5. @johnstreetdales j.dales@urbanmovement.co.uk
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h i
j
k
a. bi-directional? b. tree pits; c. sign poles; d. guard-railing; e. tactile paving; f. inactive frontage;
g. excessive carriageway; h. low ped/cyc priority at signals; i. cycle track switches sides; j.
colour?; k. badly-located boxes
25. @johnstreetdales j.dales@urbanmovement.co.uk
• Royal College Street Phase 1 scheme implemented 2013.
• Cycling volumes increased by 70% from 2011 to 2014.
• Cyclist injury rate before was 4/year; rate in 15 months after
was <2/year (none ‘serious’).
• Difference in the % of women cycling on RCS compared to
alternatives varied from 9% to 17% depending on period.
• Difference in the % of people cycling in normal clothes on
RCS compared to alternatives varied from 8% to 24%
depending on period.
• Few young or old people (<18 years and >60 years) were
observed on RCS or alternatives, though the proportions
were appreciably larger on RCS than alternatives.
35. @johnstreetdales j.dales@urbanmovement.co.uk
• Key to the success of ‘Cycle Streets’ is for motor traffic
speeds and volumes to be relatively low, and cycle volumes
to be relatively high.
• Max speed limit must be <20mph or less.
• Advised max daily traffic flow is 2,000 vehicles in the
Netherlands (CROW Manual) and 3,000 in Germany.
• Cycle volumes should be no lower than those for general
traffic, and ideally higher.
• Dutch guidance states Cycle Streets should have (potential
for) flows of at least 1,000 cycles/day and that cycles should
generally outnumber other vehicles 2:1 during peak hours.