Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
HeadingMADE
Planning and Designing for Cycling
May 2015
Phil Jones and Adrian Lord,
Phil Jones Associates
With Acknowledge...
HeadingContent
• Background Information
• Planning for cycling
• Cycling on Links
• Birmingham Cycle Revolution
Lunch
• Ju...
Heading
Background Information
HeadingDocuments
HeadingWhat about you?
Tell us about your organisation and role
• What’s your level of experience in designing for cycling...
HeadingWhy grow cycling?
HeadingWhy Grow Cycling?
Benefits
• To Society
– Health costs
– Congestion relief
– Environmental improvement
– Economic b...
Heading
Quantified health impacts
Road traffic casualties
Road traffic deaths
Attributed respiratory and coronary illnesse...
HeadingHealth Benefits - Evidence
• Physical activity has a “strong dose-response relationship with health
outcomes”
• In ...
Heading
Measuring Health Benefits –
World Health Organisation HEAT tool
• Endorsed by Department for
Transport
• Monetises...
HeadingTransport/environmental benefits
• Reduction in car use – less
– Congestion
– Emissions, Noise
– Collisions etc
Eng...
HeadingWhat’s happening to cycling?
HeadingCycling
• Low level compared to other European countries
• Long term decline, slight overall increase lately
• But ...
Growth in cycling in London
2005/06 – 34%
2013/14 – 26%
2013/14 – 74%
2005/06 – 66%
Summer
Winter
2000
2014
HeadingTrends in Cycling
Heading
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
GB Cycle Traffic 1949 to 2013 –
Billion Veh Km
HeadingGender – walking, England
Netherlands England and Wales
HeadingGender – cycling, England
HeadingGender – cycling, Netherlands
Motor Traffic Growth?
Heading
HeadingCasualties
• 84% of cyclist casualties at or near a junction (2010)
• Of those
– 64% at T/staggered junction
– 21% ...
Heading
Cycle Safety: Assessing and reducing conflict
2011 collision data
1. Other vehicle turns right across path of P/C
...
USA
GERMANY
UK
NETHERLANDS
Long term trend in fatalities and KSI in London
Pucher and Buehler,2008
SLIGHT
SERIOUS
FATAL
Heading
Big picture thinking
HeadingCopenhagen - a leading cycling city
Copenhagen Modal Split - All Trips (2006)
Heading
HeadingWhy do Copenhageners cycle ?
It’s faster 55%
It’s more convenient 33%
It’s healthy 32%
It’s cheap 29%
’Good way to ...
Heading
%
TfL – Attitudes Towards Cycling 2011
Heading
Understanding Walking and Cycling –
Research by Lancaster University
...from our analysis of the influence of the
...
Heading
Planning for Cycling
HeadingWhat types of scheme are we delivering?
Cycle-specific improvements:
• On-carriageway facilities
• Off-carriageway ...
Heading
Non cycle-specific highway schemes
• Highway ‘improvement’ schemes
• Streetscape improvements
• Developer funded S...
HeadingCyclists’ Five Needs
• Coherence
• Directness
• Safety
• Comfort
• Attractiveness
Routes that connect and take you
...
HeadingCoherence
• continuous and connected network
• with no gaps or weak points
• consistent level of service route-by-r...
HeadingDirectness
• routes that link key destinations in the shortest and
quickest way possible
• geometry takes account o...
HeadingSafety
• High levels of actual and subjective safety
• separation and protection from motor traffic
where necessary...
HeadingComfort
• a high standard of construction with a smooth riding
surface
• intuitive and comfortable transitions betw...
HeadingAttractiveness
• tidier, decluttered streets
• cycling facilities well integrated with other street functions
• int...
Heading
Dimensions of design cyclist
1475
1650
HeadingPrimary and Secondary Riding Positioning
HeadingBeyond the bicycle…
“The Equality Act (2010) requires authorities to
make reasonable adjustments to remove barriers...
HeadingBeyond the bicycle…
HeadingWales Active Travel Design Guidance
Heading
W = power (w)
Cv = speed of the bicycle (m/s)
ηmech = mechanical efficiency of the bicycle
Σm = mass of rider and ...
Heading
Conversion of food
into propulsive force
via the crank shaft
Design
interventions
Heat loss to
muscles and
environ...
HeadingGradients
HeadingThree Types of Good Cycle Route:
• Paths/tracks/lanes on busier streets with a
degree of separation appropriate for...
HeadingWhen to segregate?
HeadingWales Active
Travel Guidance
HeadingNetwork Density
• Ideally – 250m between routes
• Will take time – 500m to 1000m initially
HeadingInformation Gathering
• Where are people travelling by bike now?
• Origins and Destinations
• Perceived barriers
• ...
HeadingMapping the Network
• Identify key origins and destinations
• Cluster Os and Ds where sensible
• Plot desire lines
...
HeadingRoute Assessment
• Convert Desire Lines to routes
– Choose most direct route available
– Is the route already accep...
HeadingRoute Assessment, Contd
• Must consider existing motor traffic conditions
• Speeds and volumes of traffic should no...
Heading
Heading
Norwich
Heading
• Measurable criteria, grouped by
Design Principle
• Developed from IHT tool, Go
Dutch matrix, emerging TfL best
p...
Heading
Cyclist Level of Service Assessment Tool
Low level scores on criticalfactors must be mitigatedthrough realignment ...
Heading
• Wales Audit Tool based on LCDS
• Cycling – max score 50, must achieve 35 to be
‘Active Travel Route
HeadingJunction Assessment Tool
Heading
HeadingCycling on new developments
• Quiet streets, cyclists can share the road
• Primary routes need dedicated cycling sp...
Heading
Heading
Cycling on Links
HeadingPlain links - routes without cycle facilities
• Max 5000 vehicles/24 hours, ideally <2500 (Wales guidance)
• 85th p...
HeadingCycle symbol only for route continuity
HeadingCentre line removal
HeadingFiltered permeability
• Providing advantage to cycle
traffic by exemptions from
general restrictions
• Can create l...
HeadingAchieving permeability
• Two-way cycle traffic on streets which
are one-way for motor traffic
• Point closures open...
HeadingOne-way streets/gyratories
• Can result in significant diversion for
cyclists
• Can create increased traffic speeds...
Heading
Shared Space and Home Zones
• Increasing experience of Shared Space
– Reduction in distinction of different parts
...
HeadingLeonard Circus, Hackney
HeadingVehicle restricted areas
Default should be to permit cycling as are
usually
• Attractive
• Safe
• Direct
Need to ma...
HeadingTraffic Lane Widths for mixed cycle/motor traffic
 Traffic lanes used by cyclists should not be 3.65m (12 feet) wi...
HeadingTraffic Lane Widths
 ‘Tight Shared’ at low flows
- 5.5m to 6.4m overall carriageway width (2.75m to 3.2m lanes)
- ...
Heading
HeadingCorner Radii
 Tight corner radii should be used in urban
areas to reduce speed of turning traffic.
 Side road ent...
HeadingOn-Carriageway Facilities (Cycle Lanes)
• Increase drivers’ awareness of
cyclists
• Encourage drivers to leave spac...
HeadingTypes of Cycle Lane
• Advisory
• Mandatory
• Light Segregated
• Contraflow
(but may not need a lane!)
HeadingCycle lane widths
Heading
HeadingAdvisory cycle lanes
• No TRO or statutory consultation needed
• Less signing clutter
• Can be used:
– adjacent to ...
Heading
Advisory cycle lane with no centre line
Heading
HeadingCycle Streets
• A Street dominated by cyclists
• General traffic for access only
• Overtaking limited by design
Heading
HeadingDutch Cycle Street
HeadingCycle Street
HeadingMandatory cycle lanes
• For exclusive use by cyclists during
specified hours of operation
• Motorists can be subjec...
HeadingMandatory cycle lane within bus lane
HeadingLight Segregation
• Worldwide phenomenon –
Protected Bike Lanes
• Supported in Mayor’s Vision for
Cycling
• Cycling...
HeadingLight segregation: International examples
HeadingIndicative use of light segregation (20mph)
HeadingLight Segregation - Advantages
It is cheap <10% of costs of heavy segregation
It is adaptable and flexible
It gets ...
Light Segregation Rating
Protection: How protected do cyclists feel
and what is the expected level of
encroachment.
Instal...
1.Buffer lane with studs
Protection Cost
Durability Aesthetics
2.Wands
Protection Cost
Durability Aesthetics
3.Turtles
Protection Cost
Durability Aesthetics
4.Lacasitos (Tobys)
Protection Cost
Durability Aesthetics
5.Armadillos
Protection Cost
Durability Aesthetics
6.Orcas
Protection Cost
Durability Aesthetics
7.Hedgehogs
Protection Cost
Durability Aesthetics
8.Floating parking
Protection Cost
Durability Aesthetics
9.Barriers
Protection Cost
Durability Aesthetics
10.Planters
Protection Cost
Durability Aesthetics
11.Rigid bollards
Protection Cost
Durability Aesthetics
Heading2-way cycling on one-way streets
• Cycle tracks or mandatory cycle
lanes where traffic flows are
moderate to high
•...
HeadingCity of London
HeadingCycle lanes along kerbside parking
• Advisory cycle lanes outside
marked bays
• Allow sufficient width for
opening ...
Heading
HeadingStepped Cycle Lanes
• Some examples in the UK
• Encouraged by Local Transport Note 1/12
• Legally, mandatory or adv...
Heading
Heading
Heading
Heading
HeadingKerb Segregated Cycle Lanes
• Protected from traffic by upstand
• High level of perceived safety/
attractiveness
• ...
Heading
HeadingDirection of operation
• Two-way, unless made one-way by TRO
• Central broken white line aids lane discipline
on tw...
HeadingCycle lanes into cycle tracks
• Transition should be clear,
smooth, safe and comfortable for
cyclists
• Minimise sp...
HeadingCycle lanes at bus stops
• Often cycle lanes are terminated
at bus stops, and recommence at
the far end of the cage...
Heading
HeadingCycle tracks at bus stops
• Ensure clarity over use of space
available
• Continue cycle track or change
to unsegreg...
HeadingBus Stop Bypass
Heading
Heading
Heading
Heading
Heading
• Best where traffic flows and speeds are
high, and frontage activity low
• Less suitable if frequent interruption...
HeadingShared Use Footways
• LTN 1/12 says white line segregation is ineffective
• Simply converting a footway with little...
HeadingEffective segregation from pedestrians in urban areas
• More comfortable for both groups
• Allows higher cycle spee...
Heading
But shared use works well in rural areas
HeadingAnd provides more capacity/less clutter in complex places
Heading
Greenways/Off-Highway Routes
• Routes through parks and green spaces,
along waterways
• Can be excellent cycle rou...
Heading
Heading
HeadingHorizontal curvature
• Avoid instantaneous changes of
direction – 4m minimum radius
• Consider local widening and b...
HeadingSpeed control measures on links
• Deviating cycle track to break
straight alignment
• Slow markings or warning sign...
Heading Birmingham Cycle Revolution
Birmingham Cycle Revolution
Motor City or Cycle City?
Cycling in Birmingham
• 1-2% mode share
• Busiest routes have about 500- 600 cyclists per day
• 75% growth in 5 years and ...
Overview – Birmingham Cycling Revolution
• City Council secured £24m Cycle City Ambition Grant (CCAG) funding to
deliver t...
2013 – 2016 Network
2015 – 2018 Network
Partnership with Canal and River Trust
Top Cycle Location - Partnership with schools and
employers
Access to Bicycles – Community Partnerships
Part of a wider city vision – Birmingham Connected
City Centre cycle routes
City Centre – Permeable and Legible
• Newhall St to New St link via Bennetts Hill – North to South
• Five Ways to Lancaste...
Introduction to the Site Visit
• Queensway and Park St area
• Number of cycle routes converge at Albert St / Fazeley St
• ...
Queensway and Park St
Park St and Moor St Queensway
Exercise
• Link from University to East End Park
• East End Park to Moor St
• Junction – Moor St Queensway and Jennens Rd
...
HeadingLunch!
HeadingJunctions and crossings
HeadingPrinciples of junction design
Junctions need to be designed to
• Minimise delay
• Minimise hazard by managing confl...
HeadingManaging conflicts
• The number of conflicts at a
junction increases with the
number of movements
• Conflicts may b...
HeadingIntegration versus Segregation
• Integration can be appropriate when
speeds and flows not high
• Integrating cycle ...
HeadingPriority junctions
HeadingPriority junctions - casualties
• Most common junction type
• 53% of cycle casualties (T-junctions, cross-roads)
20...
HeadingPriority junctions - issues
Issues for cyclists:
• Moving ahead through a priority junction:
• Turning right into a...
Heading
• Reduce speed on link
• Reduce speed on turning
• Reduce number of traffic lanes
• Keep corner radii tight
• Use ...
Heading
• Side Road Entry Treatments have
benefit for both pedestrians and cyclists
• TRL study showed significant reducti...
HeadingCycle lanes and symbols at priority junctions
• Use 1010 markings at junction
• Aim to provide extra 0.5m buffer sp...
Heading
HeadingSegregated lanes and tracks at priority junctions
• Options for maintaining cycle priority
through priority junctio...
Heading
HeadingTwo way tracks at side roads not preferred
Heading
HeadingBending out, space to yield
HeadingBending out, space to yield
HeadingBending out, space to yield
HeadingTrack becomes lane at junction
HeadingTrack becomes lane at junction
HeadingTrack becomes lane at junction
Heading
Continue track without deviation
HeadingContinuous footway
Heading
HeadingContinuous footway and cycleway
HeadingContinuous footway and cycleway
HeadingCrossings
• Important to provide continuity of off-carriageway cycle routes
across busy roads
• A crossing is simpl...
HeadingCycle priority crossings without signal control
• Signing defines who has priority
• Options:
– Road narrowing
– Ce...
HeadingCycling Zebra in TSRGD 2015
Heading‘Shared Use Cycle/Pedestrian Crossing’
HeadingCycle track zebra
• No beacons/zig zags
• Expected in TSRGD 2015
HeadingSignal-controlled cycle crossings
• Toucan crossings
• Parallel cycle and pedestrian crossings
• Elephant footprint...
Heading
Heading
Heading
HeadingRoundabouts and Gyratories
HeadingRoundabouts
• UK roundabouts rarely comfortable
for cyclists
• Typical designs bad for cycle safety
and comfort
– M...
Heading
• Reduce speeds on the approaches
• Reduce speeds through the junction
• Reduce number of traffic lanes to one
• R...
HeadingContinental geometry
• Approaches and exits perpendicular
• Entries and exits ~4 m wide
• Entry and exit radius ~10...
Heading
Heading
HeadingCompact Roundabout
• Included in DMRB TD 16/07
• Similar to Continental, but less cycle-
friendly
• Smaller island ...
HeadingContinental geometry
• At low flows/speeds, cyclists can remain on
carriageway
• Indicative upper limit for on-carr...
Heading
Lund, Sweden
25m
35m
Heading
Lund, Sweden
Heading
Heading
Radegund Road, Cambridge
Heading
HeadingCycle markings on circulatory – primary position
Heading
Nantes, France
Heading
Nantes, France
Heading
Implied roundabout, Bexleyheath
HeadingExternal Cycle Tracks
• Greater subjective safety if cycling
provided for off-carriageway
• Continental/compact geo...
HeadingDutch Roundabout without priority
Heading
Assen, Netherlands
HeadingDutch Roundabout with priority
41m
54m
Heading
Utrecht
Heading
Utrecht
Heading
Heading
Heading
HeadingCycling Zebra, legal from March 2015
Heading
Boston
Heading
Stourbridge
Heading
HeadingSignalised Crossings
• Large delays if need to
cross several arms
• 2-way track reduces
problem
• Staggered crossin...
Heading
Harrow
Heading
Croydon
HeadingSignalised Roundabouts
• General benefits from signals
• Hold the left turn -
Wandsworth
• Cross or circumnavigate
...
Heading
Hyde Park Corner
Heading
Hyde Park Corner
HeadingOne stage cycle crossings
• Cyclists cross in one stage
• During short all-red for motor traffic
HeadingTwo stage ped/one stage cycle
Heading
Queens Circus, Wandsworth
HeadingWandsworth
Queens Circus, Wandsworth
Heading
Queens Circus, Wandsworth
Heading
HeadingGrade Separation at Roundabouts
HeadingGrade Separation
Heading
Heading
Heading
Heading
HeadingSignals (including signalised crossings)
HeadingBenefits of signal-controlled junctions
• Advantageous for cycle traffic,
• They can gain priority in the
stream by...
HeadingAdvanced stop lines
• Advantages
– Places cycle traffic ahead and in line of
sight of motorised traffic if arriving...
Heading
Heading
Heading
Heading
Heading
Heading
HeadingLeft Hooking at Signals
Heading
Heading
• Part-width ASLs already in use – likely to gain general
authorisation in TSRGD
• Cyclists will legally be able t...
Heading
HeadingLow level signals
• Currently being trialled at TRL
• Appear in consultation draft of
TSRGD
• Will give much more f...
Heading
HeadingOn-street trial at Bow roundabout
Heading
HeadingBow Cycle Gate
HeadingSeparate stages
HeadingCycle track entering junction
• Signals designed in normal way
• Detection of cycle traffic by
loops or microwave
Heading
HeadingTwo stage turns
• Default solution in Copenhagen
• Relies partly on give way on
turning rules
• Legally possible in...
Heading
Heading
HeadingInformal two-stage right turn
HeadingTwo stage turns in Southampton
HeadingTwo stage turns in Southampton
HeadingTwo Stage Turns - Off Street Trials
HeadingTwo Stage Turns - On Street Trials
HeadingSigns and markings
HeadingSign Types
• Flag type signs at simple road
junctions
• Map type signs at more
complex junctions
• Cycle sign detai...
HeadingCycle specific signing
• To show where cyclists can
legally go
• To promote cycling and raise its
status
• To keep ...
HeadingConfusing and unnecessary signs: to be
avoided
• 958.1 Advanced warning
sign for with-flow cycle lane
ahead
• 962.1...
HeadingDirection signing
• Strategic destinations: well known
locations, from five miles away)
• Local destinations: e.g. ...
HeadingTypes of direction signs
HeadingDesign considerations
• Use smallest practical text and
plate size – normally 30mm x-
height, can be 25mm to reduce...
HeadingSign coherence
HeadingSurface markings
• Can be good way to communicate
information to cyclists
• No TROs for: cycle symbols,
‘Keep Clear...
HeadingConstruction and surfacing
HeadingOn-carriageway routes
• Choice of surface material depends on location
• Materials range from SMA and HRA to graded...
HeadingOff-carriageway routes
• Machine laid for good
longitudinal profile
• Cyclists simply will not use off-
road routes...
HeadingLighting
• Cyclists may have concerns about
personal security
• Consider aesthetic and conservation
issues in parks...
HeadingCycle Parking
Cycle parking should:
• Support any type of bike
• Enable both frame and front
wheel to be secured
• ...
Heading
HeadingLocation
• Close to the destination
• Surveillance and lighting
• Same side of a main road
• Access from all direct...
HeadingLocation at different destinations
• Shopping streets: small groups at
50m intervals
• High volume visitor attracti...
HeadingWe’re done!
On your bike...
Designing & Planning for Cycling, Phil Jones & Adrian Lord
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Designing & Planning for Cycling, Phil Jones & Adrian Lord

1,352 views

Published on

Presentation on Design and Planning for cycling from the Designing and Planning for Cycling workshop at MADE on 19th May 2015. Presentation by Phil Jones and Adrian Lord, Phil Jones Associates.

  • Be the first to comment

Designing & Planning for Cycling, Phil Jones & Adrian Lord

  1. 1. HeadingMADE Planning and Designing for Cycling May 2015 Phil Jones and Adrian Lord, Phil Jones Associates With Acknowledgements to Transport for London/Urban Design London
  2. 2. HeadingContent • Background Information • Planning for cycling • Cycling on Links • Birmingham Cycle Revolution Lunch • Junctions and crossings • Signs and markings/Construction/Cycle parking • Design Exercise
  3. 3. Heading Background Information
  4. 4. HeadingDocuments
  5. 5. HeadingWhat about you? Tell us about your organisation and role • What’s your level of experience in designing for cycling? • Do you regularly make everyday trips – for work, shopping, visiting friends - by cycle? • If you do…why? • If you don’t…why not? • Are you typical? • What about others?
  6. 6. HeadingWhy grow cycling?
  7. 7. HeadingWhy Grow Cycling? Benefits • To Society – Health costs – Congestion relief – Environmental improvement – Economic benefits • Personal – Well being, weight loss – Cost – Speed and convenience – Pleasure The Department of Health estimates physical inactivity costs London’s PCTs more than £105m per year.
  8. 8. Heading Quantified health impacts Road traffic casualties Road traffic deaths Attributed respiratory and coronary illnesses due to air pollution road traffic noise (eg sleep disturbance) Other health impacts sedentary car dependent lifestyles in place of walking and cycling non-attributed respiratory and coronary illnesses, cancers, osteoporosis, diabetes loss of independent mobility (eg children and the elderly) reduced access to affordable healthy diets reduced access to health services social isolation due to community severance loss of green spaces to motor traffic Climate change - vector-borne disease , migration etc… Other impacts yet unidentified Source – Dr Adrian Davis The Morbidity and Mortality Iceberg
  9. 9. HeadingHealth Benefits - Evidence • Physical activity has a “strong dose-response relationship with health outcomes” • In other words… • Any increase in activity is good for you! • Many studies, eg – Copenhagen study – People cycling to work; – 28% reduction in mortality
  10. 10. Heading Measuring Health Benefits – World Health Organisation HEAT tool • Endorsed by Department for Transport • Monetises health benefits of more walking and cycling • Used to justify Governement funding– eg Cycle City Ambition Grant
  11. 11. HeadingTransport/environmental benefits • Reduction in car use – less – Congestion – Emissions, Noise – Collisions etc England data (2013) • 67% of trips less than 5 miles • 55% made by car • 33% on foot! • But only 2% by cycle
  12. 12. HeadingWhat’s happening to cycling?
  13. 13. HeadingCycling • Low level compared to other European countries • Long term decline, slight overall increase lately • But some areas of rapid growth (eg London) and high cycle use (eg Cambridge) • Strong potential for growth if conditions are right
  14. 14. Growth in cycling in London 2005/06 – 34% 2013/14 – 26% 2013/14 – 74% 2005/06 – 66% Summer Winter 2000 2014
  15. 15. HeadingTrends in Cycling
  16. 16. Heading 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 GB Cycle Traffic 1949 to 2013 – Billion Veh Km
  17. 17. HeadingGender – walking, England Netherlands England and Wales
  18. 18. HeadingGender – cycling, England
  19. 19. HeadingGender – cycling, Netherlands
  20. 20. Motor Traffic Growth?
  21. 21. Heading
  22. 22. HeadingCasualties • 84% of cyclist casualties at or near a junction (2010) • Of those – 64% at T/staggered junction – 21% at Crossroads – 10% at Roundabout/Mini – 24% with signal control
  23. 23. Heading Cycle Safety: Assessing and reducing conflict 2011 collision data 1. Other vehicle turns right across path of P/C 2. P/C and other vehicle travelling alongside each other 3. Other vehicle turns left across the path of P/C 4. P/C hits open door / swerves to avoid open door of other vehicle. 5. Other vehicle fails to give way or disobeys junction control & collides with P/C 6. Other vehicle runs into rear of P/C Common collision types resulting in cyclist KSIs: 1 4 52 3 6
  24. 24. USA GERMANY UK NETHERLANDS Long term trend in fatalities and KSI in London Pucher and Buehler,2008 SLIGHT SERIOUS FATAL
  25. 25. Heading Big picture thinking
  26. 26. HeadingCopenhagen - a leading cycling city Copenhagen Modal Split - All Trips (2006)
  27. 27. Heading
  28. 28. HeadingWhy do Copenhageners cycle ? It’s faster 55% It’s more convenient 33% It’s healthy 32% It’s cheap 29% ’Good way to start the day’ 21% Shortest route to work 10% Environment/climate 9%
  29. 29. Heading % TfL – Attitudes Towards Cycling 2011
  30. 30. Heading Understanding Walking and Cycling – Research by Lancaster University ...from our analysis of the influence of the physical environment on walking and cycling it is clear that traffic is a major deterrent for all but the most committed cyclists. “I am not comfortable at all with cycling. I am always scared of the traffic around me.” (Molly, Leicester) “My ideal would be if it were possible, transport wise, for cycle paths to be absolutely physically removed from roads as in a proper kerb separating cyclists from traffic...” (Holly, Lancaster)
  31. 31. Heading Planning for Cycling
  32. 32. HeadingWhat types of scheme are we delivering? Cycle-specific improvements: • On-carriageway facilities • Off-carriageway facilities • Traffic management changes • Off-highway routes (Greenways) All positive for cycling
  33. 33. Heading Non cycle-specific highway schemes • Highway ‘improvement’ schemes • Streetscape improvements • Developer funded S278/S106 schemes • Road safety/Traffic calming schemes Must also be positive for cycling How do we ensure conditions for cycling are improved in everything we do?
  34. 34. HeadingCyclists’ Five Needs • Coherence • Directness • Safety • Comfort • Attractiveness Routes that connect and take you where you want to go; without undue deviation or delay; that are and feel safe; are smooth and easy to use with minimum physical and mental effort; and in pleasant surroundings
  35. 35. HeadingCoherence • continuous and connected network • with no gaps or weak points • consistent level of service route-by-route • a legible network that makes it obvious – where the route is, – how it continues and – who has priority where
  36. 36. HeadingDirectness • routes that link key destinations in the shortest and quickest way possible • geometry takes account of the speeds that cyclists want to travel at ride • areas that are permeable to cyclists with exemptions from traffic restrictions • cycle parking close to destinations
  37. 37. HeadingSafety • High levels of actual and subjective safety • separation and protection from motor traffic where necessary • separate cycle movements at larger junctions • low-speed and motor vehicle-restricted environments where possible • places that feel safe to cycle at any time of the day or night
  38. 38. HeadingComfort • a high standard of construction with a smooth riding surface • intuitive and comfortable transitions between different kinds of facilities • facilities with adequate width, allowing for different kinds of cycle and overtaking/riding side-by-side • undulations, gradients, deflections and pot holes are minimised
  39. 39. HeadingAttractiveness • tidier, decluttered streets • cycling facilities well integrated with other street functions • integrated into wider environmental enhancements, careful detailed design of elements such as kerbs, road markings and surfacing • high quality, secure cycle parking facilities
  40. 40. Heading Dimensions of design cyclist 1475 1650
  41. 41. HeadingPrimary and Secondary Riding Positioning
  42. 42. HeadingBeyond the bicycle… “The Equality Act (2010) requires authorities to make reasonable adjustments to remove barriers for disabled people. This …covers disabled cyclists as well as pedestrians” “Cycles are often used as mobility aids…some disabled cyclists use non-standard cycles, some do not, but are not able to walk or carry their cycle…”
  43. 43. HeadingBeyond the bicycle…
  44. 44. HeadingWales Active Travel Design Guidance
  45. 45. Heading W = power (w) Cv = speed of the bicycle (m/s) ηmech = mechanical efficiency of the bicycle Σm = mass of rider and machine (kg) g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s^2) Cr = coefficient of rolling resistance s = gradient (%) a = acceleration of the bicycle (m/s^2) mw = effective rotational mass of the wheels and the tyres (kg) CD = aerodynamic drag coefficient A = frontal area of rider and machine (m^2) ρ = density of air (kg/m^3) Cw = headwind (m/s) Designing to minimise the effort required to cycle
  46. 46. Heading Conversion of food into propulsive force via the crank shaft Design interventions Heat loss to muscles and environment Bicycle efficiency, ability to maintain speed Bicycle speed range 0 – 83mph Road surface & Rolling resistance Acceleration Gradient Air resistance Mass of rider and bicycle and effect of gravity Manufacturer improvements Smooth surfacing eg. SMA Avoid stop/start Provide less steep alternatives Avoid exposure Reduce area
  47. 47. HeadingGradients
  48. 48. HeadingThree Types of Good Cycle Route: • Paths/tracks/lanes on busier streets with a degree of separation appropriate for motor traffic flows/speeds and the demand for cycling. • Quiet streets with max 30kph/20mph speed limits and often restrictions on motor vehicle access, particularly for through traffic • Routes free from motor traffic (e.g. bicycle-only streets, paths in parks and along old railway lines, country paths) but still frequently connected to the rest of the network
  49. 49. HeadingWhen to segregate?
  50. 50. HeadingWales Active Travel Guidance
  51. 51. HeadingNetwork Density • Ideally – 250m between routes • Will take time – 500m to 1000m initially
  52. 52. HeadingInformation Gathering • Where are people travelling by bike now? • Origins and Destinations • Perceived barriers • Views on existing routes • Requests for new routes • Quality of existing network
  53. 53. HeadingMapping the Network • Identify key origins and destinations • Cluster Os and Ds where sensible • Plot desire lines • Decide on route type – Primary: corridors between neighbourhoods, town centres – Secondary: routes serving key attractors such as major employers, schools, colleges etc – Local routes: basic network along quieter streets that fill in the network
  54. 54. HeadingRoute Assessment • Convert Desire Lines to routes – Choose most direct route available – Is the route already acceptable for cycling? – If not, can it be made so? – Use Audit tool to assess route quality and potential route quality – If not, choose the next most direct route
  55. 55. HeadingRoute Assessment, Contd • Must consider existing motor traffic conditions • Speeds and volumes of traffic should not be regarded as fixed – Reduce volumes through filtered permeability – Reduce speeds through traffic calming – Use appropriate segregation to suit remaining speeds and volumes
  56. 56. Heading
  57. 57. Heading Norwich
  58. 58. Heading • Measurable criteria, grouped by Design Principle • Developed from IHT tool, Go Dutch matrix, emerging TfL best practice • Applicable to individual schemes, options or route choices • Adjustable to fit different route types Level of Service
  59. 59. Heading Cyclist Level of Service Assessment Tool Low level scores on criticalfactors must be mitigatedthrough realignment or highway layout changes irrespectiveof high scores in other categories Measurement Score (for reference) ROUTE/LINK/JUNCTION SCORE Principle Factor Indicator 0(Red) 1 (Amber) 2 (Green) Safety Collision risk Left/right hook at junctions Side road junctions frequent and/or untreated. Major junctions conflicting movements not seperated Side road junctions fewer and with effective entry treatments. Major junctions route alignment stream conflicts seperated Side roads closed or treated to blend in with footway. Major junction all conflicting streams seperated 6 Critical Collision alongside or from behind Cyclists in unrestricted traffic lanes or cycle lanes less than 2m wide Cyclists in semi segregated cycle lanes at least 2m wide on carriageway Cyclists away from unrestricted traffic 6 Critical Kerbside activity (bus stops, parking loading) or collision with open door Frequent kerbside activity on nearside of cyclists – narrow/no cycle lanes Less frequent kerbside activity on nearside of cyclists – wide cycle lanes Segregated cycle lanes (floating kerbside activity) when frequent or no kerbside activity 6 Critical Other vehicle fails to give way or disobeys signals Poor visibility, route continuity across junctions and understanding of priority Clear route continuity through junctions / good visibility and understanding or priority. Cyclist priority across minor junctions Cycle priority at signalled and uncontrolled junctions 2 Feeling of safety Separation from heavy traffic Cyclists in unrestricted traffic lanes or cycle lanes less than 2m wide Cyclists in cycle lanes at least 2m wide on carriageway Cyclists away from unrestricted traffic 2 (If not segregated) Speed of traffic 85% percentile greater than 25mph 85% percentile 20-25mph 85% percentile less than 20mph 6 Critical (If not segregated) Volume of traffic expressed as Vehicle Risk Unit (VRU) >5000 VRU per day 2000-5000 VRU per day <2000 VRU per day 6 Critical Interaction with heavy traffic (HGVs and buses) Frequent interaction between cyclists and HGVs/buses Occasional interaction between cyclists and HGVs/buses No interaction between cyclists and HGVs/buses 6 Critical Social safety Risk/fear of crime High fear of crime due to ambush spots, loitering, poor street maintenance Low fear of crime as open, well designed and maintained area No fear of crime as high quality streetscene and pleasant interaction 2 Lighting Large stretches of darkness Small stretches of darkness Route lit thoroughly 2 Isolation Route passes far from other activity Route always close to activity Route always overlooked 2 Highway environment behaviour Highway design encourages aggressive user behaviour Highway design controls behaviour Highway design encourages civilised behaviour through negotiation and forgiveness 2 SAFE – Objective and Subjective (48/100points)
  60. 60. Heading • Wales Audit Tool based on LCDS • Cycling – max score 50, must achieve 35 to be ‘Active Travel Route
  61. 61. HeadingJunction Assessment Tool
  62. 62. Heading
  63. 63. HeadingCycling on new developments • Quiet streets, cyclists can share the road • Primary routes need dedicated cycling space with priority over side roads, not shared use paths
  64. 64. Heading
  65. 65. Heading Cycling on Links
  66. 66. HeadingPlain links - routes without cycle facilities • Max 5000 vehicles/24 hours, ideally <2500 (Wales guidance) • 85th percentile speeds < 30mph (ideally sub 20mph/limit) • No formalised cycle lanes or tracks necessary
  67. 67. HeadingCycle symbol only for route continuity
  68. 68. HeadingCentre line removal
  69. 69. HeadingFiltered permeability • Providing advantage to cycle traffic by exemptions from general restrictions • Can create large network with minimal capital expenditure • May be difficult to achieve politically • Can polarize local opinion
  70. 70. HeadingAchieving permeability • Two-way cycle traffic on streets which are one-way for motor traffic • Point closures open for cycle traffic • Allowance in vehicle restricted areas • Parkland short-cuts • Barriers overcome
  71. 71. HeadingOne-way streets/gyratories • Can result in significant diversion for cyclists • Can create increased traffic speeds • Review need for one-way/gyratory systems generally • Permit two-way cycle flow where possible if they are retained – Exemptions from one-way – Contraflow lanes can be provided – But not always necessary
  72. 72. Heading Shared Space and Home Zones • Increasing experience of Shared Space – Reduction in distinction of different parts of the highway – Reduction in traffic management/control features – Can involve shared surfaces • Can work well for cyclists (and pedestrians) if speeds are low - < 20mph • Home Zones always suitable for cycling
  73. 73. HeadingLeonard Circus, Hackney
  74. 74. HeadingVehicle restricted areas Default should be to permit cycling as are usually • Attractive • Safe • Direct Need to manage potential conflict with pedestrians: • TRL report 583 - Cyclists slow down in presence of pedestrians
  75. 75. HeadingTraffic Lane Widths for mixed cycle/motor traffic  Traffic lanes used by cyclists should not be 3.65m (12 feet) wide  Narrower lanes (< 3.2m) will reduce speeds and overall carriageway width, and require drivers to pull around cyclists.  Wide nearside lanes of 4.0-4.5m width provide adequate space to pass cyclists
  76. 76. HeadingTraffic Lane Widths  ‘Tight Shared’ at low flows - 5.5m to 6.4m overall carriageway width (2.75m to 3.2m lanes) - encouraging 20mph traffic speeds  ‘Cycle Space Provision’ at medium and higher flows - Minimum 8m overall carriageway width (4m lanes) - 9m if moderate/high level of HGVs – 3m lane + 1.5m cycle lane  Avoid lane widths of 3.2m to 3.9m  Multiple lanes, provide 4.5m on nearside
  77. 77. Heading
  78. 78. HeadingCorner Radii  Tight corner radii should be used in urban areas to reduce speed of turning traffic.  Side road entry treatments also reduce turning speeds
  79. 79. HeadingOn-Carriageway Facilities (Cycle Lanes) • Increase drivers’ awareness of cyclists • Encourage drivers to leave space for cyclists • Legitimise passing slow moving traffic on offside • Encourage lane discipline by cyclists • Help confirm a route for cyclists
  80. 80. HeadingTypes of Cycle Lane • Advisory • Mandatory • Light Segregated • Contraflow (but may not need a lane!)
  81. 81. HeadingCycle lane widths
  82. 82. Heading
  83. 83. HeadingAdvisory cycle lanes • No TRO or statutory consultation needed • Less signing clutter • Can be used: – adjacent to parking bays (with buffer), – across junctions, and – where motor vehicles may encroach – eg on narrow roads. • Other traffic can legally enter cycle lane • No powers to enforce against moving vehicle encroachment
  84. 84. Heading Advisory cycle lane with no centre line
  85. 85. Heading
  86. 86. HeadingCycle Streets • A Street dominated by cyclists • General traffic for access only • Overtaking limited by design
  87. 87. Heading
  88. 88. HeadingDutch Cycle Street
  89. 89. HeadingCycle Street
  90. 90. HeadingMandatory cycle lanes • For exclusive use by cyclists during specified hours of operation • Motorists can be subjected to law enforcement if they enter the lane • Added physical protection can be provided (light, segregated lanes) • TRO currently needed – but DfT proposes to remove this requirement in TSRGD 2015 • Cannot be used where other vehicles are permitted to cross the lane • More signing required than advisory lanes – but not under new TSRGD
  91. 91. HeadingMandatory cycle lane within bus lane
  92. 92. HeadingLight Segregation • Worldwide phenomenon – Protected Bike Lanes • Supported in Mayor’s Vision for Cycling • Cycling infrastructure for austere times • Many types of divider available
  93. 93. HeadingLight segregation: International examples
  94. 94. HeadingIndicative use of light segregation (20mph)
  95. 95. HeadingLight Segregation - Advantages It is cheap <10% of costs of heavy segregation It is adaptable and flexible It gets new people cycling It pleases all road users It unites both schools of cycling It is perfect for trial layouts It has been a worldwide success It has the potential to transform cycling in the UK without waiting 40 years to catch up with the Dutch It is sensitive to pedestrians and street context It requires no regulation or legal changes to install
  96. 96. Light Segregation Rating Protection: How protected do cyclists feel and what is the expected level of encroachment. Installation cost: How much does the treatment cost per km Durability: How well does the treatment stand up to general traffic impacts Aesthetics: How well does the treatment blend with a quality street approach Protection Cost Durability Aesthetics Protection Cost Durability Aesthetics Protection Cost Durability Aesthetics
  97. 97. 1.Buffer lane with studs Protection Cost Durability Aesthetics
  98. 98. 2.Wands Protection Cost Durability Aesthetics
  99. 99. 3.Turtles Protection Cost Durability Aesthetics
  100. 100. 4.Lacasitos (Tobys) Protection Cost Durability Aesthetics
  101. 101. 5.Armadillos Protection Cost Durability Aesthetics
  102. 102. 6.Orcas Protection Cost Durability Aesthetics
  103. 103. 7.Hedgehogs Protection Cost Durability Aesthetics
  104. 104. 8.Floating parking Protection Cost Durability Aesthetics
  105. 105. 9.Barriers Protection Cost Durability Aesthetics
  106. 106. 10.Planters Protection Cost Durability Aesthetics
  107. 107. 11.Rigid bollards Protection Cost Durability Aesthetics
  108. 108. Heading2-way cycling on one-way streets • Cycle tracks or mandatory cycle lanes where traffic flows are moderate to high • Advisory or no cycle lanes where traffic flows are low • ‘Signing the Way’ (Oct 11) authorised new signs: • Widths down to circa 3.5m with no cycle lane
  109. 109. HeadingCity of London
  110. 110. HeadingCycle lanes along kerbside parking • Advisory cycle lanes outside marked bays • Allow sufficient width for opening doors – minimum 0.5m • Continue cycle lane across short gaps in parking bays
  111. 111. Heading
  112. 112. HeadingStepped Cycle Lanes • Some examples in the UK • Encouraged by Local Transport Note 1/12 • Legally, mandatory or advisory lane depending on marking used (if any) • Greater perceived protection/attractiveness • Higher cost • Used extensively in Denmark
  113. 113. Heading
  114. 114. Heading
  115. 115. Heading
  116. 116. Heading
  117. 117. HeadingKerb Segregated Cycle Lanes • Protected from traffic by upstand • High level of perceived safety/ attractiveness • Barrier for pedestrians • Legally a cycle track – strictly speaking requires order to make one-way • Difficulty of sweeping/gritting • Constrains capacity for cyclists and general traffic • Need to think carefully about junctions
  118. 118. Heading
  119. 119. HeadingDirection of operation • Two-way, unless made one-way by TRO • Central broken white line aids lane discipline on two-way tracks • Difficulties with priority at side roads
  120. 120. HeadingCycle lanes into cycle tracks • Transition should be clear, smooth, safe and comfortable for cyclists • Minimise speed change • Avoid sharp vertical and horizontal deviations for cyclists
  121. 121. HeadingCycle lanes at bus stops • Often cycle lanes are terminated at bus stops, and recommence at the far end of the cage • Not a good solution • Consider scope to route cycle lanes outside a bus stop cage
  122. 122. Heading
  123. 123. HeadingCycle tracks at bus stops • Ensure clarity over use of space available • Continue cycle track or change to unsegregated shared use on approach • Consider increasing space by removing bus bays
  124. 124. HeadingBus Stop Bypass
  125. 125. Heading
  126. 126. Heading
  127. 127. Heading
  128. 128. Heading
  129. 129. Heading • Best where traffic flows and speeds are high, and frontage activity low • Less suitable if frequent interruptions to cycle priority/side roads • Consider whether one-way or two-way operation is appropriate • Often need to move lighting columns or other street furniture to achieve suitable cross-section Off-carriageway, on-highway tracks
  130. 130. HeadingShared Use Footways • LTN 1/12 says white line segregation is ineffective • Simply converting a footway with little other consideration often leads to a poor facility for all users “Routes will be wide enough to cope with higher volumes of cyclists, and designed to reduce conflict between pedestrians and bikes. Confusing shared pavements will be avoided” Mayor’s Vision
  131. 131. HeadingEffective segregation from pedestrians in urban areas • More comfortable for both groups • Allows higher cycle speeds • But segregation requires more width • Unsegregated facilities reduce potential speeds and flows for cycling
  132. 132. Heading But shared use works well in rural areas
  133. 133. HeadingAnd provides more capacity/less clutter in complex places
  134. 134. Heading Greenways/Off-Highway Routes • Routes through parks and green spaces, along waterways • Can be excellent cycle routes • Issues: – Connectivity – Social safety – Lighting – 24 hour access
  135. 135. Heading
  136. 136. Heading
  137. 137. HeadingHorizontal curvature • Avoid instantaneous changes of direction – 4m minimum radius • Consider local widening and banking on corners • Better in this instance to avoid bends and link track to raised table crossing.
  138. 138. HeadingSpeed control measures on links • Deviating cycle track to break straight alignment • Slow markings or warning signs • Less than smooth surface dressing • Humps • Don’t use staggered barriers or A frames!
  139. 139. Heading Birmingham Cycle Revolution
  140. 140. Birmingham Cycle Revolution
  141. 141. Motor City or Cycle City?
  142. 142. Cycling in Birmingham • 1-2% mode share • Busiest routes have about 500- 600 cyclists per day • 75% growth in 5 years and increasing rate of growth since 2012 • Mainly male, young, ‘sporty’ but gradually changing • Largest numbers in SW quarter • There is relatively little infrastructure
  143. 143. Overview – Birmingham Cycling Revolution • City Council secured £24m Cycle City Ambition Grant (CCAG) funding to deliver the Phase 1 in 2013-16 (approx. 100km of new/improved routes). • Focus on delivering on- and off-highway cycle infrastructure improvements on network within 20 mins cycling time of city centre. • Main roads, quieter parallel streets, city centre, local links, cycle parking, 20mph areas, canal towpaths, green routes, private cycle parking and cycle loan/hire schemes. • Subsequent funding awarded in 2014 (Phase 2) and 2015 (Phase 3) to consolidate and extend by 2018.
  144. 144. 2013 – 2016 Network
  145. 145. 2015 – 2018 Network
  146. 146. Partnership with Canal and River Trust
  147. 147. Top Cycle Location - Partnership with schools and employers
  148. 148. Access to Bicycles – Community Partnerships
  149. 149. Part of a wider city vision – Birmingham Connected
  150. 150. City Centre cycle routes
  151. 151. City Centre – Permeable and Legible • Newhall St to New St link via Bennetts Hill – North to South • Five Ways to Lancaster Circus – West to East • Safer crossings of Ring Road – major junctions and mid link • Connecting up radial routes that join the Queensway
  152. 152. Introduction to the Site Visit • Queensway and Park St area • Number of cycle routes converge at Albert St / Fazeley St • University area is big attractor • HS2 one station • Moor St bus interchange • Access to city centre
  153. 153. Queensway and Park St
  154. 154. Park St and Moor St Queensway
  155. 155. Exercise • Link from University to East End Park • East End Park to Moor St • Junction – Moor St Queensway and Jennens Rd • Public Realm – Albert St • Accommodating bus, cycle, pedestrian, deliveries, private traffic
  156. 156. HeadingLunch!
  157. 157. HeadingJunctions and crossings
  158. 158. HeadingPrinciples of junction design Junctions need to be designed to • Minimise delay • Minimise hazard by managing conflicting movements in time or space • Accommodate all users With specific reference to cycle traffic: • Need to consider all cycle movements • Minimise number of motor traffic lanes • Reduce motor vehicle speeds • Eliminate or manage conflict with motor traffic • Raise drivers’ awareness of cyclists • Guide cyclists’ and drivers’ movements
  159. 159. HeadingManaging conflicts • The number of conflicts at a junction increases with the number of movements • Conflicts may be reduced by separation in space or time • Or by integration in advance of the junction Crossing conflict Merging conflict Diverging conflict
  160. 160. HeadingIntegration versus Segregation • Integration can be appropriate when speeds and flows not high • Integrating cycle and motorised traffic minimises the number of conflicts and can improve actual safety • Segregated facilities necessary at busy/complex junctions • Segregation should not mean a loss of priority for cycle traffic
  161. 161. HeadingPriority junctions
  162. 162. HeadingPriority junctions - casualties • Most common junction type • 53% of cycle casualties (T-junctions, cross-roads) 2011-13 • Cyclists vulnerable to turning motor traffic Cycle KSIs at junctions (2011-2013): • Vehicle turns right across cyclist path (14%) • Vehicle turns left across path of cyclist (9%) • Vehicle fails to give way (6%)
  163. 163. HeadingPriority junctions - issues Issues for cyclists: • Moving ahead through a priority junction: • Turning right into and out of junctions: • Any turn moving across more than one lane or one busy lane will be uncomfortable.
  164. 164. Heading • Reduce speed on link • Reduce speed on turning • Reduce number of traffic lanes • Keep corner radii tight • Use 90 degree approach • Avoid left turn merges and diverges • Closing side roads • Making side roads one-way out • Right turn refuges for cycles Priority junctions – beneficial measures
  165. 165. Heading • Side Road Entry Treatments have benefit for both pedestrians and cyclists • TRL study showed significant reduction in cycle collisions with SRET • Reduce speed of traffic entering and exiting minor road • Beneficial when cycling is o on carriageway, o in cycle lane, o in cycle track Priority junctions – Side Road Entry Treatment
  166. 166. HeadingCycle lanes and symbols at priority junctions • Use 1010 markings at junction • Aim to provide extra 0.5m buffer space past side roads • If 1.5m lanes definitely use SRET • Cycle lane may be coloured to emphasise its presence • If not possible to provide adequate cycle lane, interrupt lane at junction and use 1057 symbols in primary position
  167. 167. Heading
  168. 168. HeadingSegregated lanes and tracks at priority junctions • Options for maintaining cycle priority through priority junctions: – “Bending out”, giving space for turning vehicles to yield – Track becomes lane at junction – Continue track away from carriageway without deviation
  169. 169. Heading
  170. 170. HeadingTwo way tracks at side roads not preferred
  171. 171. Heading
  172. 172. HeadingBending out, space to yield
  173. 173. HeadingBending out, space to yield
  174. 174. HeadingBending out, space to yield
  175. 175. HeadingTrack becomes lane at junction
  176. 176. HeadingTrack becomes lane at junction
  177. 177. HeadingTrack becomes lane at junction
  178. 178. Heading Continue track without deviation
  179. 179. HeadingContinuous footway
  180. 180. Heading
  181. 181. HeadingContinuous footway and cycleway
  182. 182. HeadingContinuous footway and cycleway
  183. 183. HeadingCrossings • Important to provide continuity of off-carriageway cycle routes across busy roads • A crossing is simply a junction where one or more arms only carries cycle traffic • Priority Crossings • Zebra Crossings • New ‘Shared Use’ Crossings • Signal Controlled Crossings – Standalone cycle only – Toucan – Integrated into overall junction control
  184. 184. HeadingCycle priority crossings without signal control • Signing defines who has priority • Options: – Road narrowing – Central islands – Traffic calming – Coloured surfacing – Vertical give way signs • Cycle route has to be on road hump to have priority • Hump requirement expected to be removed in 2015
  185. 185. HeadingCycling Zebra in TSRGD 2015
  186. 186. Heading‘Shared Use Cycle/Pedestrian Crossing’
  187. 187. HeadingCycle track zebra • No beacons/zig zags • Expected in TSRGD 2015
  188. 188. HeadingSignal-controlled cycle crossings • Toucan crossings • Parallel cycle and pedestrian crossings • Elephant footprints can only be used at signal controlled crossings • Currently require authorisation • DfT indicating that authorisation will not be requirement in TSRGD 2015
  189. 189. Heading
  190. 190. Heading
  191. 191. Heading
  192. 192. HeadingRoundabouts and Gyratories
  193. 193. HeadingRoundabouts • UK roundabouts rarely comfortable for cyclists • Typical designs bad for cycle safety and comfort – Multi-lane entries – Wide circulatories – Easy, fast exits – Free flow left turn slips Yet: • Dutch practice prefers roundabouts • Less stop/start, effort, delay
  194. 194. Heading • Reduce speeds on the approaches • Reduce speeds through the junction • Reduce number of traffic lanes to one • Reduce size of junction • Keep entry and exit radii tight • Avoid left turn slips • Provide off-carriageway tracks • Raise driver awareness of cyclists Roundabouts – beneficial measures
  195. 195. HeadingContinental geometry • Approaches and exits perpendicular • Entries and exits ~4 m wide • Entry and exit radius ~10m • Entry path curvature <100m • Diameter 25-35 metres • Central island 16-25 metres • Circulating carriageway 5-7 metres • See Traffic Advisory Leaflet 9/97
  196. 196. Heading
  197. 197. Heading
  198. 198. HeadingCompact Roundabout • Included in DMRB TD 16/07 • Similar to Continental, but less cycle- friendly • Smaller island diameter
  199. 199. HeadingContinental geometry • At low flows/speeds, cyclists can remain on carriageway • Indicative upper limit for on-carriageway cycling – 6000-8000 vpd junction throughput • Less subjectively safe than off-carriageway tracks, however
  200. 200. Heading Lund, Sweden 25m 35m
  201. 201. Heading Lund, Sweden
  202. 202. Heading
  203. 203. Heading Radegund Road, Cambridge
  204. 204. Heading
  205. 205. HeadingCycle markings on circulatory – primary position
  206. 206. Heading Nantes, France
  207. 207. Heading Nantes, France
  208. 208. Heading Implied roundabout, Bexleyheath
  209. 209. HeadingExternal Cycle Tracks • Greater subjective safety if cycling provided for off-carriageway • Continental/compact geometry makes it easier to provide tracks • Key question: Provide priority at crossings? • Use one-way tracks if priority • Two way tracks with grade-separated, no- priority or signal-controlled crossings
  210. 210. HeadingDutch Roundabout without priority
  211. 211. Heading Assen, Netherlands
  212. 212. HeadingDutch Roundabout with priority 41m 54m
  213. 213. Heading Utrecht
  214. 214. Heading Utrecht
  215. 215. Heading
  216. 216. Heading
  217. 217. Heading
  218. 218. HeadingCycling Zebra, legal from March 2015
  219. 219. Heading Boston
  220. 220. Heading Stourbridge
  221. 221. Heading
  222. 222. HeadingSignalised Crossings • Large delays if need to cross several arms • 2-way track reduces problem • Staggered crossings a further problem
  223. 223. Heading Harrow
  224. 224. Heading Croydon
  225. 225. HeadingSignalised Roundabouts • General benefits from signals • Hold the left turn - Wandsworth • Cross or circumnavigate central island via ped/cycle track • Can use signalised nodes to ‘bike with traffic’
  226. 226. Heading Hyde Park Corner
  227. 227. Heading Hyde Park Corner
  228. 228. HeadingOne stage cycle crossings • Cyclists cross in one stage • During short all-red for motor traffic
  229. 229. HeadingTwo stage ped/one stage cycle
  230. 230. Heading Queens Circus, Wandsworth
  231. 231. HeadingWandsworth Queens Circus, Wandsworth
  232. 232. Heading Queens Circus, Wandsworth
  233. 233. Heading
  234. 234. HeadingGrade Separation at Roundabouts
  235. 235. HeadingGrade Separation
  236. 236. Heading
  237. 237. Heading
  238. 238. Heading
  239. 239. Heading
  240. 240. HeadingSignals (including signalised crossings)
  241. 241. HeadingBenefits of signal-controlled junctions • Advantageous for cycle traffic, • They can gain priority in the stream by moving to the front of the queue • Conflicts can be removed using separate stages
  242. 242. HeadingAdvanced stop lines • Advantages – Places cycle traffic ahead and in line of sight of motorised traffic if arriving during red phase – Can make right turning easier – Reduces chance of being squeezed by left turning motorised traffic – Prioritises cycle traffic • Disadvantages – Of little value during green stage – Can encourage cyclists to be in conflict with turning traffic – Potential effect on intergreens • Max. 5 metres deep • Can be fed by a cycle lane or gate (TSRGD 2011)
  243. 243. Heading
  244. 244. Heading
  245. 245. Heading
  246. 246. Heading
  247. 247. Heading
  248. 248. Heading
  249. 249. HeadingLeft Hooking at Signals
  250. 250. Heading
  251. 251. Heading • Part-width ASLs already in use – likely to gain general authorisation in TSRGD • Cyclists will legally be able to cross first stop line • Integrated early release signals are being trialled • Possibilities for ASL depths greater than 7.5m? (does not currently feature in draft TSRGD) Advanced stop lines - developments
  252. 252. Heading
  253. 253. HeadingLow level signals • Currently being trialled at TRL • Appear in consultation draft of TSRGD • Will give much more flexibility in cycle signalling • On street at Bow Roundabout
  254. 254. Heading
  255. 255. HeadingOn-street trial at Bow roundabout
  256. 256. Heading
  257. 257. HeadingBow Cycle Gate
  258. 258. HeadingSeparate stages
  259. 259. HeadingCycle track entering junction • Signals designed in normal way • Detection of cycle traffic by loops or microwave
  260. 260. Heading
  261. 261. HeadingTwo stage turns • Default solution in Copenhagen • Relies partly on give way on turning rules • Legally possible in UK
  262. 262. Heading
  263. 263. Heading
  264. 264. HeadingInformal two-stage right turn
  265. 265. HeadingTwo stage turns in Southampton
  266. 266. HeadingTwo stage turns in Southampton
  267. 267. HeadingTwo Stage Turns - Off Street Trials
  268. 268. HeadingTwo Stage Turns - On Street Trials
  269. 269. HeadingSigns and markings
  270. 270. HeadingSign Types • Flag type signs at simple road junctions • Map type signs at more complex junctions • Cycle sign details can be added to normal direction signs
  271. 271. HeadingCycle specific signing • To show where cyclists can legally go • To promote cycling and raise its status • To keep drivers out of cyclists’ space • To encourage lane discipline • To warn other road users of cyclists
  272. 272. HeadingConfusing and unnecessary signs: to be avoided • 958.1 Advanced warning sign for with-flow cycle lane ahead • 962.1 Cycle lane on road at junction ahead • 965 End of lane, route or track • 966 Cyclists dismount • 1058 (marking) END
  273. 273. HeadingDirection signing • Strategic destinations: well known locations, from five miles away) • Local destinations: e.g. stations, leisure centres, libraries • Closest destination should be listed at the top • Include distances at key junctions
  274. 274. HeadingTypes of direction signs
  275. 275. HeadingDesign considerations • Use smallest practical text and plate size – normally 30mm x- height, can be 25mm to reduce sign size if necessary • Incorporate in general direction signing on main roads • Use road markings and surface treatments as alternative to post mounted signs • Many signs (e.g. photo) not compliant with TSRGD but can be useful.
  276. 276. HeadingSign coherence
  277. 277. HeadingSurface markings • Can be good way to communicate information to cyclists • No TROs for: cycle symbols, ‘Keep Clear’ markings, hatching and chevrons, and these can be helpful
  278. 278. HeadingConstruction and surfacing
  279. 279. HeadingOn-carriageway routes • Choice of surface material depends on location • Materials range from SMA and HRA to graded aggregate • SMA better (smaller stone and negative texture) • Default choice should be black bitumen with cycle logos
  280. 280. HeadingOff-carriageway routes • Machine laid for good longitudinal profile • Cyclists simply will not use off- road routes with poor riding surface • May have to use a surface type for environmental reasons
  281. 281. HeadingLighting • Cyclists may have concerns about personal security • Consider aesthetic and conservation issues in parks and along green corridors • Consider sub-surface up-lighters and bollard mounted lights • Monitor vandalism • Solar-powered equipment may be suitable
  282. 282. HeadingCycle Parking Cycle parking should: • Support any type of bike • Enable both frame and front wheel to be secured • Not pose a danger to pedestrians Recommended locking practice
  283. 283. Heading
  284. 284. HeadingLocation • Close to the destination • Surveillance and lighting • Same side of a main road • Access from all directions, including on foot • Mitigate identified risks
  285. 285. HeadingLocation at different destinations • Shopping streets: small groups at 50m intervals • High volume visitor attractions: large cycle parks (shelters/lockers) • Education/work sites: adequate provision within the site (use the planning system) • Rail and tube stations: CCTV, covered stands or lockers
  286. 286. HeadingWe’re done! On your bike...

×