http://91.135.228.71/$sitepreview/phototrails-dev.org/default.cfm?walk=D• Walker • www.livingstreets.org.uk/scotland• Cyclist • Natural Surface Trails by Design • Trail Solutions - IMBA 30
  • 31. Other Design Manuals Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Traffic Signs and Regulations and General Directions 31
  • 32. Introduction to first chapters on cycleroute design manuals 32
  • 33. PLANNING ANDDESIGNING FOR CYCLISTS 33
  • 34. Hierarchy of Users  Any ideas? 34
  • 35. HIERARCHY OF USERS  Pedestrians and those with impaired mobility  Cyclists  Public transport users (including taxis)  Goods and service deliveries  Car borne shoppers  Car borne commuters and visitors 35
  • 36. Types of Users  Any ideas? 36
  • 37. TYPES OF CYCLISTS TO DESIGN FOR Skill Level  • Novice;  • Intermediate; and  • Experienced. (Based on CBD 2010) 37
  • 38. Journeys completed by Cyclists Neighbourhood Commuting School Day Trips Touring Sports (Based on CBD 2010) 38
  • 39. DESIGN PRINCIPLES – LTN 2/08 – CBD - 2010  Coherence  Directness  Safety  Comfort  Attractiveness 39
  • 40. ExerciseCapture your thoughtsDesign Principles 40
  • 41. Design Principles Coherence –  Door step Directness –  Time Saving Safety –  Feel Safe Comfort –  Surface Attractiveness –  Fit Surroundings 41
  • 42. 42
  • 43. THE HIERARCHY OF PROVISION (1) Traffic Reduction First Priority (2) Traffic Calming (3) Junction Treatment (4) Carriageway Redistribution (5) Segregated Facilities (6) Conversion of Footway Based on LTN 2/08 Last Priority and CBD 2010 43
  • 44. PLANNING ANDDESIGNING FOR CYCLISTSDesigning Streets 44
  • 45. THE CONCEPT OF INVISIBLEINFRASTRUCTUREA cycle friendly environment- Does not depend upon‘visible’ cycle-specificmeasures.- It is created by the reductionof traffic speeds and volumes.But how? 45
  • 46. Workshop 1 – 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 46
  • 47. Existing Route - CharacteristicsTown CentreGrid PlanMain East / West LinksOrigin / DestinationRoute set by Bridge and Station 47
  • 48. Workshop - On Road DesignWaterloo StreetOne Way Street – Towards M83 Travelling Lanes – Bus Stops/ RouteNorth Side of Street – Horizontal Parking 48
  • 49. Video and Photos 49
  • 50. Workshop – On Road Design On Road Designs – Split into your groups and discuss the provisions including the width of cycle facility you would install on Waterloo Street: 50
  • 51. REDISTRIBUTION OF THECARRIAGEWAYLane Width? 51
  • 52. REDISTRIBUTION OF THECARRIAGEWAYLane Width? 52
  • 53. REDISTRIBUTION OF THECARRIAGEWAYLane Width? 53
  • 54. REDISTRIBUTION OF THECARRIAGEWAYLane Width? 54
  • 55. REDISTRIBUTION OF THECARRIAGEWAYLane Width? 55
  • 56. Tables and Design Aids 56
  • 57. Photo: Raheel KhanCycle Lane Through Road Junction 57 Munich, Germany
  • 58. Photo: Tom Bertulis 58Cycle Lane Through Bus StopDublin, Ireland
  • 59. Photo: Tom BertulisColoured Cycle lane across junction 59 Copenhagen, Denmark
  • 60. Photo: Tom BertulisInnovative speed hump with cycle bypass 60 Copenhagen, Denmark
  • 61. Photo: Tom BertulisCycle lane, Door opening strip 61 Glasgow, Scotland
  • 62. Photo: Tom Bertulis Photo: Tom BertulisCycle Lanes with cycle bypasses on both sides 62 Ayr, Scotland
  • 63. Photo: Tom Bertulis Photo: Tom BertulisDouble Cycle Lane on approach to junction 63 Glasgow, Scotland
  • 64. Photo: Tom BertulisDoor opening strip 64 Dublin, Ireland
  • 65. Photo: Raheel KhanColoured 2.5m Cycle Lane Through Road Junction 65 Munich, Germany
  • 66. Photo: Tom BertulisCentre Cycle lane 66London, England
  • 67. Photo: Tom Bertulis2 metre wide Cycle Logo 67Copenhagen, Netherlands
  • 68. Photo: Tom Bertulis2 metre wide Cycle Logo 68Copenhagen, Netherlands
  • 69. Photo: Tom BertulisCyclist in Cycle-Bus lane 69 Edinburgh, Scotland
  • 70. Photo: Tom Bertulis 70Cycle Lane along Motor Vehicle Lane and Tram lineAmsterdam, Netherlands
  • 71. Photo: Tom Bertulis 71Cycle Lane through Road JunctionBerlin, Germany
  • 72. Photo: Tom Bertulis 72Cycle lane Crossing with Elephant’s Feet MarkingsAmsterdam, Netherlands
  • 73. Photo: Tom BertulisBus-Cycle-Taxi Lane 73 Glasgow, Scotland
  • 74. Photo: Tom Bertulis 74Cycle laneAmsterdam, Netherlands
  • 75. What are the main issues for Cyclists? 75
  • 76. WorkshopJunctions and Crossings 76
  • 77. Workshop - CrossingWaterloo StreetSide Road EntrancesPedestrians 77
  • 78. THE HIERARCHY OF PROVISION Stakeholders and Users – Wish us to invest money in segregated networks 78
  • 79. ARE CYCLISTS SAFER ON SEGREGATED / OFF-ROAD CYCLE TRACKS? 79
  • 80. THE SHORT ANSWER: 80
  • 81. NO.(the long answer: it depends) 81
  • 82. IN THE HIERARCHYOF PROVISION … 82
  • 83. … PROVIDING CYCLE TRACKS IS ONEOF YOUR LAST CHOICES First Priority Hierarchy of Provision (1) Traffic Reduction (2) Traffic Calming (3) Junction Treatment (4) Carriageway Redistribution (5) Segregated Facilities (6) Conversion of Footway Last Priority 83
  • 84. 84
  • 85. SIDE ROAD CROSSING – DANGER! 85
  • 86. 86Photo by Rob Marshall, ERCDT
  • 87. 87Photo by Rob Marshall, ERCDT
  • 88. 88Photo by Patrick Lingwood, ERCDT
  • 89. 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 89
  • 90. Other Options Side Road Crossing – Bend In Raise Table crossing with no give way markings 90
  • 91. Other Options Side Road Crossing – Bend In Raise Table crossing both with give way markings 91
  • 92. Other Options Side Road Crossing – Surfacing On Road Give Way Markings 92
  • 93. Other Options Side Road Crossing – Bend out Raise Table crossing both with on road give way markings 93
  • 94. 94
  • 95. 95
  • 96. Other Options Main Road Crossing – Traffic Island 96
  • 97. CrossingsDesign Site SpecificOne size does not fit allCrossing AttributesSimpleField of Vision for All usersDecision MakingCycling by DesignTransport for London 97
  • 98. Workshop – On/Off Road DesignNorth Claremont StreetTwo Way Street2 Travelling LanesOn Street - Horizontal Parking 98
  • 99. Workshop – On/Off Road Design 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: 99
  • 100. Workshop – On/Off Road DesignBerkeley StreetTwo Way Street2 Travelling LanesOn Street - Horizontal Parking 100
  • 101. Workshop – On Road Design On Road Designs – Split into your groups and discuss the provisions including the width of cycle facility you would install on Berkeley Street: 101
  • 102. Photo: Alex Bertulis 102Contra Flow Cycle laneGeneva, Switzerland
  • 103. Photo: Tom BertulisContra Flow lane 103Munich, Germany
  • 104. Photo: Tom BertulisContra Flow lane 104Chester, England
  • 105. Photo: Tom BertulisSegregated Contra Flow Lane 105 Glasgow, Scotland
  • 106. Photo: Tom Bertulis Photo: Tom BertulisSegregated Contra Flow Lane 106 Glasgow, Scotland
  • 107. Photo: Tom BertulisContra Flow Lane demarcated with a coloured cycle lane 107 Glasgow, Scotland
  • 108. Photo: Tom BertulisUnsegregated Contra Flow Lane, note the signing allowing cycles but not motor vehicles 108 Glasgow, Scotland
  • 109. Photo: Tom BertulisUnsegregated Contra-Flow cycle facility 109 Glasgow, Scotland
  • 110. Photo: Tom BertulisUnsegregated Contra-Flow cycle facility 110 Munich, Germany
  • 111. Photo: Tom BertulisUnsegregated Contra-Flow cycle facility 111 Munich, Germany
  • 112. Photo: Tom Bertulis Contra-Flow facility 112Copenhagen, Denmark
  • 113. Photo: Tom Bertulis Contra-Flow facility 113Copenhagen, Denmark
  • 114. Photo: Tom BertulisContra flow lane with segregation 114 London, England
  • 115. Photo: Tom Bertulis 115Contra Flow laneLondon, England
  • 116. Photo: Alex Bertulis12mph zone with unsegregated Contra Flow lane 116 Geneva, Switzerland
  • 117. Photo: Tom Bertulis 117Contra Flow laneCopenhagen, Denmark
  • 118. Photo: Tom BertulisSegregated Contra Flow Cycle Way 118Madison, Wisconsin, USA
  • 119. Photo: Tom BertulisUnsegregated Contra Flow lane, cycle markings only 119 Geneva, Switzerland
  • 120. Photo: Alex BertulisContra flow facility with no segregation and no cycle markings, only signage 120 Geneva, Switzerland
  • 121. Photo: Tom BertulisCyclist Desire Line showing contra flow cycling 121 Lima, Peru
  • 122. Photo: Tom Bertulis 122Home Zone with gatewayNottingham, England
  • 123. Signing RoutesWhat must we comply with?What is there to help us? 123
  • 124. Signing Routes Who should we be signing for? What should would be signing? How do we get our message across? 124
  • 125. Photo: Tom Bertulis 125Directional signing with route number for cyclistsGlasgow, Scotland
  • 126. Photo: Tom Bertulis “Cyclists Rejoin Road” Sign 126Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland
  • 127. Photo: Tom Bertulis“Cycle Lane Look Both Ways” Sign 127 Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland
  • 128. Photo: Tom Bertulis“Cyclists and Pedestrians Only” marking along beachfront pathway 128 Troon, Scotland
  • 129. Photo: Tom Bertulis Shared use sign 129Glasgow, Scotland
  • 130. Signing Routes Sustrans – Technical Information - Note 5 It must comply with TSRGD  Liability / Risk 130
  • 131. Signing Routes 131
  • 132. SUMMARYThis Morning - We’ve looked at: The key principles of providing for cyclists Use of Cycling by Design and other Manuals On Site Solutions Any Questions? 132
  • 133. LUNCH 133
  • 134. SITE VISIT 134
  • 135. Site Workshop – Actual Route Objectives • Remove Physical Barrier • Segregated Facility • Quality Infrastructure – Central Station – Destination • Deprived Area • Active Travel and Route Connections 135
  • 136. Site Workshop – Principles DESIGN PRINCIPLES – LTN 2/08 – CBD - 2010  Convenience  Accessibility  Safety  Comfort  Attractiveness 136
  • 137. Site Workshop – Feedback Site Review  Were the principles applied?  Were Route Objectives Met?  On Site Challenges? 137
  • 138. SITE REVIEW 138
  • 139. SITE REVIEW 139
  • 140. SITE REVIEW 140
  • 141. SITE REVIEW 141
  • 142. SITE REVIEW 142
  • 143. Disable Discrimination Act ComplianceInstead of us going on about the different users we would like toshow you the following video. We think this shows the differentusers perspective and requirements.Remember by 2025, disabled people will have the sameopportunities and choices as non-disabled people on travelchoiceshttp://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/road/Roads-for-All-Conference-2010-vi 143
  • 144.  Transport Scotland - http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/strategy-and-re 144
  • 145. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATIONACT 1995Fieldfare Trust -http://www.fieldfare.org.uk 145
  • 146. Devon Way Audit - PromotingCountryside Access for DisabledPeople - Phototrailshttp://91.135.228.71/$sitepreview/phototrails- dev.org/default.cfm?walk=Devon-Way---Fishcros 146
  • 147. LEARNING OUTCOMESBe aware of and be able to: Design Principles Set Route Objectives Review On/Off Road Contra Flow/Lanes Review Signing of Routes 147
  • 148. FINAL QUESTIONS? Providing training to deliver solutions
  • 149. THANK YOU TOGLASGOW CITY COUNCIL AND SUSTRANSProviding training to deliver solutions