designing & planning for cycling, phil jones & adrian lord

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

HeadingContent

• Background Information

• Planning for cycling

• Cycling on Links

• Birmingham Cycle Revolution

Lunch

• Junctions and crossings

• Signs and markings/Construction/Cycle parking

• Design Exercise

Heading

Background Information

HeadingDocuments

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?

HeadingWhy grow cycling?

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.

Heading

Quantified health impactsRoad traffic casualties

Road traffic deaths

Attributed respiratory and coronary illnesses due to air pollution

road traffic noise (eg sleep disturbance)

Other health impactssedentary 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

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

HeadingMeasuring 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

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

HeadingWhat’s happening to cycling?

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

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% at Crossroads

– 10% at Roundabout/Mini

– 24% with signal control

HeadingCycle Safety: Assessing and reducing conflict2011 collision data

24

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

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 start the day’ 21%

Shortest route to work 10%

Environment/climate 9%

Heading

%

TfL – Attitudes Towards Cycling 2011

HeadingUnderstanding 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)

Heading

Planning for Cycling

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

HeadingNon 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

HeadingDimensions 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

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…”

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 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

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

HeadingGradients

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

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

• Views on existing routes

• Requests for new routes

• Quality of existing network

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

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

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

Heading

Heading

Norwich

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

Heading

63

Cyclist Level of Service Assessment Tool

Low level scores on critical factors must be mitigated through realignment or highway layout changes irrespective of 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 seperated6

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 traffic6

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 traffic2

(If not segregated) Speed of

traffic

85% percentile greater than

25mph85% 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/buses6

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

IsolationRoute passes far from other

activity

Route always close to

activityRoute 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)

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 space with priority over side

roads, not shared use paths

Heading

Heading

Cycling on Links

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

HeadingCycle symbol only for route continuity

HeadingCentre line removal

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

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

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

HeadingShared 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

HeadingLeonard Circus, Hackney

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

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

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

Heading

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

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

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 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

HeadingAdvisory 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 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

HeadingMandatory cycle lane within bus lane

HeadingLight Segregation

• Worldwide phenomenon –

Protected Bike Lanes

• Supported in Mayor’s Vision for

Cycling

• Cycling infrastructure for

austere times

• Many types of divider available

HeadingLight segregation: International examples

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/p480x480/181483_591370587553974_1731557842_n.jpg

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/p480x480/181483_591370587553974_1731557842_n.jpg

HeadingIndicative use of light segregation (20mph)

Heading

99

Light 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

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


Protection Cost


1.Buffer lane with studs

Protection Cost


2.WandsProtection Cost


3.Turtles

Protection Cost


4.Lacasitos (Tobys)

Protection Cost


5.Armadillos

Protection Cost


6.OrcasProtection Cost


7.Hedgehogs

Protection Cost


8.Floating parking

Protection Cost


9.Barriers

Protection Cost


10.PlantersProtection Cost


11.Rigid bollards

Protection Cost


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

HeadingCity of London

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

Heading

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

Heading

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

Heading

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

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

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

Heading

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

HeadingBus Stop Bypass

Heading

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

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

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

HeadingBut shared use works well in rural areas

HeadingAnd provides more capacity/less clutter in complex places

HeadingGreenways/Off-Highway Routes

• Routes through parks and green spaces,

along waterways

• Can be excellent cycle routes

• Issues:

– Connectivity

– Social safety

– Lighting

– 24 hour access

Heading

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.

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!

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 increasing rate of growth since 2012

• Mainly male, young, ‘sporty’ but gradually changing

• Largest numbers in SW quarter

• There is relatively little infrastructure

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.

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 Lancaster Circus – West to East

• Safer crossings of Ring Road – major junctions and mid link

• Connecting up radial routes that join the Queensway

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

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

• Public Realm – Albert St

• Accommodating bus, cycle, pedestrian, deliveries, private

traffic

HeadingLunch!

HeadingJunctions and crossings

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

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

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

HeadingPriority junctions

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%)

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.

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

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

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

Heading

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

Heading

HeadingTwo way tracks at side roads not preferred

Heading

HeadingBending out, space to yield

HeadingTrack becomes lane at junction

HeadingContinue track without deviation

HeadingContinuous footway

Heading

HeadingContinuous footway and cycleway

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

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

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 footprints can only be used at signal

controlled crossings

• Currently require authorisation

• DfT indicating that authorisation will not be

requirement in TSRGD 2015

Heading

HeadingRoundabouts and Gyratories

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

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

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

Heading

HeadingCompact Roundabout

• Included in DMRB TD 16/07

• Similar to Continental, but less cycle-friendly

• Smaller island diameter

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

HeadingLund, Sweden

25m

35m

HeadingLund, Sweden

Heading

HeadingRadegund Road, Cambridge

Heading

HeadingCycle markings on circulatory – primary position

HeadingNantes, France

HeadingImplied roundabout, Bexleyheath

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

HeadingDutch Roundabout without priority

HeadingAssen, Netherlands

HeadingDutch Roundabout with priority

41m

54m

HeadingUtrecht

Heading

HeadingCycling Zebra, legal from March 2015

HeadingBoston

HeadingStourbridge

Heading

HeadingSignalised Crossings

• Large delays if need to

cross several arms

• 2-way track reduces

problem

• Staggered crossings a

further problem

HeadingHarrow

HeadingCroydon

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’

HeadingHyde Park Corner

HeadingOne stage cycle crossings

• Cyclists cross in one stage

• During short all-red for motor traffic

HeadingTwo stage ped/one stage cycle

HeadingQueens Circus, Wandsworth

HeadingWandsworthQueens Circus, Wandsworth

HeadingQueens Circus, Wandsworth

Heading

HeadingGrade Separation at Roundabouts

HeadingGrade Separation

Heading

HeadingSignals (including signalised crossings)

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

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)

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 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

Heading

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

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 UK

Heading

HeadingInformal two-stage right turn

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 details can be

added to normal direction

signs

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

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

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

HeadingTypes of direction signs

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.

HeadingSign coherence

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

HeadingConstruction and surfacing

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

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

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

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

Heading

HeadingLocation

• Close to the destination

• Surveillance and lighting

• Same side of a main road

• Access from all directions,

including on foot

• Mitigate identified risks

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

HeadingWe’re done!

On your bike...

designing & planning for cycling, phil jones & adrian lord

Presentations & Public Speaking