MCM Demo Glasgow - August 12

856 views

Published on

Cycling Scotland presentation on Urban Segregated Cycle Facilities

The training day will look at the existing environment found on the Connect 2 project prior to construction. We will use workshop techniques and our newly commissioned video footage of the project in the morning before heading out in the afternoon to review the installed infrastructure which is making a difference in Glasgow. This particular course looks at the installation of shared footways and designated cycle ways.


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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
856
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • Thanks to Alan – So taking what the council have in place can we discuss the use of Zebra Crossings
  • Designing for a range of users presents challenges and guidelines are available from a number of perspectives. The
  • 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?
  • MCM Demo Glasgow - August 12

    1. 1. A tailor made localauthority trainingpackage WELCOME 1
    2. 2. Glasgow Connect 2 - TRAINING DAYProviding training todeliver solutions 2
    3. 3. MODULE: Connect 2 –Demonstration Project – UrbanSetting August 2012 Glasgow – CS Office Peter Leslie Providing training to deliver solutions 3
    4. 4. WHAT WILL YOU LEARN TODAY? 4
    5. 5. LEARNING OUTCOMESBe aware of and be able to: Reference Design Manuals 5
    6. 6. LEARNING OUTCOMESBe aware of and be able to: Reference Design Manuals Set Route Objectives 6
    7. 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. 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. 9. Questions?NameJob DescriptionAchievement in the last monthQuestion on Learning Point 9
    10. 10. 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/Sustra 10
    11. 11. Headline Objective•will overcome major barrierssuch as roads, rivers, andrailways•will create new bridges andcrossings linking to walkingand cycling networks in 79communities UK-wide 11
    12. 12. Usage Objective6 million people within one mileas many as 1 million pupils willbenefitover a million journeys a weekpotentially saving 70,000 tonnesCO2/yr 12
    13. 13. Scotland’s Involvement4 Local Authorities Dumfries and GallowaySouth Lanarkshire Glasgow City Council Perth and Kinross 13
    14. 14. CompletionRoutes are due to be completed byMarch 2013 14
    15. 15. “Bridge to Nowhere”Built 1960Anderston ShoppingComplexNever Completed 15
    16. 16. Start/End Point -- Central Station -- Kelvingrove Park 16
    17. 17. Workshop 1 – Route Objectives 17
    18. 18. 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? 18
    19. 19. 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 19
    20. 20. 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 20
    21. 21. 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 21
    22. 22. TYPES OF CYCLISTS TO DESIGN FOR Skill Level  • Novice;  • Intermediate; and  • Experienced. (Based on CBD 2010) 22
    23. 23. Journeys completed by Cyclists Neighbourhood Commuting School Day Trips Touring Sports (Based on CBD 2010) 23
    24. 24. DESIGN PRINCIPLES – LTN 2/08 – CBD - 2010  Coherence  Directness  Safety  Comfort  Attractiveness 24
    25. 25. Design Principles Coherence –  Door step Directness –  Time Saving Safety –  Feel Safe Comfort –  Surface Attractiveness –  Fit Surroundings 25
    26. 26. 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 26
    27. 27. Existing Route - CharacteristicsTown CentreGrid PlanMain East / West LinksOrigin / DestinationRoute set by Bridge and Station 27
    28. 28. Workshop - On Road DesignWaterloo StreetOne Way Street – Towards M83 Travelling Lanes – Bus Stops/RouteNorth Side of Street – Horizontal Parking 28
    29. 29. Video and Photos 29
    30. 30. 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: 30
    31. 31. REDISTRIBUTION OF THECARRIAGEWAYLane Width? 31
    32. 32. REDISTRIBUTION OF THECARRIAGEWAYLane Width? 32
    33. 33. REDISTRIBUTION OF THECARRIAGEWAYLane Width? 33
    34. 34. REDISTRIBUTION OF THECARRIAGEWAYLane Width? 34
    35. 35. Tables and Design Aids 35
    36. 36. Photo: Raheel KhanCycle Lane Through Road Junction 36 Munich, Germany
    37. 37. Photo: Tom BertulisCycle Lane Through Bus Stop 37Dublin, Ireland
    38. 38. Photo: Tom BertulisColoured Cycle lane across junction Copenhagen, Denmark 38
    39. 39. Photo: Tom BertulisInnovative speed hump with cycle bypass 39 Copenhagen, Denmark
    40. 40. Photo: Tom BertulisCycle lane, Door opening strip 40 Glasgow, Scotland
    41. 41. Photo: Tom Bertulis Photo: Tom BertulisCycle Lanes with cycle bypasses on both sides Ayr, Scotland 41
    42. 42. Photo: Tom Bertulis Photo: Tom BertulisDouble Cycle Lane on approach to junction Glasgow, Scotland 42
    43. 43. Photo: Tom BertulisCentre Cycle lane 43London, England
    44. 44. Photo: Tom Bertulis2 metre wide Cycle LogoCopenhagen, Netherlands 44
    45. 45. Photo: Tom BertulisCyclist in Cycle-Bus lane 45 Edinburgh, Scotland
    46. 46. What are the main issues for Cyclists? 46
    47. 47. WorkshopJunctions and Crossings 47
    48. 48. Workshop - CrossingWaterloo StreetSide Road EntrancesPedestrians 48
    49. 49. THE HIERARCHY OF PROVISION Stakeholders and Users – Wish us to invest money in segregated networks 49
    50. 50. 50
    51. 51. 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 51
    52. 52. 52Photo by Rob Marshall, ERCDT
    53. 53. 53Photo by Rob Marshall, ERCDT
    54. 54. Other Options Side Road Crossing – Surfacing On Road Give Way Markings 54
    55. 55. Other Options Side Road Crossing – Bend out Raise Table crossing both with on road give way markings 55
    56. 56. 56
    57. 57. 57
    58. 58. Other Options Main Road Crossing – Traffic Island 58
    59. 59. CrossingsDesign Site SpecificOne size does not fit allCrossing AttributesSimpleField of Vision for All usersDecision MakingCycling by DesignTransport for London 59
    60. 60. Workshop – On/Off Road DesignNorth Claremont StreetTwo Way Street2 Travelling LanesOn Street - Horizontal Parking 60
    61. 61. 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: 61
    62. 62. Workshop – On/Off Road DesignBerkeley StreetTwo Way Street2 Travelling LanesOn Street - Horizontal Parking 62
    63. 63. 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: 63
    64. 64. Photo: Alex BertulisContra Flow Cycle lane 64Geneva, Switzerland
    65. 65. Photo: Tom BertulisContra Flow laneMunich, Germany 65
    66. 66. Photo: Tom BertulisContra Flow laneChester, England 66
    67. 67. Photo: Tom BertulisSegregated Contra Flow Lane 67 Glasgow, Scotland
    68. 68. Photo: Tom Bertulis Photo: Tom BertulisSegregated Contra Flow Lane Glasgow, Scotland 68
    69. 69. Photo: Tom BertulisContra Flow Lane demarcated with a coloured cycle lane 69 Glasgow, Scotland
    70. 70. Photo: Tom BertulisUnsegregated Contra-Flow cycle facility 70 Glasgow, Scotland
    71. 71. Photo: Tom BertulisUnsegregated Contra-Flow cycle facility Munich, Germany 71
    72. 72. Photo: Tom Bertulis Contra-Flow facility 72Copenhagen, Denmark
    73. 73. Photo: Tom Bertulis Contra-Flow facility 73Copenhagen, Denmark
    74. 74. Photo: Tom BertulisContra Flow lane 74London, England
    75. 75. Photo: Alex Bertulis12mph zone with unsegregated Contra Flow lane 75 Geneva, Switzerland
    76. 76. Photo: Tom BertulisHome Zone with gateway 76Nottingham, England
    77. 77. Signing RoutesWhat must we comply with?What is there to help us? 77
    78. 78. Signing Routes Who should we be signing for? What should would be signing? How do we get our message across? 78
    79. 79. Photo: Tom BertulisDirectional signing with route number for cyclists 79Glasgow, Scotland
    80. 80. Photo: Tom Bertulis “Cyclists Rejoin Road” Sign 80Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland
    81. 81. Photo: Tom Bertulis“Cycle Lane Look Both Ways” Sign 81 Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland
    82. 82. Photo: Tom Bertulis 82“Cyclists and Pedestrians Only” marking along beachfront pathway Troon, Scotland
    83. 83. Photo: Tom Bertulis Shared use sign 83Glasgow, Scotland
    84. 84. Signing Routes Sustrans – Technical Information - Note 5 It must comply with TSRGD  Liability / Risk 84
    85. 85. Signing Routes 85
    86. 86. 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? 86
    87. 87. LUNCH 87
    88. 88. SITE VISIT 88
    89. 89. EqualityInstead 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-viWCCC Conferencehttp://walkcycleconnect.org/downloads/2012-presentations/ 89
    90. 90. Site Workshop – 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 90
    91. 91. Site Workshop – Principles DESIGN PRINCIPLES – LTN 2/08 – CBD - 2010  Convenience  Accessibility  Safety  Comfort  Attractiveness 91
    92. 92. Site Workshop – Feedback Site Review  Were the principles applied?  Were Route Objectives Met?  On Site Challenges? 92
    93. 93. SITE REVIEW 93
    94. 94. SITE REVIEW 94
    95. 95. SITE REVIEW 95
    96. 96. SITE REVIEW 96
    97. 97. SITE REVIEW 97
    98. 98. LEARNING OUTCOMESBe aware of and be able to: Design Principles Set Route Objectives Review On/Off Road Contra Flow/Lanes Review Signing of Routes 98
    99. 99. FINAL QUESTIONS? Providing training to deliver solutions
    100. 100. THANK YOU TOGLASGOW CITY COUNCIL AND SUSTRANSProviding training to deliver solutions

    ×