Infrastructure Toolkit for Cycle Towns draft

Cycling England

Technical Support

Draft Infrastructure Toolkit for Cycling Towns

Cycling England

Technical Support

Infrastructure Toolkit for Cycling Towns

October 2009

Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Arup Campus, Blythe Valley Park, Solihull, B90 8AE Tel +44 (0)121 3650 Fax +44 (0)121 3000

This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party

www.arup.com Job number 207514-00

\\GLOBAL\MIDLANDS\JOBS\207000\207514-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-01OUTGOING RECORD COPY\2009-10-30 CDT TOOLKIT FOR WEBSITE\2009-10-30CDT TOOLKIT DRAFT.DOC

Ove Arup & Partners LtdIssue 12 October 2009

Job title Technical Support

Document Verification

Page 1 of 1

Job number

207514-00

Document title Infrastructure Toolkit for Cycling Towns

Document ref

File reference

Revision Date Filename 2009-09-24 CDT Toolkit.doc Description First draft

Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name Adrian Lord Adrian Lord Peter Smith

Draft 1 24/09/09

Signature

Filename 2009-09-29 CDT Toolkit.doc Description Revised following comments


Draft 2 29/09/09

Signature

Filename 2009-10-12 CDT Toolkit3.doc Description Revised following comments from Andy Mayo


Draft 3 12/10/09

Signature

Filename 2009-10-12 CDT Toolkitissue.doc Description


Issue 12/10/09

Signature

Issue Document Verification with Document

\\GLOBAL\MIDLANDS\JOBS\207000\207514-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-01OUTGOING RECORD COPY\2009-10-30 CDT TOOLKIT FOR WEBSITE\2009-10-30CDT TOOLKIT DRAFT.DOC

Ove Arup & Partners LtdIssue 12 October 2009

Cycling England Technical SupportInfrastructure Toolkit for Cycling Towns

1.1 Aims 1

1.2 Underlying Principles 1

1.3 Cycling England Board Guidance to Cycling Towns and City 5 Policy Toolkit 6

2.1 Introduction 6

2.2 National Policy Context 6

2.3 Benefits of Cycling 6

2.4 National Cycling Plan 7 Cycle Audit and Review Toolkit 8

3.1 Introduction 8

3.2 Design Checklist 9 Additional Technical Notes on Common Issues 18

4.1 Introduction 18

4.2 Advanced Stop Lines 18

4.3 Nearside versus Farside Aspects at Toucan Crossings 26

4.4 Town Centre Permeability 28

4.5 Contraflow Cycling Without Cycle Lanes 35

Contents

Page 1 Introduction 1

2

3

4


\\GLOBAL\MIDLANDS\JOBS\207000\207514-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-01 OUTGOING RECORD COPY\2009-10-30 CDT TOOLKIT FOR WEBSITE\2009-10-30 CDT TOOLKIT DRAFT.DOC

Page 1 Ove Arup & Partners LtdIssue 12 October 2009

1 Introduction

1.1 Aims

Cycling England awards funding to the Cycling Towns and Cities with the overall aim of developing More Cycling, More Safely, More Often. This is achieved by a combination of infrastructure, encouragement, skills training and publicity. Cycling England has developed and funded a number of resources and programmes to support these activities including a Design Checklist, Infrastructure Portfolio and Smarter Choices Portfolio on the Cycling England website, Bikeability training, Bike It and Bike Clubs and an online Cycle Journey Planner. The Cycling England website contains much information and also acts as a portal to further resources such as the government’s tax-free cycle purchase scheme and the main cycling organisations.

For each town, the exact mix of what works best will depend on local circumstances and opportunities. The key is to identify places or groups of people where there is a common focus for cycling journeys or physical activity such as schools, employers, stations, town centres, leisure destinations, community groups and sports clubs.

The support team welcomes feedback and will update this document and add further information as other issues arise in the towns.

1.2 Underlying Principles

Key audience

The Cycling Towns and City programme is primarily concerned with attracting novice and occasional cyclists towards more regular cycling either as a sustainable mode of transport or as a way to achieve higher levels of physical activity and improved public health. Existing regular cyclists will also benefit from many of the initiatives but are not usually the main focus of the Cycling Towns programme.

As a group, people relatively new to utility cycling require a greater degree of reassurance from infrastructure than more experienced urban cyclists. This includes comprehensive signing and marking to help with navigation of the local route network to give a sense of ‘continuity’ along a cycle route, whether this is on or off carriageway.

Trans-Pennine Trail and local links signed near Manchester

It is impossible to avoid busy roads, and measures to reduce traffic speeds and volumes along busier transport corridors used by cyclists, or something separate from the carriageway may be required.




Cycle Freeway, Brighton

For most local roads, and especially in residential streets, there is an assumption that cyclists should be able to share the carriageway safely with other traffic.

One way to win people over to cycling is by using the infrastructure to offer an ‘advantage’ in terms of journey time and convenience. This requires convenient and secure parking at the journey origin and destination, and measures along the way including short-cuts through parks, routes alongside canals and rivers, contra-flows on one-way streets, access to vehicle restricted areas and priority junction and crossing arrangements.

Vehicle restricted area, Exeter

Lengthy detours to avoid busy areas will not generally appeal to either existing or new cyclists unless there is a significant and obvious safety benefit or the route doubles up as a visually attractive leisure facility such as some of the riverside routes in the cycling towns.

Infrastructure Provision

Some towns in the Netherlands and Denmark (and new towns such as Milton Keynes and Stevenage in the UK) provide extensive cycle track networks almost fully segregated from traffic except in town centres and residential access streets. These networks are expensive to construct and typically, to retro-fit them into existing streets would require a very robust commitment to on-street parking restrictions in order to find the necessary space.




Other towns and cities such as Amsterdam, London and Stuttgart offer networks based largely on existing roads and achieved through a variety of traffic restrictions, road closures, bus lanes, contraflows, cycle lanes, routes through parks and junction and crossing improvements with cycle tracks mainly along suburban and inter-urban arterial routes. This kind of network is more achievable in the short to medium term, and as can be seen in parts of central London, offers the opportunity to consolidate and improve routes as cycling increases in popularity and public and political acceptance of reallocation of road space becomes more extensive.

Where space and funding permits it may be possible to remodel existing streets to provide cycle tracks on former all purpose carriageway surfaces, and this approach has been taken to create some ‘Cycle Freeways’ in Brighton, similar to some of the cycle tracks created in the London Borough of Camden.

Cycle track on space reallocated from carriageway, Camden

Hierarchy of Provision

The starting point for infrastructure provision should be broadly in line with the philosophy of LTN 2-08, Cycle Infrastructure Design, which sets out a hierarchy of provision as below. This also complements activities such as travel planning which seek to encourage a move away from car travel for local journeys.

Traffic volume reduction

Traffic speed reduction

Junction treatment, hazard site treatment, traffic management

Reallocation of carriageway space

Consider first

Cycle tracks away from roads




Consider last Conversion of footways/footpaths to shared-use for pedestrians and cyclists

This approach seeks to reduce danger to cyclists and other road users by removing heavy traffic from cycle routes if at all possible, or reducing traffic speeds to help reduce the likelihood and severity of an injury accident. Removing traffic or car parking may also enable space to be released for a segregated cycle track, as illustrated above, without taking space from pedestrians or creating areas of shared-use.

Such an approach, applied with rigour, integrates cycling into the general traffic management and casualty reduction strategies of the Council rather than seeing it as a separate ‘add on’ item. It is particularly beneficial for example, when designing bus lanes, because the designers will automatically recognise that the bus lane is also functioning as a ‘cycle facility’ and therefore the needs of cyclists will be considered. The hierarchy is not to be used as a ‘dogma’ however, and there are clearly circumstances where off-carriageway provision is going to be the most attractive and appropriate option for all users such as alongside trunk roads, at major multi-lane junctions and where primary schools are situated close to main roads.

Cycle Network – Key Design Features

The local cycle network should recognise five main design criteria:

♦ Coherence : The cycling infrastructure should form a coherent entity, linking all trip origins and destinations; with a continuous level of provision;

♦ Directness : Routes should be as direct as possible, based on desire lines, since detours and delays will deter use;

♦ Attractiveness: Routes must be attractive to cyclists on subjective as well as objective criteria. Lighting, personal safety, aesthetics, noise and integration with the surrounding area are important;

♦ Safety : Designs should minimise the danger for cyclists and other road users; and

♦ Comfort: Cycle routes need smooth, well-maintained surfaces, regular sweeping, and gentle gradients. Routes must be convenient to use and avoid complicated manoeuvres and interruptions.

An important feature within the Cycling Towns is that the infrastructure itself is an opportunity to positively encourage cycling. This means that ‘perceived safety’ concerns are almost as important as responding to actual casualties and personal security issues. If people ‘think’ that a site is not safe, either because of fears of road safety, or due to crime, they will not use it. Local cyclists, Citizens Panels, Ward Councillors and other community groups can help to identify and prioritise areas of concern. Sometimes it may be necessary to offer ‘dual provision’ to cater for different levels of confidence, for example, to include both a cycle track and a cycle lane or junction treatment along the same piece of road.




Cycle lane and adjacent cycle track, Stoke

1.3 Cycling England Board Guidance to Cycling Towns and City

Following a round of site visits to the Cycling Towns and City in 2008-9, the Cycling England Board identified some recurring themes and ideas that could be developed in the infrastructure, including trialling of innovative designs where towns wished to pursue these. The ideas were noted in a letter from Phillip Darnton sent to all Programme Managers in Spring 2009 as follows:

The Cycling England Board expects the Cycling Towns / City to be at the forefront of best practice and innovation in all aspects of their programmes and encourages innovation where it is anticipated to improve outcome delivery. Such innovation can be expected to lead to trialling schemes beyond current DfT advice and guidance and in such cases Cycling England will assist with obtaining authorisation.

Cycling towns should particularly encourage measures particularly aimed at new/returning cyclists. In doing so they will be expected to provide wherever possible:

• Advanced Stop Lines

• Contraflow cycling in one-way streets, with or without a cycle lane/track

• Permeability of central areas including cycle access to vehicle restricted zones

• Single stage Toucan crossings of wide roads in preference to staggered crossings

• Ensuring that the cycle aspects at busy Toucan crossings are easily visible by using ‘far-side’ aspects or additional near side aspects mounted higher on the pole.

• Continuity of routes, especially at road crossings of cycle tracks.




2 Policy Toolkit

2.1 Introduction

A Cycling Town is expected to demonstrate its political commitment to cycling, but despite this, it can still be difficult to secure support for cycling infrastructure measures. This section of the toolkit seeks to highlight national and local policies that can be used by the Council to provide referenced background evidence in support of schemes.

2.2 National Policy Context

In the Department for Transport’s (DfT) "A Sustainable Future for Cycling" a continued commitment to encouraging the take up of cycling is outlined. In the report the Secretary of State for Transport states that:

“Cycling has a major role to play in any sustainable transport strategy.” (DfT, 2008 p.3)

The reason that cycling is so crucial to such a policy is because it contributes to every one of the five goals set out in the transport strategy “Towards a Sustainable Transport System: Supporting Economic Growth in a Low Carbon World” published by the DfT October 2007:

• competitiveness and productivity

• climate change

• health, security and safety

• quality of life

• equality of opportunity (DfT, 2008 p.5)

The document was published in response to the Eddington Transport Study (2006), which highlighted transport's pivotal role in supporting the UK's future economic success, and the Stern Review which discussed the economic impact of Climate Change.

More recently, “Delivering a Sustainable Transport System” (DfT, 2008) sets the same goals and reiterates the role which cycling can play in achieving them through its contribution to: economic growth; reducing greenhouse gas emissions; enhancing the local environment; improving public and personal health and; improving accessibility.

2.3 Benefits of Cycling

“Delivering a Sustainable Transport System” (DfT, 2008) sets goals to achieve a sustainable transport system and reiterates the role which cycling can play in achieving them through its contribution to:

• economic growth;

• reducing greenhouse gas emissions;

• enhancing the local environment;

• improving public and personal health and;

• improving accessibility.

Cycling helps tackle congestion, local air pollution and the emissions that cause climate change. Increased levels of cycling also lead to a fitter, healthier nation, which is particularly important against the current background of rising obesity levels (DfT, 2008 p.3). It is clear that cycling is an area where substantial gains can be achieved from increased levels of investment.

Cycling is a particularly good option for short journeys. With 41% of all trips less than two miles, a distance which can easily be cycled in about 15 minutes. Nearly a quarter of all car




trips are under two miles and 56% are less than 5 miles so there is considerable scope for increasing the number of cycling trips (DfT, 2008 p.5).

Cycling has also been shown to be a crucial life skill, helping young people to develop the crucial ability to assess and navigate through risk.

At present only 1.5% of all trips on average are by cycle. Work by specialist economic consultancy SQW has shown that a 20% increase from the current level of cycling in the UK in 2012 would release a cumulative saving of £500million by 2015. An increase of 50% would unlock more than £1.3billion through savings in congestion, pollution and healthcare.

These are conservative values, accounting only for those benefits which can be quantified. No account is taken of the contribution of cycling to factors such as:

• Protecting children against obesity

• Improvement in physical development

• Quality of life in communities

• Wealth generation through tourism and leisure pursuits

• Potential for a reduction in the rate of road accidents

Even with such omissions the economic benefits of increasing cycling levels make a strong case for continued investment in cycling.

2.4 National Cycling Plan

The DfT is currently (summer 2009) preparing a National Cycling Plan for issue in the Autumn/Winter. This will set out the aspirations for the future as well as highlighting some of the achievements and current programmes.

References

Valuing the Benefits of Cycling. SQW June 2007

Available at:- http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/encouraging-cycling/benefits-of-cycling/

Benefits of Cycling, Cycling England

Available at:- http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/encouraging-cycling/benefits-of-cycling/

Delivering a Sustainable Transport System (DfT, 2008)

A Sustainable Future for Cycling (DfT, 2008)

Towards a Sustainable Transport System: Supporting Economic Growth in a Low Carbon World (DfT, 2007)




3 Cycle Audit and Review Toolkit

3.1 Introduction

Cycle audit can be applied to new highway schemes to ensure that they incorporate measures for cyclists or at the very least, do not make conditions worse. It involves a check on designs and can be applied at outline, detailed, construction and completion stages. It can be undertaken by highway development control staff and by highway engineering staff but it is important that they know what problems to look for and where to find information on current good practice. The ‘Design Checklist’ from the Cycling England website provides a good starting point and is reproduced below, although the website version contains hyperlinks to pages with more detailed information.

Cycle review can be applied to all parts of the highway and public rights of way network and offers a systematic way to assess the cycle-friendliness of a route. It can also be used to compare routes in order to choose the best option between two or more alternatives.

The IHT published guidance on cycle audit and review in 2000, however, its take up has been limited as the methodology is quite cumbersome and labour intensive. Greater Manchester Council developed COPECAT – Concise Pedestrian and Cycle Audit Technique which offers a ‘checklist’ approach. This is a more ‘useable’ method that can be taken out to site and helps engineers and planners with a reminder of what to look for. It is similar to the Cycling England Design Checklist below.

A cycle review is best undertaken by a minimum of two designers, at least one of whom should be a regular cyclist. The Cycling England Support Team can assist with audit and review if required. The review process involves the following steps:

1. Cycle the route (in both directions) noting what is there, any maintenance defects, any hazards, any difficulties that cyclists face and discussing and suggesting site specific improvements. It is usually possible to split the route up into sections with specific characteristics and issues, e.g. on-road cycle lanes, bus lanes, cycle track, junctions. Alternatively, the route may just be divided into fixed lengths.

2. Prepare a written illustrated report of the route with suggested improvements. Examples are available on the Cycling England website.

Journey Planner Data – The recently collected GIS data for the cycle journey planner offers a snapshot of existing infrastructure, providing raw data about on and off-road facilities. This data may be helpful in providing baseline information. When the journey planner is up and running it also offers a tool that can be used to develop isochrones (journey time contours) from key destinations. These isochrones may help to illustrate those locations where investment could potentially reach the greatest number of people, thus helping to prioritise sites.

Accident Data is also an important feature to review. A plot of the whole network can help identify cluster sites, while an investigation of all injury accidents at a particular site may help to reveal a trend. The data may help to support or suggest a particular engineering solution.


DATA\4-01 OUTGOING RECORD COPY\2009-10-30 CDT TOOLKIT FOR WEBSITE\2009-10-30 CDT TOOLKIT DRAFT.DOC

Issue 12 October 2009

3.2 Design Checklist

Within the Cycling Towns there is an ambition to create a coherent cycle route network that is easy to use, and will attract new cyclists as well as offering safer conditions for existing users. Cycling England funding offers an opportunity to help to connect disjointed parts of the existing networks. Another ambition for the programme is that existing routes will be given greater continuity particularly through measures at junctions and crossings, and through ‘permeability’ of town centres by access through vehicle restricted areas, exemptions from turning bans and use of cycle-contraflow facilities wherever practicable.

On Carriageway

Traffic Management plans and policies or ‘Invisible’ Infrastructure: Cycle-specific infrastructure may be unnecessary. In many cases cyclists’ needs would be better met through demand management or traffic management measures that reduce both the volume and speed of motor traffic (HGV bans, vehicle restricted areas, parking restrictions, the structure of car parking fees etc).

Speed Reduction: Reducing traffic speeds can help to reduce or eliminate the need for special facilities for cyclists as well as contributing to casualty reduction and the creation of a more 'people friendly' environment.

Traffic calming: All traffic calming schemes should be audited to ensure that they meet cyclists’ needs.

Clear space: Carriageway profiles (including those at pinch points created by build-outs and refuges) should be chosen to create adequate space for cyclists to be passed by other roads users in safety and comfort.

Exemptions to Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs): Cyclists should be exempt from restrictions within all TROs, including banned turns and road closures, unless there are proven safety reasons for not doing so.

Contra-flow Cycling: Two-way cycling should be the default option where it is proposed to introduce one-way working for general traffic.

Vehicle Restricted (Pedestrianised) Areas (Town Centre Access): Allowing cycling through restricted areas should be the rule rather than the exception. Where this is not appropriate, consideration should be given to allowing access to cyclists outside of the busiest pedestrian hours.

Signal Controlled Junctions: Cyclists’ needs should be considered as part of the design of all signalised junctions and, whenever possible, provided with an advantage over motorists.

Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs): ASLs should be considered at all signal controlled junctions. The depth of the reservoir should be designed to take account of all of the manoeuvres cyclists need to make when entering and leaving the ASL as well as the numbers of cyclists. The ‘tick’ style ASL lead in will be included in the revised Traffic Signs Manual.

Bus Lanes and Bus Stops: All bus lanes, including contraflow lanes, should be open to cyclists by default. Cyclists should only be prohibited from using them if it can be proven that it would be unsafe or not practicable to achieve this. New bus stops should be audited to ensure that they do not compromise cyclists’ needs or safety.

Cycle Lanes: The decision to provide cycle lanes should be reached by reference to the hierarchy of provision and such tools as the CROW derived ‘speed/flow’ diagram; they should not be seen as a universal solution.

Where provided, cycle lanes should be a minimum of 1.5m wide, continuous, made conspicuous across side roads at junctions and not abandon cyclists where roads become narrow, for example at right turning lanes. Where cycle lanes are being introduced, the cost

\\GLOBAL\MIDLANDS\JOBS\207000\207514-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT Page 9 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd




of remedial measures to the carriageway surface should be included within the scheme budget.

Removal of Road Centrelines: Consideration should be given to the removal of centrelines as an option where carriageway widths do not permit the introduction of cycle lanes of adequate width (min 1.5m) whilst retaining two general traffic lanes.

Cycle lanes (1.2m) and no centre line on substandard road in Suffolk help emphasise restricted carriageway width




Roundabouts: The use of continental-style design should be considered where roundabouts are to be introduced on cycle routes with entry flows of up to 2500 vehicles per hour.

Corner Radii: The minimum radius of curvature for the path followed by cyclists using the road should be 6m. Where cyclists need to turn sharply (e.g. when leaving the carriageway at a cycle gap) this may be reduced to 4m.

Audits and Risk Assessment: All changes to the highway network, including maintenance schemes, should be the subject of a cycle audit. Where safety audits identify that normally recognised design standards cannot be met, projects should be the subject of a risk assessment that involves user representatives.

Off Carriageway Cycle Routes

Connections and Links: Additional off-carriageway links can offer enhanced permeability, potentially safer routes for cyclists and advantageous journey times compared to motor traffic. These need to be designed, built and maintained so that they achieve their intention of drawing cyclists away from less attractive routes on the carriageway.

The measures available to create cycle links can range from a cycle gap in a road closure to the construction of a new bridge. To be effective, cycle links should be clearly signed, direct and relevant to cyclists’ needs.

Road Crossings – Side Roads: Maintaining the continuity of cycle tracks is important if they are to provide an attractive alternative to being on road. Consideration should be given to the use of cycle priority crossings where they cross minor roads where daily traffic flows are below 2000 vehicles per day and where adequate visibility is available..

Priority cycle track crossing at garage entrance, Colwyn Bay

European experience suggests that where the cycle track is used solely by cyclists travelling in the same direction as vehicles on the adjacent traffic lane, returning cyclists to the carriageway before side road junctions can also be an effective solution.




Road Crossings – Mid-link: Cycle tracks may be provided with priority crossings of roads where speeds are less than 30 mph, total traffic flows do not exceed 4,000 vehicles per day and the crossing is sited on a flat-topped road hump.

85th %ile speed

Traffic flow (2 way daily)

Type of crossing

< 20 mph < 1,000 Cycle route has priority

< 30 mph < 2,000 Cyclists have priority – raised crossing

< 50 mph < 6,000 Cyclists give way to road traffic

< 50 mph < 8,000 Cyclists give way to road traffic plus central refuge – urban

< 60 mph < 10,000 Cyclists give way to road traffic plus central stage refuge – rural

< 50 mph > 8,000 Signal controlled, including Toucans

> 50 mph > 8,000 Grade separated crossing – urban

> 60 mph > 10,000 Grade separated crossing - rural

Mid-link cycle priority crossing, Thetford

The above table is taken from LTN 2-08 except for figures in italics which are a suggested guide for CyclingTowns. All figures are guidance only and other site specific conditions such as visibility, width, proximity of junctions, tie-in to adjacent cycle facilities, turning movements etc will determine the best solution.




Cycle track leading to signal controlled crossing, Kingston

The treatment of crossing points within the cycling towns is also looking beyond current DfT guidance in some cases. The arrangements below place the onus on users to negotiate who has priority.

Unmarked crossing at side road with raised entry treatment, Aylesbury

Give-way cycle crossing marked using ‘elephants footprints’, Derby




Give-way cycle crossing marked with coloured surfacing and cycle logos, Morecambe

A number of mainland European countries allow the use of zebra-style pedestrian crossings by cyclists. At present it is not unlawful for cyclists to cycle across zebra crossings within the UK. However, since there is no legal requirement for motorists to give way when they do, encouraging this practice may increase hazards for cyclists. Where cycle tracks naturally bring cyclists to such facilities, wider than normal crossings should be provided and ‘Cyclists dismount’ signs used. Cycle track approaches should also have a bend on the immediate approaches to the zebra crossing to slow cyclists speeds.

Cycle track leading to Zebra Crossing, Derby

Junction and Forward Visibility: Adequate visibility (20m where the design speed is 12mph) should be provided or measures to manage speed considered.

Footway Crossings and Tactile Paving: Where cycle tracks cross footways to reach the carriageway, blind and partially sighted pedestrians should be warned by means of corduroy paving. Ladder tactile paving should not be placed in the path of a turning cyclist. The length of ladder paving should be kept to a minimum (800mm) wherever possible.

Flush Kerbs: FLUSH kerbs, i.e. with no upstand between abutting surfaces, should be provided at all transition points, with channel blocks and increased drainage provision used if necessary. Flush kerbs at crossings should be wide enough to allow cyclists to turn on/off the carriageway without the need to pull out into the path of vehicles going in the same direction.




Cycle Track Junctions: Adequate corner radii should be provided at junctions between cycle tracks (minimum 2m) and chamfered corners (min 1m) at the rear of footways crossed by cycle tracks.

Access and Speed Controls: There should be a presumption against the use of any access barriers on a cycle track/shared-use path until/unless there is a proven need because of the difficulties they can cause all users. A 1.5m gap will enable cycle trailers and wheelchairs to pass through with care, less than this will exclude them, especially if the approaches are not straight.

Where it is necessary to reduce the speed of cyclists, 2 rows of staggered bollards are preferred.

Obstruction of cycle track accesses: Where cycle tracks emerge onto the carriageway, suitable arrangements should be put in place to prevent parked vehicles obstructing access and to ensure adequate visibility (e.g. “Keep Clear” road markings, double yellow lines etc.).

Wheeling Channels: Any stepped footbridges at transport interchanges and along cycle routes should be fitted with suitable wheeling ramps.

Wheeling channel on footbridge, Bristol

Other Items

Subway Headroom and Bridge Parapet Heights: Headroom in new subways should be a minimum of 2.4m. Existing subways with lower headroom have been successfully converted to cycle use but should be risk assessed and warning signs added where appropriate. Any overhanging signs should be mounted at least 2.3m above the surface of a cycle track. The recommended height for new bridge parapets used by cyclists is 1.4m. Existing bridges converted for cycle use often have parapet heights in the range 1.1m – 1.4m and the designer may wish to undertake a risk assessment to decide if this is an acceptable height for the circumstance. The height of 1.4m is a recommendation and should not be taken as a reason for disallowing cycle use, especially on routes where there is a long history of local cycle use such as historic river crossings.

Surfaces: Surfaces should be chosen with due regard to whole-life costs (off-carriageway as well as on). Materials should always be machine laid (rather than hand laid) to ensure a smooth running surface.

For aesthetic, environmental and cost reasons coloured surfaces should only be used at potential hazards and conflict points, or where encroachment by motor vehicles is a problem




Any decision to use coloured surfacing for all cycle facilities will need to balance the potential safety benefits against the future maintenance commitment that will be required.

Signs: The use of “CYCLISTS DISMOUNT” and “END OF ROUTE” signs should not be used unless there is a proven need.

The use of advance directions signs, particularly map-type where this will direct cyclists through complex junctions, can help cyclists to take up an appropriate and safe road position and indicate their intended movements, and conserve energy lost when stopping to read signs erected at junctions.

Posts and sign faces should not reduce the effective width of a cycle track by being placed in the path of pedestrians or cyclists. Where possible, sign posts and lamp columns should be set back 500mm beyond the edge of a cycle track. Where walls or fences prevent this they should be placed tight up against them.

Where vandalism is a problem signs should be mounted high enough to discourage graffiti and square posts used to prevent rotation. Plastic rather than aluminium signs should also be considered, to help reduce theft.

Sign x-heights should reflect the positioning and likely speed of approaching cyclists.

Cycle parking: The inclusion of ‘Sheffield’ type cycle parking stands should be considered in all highway traffic management and maintenance schemes. Allow 1.0m between stands (min 0.9m) and 0.5m between stands and any adjacent walls or other fixtures.

Monitoring: Local authorities should develop a robust system for monitoring and evaluating cycling activities throughout their area to enable targets to be set for future growth.

Cycle flows should be measured before and after the introduction of all new cycle tracks and lanes and consideration given to developing local targets based on these surveys that can feed into overall cycle–use targets.

Provision for the installation of automatic counters should be included in cycling scheme budgets (including those secured through Section 278 and Section 106 agreements in new- build schemes) to enable a network of data collection points to be established.

Maintenance: All new cycle infrastructure should be delivered in a manner that will minimise whole-life costs. Maintenance programmes should reflect the importance of cycling as a mode that is to be encouraged and authorities should ensure that non-highway sections of cycle networks are the subject of an adequately funded maintenance regime.

Highway authorities should consider using highway maintenance funding for all projects created to deliver their LTP and other objectives. On-road, attention should be focused on the condition of the strip of carriageway within 1.5 – 2m of the kerb. Off-road, both construction and landscaping should aim to minimise maintenance costs.

Integrating Cycling into Development Proposals: All new developments should be accessible by bicycle. Their highway infrastructure should focus on on-road provision for cyclists with roads designed to deliver low speeds whilst at the same time creating permeability and advantage through the use of connections and links not available to motor traffic.

New developments should also provide for, and fund, links to the wider cycle network including quality cycle routes to such destinations as town centres, schools, employment sites, transport interchanges etc; i.e. works remote from the site.

Drainage: The need for adequate drainage should be considered during the design of all cycle tracks, especially at tie-ins, to prevent ponding or erosion during periods of heavy rain. Cycle-friendly gully grates should always be used and care taken to ensure that gullies are not located within the path of cyclists.




Gradients: Cycle tracks should have a maximum gradient of 3% with the absolute maximum 5% for lengths up to 100m. On the approach to priority junctions this should not exceed 3%. Where steeper slopes are unavoidable the limiting gradient is 7% for lengths up to 30m.

Lighting: Off-road routes which cyclists are encouraged to use after dark (e.g. commuter routes) should be lit. Note: Even lit facilities remote from passive surveillance are unlikely to be used and a lit on-road alternative should be identified in these situations. Consider the provision of floodlighting where cycle routes cross roads. Vandalism to lighting equipment can also be a problem for lighting on remote paths. One off-road route in Lancaster has the lighting remotely switched off at midnight to reduce light pollution during hours when there is little use.

Cyclists and Junctions: All junction designs should seek to give priority to cyclists where practicable, and minimise delay and maximise cyclists’ safety and comfort in all cases.




4 Additional Technical Notes on Common Issues

4.1 Introduction

Some facilities have yielded several technical enquiries from the Cycling Towns and City programme and from other local authorities. The technical support team has put together some additional technical notes that provide more detailed background information for designers.

4.2 Advanced Stop Lines

4.2.1 Benefits of ASLs Advance stop lines (ASLs) were originally introduced in the UK improve the safety and attractiveness of cycling at signal controlled junctions by:

• Providing a place for cyclists to wait that is in full view of other road users, rather than in the blind spot to the left of traffic (especially HGVs);

• Minimising conflict between cyclists pulling ahead from rest and left-turning vehicles;

• Minimising conflict between cyclists turning right and vehicles moving ahead.

ASLs have been shown to be effective in terms of aiding cyclists’ positioning, with 44% more cyclists being able to position themselves in front of (and therefore in sight of) waiting motor vehicles at approaches with an ASL as opposed those without (Allen, et al., 2005).

Cyclists can also derive further benefit from ASLs, namely:

• Cyclists are given visible and practical priority over other vehicles upon departing the

signals;

• Cyclists can by-pass any queuing traffic on the approach to the signals;

• Cyclists are afforded somewhere to wait in an area relatively free of exhaust fumes;

• Cyclists can position themselves to turn right more easily, particularly in busy situations.

These benefits are at their greatest on approaches with longer red times or where there are queues and/or delays.

ASLs have been shown to reduce incidences of both motor vehicles and cyclists encroaching into pedestrian crossings immediately beyond the stop line. (Allen, et al., 2005). Therefore, ASLs may improve the safety and accessibility of the crossing for pedestrians by providing a greater distance between the stop line for motor vehicles, and by providing a space for cycles to wait at the head of any queue but prior to any pedestrian crossing.

Figure 1 - Simple ASL

Often, sites where an ASL is likely to be most beneficial also tend to be locations where site constraints mean there may be difficulties associated with implementing them. Where need for an ASL has been identified but there is concern regarding the operation or safety of a




proposed design, these risks should be weighed against the risks related to use of the layout without ASL provision.




4.2.2 What ASLs cannot do By its nature, traffic signal control introduces delays for all road users by requiring them to stop and wait at certain times. This problem is particularly acute for cyclists, who will expend considerably more effort stopping and re-starting at the behest of traffic signals than they may at other forms of junctions. Other junction arrangements should be considered in line with the Hierarchy of Provision outlined in LTN 2/08 (Department for Transport, 2008), as these may provide a better environment for cycling.

Notwithstanding this, in many cases signals will be the most appropriate form of control. However, care should be taken to ensure that the proposed junction is suitable for cycling prior to consideration of ASLs. A large, complex, high speed motor-vehicle-dominated junction will not be made cycle-friendly by the provision of ASLs.

4.2.3 Where ASLs may not be suitable Like the majority of traffic signs and road markings, the use of advance stop lines is prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSR&GD). The TSR&GD prescribes ASLs as diagram 1001.2 - this marking is prescribed only for use at junctions controlled by red-amber-green traffic signals.

Diagram 1001.2 is NOT prescribed for use at:

• ‘Pelican’ and ‘Puffin’ pedestrian crossings;

• ‘Toucan’ cycle and ‘Pegasus’ equestrian crossings;

• Level crossings, moving bridges, tunnels, airfields, police or ambulance stations controlled by alternately flashing red ‘wig-wag’ signals.

Therefore, advance stop lines should NOT generally be used at these locations.

There may be locations where advance stop lines are appropriate in the non-prescribed situations described above. In these instances, traffic authorities should liaise with the Department for Transport (and, in the case of level crossings, HM Railway Inspectorate), and a special authorisation should be sought if it is felt that ASLs would be beneficial at a specific location.

There are also some locations where provision of an advance stop line is unlikely to be appropriate or beneficial. These include:-

• On high-speed roads.

• Where traffic flows and speeds are low, and congestion is not a problem,

• In highway environments which encourage negotiation between road users, intentionally or otherwise. It is noted traffic signals are unlikely to be provided in such environments).

4.2.4 Signal timings and capacity At many signal controlled junctions, maintaining sufficient capacity for motor vehicles can be a major consideration. The capacity implications of providing ASLs were studied on behalf of TRL (Wall, et al., 2003). This study concluded that ASLs did not reduce the capacity of the studied junctions, provided there was no loss of a lane.

If it is necessary to remove a traffic lane in order to provide an ASL (or more usually a cycle lane to the ASL), it is likely that there will be a reduction in capacity. This should not necessarily preclude the introduction of advance stop lines – for instance, a small increase in delays for motor vehicles may be acceptable if a significant improvement in cycling conditions is achieved.

Intergreen times should be calculated using the stop line for motor vehicles (i.e. the furthest back) in accordance with TAL 1/06 (Department for Transport, 2006). In many cases, no changes will be required to intergreen times, and where they are, any change will be generally minimal (Wall, et al., 2003). It may be possible to reduce the distance between




the cyclists’ stop line and any pedestrian crossing from the recommended 3m to further reduce impact on signal timings where capacity is marginal.

At large junctions or where there is a significant gradient, consideration of intergreen periods may be required to ensure cyclists clear the junction safely. Provision of an ‘all-red’ detector to extend the green time for any lagging cyclists may be appropriate – in this instance, an ASL may improve junction capacity by helping cyclists ‘jump’ any queue and depart at the start of the green time, reducing the chance that the green time will need to be extended.

It is important that, where traffic lanes are altered or re-aligned, or where the stop line is relocated to accommodate the cycle reservoir, detection systems are reviewed to ensure vehicles (including cycles) are correctly detected. Failure to do this will result in loss of capacity and needless additional delays for all road users, including cyclists. Consideration should also be given to the detection of vehicles waiting in the cycle reservoir or proceeding in the cycle lane(s), and to the detection of cycles more generally.

4.2.5 Basic design data Where it is proposed to install ASLs at an existing signal installation, the signal engineers responsible for the installation should always be consulted.

It is essential that the design of any advance stop line scheme is informed by relevant data and site observations, and that these are considered for each approach to the junction individually.

Data that needs to be considered includes:

• Classified turning counts (including cycles on and off the carriageway);

• Vehicle approach speeds;

• Peak and off-peak queue lengths;

• Numbers of cyclists held in queues;

• Carriageway widths and allocation; and,

• Signal phasing and staging.

A site visit should also be conducted in order for the designer to observe user behaviour and establish how cyclists prefer to use the junction and also to establish what, if any, problems cyclists typically encounter.

4.2.6 Design of cycle reservoir Currently, the TSR&GD requires that the cycle reservoir extends for the full width of the stop line for motor vehicles. Generally, this will provide the best solution as this accommodates all manoeuvres cyclists may wish to make. However, there may be some instances where a reservoir across only part of the stop line may be advantageous; for instance, where cyclists are prohibited from turning right. Research has also indicated these partial reservoirs may be less prone to encroachment than the prescribed layout in the TSR&GD (Atkins, 2006).

The depth of the cycle reservoir is prescribed to be between 4 and 5 metres. Where cycle flows are particularly high and capacity of the reservoir is an issue, there may advantages in increasing this depth, particularly if access to the reservoir is obstructed by cyclists waiting at the nearside kerb. It may also be advantageous to increase the reservoir depth where cyclists would have to cross a significant width of carriageway to turn right; however, the implications of cyclists having to perform this manoeuvre during free-flow conditions or as motor vehicles start to pull away should be considered.

Should a partial width or enhanced depth reservoir be deemed appropriate, traffic authorities should liaise with the Department for Transport, and a special authorisation should be sought.




Where a partial width ASL is appropriate and reservoir capacity is not an issue, a staggered stop line for cycles could be provided without special authorisation.

The reservoir should be designed to ensure that vehicles emerging from any nearby side roads away from the signals can turn into the major road and align themselves in the correct lane prior to reaching the first stop line.

The intervisibility zone for the junction as defined by TD 50/04 (Highways Agency, 2004) should be measured from the stop line for cyclists (i.e. the furthest forward).

4.2.7 Design of approach cycle lane A cycle lane should be provided on the approach to the reservoir to enable cyclists to by-pass any queuing traffic on the approach to the stop line. This lane should generally be advisory to simplify the signing and road markings required. However, where a nearside mandatory cycle lane is provided on the approach to the signals before any lane associated with the ASL, this should be continued to the reservoir provided that motor vehicles have no reason to cross the approach lane.

The cycle lane should extend far enough back for cyclists to by-pass peak-time queues. The cycle lane will need to be free of surface defects, hazardous gullies, etc. Adjacent street furniture should also be checked to ensure adequate clearance from the cycle lane.

The cycle lane should generally be located adjacent to the nearside kerb, as this is where cyclists generally prefer to cycle. Notwithstanding this, there may be occasions where the cycle lane would be better placed to the offside of one-or more traffic lanes. Where the carriageway is widened to provide a left-turn entry lane, the cycle lane should be continued from the kerbside prior to widening to the offside of the left turn lane.

Figure 2 - ASL where left-turn entry lane provided

Where there is a significant left-turn of motor vehicles but most cyclists continue ahead, it may be advantageous to provide the cycle lane to the offside of any left turn lane(s). Care should be taken in this instance to ensure that cyclists would be able to access such a lane safely and without undue obstruction by queuing traffic in both peak and off-peak conditions. Traffic composition and speed will need to be carefully considered. It may be better for the lane to extend across the nearside traffic lane(s) from the nearside kerb than for the lane simply to start between two traffic lanes (Figure 2).

In some instances, it may be beneficial to provide more than one cycle lane on each approach to the reservoir. This may be particularly useful where a relatively narrow carriageway widens dramatically on the approach to the stop line, or where one or more manoeuvres are controlled separately.

Traffic lanes on the approach to the stop line adjacent to cycle lanes should ideally be a minimum of 3.0m wide. However, where speeds are low, lanes as narrow as 2.8m can function satisfactorily. Where large vehicle usage is low and encroachment by large vehicles into adjacent lanes (including the cycle lane) is acceptable, lane widths of 2.5m may be adequate. At least 3.0m should be provided for traffic leaving the signals – however, wider widths may be necessary to accommodate cyclists and/or cycle lanes. It is important that




kerblines or lane widths beyond the junction do not result in a pinch point for cyclists using a feeder lane on the approach to the junction in free-flowing conditions.

Cycle lanes should generally be at least 1.5 metres wide. A relaxation of 1.2m may be acceptable if necessary after reduced traffic lane widths have been considered; however; it should be noted that such a narrow width may present difficulties for cyclists passing stationary vehicles. Where a cycle lane runs between two traffic lanes (e.g. not at the nearside kerb), the cycle lane should ideally be 2.0m wide to provide adequate separation from other traffic.

Where these widths cannot be achieved, no cycle lane should be provided. Instead, a ‘gate’ consisting of the tapered marking to diagram 1009 can be provided (see Figure 3). Note: this will require special authorisation but will be added to the next revision of TSRGD. Studies have suggested that provision of a coloured strip along the nearside kerb (i.e. where the cycle lane would be) may improve cyclists’ access to the reservoir where a cycle lane cannot be provided (Atkins, 2006). Such a strip should be at least 1.5m wide, and should extend as far back as peak-time queues.

Figure 3 - ASL without cycle lane (non-prescribed)

Given the reduced accessibility of the reservoir where no formal cycle lane is provided, the benefits of an ASL without an approach lane may be marginal. In these instances, consideration should be given to:

• Reducing the number of traffic lanes;

• Widening the carriageway; or,

• Not providing an ASL.

In all instances, it is vital that road markings provided are clear and concise, particularly where the layout is complex (e.g. where there are many lanes, or where turning movements permitted from each lane are complex and/or unusual). Designs of ASLs which result in complicated layouts are to be avoided. The risk of road users being confused and resulting in conflict should be weighed against the benefits of the proposed ASL.

It is important that the approach cycle lane is kept clear of waiting vehicles, to reduce the risk of conflicts arising where cyclists have to manoeuvre out of the cycle lane. Waiting and, where appropriate, loading restrictions should be reviewed, and/or alternative provision considered where there is a need to accommodate parking and/or loading.




4.2.8 Complex phasing arrangements Where an approach is divided into lanes which are separately signalled (i.e. with green arrow signals), this can cause difficulties for cyclists. These problems are particularly acute where lanes are separated by physical islands. Cyclists waiting in the reservoir (or at or beyond the stop line where no ASL is provided) may find themselves obstructing and/or intimidated by filtering traffic, or may not be able to position themselves correctly to make their manoeuvre. It may be best for cyclists if such phasing arrangements were removed, though this may not always be acceptable in the light of capacity or safety concerns.

Where such arrangements are retained, any ASL must be designed with care. Provision of central cycle lanes and/or multiple cycle lanes may help cycles gain access to part of a reservoir that does not result in them obstructing filtering traffic, as might dividing the reservoir. Multiple approach cycle lanes and divided reservoirs are not prescribed and would require authorisation from the Department for Transport.

It may be better not to provide an ASL across all lanes, or even at all, if provision of an ASL would encourage cyclists to cross lanes controlled separately from the manoeuvre the cyclist wishes to make. It is important, however, that any risk associated with such a manoeuvre is weighed against the risks related to the same manoeuvre being performed without provision of an ASL. The design of any islands should enable cyclists to ‘escape’ to their desired destination where there is a risk they may find themselves positioned on the wrong side of any island.

4.2.9 Traffic signs No upright signs are required to be used with advance stop lines unless the approach lane forms part of a longer cycle lane along the route.

At some junctions, signs may be provided to diagrams 877, 2019 or 2114 which indicate traffic lanes on the approach to the junction. The Regulations do not permit these to be varied to indicate a cycle lane. In any event, it is unlikely that the cycle lane will need to be shown on these signs, particularly if a single nearside approach lane is provided. However, where central or multiple cycle lanes are provided, it may be beneficial to provide or amend signs to indicate these lanes – in this instance, authorisation should be sought from the Department for Transport.

4.2.10 Coloured surfacing Coloured surfacing may be used to enhance the conspicuity of the cycle reservoir and the approach cycle lane. Although it has been suggested that colour can reduce encroachment of cycle lanes by motor vehicles (McKeown, 2006); regarding ASLs specifically, studies have not been able to conclusively associate colour with reduced encroachment (Allen, et al., 2005). The implementation cost, visual intrusion and increased maintenance associated with coloured surfacing should be considered before this treatment is proposed. If coloured surfacing is to be used, the colour specified should be consistent with that used at other on- road cycle facilities in the area.

Where one or more cycle lanes are provided between two traffic lanes, it is recommended that coloured surfacing should be provided to highlight the potential presence of cycles to those moving across the cycle lanes. Where this is the case, all approach cycle lanes and the reservoir should be treated consistently.




4.2.11 Cost Where a new or revised traffic signal controlled junction is proposed, the cost associated with providing ASLs is likely to be negligible.

ASLs can also be retrofitted at existing installations. In most cases, the cost of this will be modest, with a typical installation costing in the order of £1,000 - £2,000 (2008 prices) for relevant road markings. Where revised detection arrangements are required or coloured surfacing is proposed, this will introduce additional cost.

4.2.12 ASL References Allen, D., Bygrave, S. and Harper, H. 2005. Behaviour at Cycle Advanced Stop Lines. : TRL, 2005.

Atkins. 2006. Advanced Stop Line Findings Report. London : TfL, 2006.

Cycling England. A.08 Signal Controlled Junctions. Design Checklist & Guidance. [Online] http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/docs/a08_signal_controlled_junctions.pdf.

—. A.09 Advance Stop Lines (ASLs):. Design Checklist & Guidance. [Online] http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/docs/a09_advanced_stop_lines.pdf.

Department for Transport. 2008. LTN 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design. London : TSO, 2008.

—. 2007. Manual for Streets. London : Thomas Telford Publishing, 2007.

—. 2006. TAL 1/06 General Principles of Traffic Control by Light Signals. London : DfT, 2006.

—. 2003. Traffic Signs Manual (Chapter 5). London : HMSO, 2003.

Department of Transport. 1996. TAL 05/96 Further development of Advanced Stop Lines. London : DTp, 1996.

—. 1993. TAL 8/93 Advanced stop lines for cyclists. London : DTp, 1993.

Highways Agency. 2005. HD 42/05 Non-motorised User Audits. London : TSO, 2005.

—. 1995. TA 91/05 Provision for Non-Motorised Users. London : TSO, 1995.

—. 2004. TD 50/04 The Geometric Layout of Signal-Controlled Junctions and Signalised Roundabouts. London : TSO, 2004.

McKeown, John. 2006. The Effect of Coloured Surfacing on Drivers' Compliance with Cycle and Bus Lanes. Edinburgh : Napier University, 2006.

SI 2002 No.3113 - The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. London : HMSO.

Wall, G. T., Davies, D. G. and Crabtree, M. 2003. Capacity Implications of Advanced Stop Lines. Crowthorne : TRL, 2003.




4.3 Nearside versus Farside Aspects at Toucan Crossings

4.3.1 Introduction The Cycling England Professional Support Team is aware that some local authorities are reluctant to use Puffin type crossings, or have some form of ‘moratorium’ on their use. This appears to be due mainly to the fact that the pedestrian / cycle aspect is located not in the traditional ‘far-side’ position on the opposite side of the crossing, but instead on the signal pole next to where people wait to cross – the ‘near-side’. This technical note summarises the existing literature to help inform practitioners when designing toucan crossings.

4.3.2 Existing regulations The signing / signal head arrangements associated with Toucan crossings, both at junctions and mid-block, are prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002. This permits use of either pedestrian / cycle signals opposite the carriageway (far-side signals to diagram 4003.5) or pedestrian / cycle signals on the same side of the carriageway (‘near-side’ signals to diagram 4003.7). It should be noted that current guidelines do allow for a duplicate nearside pedestrian / cycle signal to be mounted above the standard nearside aspect, where it is felt that pedestrians waiting to cross may mast the signal to other pedestrians / cyclists.

4.3.3 Existing guidance LTN 2/95 Design of Pedestrian Crossings gives only interim guidance, anticipating the introduction of nearside signals.

TAL 4/98 Toucan Crossing Development suggests that pedestrians and cyclists were generally happy with the nearside version in the surveys carried out stating: "almost half interviewed said they had no problem with the fact that there was no far-side signal”.

Puffin Good Practise Guide (2006) does not discuss Toucan crossings or the near-side / far- side issue in any great detail, but does include the following text: “It is the DfT’s intention that Puffin pedestrian facilities will become the standard form of provision of signalled pedestrian crossings. This will provide a consistent approach at junction traffic signals and mid block crossings (including Toucans)…….. Local Authorities should therefore be planning migration to Puffin style facilities….” The DfT acknowledge that the introduction of Puffins has not been as easy or as straightforward as hoped for and that there has been ‘resistance’ to use them more widely.

LTN 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design mentions that nearside or farside signals may be used, but doesn’t suggest any rationale for making the choice.

4.3.4 Previous studies TRL Report 331: “Toucan Crossing Equipment: Trials of Nearside Equipment”, concludes “The new Toucan crossing has been well received by users. Cyclists and pedestrians possess a reasonable understanding of the crossing operation and felt comfortable with the new style buttons and illuminated displays. The majority were positive about the overall look of the new crossings and felt safe whilst crossing the road alone or with pedestrians or cyclists alongside.” Most of this was inferred from an attitude survey which was detailed in TRL report (277).

TRL Report 239: “Puffin crossing operation and behaviour study” compared Pelicans with Puffins. This did not conclude much relevant to the near-side / far-side issue, other than perhaps the conclusion that pedestrians were more likely to begin crossing when given a flashing green signals at a Pelican compared to the Red extension period at a Puffin (this is not relevant to Toucans where there is no flashing green signal even where far-side signals are provided).




4.3.5 Other references Birmingham City Council ceased installing puffin crossings in 2005, with pelican and toucan (far sided) crossings installed instead. Public concern has been cited as the main issue for this, as well as a deterioration of the safety record of a street where puffin crossings were installed as part of a development.

Sandwell Borough Council is slowly converting all pelican crossings to puffins and similarly far-side toucans to near-side toucans, but officers have indicated that it has taken a lot of publicity to get users to understand the new layout.

The Cambridge Cycle Campaign, from their website, appears to have issues at locations were crossings have been converted to Toucans with nearside signals, with the main concerns being that nearside signals are not where cyclists want to look and can be obstructed by other users. Concerns over visibility of the pedestrian signals by motorists are also raised.

Some authorities, including Cambridgeshire County Council, Birmingham City Council and Herefordshire County Council have experimented with layouts incorporating both near-side and far-side signals. There is little monitoring data available for these sites.

4.3.6 Conclusions At this time there appears to have been little conclusive research into the relative merits of near-side and far-side signals at toucan crossings. It is recommended further research is conducted into this to inform the design of future crossings and / or the conversion of existing.

It is therefore recommended that designers make the decision on the types of signal to be used at toucan crossings based on individual site considerations, and in consultation with local user groups.

4.3.7 Toucan References The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002

LTN 2/95 Design of Pedestrian Crossings (DTp, 1995)

TAL 4/98 Toucan Crossing Development (DfT, 1998)

Puffin Good Practice Guide (DfT, 2006)

LTN 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design (DfT, 2008)

TRL239 Puffin Crossing Operation and Behaviour Study (TRL, 2005)

TRL331 Toucan Crossings: Trials of nearside equipment (TRL, 1998)




4.4 Town Centre Permeability

4.4.1 Introduction Convenient and direct access to destinations – permeability - is a key measure to encourage cycling. This note summarises ways in which permeability for cyclists can be improved in town centres. It is recommended that a designated cycling town would review permeability by:

• Reviewing any existing cycle bans, and considering whether it is possible to restore access for cyclists;

• Retaining and/or establishing two-way cycle access through vehicle restricted areas and

pedestrianised areas within town and city centres;

• Considering part-time access for cyclists on streets closed to other traffic (i.e. access for commuting before 10am and after 4pm); and,

• Offering secure cycle parking within the 'core' areas of towns and cities.

The following permeability design principles are discussed in this note:

• vehicle restricted and pedestrianised zones;

• road closures;

• one-way streets and contra-flow cycling;

• exemptions from banned turns;

• cycle crossings on busy multi-lane roads;

• Cycling in parks and other open spaces

• one-way systems and gyratory junctions.

4.4.2 Permeability The Manual for Streets states that a key consideration for achieving sustainable development is a well connected, or permeable network, that encourages cycling and walking.

The DfT’s latest cycling design guidance advises that cyclists should be given advantage over motorised traffic and afforded greater access and convenience, by the implementation of filtered permeability1 . “The network of routes for non-motorised users therefore needs to provide small connected blocks of development so that walk and cycle distances are minimised …..with greater accessibility than for motor traffic by using quiet residential roads, contraflow schemes, paths alongside rivers and canals, disused railways, vehicle restricted areas and parks.” (LTN 2/08, Cycling Infrastructure Design).

Filtered permeability, or selectively separating non-motorised modes from motorised traffic in order to give an advantage in terms of speed, distance, and convenience to the non- motorised mode, is a principle commonly applied in Europe that has demonstrably encouraged greater use of cycles for short trips. In urban areas, like Freiburg, Groningen and Zwolle, the principle of filtered permeability is perceived as one of the main reasons for their success in achieving relatively high rates of walking, cycling and public transport use.

In these examples motor traffic tends to be confined to a restricted network of main roads, with suburbs and townships often designed as cul-de-sacs (for cars). Residents tend to use alternatives, particularly cycling, because they can offer quicker and more convenient alternatives to driving. A permeable network is available to sustainable modes utilising bridges, tunnels, cycle paths, and bus (or tram) priority measures.

1 Filterered permeability is a term used in ‘Manual for Streets’.




4.4.3 Vehicle restricted areas and pedestrianised areas A town centre is the focus of radial routes, to and from, the centre and therefore also offers the most geographically direct through-routes. Traffic management measures often close a town centre to motorised traffic in order to remove through-traffic onto a ring-road. If a town centre traffic ban includes pedal cycles, through routes are severed and the coherence of the cycle route network is compromised. To encourage cycling, permeability through a central area should be provided with a route that is ideally direct, convenient and safe, taking advantage of the wide traffic-free streets and squares that result from a vehicle restriction programme, or in some historic layouts, using parallel ‘back lanes’ where pedestrian usage is less intense. Cycle route permeability should be ‘designed-in’ to new developments so that the bicycle is not excluded from central areas and to positively demonstrate that cycling offers a convenient, direct and quick form of transport for occupiers. Signing issues are outlined in Appendix A.

Public opinion during consultation may exaggerate the potential for pedestrian/cyclist conflict and confuse access for cyclists with wider issues about anti-social behaviour. TRL research (set out in TAL9/93 ‘Cycling in Pedestrian Areas) has clear conclusions:

“there are “no real factors to justify excluding cyclists from pedestrianised areas, suggesting that cycling could be more widely permitted without detriment to pedestrians;” and that,

“a wide variety of regulatory and design solutions existed to enable space to be used safely and effectively in pedestrianised areas.”

The TRL study, Cycling in Vehicle Restricted Areas indicates that as pedestrian density increases most cyclists will slow down or dismount. In some areas where the volume of pedestrians combined with limited available space for movement means that allowing all day access for cyclists is both unrealistic and inappropriate. Cycling can be permitted when pedestrian flow and density is relatively low, such as before 10am and after 4pm Monday to Saturday, which has been successfully adopted by a number of urban areas in the UK such as the ‘foot streets’ in York. The times for cycle access should also coincide with times when access is permitted for delivery vehicles.

The use of segregated, or unsegregated designs for cycle routes through central areas is an important consideration.

Segregated routes appear (during consultations at least) to be preferred by cyclists, pedestrians and access groups, probably due to the perception that it may result in fewer conflict situations. This arrangement requires physical marking of a route, usually involving surface lines, cycle logos, direction arrows and additional sign plates on posts or bollards. Alternatively, contrasting surface materials can be used, often blockwork, with additional painted logos (TSRGD 1057) or special one-off designs set into the surface.

Example from Watford




Segregated provision is less common in the rest of Europe, where

most town centres permit cycle access where pedestrians and cyclists are able to mix freely in a Shared Space environment. Cycling England generally recommends the use of unsegregated access. Reasons for this approach include:

• cyclists respond to pedestrian density, modifying their speed, dismounting and taking avoiding action where necessary

• cyclists may be encouraged to cycle at inappropriate speeds within dedicated

lanes/tracks – thus increasing the potential for conflict and consequent injuries

• pedestrians will usually stray into a marked cycle track causing cyclists to go (unlawfully) outside the designated path

• a single designated route is unlikely to cater for all cycling desire-lines within a town

centre

• a ‘this is my space’ space culture may develop, whereby cyclists and pedestrians may resent each other straying into each others territory

• signs and markings for segregated routes can introduce additional street clutter and

costs

• careful urban design can create attractive, functional, ‘shared space’ environments

• European good practice indicates unsegregated space works well

A range of physical measures is available to help deter motorised vehicles, including:

• bollards may be deployed at access points and along zone boundaries to physically exclude vehicles. There are a number of designs that can permit access by emergency and other essential vehicles. Rising bollards can effectively enforce time related or selective vehicle (e.g. buses) access.

• high kerbs and a combination of other street furniture can be used delineate an

exclusion zone, or the edge of a vehicular carriageway. Guard railing should be avoided where possible as it impinges on pedestrian access and is visually intrusive.




Whatever physical measures are used it is advisable to provide a minimum of 1.5m gaps with associated flush transitions to allow cyclists (and wheelchair/powered buggy users) through. How these measures may affect those with sight impairment should also be considered.

Rising bollards allow buses to enter the square but prevent other motorised vehicles. (Aylesbury)

These bollards ensure vehicles may not enter the area whilst allowing permeability for cyclists and pedestrians. No restriction signing (or TRO) is necessary.

4.4.4 Road closures Closing a road to motorised traffic is cost-effective and a relatively simple way of creating a cycle-friendly environment. Traffic may be excluded altogether, often where an alternative new road has been created, or the through-road may be closed but access retained on either side (often introduced to reduce through traffic in a residential area or to deter anti- social behaviour). To offer a permeable network for cyclists access through the closure (free of parked vehicles) needs to be provided. A gap, with flush kerbs, of 1.5m width is recommended to allow cyclists and people with powered disability buggies to pass. Where parking is an issue, placing the ‘cycle-gap’ in the centre of the carriageway rather than at the edges may help to prevent it from being blocked.

A road closure includes a convenient gap for cyclists. Single yellow lines and keep clear markings deter parking. (Welwyn)

In this example access to a side street has been closed at its junction with a main road. (Stevenage)

4.4.5 One-way streets and contra-flow cycling One-way systems can be a deterrent to cycling because they often entail longer journeys and can lead to increased vehicle speeds. Cycling permeability can be improved by the




implementation of contra-flow cycle arrangements, where cyclists can travel against the general flow of traffic. Research indicates that properly designed contra-flow schemes can function satisfactorily in a variety of conditions, including narrow streets, streets with high pedestrian flows and streets where kerbside parking and loading is allowed (TAL 6/98 Contraflow Cycling).

There are a number of ways to support two-way cycling (which are covered in greater detail in the Design Portfolio on the Cycling England website), such as:

• a physically segregated contra-flow cycle track - either at footway level, at half height between footway and carriageway, or at carriageway level protected by a kerbed margin

• a mandatory 2.0m wide contra-flow cycle lane marked by a solid white line, which

provides a protected contra-flow lane for cyclists at all times (waiting and loading are prohibited)

• an advisory contra-flow cycle facility (both marked lanes and unmarked cycle-only

contraflows require authorisation). Advisory cycle lanes are suitable where oncoming vehicles occasionally need to encroach or for occasional loading and unloading needs to take place, parking however, cannot be permitted unless in kerbside bays adjacent to the lane

• a false one-way street, or a no-entry sign with cycle bypass, is effectively a road closure

but allows cycles to by-pass a no-entry sign (if used) at the restricted end

• the use of contra-flow shared bus and cycle lane.

Converting a footway to overcome a one-way restriction is less desirable and should be avoided so that pedestrians are not inconvenienced, unless the contraflow is achieved by also widening the footway into the carriageway so that there is no net loss of space for pedestrians.

Advisory cycle contra-flow lane with protective hatched buffer (Southend)

Mandatory contra-flow lane leading into an advisory contra-flow cycle lane. (Cambridge)

Cycle bypass to ‘no-entry’ and ‘false one-way’ street beyond (signs incorrect).(Watford)

A (substandard) physically segregated contra-flow cycle lane. (London)




4.4.6 Exemptions from banned turns Where it can be achieved safely, exempting cyclists from turning bans can provide additional permeability by minimising journey time and distance travelled and help to make cycling more appealing. An ‘Except Cycles’ plate needs to be placed underneath the appropriate regulatory sign. It may be necessary to provide traffic islands to protect cyclists waiting to make a turn. In some instances signing is not necessary such as when a physical restriction is introduced. Where a simple exemption is not safe, it may be possible to enable cyclists to make the banned turn by using an off-line crossing close to the junction.

Exemption from banned turn using sign combination 612 (No right turn) and 954.4 (Except cycles). (Norwich)

This simple ‘cycle slot’ in the splitter traffic island enables cyclists to make the straight- ahead manoeuvre that other vehicles cannot. (Ipswich)

4.4.7 Crossing busy, multi-lane roads Inner ring roads, relief roads, bypasses and busy roads can be a barrier to access to central areas, acting as a deterrent to cycling and walking. Grade separated crossings such as subways and bridges may help, but can also cause personal security concerns in some areas. They are often indirect involving detours off the desire-line. It is important to undertake review of cycling demand and desire-lines when considering creating improved cycle crossing points. At grade, single stage signal controlled crossings are preferred. On shared-use routes with high numbers of cyclists, wider, parallel crossings may be more appropriate. Subways and over-bridges are not generally encouraged, unless the road being crossed is in a cutting or elevated so that the cycle route remains at ground level, or the approach ramps have minimal gradients (a maximum of 5%) and little diversion off-line.

A parallel Toucan crossing (Southend) Straight across single stage crossing (Exeter)

4.4.8 Other Issues to be considered Achieving permeability generally involves offering routes for cyclists and pedestrians that are not available to other traffic. One of the most important aspects of such provision is to offer legibility so that the routes are easy to follow and continuous. Direction signing is

important, but can be visually intrusive and can be supplemented by on-carriageway cycle




lanes, cycle logos with direction arrows, advanced stop lines and attention to the detailed alignments of cycle routes so that they flow logically from one element to another.

The provision of adequate cycle parking should also be considered. It is important to provide frequent parking opportunities on the network in addition to facilities at destination points. The provision of adequate and appropriate cycle route signing (and mapping) should not be overlooked, as it is important that cyclists are aware of the most appropriate and permeable route through and urban area. Vehicular signing is unlikely to indicate the most convenient cycle route.

4.4.9 Permeability References: LTN 2/08 Cycling Infrastructure Design (DfT, 2008) http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/ltnotes/ltn208.pdf

TAL 9/93 Cycling in Pedestrian Areas (DoT, 1993) http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/165240/244921/244924/TAL_9-93

TAL 04/97 - Rising Bollards (DETR, 1997) http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/165240/244921/244924/TAL_4-97

TAL 6/98 Contraflow Cycling (DETR, 1998) http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/165240/244921/244924/TAL_6-98

TRL Report 583 - Cycling in Restricted Areas (DG Davies, L Chinn, GS Buckle, SJ. Reid, 2003). Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire.

Cycling England – Vehicle Restricted (Pedestrian) Areas (Town Centre Access) www.cyclingengland.co.uk/engineering-planning/design-checklist/

Manual for Streets (DfT, 2007) http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/manforstreets/pdfmanforstreets.pdf




4.5 Contraflow Cycling Without Cycle Lanes

4.5.1 Introduction

Contraflow cycling in Leicester without cycle lanes Note the use of sign to Diagram NP 960.2

Picture: Alex Sully

The purpose of this advice note is to provide local authorities with a simple guide to the introduction of contra flow cycling without cycle lanes. This approach is particularly useful where traffic flows are light and road widths are constrained or where public realm issues, such as the use of tegular paving, mean that the introduction of additional signs and road markings is undesirable. The primary aims of this note are as follows:

• To remind local authorities that contraflow cycling may be achieved without the need for any cycle lanes;

• To address the concerns of some safety professionals that the practice of contraflow

cycling is unsafe; and

• To clarify signing issues both along the length of the road in question and at the points of entry and exit.




Cont r af l ow s chemes can unction satisfactorily in a variety of con di t ons, i n cl ud ng veryn arrow stree t s , s reet s w th h gh pedestrian flows and streets with h g h l eve s o f kerbs dep arking or oad ng acti vi ty. Cyc ing in contraflow can be safer as we l a s mor e c onvenienttha n cycl ng al ong an alternative route, which is ike y to involve l o ng er di st an ces and mayb e mor e haz ardous.

Cyc l e nfrast r uctur e De si gn Local Transport No e 2/08 DfT 2008

T he n roduc tion of one - way work ng can cause s gnif cant problems for cyc lists i they areforced to us e mor e ci r c ui tous and hazardous alternative routes as a r esu lt. T hi s can be ad et errent to cycl e use.

T w o-way cycl i ng sh ou d , therefore, be the defau t option where it i s propos ed to introduceo ne- wa y working o r g eneral traffic.

Cont r af l ow Cycl ng Design Por folio 06 Cycling England

4.5.2 Current Guidance

f i i

t i i i l i l i l l

i l l

I t

i t i i i f

l l f

i t

Current Department for Transport (DfT) guidance on this subject may be found in Traffic Advisory Leaflet (TAL) 6/98 Contraflow Cycling2. This document sets out the recommended parameters for the introduction of contraflow cycling without a cycle lane as follows:

Either • 85th percentile speeds are less than 25mph; and

• Vehicle flows are less than 1000 vehicles per day (vpd);

or • The street forms part of a 20mph zone

TAL 6/98 also gives guidance on the signing and layouts of road makings to be employed. Since one of the signs (TRSDG Diagram NP960.2) requires DfT authorisation (but will be included in the next issue of TSRGD), in effect this means that authorisation is required for contraflow schemes in one-way streets that do not employ mandatory contraflow cycle lanes. However, what is not totally clear is what the position is if the local authority decides not to use these signs. This is discussed in section 4.5.5.

Diagram NP 960.2

Contra-flow advisory cycle lane, or contra-flow cycle facility with no marked lane, in opposing direction.

Local Transport Note (LTN) 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design repeats the parameters set out above and makes the point (7.6.8) that “Where contraflow lane markings are meant to be largely absent, a short section of lane with coloured surfacing at each end of the road will help alert drivers and pedestrians to the possibility of encountering cyclists travelling in contraflow.” TAL 6/98 recommends that the length of any such cycle lane should be 4 to 5m.

2 http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/cyclefacilities/contraflowcycling




4.5.3 Safety Considerations TAL 6/98 refers to research by TRL (report 358) undertaken on behalf of the DfT (then DETR) which looked at a range of contraflow schemes which included three without cycle lanes. The study included video analysis which showed no examples of situations where cyclists were judged to have been put in a position of serious conflict (with motor vehicles). Neither were any cases observed where cyclists’ behaviour was judged to have endangered other cyclists. This situation is confirmed by an unpublished DfT report.

A carefully designed contraflow cycle scheme without a cycle lane should not, therefore, create safety problems for any road users. If a proposal does give rise to specific safety concerns, then it is recommended that these be addressed by undertaking a risk assessment to identify suitable mitigating measures, including consideration of the risks to cyclists of using alternative routes if contraflow cycling is not permitted.

Where car parking is to be retained on the nearside of cyclists travelling against the flow of all other traffic, this should not be seen as creating conditions that preclude contraflow cycling. As LTN 2/08 points out “Parallel parking bays do not pose more of a hazard for cyclists in contraflow than they do elsewhere. Indeed, drivers waiting to pull out of the bays usually face oncoming cyclists …”

Where side roads join a street which features contraflow without cycle lanes, concerns about cyclists may be addressed by introducing a short length of cycle lane across the junction accompanied by the cycle symbol (Diagram 1057), coloured surfacing and possibly a directional arrow (Diagram 1059) – see below. The use of such features should not be seen as automatic, especially in streets with little traffic, and will depend upon site conditions.

Revised extract from Figure 2 of TAL 6/98 showing cycle lane across side road (not to scale)

In situations where there are significant numbers of cyclists already using a one-way road in the contraflow direction illegally, the safety record of that road may provide useful information for use in scheme design.




4.5.4 Entry and Exit Measures Contraflow schemes without cycle lanes may be created using three different entry treatments (and associated traffic regulation orders). These are:

• False one-way street with segregation at entry (with or without footway build out);

• One-way street achieved by use of signs to Diagram 616 (‘No entry’); and

• One-way street achieved through the use of signs to Diagram 619 (‘Motor Vehicles Prohibited’).

These three treatments are described further below and in greater detail in TAL 6/98.

The use of segregation, short cycle lanes or coloured surfacing at exit points is not mandatory. However, since cyclists will be performing different turning manoeuvres to other traffic TAL 6/98 recommends the local authority should satisfy itself that whatever measures are introduced are appropriate to site-specific considerations including:

• Traffic volumes;

• Traffic conditions – including speeds;

• Turning movements;

• Vehicle swept paths;

• Sightlines and visibility at the junction.

4.5.5 False One-way Street The creation of a one-way order over a short length of the carriageway (with a suitable exemption for cyclists included in the traffic regulation order) means that the remainder of the street can be cycled (and used by other traffic) in both directions without any additional measures other than segregated entry which permits the no-entry signs (Diagram 616) to be bypassed.

Extract from Figure 3 of TAL 6/98 showing a footway build out (optional) and segregated entry to allow cyclists to bypass the no-entry sign.

Note the use of the ‘NO ENTRY’ road marking (Diagram 1046) to emphasise the meaning of the signs

Note: Where the carriageway at the point of closure is less than 5m wide, TSRDG Part II 8 (4) 9b) (ii) permits the use of only one sign to Diagram 616 (so long as it is within 2m of the carriageway edge)

4.5.6 One-way street using Diagram 616 ‘No Entry’ TAL 6/98 states that where contraflow cycling is permitted, segregation for cyclists at the entry to and exit from a one-way street should always be provided if there is space to do so. The No Entry sign (Diagram 616) is one of the best understood and observed traffic signs. Its use in conjunction with segregated entry creates the most effective threshold to a one-




way street with contraflow cycling. Where space does not permit the use of a segregated cycle entry, the use of supplementary plates exempting cyclists is not prescribed within TSRGD; the DfT recommendation being that signs to Diagram 619 are used instead. It is known that some authorities have disregarded this requirement and this is discussed in section 7 below.

Extract of Figure 4 of TAL 6/98 showing segregated entry and the use of Diagram 616 No entry sign

4.5.7 One-way street using signs to Diagram 619 ‘Motor Vehicles Prohibited’ TAL 6/98 states that where no segregation on entry is provided, the ‘Motor Vehicles Prohibited’ (diagram no. 619) should be used. This provides a solution where there is insufficient space to create a segregated entry. TAL 6/98 states that at monitored sites, compliance with Diagram 619 was found to be good, but anecdotal evidence suggests that this solution can be ineffective in areas where the meaning of this sign is not well understood.

Revised extract of Figure 2 of TAL 6/98 indicating short length of advisory cycle lane at point of entry (not to scale).

Note the use of the ‘NO ENTRY’ road marking (Diagram 1046) to emphasise the meaning of the signs




4.5.8 Signing within the length of the scheme In the absence of either an advisory or mandatory cycle lane it is desirable to alert motorists to the likely presence of on-coming cyclists. There are two signs available that might serve this purpose:

• Triangular warning sign to Diagram 950 (Cycle route ahead) – this is unlikely to adequately denote on-coming cyclists; and

• Signs to Diagram NP 960.2 which denote contraflow cycling without a cycle lane – the

use of such signs is recommended and requires authorisation but their use is understood not to be mandatory i.e. there is no requirement that they must be used to give effect to the traffic regulation order. (Note: signs to Diagram 960.2 are not required for false one-way streets; only for streets with a one-way order).

Note: signs to Diagram 960.1 (see right) are often misused. These are only permissible where there is a mandatory contraflow cycle lane.

Diag. 960.1

Figure 4 from TAL 6/98 showing the use of signs to Diagram NP 960.2




4.5.9 Use of ‘Except cycles’ supplementary plate (Diagram 954.4) TAL 6/08 clearly states that the ‘Except cycles’ supplementary plate (Diagram 954.4) should not be placed under the ‘No Entry’ sign (Diagram 616) under any circumstances. The view is taken that observance of the No Entry sign will become eroded.

Examples of permitted use of Except cycles supplementary plate

Pictures: Alex Sully

4.5.10 Alternative approaches It is known that some local authorities have found difficulties arising out of motorists being unfamiliar with the use of signs to Diagram 619. In circumstances where there has not been sufficient room to create a cycle bypass for the No Entry, a number of authorities have taken the view that the best course of action was to use an Except cycles plate in combination with the No Entry sign (Diagram 616). This approach is commonly used in mainland Europe. Some examples are illustrated below.

Examples of the use of non-prescribed signing


One London Borough has resolved to ignore DfT requirements regarding the use of Except Cycles plates in order to overcome difficulties regarding the understanding of the ‘No motor vehicles’ sign, minimise sign clutter and remove the cost and adverse impact on the public realm of the use of cycle bypasses for No Entry signs. It is understood that sites are dealt with on a case by case basis and a recorded risk assessment is undertaken where non- prescribed signing is employed.




In the absence of case law it is not known whether the use of such additional signs under the No Entry sign undermines the enforceability of the associated traffic regulation order. It is presumed that this can only be tested through a civil court.

As an alternative to formal cycle lanes it may be possible to introduce ‘virtual cycle lanes’ through the use of contrasting colouring or surface textures. In some instances the use of the cycle symbol (Diagram 1057) may suffice. In streets where tegular paving has been introduced, often in conjunction with vehicle restriction, authorities have used purpose-made paviours which show a cycle symbol. These are not readily apparent to motorists because of their size; nevertheless they represent an idea that could be scaled up to indicate the likely presence of cyclists.

Examples of purpose-made paviours from Bristol (left) and Leicester (right)


Paviours set into tegular surfacing in place of cycle lane,

Leicester

Picture: Alex sully

Contrasting paving used to denote cycle lane – Sheffield

Picture: Tony Russell CTC

For other examples visit Cycling England’s website at: http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/gallery/engineering-planning/contraflow




4.5.11 Recommendations Where contraflow cycling without cycle lanes is proposed, local highway authorities should determine the signing and road markings to be employed on a case by case basis. Where a non-standard approach is undertaken (i.e. one not specified by TAL 6/98), this should be supported by a thorough and recorded risk assessment.

Where appropriate, consideration should be given to introducing a scheme on an experimental basis initially and monitoring its operation prior to any decision to make it permanent.

The provision of contraflow cycling can bring substantial benefits for cyclists and Cycling England recommends that all existing one-way roads be reviewed with regard to the feasibility of introducing contraflow cycling.

Infrastructure Toolkit for Cycle Towns draft

Documents

Transcript of Infrastructure Toolkit for Cycle Towns draft