Draft National Cycling Manual by Michael Pidgeon

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter A1: Legislative Context

A1.1

General This chapter reviews the main statutory and non-statutory provisions governing cycling and the provision of cycle facilities in Ireland. These include the various Roads and Traffic Acts, Regulations and Guidelines in operation.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter A2: Policy Context Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads

A1.2

Legislation and Guidance

NOTE: Additions to Chapter likely in relation to list of issues, the legal status of which is currently awaiting discussion & clarification with DoT.

The main legislation governing the provision and use of cycle facilities on public roads is contained in the Road Traffic Acts 1961-2007, the Roads Act 1993 to 2007 (Cycleways), various Regulations and Directions made under the Road Traffic Acts including the Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations, 1997 as well as the 1996 Traffic Signs Manual. Currently, the main statutory requirements are found in:      

Road Traffic Act, 1994 (Traffic and Parking) Road Traffic (Signs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1997 Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) Regulations, 1998 Traffic Signs Manual, 2009 Road Traffic (Signs) (Amendment) Regulations, 2009 Roads Act, 1993

In addition, guidance affecting cyclists and cycling facilities, or infrastructure, in Ireland is provided in:  Traffic Management Guidelines, 2003  Rules of the Road (Road Safety Authority) The 1998 design manual for cycle facilities in urban areas, “Provision of Cycle Facilities – National Manual for Urban Areas”, is superseded by this Manual. The main requirements contained in these documents are summarised briefly in the following paragraphs, insofar as they relate to cycling and the design or provision of cycling facilities. This discussion is intended only as an introduction, however, and designers and others should consult the documents themselves for a fuller and more comprehensive understanding of the legal position. 1 Chapter A1-Legislative Context-final edit-agreed by WG- mok-june09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY [A more comprehensive schedule of roads and traffic legislation on cycling is set out in the final section of this chapter (see Section A.1.8: Cycle-related Legislation, below).] A1.3

Cycle Facilities Cycle Track/Cycle Lane: A cycle-track is defined in the Road Traffic (Traffic & Parking) (Amendment) Regulations, S.I. No. 274 of 1998 as “part of a road, including part of a footway or part of a roadway, which is provided primarily for the use of pedal cycle”. Legally the above definition of Cycle Track applies to both on-roadway and off-roadway cycle facilities. While there is no definition of a “cycle lane” in the Regulations, it is a colloquial term often used and has been considered useful in the preparation of this Manual to differentiate between on-roadway and off-roadway facilities. Accordingly, the term “cycle lane” is used to denote an on-roadway cycle-track, and the term “cycle track” is generally used to denote an off-roadway facility, unless specifically identified otherwise. Obligations/Prohibitions on use of Cycle Facilities: [Requires Regulation] Cyclists are not obligated to use a cycle track where one has been provided. Vehicles are prohibited from parking on cycle tracks except in certain cases (e.g. buses stopping at bus stops; vehicles loading and unloading) and the Regulations include a further prohibition on vehicles driving along or across a cycle track whose edge is bounded by a continuous white line. Note: Until 2009 the Regulations place an obligation on cyclists to use a cycle track where one has been provided, except when they are changing direction, or in circumstances where a bus is stopped in the cycle track at a bus-stop, or where the cycle track is blocked by a vehicle parked for the purpose of loading or unloading.

A1.4

Regulatory Traffic Signs and Road Markings Regulatory signs and road markings for cycle tracks [cycle lanes] are prescribed in the following Road Traffic Regulations: o o o o

Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations, S.I. No. 181 of 1997 Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, S.I. No. 182 of 1997 Road Traffic (Signs) (Amendment) Regulations, S.I. no. 273 Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, S.I. No. 274 of 1998.

New 2009 regulations are currently in preparation. Traffic Signs:

2 Chapter A1-Legislative Context-final edit-agreed by WG- mok-june09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The prescribed regulatory upright sign (RUS) for cycle tracks is RUS 009. This is a blue disc with a white border and white cycle symbol, as shown in Figure A1.1.

Figure A1.1: PEDAL CYCLES ONLY (RUS 009)

The periods of operation of a cycle tracks may be indicated on an information plate, which may be provided in association with traffic signs RUS 009. Road Markings: The prescribed regulatory roadway markings (RRM) for cycle tracks are RRM 022 and RRM 023, which are used to define the edge of the cycle facility by means of a continuous (RRM 022) or broken (RRM 023) white line, and which may be marked on the right-hand edge of the cycle track or on the righthand and left-hand edges of the cycle track.

Figure A1.2: RRM 022.

Figure A1.3: RRM 023.

Additional markings for use on cycle tracks include  Direction Arrows (M 117, M 118, M 119), and  Cycle Symbol ( M 116)

3 Chapter A1-Legislative Context-final edit-agreed by WG- mok-june09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure A1.4: Direction Arrows, M 117, M 118, M 119 M116

Figure A1.5: Cycle Symbol,

Other roads markings having more general application are also amended in the regulations to accommodate their use in relation to cycle facilities. These include RRM 017, RRM 018 and RRM 019, dealing respectively with stop lines, yield lines and no-entry lines:  STOP Line (RRM 017) – used at junctions that are approached by a cycle track/lane, a second stop line can be provided in advance of, and parallel to, the main junction stop line, but shall not cross the cycle track.  YIELD Markings such as Line (RRM 018C) – broken white line extending across the full width of road or cycle track, in the case of a one-way roadway or a cycle track, and from left to centre of road in any other case. NOTE: Cycle Track Triangular Yield Triangle (M 115C) is equivalent to the yield triangle, but reduced.

 NO ENTRY Line (RRM 019) – indicates that all traffic is prohibited from entering, with the exception of cycles entering a cycle track provided on the roadway. Where cycle track is provided, the “no entry” line extends from the right hand edge of the cycle track

4 Chapter A1-Legislative Context-final edit-agreed by WG- mok-june09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure A.1.6: Yield Triangle, RRM 018C

Traffic Signals: Regulatory traffic signals affecting cyclists are prescribed in Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations, S.I. no. 181 (?182) of 1997, as amended by the Road Traffic (Signs) (Amendment) Regulations, S.I. no. 273 (?274) of 1998:  RTS 006 (2 lamps) displays green cycle symbol on black (go), and red cycle symbol (must stop). Green figure can also flash to indicate cyclist can continue to cross if already on road.  RTS 007 (3 lamps) displays green symbol on black (go), amber symbol (cyclist must not cross unless action commenced when green lamp was lit), and red figure (cyclist must stop).

Figure A1.7: RTS 006

Figure A1.8: RTS 007

Toucan (two-can) Crossings are signalised crossings shared by cyclists and pedestrians. They differ from conventional pedestrian signals by incorporating red and green Cycle Signals (RTS 006) alongside the standard red and green man Pedestrian Signals (RPC 003). The required crossing time is determined by the pedestrian crossing time, as this will be typically longer than for cyclists.  They can be provided at isolated locations, or incorporated within signalised junctions.  They can be operated by push button or loop to give a green phase.  If provided as part of a signalised junction, priority is decided by the traffic signals.

Insert layout diagram illustrating Toucan Crossing

5 Chapter A1-Legislative Context-final edit-agreed by WG- mok-june09

Insert photo of Toucan

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure A1.9: Toucan Crossing

Figure A1.10: Toucan crossing layout

Toucan crossings should be a minimum of 4.0m wide to provide adequate crossing width for both pedestrians and cyclists. Further direction on the use of Traffic Signals is given in the Traffic Signs Manual. A1.5

Cycle Ways [not in draft TSM] A cycleway is defined in Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual (DoT, 2008) as part of a public road reserved for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists or both pedal cyclists and pedestrians. The sign for a cycle-only cycleway is similar to that used for a cycle track (see Figure A1.1, above), but with the words Sli Rothar/Cycleway added.

NB: replace RUS 058 with revised sign showing cycle and Pedestrian symbols reversed

Insert CYCLEWAY sign

Figure A1.11: Cycleway

Figure A1.12: Sign RUS 058: Shared Track for Pedal Cycles and Pedestrians

Where the cycleway facility is shared between cycles and pedestrians, the sign shown in Figure A1.12, above, should be used.

A1.6

Cycling in Bus Lanes The 2009 Traffic Regulations [Insert Act or Regulations reference] permit cyclists to cycle in a bus lane unless specifically excluded from doing so.

6 Chapter A1-Legislative Context-final edit-agreed by WG- mok-june09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The Traffic Signs Manual (DoT, 2009) stipulates the signs and road markings to be provided for bus lanes, combined bus-cycle lanes, and contra-flow bus & cycle lanes:  Regulatory upright signs are shown in Chapter 5, ref. TSM Figure 5.55: “Signing for a With Flow Bus Lane”, and Figure 5.61: “Signing Scheme for Contra-Flow Bus Lanes”. [Illustrations?]  Regulatory road markings are shown in Chapter 7. [Illustration?] Current signing requirements are that the statutory upright signs be provided at the start of the bus-cycle or contra-flow lane, at set intervals along its length, and at the end. As is the case with cycle tracks, above, there are no statutory signs specifically denoting the commencement or end of a bus lane. A1.7

Cycle Route Signage The revised edition of the Traffic Signs Manual includes a new Warning Sign, W 143, to alert motorists to the possible presence of cyclists, particularly in locations where it is considered necessary to warn on-road traffic of a cycle route crossing o joining a road other than at a controlled crossing. The Traffic Signs Manual includes an additional Warning Sign, W144, for use in conjunction with Tram Tracks warning sign, P 064, to warn cyclists of possible problems due to the slippery surface of the tracks, especially at junctions.

Figure A1.13: Sign W 143, Cyclists Cyclists

Figure A1.14: Sign W 144, Slippery for

A series of direction and information signs have been developed in conjunction with the Failte Ireland document, “A Strategy for the Development of Irish Cycle Tourism” (2007). The signs are primarily tourismorientated, and are similar in design and colour coding to signage being developed elsewhere under the EU SUSTRANS programme with a view to facilitating pan-European recognition. The signs are non-regulatory in nature.

Insert illustration of Tourism direction/location sign (Example 1)

Insert illustration of Tourism direction/location WG-(Example2) mok-june09 7 Chapter A1-Legislative Context-final edit-agreed bysign

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure A1.9:

Figure A1.10:

Figure A1.15: Tourism Cycle Route signage (1) signage (2)

A1.8

Figure A1.16: Tourism Cycle Route

Cycle-related Legislation The cycle-related legislation listed hereunder will provide further, detailed information, advice and guidance on the law as it relates to cycling in Ireland:: Cycle-related Statutory Instruments: Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 [Luas] Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) Regulations, 1998 Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997 Road Traffic (Signs) (Amendment) Regulations, 2004 [Luas] Road Traffic (Signs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1998 Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations, 1997 Road Traffic Acts: Road Traffic Act 2004 Introduction of the metric speed limits and special speed limits. Amendments for the outsourcing of penalty points, and insurance requirements. Road Traffic Act, 1994 Amended procedures for the testing of intoxication. Allow for regulations for the control of traffic and pedestrians, parking on public roads, traffic calming measures, and motorway speed limits. Road Traffic Act, 1968 Extended regulation of road traffic. Amended prodecdures for the testing of intoxication. Road Traffic Act, 1961 The base legislation for the regulation of road traffic and vehicles. Repealed Road Traffic Act, 1933. Roads Acts Roads Act 2007 Barrier-free tolling, power to declare a national road a motorway, service and rest areas.

8 Chapter A1-Legislative Context-final edit-agreed by WG- mok-june09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Roads (Amendment) Act, 1998 Amend to allow for the compulsory acquisition of substrata of land. Procedures for the judicial review of an order of the Minister. Roads Act, 1993 The base legislation for the regulation of the construction and maintenance of public roads. Established the National Roads Authority.

Note on “Right of Way”: In junction design (and in the Irish court system) the question is not “who has right of way?” but rather “who is expected to yield their right of way?” Vehicles proceed on the basis of expected behaviour from other drivers or road users. Under Irish Law, no vehicle has absolute right of way in a junction (not even emergency vehicles). All road users are expected to proceed with due care and consideration. For instance, a green traffic signal does not confer right of way. Rather, it permits a vehicle to proceed, if it is safe to so do. Again, buses are entitled to use bus lanes, but must remain behind bicycles in the same bus lane (regardless of whether or not the bicycle is entitled to be in the bus lane). This example is not to condone illegal use of the bus lane by other vehicles but, rather, to illustrate that the legal entitlement to right of way is never absolute. A further illustration is the conflict between cyclists going straight ahead and vehicles turning left. In their own jurisdictions, Danish and Dutch drivers take great care turning, and are expected to yield to cyclists on their inside. The Irish Rules of the Road are less clear about this expectation: the current Rules of the Road suggest that both parties should take a precautionary approach. For cyclists turning right, this manual recommends that junctions on multi-lane distributor roads should be designed for bicycles to negotiate as a two-stage crossing (see later). Cyclists who choose to weave across multiple lanes of moving traffic to make a right hand turn, when a better alternative is provided, are perhaps not exercising due care and consideration for themselves or other road users.

9 Chapter A1-Legislative Context-final edit-agreed by WG- mok-june09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter A2: Policy Context A2.1

General This chapter reviews the main policy documents which affect cycling and the provision of cycle facilities in Ireland, by reference to Sustainability, Planning and Development, and Cycling Strategies at National, Regional and Local levels.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter A1: Legal Context Chapter A5: Bicycle Network Planning Chapter A6: Bicycle Parking Strategy Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads

A2.2

Sustainability The Brundtland Commission Report, “Our Common Future” (UN General Assembly document A/42/427, 1987) defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. This manual is informed by a number of policies at national, regional and local level, all of which are designed to promote and encourage sustainability, whether through the integration of land use and transportation planning, the strengthening of public transport and the cycling and walking modes, or the implementation of improved road safety measures. The main policy documents, insofar as they relate to cycling and cyclists, are summarised hereunder. Irish Government Policy on the issue was first set out in “Sustainable Development – A Strategy for Ireland” (1997). Its transport objectives included the promotion of opportunities for all forms of non-motorised transport, with cycle lanes and safer pedestrian facilities being highlighted. The need to address sustainability in the country’s travel and transport system is reinforced in the Department of Transport’s “Statement of Strategy, 20082010” (2008). While recognising that sustainable transport has to strike a balance between different needs such as the economy, quality of life, and the environment, the Strategy is designed to fit in with the Department’s

A2.1 Chapter A2-Policy Context (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY overall vision to have a sustainable transport system in place by year 2020, involving, inter alia, – •

a considerable shift to public transport, cycling and walking

•

a significant reduction in congestion, and

♦ a reduction in transport emissions

Figure A2.1: DoT Statement of Strategy (2008) The Strategy includes among its principal objectives:

♦ to ensure that travel and transport trends become sustainable ♦ to align transport, spatial and land use policies ♦ to develop a more integrated transport system, so that the different transport modes complement each other, and to provide a long term capital investment framework for its development ♦ to continue to develop an accessible transport system, and ♦ to ensure widespread awareness of Transport 21, its aims, proposals and progress Some of the specific strategies by which these will be achieved include continuing to work closely with other Departments and with State agencies to ensure that strategies are consistent, and policies and plans coordinated; promoting the increased use of sustainable modes of transport (walking, cycling and public transport); expediting the establishment of the Dublin Transport Authority in the Greater Dublin Area; and facilitating the achievement of the transport sector policies set out in the National Climate Change Strategy (see below). In particular, the Strategy proposes to: A2.2 Chapter A2-Policy Context (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY ♦ strengthen the relationship between the Department and local authorities in relation to land use and transport planning, ♦ collaborate with the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government to ensure implementation of integrated land use and transportation strategies for the National Spatial Strategy gateways and hubs, and ♦ maintain ongoing consultation with sectoral and other stakeholders, including the Public Transport Partnership Forum. The Strategy also highlights the role of the Public Transport Accessibility Committee with regard to public transport accessibility issues, in particular the implementation of the Department’s sectoral plan under the Disability Act, 2005 (Transport Access for All). Cycling is recognised as being “integral to any policy on sustainable transport” in the policy document, 2020 Vision – Sustainable Travel and Transport (DoT, 2008, ref. Chapter 4: “Moving People”). The document notes that cycling is seen as a key method of commuting in other European countries, where its development is closely related to national recreational and tourism policies. The benefits of establishing a national cycle network are emphasised, as is the link between commuting cycling and recreational cycling which, in turn, is connected to tourism activity. These links are important in generating a cycling culture, and the policies included in the Failte Ireland “Strategy for the Development of Irish Tourism” are noted in this regard (see also Section A2.4, below).

Figure A2.2: 2020 Vision –Sustainable Travel and Transport (DoT, 2008)

The 2006 Census figures show that additional cycling trips accounted for only 2000, or less than 1.0%, of the total additional trips for all modes recorded during the 2002-2006 period. If cycling numbers are to increase in Ireland, matters that need to be addressed include promotion of the cycling mode, A2.3 Chapter A2-Policy Context (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY identification of barriers to commuter cycling, safety for cyclists, provision of dedicated cycling lanes, and the facility to integrate bicycles with public transport services, particularly commuter rail services and inter-urban bus routes. Other policy documents forming part of the “sustainability framework” include: •

The National Development Plan, 2007-2013

•

Transport 21

•

National Climate Change Strategy, 2007-2012

The overall objective of the National Development Plan 2007 – 2013 (Department of Finance, 2007) is reflected in its title, “Transforming Ireland – A Better Quality of Life for All”. Most of the proposed transport investment is concentrated on upgrading the national roads network and on public transport, with strong emphasis on the Greater Dublin Area in the latter case. Investment is also directed to cycling infrastructure, and integration between public transport services is highlighted. Transport 21 (DoT, 2005) is a capital investment framework under the National Development Plan for developing the transport system in Ireland over the period 2006 to 2015. It is informed by the National Spatial Strategy, the Regional Planning Guidelines, and other regional land use and transportation strategies for major urban areas and their hinterlands. Projects are designed to increase accessibility, making it easier to get to and from work, school, college, shopping and business, and to ensure sustainability through increased use of public transport and better management of the transport network. Traffic Management in the Greater Dublin Area is one of the projects identified, and provides for the implementation of a range of traffic management, bus priority and car restraint measures in the Greater Dublin Area. While the bulk of funding is geared towards public transport improvements, including delivery of the QBC network, provision is also included for improved cycle and pedestrian facilities.

A2.4 Chapter A2-Policy Context (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo A2.1: Transport 21, GDA measures

The purpose of the National Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012 (DoEH&LG, 2007) is twofold: ♦ to show clearly the measures by which Ireland will meet its 2008-2012 commitments on Climate Change; and ♦

to show how these measures position the country for the post-2012 period, and to identify the areas in which further measures are being researched and developed to meet longer-term 2020 commitments

The Strategy notes the links between Transport 21 and the key principles of the National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020 (see Section A2.3, below), which are intended to minimise transport related energy consumption. Transport 21 is identified as facilitating a switch to more sustainable modes of transport such as public transport, cycling and walking, and creating greater certainty in knowing where best to focus higher density development. The planning functions of local authorities and the role of regional authorities in relation to regional planning guidelines are identified as key factors in addressing the interaction of spatial and planning policies with climate change considerations. The Cork Area Strategic Plan (see Section A2.3) is noted as providing a model for successful integration of land-use planning and public transport development in urban settlements and their hinterlands. A2.3

Planning and Development The National Spatial Strategy, 2002-2020 (DoEHLG, 2002) sets out a framework, designed to achieve a better balance of social, economic and physical development and population growth throughout the country, and is intended to inform strategic investment by shaping future national development plans and other investment plans. The strategy promotes sustainable development by encouraging physical compactness, and minimising urban sprawl. The resulting shorter travel

A2.5 Chapter A2-Policy Context (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY distances should help to make public transport more efficient, while increasing the attractiveness of the cycling and walking modes. Implementation of the NSS is a fundamental component of the 2007 National Development Plan. The Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 2000, vests the power to make Regional Planning Guidelines to Regional Authorities. These Guidelines are intended to: • provide a long-term (12-20 years) strategic planning framework for the development of the region, • articulate the vision and strategy for the region in economic and social terms, • define and inform planning policy for each Planning Authority, and • inform Government Departments and State Bodies on the allocation of public resources. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has prescribed that the National Spatial Strategy should be implemented through Regional Planning Guidelines. Transportation, including public transportation, is one of the issues to be addressed by the Guidelines in accordance with the principles of proper planning and sustainable development. Regional Authorities must take account of Government policies when drawing up the guidelines, and Planning Authorities should have regard to the appropriate regional guidelines when making and adopting a development plan. If necessary, the Minister may direct Planning Authorities to comply with the regional guidelines for its area. The Border, West, Mid West, South West, South East and Midlands Regional Authorities each published their own regional guidelines in 2004, and the Dublin Regional Authority and Mid-East Regional Authority combined to produce the Regional Planning Guidelines, Greater Dublin Area, 2004 – 2016, which replaced the earlier Strategic Planning Guidelines (1999/2000).

A2.6 Chapter A2-Policy Context (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure A2.3: Regional Planning Guidelines (2004)

Other regional guidelines include: the Dublin Transportation Office strategy document, “A Platform for Change, 2000 – 2016”, which provides an integrated planning framework for the development and management of the transport system in the Greater Dublin Area, and the Cork Area Strategic Plan (CASP), 2001-2020, which builds on the achievements of the original Cork Land Use and Transport Strategy (LUTS), 1978-2000, and the implementation of which is seen by the NDP as anchoring the city’s capabilities as a business-friendly, public transport based, socially balanced, and attractive centre. At local level, the County Development Plan provides the statutory basis for land use planning in the local authority area, and includes zoning and other objectives for improving existing residential areas and their amenities, as well as for new residential, retail and employment development. It also provides transport objectives in keeping with national policies on sustainability and modal shift. Development plans will generally feature specific cycling proposals for implementation within the life of the plan, and beyond. In addition to the County Development Plan, the local authority has power to make Local Area Plans, setting out specific development and transportation objectives for sub-set areas within its overall administrative area. The Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 2000 also provides for the designation of certain areas as Strategic Development Zones (SDZs), the aims A2.7 Chapter A2-Policy Context (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY of which are to create sustainable and viable communities based on a traditional town format, where services, employment, education, community and leisure facilities are within easy walking or cycling distance, and with strong public transport links to adjoining areas. Integrated Framework Plans for Land Use and Transportation (IFPLUTs) are nonstatutory documents, the primary purpose of which is to – •

integrate land use and public transport planning to provide a framework for future development

•

translate national and regional land use and transport policies into a local context

•

inform planning and transportation decision-making processes at local level

IFPLUTs can provide a focus in the plan area for improving bus-based accessibility to local services, developing cycling and walking measures, minimising car use for local trips, and ensuring integration with strategic public transport networks. The 2000 Planning Act also includes provision for the making of Ministerial Guidelines, additional to the Regional Planning Guidelines noted above. Those published to date include Residential Density Guidelines and Sustainable Urban Development Guidelines. A2.4

Cycling Strategy The following strategy documents set out specific national, regional or local policies in relation to the cycling mode at national, regional or local levels: • • • • •

Road Safety Strategy, 2007-2012 (RSA, 2007) (Draft) National Cycling Policy, 2008-2020 (DoT, 2008) A Strategy for the Development of Irish Cycle Tourism (Failte Ireland, 2007) DTO Cycling Policy (DTO, 2006) BY-PAD Cycle Policy Audit, 2000-2008

The Road Safety Strategy, 2007-2012 (RSA, 2007) includes a requirement to “research, develop and publish a national cycling safety strategy incorporating best practice, engineering education and enforcement issues” (ref. Section 6: Action Plan – Other Road Safety Measures, RSS p.64).

A2.8 Chapter A2-Policy Context (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure A2.4: Road Safety Strategy 2007-2012

In addition, it is Government policy to “support the work of the Road Safety Authority and continue to promote safety education programmes such as extending the Safe Routes Programme, introducing a National Cycle Route, and a Dublin Coast Walk and Cycle Route in order to reduce road deaths” (ref. Agreed Programme for Government, 2007). The (Draft) National Cycling Policy, 2008-2020 (DoT, 2008) provides a common, integrated basis for the long-term implementation of cycling policies among various sectors and levels of government. It lists nineteen specific objectives establishing the case for a wide package of planning/infrastructure and communication/education measures, and emphasises the need for stakeholder participation and adequate funding of the required initiatives. The NCP requires that cycle-friendly planning principles be incorporated in all national, regional, local and sub-local plans. Development in urban areas should be permeable and well connected, with short travel distances for cyclists, and without the need to detour. Transportation infrastructural designs should incorporate cycling routes that are safe, direct, coherent, attractive and comfortable (see Chapter B3 of this manual, “Assessment of Quality of Service”, for further discussion on these requirements). The policy proposes that infrastructure interventions should follow an approach based on “a hierarchy of measures”, focusing in the first instance on reducing traffic volumes in city/town centres and near schools and colleges, enforcing low traffic speeds in urban areas, and making junctions safe for cyclists.

A2.9 Chapter A2-Policy Context (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure A2.5: (Draft) National Cycling Policy, 2008

Other interventions include dedicated rural cycling networks, building on the Failte Ireland strategy (see below); signposting of all cycling networks; maintenance of cycle route surfaces; and provision of secure cycle parking facilities. Special attention will be paid to the integration of cycling and public transport, with bike-carrying facilities introduced on intercity and suburban rail services. Communication and education interventions will include extensive marketing to sell the benefits of cycling; a National Bike Week, based on similar events elsewhere; a national curriculum on cycling training, and other measures to improve the standards of cycling and cycling behaviour; awareness raising/driver training, especially for buses and HGVs; and a proposed revision of the Rules of the Road to create a better understanding of cyclists’ needs. The NCP proposes a number of financial, legal, implementation and evaluation measures to help secure its main objectives. These include a commitment to funding the proposals, a review of road traffic legislation, and better enforcement of traffic laws, with special attention paid to speeding in urban areas. Cycling tourism policy is considered in detail in the Failte Ireland document, “A Strategy for the Development of Irish Cycle Tourism” (2007), which seeks to establish Ireland as a cyclist-friendly visitor destination that will ultimately cover a network of 2,500km of signed cycle routes. The strategy is set out in an Executive Summary and six Regional Reports, and is supported in the (Draft) National Cycling Policy and the public consultation document, “2020 Vision – Sustainable Travel and Transport”, discussed earlier. The project has been developed under the EU SUSTRANS programme.

A2.10 Chapter A2-Policy Context (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure A2.6: Irish Cycle Tourism Strategy (Executive Summary and 6no .Regional Reports

The strategy identifies a series of cycling-related gateways, hub towns, loops and long-distance routes for each of the regions: •

Gateways are defined as the entry points to the country for visitors from abroad, and consist of airports and ports.

•

Hub towns are cycle-friendly locations which are attractive destinations in their own right, where there is community support for cycling, and where bike hire and repair services are available. They will have cycle-friendly roads, and local accommodation/ catering facilities will ensure that visitors can cycle further afield on specific cycle routes developed to avoid busy or dangerous roads. Hubs are categorised as locations where measures can be completed within 1-3 years (Category 1) and locations requiring more serious traffic engineering work (Category 2)

A2.11 Chapter A2-Policy Context (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Table A2.1: Regional Gateways and Hub Towns (Failte Ireland Strategy)

•

Loops are cycle routes that can be completed over half a day, or a full day, mainly on quieter minor roads.

•

Long distance routes are routes which can be developed as either onroad, traffic-free or greenway routes, or a mix of all three. The Strategy identifies the length and category of each route for all six regions, both in summary and in the individual regional reports.

Other significant issues covered by the strategy include signing, cycle parking, and the integration of cycling with public transport. The strategy proposes a dedicated network of cycle tourism information signage, additional to those covered by the Roads Traffic Acts. Proposals for cycle parking and public transport integration are similar to those in the (Draft) National Cycling Policy, discussed above. Launched in January 2007 by the Irish Sports Council, the Irish Trails Strategy (2007) sets out proposals for the sustainable and sensitive development of a national network of recreational walking and cycling trails throughout Ireland in the coming years.

Figure A2.7: Irish Trails Strategy (2007)

The strategy aims “to create, nurture and maintain a world class recreational trail network that is sustainable, integrated, well utilised and highly regarded, that enhances the health, well being and quality of life of all Irish citizens and that attracts visitors from around the world”. The focus of the strategy is on non-motorised trails, and its scope is intended to cover a broad range of recreational walking and cycling trails, including multi-use tracks with constructed surfaces, on-road and off-road bicycle routes, and forestry access roads designated as trails. The strategy aims to give priority to walking and cycling trails and greenways in the initial stages of implementation.

A2.12 Chapter A2-Policy Context (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The strategy identifies a range of priority projects focusing on  The development of new policies and procedures for trail standards, classification and signage,  The development of a five-year plan trails development plan,  The setting up and coordination of programmes for quality assurance, research, education and training and,  The coordination of a marketing and promotion plan for Irish trails.

The DTO Cycling Policy for the Greater Dublin Area was adopted by the DTO Steering Committee in September 2006. While it updates the cycling element of the DTO Strategy contained in “A Platform for Change”, it is intended as a stand-alone policy document, against which cycle programmes and individual cycle projects can be developed and assessed.

Figure A2.8: DTO Cycle Policy (2006)

The policy seeks to enhance the cycling environment and facilitate cycling in the GDA by: • • • •

Improved and additional cycle infrastructure and priority and good quality surfaces on cycle routes Reduced traffic volumes (in particular, heavy vehicles) and slower traffic on cycle routes Provision of sufficient and appropriately designed cycle parking facilities Cycle friendly planning and design of new developments

The policy proposes to promote cycling in the GDA through: •

Training and other education measures, targeted in particular at those of school going age

A2.13 Chapter A2-Policy Context (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY • •

Promoting cycling as a healthy activity Marketing of cycling as a sensible choice, focussed on areas where good potential for cycling is identified, and where good quality cycle facilities exist

The policy will further develop the GDA cycling strategy by: • • • • •

A2.5

Establishing a GDA Cycle Working Group, consisting of local authorities and other relevant implementing/funding agencies Forming partnerships with other stakeholders, e.g. through the establishment of a Cycle Forum in each local authority area. Setting realistic targets for growth in cycle use Preparing cycle programmes to support policy objectives Preparing a monitoring strategy to enable comparison of outcomes with targets and to inform future Cycle Policy reviews and programmes.

Bicycle Policy Audit (BYPAD) The BYPAD (Bicycle Policy Audit) is an EU-sponsored project aimed at improving the quality of local cycling policies in European cities. It was originally developed under the SAVE programme (2001-2003), and subsequently extended as BYPAD+ (2003-2005) and BYPAD Platform (20052008). BYPAD is designed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the participating city or local authority’s cycling policy, and involves a detailed review and audit of all aspects of the cycling provision in the participating authority’s administrative area. The review/audit is carried out as a three-way exercise, from the perspectives of the city/local authority officials, elected representatives and the cycling community or user groups, with the results coordinated by an independent moderator. Because of the comprehensive nature of the exercise, and the different perspectives embraced, it can provide a useful mechanism for the city/local authority in developing and prioritising its area-wide cycling policy in terms of infrastructural improvements, cycle parking, health and safety, commuting and recreational cycling, and cycle promotion and education. In the longer term, the BYPAD methodology can function as an ongoing process where both bicycle planning and action measures are monitored and reviewed.

A2.14 Chapter A2-Policy Context (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure A2.9: BYPAD cycle policy & report

The BYPAD audit process has been completed in a number of locations in Ireland to date, including Dublin, Cork and Waterford City Councils, and South Dublin County Council. A2.6: Conclusion The increased significance of the cycling mode as a key element in the implementation of national, regional, and local sustainable travel and transport strategies is confirmed by its inclusion in the Sustainability, Planning and Cycling policy documents discussed in this chapter. It is probably best summarised in the (Draft) National Cycling Policy, discussed earlier, the ultimate vision of which is that a strong cycling culture will have developed in Ireland by 2020, with 10% of all trips being undertaken by bicycle.

Reference Documents: Sustainable Development – A Strategy for Ireland (1997) Statement of Strategy 2008-2010 (DoT, 2008) 2020 Vision – Sustainable Travel & Transport (DoT, 2008) National Development Plan 2007-2013 (DoF, 2007) Transport 21 (DoT, 2005) National Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012 (DoEH&LG, 2007) National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020 (DoEH&LG, 2002) Regional Planning Guidelines (2004) Road Safety Strategy 2007-2012 (RSA, 2007) (Draft) National Cycling Policy (DoT, 2008) A Strategy for the Development of Irish Cycle Tourism (Failte Ireland, 2007) Irish Trails Strategy (Irish Sports Council, 2007)

A2.15 Chapter A2-Policy Context (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY DTO Cycling Policy (DTO, 2006) BYPAD 2000-2008 (EU SAVE Programme, 2003)

A2.16 Chapter A2-Policy Context (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter A3: Urban Form A3.1 Introduction The development of Irish urban areas in the second half of the twentieth century was characterised by large scale, mono-functional zoning and a conscious separation of different land uses that previously existed in mixed use, multi-purpose centres. This was facilitated by the growth of the private car as a primary mode of transport for much of the population. Whilst many of the objectives of this approach to urban planning were well intentioned, including the improvement of general housing conditions and the provision of better amenities for the citizenry, it has resulted in the widespread development of low density, functionally discrete, and generally car dependent urban areas.

In recent years, contemporary planning practice has taken account of the problems associated with this type of urban expansion and has attempted to provide a more holistic, integrated approach.

Reflecting this growing

awareness of the shortcomings of the existing planning philosophy, a range of documents has been produced that seeks to address, at a variety of scales, the deficiencies of this previous approach to urban expansion. These include: •

Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas – Guidelines for Planning Authorities (DEHLG, 2009)

•

Urban Design Manual – A Best Practice Guide (DEHLG, 2009)

•

Manual For Streets (DfT [UK], 2007)

•

More? (UD Compendium; etc.)

It is not the purpose of this chapter to rehearse the core principles and guidance contained in those publications, which should be consulted for a

Chapter A3: Urban Form (Final signed off WG version, July 2009) -

-1-

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY comprehensive exposition of good urban planning practice. This chapter is intended instead to focus and elaborate on these principles as they relate to transport, and to provision for cycling in urban environments in particular.

A3.2 Urban Form

‘Urban Form’, as it applies to both existing and new areas, is the general term for the physical aspects of an urban area, which encompasses: •

the location and topography of settlements;

•

how they are planned, designed and laid out;

•

the existing or proposed types of development and land uses; and

•

how the areas are connected to each other.

See Table A3.2.1 for the 12 Criteria for good quality urban design, as advocated by the DEHLG.

Under the general heading of urban form, a number of specific aspects are directly relevant to transport and cycling.

Transport-related characteristics of good urban form:

Define the function or functions of the area;

Integrate land use planning and transport planning

Establish and implement a street hierarchy, informed by the needs of sustainable modes of transport;

Develop a permeable network of streets and spaces which is legible to all users, reinforced by appropriate building typologies according to the intended scale of each location;

Encourage compact development

Chapter A3: Urban Form (Final signed off WG version, July 2009) -

-2-

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Locate high trip generators/attractors at key transport nodes or interchanges

Base development densities on accessibility to public transport

Mix uses in centres and near public transport

Manage the competing demands of the place function and the movement function at any given location;

Prioritise movement networks for public transport, cycling and walking

Create a sense of place in development centres.

As such, urban form has a direct influence not only on overall trip patterns but also on the viability of cycling as a practical form of transport.

A3.3 Cycle-Friendly Urban Form

Given that cycling is relatively slow and is dependent on the ability of the rider, it has limited transport potential over longer distances, and greatest potential where journeys are short. In order to provide for and encourage cycling, urban areas should be planned in a manner which not only reduces the need to travel but also minimises the length of trips. The most effective way of delivering urban environments of this sort is by integrating transport and land use planning. Under this broad policy objective, a number of key principles may be identified (discussed below), namely•

Development at Public Transport Nodes

•

Density

•

Mixed Use

•

Urban grain, connectivity, permeability

Common to all of these aspects of urban form is the overarching goal of Chapter A3: Urban Form (Final signed off WG version, July 2009) -

-3-

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY reducing travel, both the distance per individual trip and the need to travel, i.e. number of trips in general. Whilst these aspects are discussed in the specific context of cycling, it is worth noting also that reducing the total distances travelled by motorised traffic has been shown to have a positive effect on overall road safety for all road users.

Development at Public Transport Nodes: Proximity to good quality public transport nodes is the key transport determinant of sustainable urban development, and has a direct bearing on the applicability of the other characteristics discussed below.

Where development takes place at a distance from public transport, the likelihood of car dependency is high owing to the lack of realistic alternatives. Development close to public transport nodes obviates reliance on the car for many journey types, thereby maximising the viability of alternative modes to access public transport services. In addition, where land uses are mixed at these nodes, access to public transport is allied closely with access to neighbourhood services for local residents.

Development at these nodes should not be confined to predominantly residential land uses and associated service functions.

Large scale

employment also benefits from proximity to public transport by minimising car use while simultaneously reducing the tidality of public transport use at peak hours. Where car dependency is reduced, lands otherwise required for car parking become available for more appropriate uses.

Density: Densities in urban areas vary widely, from 10 persons per hectare in very low density areas such as many North American cities, to 300 persons per hectare in some Asian cities. Irish urban areas would be at the lower end of this range, between 25 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 50 persons per hectare.

Chapter A3: Urban Form (Final signed off WG version, July 2009) -

-4-

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY There is a direct relationship between density and travel patterns. In lower density towns and cities, distances between areas are greater at both the local and regional level, increasing the necessity for car usage due to the unsuitability of other modes.

This higher than average car use results in

higher energy use and greater average annual distance travelled per capita.

Higher density areas therefore are more suitable for non-car travel, as they support both the use of walking and cycling for short trips, and provide increased catchments for public transport modes. In addition, higher densities allow for an appropriate balance between built areas and open space that serves those areas.

Mixed Use: Mixed use development refers to the policy of balancing different but complementary land uses. This can include locating local services such as schools, shops and community facilities in or near residential areas, as well as combining residential and employment functions at key locations, namely urban centres or public transport interchanges or nodes.

By mixing uses in this manner, car dependence is reduced and a fuller range of travel options is available to the public, whilst the footprint of the urban area is contained to facilitate sustainable urban expansion in future.

Urban Grain, Connectivity and Permeability: Urban grain refers to the pattern of streets, blocks and plots in an area. The success in creating a mixed-use urban district lies in breaking down large development parcels into smaller units of development. This enables a diversity of building forms, spaces and design styles to be developed, in tandem with a street network that facilitates movement along desire lines.

Designing for the same level of access for all street users can support private car usage at the expense of walking, cycling and public transport and the local environment.

In order to promote sustainable travel, walking and cycling

should be given a competitive advantage over private car. Chapter A3: Urban Form (Final signed off WG version, July 2009) -

-5-

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Concept of filtered permeability which maximises ease of movement for pedestrians and cyclists, but seek to restrain it for motor vehicles? This promotes the use of modal traffic gates and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;point-no-entriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in appropriate locations to limit permeability for private motorised traffic and thereby reduce traffic levels in target areas, whilst allowing full permeability to walking and cycling travel modes.

A no-through road allowing a continuous pedestrian and cycling route but restricting vehicle movement. It is important that the pedestrian/cycle only route should still be treated as a street with good overlooking and active frontages.

Chapter A3: Urban Form (Final signed off WG version, July 2009) -

-6-

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The 12 Criteria from the DEHLG Urban Design Manual (2009) Neighbourhood•

Context: •

•

How does the development respond to its surroundings?

Connections: •

•

How well connected is the new neighbourhood?

Inclusivity: •

•

How easily can people use and access the development?

Variety: •

How does the development promote a good mix of activities?

Site•

Efficiency: •

•

How does the development make appropriate use of resources, including land?

Distinctiveness: •

•

How do the proposals create a sense of place?

Layout: •

•

How does the proposal create people friendly streets and spaces?

Public Realm: •

How safe, secure and enjoyable are the public areas?

Home•

Adaptability: •

•

Privacy and Amenity: •

•

How does the scheme provide a decent standard of amenity?

Parking: •

•

How will the buildings cope with change?

How will the parking be secure and attractive?

Detailed Design: •

How well thought through is the building and landscape design?

Chapter A3: Urban Form (Final signed off WG version, July 2009) -

-7-

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Recommended cycling measures:

Minimise trip lengthsIncreases potential for cycling by reducing reliance on car use.

Locate development based on accessibility to public transport networks and nodesReduces car dependency, promotes non-car access to public transport.

Mix uses at key locationsReduces number and length of discrete trips, and car dependency.

Develop areas at appropriate densitiesReduces urban sprawl, balances accessibility with amenity.

Prioritise permeability for sustainable modes in urban and residential

areasSupports walking and cycling rather than car use.

Provide attractive environments in urban areasImproves quality of both the movement and the place experience.

Plan the cycle network, informed by but not dictated by, the networks for

other modes. (See chapter A5 – Network Planning for detail.)

Provide adequate cycle parking at origins, destinations and public transport nodes. (See Chapters A6 – Parking Strategy and C3 – Parking Facilities for detail.)

Chapter A3: Urban Form (Final signed off WG version, July 2009) -

-8-

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY A3.4 Practical application at different scales (Introduction required)

Residential Areas

Within residential areas local movement has priority. The primary demand for movement across these spaces is that to and from houses and local facilities such as open spaces and local shops. In some areas the movement space is also utilized for activities such as meeting and playing. The aim is to provide for maximum opportunities for interaction at the safest levels. In residential areas the highest priority should be assigned to walking and pedestrian activities - all other modes should be secondary.

Pedestrian priority

Space for meeting & playing

Replace photo

Chapter A3: Urban Form (Final signed off WG version, July 2009) -

-9-

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Neighbourhood Centres

Increased volumes of local movement from key acess points to local services assume a greater importance in Neighbourhood Centres than in residential areas. A consideration of crossing points and links to other activities such as public transport and local parking will be important to cater for these demands. Movement in local centres will require regard for all users â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a balance needs to be reached between providing priority to pedestrians and facilitating access requirements for other modes. Cycle facilities should be provided to allow access for visiting, shopping or passing through.

Pedestrian

Local Movement from key access points to

Links to public

Replace with photo?

Chapter A3: Urban Form (Final signed off WG version, July 2009) -

- 10 -

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY District Centres

District Centres may have similar demands to Town Centres but perform a less strategic role in the urban hierarchy. The existence of services such as schools or supermarkets will encourage people to gather and interact with each other. The links between the centre, the point of greatest trip attraction, and nearby major residential areas, the points of greatest trip generation, are therefore most critical. Along these links priority should be given to pedestrians and cyclists while the role of pedestrians is most critical in the centre. Trade remains the key consideration at such locations but the level and type of activity means there is more potential for walking and cycling.

Links with Residential Areas

District Level Commercial Activity

Pedestrian Activity â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Walking dominates

Replace with photo?

Chapter A3: Urban Form (Final signed off WG version, July 2009) -

- 11 -

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Town Centres

At the very centre, where activity is greatest, circulation will be the primary demand. As such, pedestrian priority will be critical to cater for high volumes of people emerging into the area from public transport stops and car parks. As users of these areas may come from long distances and by a variety of modes a balance must be reached between pedestrian priority and access for commercial vehicles, private cars, public transport and cycling. The primary movements at such locations are those, which facilitate and promote trade and employment. The movement space will therefore encompass loading and unloading areas, car parks, bus and rail stops and stations, cycle provision and areas of pedestrian priority.

Replace with photo?

Chapter A3: Urban Form (Final signed off WG version, July 2009) -

- 12 -

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The Wider Context

While ‘movement’ as a function within an area, as described above, is the primary focus in transport terms it is important to note that there are numerous other elements that need to be considered in designing urban areas. ‘Urban Design is the art of making places for people’ and is therefore concerned with how areas function, how they look and how they are percieved and used by people.

This includes consideration of ‘the connections between people and places, movement and urban form, nature and the built fabric and the processes for ensuring successful places are delivered and maintained.’1 For example, in terms of the urban form and built fabric other key considerations include, but are not limited to, the scale and massing of buildings, the prevalence of open spaces, the relationship between building and spaces/roads, landscaping, materials and street furniture.

Delete photo and Insert diagram showing “wider context” (variation on concentric illustration shown as slide at meeting?)

Urban Design Compendium www.urbandesigncompendium.co.uk

Chapter A3: Urban Form (Final signed off WG version, July 2009) -

- 13 -

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter A3: Urban Form (Final signed off WG version, July 2009) -

- 14 -

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Chapter A4: Function, Shape, Use in Urban Street Design A4.1 General This Chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads; and Traffic Management Guidelines, specifically: o Section A- Traffic Management and Sustainability o Chapter 1- (Traffic Management and Sustainability)

This chapter discusses the linked concept of Function, Shape and Use as it relates to the design of individual streets, i.e. at a level of detail below general Urban Form.

A4.2 Definitions: Function, Shape, Use The DTO Traffic Management Guidelines refer to “Function Shape and Use” in Chapter 1, section 1.2. These three concepts may be stated as follows:

Function Shape Use

- the intended purposes or activities to take place in the space - the layout / design / form of the space - the activities actually undertaken by the users of the space

For the purposes of this manual, the concept requires further elaboration. In particular, it should be noted that Function and Use more properly refer to the range of functions and uses that may occur at a given place and should not be understood as representing a single function or use. For the purposes of consistency, the existing terminology has been retained.

The iterative process towards achieving greater harmony between Function, Shape and Use is is represented in following diagram:

Chapter A4 – Function, Shape and Use – Final version signed-off (July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Need revised drawing, with both clockwise and anti-clockwise. Taking each of the three elements in turn: Function

the intended activities to take place in the space

This is directly related to the Principle of Functionality within the Five Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads (ref Chapter B1); namely, a design should be fit for its intended purpose. The Principle of Legibility also implies that it should be obvious to all users when and how that function is to take place. Road Function: In the 1993 Road Act, roads were re-classified into three categories, namely • National • Regional • Local This classification was intended to confer some sense of the relative importance of the traffic function for these roads. As outlined in section 1.6 of the Traffic Management Guidelines, urban roads are classified as: • Distributor – Primary or District • Local Collector • Access Again, this classification relates primarily or solely to the traffic function (see Chapter B1 for further discussion). However, spaces in urban areas are rarely mono-functional and most streets and roads display a range of functions, broadly divided into two categories: Movement-related and Placerelated:

Chapter A4 – Function, Shape and Use – Final version signed-off (July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Place Functions Movement Functions • Housing and access • Pedestrian Activity, including crossing activity • Trees, shrubs, grass • Services (gas, water, sewerage • Cycling Activity etc.) • Vehicular traffic (all modes) • Architectural • Access to property • Shops and Display • Turning and abnormal vehicle manoeuvres • Access to Cash (ATMs) and Postal services • Parking of Vehicles, bicycles • Social and Community Services • Bus stops – crossing, waiting • Meeting and Gathering • Pedestrian Waiting • Shelter and Public Convenience • Drop-offs and pick-ups • Play and recreation • Loading and Delivery • Communication and Information • Refuse Collection Table A4.1 Typical Place Functions and Movement Functions Depending on context, the importance of each function, its frequency and its relationship with other functions may vary. Indeed, in some cases the function is not valid (e.g. playing football on a distributor road; heavy commuter traffic on a residential access street; cycling on a motorway).

The principal challenge for a designer is to ensure that the designis fit for purpose; in some cases this may entail precluding functions that cannot be accommodated.

Chapter A4 – Function, Shape and Use – Final version signed-off (July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Shape

the layout / design / form of the space

The shape of any urban space should be designed to support the functions of that space. As a simple example, open space intended for ball games should not have trees planted on it. Alternatively, if it is intended to discourage ball playing, the presence of trees would reinforce this objective. As with Function, which includes the range of functions that occurs at any given location, the Shape of a place must reflect the diversity of needs of the various activities being accommodated. Therefore, the physical shape of a space will not be uniform, and a single design solution will not fit all circumstances. The greatest likelihood of a poor (cycling) design or environment being produced arises when key functions and activities are ignored in the overall shape of the road or space.

Use

the activities actually undertaken by the users of the space

The interaction between road users and the environment may not be as intended by the designer. Accordingly, the designer must first be aware of existing behaviour patterns and should then produce a design which encourages the user to adopt the desired behaviour. Existing behaviour: At a design stage, it is important that the existing behaviour of all road users is understood. This means monitoring activity, researching previous incidents / accidents, and developing a detailed understanding the road or street environment. In particular, the designer should be familiar with activities in table A4.1 above.

Understanding Use: Backstreet in Dublin 1 – informal lunchtime football is facilitated by the shape of the street: blank walls, little or no traffic, and double yellow lines to keep the “pitch” free.

Chapter A4 – Function, Shape and Use – Final version signed-off (July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Desired behaviour: The designer must design in the context of the proposed functions for the area, street or space. This may result in a change from existing uses. For example, an urban regeneration project would require the designer to have at the outset an understanding of the proposed land uses and their associated trip patterns. Once existing behaviour has been examined and understood, public consultation is the most effective method of determining and communicating the likely impacts of any changes the scheme may have on travel patterns. The greater the degree of engagement with the public, the higher the likelihood of acceptance of the scheme and conformity with the intentions of the designer.

Chapter A4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Function, Shape and Use â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final version signed-off (July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Example: South King Street, Dublin 2. Prior to the street improvement scheme, the street was originally one-way, with two lanes of traffic, together with loading and parking on the right-hand side. Through an integrated design, the street re-focussed on retail and entertainment functions. The dark brown office building (below the canopied theatre) has since been replaced by high street retailing, as intended at the time of this design. Loading is accommodated at certain times. Through traffic has been precluded.

Chapter A4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Function, Shape and Use â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final version signed-off (July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY A4.3 Harmony between Function, Shape, Use – Summary Table The interaction between function, Shape and Use is summarised below:

Step 1 (for retro-fitting)

Identify existing functions both “Place” and “Movement”, listed in Table 4.1 above, for the street, road or area

Step 2:

Identify existing usage of the street, road or area (including road user audit)

Step 3:

Identify future functions both “Place” and “Movement”, listed in Table 3.1 above, based on the Development or Local Area Plans, together with the relevant Local Transport Plan or Regional Traffic Plan – this will also include retained functions from Step 1

Step 4:

Design scheme to accommodate future functions and priorities

Step 5:

Assess impact of scheme on existing usage

Step 6:

Consult on proposed design

Step 7 Step 8 =

Monitor actual usage against intended usage Return to Step 1(i.e. iterative process)

Chapter A4 – Function, Shape and Use – Final version signed-off (July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter A5: Cycle Network Planning A5.1

General This chapter examines the issue of cycle network planning. It discusses the main requirements to be addressed in planning a network, and gives guidance on the steps to be followed in developing and drawing it up.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter A2: Policy Context Chapter A3: Urban Design and Master Planning Chapter A6: Bicycle Parking Strategy Chapter B3: Assessment of Quality of Service

A5.2

Planning a Cycle Network Cycle routes are planned to facilitate travel from an identified point of origin to an identified destination in a manner which provides for a high level of safety and service. The cycling environment should be such that cyclists will always be aware of when they are on a cycle route, when they are not on a route, and when they are moving from one circumstance to the other. A proper signage strategy for the network is critical in this regard. A cycle network is a coherent system of cycle routes, comprised of a mix of main routes, local or minor routes, Green Routes, associated cycle parking and related facilities – •

Main routes are used by many cyclists for substantial periods of the day, while local, or minor, routes tend to be used by fewer cyclists over shorter periods.

•

Green Routes are routes provided specifically for tourist, recreational and leisure purposes.

•

Cycle parking facilities can range from unsupervised, on-street bicycle racks to indoor, supervised storage units (see Chapter A6, Bicycle Parking Strategy).

•

Other related facilities would include bicycle hire and repair units.

A cycle network is more than just the infrastructure, however. Its primary purpose is to provide the cyclist with the highest Quality of Service (QOS) feasible over the greatest length of route, while facilitating a pattern of trips between various origin and destination points. To this end – A5.1 Chapter A5-Cycle Network Planning (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY •

key origins and destinations should be identified within the area to be served

•

routes serving principal destinations should be identified as principal (or main) routes

•

short trips (<6km) will have a more local, or utilitarian, focus.

Allowance should be made for overlapping between principal routes and local networks, and for overlapping at local level between adjacent local networks, as this will result in greater numbers of cyclists on the overlapping sections, with a corresponding requirement for higher QOS in those areas. The QOS level is important also on those sections of the network that are likely to be used by new or less experienced users. A5.3

Network Requirements The main requirements for a cycle network are generally accepted to be those set out in Table A5.1, which also shows the principal means by which these requirements can be met:

Network Requirements

Provided by:

Road safety

a network which is safe for cyclists and other road users

Coherence

a coherent and continuous network, linking origin and destination points for cyclists

Directness

a network which offers as direct a route as possible, keeping any detours or delays to a minimum

Attractiveness

a network designed and constructed so as to make cycling attractive

Comfort

a network which facilitates quick and comfortable flow of bicycle traffic

Table A5.1: Cycle network requirements

A properly planned cycle network is essential if cycling numbers on commuter and other routes are to be maximised. It provides increased accessibility and permeability within urban and local centres, and can used as a positive feature in any promotion of the cycling mode, especially as an alternative to the car for shorter trips, and health and leisure purposes.

A5.2 Chapter A5-Cycle Network Planning (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Table A5.1 shows clearly the interrelationship between the cycle network and the extent to which cyclists’ requirements can be met. The importance of these requirements in assessing the quality of service for a given cycle route is discussed in greater detail in Chapter B3, “Assessment of Quality of Service”. While all of these requirements must be addressed by the designer throughout the cycle network, different cycling groups will have different needs and levels of experience, and therefore different priorities, some of which are illustrated in Table A5.2.

Category Commuters Tourists

Suggested Priorities Coherence (continuity), Safety, Directness Attractiveness, Comfort, Safety – see also Key Destinations and Green Routes

Inexperienced / less confident cyclists

Safety, Continuity, Attractiveness – cyclists in this category will always require a high QOS

Table A5.2: Cycle group priorities

A prioritised cycle network capital programme needs to focus on which type of cyclist or cycling group is likely to be the main user of each route, and/or which type of cyclist or group is each route or section of network primarily intended to attract. The designer should bear in mind also that the cyclist is only one mode in the overall traffic pattern, and that traffic is not a homogenous stream of vehicles. Whether cyclist, pedestrian, motorised vehicle or public transport, each mode will have separate needs and priorities, and mode management is central to the planning of a successful cycle network. It is suggested as a first step, therefore, that separate networks should be planned for each mode, after which the various mode-based networks can then be layered into a “best-fit” reconciliation.

Note on “Best-Fit” Network Reconciliation: ♦ Ideally, one would seek to have the same Quality of Service (QOS) level for all modes throughout the transport and travel network. However, due to physical constraints, conflicting demands, etc., not all demands can be met equally. One solution is to target high QOS routes based on desire lines for A5.3 Chapter A5-Cycle Network Planning (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY appropriate modes. ♦ Soft (i.e. short-distance) modes such as walking and cycling have the least tolerance for deviation from desire lines. Also, while access roads offer high QOS for cycling, they may not be ‘readable’ or easily accessible at either end. It is important that these issues be addressed in the design process.

A5.4

Developing the Cycle Network – Developing a cycle network involves the assessment and/or implementation of a number of key elements, discussed in greater detail hereunder: a. Initial Inputs b. Cycle Network Targets and Indicators c. Primary Destinations d. Physical Shape e. Severance f.

Strategic (Sub-Regional) Context

(a) Initial Inputs: The success of a cycle network depends to a large extent on the level and accuracy of the initial information (data inputs) on which it is based. In developing the network, therefore, the designer should first examine available data and match this to initial expectations on what the network needs to deliver. Initial inputs include – •

Extent of catchment to be served, including degree to which catchment extends to, or includes, rural hinterland or adjacent towns and villages

•

Population densities and profiles

•

Existing and potential cycling numbers vis-a-vis other transport modes

•

Nature and extent of existing cycle infrastructure

•

Assessment of realistic outcomes if cycle network introduced

•

Are there potential “quick wins” if certain elements prioritised?

A5.4 Chapter A5-Cycle Network Planning (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY •

Need for accessibility mapping and identification of severance locations

•

Options for including Green Routes, or green route sections, and related issues, e.g. security, lighting, etc.

From this information, it should be possible for the designer to identify actual or potential points of origin in terms of cycle numbers and likely levels of usage, as well as the main (primary) destinations, around which the network can be focussed. The simplest form of network is a uniform one, such as that shown in Figure A5.1, below. Travel times are assumed to be the same for all trips of similar distance, and isocrones can be plotted uniformly to show incrementally the travel times between a point of origin and a central, primary destination, based solely on the distance in between.

Figure A5.1: Network based on uniform isocrones (Dutch example)

This level of uniformity is unlikely to be encountered in the Irish context, where varying terrain and traffic conditions can result in considerable difference in travel times over identical or similar distances (see examples in Figures A5.2 and A5.3).

Insert Irish example of Isocrones - 1 Insert Irish example of Isocrones - 2 A5.5 Chapter A5-Cycle Network Planning (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Figure A5.2: Isocrones (Irish Example 1)

Figure A5.3: Isocrones (Irish Example 2)

(b) Cycle Network Targets and Indicators: It is important to identify and set down the key targets for the cycle network as part of the preliminary design work. Network targets should be both policy and infrastructure orientated. The success or otherwise of the network performance will be determined by the degree to which these targets are achieved. Cycle Network – Policy It is recommended that the need for, and development of, properly planned cycle networks should form part of the Local Authority transport policy objectives as set out in the County Development Plan. Network policy targets should be consistent with overall cycling policy objectives, particularly those aimed at meeting the main network requirements listed in Table A5.1 above. Values should be assigned for each target at the initial planning stage, and monitored regularly against actual performance. Suggested policy indicators include – ♦ Stipulated percentage increase in number of cyclists over base year (%) ♦ Percentage accident reduction throughout cycle network, aimed at elimination or prevention of fatal injuries and substantial reduction in number of serious injuries for all cycling categories (%) ♦ Increased sense of safety for all, and especially less experienced, cyclists along the entire cycle route (% user perception) ♦ Better cycling speeds along all routes, through maximising directness and minimising delays and deviations (km/h) ♦ Consistency in cycling comfort, through elimination or repair of surface irregularities, and regular cycle-route maintenance (% user perception) Cycle Network - Infrastructure The above targets are primarily performance-related and cyclistorientated. For a better overall picture, targets should also be identified for the physical infrastructure elements of the cycle network, and values assigned. Key physical indicators include – A5.6 Chapter A5-Cycle Network Planning (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY ♦ the length of cycle track or cycle lane provided throughout the network, whether as stand-alone facilities or in conjunction with Quality Bus Corridors ♦ the length and location of one-way and contra-flow cycle route (off-street or on-street) ♦ new facilities such as bicycle parking spaces on-road or at interface points with public transport, and ♦ Quality of Service rankings (A-E) as a percentage of the total network (see Chapter B3 for further details). Physical indicators should be monitored regularly to ensure the network is developing in line with agreed targets. As an example, Table A5.3 shows key physical indicators and related monitoring results for the City of Copenhagen for the years 1995 to 2006.

Indicator

1995

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

Kilometres cycled (million km/day)

0.80

0.93

0.92

1.05

1.11

1.13

1.15

Cycle Track length (km)

293

294

302

307

323

329

332

Cycle Lane length (km)

Public cycle parking spaces (x 1000 spaces)

20.50

29.50

Cycle Track Maintenance (x million Euro) (1 Euro = 7 DK Kroner)

0.56

0.67

0.76

1.30

0.97

1.41

1.04

Green cycle route length (km)

Table A5.3: Key physical indicators, Copenhagen (source: City of Copenhagen Bicycle Account 2006)

NOTE: The bulk of cycle routes in Copenhagen are cycle tracks with stepped vertical segregation between the footpath and the cycle track, and again between the cycle track and the adjoining carriageway (see Photo A5.7 Chapter A5-Cycle Network Planning (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY A5.4.1, below). Cycle lanes, marked only at the approaches to junctions.

on-road as such, are generally used

Photo A5.4.1: Typical arrangement for segregated cycle track (Copenhagen)

It recommended that the following be considered as key physical indicators for cycle network monitoring purposes:

1. Length of off-road cycle track (km) 2. Length of on-road cycle lane (km) 3. Length of Green Cycle Route (km) 4. Number of public cycle parking spaces provided (no.) 5. Cycle facility maintenance expenditure (x 1000 euros) 6. QOS ranking (A-E, as percentage of total network)

(c) Primary Destinations: In drawing up the cycle network, radial routes should be planned to focus on primary (key) destinations, with orbital link-ups between these destinations or at strategic locations along the way. The Copenhagen city-centre network shown in Figure A5.4, below, is a good example of this approach. Existing or proposed cycle routes to primary destinations in the central area are coloured red, and proposed link-ups are coloured blue.

A5.8 Chapter A5-Cycle Network Planning (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure A5.4: Cycle network with interlinked primary destinations (Copenhagen)

Typical primary destinations would be – • • • • • •

City and Town centres Public transport Hubs – Railway, metro, tram and bus stations Employment zones Second-level Schools and Higher Education Institutions Leisure Activities (sports, cinema, etc.) Tourism and Recreational Cycling centres (hub towns and villages, scenic amenities, cycle trails, etc.)

Notes: 1. Because of the age profile, cycling take-up in schools is likely to be dependent on leadership, the proximity of the school to offroad cycle tracks or green routes, and whether or not the school has prepared a travel plan. 2. The network in Figure A5.4 also includes a series of planned Green Routes, mainly along the water’s edge, which can be accessed readily from the primary routes, and provides a good example of how these can be integrated into the overall cycle network.

Primary Destinations and Quality of Service: It is recommended that the designer prepare a Quality of Service (QOS) “map” of the proposed cycle network so that the network can be proofed against the targets that have been set for its performance. Ideally, for routes serving primary destinations, the closer the route gets to the destination, the higher the QOS should be, with the highest quality of A5.9 Chapter A5-Cycle Network Planning (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY service to be found in the immediate vicinity of the primary destination itself. Particular attention should be paid to measures which can increase directness, minimise delay, and maximise capacity (effective width, stacking space) on junction approaches, as these are locations where overall QOS can be impaired because of the need to facilitate all transport modes in all directions. Other important issues in relation to primary destinations include the need for legibility, with coherent and clearly signed access routes, and the requirement for significant cycle parking, on-street as much of it as possible (see also Chapter A6: “Bicycle Parking Strategy” in this regard). If ITS applications for cycling are being introduced, they should focus on these areas first, especially in relation to cycle counting and cycling activity. The possibility of introducing “green waves” for cyclists at signalised junctions should be investigated (see example in Figure A5.5), and the designer should pay particular attention to resolution of any conflicts between cyclists and pedestrian at these locations.

Figure A5.5: ITS for bicycles – green cycle wave (Danish example)

(d) Physical Shape: It is recommended that a systematic approach be adopted in drawing up the proposed cycle network, regardless of the actual urban layout. The designer should bear in mind that the network may extend beyond the built-up area, and that some primary destinations will be centred on scenic or amenity (tourism) locations, rather than urban centres, especially in towns and villages, and rural areas. Initially, a theoretical grid should be constructed with mesh widths varying from 500-800m in urban areas, to 250-500m for suburbs and residential areas. For central areas with multiple destinations, mesh widths should be reduced, as deviations become less tolerable On to this grid, the designer should –

A5.10 Chapter A5-Cycle Network Planning (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY •

Overlay primary destinations, and the direction of principal originating trips

•

Plot modal split targets to these destinations, to understand the ranking of bicycle vs. other modes in terms of accessibility *

•

Adjust/reconcile the theoretical grid to the actual network of roads, streets and laneways *NOTE: The designer should only consider cycling trips less than 6km in this assessment, as the number of long-distance cycling commuters would normally be insufficient to impact on the overall rankings.

Following on from this, the network should be prioritised for access by each mode to the designated primary destinations. As all modes cannot be given equal priority on each approach, the QOS implications for modes whose priority is reduced must be considered by the designer, and addressed where necessary. Examples of a theoretical network grid and prioritised network are shown in Figures A5.6 and A5.7.

Insert sketch and related text for theoretical network planning grid

Figure A5.6: Grid for theoretical network prioritised network

Insert sketch and related text for prioritised network showing the various modes relative to each other

Figure A5.7: Example of

(e) Severance: Any break in the continuity of a route (severance) can have a particularly disruptive impact on Quality of Service throughout the network. All locations where this occurs should be clearly identified, e.g. at bridges, large roundabouts, major road crossings and network pinch points. Disruption may sometimes occur due to lack of physical space along sections of the route, especially in locations where priority must be given to pedestrians and visually or mobility impaired users.

A5.11 Chapter A5-Cycle Network Planning (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY  Adequate, site-specific measures will be required to avoid severance of the cycling provision at these locations, and may include the need for local detours.  In particular, the confluence of cycle routes as they approach and depart from bridges and pinch points should be detailed specifically, as the resulting crossings may involve unacceptable detours or delays which would have a knock-on effect on the overall QOS *.  If unacceptable detours and delays cannot be avoided, the cycle network should not be planned around these locations. *Note: Unacceptable detours are detours where the ratio between the actual cycle distance and the direct distance (“as the crow flies”) is greater than 1.20. (f) Strategic (Sub-Regional) Networks: Where routes along two or more local networks overlap or combine, the enlarged network is referred to as a Strategic, or Sub-Regional Network. The priority of certain routes in one or other of the original networks may increase as a result, as will the corresponding need for continuity and QOS. This is especially so for routes which are shared by the component networks. On a wider scale, local networks or cycle routes with high QOS may need to link up with national or regional networks. This includes areas where cycling facilities are being provided under the Failte Ireland “Strategy for the Development of Irish Cycle Tourism”, or as part of the Recreational Trails Programme being implemented by the National Trails Office on behalf of the Irish Sports Council. (See Chapter A2, “Policy Context”, and Chapter A8, “Cycling in Rural Areas”, for further information on this issue.) Sample illustrations of cycle networks in Denmark, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom are shown Figures A5.8 to A5.10.

A5.12 Chapter A5-Cycle Network Planning (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure A5.8: Cycle networks, Copenhagen

Figure A5.9 Cycle networks, (?) and Utrecht

A5.13 Chapter A5-Cycle Network Planning (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure A5.10: Cycle Network, London (UK)

A5.14 Chapter A5-Cycle Network Planning (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter A6: Bicycle Parking Strategy A6.1

General This chapter examines the background to, and key elements required for, developing a bicycle parking strategy. It considers a number of different types of parking facility, proposes a methodology for selecting the most appropriate one and, finally, sets out a six-step guide to developing a bicycle parking plan.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter A5: Bicycle Network Planning Chapter B3: Assessing Quality of Service Chapter C3: Cycle Parking Chapter D3: Developing a Maintenance Programme

A6.2

Developing a Bicycle Parking Strategy The provision of appropriate bicycle parking facilities at the beginning and end of a trip is fundamental to the userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s choice of travel mode, where such a choice exists, and is a key factor in encouraging private car users to consider alternative modes. There is ample evidence that, even when quality alternatives (QBCs, rail etc.) are available, many commuters will continue to use their cars. Dedicated private parking spaces in or adjacent to the workplace, particularly if free of charge, is undoubtedly a major influencing factor in this regard. By the same token, the removal or reduction of free all-day parking, coupled with increased charges for remaining spaces, can lead to users recognising public transport modes, in particular, as the more attractive alternative. It may also lead to an enhanced perception of the bicycle as a suitable mode, where trips are of short-distance or duration.

A6.1 Chapter A6-Bicycle Parking Strategy (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure A6.1: A suitable alternative for short trips

As with the private car, however, bicycle parking provision – or the lack of it – can influence whether the bicycle is used, and the overall quality of the mode will be determined by the weakest link. In short, if parking facilities are not available at either end, the trip is unlikely to be made, regardless of how good the connecting route network is. Most new homes are lacking in private, convenient and/or sufficient space for bicycle parking, especially in housing estates, where the bicycle may be in a locked garage in the back garden, or not catered for at all. Apartment blocks tend to be even less bicycle-friendly, and, in many new apartments, it is expected that those who choose to use a bicycle must bring the bike upstairs, carry it through the apartment and park it on a balcony.

Insert Photo – Gasworks Apartments with bikes on balconies…

Photo A6.2.1: Bicycle parking (Apartment)

There has been a gradual increase in the provision of both on-street and workplace bicycle parking facilities in recent years. However, this has tended to occur on an ad hoc basis, by and large. It is timely, therefore, that bicycle parking should be considered as an integral part of the cycle route network, and that a strategic approach is adopted for the provision of bicycle parking facilities at all cycle-trip origin and destination points. The development of such a Bicycle Parking Strategy involves the assessment and/or implementation of a number of key elements, which are summarised hereunder, and discussed in greater detail in the following Sections A6.3 – A6.7:

A6.2 Chapter A6-Bicycle Parking Strategy (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Bicycle Parking Strategy: Key Elements

A6.3

•

Examining the Rationale for a Bicycle Parking Strategy

•

Balancing Consumer Demands

•

Selecting the Appropriate Facility

•

Developing a Bicycle Parking Plan

Rationale for a Bicycle Parking Strategy The rationale for adopting a strategic approach to the provision of bicycle parking facilities can be examined under four main headings: • • • •

Promoting modal shift Improving the quality of cycling facilities Cycle parking in public spaces Theft and vandalism

Promoting Modal Shift: If the bicycle is to be successfully promoted as a convenient and acceptable transport alternative, then, as a general rule, bicycle parking facilities at origin and destination points should occupy the most convenient locations within any overall accommodation of private transport, second only to parking facilities provided for the mobility impaired. The location of quality cycle parking in prime convenient locations, e.g. immediately outside the front door or beside the main entrance to a building, strengthens the perception of the bicycle as the preferred private transport choice for that development, makes access more convenient for those who cycle, and serves as a permanent reminder to visitors and other occupants that the bicycle is seen as a viable transport option. Improving the Quality of Cycling Facilities: The attractiveness of the cycling facility is one of the main characteristics which determine quality of service for cyclists (see Chapter B3: “Assessment of Quality of Service”). Safety and social security, whether actual or perceived, are of particular importance in the case of new or less experienced cyclists – quality counts, and this applies to bicycle parking as much as any other aspect of the cycle network. While quality can be subjective, e.g. depending on the value of the bicycle, the frequency of bicycle use, etc., there are a number of common quality indicators which can be summarised as shown hereunder: A6.3 Chapter A6-Bicycle Parking Strategy (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Bicycle Parking Facility – Quality Indicators Ease with which bicycle can be placed in the parking facility Ease with which bicycle can be locked/stored securely within the facility Exposure to weather Risks of personal injury (cyclist and passer-by) Risk of damage/theft to the bicycle itself Bicycle parking Durability of materials and maintenance requirement of the facility Aesthetic attractiveness of the facility, and of the space occupied by the facility The relative importance of the various indicators will vary from user to user, and some will be more relevant to on-street or work-place parking facilities than home storage. Convenience is not always the overriding consideration, as, for example, a bicycle which is used only occasionally may be better stored hanging in the garage than taking up valuable domestic floor space. Cycle Parking in Public Spaces: The location of public bicycle parking facilities raises a number of issues which need to be considered carefully from an urban design perspective. The lack of adequate cycle parking facilities will result, almost inevitably, in an increase in “casual” parking at railings, pedestrian guard rails, traffic or bus stop poles, or any similar convenient fixture to which the bicycle can be secured. This, in turn, reduces the effective footpath space for pedestrians and the mobility impaired, and can create a number of potential safety hazards such as protruding handlebars (at children’s eye level), trip hazards caused by fallen bicycles, obstructions (stacked bicycles impeding passage) and increased difficulty in gaining access to utilities for repair and maintenance.

A6.4 Chapter A6-Bicycle Parking Strategy (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Photo A6.3.1: “Casual on-street bicycle parking”

Where on-street cycle parking facilities are provided, care should be exercised in choosing the most suitable location, as badly sited facilities can be as great a barrier to pedestrian and mobility impaired movements as that caused by casual parking. This is especially the case where bicycle racks and similar on-street storage facilities are located in areas of critical pedestrian movement (e.g. in the vicinity of crossing points, traffic islands, medians, etc.). While such areas may have the advantage for the cyclist of being relatively secure cycle parking areas because of their high visibility and public activity levels, pedestrian movements must take priority and any potential conflicts should be avoided.

Photo A6.3.2: “Poorly located bicycle parking facility”

In considering the type of parking facility to be provided, particularly where a significant quantity is being provided on-street or at public transport pick-up points such as bus-stops and railway stations, consideration should be given to the visual aspect of the facility, as the “metal hedge” effect of concentrated, high-volume, cycle parking can easily detract from the overall streetscape.

Photo A6.3.3: “Concentrated bicycle parking”

In addition to the above, care should be taken in the design and layout of cycle parking facilities, to ensure there is sufficient additional free space around the facility to allow cyclists to stand and access the bicycle. This applies equally whether the facilities are on-street or more concentrated, off-street storage units.

A6.5 Chapter A6-Bicycle Parking Strategy (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY On-street facilities which require the bicycle owner to stand in a traffic lane or block a busy footpath in order to use the facility should be avoided. Similarly, off-street facilities where concentrated volumes of bicycles are stored in a relatively confined space require room to manoeuvre in both the initial placing and subsequent retrieval of the bicycle (see also Chapter C3: “Cycle Parking” for further advice and guidance on layout and access space for cycle parking).

Insert Photo

Theft and Vandalism:

Photo A6.3.4: “Accessing the parked bicycle”

Theft and Vandalism: As noted earlier, safety and security are important quality issues, especially for new or inexperienced cyclists. It is important, therefore, that public cycle parking facilities are seen to be safe and secure, if the cycling mode is to be successfully developed within an urban transport strategy. Different studies have shown that people stop using the bicycle because of the risk of theft and vandalism, and there is a danger also that fears about theft and vandalism could deter potential users from switching to the cycle mode in the first place. Public on-street cycle parking facilities should be designed to allow bicycles to be attached and locked securely, as should facilities located at bus and rail intersection points. Off-street facilities, where concentrated volumes are stored, ideally should have full-time staff in attendance. Finally, short trips to school or workplace have a significant potential for modal shift from private car to bicycle. School managers and employers have an important role in promoting or advocating change by ensuring that their students and/or employees have secure on-site parking facilities, where bicycles can be parked in confidence on a daily basis. Cycling cannot occur within a School Travel or Mobility Management plan without this fundamental provision.

Insert Photos: examples of good cycle-parking within schools/work-places

A6.6 Chapter A6-Bicycle Parking Strategy (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photos A6.3.5 & A6.3.6: “Good bicycle parking facilities (school and workplace examples)

A6.4

Consumer Demands There are many different types of cyclist, all of whom will require their own specific type or mix of bicycle parking facilities. Each cyclist will have a number of individual concerns, and these are likely to include some or all of the following : • • • • • • • • • • • •

How valuable is the bike? How long will the bike be left there? Will the bike be left overnight? Are there special elements to the bike (e.g. trailer?) What is the area like, from a personal security point of view? How much public activity is there (a deterrent to vandalism)? How visible is the cycle parking? Is there a facility to store luggage? How close is the parking to the destination? How likely is there to be available parking slots? Is the parking covered or exposed to the elements? How handy is it to get into the parking area, if the access is locked?

If the appropriate bicycle parking solution is to be provided, the requirements and/or concerns of the intended user should be determined in advance, using one or more of a range of proven marketing/consultation techniques. In the public domain, it may be more appropriate to provide a mix of facilities which can address a spectrum of needs. It should not be assumed that Sheffield Stands on a public thoroughfare represent a suitable solution in all situations. The Distance Cost Quality (DCQ)-Scan, illustrated in Figure A6.2, below, provides the designer with a useful method of assessing consumer demand, in that it combines these three crucial elements of user behaviour connected to bicycle parking, and seeks to find the most acceptable “best fit combination” based on identified consumer preferences.

A6.7 Chapter A6-Bicycle Parking Strategy (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure A6.2: Balancing distance, cost and quality. Table A6.1 lists the main issues for consideration in relation to each of the three DCQ-scan elements: Main Issues for Consideration Distance (or Convenience)

Short term, high turnover parking facilities located near important destinations vs. Long term parking facilities (covered/caretaker in attendance) at a maximum 150 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 500 metre of important attraction points, e.g. rail stations etc.

Cost

Should facility be free to user? or Will user pay more for higher quality, service and safety/security?

Quality

Outdoor bicycle racks outside vs. indoor bicycle parking? Covered vs. non-covered parking facilities? Guarded vs. non-guarded facilities? Parking as a stand-alone facility vs. parking with additional services (e.g. bicycle-repair and rental)? Functional quality vs. aesthetic or urban design quality?

Table A6.1: Balancing consumer preferences (DCQ-scan)

As an example of the type of issues that need to be examined, if the potential user considers distance as critical, then one may find A6.8 Chapter A6-Bicycle Parking Strategy (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY expensive long-term cycle parking facilities empty, while bicycles are parked to a lamp-post beside the required destination. Similarly, if convenience is the major issue, a locked facility may be as much a barrier to potential users as it may be a barrier to thieves. As against that, if security is a major concern, then unsupervised on-street racks may be left unused, regardless of how convenient they are. Finally, if there is likely to be strong consumer resistance to paid cycle parking, efforts should be made to identify the threshold below which customers are prepared to pay, and/or what is the level of service and security that needs to be provided in return. A6.5

Selecting the Appropriate Bicycle Parking Facility Reference has been made in previous paragraphs to a number of different situations where bicycle parking facilities should be provided, i.e. – •

residential facilities, including apartment blocks

•

on-street facilities

•

off-street facilities, including car-parks,

•

facilities at schools and in the work-place, and

•

facilities at public transport pick-up points (bus and rail).

As noted also, the size of the facility can vary from a single rack to high-volume, concentrated (“metal hedge”) cycle parking. The requirements will vary, depending on location, and, accordingly, the following design approach is recommended towards selecting the most appropriate choice of facility for each location. Recommended Design Approach: The Mini-Midi-Maxi-Mega design approach was developed on behalf of the Dublin Transportation Office (DTO) to provide guidelines on the most suitable choice of bicycle-parking facility. This manual proposes an amended version of that approach. It categorises cycle parking facilities by type and associated characteristics (i.e. On-street, Stored and Commercial), and assesses each type in terms of its location (i.e. Origin, Route/Interchange and Final Destination. The recommended design approach is illustrated in Tables A6.2 and A6.3, below, and related comments.

A6.9 Chapter A6-Bicycle Parking Strategy (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Type of Facility On-Street

Characteristics Racks (covered or exposed) Unsupervised Short distance from origin or destination (30-50m.)

Stored

Internal or constructed parking for neighbourhoods or specific user groups (employees) Accessible by key, pass or chip-system, Supervision by camera. Limited amount of bicycles (up to 50-60 bicycles) Sited at reasonable distance from origin/destination (150-250m)

Commercial

Internal or constructed city centre parking, guarded by personnel, locked Possibly connected to other public services (bike rental & repair outlets, shopping centres, etc.). The amount of bicycles is far larger than for other stored units (more than 100) Distances from origin/destination: 250-500m. May require support service infrastructure.

Table A6.2: Types of Bicycle Parking Facility

Having considered the type and related scale of each facility (whether on-street, stored or commercial) in accordance with the above, these should then be related to the different location types (origin, on-route/ interchange, and final destination), to assist in determining the most appropriate choice from the user’s point of view, including whether the facility should be public or private, and free-ofcharge or paid. The relationship between the different locations and the appropriate type of bicycle parking facility is shown in Table A6.3, below. (See Chapter C3, “Bicycle Parking Facilities”, for further information and examples.) Type On-Street Location Origin

Storage

Commercial

(Free/unrestricted)

(Paid/restricted)

(Paid)

Visitor’s Rack at front door

Residential storage, locked, built-in or covered

Storage at central location, serviced, for inhabitants;

Not Public

Station parking, covered;

Bicycle transfer point with service;

Public

Rack at bus stop Route / Interchange or station

A6.10 Chapter A6-Bicycle Parking Strategy (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Interchange Public

covered;

Public

Not Public

Final Destination

Rack at shops, work, sports, school

Parking at work or at events, locked, builtin

City-centre or eventstorage

Public

Not Public

Public.

Table A6.3: Range and type of cycle parking facilities determined by location.

A6.6

Developing and Implementing a Bicycle Parking Plan The previous sections have considered the rationale for a strategic approach to bicycle parking, discussed the need to identify cyclist/user requirements, and highlighted the desirability of selecting an appropriate mix of parking facilities. The following paragraphs are designed to show how these elements can be combined and developed to draw up a Bicycle Parking Plan that is tailored to the individual requirements of each implementing authority. The process involves six steps, listed as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Data Collection Spatial Analysis Implementation Plan (utilising DCQ-scan) Public Participation Implementation Evaluation and Monitoring

Step 1: Data Collection The success and/or relevance of any bicycle parking plan will depend on the quality, accuracy and comprehensiveness of the information (data) on which it is based. Data collection involves knowing where to look for the information, when to look for it, and what to focus on. In terms of where and when to look for information, the authority should conduct regular (6-month or annual) counts and surveys at the following locations: •

on-street locations

•

origins, especially high-density residential developments, including residential estates and apartment blocks

•

destinations, e.g. employers, educational establishments and retail centres

•

key municipal locations, e.g. public transport stops and interchanges, council and public offices, public parks and playgrounds

A6.11 Chapter A6-Bicycle Parking Strategy (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Counts should be conducted during the months of peak cycling demand (May and September). In catering for that peak demand, there is a better opportunity to retain those cyclists through the offseason, including the winter months. In terms of what to focus on, collected data should include information on: •

the amount of uncontrolled cycle parking, e.g. cycles locked to traffic poles, railings etc. (this will give an indicator of the extent of unmet demand, and the appropriateness of existing facilities)

•

the nature and extent of current cycle parking provision, including number of bicycles and racks, turnover and usage on different times of day and week

•

how the current cycle parking provision compares with guidelines discussed in Section A6.5 for the appropriate type of provision

•

additional location-specific information (supplied by user-groups and individual cyclists)

•

suitability of current parking facilities (observation and inspection) – o are they awkward or difficult for cyclists to use? o are the spaces between bikes to close (less than 750mm) or too far apart (greater than 1.0m)?

•

Impact of current cycle parking arrangements on cyclists – o Are cyclists stopping to park, only to find no spaces available (demand issues)? o Are cyclists too close to moving traffic (safety issues)?

•

Impact of current cycle parking on other road users o Are other users affected when cyclists are parking their bicycles (safety issues)? o Are pedestrian movements impeded (mobility issues)?

The collection of statistical and/or observed data will enable an assessment to be made in relation to quantitative demands. For a more comprehensive picture, however, it is advisable to also seek opinions, experiences and wishes concerning subjective, or qualitative, demands, such as – •

Is there a preference for certain types of facility?

•

Where should the facilities be located?

•

Whether bicycle parking should be subject to tariffs (paid parking)?

•

How much would you be prepared to pay (is there an acceptable threshold)?

A6.12 Chapter A6-Bicycle Parking Strategy (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Qualitative information of this nature can be collected by way of random “vox-pop”, more formal interviews and questionnaires, and, if necessary, workshops to determine priorities. Step 2: Spatial Analysis Having carried out an initial assessment of the demand for new or improved bicycle parking facilities, including their type(s) and possible locations, it is necessary to analyse the collected data more scientifically to begin developing a robust scenario in relation to where this parking should be provided, and by whom. This would include identifying public transport agencies willing to provide on-site facilities, identifying employers and school managers favourably disposed to providing work-place and school parking facilities, ideally as part of an active mobility management or school travel plan, and developing a series of potential locations where different types of facility might be provided by the local authority and/or government agencies. Step 3: Implementation Plan (utilising DCQ-scan) The next step involves further refinement of the spatial analysis results (quantitative and qualitative), and is carried out by reference to the methodologies outlined earlier in Section A6.4 and A6.5, i.e. – distance, cost and quality should be balanced, using the DCQscan (ref. Figure A6.1 and Table A6.1), and the appropriate range, type and location of bicycle parking facilities should be selected, using the guidance contained in the amended Mini-Midi-Maxi-Mega©-package (ref. Tables A6.2 and A6.3) Having consulted the guiding tables to determine choice(s) of most appropriate cycle parking facility, it should then be feasible to define priorities for short term and long-term implementation, and draw up a suitable implementation-plan. Step 4: Public Participation Having established a consultation role for the public during the initial Data Collection phase, it is important to retain their interest and involvement throughout the planning and subsequent implementation phases, as this will ensure a sense of ownership among existing and potential users. By encouraging ongoing dialogue, the local authority will have a better indication of the success or otherwise of its bicycle parking strategy, and will have clearer feedback on the degree to which the implementation measures are meeting the real needs of the end-user. A6.13 Chapter A6-Bicycle Parking Strategy (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY In addition, it will make end-users more aware of the work done by the authority on their behalf. To assist in determining the best implementation strategy for the proposed measures, it is recommended that the local authority, initially, should clearly set out and communicate its targets and policy on provision of bicycle parking facilities to all the stakeholders, and should then ensure a process for ongoing feedback through – •

Involving relevant target groups

•

Establishing consensus on priority areas

•

Identifying possibilities and opportunities for future action, and

•

Appointing a single person (or department) in the organisation as a focus for all stakeholder communications

Step 5: Implementation Having drawn up the implementation plan and established an agreed priority of measure, the next step is to secure the necessary funding and ensure compliance, where necessary, with procurement requirements. When considering funding opportunities, it is important to remember that some revenue may accrue through the sale of advertising space on the cycle parking facility. While this will vary depending on the size and type of facility, it is worth exploring in terms of cost/benefit analysis, given its potential, if implemented, as an ongoing, rather than one-off funding source. When priorities have been established (preferably by consensus with the stakeholders), and the necessary funding has been secured, the local authority should proceed with implementation of the Bicycle Parking Plan on a phased basis, subject to agreed arrangements for project management and control. N.B.: Every implementation plan should include adequate provision for future maintenance of the facilities as part of the authority’s annual Cycle Route Maintenance Programme (ref. Chapter D3 for further guidance).

Step 6: Monitoring and Evaluation Following implementation, the operation and utilisation of the bicycle parking facilities should be monitored and reviewed on a regular basis. It is preferable that this be done in a structured manner, with predetermined activities and inspections designed to measure output and delivery, and report on the effectiveness of the facilities for consideration and further action as may be required.

A6.14 Chapter A6-Bicycle Parking Strategy (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY It is recommended that any monitoring programme should include, inter alia, the following items: • Usage • Turnover • Unmet demand • Vandalism • Number of bicycles reported stolen In addition to the authority’s own inspections, stakeholders/end-users should be encouraged to monitor and provide feedback on the effectiveness or otherwise of the measures provided. It is also recommended that they should form part of the project review group, and be consulted in relation to any resulting actions. A6.7

Meeting Minimum Needs The following Table A6.4 gives guidance on the minimum number of spaces which should be provided initially at new private and public facilities: Location

Minimum number of bicycle parking spaces

Housing developments

one private secure bicycle space per bedroom planned; one visitor bicycle space per two housing units

Offices

10% of employee numbers, (subject to minimum of 10 bicycle places or one bike space for every car space, whichever is the greater)

Schools

10% of pupil registration numbers, minimum 10 places

Other developments

one bike space for every car space

Public Transport pickup points (Rail, tram & QBC)

2.5% of number of daily boarders at that point / station, subject to minimum of 10 bicycle places

Off-street car-parks (incl. Multi-storey)

10% of total car-spaces, subject to a minimum provision of 50 spaces

On-street (public)

Minimum of 5-10 spaces, depending on expected level of usage

Table A6.4: Recommended minimum number of bicycle parking spaces to be provided

There is a strong case to be made for re-assigning a certain percentage of on-street car-parking space to cycle parking as a way towards achieving sustainable transport/ modal shift objectives (see Photo A6.7.1, below). As noted in the above Table, the percentage will vary depending on the expected level of usage, but the suggested figure of 5-10 spaces should be seen as a minimum requirement. A6.15 Chapter A6-Bicycle Parking Strategy (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo A6.7.1: Re-assigning car-parking space to the bicycle

It is recognised that the provision of “non-public” facilities will depend on the level of private-sector commitment and/or resources. Accordingly, employers and school-managers should be encouraged to view bicycle parking as part of an overall mobility management strategy, for which they have a degree of responsibility. It is suggested, in addition, that Planning Authorities include a requirement for bicycle parking in conditioning new development permissions (using the above Table as a guide). This can be incorporated readily in the case of larger developments where there is a current requirement for mobility management planning. Consideration should be given to the provision of direction-signs, in particular for Storage and Commercial parking facilities (see Table A6.2). Bike lockers, showers & changing rooms should be available at Final Destination Storage facilities (private) (see Table A6.3).

Photos A6.7.2 and A6.7.3: On-street cycle parking facilities – “a strong procycling message”

As a general rule, on-street parking is likely to be the central “public” element in any bicycle parking strategy, as this type of facility – • •

sends out a strong pro-cycling message provides cyclists with kerb-free access to cycle parking

A6.16 Chapter A6-Bicycle Parking Strategy (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY • • • • •

does not compromise or affect pedestrians if properly installed needs no land/property acquisition can be installed easily, and at low cost, as drainage and alignment issues will have been catered for in designing the adjacent carriageway may require some protection (e.g. bollards) from adjacent vehicular movements, but no other add-on costs involved can be provided without difficulty as end-points for parallel-tokerb car parking areas, to define and maximise effective use of kerbside space

A6.7.4: Build out for bicycle parking used to define end-point of parallel-tokerb car parking

Beyond a certain volume, however, or for particular destinations (ref. DCQ-scan, Figure A6.2), on-street parking is not enough, and the local authority will have to consider additional storage facilities. Allowing that dedicated commercial storage for bicycles, of the type shown in Photo A6.7.5, below, is unlikely to be financially viable in the Irish context (at least in the short- to mid-term ), it is recommended that an element of bicycle parking be included as part of all multistorey/commercial (paid) car parks (see Table A6.4 for suggested minimum level).

A6.17 Chapter A6-Bicycle Parking Strategy (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Photo A6.7.5: Dedicated commercial bicycle parking facility

A Final Reminder: ♦ Cyclists require a parking facility at the beginning and end of their journey ♦ The quality of the cycle route network is determined by the weakest link in the trip ♦ The absence of suitable parking facilities may be sufficient to deter potential users from making the switch from private car to bicycle ♦ Bicycle parking facilities are best provided by adopting a strategic approach ♦ Different cyclists will have different bicycle parking priorities (convenience, accessibility, security, etc.) ♦ Getting stakeholders and potential users involved from the start is vital ♦ Different locations require different facilities (use Guidance Tables) ♦ Monitoring, evaluation and maintenance are essential to the successful implementation of any Bicycle Parking Strategy

NOTE: The guidance and recommendations contained in this chapter do not preclude the need for compliance with the requirements of the Planning and Development Acts and associated Regulations. The designer should consult with the local Planning Authority for clarification and/or further information in this regard.

A6.18 Chapter A6-Bicycle Parking Strategy (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter A8: Cycling in Rural Areas

A8.1

General This chapter defines cycling in rural areas by reference to sustainable safety principles, and sets out a general approach to related maintenance, management and design issues. Cycle trails and other cycle tourism elements are also discussed

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter A2: Policy Context Chapter A4: Road Hierarchy Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter D4: Maintenance-orientated Design

A8.2

Definition and General Approach Cycling in Rural Areas is defined as cycling on routes outside the built-up area, including: •

National, regional and local roads (but excluding motorways – cyclists prohibited)

•

Tourism, leisure, and commuter routes

•

Cycle trails

The features of the route should be determined in the first instance by reference to the Cycle Network Plan for the overall area. As a general approach, it is recommended that new road designs should take cognisance of cycling needs, and that provision for those needs should be considered at the scheme’s inception stage. For existing roads, planned improvements, including upgrading or retrofitting, should be prioritised in terms of network designation, legibility, signage and maintenance.

A8.1 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo A8.2.1: A need to prioritise improvements

Because of their “open”, or less controlled, nature, rural roads present a greater safety risk to cyclists and other vulnerable users than the more controlled nature of an urban environment. The speed and proximity of adjacent motorised traffic and the forward visibility on the roadway are key issues in determining the degree of risk to cyclists in such circumstances. In addition, the risk of serious or fatal accidents as a percentage of total accidents increases on regional or local roads, where there is no hard shoulder and cyclists must travel along the carriageway edge. The following tables, extracted from the Road Safety Authority publication, “Annual Collision Facts” (2006) provide useful information in this regard.

A8.2 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Table A8.1: Percentage exceeding speed limits on rural roads, 2005 (RSA)

The percentage of cars exceeding the speed limit on regional and county (local) 2-lane roads, and the recorded 85 percentile speeds associated with this, are worthy of particular concern, as these are roads where vulnerable road users, including cyclists, are already at increased risk due to the absence of hard shoulders, and their limited cross-section widths.

A8.3 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo A8.2.2: Increased risk to vulnerable users on narrow county roads

Recorded casualties for locations inside and outside the built-up areas are shown in the following table (RSA, 2006). While the number of accidents involving cyclists in rural areas is significantly fewer than the corresponding number within the built-up area, the number of fatalities as a percentage of the total is far higher (10.8% vs. 2.7%).

Table A8.2: Accident data showing Cyclists and Locations (RSA, 2006)

The Irish experience reflected in the above tables is supported by evidence and experience from other European countries, e.g. ďŁ§ Denmark: Complaints about speed and safety on rural roads were matched by a shift towards greater use of the car, since the roads were perceived unsafe. The main causes of concern were found to be A8.4 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY the large speed and mass differentials between bicycles and cars, tractors, lorries and animals, with the added safety problem of longdistance traffic using the roads as unofficial by-pass routes, when the road characteristics were patently unsuitable for this type of activity.  The casualty risk per million vehicle kilometres on minor rural roads across Europe is 0.64, compared to 0.07 for motorways, and 0.31 for arterial highways (source: TRA, Lubljiana 2008). Both national and international evidence suggest that cyclists are at a lower risk of having an accident in rural areas than within the built-up area, but that, should an accident occur, it is likely to be more serious in nature, and carry a greater risk of fatality. In addition, the risk increases on regional or county (local) roads where motorised vehicles have been shown to exceed the designated speed limit to a significant extent. A8.3

Sustainably Safe Rural Roads The policies and guidance proposed throughout this manual are centred on the five Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads, which are applicable to all road users. These principles are identified and discussed in detail in Chapter B1, and are listed as – 1. Functionality 2. Homogeneity 3. Readability 4. Forgivingness 5. Self-awareness Sustainable safety requirements are considered elsewhere in the manual, primarily in the context of urban cycle networks. They are equally important when applied to cycling outside the built-up area, however, though the absence of defined cycle tracks or cycle lanes on rural routes results in different approaches being adopted. Examples of measures which could be used to reduce vehicle speeds as part of a Sustainable Road Safety Programme for rural areas include: ♦ Simple design measures such as speed inhibitors at strategic locations, especially intersections and exits (e.g. speed humps or raised levels at intersections, see Photo A8.3.1, below)

A8.5 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photos A8.3.1 & A8.3.2: Examples of Sustainable Road Safety Programme measures (1)

♦ Traffic calming measures sympathetic to the rural environment (e.g. change of surface texture, narrowing of carriageway width, see Photo A8.3.2, above)

♦ Adjustment of the division of the carriageway by painted road markings ♦ Area-oriented 60 km/h-zones ♦ Zone-boards at entrances to reduced speed zones (see Photo A8.3.1, below)

Photos A8.3.3: Dutch example of Sustainable Road Safety Programme measures (1) – Zone Boards

A8.6 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The designer’s first step in any assessment of a rural cycling route, or network, should be to examine the route in relation to each of the five Sustainable Safety principles. 1. Functionality: A sustainably safe road network has a functional layout based on its classification. The Roads Act, 1993, designates three classifications for roads, i.e. national, regional and local. National and regional roads are designated by the Minister for Transport, and local routes by the Roads Authority. Rural local roads can be divided by the local Roads Authority into local primary, local secondary and local tertiary roads [ref. Traffic Management Guidelines, Section 1.6: Road Hierarchy]. Key issues to be considered include:  Is there a reasonable level of provision for cycling on such routes?  Is the cycling mode intended for this road?  Is the design fit for the intended purpose?  Should cycling be encouraged or discouraged along highspeed routes, e.g. National Primary, National Secondary? (At present, motorways are the only routes where cycling is prohibited)  Is there provision for cyclists at high-speed junctions along the route, especially where no hard-shoulder is available?  How can the cyclist be best accommodated when no alternative route exists?

A8.7 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photos A8.3.4 – A8.3.6: Functionality

2. Homogeneity: Homogeneity reduces speed, mass and volume differentials between the transport modes to a minimum. The greater the differential between the modes, the greater is the potential safety risk to cyclists and other vulnerable road users. When applied to traffic flow, homogeneity can reduce the level and severity of accidents that might otherwise occur. Accordingly, the designer needs to consider:  the speed differential between vulnerable and other traffic (actual speeds)  the relative mass differentials between modes  the anticipated volume differentials (less of an issue on local rural roads) Speed differentials pose the greatest risk on rural routes, particularly if the carriageway is narrow with no hard shoulders.

A8.8 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY On regional or local routes, the designer should examine ways in which the speed differential might be reduced, e.g. by introducing sympathetic rural traffic calming measures similar to the Dutch examples discussed, above. The scope for such action is likely to be limited, however, and this increases the need for high degrees of Readability and Self-awareness for all users.

Photo A8.3.7: A need for readability and self-awareness?

3. Readability: Readability, also referred to as “legibility” or “predictability”, is the degree to which a given traffic situation can be understood, or anticipated by the road user. This is especially important in a rural traffic context, where the full carriageway width usually acts as a “shared surface” for all the modes. This places the onus on the designer or maintenance engineer to present all road users with consistent, clearly understandable (readable) information along the route. This can be done through signage, road markings, advance warning of hazards, etc., and should be such that road users are aware of the driving behaviour that is expected of them and others. Questions to be addressed include:  Can the prevailing traffic regime be clearly read by all road users?  Is it clear to all users that cycling is to be expected on the route?  Can hazards be recognised in time for the user to take corrective action?  Does the road allow conflicting road users to perform avoidance or emergency manoeuvres when necessary?

A8.9 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY  Does the mandatory speed limit reflect the appropriate speed for the road?

Photo A8.3.8 and A8.3.9: Can the prevailing traffic regime be read clearly?

In general, it is recommended that speeds, as well as expectations, be kept as low as possible on rural local routes where cycling can be anticipated or planned. This is particularly important in the case of scenic routes or tourist trails, where passive activity and visual amenity are likely to take precedence over the needs of commuters. In such areas, all users can expect an increased number of hikers, cyclists, stationary vehicles, or animals along the route, and this should be clearly reflected in the readability of the prevailing traffic regime. The introduction of rural traffic management measures such as designated stop-off points and lay-bys at regular intervals along the route, or the making of special speed limit areas, may be considered as a further means of improving readability in these areas.

Photo A8.3.10: “Expect the unexpected” be reduced?

Photo A8.3.11: Should speed limit

4. Forgivingness:

A8.10 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The forgivingness of a road is the degree to which the results of any crashes or collisions can be reduced or mitigated. In the case of cycling on rural roads, this includes the degree to which speed differentials can be reduced. The opportunity to anticipate potential conflicts and take evasive action, and having the carriageway width to do so, are specific examples. For cyclists in particular, road surfaces and carriageway widths should be consistent, insofar as possible, and obstructions such as protruding branches or overgrown hedges , should be cut back so that the cyclist does not have to swerve into the path of an oncoming vehicle to avoid them (see also Section A8.4: Maintenance and Management).

Photo A8.3.12: The need to ensure evasion space back obstructions

Photo A8.3.13: the need to cut

5. Self-awareness: Self- awareness refers to the ability of the road user to negotiate the traffic regime and interact with other users, and is primarily dependent on the user’s own experience, education and awareness. From the designer’s perspective, the principle of self-awareness is supplementary to the other principles discussed above, but can include the following issues:  Is it reasonable to assume all users can negotiate all traffic regimes along the route, at all times?  Can the readability of the route, or the management of the traffic regime, be improved?  Are there specific road users, e.g. young or less experienced cyclists, at increased risk on rural roads?  Can awareness be raised through education or information dissemination/publicity campaigns?

A8.11 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

A8.3.14: Self-awareness – negotiating the traffic regime

A8.4

Maintenance and Management The need for a structured approach to maintenance is emphasised in Chapters D1-D4 of this manual. While reference should be made to these chapters for specific advice and guidance, the following maintenance issues are highlighted here because of their potential impact on cycling and cyclists on rural local roads: Signage: Warning signs should be fixed at intervals along rural routes, where deemed necessary, to advise drivers of the possibility of meeting cyclists ahead. This is particularly useful in the case of narrower roads, and provides drivers with a better understanding of the traffic regime, as well as preparing them for the potential need for avoidance manoeuvres. The advance warning sign, W 143 (see Chapter A1, “Legislative Context”, and Traffic Signs Manual) should be used, with or without plating to indicate distance (see Photo A8.4.1). It is important to maintain the sign, once placed, to ensure it remains clearly visible and is not obscured by overgrown hedges, etc. (see Photo A8.4.2).

A8.12 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo A8.4.1: Warning Sign visible

Photo A8.4.2: The need to keep signs clearly

Verge Maintenance: It is essential to trim and maintain verges along rural roads, particularly the busier ones, if cyclists are to be afforded maximum protection. Overgrown verges increase the potential for collisions, as they effectively force the cyclist to move out from the carriageway edge and take up a position further into the path of any motorised traffic following behind. To minimise this, bushes should be cut back, hedges should be trimmed, and nettles and other weeds sprayed (see Photo A8.4.3).

Edge surface is important for cyclists, especially when avoiding other traffic, and care should be taken to inspect for rutted edges on a regular basis (see Photo A8.4.4), and include for their repair in any maintenance programme.

Photo A8.4.3: Cut back, trim roadside vegetation rutted edges

A8.5

Photo A8.4.4: the need to repair

Rural Cycling Design Issues

A8.13 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Overall design issues are dealt with elsewhere in the manual, and the designer should refer to these, as necessary. However, some issues have a specific application in relation to cycling on rural routes, and these are discussed in the following paragraphs: •

Approaching towns and villages

•

Hard shoulders

•

Surface drainage

Approaching Towns and Villages: When designing cycle facilities on approaches to towns and villages, the key issue is how far beyond the built-up area should the cycling regime be extended. Factors influencing this decision include –  Number of daily cycling commuters originating outside the built-up area  Peak hour traffic conditions (all modes)  School travel patterns to/from outlying areas  Need for public lighting, especially during the winter months  Need to provide links to off-road trails and/or designated tourist routes (see Section A8.6, below)  Need to provide links between adjacent rural towns and villages The visual delineation afforded by cycle lanes can act as an effective transition for the cyclist travelling between the rural and the built-up areas, and vice versa. It also serves to provide other road users with an increased awareness of the cyclist’s presence. As a general guidance, cycle lanes should be provided on the busier approaches to towns and villages, especially where such facilities are being introduced, or already exist, immediately within the built-up area. Lane markings should be in accordance with the Traffic Signs Manual. Where gateways or other carriageway restrictions have been provided at the entrance to the built-up area, particular attention should be given to the integration of the cycle facility into the feature. Where no cycle facility is provided, the feature should be designed to safeguard cyclists.

A8.14 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo A8.5.1: Cycle lane provided on busier approaches treatments

Photo A8.5.2: Gateway

Hard Shoulders: Where hard shoulders are provided on rural roads, these will often act as an effective cycle lane, especially on busier routes. Ideally, therefore, the hard shoulder should be maintained at a consistent width. If this is not feasible due to the need to maintain carriageway lane widths, the hard shoulder should not be reduced below the minimum width required for safe cycling unless alternative provision is made. Hard shoulders located on an uphill gradient should have a bias towards slow-moving traffic such as tractors and heavy goods vehicles, to allow faster traffic to overtake them. In such circumstances, or where hard shoulders are converted to slow lanes, consideration should be given to the impact this can have on cycle traffic, particularly in terms of increased proximity to traffic and the resulting increased mass and speed differentials. As it is unlikely that separate facilities can be provided for cyclists in such circumstances, all users travelling in the slow lane should be adequately warned to expect the presence of vulnerable road users.

A8.15 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Photo A8.5.3: Consistent hard shoulder width Photo A8.5.4: Uphill bias towards slower traffic

Surface Drainage: Surface drainage is considered in detail in Chapter C15, and related maintenance issues are discussed in Chapters D2 and D3. Surface drainage is important in the context of rural cycling, especially at dusk, or when raining. On local roads, in particular,  The carriageway cross-section should have sufficient camber to prevent ponding on the road surface.  Roadside drainage arrangements should be adequate to prevent flooding in normal rainfall conditions, and drainage channels should be cleaned periodically to allow them to operate efficiently.  Drainage requirements should always be re-examined as part of surface-dressing operations.

Photo A8.5.5: The need to consider surface drainage arrangements

A8.6

Recreational Cycling in Rural Areas The (Draft) National Cycling Policy (DoT, 2008) seeks to provide dedicated signed rural cycling networks, catering for recreational cyclists and visitors alike, building on Fáilte Ireland’s Strategy for the Development of Irish Cycle Tourism (2007). Failte Ireland’s long-term objective is for a countrywide network of wellconnected cycle routes, some 2,500km in total. Two types of route are proposed –

A8.16 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY •

Loops (or Hub) Routes, which can be completed over half a day, or a full day, usually centred on a local hub town, and located mainly along quieter minor roads, and

•

Long-Distance Routes, which exist or can be developed as on-road, traffic-free or greenway routes, or as a mix of all three.

Photo A8.6.1: Cycle Tourism – a countrywide network of signed cycle routes (Failte Ireland)

A further major strategy dealing with recreational cycling in the rural area, the Recreational Trails Programme, is being coordinated by the National Trails Office on behalf of the Irish Sports Council. Launched in 2007, the strategy aims to develop and implement a broad range of walking and cycling trails for health, leisure and environmental purposes, together with associated standards, classification and signage.

Photo A8.6.2: Recreational cycle trails

A8.17 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY [The main features of both documents are summarised in Chapter 2 of this manual; readers should refer to www.failteireland.ie and www.irishtrails.ie for more detailed information.] Signage on Recreational Cycle Routes: Objective 6 of the (Draft) National Cycling Policy (DoT, 2008) seeks to ensure that all cycling networks â&#x20AC;&#x201C; both urban and rural - are signposted to an agreed standard. To this end, signage along rural routes, and particularly on designated tourism routes and cycle trails, should be distinct, recognisable, and readily understood by local and tourist alike. Signage of the type shown in the following examples is recommended as a general guidance, pending the development of new signage in line with the above (draft) policy objective:

Photo A8.6.3: Local cycle route signage (1) signage (2)

Photo A8.6.4: Local cycle route

Photo A8.6.5: Local cycle route signage (3) signage (4)

Photo A8.6.6: Local cycle route

Cycle Trails: A8.18 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Cycle trails are dedicated routes, generally located outside the built-up area, and primarily intended for recreational use – ♦ Cycle trails can be on-road or off-road, or a combination of both. ♦ They will have varying levels of difficulty, depending on physical and other characteristics, and this should be clearly identified at key points along the route. ♦ The suitability of a particular trail will depend on the skill, experience and fitness level of the cyclist, and the type of bicycle used. ♦

Cycle trails should not be confused with Cycle Ways, as defined in the Roads Act, 1993.

On-Road Cycle Trails: The different levels of difficulty for On-Road Trails are summarised in Table A8.3, below, together with associated route and physical characteristics, and suggested user-suitability in each case:

Category

Route characteristics

Easy

Dedicated cycle tracks or typically unclassified roads; virtually traffic-free

Moderate

Sections of route as per above (“easy”) Some sections on regional roads or have junctions which necessitate crossing such roads

Difficult

Section of route as above Some sections may use national roads, or have junctions which require crossing such roads

Physical characteristics Relatively flat terrain Minimal gradient (<3%) Overall ascent <50m Varying terrain Gradients up to 15% Overall ascent of up to 300m

Suitability

All cyclists, incl. Low level fitness & family groups, supervised children, Any bicycle type Cyclists with moderate level of fitness Some experience of cycling on public roads, All bicycles having selection of gears

All types of terrain Significant sustained slopes of any gradient Unlimited overall ascent

Experienced cyclists and enthusiasts with high level of fitness Well maintained road bicycles equipped to cope with long climbs and steep descents

Table A8.3: Categories, related characteristics and suitability (On-Road Cycle Trails)

A8.19 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

P h o t o A P Photo A8.6.4: Cycle Trails – “easy”

Photo A8.6.5: Cycle Trails – “moderate”

Photo A8.6.6: Cycle Trails – “difficult”

Off-Road Cycle Trails: Off-road trails can be individual cycle routes, or can act as links or connections between other cycle routes. In urban areas, they are generally planned for parks or public open spaces, and are a useful means of providing off-road access to public transport, school and employment destinations.

Photo A8.6.7: Off-road cycle trail (urban environment)

A8.20 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Outside the built-up area, off-road cycle trails are chiefly aimed at recreational users, but can also be a means of accessing areas of historic or scenic amenity that are not immediately accessible by public road. As with on-road cycle trails, off-road trails can be classified as easy, medium, or difficult (see examples in Photos A8.6.8 – A8.6.10), with each category having associated characteristics, and a suitability rating based on the experience and fitness of the cyclist, and the type of bicycle used.

Photo A8.6.8: Off-road cycle trails – “easy” – “moderate”

Photo A8.6.9: Off-road cycle trails

Photo A8.6.10: Off-road cycle trails – “difficult”

Off-road Cycle Trail categories, and their associated characteristics and suitability ratings, are summarised in Table A8.4, below: Category

Easy

Route Characteristics

Wide enough to accommodate 2-way usage Must be traffic-free Urban, urban fringe or Core Recreation areas

Physical Characteristics Flat trails with low gradient to ensure slow speeds and safe use in any direction

Suitability

All ages of cyclist All types of bicycle, including children’s bicycles with stabilisers

Even, consistent, sealed surface

A8.21 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Moderate

Wide enough to accommodate 2-way usage Should be traffic-free Urban fringe, or Core Recreation areas

Small gradients but essentially level trails, to ensure slow speeds and travel in any direction Very minor gradereversals

All ages of cyclist, but younger cyclists to be supervised All bicycle types, including bicycles with tag-alongs, but not bicycles with stabilisers or child seats.

Even, consistent, sealed or unbound surfaces Difficult

Generally wide enough to accommodate 2way usage, but can include narrow stretches

All types of terrain, including significant and sustained slopes of any gradient

Extending to areas beyond the Core Recreation area

Significant gradereversals may be encountered

Experienced cycling enthusiasts having high fitness and skills levels Mountain bikes, and bicycles designed to cope with long climbs and steep descents

Likely to include unbound, uneven surfaces over much of its length Table A8.4: Categories, related characteristics and suitability (Off-Road Cycle Trails)

A8.22 Chapter A8-Cycling in Rural Areas (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter B10: Junctions B10.1 General This Chapter presents an introduction to junctions with specific reference to the issues and challenges they present for the cycling mode. These are considered under the following headings: ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Junctions and an Understanding of Bicycle Operation Junction Capacity and Junction Delay Advice from the Traffic Management Guidelines The Principles of Sustainable Safety Meeting the Cyclist’s Needs (Main Requirements) Types of Junction

This Chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter B3: Assessment of Quality of Service Chapter B11: Managing the Side Road and Traffic Turning Left Chapter B12: Cyclists Turning Right Chapter B13: Signalised Junctions Chapter B14: Grade-Separated Junctions Chapter B15: Roundabouts

B10.2 Junctions and an Understanding of Bicycle Operation The bicycle must be competitive with the car in current urban transport strategies. Two of the principal advantages of cycling are reliability and competitive journey times for short trips, independent of prevailing traffic conditions. Route disruptions make the bicycle mode inherently less attractive, and the more interruptions along the route, the less likely the cycling facility will be utilised. Junctions present a unique set of challenges that impact significantly on the cycling mode – • • • •

loss of momentum loss of stability imposition of delay location of conflict

Loss of momentum:

1 Chapter B10: Junctions-final-signed off by WG, 02.07.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Cyclists will always cycle in such a way as to maintain momentum. In the example, below, the cycle riding surface is significantly more undulating and bumpier than the adjacent road surface, and the cyclist must yield at each crossing of private entrances, with consequent loss of momentum and reduced attractiveness.

Photo B10.2.1: Route disruptions cause loss of momentum and reduced attractiveness

With this in mind, there are two key issues to bear in mind in relation to junctions: 1. On main cycle routes with a high Quality of Service, the number of junctions where cyclists do not have primacy should be minimised so that momentum can be maintained to the greatest degree 2. As many junctions as possible should be priority-based. This allows for cyclists emerging from side roads to join the main cycle routes without undue delay. Signals should be considered as a last resort on main cycle routes. Loss of Stability: Constant motion and clearance of handlebars are fundamental to cycling stability. The loss of either results in instability. The rider uses inertia and the steering system to avoid falling over.

Motion >11km/hr is sufficient for stablility for most cyclists in normal weather conditions (no wind gusts). Below this speed, bicycles begin to wobble and become more unstable, and cyclists will either increase their speed to restore stability, or they will brake or stop.

The ability to steer is necessary to keep a bicycle upright (including riding in a straight line). For the cyclist to achieve this, handlebars must be hinderance-free.

The designer should be aware that the bicycle is at its most unstable when starting up and moving off. As loss of stability is likely to occur at junctions, where the cyclist must stop and restart, this must be factored in to the 2 Chapter B10: Junctions-final-signed off by WG, 02.07.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY junction design to minimise the seriousness of any resulting conflict with adjacent traffic. Theprovision of sufficent start-up space for waiting bicycles, as shown in Photo B10.2.2, below, is an essential criterion in this regard.

Photo B10.2.2: Providing sufficient space for start up

Imposition of delay: The perception of delay is different for different modes. The impact of delay, as a proportion of the trip duration, is also different for different modes. As bicycle trips will generally be short (e.g. 6km or less, 20 minutes or less), the proportion of time spent waiting at junctions could be significantly high. This is especially the case at signalised junctions, if traffic signals are sequenced in favour of motorised traffic. As cyclists and pedestrians are more exposed to the prevailing weather than other road users, delays at junctions on cold or wet days will affect them more than drivers of motorised vehicles and their passengers.

3 Chapter B10: Junctions-final-signed off by WG, 02.07.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Photo B10.2.3: Exposure to inclement weather conditions

Location of conflict: Most cycling accidents in urban areas occur at junctions (latest ref). As a result, cyclists tend to prefer routes with as few junctions as possible, and where signalised or significant junctions are kept to a minimum. The rest of this chapter will deal with the various conflicts that arise, and the means of addressing them under the principles of sustainable safety. B10.3

Junction Capacity and Junction Delay While cycle network capacity has yet to be exceeded in Ireland (see â&#x20AC;&#x153;Capacityâ&#x20AC;? later), the level of delay to pedestrians and cyclists at junctions is one of the factors influencing their choice of trip mode, with the danger that significant delays could lead to a shift towards more comfortable and, in many cases, quicker modes, even for shorter journeys. For local authorities wishing to introduce cycle routes with a high Quality of Service (see Chapter B3), it is critical that all junctions along the route can cater for the required cycling volumes, and are designed for cycling convenience and bicycle turning movements. Network capacity is primarily determined by junction capacity, and this is true of all modes, including the bicycle. The increase in vehicular traffic volumes between the mid-1990s and late 2000s has led to increased pressure on junctions along major urban routes with significant traffic queuing and unreliable performance in peak periods. Accordingly, any changes that reduce the capacity of a junction or set of junctions (whether for bicycle provision or for any other reason), should be integrated into the overall traffic management regime such that upstream traffic flows are matched to the revised flow capacity of the junction(s), e.g. by way of an appropriate signal plan.

Traffic management focus on stabilising these locations can provide an opportunity to deliver a good Quality of Service for the bicycle. The example in Photo B10.3.1, below, shows a roundabout which was successfully reduced from two-lane entry to one-lane entry, to facilitate cyclists and pedestrians. The effect on readability was dramatic, while the impact on capacity was marginal.

4 Chapter B10: Junctions-final-signed off by WG, 02.07.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo B10.3.1: Roundabout on Stonemason’s Way (Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council)

B10.4 Advice from Traffic Management Guidelines The Traffic Management Guidelines (DTO, 2003) present a general view of the types of junctions and design issues associated with them. It is strongly recommended that designers familiarise themselves with Part D of the Guidelines in conjunction with this manual, and in particular its key advice concerning safety, cyclists and pedestrians, and capacity – Safety: ♦ Safety measures should be an integral part of the design process to make a scheme work as safely as practically as possible. Cyclists and pedestrians: ♦ The needs of cyclists and pedestrians should be considered as a fundamental part of the design process rather than as an afterthought once vehicular traffic has been catered for. ♦ Good, direct and convenient facilities should be provided where they have to cross traffic streams. ♦ Delay to pedestrians and cyclists should be considered with equal significance as delay to other traffic. ♦ Specific facilities for crossing roads should be included at all junctions where there are significant numbers of pedestrians or cyclists. Capacity: ♦ Adequate capacity should be provided to ensure the junctions can cope with intended traffic volumes. ♦ At congested locations extra capacity should not be provided to the detriment of road safety or facilities for vulnerable road users.

5 Chapter B10: Junctions-final-signed off by WG, 02.07.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY In essence, the Traffic Management Guidelines point to the need for a design approach to junctions that addresses all modes, rather than an approach based on consideration of vehicular capacity (or its retention) in isolation from the other modes. B10.5 Principles of Sustainable Safety at Junctions Compliance with the Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads, i.e. Functionality, Homogeneity, Readability, Forgivingness and Self-Awareness, is essential in the design of junctions. This section deals with the application of these principles as they relate to junctions (see Chapter B1 for more general application). Functionality: A good junction design will ensure that road user movements are either provided for, or precluded (generally through provision of an alternative). This means that the design of each junction needs to be assessed for each mode, for each approach, and for each exit, so that the designer is of its functionality. The principle of functionality is linked to the principle of readability. If a particular movement is to be negotiated in an unusual way, or in a specific way, this must be communicated to the road user in advance of the junction. If the junction requires a particular level of skill or competence, this should also be indicated in an appropriate way. Junctions must be functional, i.e. fit for purpose: Issues of safety arise where typical movements are neither provided for, nor precluded. Homogeneity: The requirement to segregate cyclists from other traffic, depending on mass, volume and speed differentials (see chapter B9) applies to junctions also. It is important that speeds are kept low through junctions, as this maximises decision and evasion times, should an unexpected action occur. For speed management reasons, it is important that traffic lane widths in urban areas should not exceed the widths specified in Table 9.2 of the Traffic Management Guidelines. It is recommended that through traffic lanes widths, in general, should not exceed 3.0 metres. Homogeneity of direction is also important. Within a junction (or any other shared space between vulnerable road users and vehicles), it is important that – •

All potential conflicts are obvious, and

•

The resolution of any conflict (yielding priority, signal control, gap acceptance etc.) should be clear, universally understood and manageable by all road users.

6 Chapter B10: Junctions-final-signed off by WG, 02.07.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY For example, there is an inherent conflict between kerbside cyclists going straight ahead, and traffic in the same lane seeking to turn left. The junction design needs to resolve this conflict in a manner which is clearly readable (see Chapter B11: “Managing the Side Road and Traffic Turning Left” and Chapter B13: “Signalised Junctions” for design solutions to this and other juntion conflicts). Lateral shifts in direction should be avoided in the vicinity of junctions, as these can generate sharp or unexpected changes in direction and speed (especially sudden braking). Turbulence created in the traffic streams can also have a significant effect on junction performance and capacity. Examples would include the practice of significant lane splits and merges in the immediate vicinity of junctions, which are not consistent with the principle of homogeneity. In other cases, poorly designed bus stops and loading facilities may become overloaded or generate turbulence while in use. Readability: a) Junction Approaches: It should be obvious to all users on all approaches that a junction exists. Good signage (see Traffic Signs Manual), together with clear lane markings (with maximum traffic lane widths of 3.0m), will increase its readability. The readability of the approach information can be critical in poor weather conditions, at night-time, or in unforeseen circumstances (e.g. if traffic signals fail) b) Right of Way: It should be clear to all users as to who is expected to yield priority at the junction (see, also, Note on “Right of Way” in Chapter A1?) c) Junction Layout: It should be clear to all road users approaching the junction what the junction shape is (e.g. T-junction, crossroads, roundabout etc.), and what movements are generally possible or allowed. The type of junction control system (e.g. priority, signalised, lollipop etc.), should also be obvious. d) Approach Position: The designer should make it clear to the road user how and where to take up a position to negotiate the junction.

Note re Cycling Approach Position: In many junctions it is not clear where the designer intended the cyclist to be positioned (see Photo B10.5.1, below) In using this manual, the designer should always be able to identify how the cyclist will (a) go straight (b) turn right and (c) turn left The designer should ensure that this information is conveyed to the

7 Chapter B10: Junctions-final-signed off by WG, 02.07.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY approaching cyclist (and other road users) with sufficient time for the cyclist to position herself correctly

Photo B10.5.1: Readability

e) Eye Contact between Cyclist and Driver: Eye contact between cyclist and driver is of crucial importance, and is the key to safety for cyclists in junctions. A safe junction design should ensure that not only are all potential conflicts obvious, but that cyclists are positioned such that they can establish eye contact with any driver likely to be in conflict with them.  Arising from this, it is clear that two-lane entry from a side road at a priority junction or roundabout is not consistent with the provision of safe eye contact, since the vehicle in the second lane may obscure a view of the cyclist for drivers in the first lane.  Similarly, oblique or Y-junctions (at priority junctions, slip lanes or roundabouts) cannot be recommended if the design is intended for cyclists, as they position the driver in such a way that cyclists are located in the three-quarter view (“blind spot”) with little chance of establishing the necessary eye-contact.

8 Chapter B10: Junctions-final-signed off by WG, 02.07.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Forgivingness: Without compromising on the other sustainability principles, it is important that junctions are designed such that the outcome of any unforeseen circumstance or road user error is mitigated to the greatest extent. Because vehicles have inherent safety systems, the focus on delivering a forgiving environment must be on pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable users. For urban areas, this means that the number of conflicts, or potential conflicts, should be minimised, and the relative speed difference between the modes should be as low as possble: a) Conflicts can be minimised by  Reducing the number of approaches and simplifying junction layouts and/or  Reducing the amount of time of the user is exposed to significant conflict b) Relative speed differentials can be reduced by  Reducing vehicular approach speed and/or  Ensuring that junction entrance and exit lanes are properly aligned Self-Awareness: All road users, including cyclists, pedestrians and drivers of motorised vehicles, should have sufficient awareness of their own skills level and be able to negotiate a junction that has been designed in accordance with the sustainability principles discussed above. Design Checklist: The checklist below provides a simple guide to making junctions more sustainably safe, i.e. more functional, legible, homogenous and forgiving: a. Minimise number of approaches, and preclude right hand vehicle turns to/from minor roads or properties within 50m of a significant junction b. Simplify junction layouts (e.g. remove slip lanes, avoid turning pockets where possible) c. Ensure junction entrance and exit lanes are aligned (i.e. no merging or lateral shifts within a junction or nearby) d. Minimise exposure of vulnerable road users (VRUs) to significant conflict within junction (e.g. tighten lane widths to reduce crossing distance; programme staging of main VRU movements immediately after main or pivot traffic stage etc.) e. Reduce vehicle approach speed (e.g. tighten lane widths, programme non-peak off-sets between signals to dampen traffic speeds to be speed limit compliant) f.

Ensure all typical movements are designed for, or precluded if

9 Chapter B10: Junctions-final-signed off by WG, 02.07.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY necessary (provide clear advice in latter case as to alternative routes or passage) g. For each approach, design for cyclists moving straight through, left and right h. Ensure that Saturation levels do not exceed 85% (90% max) during peak periods B10.6 Meeting the Cyclistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Needs (Main Requirements) The five main requirements for meeting cyclistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs are Road Safety, Coherence, Directness, Attractiveness and Comfort (see Chapter B3). These are considered, below, with specific reference to junctions: Road Safety: a. Most collisions, and especially most cycling collisions, occur at junctions. b. By applying sustainable safety principles in the design and management of junctions, junctions can be made safer, and the potential for collisions reduced. Coherence: a. A cycle route or network must be continuous through the junctions, and the means by which cyclists negotiate a junction should be clearly readable (e.g. by provision of cycle lanes through a junction). b. Cycle network signage should be coherent on approaches to and exits from a junction. c. Quality of Service should also be continuous. Directness: a. Deviations away from major junctions (often involving multiple ramps, excessive gradients and detours) represent a serious impediment to cycling. b. Junctions that provide connections between links in the cycling network should be readily negotiable and should not cause undue delay to the cyclist. c. Cyclists prefer junctions with the minimum number of conflicts between bicycle and vehicles. Attractiveness: a. Junctions can be made more attractive for cyclists through basic design elements such as good drainage, good surfaces, etc. b. User-friendly signalling (including cycle-level signal aspects, push-button units etc.) can add to the attractiveness also. Comfort: a. Reduced delay at junctions means less exposure to inclement weather

10 Chapter B10: Junctions-final-signed off by WG, 02.07.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY b. Sufficient stacking space means that it is comfortable to wait without losing balance c. Prior knowledge of the signalling means that approaching cyclists can slow down or speed up in order to benefit from a green signal, and maintain momentum B10.7

Types of Junction The principal types of junction arrangement available to the designer are: ♦ Priority Junctions (stop or yield) ♦ Signalised Junctions ♦ Grade-separated Junctions ♦ Roundabouts Priority Junctions: Priorty Junctions are non-signalised junctions where traffic stops or yields to other traffic based on a clearly defined priority, and generally take the form of cross-roads, T-junctions or Staggered T-junctions:  The specific requirements of cycling (especially regarding crossing time and conspicuity) effectively limit new priority junctions to those twolane roads up to 8,000 AADT without any central refuge.  Priority junctions on corridors up to 16,000 AADT, and a maximum of 20,000 AADT in any case may be possible, subject to the provision of a central cycle/ pedestrian refuge for crossing of the road (in two stages, with a central reserve) by cyclists.  Other junction solutions are required for cyclists on routes with traffic levels above 20,000 AADT. Priority junctions are considered generally in Chapter 9.3 of the Traffic Management Guidelines. Specific Guidance on managing traffic turning left and cyclists turning right is set out in the following Chapters B11 and B12 of this manual. Signalised Junctions: Traffic signals should not be seen as a universal panacea for Traffic Management problems. While signals can offer sophisticated traffic control options, including the favouring of specific modes, they also have a number of disadvantages:  They consume significant energy, and require ongoing maintenance  They do not make inherently unsafe junctions safe (e.g. illegible junctions, with hidden conflicts)  They impose delay even when traffic volumes are light, especially if set to fixed-time sequences  They generate local traffic noise, especially when traffic is moving off 11 Chapter B10: Junctions-final-signed off by WG, 02.07.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY  Vehicles may accelerate approaching green lights, rendering the approach more prone to accidents  At present, Irish law does not provide for part-time signalling, or nighttime flashing amber/flashing red junctions; as a result, the cyclist must wait for the signals to go green regardless of delay, even at low levels of traffic, or at low levels of conflict (e.g. cyclists turning left at a quiet junction). Signalised junctions are required at junctions with cycle routes where it is not possible for cyclists to turn right in an uncontrolled situation. For detailed discussion on Signalised Junctions, please refer to Chapter B13 of this manual. Grade–separated Junctions: While road-building activity to improve the National Road network has provided many new grade separated junctions, these have been almost exclusively for the segregation of local traffic from mainline traffic. Segregated cycle facilities are required in the following situations:  Cycle facilities crossing off-ramp or on-ramp slip lanes on routes above 50 kph  Cycle routes passing through control-free, segregated road junctions with high speed/high volume merges For the purposes of this manual, grade-separated facilities designed for continuous cycling, should be considered for the following situations:  Cycle routes crossing motorways  Cycle routes crossing canals, railway lines, other lines of severance etc. Grade-separated cycle crossings may also be required:  In areas of high speed (100 km/h or higher) and volumes (>20,000 AADT)  For certain primary distributor routes (e.g. signal-free submotorway distributor routes), or  For improved cycling Quality of Service For detailed discussion on Grade-separated Crossings, please refer to Chapter B14 of this manual. Roundabouts: Properly designed roundabouts can provide excellent right-turning facilities for significant volumes of cyclists.

12 Chapter B10: Junctions-final-signed off by WG, 02.07.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY  Traffic volumes up to 20,000 AADT (max 25,000 AADT in any case) can be handled in cycle-friendly continental style roundabouts (single lane entry, no flare, significant deflection from arm to gyratory).  Traditional roundabout designs can present a serious discontinuity to cyclists.  When planning cycle networks and routes, consideration needs to be given to whether existing roundabouts will be reconfigured as cyclefriendly, before commencing cycling infrastructural investment on routes via such roundabouts. For detailed discussion on Roundabouts, please refer to Chapter B15 of this manual.

Note 1: Two-Lane Side Road Entry This manual does not recommend two-lane side road entry onto a main road for priority junctions, due to lack of legibility between side road vehicles and main road cyclists. Priority junctions that require such arrangements to feed side road traffic onto main roads will need to be reviewed if such junctions form part of a cycle network. Note 2: DMRB TD 42/95 of the National Roads Authority DMRB (with 204 amendments) contains many design issues and examples of priority junctions for rural situations, including curtailment of hard shoulders, introduction of left-hand slip lanes, ghost islands, etc. The advice given in the DMRB is generally developed for national roads outside urban areas. DMRB advice should be read in conjunction with the principles and design advice given in the DTO Manuals, and clarification sought from the appropriate authority where apparent conflicts in design advice arise. Note 3: Sight Triangles Section 7.7 of the UK Manual for Streets (UKMfS) refers to Stopping Sight Distance and Visibility Splay requirements, with specific references to the needs of cyclists and pedestrians. The UK MfS proposes an X-distance of no more than 2.4m, in order to ensure slow approach speed to the main road. The advice in the Traffic Management Guidelines (page 142) recommends an X-distance of 4.5m or greater for urban areas, with exceptional reduction to 2.4m. In this Cycle Design Manual, there is consistent advice that ♦ X-distance should be measured 2.4m from the back of the yield line/stop line in urban areas. (The positioning of the yield line at the back of the building line / footpath does not alter this requirement). As identified in Manual for Streets, longer X-distances could encourage 13 Chapter B10: Junctions-final-signed off by WG, 02.07.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY vehicles or bicycles on the side road to enter the main road at greater speed and less delay – this is not to be encouraged in urban areas, and therefore an X-distance of 2.4 represents a maximum also. ♦ The Y-Distances included in Table 9.4 of the TMG manual remain as desirable distances, and are broadly in line with TfL Guidance (where Y distance is measured along the centreline of the road)

This manual does not currently support any reduction in Stopping Sight Distances. Where the “Y” distance is limited, the choices open to the designer are as follows: ♦ Render the side road one-way, away from the main road ♦ Reduce the design speed on the main road Y-distances should be a minimum of 20m in any case - this is the zone of reestablishment of the cyclist on a cycle lane; it is coloured red, and brought continuously across the face of the junction. The Manual for Streets proposes this distance of 20m as being acceptable for main street speeds of 30km/h maximum.

Insert Diagram(s) illustrating the above

14 Chapter B10: Junctions-final-signed off by WG, 02.07.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure B10.1: Sight Triangles

15 Chapter B10: Junctions-final-signed off by WG, 02.07.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads and Traffic Turning Left B11.1 General: This chapter deals with conflicts between straight ahead and left turning traffic movements, and sets out design measures to address the side road conflict at both minor and significant side road exits and entry points. The issues are considered by reference to the following headings: •

Principles of sustainably safe roads

•

Design measures to address/minimise the side road conflict

•

Design requirements at significant left hand turns and side roads

•

Weaving Design principles

•

Bending cyclists away from traffic

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter A4: Road Hierarchy Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter B3: Quality of Service Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation

Photo B11.1.1: Dedicated left-turn lane (all traffic)

B11.2 Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads The five principles of sustainably safe roads are considered in detail in Chapter B1, and the design of any junction catering for cycle movements should be in accordance with them. Two of these B11.1

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads & Traffic Turning Left-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY principles (Homogeneity and Readability) are of particular relevance in dealing with side roads and traffic turning left, and these are discussed further in the following paragraphs: Homogeneity A homogenous traffic flow minimises speed differences and, together with reduction of both directional differences and other conflicts, can have a beneficial impact on the level and severity of accidents that might otherwise occur. Specifically, any reduction of the speed differential between cyclists and turning vehicles reduces the severity of any collision between the two, and it is important to ensure that vehicles cannot “sweep” around the corner but, instead, are required to slow down and have an awareness of adjacent cyclists. To achieve this, the turning radii at side road entry points need to be designed to reduce the vehicle speed, increase the time for the driver to cyclists on the inside, and afford the cyclist more time to take evasive action, if necessary. This tightening up of turning radii can be achieved through • • •

reducing the side road kerb radius providing on-road for the cyclist to prevent traffic “cutting in” narrowing the mouth of the side road.

Readability Eye-to-eye contact between cyclists and turning vehicles is at the heart of managing conflict at junctions.The more readable the road layout, the easier it is for conflicting road users to recognise potential hazards and to perform successful avoidance or emergency manoeuvres when necessary. It should be clear what is expected of each road user regarding their position and intended manoeuvre, and this requires a geometric design that facilitates both eye-to-eye contact and speed management.

B11.2

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads & Traffic Turning Left-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Oblique junctions present a particular conflict that is difficult to overcome and, as a rule, should therefore be avoided, as the cyclist approaching the junction is likely to be travelling within a potential blind spot for the driver of the vehicle. In addition, as the driver is being deflected into a new traffic stream, he/she may be concentrating attention more on seeking a gap in the vehicular traffic than on the proximity of the approaching cyclist. The other issue in terms of readability is the need for clarity as to who has right of way in these circumstances. As discussed in Chapter I-O3, Legislation, the Rules of the Road allow no user absolute right-of-way, and therefore the guiding question is really “who is expected to yield their right-of-way?”, the answer being “the less vulnerable road user”. For unsignalised junctions, therefore, unless specifically designated otherwise cyclists travelling straight ahead have right of way over traffic turning left.

Recommendation: Left-hand turning traffic should always yield to pedestrians and cyclists crossing straight ahead at the mouth of the junction unless it is specifically designated otherwise. B11.3 Design measures to address/minimise the side road conflict Potential conflicts between the straight-ahead cyclist and traffic either turning left into the side road or emerging from the side road to reenter the main traffic stream can be substantially addressed or minimised by use of one or more of the following design measures: •

Managing left hand slip lanes at junctions

•

Reducing the kerb radii and mouth widths for minor side roads

•

Slowing down traffic emerging from the side road

•

Providing exit treatments for minor one-way roads

Managing Left Hand Slip Lanes at Junctions: The provision of left hand slip lanes at or near junctions may have a negative impact on sustainable safety principles for cyclists as they allow left turning traffic to approach the junction at a greater speed than would otherwise be the case.

B11.3

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads & Traffic Turning Left-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photos B11.3.1 & B11.3.2: Examples of Left-hand slip lanes showing negative impact on straight-through cycle movements

When placed too close to the junction, slip lanes can be of questionable benefit to any mode. Accordingly, if left hand turning lanes are to be provided, care must be taken to manage these in such a way that the length of lane is reduced to minimise the distance over which the cyclist is vulnerable. This view is supported in the TfL Manual, “London Cycling Design Standards” (May 2005) which further recommends that consideration should be given to the omission of left hand slip lanes in the design of new road layouts.

Recommendation: Insofar as possible, left-hand slip lanes should be removed from existing cycle routes and omitted in the design of new routes, to reduce conflict with straight-ahead cyclists and pedestrians. If slip lanes must be provided, the length of lane should be kept to a minimum to ensure that vehicle speeds are reduced.

Reducing Kerb Radii and Mouth Widths for Low-volume Side Roads: Section 6.9 of the Traffic Management Guidelines deals with gateways and entry treatments for roads in urban areas, and recommends introducing reduced corner radii and build-outs on the side road as one of a number of entry treatments for situations where drivers turn off a major road into a side road having an AADT of 5,000 or less. The Guidelines recommend a corner radius of 6m for a side road where large vehicles require occasional access, and suggest that this can be reduced further to 5m for lightly trafficked side roads. While this width is more than adequate to cater for vehicular turning movements, it allows for potentially significant turning speeds presenting an increased risk to adjacent cyclists and other vulnerable users. B11.4

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads & Traffic Turning Left-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Extra photo required here to illustrate turning radius with adjoining cycle track Photo B11.3.3: Impact of turning radius adjoining on pedestrian movements

Photo B11.3.4: Turning radius with cycle track

In light of this, the designer should consider further reducing the kerb radius to a minimum of 3metres along cycle routes where the volume of traffic (including HGV volumes) permits. It is suggested that this option be considered where there are less than 200 turning movements per day (< 30/hour max.), of which large vehicles form less than 10% of the total.

Recommendation: Designers of new cycle facilities should ensure that kerb radii at side access roads are reduced to slow left-turning traffic. The minimum kerb radius should be not less than 3 metres for side roads having less than 200 turning movements and less than 10% large vehicles per day.

Slowing Down Traffic Emerging from the Side Road: Provision for cyclists and other vulnerable users can be further improved by measures which visually reinforce the priority of the "soft modes" over vehicles crossing into side roads or private entrances. This visual reinforcement can be achieved in the first instance by continuing the cycle lane across the mouth of the junction (Photo B11.3.5), and can be further emphasised through provision of a raised area crossing at the point where the side road joins with the main road (Photo B11.3.6).

B11.5

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads & Traffic Turning Left-(Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo B11.3.5: Continuous cycle lane Photo B11.3.6: Raised area (side road) The Traffic Management Guidelines recommend that raised areas (tables) should be provided with appropriate tactile paving and should be of a high quality material which contrasts with both the road and footpath surfaces. The materials chosen should be suitable for cycling in wet weather, given that cyclists and motor cyclists will be negotiating the left-turn also. Recommendation: With cycle lanes, it is critical to ensure that vehicles turn left at a compatible speed. Narrowing the junction mouth reduces the crossing distance (i.e. risk exposure) for the cyclist. The raised table slows traffic emerging from the side road, benefiting pedestrians and cyclists.

Providing Exit treatments for One-way Minor Streets: It is essential that narrow one-way streets are designed as slow environments, where pedestrian and cycle priority and access to individual premises are paramount. As these streets are minor in terms of traffic function and volumes, this should be reflected in the design of the exit onto the adjoining major road. Specifically, the design should reflect that all traffic exiting the side roads must yield to all traffic travelling on the main thoroughfare. (See also Chapter C6, “Treatment of Entrances”).

B11.6

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads & Traffic Turning Left-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo B11.3.7: Exit treatment with raised area (Dutch example)

The first example, Photo B11.3.7, is a Dutch exit treatment which requires vehicle to mount the pavement to access the main road. By virtue of the exceptionally low speed involved, and the requirement for the vehicle to await gaps in crossing pedestrian and cycle flows, any conflict should be resolved in favour of the “soft” walking and cycling modes.

Photo B11.3.8: Exit Treatment without raised area (Irish example)

The second example, Photo B11.3.8, is an example of a high-quality Irish design where, by virtue of the build-outs, emerging traffic must approach the junction slowly and at right-angles to the traffic flow. However, the discontinuity in the footpath and absence of a corresponding raised area means that cyclists and pedestrians crossing the junction mouth have less obvious priority than in the Dutch example. Recommendation: The design of exit treatments for low-volume side roads should clearly reflect the requirement for exiting traffic to yield to all modes on the adjoining main road. B11.7

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads & Traffic Turning Left-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Design Check for Cyclists Crossing Low-volume Side Roads For local and collector roads with cycle lanes, left hand side roads should not create any particular difficulties for on-road cyclists provided the following conditions apply: The cyclist is in a cycle lane or mixed traffic (as appropriate), or the cyclist’s position has been re-established on the road the left-hand turn is not a significant one the left-hand turn can only be negotiated slowly the left hand turn is generally not used by HGVs. In designing for crossings at minor side roads, the needs of vulnerable road users including MID must be taken into account. B11.4 Design Requirements at Significant Left hand Turns and Side Roads This Section addresses the requirements for safe movement of cyclists through junctions where there is a significant left hand turn into the adjoining side road by consideration of the following design measures: •

Re-establishing the cyclist on-road in advance of the turn (i.e. bending towards traffic)

•

Designing for opposing traffic turning right

•

Designing for dedicated left hand pockets and lanes

For the purpose of this Manual, significant left hand turns are defined as having either • 200 turning movements per hour (peak hour traffic), or • 33% of the main straight-ahead volume, or • 10% of main straight-ahead large vehicles (Buses and HGVs)

Re-establishing the Cyclist On-road in advance of the Left-hand Turn (Bending Towards Traffic): Trials conducted by the Danish Roads Authority in the 1990s, whereby off-road cycle-tracks were re-established as on-road cycle lanes c.20m to 30m in advance of the junction, showed significant improvement in managing potential conflicts, with resultant safety benefits for cyclists (ref. OECD Report on Safety of Users, 1998). The practice of re-establishing the cyclist on-road is in line with Dutch practice for certain situations also, and it is now recommended in this Manual as a suitable solution for dealing with significant left-hand turns in this country, subject to the following design criteria: •

B11.8

Designers should ensure that there is a sufficient re-establishment length prior to the point of conflict.

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads & Traffic Turning Left-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY N.B.: The length of re-establishment will vary according to the actual speed of traffic (85th percentile). This re-establishment is necessary to provide time for vehicles and cyclists to observe each other, and accommodate each other’s movements at the conflict point. •

Designers should ensure it is safe to introduce cyclists into the traffic environment, particularly in the case of Local Collector or District Distributor roads. N.B.: If necessary, re-establishment should be by means of a raised or similarly protected cycle lane to ensure compliance with recommended guidelines on integration and segregation (See Chapter B9).

The following Figures B11.1 and B11.2 show examples of how off-road cycle tracks can be re-established on-road in the approach to a junction having significant left-turn movement.

Figure B11.1: Raised adjacent cycle-track to on-road cycle lane

In the above layout, “A” represents the segregated section, “B” is the vertical transition length, and “C” represents the re-establishment zone prior to the junction (30m length). In implementing this layout, care should be taken to maintain cyclelane continuity by having the road markings clearly indicating that vehicles crossing to turn left must yield to cyclists, rather than effectively obliging the cyclist to stop. The example shown in Figure B11.2 should be used for District Distributor roads and Quality Bus Corridors, and is designed to bring off-road cyclists back on road to enable them to negotiate a side road or left hand pocket while retaining main road priority. B11.9

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads & Traffic Turning Left-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure B11.2: Remote cycle track to on-road cycle lane (bending towards traffic)

In this layout, “A” represents the segregated section (reverse curve radii should be maximised), “B” indicates the vertical transition, and “C” is the re-establishment zone (min. 30m) prior to the junction or left hand pocket.

Designing for Opposing Traffic Turning Right: Cyclists passing on the inside of a traffic queue can frequently find themselves in conflict with right turning traffic which is crossing trough the traffic queue from the opposite direction to turn into a side road. While this situation is probably best addressed by a combination of road-user training and education, the designer can alleviate the conflict by the inclusion, where feasible, of one or more of the following geometric arrangements: •

providing a wide (2m) cycle lane in the approach to the junction, to maximise the cyclist’s lateral evasion space

•

installing a “keep clear” box (not a yellow box) of sufficient dimensions to allow cyclists and turning motorists to perceive each other.

•

Bringing the cycle lane through the junction.

Photo B11.4.1 illustrating above

B11.1 0

Photo B11.4.2 illustrating above

Photo B11.4.3 illustrating above

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads & Traffic Turning Left-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo B11.4.1

Photo B11.4.2

Photo B11.4.3

Designing for Left-hand Pockets and Dedicated Left-turning Lanes: Vehicular capacity becomes an issue on District Distributor roads, due to the greater incidence of bus lanes, heavy goods vehicles and general traffic. In this context, the designer may find it desirable or necessary to provide multiple and/or dedicated lanes for specific movements e.g. left-turn only lane, right-turn pocket etc. However, while the geometric requirements are different, the two safety principles outlined in Section B11.2 (Homogeneity and Readability) still apply, and additional lanes or pockets must be merited. In any case, merging lanes which allow traffic joining from the side road should not be used on single carriageway roads, and diverging lanes (e.g. dedicated left hand lane approaching a junction) should not be introduced in urban areas without providing adequate means for cyclists and pedestrians to negotiate the junction. [See also Traffic Management Guidelines Chapter 9, Section 9.3: Design Principles (Priority Junctions) for further discussion on this issue.]

B11.5

Weaving Design Principles “Weaving” occurs when a left-turn lane or pocket is introduced into the road layout. However, for cycling continuity and safety, it is strongly recommended that the vehicle driver is the one who weaves left into this lane and that the cyclist retains the straight-on position. This arrangement is consistent with normal expected behaviour between road users. To achieve this in all cases, it is essential to have the cyclist fully established in his/her alignment, prior to introducing the left hand lane. Weaving can then be introduced satisfactorily either by shifting the cyclist to the right, or by shifting the traffic to the left.

Insert sketch layout illustrating the cyclist established in his/her alignment

B11.1 1

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads & Traffic Turning Left-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Figure B11.3: Establishing on-road alignment

Insert photo illustrating the cyclist established in his/her alignment

Photo B11.5.1: Establishing alignment

Shifting the Cyclist Right: At kerbside parking and loading/unloading areas, and where a dedicated left-turn lane is to be provided, it will be necessary to shift the cyclist to the right. As eye-to-eye contact is not possible in this situation, it is essential that the requirement for cyclists (and other users) to shift to the right is conveyed clearly to all users in advance of introducing the dedicated left-turn lane, and that this is reflected in the overall road layout. For dedicated turning-lanes with insufficient differentiation, if the space created on the left hand side is empty at any stage it can appear to following vehicles that the cyclist is veering right for no apparent reason. This leaves the cyclist vulnerable to being struck from behind, and the designer could consider an extended build-out of the footpath prior to the start of the left-turn lane as a means of visually directing all modes to their proper alignment. Insert layout drawing showing example of dedicated left-turn lane, cyclist shifted to right

B11.1 2

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads & Traffic Turning Left-(Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure B11.4: Suggested layout for dedicated left-turn lane, cyclist shifted to right

For parking and loading areas, the combination of footpath widening with embayed parking provides dedicated space to the left of cyclists without cyclists (or any mode) having to weave to the right, and facilitates the outside marking of the cycle track to be aligned parallel to traffic lane markings. Layout drawing showing example of footpath widening and embayed parking and parallel cycle lane

Photo illustrating Fig. B11.5

Figure B11.5: Embayed parking, parallel cycle lane of Fig. B11.5

Photo B11.5.3: Example

Shifting the Traffic Left: The provision of a dedicated left-turn lane at significant left-hand turns and side roads means, by definition, that a substantial volume of weaving traffic is anticipated. While the optimum solution, noted above, is to realign the traffic streamlines when designing the overall road layout, if this is not possible then it will be necessary to introduce a transition arrangement to re-establish the cyclist and general traffic on their correct approach to the junction before introducing the dedicated left-turn lane or pocket. The problem and potential solutions are illustrated in Figure B11.6 below.

B11.1 3

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads & Traffic Turning Left-(Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Insert dimensioned sketch showing traffic turning left – the problem (version of Sketch A in original composite drawing)

Figure B11.6: Traffic turning left, cyclist veering right – the problem

The problem, shown in Figure B11.6, is that the cyclist has to veer right, in front of following traffic, and is thus placed in a compromised situation. The underlining problem is that the approach lane is too wide, and the cyclist is too far left. The layout allows the approaching vehicle to stay left, almost without turning, so that the cyclist must veer out in front of the traffic. Possible solutions to the problem are shown in Figures B11.7 and B11.8, below. a) The layout shown in Figure B11.7 addresses the safety issue by shifting the traffic to the right by means of a build-out, and corresponding island. The cyclist is re-established under the protection of the island, and the build-out prevents traffic cutting across the cyclist too early, while allowing for vehicles to cross the cycle track once visual recognition has been established.

B11.1 4

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads & Traffic Turning Left-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Insert dimensioned sketch showing traffic turning left – solution 1. (version of Sketch B in original composite drawing)

Figure B11.7: Re-establishing cyclists with build-out and corresponding island

b) The layout shown in Figure B11.8 is considered the optimal solution, in that it addresses the fundamental problem, namely, the traffic lane shared with the cyclist is too wide in the first place. It proposes re-assigning the “excess” road space (to parking / footpath / verge etc.) and obviates any need for re-establishing the cyclist who is already on the correct alignment at the commencement of the left-turn pocket.

Insert dimensioned sketch showing traffic turning left – solution 2. (version of Sketch C in original composite drawing)

B11.1 5

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads & Traffic Turning Left-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Figure B11.8: Establishing cyclists and general traffic on correct approach by reassigning excess road space – the “optimum” solution

Further problems can be encountered when shifting traffic left in multilane approaches, especially where bus lanes have been provided and there is a need to safeguard priority for both buses and cyclists travelling straight through the junction. The layout in Figure B11.9 provides for cyclists and buses to continue straight ahead in a shared lane, but traffic moving from the general traffic lane must cross the bus/cycle lane to access the left-turn pocket.

Insert dimensioned sketch showing traffic turning left – solution 3. (additional Sketch showing multi-lane approach)

<Left turn pocket

bus/cycle lane

general lane

Figure B11.9: Establishing cyclists and buses on multi-lane approaches

Where no left-turn pocket has been provided, traffic turning left must cross from the general lane into the bus/cycle lane in advance of the junction and remain there until they have completed the left-turning movement. Effectively, the shared lane is functioning as a combined bus/cycle and left-turning lane in this situation, and results in impedance of buses and cyclists travelling straight ahead. This situation is exacerbated where a set-back for a bus-stop has been positioned in advance of the junction, in that buses re-entering the shared lane must wait for a gap in the left-turning traffic, and cyclists must negotiate their way through left-turning traffic on their right and buses re-entering from their left. Suggested solutions to these problems are shown in Figures B11.10 and B.11.11. Managing bus/cycle conflict with left-turning traffic (Solution 1) B11.1 6

Managing bus/cycle conflict with left-turning traffic (Solution 2)

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads & Traffic Turning Left-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure B.11.10: Solution 1

Figure B11.10: Solution 1

Figure B11.11: Solution 2

Summary of Weaving Principles Establish the cyclist’s “straight ahead” position on the road prior to any weaving. Weaving achieved by shifting cyclist to the right or shifting traffic to the left. Turning traffic weaves across the cyclist, not the other way round.

B11.6 Bending Away from Traffic: Bending Away from other traffic should only be considered in circumstances where it is not possible to bring the cyclist directly through the junction without endangering his/her safety or that of other traffic. However, as the cyclist loses priority in all cases where bending away is introduced, it should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, and would be reserved normally for use on primary distributor roads only, where the traffic regime is too fast or too busy to safely re-introduce cyclists, and where significant volumes of HGV traffic are likely create an unacceptable mass differential. A sample Bending Away layout is illustrated in Figure B11.12

Insert fully dimensioned sketch illustrating suggested layout to be used when bending away from traffic

B11.1 7

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads & Traffic Turning Left-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure B11.10: Typical Bending Away Layout at junction

Recommendation: As cyclists relinquish all priority and momentum of necessity (and by design), bending away from junctions should be introduced only where no other alternative exists.

B11.1 8

Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads & Traffic Turning Left-(Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter B12: Cyclists Turning Right

B12.1 Introduction This chapter examines the main issues affecting cyclists wishing to turn right in mainstream traffic conditions, and proposes a number of design solutions to facilitate such right-turn movements.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter B7: Road Safety Audits Chapter B13: Signalised Junctions

B12.2 Cyclists Turning Right: Key Issues In the absence of dedicated facilities, cyclists wishing to turn right in mixed traffic conditions are exposed to potential hazards both on the approach to a junction and during the turning movement itself. Getting into position to make the turn involves weaving across straight-ahead vehicular traffic in advance of the junction, and the mass, speed and volume differential can also create readability problems for cyclists and other users when completing the actual turn. If the problems associated with cyclists turning right are to be addressed satisfactorily, therefore, the designer must consider the following key issues: •

Background

•

Understanding Weaving

•

Accident Analysis

•

Weaving in Mixed Traffic

•

Cyclists and Weaving: Design Measures o Weaving Lanes o Advanced Stop Lines o Two-stage Turning Facilities

Choice of design measure will depend on the circumstances in each case, including the nature and priority of the junction and the relative speeds and volumes of cyclists and motorised traffic. In circumstances where the junction layout, traffic volumes, or other factors would make weaving either impractical or unsafe, the designer should

B12.1 Chapter B12: Cyclists Turning Right-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY examine alternative design options, including bringing the cyclist through the junction by means of off-road cycle facilities. B12.3 Background The designer should have an awareness of the profile of the junction and its functions in terms of pedestrians, cyclists and junction configuration, before considering any type of provision for cyclists turning right. Questions which need to be addressed by the designer for each of these three headings are shown in Table B12.1, below. Related Questions Pedestrians

Cyclists

How busy is the junction?

What crossing facilities are there already?

Are additional pedestrian facilities required (e.g., pedestrian signals)?

Does the junction layout facilitate safe crossing by pedestrians?

How many cyclists use the junction?

What are their average age and experience?

Are they predominantly commuter, leisure, school, or mixed?

Junction Configuration

Junction ranking (major vs. minor road, ref. Chapter B1, Table B1.2: “Urban roads classifications”)?

Junction type (e.g., cross-roads, t-junction, major/minor, roundabout or signalised)?

Heavily or lightly trafficked (incl. peak vs. off-peak volumes)?

Percentage of cyclists and vehicles travelling straight ahead vs. turning right?

Table B12.1: Determining Background Profiles

B12.4 Understanding Weaving Weaving is a complex manoeuvre for cyclists, as it requires cycling with one hand while signalling with the other, looking over the shoulder for gaps in traffic while continuing to cycle forward, and also slowing down which can diminish balance. Weaving cyclists are more dependent on the quality of the road surface and street lighting as they are not looking down at the surface and they need to be able to assume drivers can see them. They are also dependent on B12.2 Chapter B12: Cyclists Turning Right-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY predictable traffic behaviour, and especially with regard to forward anticipation. Junction weaving has an additional degree of complexity in that it involves weaving in front of drivers at a time when they are themselves dealing with a number of simultaneous issues including signals, cross-movements and adjacent vehicles. It will be seen from the above that weaving presents a number of challenges to the Principles of Homogeneity, Readability, and Self-awareness (see Chapter B1: “Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads”), in that: homogeneity in mass, speed, and direction requires that vehicles with large differences in mass, speed, and direction should be physically separated from each other readability requires all road users to be aware of the driving behaviour that is expected of them and to be able to predict what they can expect from others, and self- awareness requires road users to be able to accurately assess their own ability to interact with other users and negotiate the road layout safely It is important that these principles and the potential conflicts presented to them by weaving traffic be fully understood and satisfactorily addressed by the designer when providing for cyclists turning right, especially in the approach to junctions. B12.5 Background Accident Analysis The Road Safety Audit process (see Chapter B7: “Road Safety Audits”) is an essential element in the design, provision or upgrading of cycle facilities, and an analysis of the accident history of the route, especially the number and type of accidents cyclists should form a key part of the process. Sample accident types which might be considered for analysis include: •

Right angled

•

Sideswipes – same direction

•

Sideswipes – opposite direction

•

Head-on collision

•

Rear-end collision

•

Hit pedestrian

•

Hit object

•

Non-collision

Recent Irish statistics for accidents involving cyclists are shown in Figure B12.1 below. The designer should undertake a similar assessment of local statistics in

B12.3 Chapter B12: Cyclists Turning Right-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY determining the final design for an individual route, and should identify in particular the accident history for all junctions along the route.

Update & amend (post-2000)

Figure B12.1: Persons killed and injured, 1995-2000 (Source: NRA, 2001)

B12.6 Weaving in Mixed Traffic On access roads, the standard practice for cyclists approaching a junction and wishing to turn right is a three-step process: 1. Hand-signal intention to turn right (cyclist is already in lane with general traffic) 2. Look for gap in oncoming traffic 3. Make the turn On roads where cycle lanes are provided, the cyclist has to cross from the cycle lane into the general traffic lane first, but otherwise the process is broadly similar: 1. Hand-signal intention to move right 2. Move to general traffic lane 3. Take up position at junction for gap in oncoming traffic 4. Make the turn Roads with more than one traffic lane in each direction present additional challenges for weaving cyclists because of the need to find and take gaps across all lanes in both directions, and move through a traffic environment where vehicles are also weaving Cyclists should be aware that this situation also presents challenges from the driverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s viewpoint, especially for novice or relatively inexperienced drivers, in that there is less homogeneity of direction as well as less readability and

B12.4 Chapter B12: Cyclists Turning Right-(Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY forgivingness as a result of the various straight ahead and turning movements being undertaken by all traffic. For mid-block weaving (i.e. turning right across oncoming traffic at a point other than a junction), this requires the cyclist finding acceptable traffic gaps in both directions. At significant destinations where peak traffic surges can occur (e.g. in the approaches to schools, clubs etc.), consideration should be given to providing toucan crossings or “J”- crossings (see Figure B12.2) as a safer alternative, depending on traffic gaps.

Insert sample Sketch Layout of “J”crossing

Figure B12.2: “J”-crossing sample layout

B12.7 Cyclists and Weaving: Design Measures Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs): Weaving lanes can be combined with advanced stop lines (ASLs) when used at signalised junctions. ASLs help raise driver awareness of all cyclists at the junction. They are particularly suitable for right-turning movements and for straight-ahead traffic where cycle volumes are high. Advanced stop lines give dedicated room to cyclists to wait in front of other traffic, allowing them to commence crossing or right-turning movements before the other traffic. For maximum benefit to the cyclist, they should meet the following requirements: • • • •

ASLs should be provided on all arms of signal-controlled junctions unless acceptable alternative cycle facilities are provided. the waiting area should be 4-5metres in length to allow enough space for cyclists to manoeuvre into correct position the waiting area should have a coloured surface for improved readability, and only right turning cycle traffic should wait on the right hand side of the advanced stop line (cyclists travelling straight ahead should wait towards the left side).

Examples of Advanced Stop Lines which facilitate right-turning cyclists are shown in the following Figures B12.4 (combined straight ahead and right-turn lane) and B.12.5 (separate straight ahead and right-turn lanes).

B12.5 Chapter B12: Cyclists Turning Right-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Replace with updated version

Figure B12.3: ASL (combined)

Replace with updated & amended version Figure B12.4: ASL (separate)

Accessing the ASL area via centrally located weaving lanes (as in Figure B12.4) has the advantage of reducing conflict between vehicle and cycle movements through the junction, but can present a safety issue for cyclists in fast-moving or heavy traffic, and at locations where there are significant vehicle weaving manoeuvres, or where the road design supports vehicle weaving (multi-lane roads). In such circumstances, the designer should consider alternative layouts such as •

signalising the left-turn lane in such a way that cyclists can reach the centre of the road in safety, or

•

providing cycle weaving by way of crossing (perpendicular to the flow)

Principle: Central weaving lanes between two general traffic lanes should not be provided where vehicular traffic is fast-moving, accelerating and/or weaving, or where volumes are high.

Two-stage Turning Facilities: While cyclists can turn within the existing traffic signal sequence in most situations, extra facilities may be necessary on signal-controlled junctions with on-road cycle tracks, or with segregated cycle tracks alongside a main road, to ensure the safe and smooth flow of cycle traffic turning right. In these situations, cyclists turning right should be able to take position to the left of the main carriageway at the junction, or in the space between the B12.6 Chapter B12: Cyclists Turning Right-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY cycle track and the main carriageway in a marked area, from where they can be catered for by a separate signal head with phasing linked to that of the crossing traffic or by a separate filter on the traffic lights to give them an initial time advantage over other traffic (see Figures B12.5 and B12.6).

Replace with updated & amended version

Figure B12.5: Two-stage right-turn (on-road) Figure B12.6: Two-stage right-turn (segregated)

The waiting area should have a coloured surface for increased readability, and should be sufficient to allow 3-4 cyclists to wait. Two-stage right-turn facilities avoid the necessity for cyclists weaving in front of other traffic. In effect, cyclists stay on the left before crossing right, and the crossing movement is controlled in a way which maximises safety while minimising conflicts between right-turning cyclists and other road users, e.g., other cyclists, oncoming motor vehicles (whether travelling straight ahead or turning), and crossing or turning pedestrians. In a further variation of the two-stage approach, right-turning facilities can also be combined with an advanced stop line on the side road, as shown in Figure B12.7. (See also Chapter B13: “Signalised Junctions”.)

B12.7 Chapter B12: Cyclists Turning Right-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure B12.7: Two-stage right-turn combined with ASL on side-road.

B12.9 Alternative Design Options Off-road Cycling Facilities: Depending on the nature, location and priority of the junction, it may be either necessary or desirable to provide off-road cycling facilities for rightturning cyclists, as a safer or more workable alternative to weaving, or other on-road solutions. Design solutions for off-road facilities include cycle lanes across the junction, with or without toucan crossings. If possible, crossing layouts which require the cyclist to dismount in order to turn right or change direction should be avoided, or should be used only if no other safe option is available. Suggested layouts for off-road facilities are shown in Figures B12.8 and B12.9, below. The design of any such facility requires careful consideration, however, if potential conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians are to be avoided, or minimised and properly managed.

Off-road crossing facility for right turning cyclists (example 1)

Off-road crossing facility for right turning cyclists (example 2)

Figures B12.8 & B12.9: Sample off-road crossing facilities for cyclists turning right

Additional Options: Additional options which cater for right-turning cyclists may also include: B12.8 Chapter B12: Cyclists Turning Right-(Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY •

splitter islands – centrally located traffic-islands protect the cyclist from opposing vehicles

•

right-turn waiting areas – mixed traffic access, no weaving lane, 2.5 metre width recommended

•

G-turn layouts (‘jug handle’) – cyclists cross the road from the left instead of making a right turn; this method may be used also for cyclists travelling on the main road and wishing to turn right into a side road

•

Nearside pocket provision – reduces potential conflict with pedestrians

•

Banned turns

All of the above options can reduce risks and obstructions for cyclists wishing to turn right, though their suitability, in the main, is likely to be restricted to lowspeed, low-volume, unsignalised junctions and exits where homogeneity and readability issues do not present a significant problem for drivers, cyclists or pedestrians.

N.B.

Insert sketches/photos illustrating above Additional Options

Need for photos illustrating earlier sections of this chapter?

B12.9 Chapter B12: Cyclists Turning Right-(Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter B13: Cycling and Signalised Junctions B13.1 General This chapter deals with the following: • Review of Traffic Signalling Policy • Signal Cycle Time and Bicycle-friendly signalling • Cycling-specific signalling issues

Note: In this chapter only, ‘bicycle’ or ‘cycling’ is used as required by context to denote the cycling mode, to avoid confusion with signal cycle(s), which denotes the period for completion of an entire sequence of traffic signal stages.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter B3: Assessment of Quality of Service Chapter B10: Junctions Chapter B11: Managing the Side Roads and Traffic Turning Left Chapter B12: Cyclists Turning Right Chapter B16: Junction Layouts

B13.2 Review of Traffic Signalling Policy The purpose of traffic signals can be summarised simply as being to regulate the movement of road users for safety reasons, and to do so in a selective or specific manner in accordance with local transport policy. Previous advice and guidance on traffic management, including traffic signals, is primarily contained in the following two publications – ♦ Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) ♦ DTO Traffic Management Guidelines (TMG) While the Traffic Signs Manual is not a design manual, Chapter 9 sets out the statutory basis for signals. Specifically, the examples within the TSM do not cover all situations or all modes. Indeed, for illustrative clarity, in some situations the pedestrian and cycle modes are not included, and some of the layouts would not provide a good Quality of Service for the cycling mode. The DTO Traffic Management Guidelines (TMG) provides an overall approach to traffic management. Chapter 10 of the Guidelines contains a useful introduction to signals.

1 Chapter B13: Signalised Junctions-final-signed off by WG, jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY This chapter complements the above publications, and should be read in conjunction with them. B13.3 Sustainable Traffic Management Minimising Road User Delay: The most obvious impact of traffic signals, apart from safety considerations, is on the quality and/or level of service offered to different modes of transport. The standard approach to setting up junction signals was developed within the British Isles by Webster and Cobbe in 1966. Behind the approach was an overriding concern to reduce vehicular delay. When consideration moves from ‘delays per vehicle’ to ‘delays per person’ signalling becomes more inclusive in multi-modal situations. In these situations, the numbers of persons on public transport, walking and cycling may be far more significant than the numbers in private vehicles. The US Highway Capacity Manual (USHCM) has proposed Levels of Service for Pedestrians and for Cyclists. As they are almost identical, they have been combined together in Table B13.1, below: Control Delay per Bicycle (sec/bicycle)

Level of Service (LOS)

Pedestrian Delay (sec/ped)

< 10

≥ 10-20

> 20-30

> 30-40

> 40-60

High

> 60

Very High

Likelihood of Noncompliance (pedestrians) Low

Moderate

Table B13.1: Pedestrian and Cyclist Levels of Service (USHCM)

Chapter B3 of this manual proposes a ranking hierarchy for assessment of Quality of Service (QoS) for cycling facilities. It is recommended that the target QoS ranking for each facility should use the equivalent LOS in the above table as a guide towards making appropriate provision for cyclists within signalised junctions. Degree of Saturation: The degree of saturation represents the ability of a junction to accommodate the vehicular demand – • A volume/capacity (v/c) ratio less than 0.85 is accepted as indicating that adequate capacity is available (i.e. vehicles are not expected to experience significant queues and delays).

2 Chapter B13: Signalised Junctions-final-signed off by WG, jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY •

If the v/c ratio is greater than 0.85, traffic flow may become unstable, and delay and significant queuing may occur with very few gaps in traffic.

Cyclists should be able to negotiate the approach to the junction independent of traffic behaviour ♦ Mixing cyclists with traffic in a shared lane, on junction approaches with high saturation levels, results in an unattractive cycling environment. To overcome this requires provision of segregated bicycle lanes or tracks, or, at minimum, a bicycle feeder lane to the stop line. The absence of traffic gaps combined with a high degree of saturation means that it is not appropriate for cyclists to go directly right by weaving across traffic ♦ In such circumstances, a two-stage Left-to-Go-Right (LTGR) facility would be required. However, this would entail a 90 second maximum signal cycle time in order for cyclists to use it, and any shortening of the signal cycle time increases the Degree of Saturation (if it was originally calculated for 120 seconds). Because of this, a Degree of Saturation report would assist in determining where cyclists need to be segregated from traffic, and where two-stage LTGR facilities will be required to facilitate right-hand turning cyclists. B13.4 Cycling-friendly Signalling Signals are not a replacement for poor junction visibility. Junction geometry needs to address the Principles of Sustainable Safety in the ifrst instance (see Chapter B10). Should the signalling fail, the junction should still be functional, readable, and homogenous to the greatest extent possible. Choice of signal cycle time: It is common for traffic managers to utilise longer signal cycle lengths to increase the vehicular capacity of a junction. The proportion of fixed intergreen and pedestrian time (i.e. ‘non-vehicular time’) reduces as signal cycle time increases, giving proportionately more green time for vehicular traffic movements. The UK Department for Transport notes, however, that – ‘Relatively short [signal] cycle times are beneficial to overall good traffic management and they should be matched to actual demand. It is not recommended that cycle times in excess of 120 seconds be used.’ (DfT, TAN 1/06). It is recommended that the DfT advice should become standard practice for the purpose of this manual and that, specifically, shorter signal cycle times are required in situations of two-stage LTGR bicycle facilities.

3 Chapter B13: Signalised Junctions-final-signed off by WG, jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Recommendation: ♦ Long signal cycle times (90-120 seconds) should be reserved for main distributor traffic routes, where approaches are turbulence free and predictable, where junctions are sited at least 250m apart, and where dedicated right and left turn lanes are of considerable length. ♦ Shorter cycle times (<60 seconds; 90 seconds maximum) are more appropriate to less predictable locations (e.g. collector roads, shopping and commercial areas, etc.) and are better suited to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists in particular. Pedestrian behaviour research, coupled with international advice regarding cycling, suggests that pedestrian-friendly signal arrangements are also cyclistfriendly in general. Cycling-friendly Signalling Techniques: Consideration should be given to the following cycling-friendly signalling techniques: • • • • • •

Short maximum signal cycle time (90 seconds), especially at locations where two bicycle routes cross Additional cycling stage within full signal cycle sequence (doublesignal cycle) Countdown timers for cycling mode, especially where cyclists are separately signalled (e.g. cycle tracks) All-red stage for joint cycling and pedestrian movement Detection of cyclists, and provision of extensions for cycling approaches Pre-signalling of cyclists and pedestrians for “walk-with-traffic” locations

Partially signalised junctions: Within this manual, “signalised junctions” mean that all movements by all modes are governed by signals. This may be through the provision of general signal aspects governing all modes, or mode-specific/movement-specific aspects for individual circumstances. Partially-signalised junctions are not recommended, since the uncontrolled movements within a junction will not conform to the principle of Readability. Provision of Cycling Signal Aspects: The following measures are recommended in relation to the provision of cycling aspects at signalised junctions: • • •

Bicycle lanes should be generally governed by the phase for that approach, i.e. the general traffic aspect Separate cycle (pre) signal phases may be used for Advanced Stop Lines Bicycle Lanes beside bus lanes may have separate signal aspects

4 Chapter B13: Signalised Junctions-final-signed off by WG, jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY • • • •

Bicycle Tracks require separate cycle aspects and phases within the signal arrangement Combined bus/bicycle lanes are governed by the bus aspect, and should not have a cycling aspect Signalised bicycle crossings require bicycle signal phases, although these may run in parallel with pedestrian phases Mixed streets do not have any specific/separate cycling aspects

Bicycle Aspects: Bicycle Signal Aspects are covered in section 9.9 of the Traffic Signs Manual. In addition, the following measures should be considered: ♦ Smaller Bicycle Signal Aspects (75mm to 100mm) are recommended as primary signals where cyclists are separated from general traffic. This specifically includes the signalisation of bicycle tracks at junctions, and at the leading end of an advanced stop line or advanced waiting area. ♦ Where cyclists and pedestrians are signalled as a parallel stage, cyclists must yield to pedestrians when conflicts arise. The secondary bicycle aspect should be mounted to the right of the pedestrian aspects. (see also Toucans) ♦ The bicycle aspect is non-directional. If certain bicycle movements are precluded during the bicycle aspect phase, these should be signed through regulatory box signs mounted in association with the bicycle aspects.

Photo B13.4.1: Cycling and Pedestrian aspects

B13.6 Cycling Specific Signalling Issues U-Turns: If U-turns are permitted (see Figure B13.1), cyclists in both directions should be segregated, in order that opposing cyclists can by-pass the u-turning

5 Chapter B13: Signalised Junctions-final-signed off by WG, jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY manoeuvre, and to ensure that with-flow cyclists are not tempted to use the U-turn facility. This is in keeping with the Principles of Readability and Homogeneity.

Figure B13.1 Bus Lane Signalisation: The bus lane aspects govern the movement of all modes within the bus lane, under separate signalisation (TSM, 9.2.13).

Figure B13.2 ♦ If the bus lane is narrow and shared with cyclists, clearance times should take account of cyclists’ behaviour. Within downhill buslanes, consideration should be given to bicycle detection and green time extension, if required for safety reasons. ♦ If the bus lane is adjacent to the cycle lane, both modes may have their own phases, (even if they are staged to run concurrently). As above, care is required to ensure that the cycle phase is not running in conflict with permitted bus movements. ♦ If there is a strong left-hand vehicular movement from the bus lane, consideration should be given to providing an advanced stop line (ASL), pre-signalling for cyclists etc. Use of Green Filter arrows: If green filter arrows are used in a junction, it is necessary to provide signal control for pedestrians or cyclists in conflicting movements.

6 Chapter B13: Signalised Junctions-final-signed off by WG, jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure B13.3 â&#x2122;Ś Green filter arrows should not be used in situations where there is a nearside straight-ahead cycle lane to the left of a left green filter. â&#x2122;Ś Depending on the junction (e.g. those with ASLs or cycle tracks) it may be necessary to separately signalise the bicycle phase, and ensure that it does not run in conflict with any filtered traffic movements. Walk/ Cycle-with-Traffic and Late-Start Flashing Left Filter: Cyclists and / or pedestrians are brought across in advance of general traffic, and the late-start traffic signals indicate that left-turning traffic yields to cyclists or pedestrians crossing the side road. In these cases, it is recommended that the normal full green is replaced by a green straight ahead filter, and flashing amber filter as shown below. The flashing amber signal appears while the pedestrian/cycle shows green across the side road.

Figure B13.4 Separately signalised Bicycle Track and Significant Left-hand turning (HGVS): The use of the flashing amber sequence indicated in the Traffic Signs Manual (9.2.15) is recommended in this manual in situations where there is a strong vehicular left hand turn movement across a separately signalised cycle track or separately signalised shared bus / cycle lane. This arrangement is recommended to cater for left-hand turning HGV movements. The segregated cycle track must be closed down (red cycle symbol, or red bus lane) before the flashing amber sequence is brought up for left-hand

7 Chapter B13: Signalised Junctions-final-signed off by WG, jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY turning traffic. The flashing amber filter alerts left-hand turning traffic to the possibility of pedestrians or cyclists in the junction (despite both modes receiving a red signal). Note: Use of a green filter may under-represent the conflict risk in urban areas.

Diagram required

Figure B13.5 Conflict between Straight Ahead cyclists and left-hand turning traffic: Straight-ahead cyclists should normally have priority over left-turning vehicular traffic. This can be facilitated by provision of: • Advanced Stop Line with pre-signalling of cyclists • Set-back traffic stop line, with pre-signalling of cyclists • Delay start for left-hand traffic, with flashing amber, as opposed to green, filter aspect (see Figure B13.6)

Figure B13.6 Significant left-hand turns are defined in this manual as having either  200 turning movements per hour (peak hour traffic), or  Equivalent to 33% of the main straight-ahead traffic, or  Equivalent to 10% of main straight-ahead large vehicles (Buses and HGVs) In these situations, the following options can be considered: • segregating cycle facilities with separate signalisation

8 Chapter B13: Signalised Junctions-final-signed off by WG, jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY •

introducing left hand turning lane inside straight-ahead cycle lane (space permitting).

Ideally, a 2m wide advisory bicycle lane should be provided through the junction, with red surfacing and with both edge lines marked

Replace photo with 3dimensional sketch the above showing signal arrangement

Figure B13.7 (Bus) Priority Lanes to Stop Lines: If a particular corridor is prioritised for particular modes (e.g. bus, tram, cycle etc.), it is reasonable that there will be provision of a dedicated lane up to the stop line (in the case of tram or bicycle) or close to the stop line (in the case of bus).

Separate signalisation of the bus through a junction (i.e. bringing the bus lane to the stop line) greatly increases bus priority and reliability. It also facilitates the bus turning right from the left-hand lane. While separate signalisation of the bus reduces the capacity of the junction by requiring left turning traffic to stay in the general traffic lane, bringing bus lanes to the stop line can be beneficial to junction management – •

The bus stage is only called when required – if buses are held upstream at bus stops, the bus stage is skipped, and green time can be added to other stages of the signal cycle

•

It confers much greater control on traffic managers to implement local transport policy, through separate control of the various modes

The conflict between left-turning traffic, straight ahead cyclists and pedestrians crossing the side road is eliminated, through separate signal control of those movements. It specifically addresses the problem of left-hand turning HGVs, through separate signalisation, and through providing greater distance (i.e. the width of the bus lane) between the HGV and the cyclist.

9 Chapter B13: Signalised Junctions-final-signed off by WG, jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Bus Pre-signals: As an alternative to bringing the bus directly to the stop line, the creation of a “dummy” stop line set back from the junction can assist in giving priority to right-hand turning buses. Pre-signalling is achieved through activation of detectors, a typical layout for which is shown in Figure B13.8.

Figure B13.8: Pre-signalling, showing typical layout of detectors Pre-signalling can be provided in cases where there are shared bus lanes, or where bus lanes have adjacent bicycle facilities – •

While cyclists in shared bus lanes are governed by the bus aspect, care is needed in the provision for cyclists in these circumstances

•

If cyclists are permitted to turn right, bicycle push button units/detection should be provided on the right hand side of the bus lane as well as the left, in order that cyclists will be in a an appropriate starting position in the shared bus lane

•

If cyclists are separate from the bus lane (adjacent), they should be segregated, and brought past the bus pre-signal directly to the junction stop line

Bicycle By-passes of Signals at T-Junctions: By-passes for bicycles are essentially bicycle tracks through junctions. There is a clear benefit to cyclists in being able to bypass signalised T-Junctions. However, this can create confusion and difficulty for pedestrians unless it is properly addressed in the design of the facility. In all cases where the bicycle by-passes within the carriageway, the pedestrian crossing should be designed as a even-surface, single-stage crossing, through placing of the pedestrian push button unit in its usual location at the edge of the footpath. Smaller aspect bicycle signals should be used to control cyclists, e.g. to stop cyclists when pedestrians are crossing. Photo B13.6.1, below, shows a good example of this.

10 Chapter B13: Signalised Junctions-final-signed off by WG, jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo B13.6.1: Controling cyclists at pedestrian crossing (Danish example)

As an alternative, where there are lower volumes of cyclists and pedestrians, or at Toucan locations, it may be more appropriate to remove cyclists from the carriageway into a pedestrian priority shared space, with the option of either – • bypassing the signals or • waiting with pedestrians to cross at the signals Parallel Running of Cycling and Pedestrian Phases: In this manual, it is proposed that the cycling aspect may be run in conjunction with the signalised pedestrian crossing for the same road allowing cyclists and pedestrians to cross the road at the same time (parallel running). In all cases of parallel running of cyclists with pedestrians, left turning cyclists must yield to pedestrians. The parallel staging of cyclists and pedestrians, with pedestrian priority in all cases of conflict, is central to Toucan crossings. ♦ This parallel staging allows for reduction in the number of stages required for signals, and allows for more efficient two-stage LTGR crossing by cyclists. ♦ Note that parallel running requires cyclists to be in an advanced forward position, such as at an Advanced Stop Line, Advanced Waiting Area (for LTGR), or on a segregated cycle track. Staging: Staging is a very important element of the trafficsignal sequence. A traditional approach would be to use a stage for the main road traffic first, then sideroad traffic, and then pedestrians. However, in urban areas, especially after a long main road stage, it is important to bring up the pedestrian (and crossing cyclist) stage next, since they are likely to proceed next in any case.

11 Chapter B13: Signalised Junctions-final-signed off by WG, jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY If pedestrian and cyclist volumes are lower, an alternative arrangement for two-stage junctions may be to bring up the pedestrian/bicycle stage as an early-start in advance of the side road stage. This approach establishes the vulnerable road user in advance of turning traffic. Where this occurs, a left-hand yield sign (or flashing amber filter) should be used for the following traffic stage.

12 Chapter B13: Signalised Junctions-final-signed off by WG, jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter B15: Roundabouts B15.1 General This chapter examines current practice in Ireland and Denmark in relation to the provision of urban roundabouts. It identifies three key design principles from the perspective of sustainable cycling safety and quality of service, and proposes guidelines, based on those principles, for the design of roundabouts in urban and suburban areas.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter B3: Quality of Service

B15.2 Traffic Management Guidelines Chapter 11 of the Traffic Management Guidelines (DoT, 2003) covers the design of all roundabouts types, including those not suitable for cyclists or pedestrians. Four main roundabout types are listed, and these are shown in Table B15.1 below, together with a description of the chief characteristics in each case. Roundabout Type Mini-roundabouts

Characteristics • • •

Painted central island, 1.0 - 4.0m diam., with arrows indicating gyratory direction Central island flush or domed to max. 75mm height (25mm on bus routes), can be overrun by long vehicles In general, should not be used on roads with 85% speeds >50km/h, and in any case on roads with 85%ile speeds >60km/h

Continental Style

• • • • •

Single lane entries, exits and circulatory areas Smaller overall size than Normal roundabout More cycle and pedestrian friendly Suitable for flows up to 20,000 vehicles/day Central island can incorporate 1.5m wide overrun strip for long vehicles

Semi-Rural (Referred to as “Normal” in Traffic Signs

• • •

Kerbed central island, diameter >4.0m (8.0 – 15.0m preferred) Generally 3-4 arms, approaches have flared entry May be appropriate for use on Primary Distributor roads in urban and suburban locations

B15.1 Chapter B15: Roundabouts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Manual) Double (or Multiple)

• •

Combinations of either Normal or Mini-roundabouts located close together Can be used in grade-separated context linked by bridge across main carriageway

Table B15.1: Types of roundabout (Traffic Management Guidelines)

The needs of all road users should be taken into account in the design of roundabouts, particularly in urban areas where the high mix of motorised traffic and vulnerable road users is such that motor vehicle capacity objectives are not the primary consideration. In this regard, the Traffic Management Guidelines note the problems traditionally caused to cyclists and pedestrians in the semi-rural, or “normal”, design with its flared approaches and wide circulatory carriageway widths, and recommends that Continental-style roundabouts should be used in urban areas where possible. Mini-roundabouts are also considered in Chapter 6 of the Traffic Management Guidelines, which notes the difficulty of accommodating specific facilities for cyclists within them, and sees them primarily for use as a remedial measure for specific problems rather than as a general traffic management solution, and limited where possible to low-speed roads.

B15.3 The Danish Approach The design of roundabouts with cyclists specifically in mind is covered by the Danish Road Directorate Manual, “Collection of Cycle Concepts” in the section dealing with Planning of Traffic Areas – junction design (www.vejdirektoratet.dk). The Manual considers roundabouts under the following headings: •

Mini- roundabouts

•

Continental

•

Dynamic Roundabouts

•

Multi-lane Roundabouts

Mini-roundabouts The Danish view is that with fewer than 6,000-8,000 motor vehicles per day in roundabouts or mini-roundabouts it is unnecessary to separate cyclists and motorists, and that in this situation separation does not lead to greater road safety but may, in fact, reduce it. Similarly, cyclists can get through the roundabout faster with mixed traffic.

B15.2 Chapter B15: Roundabouts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo B15.3.1 Mini-roundabout (Denmark)

Continental In roundabouts with more motor traffic, which have one circulating lane and one lane for each entry, cyclists can be separated from the motor traffic.

Photo B15.3.2: Continental-style roundabout (Denmark)

In roundabouts designed for low speeds the cyclist can be led round on a cycle track c.5 metres from the circulatory carriageway, possibly on a raised surface. Dynamic Roundabouts In dynamic roundabouts the cyclist can be led round on a cycle path c.30 metres from the circulatory carriageway with a duty to give way to entry and exit roads. This large distance is necessary if cyclists are to be able to manoeuvre in respect of cars leaving the roundabout. Multi-lane Roundabouts In roundabouts with more than one circulating lane and possibly also more than one lane for each entry, cyclists should be led outside the roundabout via bridges, tunnels or as in dynamic roundabouts on a cycle path c.30 metres from the circulatory carriageway.

Note: B15.3 Chapter B15: Roundabouts (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The Danish concept of a mini-roundabout allows for an inscribed circle diameter of 15-25m and traffic volumes of 6,000 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 8,000 vehicles per day. This compares with the more restrictive approach contained in the Traffic Management Guidelines, where the inscribed circle diameter is specified as 3.5-10m (see Chapter 6, Diagram 6.12), and the maximum volume is 6,000 vehicles per day. This largely explains the different views in both manuals on the suitability and/or usefulness of mini-roundabouts as a cycle design option.

B15.4 Principles for Cycling Safety at Roundabouts The Traffic Management Guidelines note the main function of a roundabout as being to allow the safe interchange of conflicting traffic movements with the minimum delay to road users. While roundabouts do not always reduce the number of bicycle accidents, they can make them generally less severe. A significant number of bicycle accidents are due to conflict between cyclists and motorists entering the roundabout. This is borne out by a UK study (TRL Report 281, 1998) which found that almost a quarter of all miniroundabout accidents involved vehicles entering the roundabout hitting cyclists. An earlier UK study (TRRL 1120, 1994) found almost 50% of accidents on all roundabouts involved two-wheeled vehicles (cyclists and motorcyclists). Reducing Traffic Speeds Many existing roundabouts in Ireland have wide entry and exit lanes, flares and small deflections, all of which encourage high relative speeds which, in turn, bring increased risk to cyclists. If correctly designed, however, roundabouts can be safer than other junctions since motorists have to slow down when approaching and passing through the roundabout, and the likelihood of conflict can be reduced if physical and behavioural readability issues are addressed properly. Accordingly, approaches should be perpendicular rather than tangential and without flares to slow vehicles down (see Photos B15.4.1 and B15.4.2)

PRINCIPLE 1: Correctly designed roundabouts have a narrow gyratory, which forces drivers on the approach roads as well as on the roundabout to slow down. In order to reduce traffic speeds, the arms of the roundabout should have narrow entries and exits and a minimum flare.

B15.4 Chapter B15: Roundabouts (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photos B15.4.1 & B15.4.2: narrow, perpendicular approaches, minimum or no flares (Dutch examples)

Note: The above requirement represents a departure from the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (NRA), as detailed in Figure B15.1 below:

Insert sketch from DMRB (RK to forward)

Figure B15.1: DMRB roundabout detail

Safety and Quality of Service The level of traffic handled by roundabouts is dependent on the demand volume, the balance of demand across the arms, and the capacity of the roundabout itself. As a general rule of thumb, a single-lane roundabout will have sufficient capacity to handle traffic volumes of up to 20,000-25,000 vehicles in a 24-hour period. The over-riding principle for good roundabout design, however, is one of safety rather than capacity, i.e. the “safe interchange of conflicting traffic movements” noted in the Traffic Management Guidelines.

PRINCIPLE 2: Safety and Quality of Service for vulnerable road users are the overriding design factors for good roundabout design in urban and suburban locations.

B15.5 Chapter B15: Roundabouts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Multi-lane Roundabouts Following on from this, it will be apparent that multi-lane roundabouts present serious difficulties for vulnerable road users in general, and for cyclists in particular, due to a lack of readability. Multi-lane roundabouts include roundabouts with two or more circulating lanes and/or more than one entry lane or exit lane per arm. From the cyclist’s perspective, specific safety issues arise in the negotiation of entry and exit points and in weaving between lanes where the increased capacity allows motorised vehicles to travel at higher speeds, and where the oblique nature of the resulting conflicts, high relative speeds, and poor readability can create difficulties for all users (see Photos B15.4.3 and B15.4.4)

Photos B15.4.3 & B15.4.4: Weaving between lanes and poor readability create difficulties for all users

While it may be obvious from this that multi-lane roundabouts are an unsuitable environment for cyclists, the need for continuity discussed in Chapter B1: “Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads” means that designers must consider the provision of alternative cycling solutions such as, for example, those proposed in the Danish Cycling Concepts Manual for Dynamic and Multi-lane Roundabouts (ref. Section B15.2, above), and including the following: •

Separate cycle lane mirroring, but at a safe distance back from, the roundabout

•

Crossing facilities (e.g. signals, raised tables) on the roundabout approaches

•

No priority at crossing arms (cyclists give way to motorised traffic)

•

Grade-separated solutions for Primary and District Distributor roads

Principle 3:

B15.6 Chapter B15: Roundabouts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Multi-lane roundabouts are not suitable for cyclists and alternative offroundabout design solutions must be considered to ensure cycling continuity.

Photo B15.4.5: Alternative off-roundabout treatment for multi-lane roundabouts

B15.5

Recommended Roundabout Options Roundabouts utilise a combination of geometrical layout features related to the volume, type and speed of traffic using the junction, and should be designed to fit in with the existing road network.

Roundabouts can be used on different classes of roads, including District Distributor roads, Local Collector roads and Access roads, but are generally not recommended – •

for residential roads where the special speed limit of 30 km/h applies,

•

where there are high volumes of pedestrian movements; or

•

where they do not allow for public transport priority.

Preferably, they should be used – •

at junctions between roads of equal status and similar traffic flows,

•

to mark the boundaries of built-up areas, or

•

for the transition from one road type to another.

B15.7 Chapter B15: Roundabouts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY For urban areas, the Traffic Management Guidelines see Mini-roundabouts primarily as a remedial measure for dealing with specific traffic problems rather than as a general traffic management solution. The larger-size Semirural or “normal” type roundabout is considered suitable for use on Primary Distributor roads only, and the Continental-style, single-lane roundabout is preferred as the most acceptable design solution for roads having traffic volumes of up to 20,000 vehicles per day, where there is a comparatively high number of vulnerable road users. The Danish view is broadly similar, allowing for their more flexible idea of what constitutes a mini-roundabout, and they recommend that cycle lanes in roundabouts should be used with caution, as the establishment of a cycle lane means an increase in the circulatory carriageway, which motorists may use to increase speed (see Photo B15.5.1 below, and earlier Photo B15.3.2 also). The Irish equivalent for a similar situation would require segregation of cycle facilities from other traffic on the roundabout (see Photo B15.5.2).

Photo B15.5.1: Cycle track on-roundabout (Danish example)

Photo B15.5.2: Cycle track on-roundabout (Irish example)

The following table shows a side-by-side summary of the different roundabout types and the main characteristics in each case: B15.8 Chapter B15: Roundabouts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Ireland

Denmark

Mini-roundabout ICD 3.5-10m; 6,000 vehicles/day vehicles/day

Mini-roundabout ICD 15-25m; 6,000-8,000

Continental-style Roundabout ICD 25-40m; <20,000 vehicles/day vehicles/day,

Continental Roundabout ICD 25-40m; 20,000-25,000 cycle lanes with hedgehogs and physical separation

Semi-rural (Normal) Roundabout Dynamic Roundabout may be used in urban areas for Primary no cycle facilities on roundabout, Distributor Roads only segregated cycle facilities give way at entry and exit roads Double (Multiple) Roundabout for grade-separation or linking closely or via bridges located roundabouts

Multi-Lane Roundabout segregation as for Dynamic, or tunnels

Table B15.2: Comparison of Roundabout Types, Ireland and Denmark

By adapting and refining these options in line with the Principles for Cycling Safety established in Section B15.4, a revised set of options is now proposed for the design of roundabouts in urban and suburban areas that will have due regard for the needs of cyclists and other vulnerable users, while also taking volumes and capacity issues into consideration. The revised options are shown in Table B15.3, and it will be noted that none of them provide for cycle lanes within the roundabout circulation area.

Volume of traffic/24hr period

Type of roundabout

< 6,000 PCU

Shared use

6,000 - 10,000 PCU

Cycle lanes with hedgehogs and physical separations

B15.9 Chapter B15: Roundabouts (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY >10,000 PCU

Segregated cycle tracks, no priority

Table B15.3: Recommended Options for Design of Roundabouts in Urban Locations

NB:

The following designs are not recommended: •

Roundabouts with segregated cycle tracks and priority for cyclists;

•

Roundabouts with on-road cycle lanes without a physical separation

B15.6 Roundabout Geometry Roundabout geometry is recognised as the most influential safety factor in the design process, though other factors such as signing, road markings, lighting and landscaping will have an important role also. It is essential that the roundabout proportions are correct, as over- generous dimensions will allow for vehicular speeds that are too high, while undersized roundabouts will give rise to congestion and increased risk of collisions. Designers should have regard to the relationship between the inner and outer radii and the carriageway circulating lane in determining the optimum layout. For continental-style roundabouts, the Inscribed Circle Diameter (ICD) is recommended as 25-40m, and the diameter of the central island as 1330m. The corresponding radii are therefore from 12.5 to 20m (ICD) and from 6.5 to 15m (central island), and this allows for a circulating lane width in the general range of 5.5-6.0m, while also being flexible enough to allow for an over-run strip around the central island to cater for longer vehicles. Figure B15.2, below, shows how the relationship between the outer and inner radii and circulating lane can be used to determine the optimum roundabout layout, as well as indicating the preferred standards to be adopted for both urban and rural areas.

B15.10 Chapter B15: Roundabouts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure B15.2: Relationship between radii and circulating lane width, incl. Preferred Standards

Note re. Figure B15.2: Starting with a fixed design dimension (e.g. outer radius) read the appropriate dimensions of inner radius and lane width vertically below [Example: If outer radius = 16m (R1), then inner radius = 10.44 m (R2), and lane width = 5.54m (W)]

B15.7 Design Details Figures B15.3 – B15.5 show sample layouts for each of the recommended Roundabout Options listed in Table B15.3, with main design details included in each case. Shared Use (or Mixed) Roundabout •

Cyclists mixed with traffic on single circulating lane

•

Max. 6,000 pcu in 24-hour period (the Danish Cycle Concept Manual suggests that it may be a good idea to reconstruct the junction as a roundabout or as a signalised junction if there are more than 2,000 motor vehicles per day on the side road)

•

May be appropriate to consider plateaux on each approach to roundabout

•

Not suitable where high cycle numbers anticipated

•

Safety assessment measured against local control data (safety record, local accident data)

B15.11 Chapter B15: Roundabouts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure B15.3: Shared Use (Mixed) Roundabout

Photo B15.7.1: Example of Shared-Use (Mixed) roundabout

Cycle Lane on Roundabout •

Cycle Lanes with Hedgehog markings and physical separation

•

6,000-10,000 pcu in 24-hour period

•

Traffic entering and exiting yields priority to cyclist in cycle lane

•

Roundabout arms should have narrow entries and exits, and minimum flare

B15.12 Chapter B15: Roundabouts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY •

Most suitable for use on Collector Roads or low-volume District Distributor Roads

Figure B15.4: Cycle Lane on Roundabout

This design layout provides increased safety for cyclists both on the roundabout itself where the physical separation measures prevent the cyclist from being “squeezed”, and also in the vicinity of entry and exit points where the narrow arms and minimum flares reduce vehicle speeds.

Photo B15.7.2: Example of Continental-style roundabout

B15.13 Chapter B15: Roundabouts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Fully-Segregated Cycle Track •

Cycle track fully segregated off-roundabout with

•

>10,000 pcu in 24-hour period

•

Safety buffer between track and roundabout

•

No priority for cyclists at roundabout entry and exit roads

Figure B13.4: Roundabout with fully-segregated cycle-track

Photo B13.7.3: Example of Fully Segregated roundabout

B15.8 Key Issues: Summary Design of cycle facilities on roundabouts B15.14 Chapter B15: Roundabouts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Points of conflict between the motorised vehicle driver and the cyclist must be obvious to both users Each encounter should be at right angles, for optimum eye contact between cyclist and driver. The hedgehog kerbs on the roundabout should have a width of 0.50 to 1.00 m. These separators must be highly visible and obvious to the motorist. Priority should be clearly established at all entries, exits and crossing points

Photo B15.8.1: Points of conflict must be obvious to all users

Signs and Markings Designers should ensure adequate advanced visibility on all approach arms All approaches should have direction and “roundabout ahead” signs Central island should have “turn left” and “sharp change of direction” signs facing each entry, as well as appropriate lane and yield markings Cycle facilities, whether on the roundabout (continental style) or segregated, should be clearly signed and delineated for both cyclists and motor vehicle users Priority and yield requirements should be clearly signed at all conflict points

B15.15 Chapter B15: Roundabouts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo B15.8.2: Clear delineation of cycle facilities

Provision of Overrun area If it is necessary to provide for occasional large turning vehicles, an overrun area can be provided The area should be mountable if necessary The overrun area forms part of the internal central island radius (ref. Figure B13.1, R2) and should not be confused with, or be included as part of, the circulating lane width. A kerb > 50mm should be provided to highlight where the carriageway lane meets the overrun The preferred width of the overrun area is 1.5m to 2m.

Photos B15.8.3 & B15.8.4: Overrun area (mountable) provided as part of central island radius

Safety Considerations The overall design should produce safe and acceptable operating characteristics for all users Risk assessment of accident rates should be checked against local control data and local conditions B15.16 Chapter B15: Roundabouts (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY It is not acceptable to provide a roundabout design that meets the capacity requirements but does not have safe operating characteristics in order to minimise costs Segregated (off roundabout) cycle tracks should be provided where cyclists cannot be accommodated safely on the roundabout Cycle lanes should never be provided on multi-lane roundabouts

Photos B15.8.5 & B15.8.6: Examples of roundabouts with safe operating characteristics

Retrofitting of “Traditional” Roundabouts

Text required (MA): o Paragraph and/or matrix setting our DMRB relationship and relevance

Detailed advice on geometric design, road markings and signing for roundabouts can be found in: Traffic Management Guidelines TD16/93 – Geometric Design of Roundabouts and NRA addendum TA78/97 – Road Markings at roundabouts, Highways Agency (UK) [also available as part of Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Vol. 6] Traffic Signs Manual – Department of the Environment/Department of Transport

B15.17 Chapter B15: Roundabouts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Chapter B16: Junction Layouts In this section, we consider how to position cyclists at signalised junctions.

16.1 Stop and Yield Lines The provision of Stop Lines and Yield lines of themselves are highly beneficial to junction legibility, and are therefore recommended for all sides roads along cycle routes. There are four items to consider in rendering standard stop and yield approaches more legible and cyclist-friendly: (i)

Set back the stop or yield line to back of the building line / fence line, or to the rear of the pedestrian crossing desire line

(ii)

Ensure the side road approach is single-vehicle, (i.e. 3m wide traffic lane), single lane approach

(iii)

Tighten up the kerb radius at the mouth of the side road

(iv)

Provide a mandatory cycle lane or feeder lane to the stop line on the side road

Taking each in turn: (i)

Set back the stop or yield line to back of the building line / fence line, or to the rear of the pedestrian crossing desire line

This will ensure that vehicles approach the first point of conflict (pedestrians and cyclists crossing the mouth of the side road) at an appropriate speed.

Yield line at rear of footpath

Not recommended) Stop line forward of building line

1 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Putting the stop / yield line at the back of the footpath or building line also leaves room for cyclists on the main road to stay left, sit across the front of the side road, and cross the main road at right angles.

Setting back the stop / yield line represents a norm in Copenhagen. Indeed, in many signalled locations, the pedestrian is set back to facilitate cyclists who wish to stayleft-to-go-right: (ii)

Ensure the side road approach is single-vehicle, (i.e. 3m wide traffic lane), single lane approach

The tendency for impatient left-hand turning drivers to mount the left hand kerb to get up to the stop line precludes cyclists from accessing the junction, and creates a hazard for all users. “Doubling up” of traffic on side roads at peak times (including school times) presents difficulties for cyclists at the very time when cyclists need passage. (See (iii) below). It is very important that “flared” side road mouths are removed, so that only one vehicle at a time emerges from the side road. This is necessary to ensure that junctions are legible. (The right-hand sight triangle is precluded to traffic emerging in the “shadow” of other traffic.

2 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

The above example is not particularly cycle friendly •

For cyclists on the main road, these junctions present a hazard. In the example above, the van obstructs the car driver’s view of the approaching near-side traffic, i.e. blocks the sight triangle and precludes any view of the kerbside cyclist on the main road.

•

There is no provision for the cyclist to approach the top of the one-way street. Presumably cyclists who wish to turn left should stay left (although no cycle lane is provided). However it is not clear or logical (i.e. legible) where cyclists should position themselves, if they wish to go anywhere else except left.

•

By virtue of the double lane, the one way street is presumably higher order collector in nature (i.e. capacity is an issue), so it would not be appropriate for cyclists to queue within the traffic lanes.

(iii)

Tighten up the kerb radius at the mouth of the side road

This is an important method of ensuring that priority junctions are cycle friendly (see Chapter B11). The UK Manual for Streets gives advice collector and local roads, and strongly supports very tight radii for side access streets.

3 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Kerb radii of 1m to 3m are appropriate for narrow side streets (<5.5m kerb to kerb width) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; see Chapter B11. (iv)

Provide a mandatory cycle lane or feeder lane to the stop line on the side road

This provides a guaranteed access to the stop line, and confers an advantage on cyclist in situations where there are periodic queues on side roads. It is important that the space is not encroached upon by queuing traffic. If monitoring (or reports by cyclists) indicate that encroachment is a problem, then segregation of the cycle approach to the junction should be considered.

4 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

The drawing above illustrates the key layout issues: - Single lane entry from side road - Tight kerb radius - Set back yield line at back of footpath / building line - Continuous cycle lane across the mouth of the junction, with red surface commencing 20m prior to first point of conflict. Please consider also: - Possible cycle lane on side road, if traffic queues exist - If the cycle facility opposite the side road is segregated, ensure there is an access (gap / ramp / bump) for cyclists to join the facility

Typical Danish treatment opposite side road, to allow cyclists join raised cycle track 5 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Forward Yield Position on Side Road to address Loading / Parking There may be circumstances where it preferable to bring side road traffic into an advanced position - the typical circumstance is where a side road joins a main road where there is parking or loading. In these circumstances, it is important that the sight triangle requirements are met where X is measured at a point 2,4m + 0.75m buffer, i.e. 3.15m)) from the kerbside edge of the cycle lane. Loading:

Parking

6 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY 16.2 Signal Controlled Junctions and Approach lanes Basic provision: Too often, signalised junctions contain inadequate or no cycle provision, and the road space is divided up between various vehicular traffic lanes. This is often represented at a schematic level in both the Traffic Management Guidelines and Traffic Signs Manual:

However, the representation of junctions without cycling, bus or pedestrian facilities should not be taken as justifying their exclusion. The corollary is also important: the absence of cycle lanes at junctions does not automatically point towards a deficiency of design â&#x20AC;&#x201C; for instance, the junction of two access streets where cyclists are mixed with general traffic, will not generally require cycle lanes / tracks. Elimination of flares and turning pockets: There is recent practice of attempting to maximise traffic throughput, by providing additional flares approaching the junction, and the merging of traffic lanes progressively on the far side exit of a junction. While there is some traffic flow gain, its flow is limited to the stacking length of the flare â&#x20AC;&#x201C; once the flare has emptied, the flow rate is the discharge rate from the link prior to the flare (see red arrow):

7 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY As stated in B10, the provision for cyclists will in many cases be at the expense of additional potential or actual vehicular capacity, e.g. by reduction / elimination of flares.

8 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Purpose of widening cycle lanes approaching junctions As set out in B10, it is recommended that cycle lanes be widened approaching junctions. An additional 0.5m approaching junctions (last 20-30m) will allow for - slow cycle speeds (<12kph) and additional wobbling, - space for stacking of cyclists, - starting up / stepping off, etc. - cyclists’ access past waiting cyclists to an ASL for RH turns. A standard minimum of 2m should be planned as a norm near junctions. The minimum cycle lane width approaching a signalised junction is 1.75m (see B4.1) in any case. (See “feeder lanes” for widths below 1.75m) Cycle Lanes between Traffic Lanes (Streaming Lanes) Cycle lanes located between traffic lanes should be 2.0m (minimum 1.75m) wide (see table B4.1) to take account of moving traffic on both sides.

9 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Attention should be paid to the following: 1. The point where vehicle weaving is permitted to start, and also where it must stop, should be indicated – otherwise, the junction can appear very “open”.

The vehicle weaving section (broken cycle lane markings) should be clear, and limited in length to a maximum of 20m – vibraline may be appropriate for the solid cycle lane line approaching the junction, beyond the weaving point 2. Cycle Lanes must be obvious in all conditions (wet, dark) 3. Non-kerbside cycle lanes require low traffic speeds and volumes to ensure a minimal speed differential between cyclists and adjacent traffic. 4. Cycle Lanes between two traffic lanes are not suitable along HGV routes 5. Non-kerbside cycle lanes are restricted to use beside right or left hand pockets (i.e. distinct lanes dedicated to turning movements, length for 8 - 10 vehicles (i.e. max 30m). 6. Cycle lanes between vehicular lanes for more than 30 metres are not advised, due to legibility, homogeneity, off-peak traffic speed behaviour etc. Instead, two stage crossings are more appropriate Cycle Feeder Lanes Cycle lanes that are less than 1.75m wide approaching junctions are limited in terms of their utility. Specifically, they do not provide sufficient clearance to moving traffic. These cycle lanes are only for cycle use in stopped traffic, and not intended to be used by cyclists once traffic commences (because the clearance space between kerb and traffic does not exist). In flowing traffic cyclist “takes lane” i.e. mixed use; therefore speeds and volumes must be low (see table). Accordingly, feeder lanes are generally for use on side streets and access / residential areas only.

10 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Cycle feeder lanes are 1.25m to 1.5m wide (i.e. less than a cycle lane) They are only for kerbside use, not between lanes or by parked cars, loading bays Cycle feeder lanes are intended to allow cyclists to push up to an ASL or forward position of traffic, at the kerbside Cycle feeder lanes should be marked as buffer, i.e. space available to the cyclist if needs be during stacking It is important that cyclists are generally able to negotiate the full length of a feeder lane during the red phase; accordingly, the feeder lane should be no more than 5 car lengths (25m)

11 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY B16.3 Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs); small cycle signal aspects; PBUs ASLs are to assist RH turning cyclists at signalised junctions in lighter traffic. They should be limited to locations where it is safe for cyclists to weave to the right through traffic (see later) since the ASL device works only when main road traffic is stopped. (In heavy traffic, use left-to-go-right two-stage crossing)

Do not use ASLs where it is inappropriate to weave – rather, use two-stage LTGR.

ASL across multiple lanes fed from a sole inside kerb is not recommended, as in many instances, the traffic lanes are separately signalised (e.g. RH pockets often run separate to straight-ahead lanes) and could take the positioning cyclist (or traffic) by surprise. In summary, each traffic lane approach should have its own ASL, if ASLs are appropriate.

ASLs must be “fed” by a cycle lane (or kerbside narrow feeder lane) – if there is no cycle lane to the ASL for that stream of traffic, do not put it in, as this may encourage cyclists to pass up the outside of traffic in an unexpected (illegible) fashion.

12 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Do not put ASLs into opposing RH turns. ASLs must not face opposing traffic, unless they are separately signalised â&#x20AC;&#x201C; this is because cyclists are hidden when they are negotiating behind driver-to-driver vehicles; they encounter very restricted visibility, especially where there are larger vehicles (buses, vans, etc..) ASLs are never for HGV routes, since there is no guarantee that the truck will see the bicycle in front of it â&#x20AC;&#x201C; consider either Set Back Stop Lines, segregated cycle tracks, or LTGR two-stage in these cases.

13 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

14 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Small Aspect Cycle Signals for ASLs The provision of small primary bicycle aspects at the front of an ASL should be considered for situations where it is intended that cyclists in the ASL will be given separate control to the following traffic. If bicycles in the ASL are under the same control as the following traffic, there is no necessity for additional aspects, since the secondary traffic signal will provide sufficient signage for the cyclist. Two Aspect signal heads: Where cyclists in an ASL get an advanced start on following traffic, use two-aspect signals, with the following arrangement: •

Green aspect – cyclists given advanced start over following traffic

•

Blank - no aspect for cyclists; following traffic has green signal; approaching cyclists governed by general traffic signals

•

Red Aspect - cyclists stopped.

15 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Three Aspect small signal heads Three-aspect primary signals should be used where segregated cycle tracks are controlled at a junction. A set of these aspects should be located as primary and associated primary (i.e. on left and right) of the cycle track. A cantilevered associated primary is also possible (see photo Copenhagen).

Full size aspects (reminder) Full size three-aspect cycle heads should be used in the following circumstances: •

mounted to the right of three aspect pedestrian aspects, where cyclists and pedestrians are “moving with traffic”

•

where cycle track traffic require the larger aspects, for visibility reasons

•

where there is a need for adjacent traffic lanes to understand what cyclists are signalled to do, e.g. a cycle track and an adjacent bus lane

Bicycle Push Button Units In order to maximise traffic signal utility, bicycle facilities may be “demand only”, namely the bicycle stage may not automatically be called, unless there is a specific demand from bicycles. Push button units (PBUs) are angled towards the bicycle (see picture).

16 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Bicycle PBUs are a useful means of allowing cyclists to make a demand for green signal time. Bicycle PBUs are particularly useful in the following circumstances: •

signalised cycle tracks

•

signalised shared bus / cycle lanes

•

approaching Toucans

•

at J (jug-handle) crossings

•

where bicycle detection is required, but other means (loops etc.) are unsuitable

They can also be useful at Advanced Stop Lines

17 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY 16.4 Set Back Stop Lines Setting back the traffic stop line by 5m (as opposed to an ASL) offers advantages in terms of safety and legibility (see Danish study ADONIS) particularly where HGV movements are concerned.

A setback stop line confers all advantages of ASLs, (in terms of overflow stacking, better advanced position, improved legibility etc.). However it does not provide (or imply) a RH turn stacking facility for cyclists. Nor does it encourage cyclists to take a position in front of queuing traffic.

18 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY A set back stop line should not imply that the area forward of queued traffic is suitable for stacking bicycles, since the area may be required for the swept path of turning vehicles.

Set back stop line, advanced cycle track (physically segregated) (Note for drawing - change yieldline to signal stopline) Notes on set back stop lines: 1. For right turning cyclists, provide two-stage LTGR 2. If set back provided due to HGVs, then cyclists must be segregated and separately signalised 3. If set back due to limited visibility, cycle lane acceptable - consider provision of close associated primary signal, in order that cyclists and vehicles enter junction on a cautionary basis

19 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY 16.5 Cyclists Weaving Right As discussed in B12, there are two methods by which cyclists can turn right. They are: 1. Weaving in Gaps: cyclist moves through gap in traffic to centre of road and turns right across gap in opposing traffic 2. Two-Stage Crossing: cyclist stays to the left of traffic, and crosses main road at right angles Weaving in gaps: We identify in Chapter B11 that cyclists proceeding straight should maintain a straight-on alignment. Specifically, traffic turning left should weave across the cycle lane. The Principle of Homogeneity requires that the relative speed between the cyclist and vehicular traffic should be low. Cyclists generally travel at around 20 km/h. The actual speed of weaving traffic should not exceed 35 km/h. The Principle of Legibility requires that drivers are aware of, and expect cyclists to make turning manoeuvres across traffic. This includes the possibility of cyclists poised at the centre-line waiting for a gap in opposing traffic.

Weaving in gaps is the appropriate means for cyclists to turn right in the following situations:

20 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

1. access streets, mixed traffic

Note – drg to read 5.5m or less, as per TMG

21 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY 2. from advisory cycle lanes on two-lane roads with no centre line

22 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY 3. from cycle lanes on two lane roads with centre line, but with no traffic islands or ghosting

23 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY 4. where cycle lane (2m wide, minimum 1.75m) has been provided to facilitate weaving across one traffic lane only

Notes on outside (right turn) cycle lanes: •

for legibility reasons, cycle lanes should commence from a logical point (as in drawing above).

•

Cyclists should only weave across one traffic lane to enter an outside cycle lane: do not provide such facility on dual carriageways with more than one straight-ahead lane

•

There has been practice in Ireland whereby the outside lane of a dual carriageway becomes a dedicated right-turn lane - The provision of right hand cycle lanes is not recommended in these circumstances, and two-stage LTGR crossings are required

•

If there is insufficient room for a right hand cycle lane within the overall righthand pocket, then the pocket is unsuitable for cyclists; two-stage LTGR crossings are required

Weaving Cyclists and Sideswipe Roads with multiple traffic lanes per direction present two challenges for weaving cyclists -

Finding and taking a gap across all lanes in both directions

Moving through a traffic environment where vehicles are also weaving

24 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY From a driverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s viewpoint, multiple lanes in the same direction means less homogeneity of direction (due to weaving vehicles), less readability, less forgiving, challenge to novice drivers In locations where there is significant vehicle weaving manoeuvres, or where the road design supports vehicle weaving (e.g. multi-lane roads), the possibility of sideswipe is tolerable in a vehicle-only situation of similar mass and speed. Sideswipe is unacceptable where cyclists are involved. This manual does not support the slewing of bicycles across multi-lane roads (e.g. roads with more than one lane per direction) Example The picture shows a one-way street, where the outside lane turns right.

Options to improve the right-turn facility for cycling within this one-way approach include: 1. creation of a 1.75 to 2m cycle lane between the two traffic lanes, so that cyclists only have to weave across one lane to get into their correct position 2. creation of a recessed waiting area opposite the right-hand exit, for cyclists to cross at right-angles to the traffic island, using the dished kerb as a two-stage crossing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in such circumstances, a mandatory cycle lane would be appropriate It is recommended that cycle weaving is provided by way of crossing (i.e. perpendicular to the flow) as opposed to cyclists weaving within the zone of vehicular 25 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY weaving. However, such crossing should afford an attractive Quality of Service, so that cyclist will not attempt to weave in a vulnerable area.

26 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY B16.6 Two-stage Right Turns for Cycling â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Uncontrolled and Controlled Uncontrolled - Cyclists turning right by staying left and crossing right For non-weaving cyclists, the simplest means of crossing a road is to stay left, wait for gaps, and cross at right angles. In staying left, the crossing cyclist should be at the outside of the cycling facility, to allow straight ahead to pass by on the inside:

The right hand photo (reversed, Holland) shows a widened cycle track, to enable cyclists to wait, assess traffic and cross directly. See also photo below from Denmark, which provides a cyclist crossing area within a widened cycle track, but by deflecting the pedestrians.

27 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY For unsignalised junctions, cyclists will stay on the outside, and passing cyclists will be on the inside of the cycle facility â&#x20AC;&#x201C; for signalised junctions, the opposite is generally the case.

28 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Notes: •

These facilities should be provided only on streets that are suitable for uncontrolled crossing (see “crossability” later)

•

Waiting cyclists require sufficient space to stack safely, and allow other cyclists pass on the inside. However, insufficient provision for turning cyclists can result in a drop in Quality of service (see photo below, Aalborg – the waiting cyclist obliges the following cyclists to adopt single file while passing on the inside)

•

See width calculator for width required for side–by-side cyclists and kerb clearances etc. (minimum width 2.5m, with low kerbs)

•

This additional width can be reduced if there is stacking space on a plateau facing the road crossing

•

The facility should be obvious to cyclists, so that they will understand how to negotiate the turn – in the Copenhagen example, the markings are selfexplanatory

•

Depending on the type of segregation, some premises and right turns may be inaccessible to cyclists – a raised adjacent facility with a small ramp is generally acceptable to turning cyclists – these should be located opposite side roads and main entrances, to allow cyclists exit or re-join cycle tracks

29 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Staggered T Staggered T designs are generally less legible for cyclists. Traffic approaching a staggered T from a side road may wish to move in any of three ultimate directions, namely clean left, clean right, or staggered. The prevalence of twin exit lanes from side roads at staggered Ts, (often with a choice of movements from one of the lanes) creates additional uncertainty for the cyclist, and potential conflicts cannot be identified (current TSM, fig 7.3). The positioning of cyclists between moving, turning traffic streams is not advised. Cyclists should cross each leg as a direct crossing, not using the central area / lane / refuge. Left-Right In general traffic design, left-then-right staggers are generally preferred by traffic engineers; this is because a vehicle can merge easier by turning left, weave to a central position facing opposing traffic, and then turn right when a gap presents itself.

However, they can be problematic for cyclists: â&#x20AC;˘

It is difficult to position the cyclist on the side road approach

â&#x20AC;˘

there is no provision possible for cyclists to wait in the centre of the main road

30 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Therefore cyclists should turn left from the side road, staying kerbside. Clear provision should be made for cyclists to cross “right” as a full two-way crossing of the road, to enter the side road.

31 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Right-left

Right-left staggers are preferable to Left-Right staggers for cyclists and pedestrians, since the crossings are more legible, and cyclist is not expected to weave into a midstream position on the main road.

Signalised Staggered Ts Staggered Ts are normally set up for the side roads to run together. Accordingly, the distance on the main road between the two Ts is the key determinant of how signalised staggered Ts are set up: the shorter the distance, the quicker the area fills up from side road traffic, therefore the shorter the duration of the side road green time. If the main road is multi-lane, the same area between the two side roads is likely to experience significant weaving, as side road traffic positions itself correctly on the main road. In junction layout terms, cycle tracks are preferable for the main road area between the side roads (i.e. keeping cyclists away from the traffic weaving zone), combined with direct crossing of the roads, and shorter cycle times.

32 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

33 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Two Stage Signalised Crossings - Left to Go Right (LTGR) Two-stage crossing of signalised junctions by waiting in advance of the side road was common informal bicycle behaviour in the 1960s. The practice of staying Left To GO Right (LTGR) was sensible, since it avoided bicycle weaving across busy traffic lanes, or getting stuck between opposing streams of traffic. Two stage crossing is required in the following circumstances: (i)

Where the speed and volume of traffic requires segregated cycle facilities (table â&#x20AC;Ś..)

(ii)

Where there are more than one traffic lane in the same direction, without an across multi-lane roads (e.g. roads with more than one lane per direction)

(iii)

Where weaving or uncontrolled crossings are unsuitable

However, alternative (LTGR) must be legible, properly designed (including interaction with pedestrians, other cyclists), convenient, and time-efficient Displaced Pedestrians In two-stage LTGR crossings, the crossing cyclist stays to the left â&#x20AC;&#x201C; other cyclists pass by on the right with main road traffic. In order that turning cyclists do not block following straight-ahead cyclists, or interfere with crossing pedestrians, it may be necessary to displace the pedestrian crossing by 2.5m to 3m, to allow turning cyclists to stack in an advanced stacking area, beyond the pedestrian crossing line.

Displaced pedestrian crossing, to stack turning bikes

34 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Basic LTGR arrangement at crossroads – pedestrian crossing line displaced by 2.5m (note – drg. Side roads to have single lane exits)

Stacking area to left of straight-on cyclists LTGR facilities at junctions require the presence of secondary signals for side road traffic control. Otherwise, stacking cyclists will not know when to cross.

35 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY J-crossing / Jug-handle, for T Junctions At T-junctions, opposite key destinations, or for busy Toucan crossings, it may be necessary to provide additional stacking space to the left of passing cyclists. In these situations •

Minimum radii (<4m) are acceptable, since cyclists are halting / stacking

•

Cyclists PBUs are required

•

Footpaths may need to be displaced

36 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY 16.7 Isolated At grade Cycle Crossings Cycle crossings are locations where a cycle way or cycle track crosses a road and commences again on the far side of the road. Generally cycle crossings: (i)

Are two-way in nature

(ii)

Assume that the approaching cyclist has yielded priority to main road traffic

(iii)

Are isolated, i.e. are not part of an junction (they should be at least 20m, and preferably at least 40m from a traffic junction, in order that motorists are not confused by signal sets, or unprepared for a particular conflict

(iv)

Are likely to be associated with pedestrian crossing desire lines

Note – due to the nature of merge and de-merge (oblique junctions, high speed, multi-lane etc.) cycle facilities crossing a slip lane on a distributor road are not recommended, and are not included in this description. There are three elements to designing a cycle crossing: (i)

Termination of the cycle facility

(ii)

Choice of appropriate crossing facility

(iii)

Detailed design

Taking each in turn: Termination of the cycle facility It is critical that the cyclist understands that the cycle facility has terminated, at right angles to the traffic. This can be done through a combination of : •

surface markings

•

warning signs, “pedestrian priority” “do not proceed unless exit is clear”

•

statutory signs: “yield” “end of cycle track”

•

bicycle barriers (only if necessary)

The waiting area should be designed for cyclists and pedestrians in all cases, with priority to be ceded by bicycle. Waiting areas to cross the road should be a minimum 37 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY of 5 metres from the termination of the cycleway or track. This is necessary to provide good visibility (x-distance) along the main road. It also means that there is sufficient storage space for cyclists, should access barriers be present at the start of the cycle track, The waiting area should be as flat as possible, ideally set at the standard crossfall for a footpath (1:40) in order that bicycles are not sloping towards the road. This may not always be possible â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a maximum slope of 1:12 should not be exceeded.

Termination of a cycle way or cycle track in advance of crossing roadway

Choice of appropriate crossing facility - uncontrolled In other jurisdictions, the cycle and pedestrian modes are significantly segregated from each other, and both user types largely respect this segregation. This allows traffic designers to provide different crossing facilities for cyclists and pedestrians, based on different crossing speeds etc. This is not the case in Ireland. At present, the degree of discipline required (by pedestrians) to plan, say, different / shorter clearance times at crossings for cyclists

38 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY has not established. Accordingly, designers should assume a crossing pace determined by the slowest or most unpredictable mode. Crossability There has been research into crossing behaviour of cyclists, including their ability to accept gaps in traffic. The research is inconclusive as yet, partly because of the use of simulators (as opposed to observed behaviour). The Dutch have provided general advice for uncontrolled road crossings as follows:

Two lane road, Poisson distribution of traffic Traffic flow

Crossability

< 800 pcu/h

Direct crossing, reasonable

>800, <1600

Two-stage reasonable

> 1600 < 2000

Two-stage, moderate / poor

> 2000

Two-stage, (very) poor

CROW - Crossing a Main Road (assuming 1 m/s crossing speed)

The table above is quite straightforward: 1. Low traffic volumes: if peak two-way traffic is less than 800 pcu / h, an uncontrolled crossing or zebra crossing may be appropriate (check cyclists permitted to cycle across zebra markings?) 2. two-stage: if peak two-way traffic exceeds 800 pcu / h, i.e. 8,000 AADT, a two-stage crossing is required, where cyclists use a intermediate central reserve / island 3. uncontrolled two stage: If a two-stage crossing is provided, (see drawing) it will provide poor crossability for cyclists if traffic flows are >20,000 AADT.

39 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Crossability is also related to the numbers of cyclists – if there are few traffic gaps, and many cyclists (possibly in both directions) attempt to cross at the same time, there may be difficulties in clearing the crossing within the traffic gap. Uncontrolled crossing (low volumes of traffic, low demand of cyclists and pedestrians) •

minimum width of 3m (to allow for cyclists and pedestrians to mix)

•

minimum island width of (>= 3m wide) to allow for emergency refuge for bicycles during crossing

Minimum width = 10m kerb to kerb If the space for a two stage crossing does not exist (minimum 10m road width (2 x 3.5m lanes, 3m central island) with absolute minimum 2.25m wide footpaths (to store waiting bicycles), namely 14.5m from building line to building line), then a signalised, relocated or grade-separated crossing should be considered.

40 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Uncontrolled two-stage cycle crossing of two way road, with central refuge

41 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Choice of appropriate crossing facility - Controlled Crossings The standard advice in Ireland for the provision of crossings for pedestrians obtains in relation to cycle crossings. The Traffic Management Guidelines cover this matter in section 12. Factors to consider in assessing the need for a (pedestrian) crossing The Dutch provide the following advice in terms of appropriate junction choice, determined by the main road traffic regime: 1. For main roads from 1500 pcu/hr upwards (i.e. >15,000 AADT) Signal control, grade separation, cycle-friendly roundabout 2. For main roads up to 1750 pcu / hr (a) if the side street / road is busy (>450 pcu / hr) Cycle-friendly roundabout (b) if the side street is quieter (<450 pcu / hr) Right-of-way Intersection (or roundabout) In Ireland, there are a number of factors that should be considered before introducing a pedestrian/cycle crossing facility. These factors include (ref TMG): _ volume and speed of traffic (see CROW above) _ volume and age profile of pedestrians and cyclists (ref. State Awareness Principle) _ road, cycle track and footway widths (see earlier) _ difficulty in crossing the road (sightlines etc.) _ delay in crossing the road (gaps) _ road accident records _ requests for crossing facilities (especially from special interest groups) 42 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Pelican (and Toucan) Crossings The majority of pelican crossings are situated on roads with a speed limit of 40mph or less. Speed discrimination or assessment detection may be necessary for 85 percentile approach speeds in excess of 35mph. Pelican crossings can be used on roads with high traffic volumes and where pedestrian flows are high. Pelican crossings tend to be more popular with the public and are better for less able or less confident pedestrians. The minimum width of a pelican crossing is 2.4m, although greater widths (up to 5m) should be used when there are high pedestrian flows Detailed Design Advice Splitter islands for a one-stage pelican crossing is an appropriate solution where there is > one lane per direction, subject to â&#x20AC;˘

minimum width of 5m (to allow for cyclists and pedestrians to mix)

â&#x20AC;˘

minimum island width of (>= 3m wide) to allow for emergency refuge for bicycles during crossing

43 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Staggered Pelican Crossings are not suitable for cyclists, as the central refuge is generally nonnegotiable by bicycle. These are useful for cyclists who dismount.

44 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Toucan Signalled Crossing Subject to clarification of legislation, the Toucan Crossing represents the most appropriate type of signalised cycle crossing for Ireland. •

It recognises the likelihood and primacy of pedestrians

•

It recognises the conflict in direction (between pedestrians and cyclists) that arises at each side of the crossing

•

It addresses common desire lines for pedestrians and cyclists, especially on school routes etc.

•

Advances in technology allow for kerbside detection, greater in-crossing detection and extensions etc.

45 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The original trial layouts above are amended as follows: •

As opposed to pelican crossings, three-aspect signals are required for both pedestrians and cyclists at Toucans, since fast crossing cyclists may not be seen by starting vehicles during “flashing amber”

•

Toucans are always single stage crossings, since the median island would not unlikley to accommodate a mix of cyclists and pedestrians in two directions

•

Toucans are not suitable for dual carriageways or multi-lane distributor roads.

Note the position of pedestrian poles at the footpath. Pedestrians cross the cycle facility and the road traffic lanes in one stage.

46 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Toucan crossing for intersection of cycle route with street / road (check drgs)

47 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY 16.8 Cycling and Left Turning HGVs The diagram below indicates (in reverse) the visibility issues for a standard HGV fitted with a footpath mirror.

Explanation of numbers: 1: sight by normal mirrors; 2: sight by footpath or “Cyclops” mirror; 3: sight through windows: 4: blind spot.

Note- Reverse diagram for Ireland / UK In many situations, the cyclist on the main road will be placed in the forward part of area 4 when a HGV driver on the same road makes his turn.

Priority Junction for heavy HGV movements On busy HGV routes, this manual proposes that the cyclist is separately controlled in those instances – the cyclist loses all priority, for safety reasons. In the following diagram, •

the cyclist is brought away from the traffic by at least 5m, to improve conflict visibility

•

the cycle route is terminated into a pedestrian shared space, and

•

the uncontrolled crossing is a standard dished crossing.

48 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Signals - Stay Left to Go Right As stated elsewhere, segregated cycle tracks are required for HGV routes. These are separately signalised at the junction (see B12) and do not run together. Cycle tracks will tend to be positioned further away from traffic than cycle lanes. In these circumstances, the LTGR advanced stacking space may be more appropriately positioned to the right of the straight-ahead cyclists, rather than the left.

49 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY 16.9 Level Crossings Level crossings can present significant delay to cyclists in urban areas. Depending on the signaling regimes, level crossings may be closed for up to six minutes, which would represent a significant portion of the overall cycle journey.

The principle means to overcoming these delays is to provide a grade separated route under or over the railway line (see B15 Grade Separated Junctions).

As a short term measure, improvements to railway signaling may allow for more frequent opening and closing of the barriers between trains, with reduced advance closure time.

If the level crossing cannot be adjusted, there remains additional options around the level crossing to render them more cycle friendly:

(i)

Improved access – as with signal controlled junctions, consider mandatory cycle lane or feeder lane to allow cyclists access the front of the traffic queue. If it is a busy cycle route, also consider an Advanced Stop Line, to allow cyclists to stack ahead of traffic (However, this is not appropriate for truck routes – consider set back stop line instead).

(ii)

Improved surface – especially with skewed railway tracks, ensure that cyclists are guided across the railway track at right-angles, where possible, and that the road surface has plenty of grip in the vicinity of the tracks.

(iii)

Footbridges – if a footbridge is provided, (or planned), ensure that it is designed with cyclists in mind. The preferred option for the cycling mode allows cyclists to cycle across the bridge. Other options include reduced step incline, and a facility to wheel bicycles beside the steps. It is also important that cyclists can gain access to and egress from the footbridge on both sides of the railway.

50 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

51 Chapter B16 Junction Layouts

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads B1.1

General This Chapter identifies the five Principles of Sustainable Safety that are central to the guidelines contained in this manual, examines them individually, and provides the designer with a checklist to be determined in each case. This chapter should be read in conjunction with: A4: Balancing Function, Street Design, and Usage A5: Bicycle Network Planning B7: Road Safety Audits D1: The Need for Maintenance

B1.2 Sustainable Road Safety In aiming for sustainable road safety, the task of the road designer and transportation planner is to plan and design the road/street network so that its use and capacity can be maximised for all users having regard to the function of the component roads or streets, while at the same time eliminating or minimising actual and potential conflicts so that the risk of accidents is reduced as much as possible.

Photo B1.2.1: “Maximising the benefits of the road/street network”

Five Principles of Sustainable Safety for road traffic have been identified for the purpose of this Manual: 1. Functionality B1.1 Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY 2. Homogeneity 3. Readability 4. Forgivingness 5. Self-awareness The five principles have been adapted from, and broadly correspond to those identified by SWOV, the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research (listed in Table B1.1 below), though some changes have been made to take account of differences in legislation and/or where clarification is required due to language and cultural differences. Ireland

The Netherlands

Functionality

Functionality of roads

Homogeneity

Homogeneity of masses and/or speed and direction

Readability

Predictability of road course and road user behaviour by a recognisable road design

Forgivingness

Forgivingness of the environment and of road users

Self-awareness

State awareness by the road user

Table B1.1: SWOV Sustainable Safety principles (ref. www.swov.nl\uk)

The Irish principles of “readability” and “self-awareness” broadly equate to the Dutch principles of “predictability” and “state-awareness” (SWOV), but are geared towards giving a clearer indication to the Irish reader of what is involved in each. The main difference between the SWOV principles and their Irish counterparts occurs in relation to functionality, and is necessitated by the different classifications and related characteristics for urban roads which have been adopted in Ireland and The Netherlands. Traffic Management Guidelines

SWOV Manual

Primary Distributor

Through-road

District Distributor Distributor Collector Access

Access

B1.2 Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Table B1.2: Urban road classifications, TMG vs. SWOV

Functionality: A sustainably safe road network has a functional layout based on its classification. The Traffic Management Guidelines (ref. page 22 – Irish Categories) includes descriptions for different urban road classifications in terms of function, and lists four main road types: • • • •

Primary distributor District distributor Collector Access

In addition to these four classifications, it is recommended that the designer of an urban cycle facility should have regard to likely kerb-side activities such as • • • •

Shopping (parking, loading, disabled etc.) Dropping (school, interchange, office) Stopping (taxi, bus, parking) Nothing (clearway, 24/7 cycle lane etc.)

As the function of a road equates to its shape and use, it follows that, for sustainably safe roads, the function must be such that its shape and use are in harmony, and the designer should carry out the following checklist to determine the degree to which this can be achieved:

What is Road category? What are the intended / stated functions? How well does the road / street design cater for them? (shape - alignment, cross section, signs etc.) How does the road actually function? (usage) – does it change by time of day?

Homogeneity: A homogenous traffic flow reduces speed differences to a minimum and, together with reduction of both directional differences and other conflicts, can have a beneficial impact on the level and severity of accidents that might otherwise occur.

B1.3 Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Sustainable Safety aims at homogeneity in mass, speed, and direction. This means that vehicles with large differences in mass (size/weight), speed, and direction should be physically separated from each other. Experience in Denmark, where 50% of cycle fatalities occur in mixed traffic, would seem to support this view, and the following Table B1.2 lists major and other factors involved in conflicts between the cyclist and other modes of traffic based on that experience: Cycle vs:

Major Factor

Other Factors

pedestrian

direction

speed

car

speed

direction

bus

mass

speed

tram

mass

direction

motorbike

speed

direction

truck

mass

direction

Table B1.3: Conflict between cyclists and other transport modes (Denmark)

To address this interaction between mass, speed and direction in such manner as to ensure homogeneity of traffic movement, the designer should consider the following checklist:

What is the current or proposed mix of modes? What is the speed profile across the modes? What turning or crossing movements need to be catered for?

Readability: All road users should be aware of the driving behaviour that is expected of them and also what they can expect from others. The whole road network should be predictable (i.e. readable), just like others' driving behaviour. A readable road layout will make it easier for road users to: •

READ THE ENVIRONMENT

•

RECOGNISE THE HAZARDS

•

POSITION / MOVE APPROPRIATELY

•

COMMUNICATE WITH OTHERS

B1.4 Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The resulting ability to read and understand the traffic situation will make it easier for conflicting road users to perform successful avoidance or emergency manoeuvres when necessary. The following characteristics are identified by the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research (SWOV 2006) as facilitating road readability: •

Quality of road surface

•

Edge marking

•

Contra-flow marking (narrowing hatching against flow)

•

Urban road characteristics such as buildings, parking spaces, and exit roads

•

Clearly marked cycle lanes

Instances which may challenge readability are similarly identified and require a phased response: •

Wide lanes / overtaking

•

Gyratories / one-way systems

•

Contra-flows

•

Shared footpath

•

Angled / perpendicular parking

•

Oblique junctions

•

Slip lanes, merges and diverges

•

Multi-lane roads

•

Advanced Stop Lines

•

Bike and pedestrian crossings (esp. as main modes)

•

Road Markings

Accordingly, the following questions should be addressed by the designer in checking for readability/legibility:

Does the urban design and layout communicate the desired behaviour to all road users? Is it clear where each mode should be? Are there contradictory messages within the layout? To what extent can the contradictions be eliminated or minimised?

B1.5 Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Forgivingness: In the physical sense, the forgivingness of the road means that the design seeks to ensure that the outcome of any crashes or collisions will be as benign as possible. Key factors to improve forgivingness include: •

Reducing speed differential between modes

•

Providing evasion time, i.e. opportunities to see & opportunities to avoid (OTS/OTA)

•

Providing evasion room (e.g. Multi-point entry into segregated facilities)

•

Removing constraining obstacles including guardrail, proximate street furniture , also parallel-oriented flags, gullies, raised markings

•

Removing abrupt horizontal/ vertical changes (esp. gullies, kerbs etc.)

•

Providing consistent (improved) surfaces and widths

•

Improved lighting at cycle level

It is essential that that the designer carry out a detailed assessment of potential risks or likely errors to determine the forgivingness of the route. The degree of risk and any required improvements should be identified, following which a planned risk management programme should be implemented to remove, reduce, transfer (or accept) the identified risks so as to eliminate or minimise the potential for error by the users. The programme should include ongoing monitoring to ensure its effectiveness. The designer should begin by carrying out the following checklist:

What are the risks to vulnerable road users (this should be the starting point as everyone else is enclosed / protected) How forgiving are the principal conflict points? Does the accident database support this view? What information / training do road users need?

Self awareness: Self- awareness refers to the capacity or possibility of road users to correctly estimate their own fitness to interact and negotiate the road system (layout). B1.6 Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY This means that they must know which skills they possess and whether or not these are sufficient to use the road safely. Overall approaches which might be considered include: •

Matching Level of Service to level of experience (e.g. providing facilities with high level of service for less experienced pedestrians and cyclists around schools etc.)

•

Junction management

•

Development of alternative routes within network, together with information / publicity

The recommended checklist for subsequent action includes the following questions:

Are there specific road users with limited abilities? Are there site-specific users (schools, hospitals, churches etc.)? Can all users negotiate all traffic regimes at the location, at all times? What training and site-specific information is needed?

B1.7 Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter B2: Principles of Managing Conflict B2.1:

Introduction This chapter sets out the main steps to be followed by the designer in managing conflict. It emphasises the importance of improved readability having regard to the main transport requirements of cyclists, and shows how conflict between those requirements may also need to be managed.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter A4: Balancing Functions, Street Design and Usage Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter B7: Road Safety Audits

B2.2

Managing Conflict: Main Steps The introduction of cycle facilities to a mixed traffic environment can create various conflicts with adjacent or approaching traffic (primarily motorised vehicles) and with crossing traffic (especially pedestrians and other cyclists). The management of these conflicts is a primary task of the design process. The aim is to create the low-speed, safe environment that cyclists require while maintaining the efficiency of the overall network for all transport modes. There are four main steps in conflict management. These are set out in Table B2.1, and followed by a discussion of the matters which should be considered by the designer for each step:

1. Identify the conflict 2. Assess the conflict 3. Assess the conflict â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 4 options a. Avoidance b. Reduction c. Retention d. Management 4. Monitor the outcome Table B2.1: Main steps in Conflict Management. B2.1

Chapter B2: Principles of Managing Conflict (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY IDENTIFYING THE CONFLICT Matters to be considered by the designer when identifying the conflict (Step 1) include: •

What is “usage” (as opposed to Function and Design) – especially regarding inappropriate speed, position / direction?

•

Standard Conflicts (manual etc.)

•

Standard hazards (clearances, ironmongery etc.)

Other sources of conflict information should be examined also, including: •

Accident database

•

CRISP “Cycleability Audit” (Cycle Route Implementation and Stakeholder Plan)

•

Traffic information (e.g. Control Centre operators, gardai, traffic wardens, etc.)

ASSESSING THE CONFLICT Matters to be considered by the designer when assessing the conflict (Step 2) include: •

Risk Assessment (Risk = Likelihood * Severity)

•

Are previous accidents repeatable?

•

What users are most likely to be in this conflict i.e. most vulnerable? (children, elderly, school groups, parents with small children etc.)

•

What is worst outcome?

ADDRESSING THE CONFLICT Designers have four options available to them in dealing with the matters to be considered when addressing the conflict (Step 3). These are: •

Avoidance, i.e. design it out, preclude the conflict possibility, e.g. o o o

•

Reduction, i.e. reduce the potential severity of the outcome, e.g. o o

• B2.2

Divert the conflicting modes Curtail a particular usage Remove the hazard

Reduce the speed differential Address contributing factors (drainage, surface quality, maintenance, lighting, etc.)

Retention, i.e. accept the risk as being reasonable

Chapter B2: Principles of Managing Conflict (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY o o o •

Investigate previous accident history Satisfy that no design improvement is required (i.e. no design flaw contributes to the accident) Assure that the likelihood of repetition is remote

Management, i.e. address the behaviour of users, raise conflict awareness, transfer the onus o o o o o

Training of school children and other vulnerable road users Signage and guidance at locus On-site instruction to users Training of other road users, e.g. bus drivers Publicity campaigns

MONITORING THE OUTCOME Having addressed the conflict, the matters to be considered by the designer when monitoring the outcome (Step 4) include: • •

Review accidents that may subsequently arise and identify if causes relate to conflicts already identified in Step 1 above. Review available accident data, including o LGCSB Accident database (1996-2005) o Site-specific information o Conflict trends and details o Hospital A & E data

Some or all of the above actions will form part of the formal Road Safety Audit process which should be an integral part of the design and implementation of any cycle project. (Please refer to Chapter B7 for further discussion of Road Safety Audits.)

B2.3

Managing Conflict through Improved Readability As noted elsewhere, potential conflicts within the network, especially insofar as they affect more vulnerable users, can be addressed a the planning and design stages through building in measures to reduce speeds and separate traffic with high speed differences. By paying detailed attention to signing, lining, colouring and road marking elements, the designer can also help to define the road layout clearly and make roads or streets and intersections more readable or legible (predictable) to the user. The potential for managing conflict through improved readability is not limited to the design stage, however, but is one which will benefit from continuous monitoring of how the system performs in practice. The degree to which it can be achieved will have a significant impact on meeting the main transport needs of cyclists, which are also discussed in Chapter B3 in the context of assessing Quality of Service, and are listed as follows:

B2.3

Chapter B2: Principles of Managing Conflict (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Road Safety Coherence Directness Attractiveness, and Comfort (a) Road Safety – From the cyclist’s perspective, the perception of safety can be as critical as the actual safety level. By the same token, a perceived lack of safety can be as significant a deterrent as any real risk in influencing a cyclist’s behaviour. It is essential, therefore, that the designer takes this sense of “subjective safety” into account in providing cycling infrastructure. In other words, the design should include not only measures which are proven to be safe, but also those which the cyclist believes or feels to be safe, unless there is good reason for excluding them.

Measures such as segregated cycle tracks, designated car-free or low-speed traffic zones increase the perception of safety and make the cycling environment more readable (predictable) from the cyclist’s perspective

(b) Coherence – Coherence requires an integrated network of routes and related facilities consistent in quality and recognizable in layout. To manage conflict properly, routes should be continuous, and fully constructed over their entire length with minimal changes in layout or width.

Gaps or interruptions in the cycle lane/track, e.g. at pinch points or intersections, should be avoided, and signposting and markings should be clear and consistent so as to facilitate ease of movement throughout the network

(c) Directness – As well as having continuity and consistency of facilities along the cycle route, it is important that the route itself be as direct as possible in order to minimise travel time. Detours, delays and waiting time at junctions can create barriers to the competitiveness of cycling as a viable transport mode, and can discourage potential and less-practised users.

B2.4

Chapter B2: Principles of Managing Conflict (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Delays can be reduced and directness improved by providing new cycle routes based on a planned network, with short cuts linking through cul-desacs, bicycle-only pathways or bicycle bridges, straight tracks and lanes where possible, and sequencing of signals to minimise waiting time at junctions and toucan crossings.

(d) Attractiveness – All cyclists appreciate an attractive cycling environment. For the beginner or casual recreational cyclist, however, the nature of the cycling environment can be crucial in overcoming initial prejudice or concerns about safety and security issues. It is important, therefore, that in planning the overall cycle network, provision should be made for the location of a number of routes through green areas and other off-road locations, or along roads having little or no motorised traffic.

The design of recreational and other cycle facilities should always include measures to enhance the security and sense of well-being of less-practiced cyclists, including protection from motorised traffic, effective cycle width and public lighting (especially in parks and open spaces).

(e) Comfort – Comfort is an important criterion when it comes to modal choice. Everything that requires extra effort is detrimental to a cyclist’s comfort, and is therefore a potential conflict which the designer should address where possible. Since cycling is a non-motorised mode of transport, slowing down and then accelerating again costs energy, and a comfortable cycle route is a route where the need for this is minimised.

Measures towards achieving cycling comfort include effective cycle track widths; level, well-drained surfaces with good quality finishes; reasonable shelter in bad weather; and minimised need for stoppages or necessity to dismount.

B2.4

Managing Conflict between Requirements As can be seen from the above examples, measures designed to meet individual requirements will overlap with each other frequently, but they can generate conflicts also, and these must be managed so as to have regard for

B2.5

Chapter B2: Principles of Managing Conflict (Draft National Cycle Manual – July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY the primary function of the particular cycle route, and the needs of the broadest number of cyclists most likely to be using it. On-road, commuter orientated cycle routes, for example, will have primary regard for directness and safety in managing conflicts with motorised traffic, with attractiveness and comfort of lesser importance. Recreational cycle routes, on the other hand, will have primary regard for attractiveness and comfort, with less emphasis on directness, and with safety measures more directed towards security issues. It is suggested, however, that coherence should always be a feature of a cycle route, regardless of its primary purpose.

B2.6

Chapter B2: Principles of Managing Conflict (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July

2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter B3: Assessment of Quality of Service B3.1

General This chapter introduces the concept of Quality of Service (QOS) having regard to the main transport needs of cyclists, and proposes a Quality of Service ranking based on a set of defined critical factors.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter B7: Road Safety Audits Chapter D2: Developing a Maintenance Programme

B3.2

Transport Needs and Quality of Service In assessing the quality of service that is available or can be made available for any cycle facility, the designer should have regard to the main transport needs of cyclists and the degree to which these are met by the facility. These transport needs are embodied in five main requirements/attributes: •

Road safety: The cycling infrastructure should guarantee the road safety of cyclists and other road users.

•

Coherence: The cycling infrastructure should form a coherent and continuous unit, linking all origin and destination points for cyclists.

•

Directness: The cycling infrastructure should offer as direct a route as possible, keeping any detours to a minimum. Likewise delays at intersections must be kept to a minimum.

•

Attractiveness: The cycling infrastructure should be designed and built in a way that makes cycling attractive.

•

Comfort: The cycling infrastructure should enable a quick and comfortable flow of bicycle traffic.

The criteria for each of the above requirements, together with related indicators, are set out in the following Table B3.1. While the importance of these criteria in relation to each other may vary from route to route, all five requirements must be met in order to achieve a good quality cycle facility.

B3.1 B3 Assessment of Quality of Service (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Requirement

Criteria

Indicators

Safety

traffic accidents

number of accidents

confrontation with motorised traffic

number of possible conflicts with other traffic modes

complaint pattern on subjective safety

number of complaints per location

easy to find

continuity & clarity of street signs & local plans

Coherence

consistency of quality freedom of route choice continuity

number of changes in quality per km number of alternative routes number of missing links

Directness

actual cycling speed

design speed

delay

average waiting time lost per km (e.g. at junctions)

detour distance

length of detour (km) Attractivene ss

theme/nature of complaints

number of complaints

visibility

type & strength of lighting/type of vegetation

social safety

number of complaints or victims recorded Comfort

Smoothness

texture & condition of road surface

gradient

number of hills categorised in % grade

traffic obstructions

number of obstructions due to parking, loading, etc.

number of stops impediments due to weather

number of times it is necessary to stop

is route exposed/sheltered; wind impediment (especially along coastal routes) Table B3.1: Criteria and Indicators for meeting cycling transport needs

B.3.3

Quality of Service Characteristics Quality of Service is the degree to which the main cycling requirements/attributes are met, and is not simply a measure of the quality of the cycling infrastructure. Neither is it based on cycling flows, but covers a range of issues and situations which together contribute to the overall quality of the cycling experience on a given route. The following Table B3.2 proposes a Quality of Service ranking from Level A (the highest) to Level E (the lowest) based on assessment of typical traffic B3.2 B3 Assessment of Quality of Service (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY characteristics and likely road/path type. While the quality of service will vary depending on the traffic characteristics and the road/path type for a given route, the designer should always aim for the highest level of service that can be attained as far as is reasonably practicable.

Quality of Service

Typical Traffic Characteristics

Likely Road/Cycle Route type

Little or no motor traffic; low speeds; good passing width; no significant conflicts; good, welldrained riding surfaces; well lit; good social safety

High-quality cycle way; well-surfaced access road; 30-50 km/h speed limit; traffic calming of motorised vehicles if cyclists on-road

Light/moderate traffic flows; good/adequate passing width; low conflicts; good, well-drained riding surface

Access or collector road; high- quality segregated cycle track; well-surfaced, well-drained but unlit cycle way

Moderate traffic flows; 85 percentile speeds c.50km/h; adequate passing width; some conflicts (not major)

Collector or urban distributor road; offroad cycle-track; poor quality cycle way

Busy traffic; some HGVs, buses; speeds c.50-60 km/h

Urban distributor road; roundabouts; onroad cycle lane

Heavy traffic flows; HGVs; speeds >60 km/h

Primary distributor road; speed limit 60 km/h or higher; large roundabouts

Table B3.2: Quality of Service ranking

B3.4

Quality of Service Ranking: Critical Factors For individual cycle routes, the general ranking characteristics set out in Table B3.2 are more accurately assessed by assignment of a range of values against a number of critical factors. The recommended list of factors, together with an appropriate range of values in each case, is identified in Table B3.3 below.

Quality of Servic e

Pavement condition (pci range)

number of adjacent cyclists

number of conflicts /100m

Junction delay (% of total travel time)

HGV influence (% of total traffic vol.)

B3.3 B3 Assessment of Quality of Service (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY A

86 - 100

2+1

66 - 85

1+1

0 – 10%

51 - 65

1+1

1–3

11 – 25%

1 – 5%

41 - 50

1+0

4 – 10

26 – 50%

6 – 10%

20 - 40

1+0

>10

>50%

>10%

Table B3.3: Critical factors for assessing Quality of Service

Definitions: 1. Pavement Condition: Pavement Condition Index (PCI) determined by comprehensive visual inspection/measurement of nature, severity and quantity of distress types (distress-free pavement has PCI of 100, while PCI of <20 denotes pavement failure) 2. Number of adjacent cyclists: “+1” means that overtaking cyclists have been catered for. (See also Chapter B4: “Providing Effective Cycling Space”, Table B4.1: Width Calculator.) 3. Number of conflicts: Bus stops, side roads, driveways & entrances, junctions, pedestrian crossings, car parking, turning locations, etc. 4. Journey-time delay: Actual delays along entire route measured against an assumed average journey speed of 15 km/h. 5. HGV Influence: Number of HGVs adjacent to cyclist as a % of total traffic during peak hours (excluding buses and emergency vehicles).

Having assessed the a Quality of Service ranking for each of the five critical factors, the individual ranking scores are then combined to determine the appropriate overall Quality of Service (QOS(O)) ranking for the route, as shown in Table B3.4.

QOS(O)

Service Ranking Requirement

A(O)

QOS(A) values met for any four criteria; min. QOS(B) for remaining criterion

B(O)

QOS(B) or better for any four criteria; min. QOS(C) for remaining criterion

B3.4 B3 Assessment of Quality of Service (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY C(O)

QOS(C) or better for any four criteria; min. QOS(D) for remaining criterion

D(O)

QOS(D) or better for any four criteria; min. QOS(E) for remaining criterion

E(O)

QOS(E) for any four criteria

Table B3.4: Overall Quality of Service ranking

When designing to attract cyclists of all levels of experience, Quality of Service A should be the aspiration. However, it is fair to assume this will not be achievable in all situations and, in general, the aspiration should be for Quality of Service B, with Quality of Service A representing the ideal, or “gold”, standard.

B3.5 B3 Assessment of Quality of Service (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter B4: Providing Effective Cycling Space B4.1

Effective Cycling Space

The provision of effective cycling space is discussed in this chapter by reference to: • Design Objective • Standard Clearances • Effective Width & Actual Width • Width Calculation Matrix • Worked Examples & Additional Info This Chapter should be read in conjunction with Chapter A2: Traffic Planning and Bicycle Network Planning Chapter B3:

Quality of Service (QOS)

Chapter B9: Guidance on Segregation /Protection

B4.2

Design Objective – Providing Space for Momentum

Cyclists will slow down, accelerate, weave etc. rather than stop. Momentum is paramount to cyclists.

Failure to allow for appropriate preservation of momentum is likely to result in facilities that will be under utilised by cyclists or may lead to uncertain and unsafe conditions for all road users.

The designer should attempt to provide sufficient space for the cyclist to maintain as much momentum as possible. This can be done either through; a) the dedication of road space (e.g. cycle lanes, cycle tracks etc.) or b) ensuring that the traffic environment allows for that space (mixed traffic). Where dedicated space is required for cyclists (cycle lanes, tracks and cycle ways), the designer ought to be aware of i. how much space a cycle vehicle takes up and

B4.1 Chapter B4: Providing Effective Cycling Space (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY ii.

the intended Level of service for cyclists on the route (Refer to Chapter B3 - Quality of Service).

The objective of the designer should be to provide, within legislation, continuous, safe, adequate, with-flow provision, in order to maintain as much momentum as possible

Photograph B4.3.1 – Off Road Cycle Provision – Cyclists choose not to use the facility due to breaks in continuity and possible loss of momentum.

Figure B4.1 below discusses the space requirements of an individual adult cyclist riding a conventional bicycle. The majority of adult cyclists will be covered by these design dimensions.

B4.2 Chapter B4: Providing Effective Cycling Space (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Fig. B4.1 (new drawing required?)

The figure indicates that a width of 0.75m is taken up by an individual adult cyclist on a conventional bicycle. However, there are additional momentum movements and space requirements that must be considered by the designer in order to make appropriate provision. Allowances must also be made for clearances to static infrastructure along the route and other moving transport users. Allowing for all of the above it is possible to derive the required minimum standard cycle lane width. All measurements are taken from the inside kerb/edge to the centreline of the outside line marking the cycle provision on the carriageway.

B4.3:

Clearances

The bicycle clearance requirements are reasonably straightforward and are added to the space requirements of an individual adult cyclist riding a conventional bicycle in the design process. Kerb / edge clearance: On of the most commonly encountered features to be dealt with by cyclists are kerb clearances. Pedal Clearance to the ground is, on average, 75mm to 100mm. If the pedal hits a kerb, the cyclist is in obvious danger of falling. Cyclists will generally allow themselves at least 0.5m clearance from high kerbs or drops, but will cycle closer to grass verges and consistently low edges (<50mm). Clearance to moving traffic: Assuming that cyclists are cycling in a suitable traffic environment, a clear distance of 0.5m should be designed between cyclists and vehicles, to allow for meandering and safe passing by both modes. Clearance to adjacent cyclists: In general circumstances, designs should include for overtaking, parents accompanying children etc (see Chapter B3, Quality of Service). This requires inclusion of 0.5m (minimum) over what might be provided for single file cycling. (There will be many cases where this level of service cannot be achieved, and a lesser width is proposed.) B4.3 Chapter B4: Providing Effective Cycling Space (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Height clearance: A clearance of 0.5m is comfortable, and allows for exceptions to the normal 2m height of (tall cyclists, cycle mounted visibility flags etc.). So the height of overhead signs, branches, cantilevers etc. should be 2.5m from the bicycle wheel running surface. Handlebar Height Clearance: Handlebars are often the widest part of the bike and usually situated between 0.8 and 1.0 metres from ground level. Adult cyclists can negotiate bollards and other segregation that are 0.5m or less in height. However, taller or irregular obstacles are more difficult to judge, and cyclists will judge these as they would any other full-height obstacle.

Photograph B4.3.2 – Edge Clearance Note the edge clearance clearly delineated from the edge of kerb.

Photograph B4.3.3 – Maintenance of facilities is important, to ensure clearances are preserved.

B4.4 Chapter B4: Providing Effective Cycling Space (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photograph B4.3.4 – Edge Clearance (Cyclists like at least 0.5m clearance to edges.)

Photograph B4.3.5 – Height & Handlebar Clearance Ensure design does not present hazards for bicycle handlebars and allows for vertical clearance of >2.5m

Larger, slower bicycles: As cycling develops so too do the user types and user requirements. The range of bicycle accessories in use today has expanded to include children trailers, panniers, front trolleys etc. Designers should be aware that these bicycle and bicycle accessories require additional widths. Additional 0.25m will cater for this requirement. If including this additional width in the design the designer must be familiar with the user type (existing/proposed) and the surrounding land use that may inform the process.

B4.4

Effective Width and Actual Width

Around this 2m x 2m x 0.75m “bicycle vehicle” there is a requirement for clear space, in order to enable the bicycle to maintain balance, avoid obstacles and make traffic manoeuvres. So the effective width for cycling is not necessarily the total space on the road that is marked or assigned to cycling. The effective width is the space that is “usable” by cyclists, taking into account the need for cyclists to stay clear of obstacles, barriers, other road users etc... Effective Width + Clearances = Actual Width Effective Width: B4.5 Chapter B4: Providing Effective Cycling Space (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Cyclists never travel in a straight line – there is always an element of wobble or wandering from side to side, to keep balance. From bike speeds of about 11 K/hr and higher, cyclists will wander or wobble by up to 0. 25m. (This wandering is at a minimum when the cycling speed is near to 20 km/h.

Extra width at slow sections (hills and traffic lights): At speeds less than 11 Km/h, or where significant cycle effort is required, bicycles will wander by far more than 0.25m, e.g. approaching traffic lights, climbing hills. The minimum effective width for comfortable safe single file cycling is 1 metre. This is composed of 0.75m (width at elbows) and 0.25 (meandering or wobbling width). Anything less than this minimum compromises cyclists and other road users. In width-constrained retro-fits, and depending on the location, it may be possible to include the provision of 0.25m for cycle wobble within the allowances of either B or D – however, this represents a QOS reduction.

Photograph B4.3.6 – Additional Provision A bicycle towing a children carrier

Photograph B4.3.7 – Additional Provision: Heavier bicycles require more generous provision and consideration should be given to local land-use in the design process.

B4.6 Chapter B4: Providing Effective Cycling Space (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Actual Width Effective Width

Photograph B4.4.1 – Actual Width and Effective Width (The effective width for cycling in this photo is about 0.5metres less than the actual width)

Effect of Narrow Facilities: Anything less than the minimum effective width results in compromising cycling – in this photo the actual width available for cycling is about 1 metre. The cyclist must proceed slowly on this section (to avoid mirrors, opening doors, crossing pedestrians –however, this slow cycling speed requires more space (for wobble etc.), not less. A 1.0m wide cycle provision will allow cyclists to bypass queuing traffic, all be it at a reduced level of service.

Photograph B4.4.2– Actual Width and Effective Width The effective width for cycling in this photo is about 0.5metres less than the actual width. B4.7 Chapter B4: Providing Effective Cycling Space (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY B4.5

Width Calculation Matrix

In order to simplify the calculation of what general width is required, the following matrix has been developed. The matrix takes account of 1. the minimum essential width to enable cycling to occur 2. the type of inside boundary (and the ability of the cyclist to cycle closer to a low edge) 3. the level of service (i.e. whether overtaking, cycling two abreast is provided for or not) and 4. the type of boundary and traffic types outside the cyclist. Decisions on the type of cycle facility that is required (i.e. segregated / protected or on-road, one-way or two way etc.) are covered in Chapter B9. The (minimum) width required for a particular cycle facility can be determined using the formula below as follows:

Minimum Width required =A+B+C+D+E+F Where A = essential minimum width (space for cyclist) B = allowance for wobble (balance) C = highest value for inside clearance D = allowance for overtaking, two way etc E = highest value for traffic-side

clearance

F = allowance for alignment

The width calculation matrix provides guidance on the ideal width for certain crossâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;sections. However, by providing width below this ideal, the level of service to cyclists falls. The recommended values for the variables A to F are shown in Table B4.1 below (Width Calculator).

add add add add add highest highest highest highest highest relevant relevant relevant relevant relevant value value value value value Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Adjustments Effective Allowance Inside Allowance Outer Width (m) for Wobble Boundary for Extra Boundary B4.8 Chapter B4: Providing Effective Cycling Space (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY (m)

Clearance Cyclist (m) Clearance (m) (m)

0.75 Cycle Wobble Low Edge / Grass / Edge to Pedestrians High Kerb Drainage Channel / road edge crossfall exceeding 1:20 Single File (one cyclist) Overtaking / Additional cyclist Low Edge / Grass / Edge to Pedestrians At grade Bus Lane* (excluding road line) Traffic Lane (excluding road line) Drop to Road Level High Kerb Extra for bends Approaching Junctions Uphill Gradients Presence of Larger Bikes

0.25

0.000 0.250

0.250 0.000 0.500

0.250

0.500 0.500 0.500 see: see: see: See:

Table B4.1: Width Calculator

Notes: 1. Widths above represent the ideal (QOS-A). 2. Minimum provision is illustrated in bold type

It is recommended also that, where feasible, provision should be made for additional factors as shown in Table B4.2.

Clearance to boundary of track / lane B4.9 Chapter B4: Providing Effective Cycling Space (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY (m) Railing Wall Pole / Signpost / Tree foliage Loading Bays / Parallel Parking (buffer width)

0.35 0.50 0.50

0.75

Table B4.2: Other Standard Clearances

If circumstances are such that it is not possible to provide the suggested widths, then consideration may be given to: a. Amending the traffic regime b. Removing some other street functions c. Reducing the QOS for cyclists (see Chapter B3), or d. Departing from the guidance

INSERT PHOTOS TO ILLUSTRATE ABOVE (?)

B4.6

Worked Examples & Additional Information Example 1: Segregated Cycling, QOS A The appropriateness of segregated facilities for particular circumstances is discussed in Chapter B9. Since segregated facilities are more permanent than on-road facilities, the highest level of service should be provided where possible. Referring to Table B4.1, the minimum cycle track width (W) for a segregated cycling facility should be:

A B C D E F

0.75 0.25 (wobble) 0.25 (inside kerb/ channel) 0.5 (two abreast) 0.5 (outside kerb) 0.0

Minimum Width = A + B + C + D + E = 2.00 m (QOS-A) Wobble can be used to reduce the requirement for inclusion of clearances. B4.10 Chapter B4: Providing Effective Cycling Space (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photograph B4.6.1 – Segregated Cycling Facility The track pictured above is 2m wide, and represents a QOS-A facility: the inner kerb is low (<50mm),. As kerbs and gullies are flush and cycleable (i.e. B =0.00) there is no need to make additional provision for them in our calculation. There is plenty of width for two abreast, as well as room for evasion. The segregated facility is also attractive in terms of adjacent planting etc., and is wide enough for easy maintenance. Segregated facilities that are narrower than this are inherently of a lower QOS.

Photograph B4.6.2 – Segregated Cycling Facility

Example 2: On-Road Cycle Lane, QOS A The cycle lane pictured below is approximately 1.5m wide. In effect, this reduces the cycle lane to “single file” (i.e. C = 0.000m) with cyclists overtaking other cyclists forced to use the adjacent traffic lane.

B4.11 Chapter B4: Providing Effective Cycling Space (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photograph B4.6.3 – On road Cycling Facility (125mm Kerb) Single file provision with no allowance for overtaking cyclists

Referring to Table B4.1, the minimum cycle lane width (W) for on road (QoS A) should be:

A B C D E F

0.75 0.00 0.25 (kerb / channel) 0.5 (two abreast) 0.5 (traffic lane) 0.0

Ideal Width = A + B + C + D + E = 2.00 m (QOS-A) If peak cycle volumes are high, and the likelihood of cyclists overtaking each other is anticipated, then a low volume, low speed adjacent traffic lane is important to this design.

Additional effective width can be gained through the provision of cycleable drainage detailing etc.

B4.12 Chapter B4: Providing Effective Cycling Space (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Photograph B4.6.4 – On road Cycling Facility Cycle Lane - Cyclists will avoid gullies and poorly drained surface

B4.13 Chapter B4: Providing Effective Cycling Space (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter B6: Design Process B6.1

General This Chapter sets out the recommended process for designing cycle facilities, whether stand-alone or as part of a public road or cycle route network. It gives guidance on the nine individual steps that make up the process.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: A4: Street Design and Cycling A5: Bicycle Network Planning B3: Assessment of Quality of Service B7: Road Safety Audits D4: Maintenance-orientated Design

B6.2

Design Process The process described in this chapter should be applied, ideally, in the design of all cycle facilities, but especially those that are provided on or adjacent to the public road network, including:  Cycle facilities retrofitted to an existing road or street  New cycle facilities, including physically segregated lanes and off-road cycle tracks  New cycle facilities forming part of a new road project It is essential that designers of cycle facilities should be familiar with the needs and requirements of cyclists, and of the ways in which these differ from those of motorists (see Chapter B3: “Assessment of Quality of Service”). The recommended design process is made up of nine stages, all of which should be undertaken in full and at the appropriate time – ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

B6.1

Network Planning Concept/Feasibility Study Preliminary Design Statutory and Legal Compliance Detailed Design Procurement Construction

Chapter B6:Design and Flow Charts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY ♦ Commissioning and Opening ♦ Maintenance and Monitoring If properly implemented, the design process will ensure that an auditable quality assurance trail is permanently available, outlining the design decisions made, the consultation feedback received, the statutory procedures followed, and the road safety assessments undertaken throughout the life of the project. A summary of the design process, and the main steps to be followed for each of the recommended stages, is shown in Figure B6.1, below. The nine stages are discussed in greater detail in succeeding paragraphs.

B6.2

Chapter B6:Design and Flow Charts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Figure B6.1: Cycle Design Flow Chart

[NB: Figure B6.1 should be reviewed to ensure compliance with Irish conditions, and amended as required. It may need to be included as A3 fold-out in finished document (Desk-top publishing/layout issue)] B6.3

Design Process Stages Stage 1 – Network Planning: Network Planning (see Chapter A5) is the first critical stage in the design of any new cycle facilities, and should be used – • • •

to help establish cycling needs and requirements, and highlight deficiencies in existing facilities to enable cycle desire lines, existing and potential demand, road safety benefits, barriers and costs to be identified to determine scheme and funding priorities in the implementation of the cycling strategy for the area.

Photo B6.3.1: Establishing needs and requirements

Stage 2 – Concept/ Feasibility Study: When the required scheme has been identified, a feasibility study should be undertaken. This should include examination of alternative routes, as well as determining their Function, Shape and Use, and how each alternative meets the needs of cyclists (see also Chapter A4: “Street Design and Cycling”).

B6.3

Chapter B6:Design and Flow Charts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure B6.2: Interaction between Function, Shape and Use

As part of the Stage 2 process for publicly-funded projects, the scheme should be assessed in accordance with the Department of Finance “Guidelines for the Appraisal and Management of Capital Expenditure Proposals in the Public Sector” (see www.finance.gov.ie). In addition, each of the alternative route options should be assessed against the following criteria, and the alternative(s) providing the most benefits in terms of potential usage, safety and costs, should be considered for more detailed development –

B6.4

•

Predicted cycling demand – use existing traffic counts, and existing/future land uses

•

Traffic volumes and speeds – congestion and/or high speeds can have a negative impact on cyclists’ safety and comfort, and may result in reduced demand

•

Cycle collision statistics – if existing layout contributed to collision(s), remedial measures should be included in scheme design to avoid or minimise recurrence

•

Available width (where cycle facility is being retrofitted) – examine feasibility of kerb realignment, removal of obstructions (e.g. lighting columns, street furniture) and, where appropriate, land acquisition

•

Barriers to cycling – road hierarchy, roundabouts and junctions, oneway streets, permeability, etc.

•

Perceived personal safety – if route is on quiet streets, off-road (parks), or not overlooked, cyclists may feel it is unsafe, particularly after dark

Chapter B6:Design and Flow Charts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo B6.3.2: Perceived lack of personal safety

Local cycle groups and other regular users should be consulted at this stage of the design process to ascertain their views on the route, especially its difficulties. Cyclists with different levels of experience will have different perceptions, however, and it is recommended that designers should cycle each route option to see the potential difficulties for themselves. Stage 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Preliminary Design: As part of the preliminary design process, the designer should consider the need for a topographical survey along the selected route, especially in urban areas where the pace of development can mean that Ordnance Survey mapping is out of date. Utility information should be obtained from all utility providers, especially where the existing kerb line needs to be altered. As relocation of utilities can have significant cost implications, site investigations may beed to be undertaken to identify the location and extent of all utilities. The preliminary design should include an indication of the type of cycle facility to be provided, e.g. on-road or segregated, one-way or two-way, and how it will be integrated with other network links, and with other transport modes (see Figure B6.3, below).

Figure B6.3: Examples of preliminary design sketchess for cycle facilities B6.5

Chapter B6:Design and Flow Charts (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The preliminary design drawings should be the subject of a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit, carried out in accordance with National Roads Authority NRA HD 19: Road Safety Audits, following which the design should be modified if appropriate (see also Chapter B7: “Road Safety Audits”) . Stage 4 – Statutory and Legal Compliance: The statutory and legal process employed will depend on the value of the project, local authority procedures and the regulatory instruments curently in force. Generally, cycle facility schemes implemented by a Local Authority are subject to public consultation procedures, in accordance with • •

Part 8 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001-2007 (for higher-cost schemes), or Section 38 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994 (for lower-cost schemes)

Groups or organisations which must be consulted as part of the process are specified in the relevant legislation. Wider consultation is generally advisable to secure maximum acceptance of the scheme, and to ensure local issues are addressed insofar as this can be done without prejudicing the fundamental requirements of the scheme. Any or all of the following may be included in the wider consultation process: • • • •

Local residents and business groups Local cycle groups Groups representing the needs of the disabled Relevant institutions and organisations

Stage 5 – Detailed Design: The level of detail included in the detailed design drawings and documents will be dependent on the procurement procedure being employed (see Stage 7, below). As a general rule, detailed design drawings include, but are not limited to, the following: •

General layout drawings (to a scale of 1:250 or less)

•

Setting out information (vertical and horizontal)

•

Signing and lining drawings in accordance with the Traffic Signs Manual (TSM)

•

Drainage drawings

•

Traffic signal design

•

Details of existing services/ utilities and required diversions

•

Typical design details

A Stage 2 Road Safety Audit should be carried out on the completed detailed design, and the design should be modified, if this is appropriate. B6.6

Chapter B6:Design and Flow Charts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Stage 6 – Procurement: Designers should familiarise themselves with procurement procedures for the tendering of public works contracts. These include projects for the design and construction of cycle facilities. •

The procurement of contractors must be fully compliant with relevant Department of Finance Regulations and European Union Directives.

•

When tendering the construction project, the designer should be aware of current contract value thresholds. Full information on procurement procedures, including documentation for use in preparing public tenders, can be found at www.constructionprocurement.gov.ie.

Stage 7 – Construction: The construction of the scheme should be carried out in accordance with the detailed design drawings, in the first instance. •

Modifications to the design should be carried out, if required to deal with changed or unforeseen site conditions, traffic management, and other issues that can arise, especially on urban street schemes.

•

Design modifications, if required, should not reduce the effectiveness of the finished scheme for cyclists. This is particularly important in cases where the cycle facility forms only part of a larger road scheme.

•

On completion of the scheme, but before it is open to the public, a Stage 3 Road Safety Audit must be carried out, and any related modifications made, if deemed necessary or appropriate. In addition, the designer should cycle and walk the scheme to ensure that all aspects of it have been completed satisfactorily.

Photo B6.3.3: Prior to opening of scheme

Statutory Orders should be prepared for the scheme and implemented immediately before the scheme becomes operational, as failure to do may lead to enforcement difficulties at a later stage. B6.7

Chapter B6:Design and Flow Charts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY As a matter of courtesy, it is good practice to inform local residents and residents’ groups of the scope of works being undertaken, the purpose of the scheme, and relevant contact details for project personnel, prior to commencement of construction. Stage 8 – Commissioning and Opening: On completion of the scheme, publicity/marketing material should be issued to the catchment area of the route in order to promote its use. This could include information on journey times to key locations served by the route, and comparisons with other modes of transport for the same journey. It is essential that as-built drawings be prepared for the scheme as soon as possible following completion, if future maintenance and other difficulties are to be avoided.

Photo B6.3.4: The completed scheme

Stage 9 – Maintenance and Monitoring: It is recommended that each Local Authority should have a maintenance programme in place for the cycle tracks in their administrative area (see details in Chapter D3, “Developing a Maintenance Programme”). Following its opening, the scheme should be monitored regularly to ensure it is delivering on targets. Ongoing monitoring will ensure that the Cycle Strategy is not static and alters with changes in demand. The monitoring programme should include, but is not limited, to the following: • • B6.8

Information on the condition of the route – surface condition, lighting, drainage, etc. Level of usage - cycle flow statistics (before and after)

Chapter B6:Design and Flow Charts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY • •

Collision statistics for the route (before and after) User feedback on the effectiveness of the route

Where hazardous or safety issues are identified, modifications should be made to the scheme at the earliest opportunity.

NOTE: Specific examples of Flowcharts detailing the processes to be applied for planning, design and construction are included in Section E2 (Design Flowcharts)

B6.9

Chapter B6:Design and Flow Charts (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

B7: Road Safety Audits B7.1

General This chapter examines the role of the Road Safety Audit in the design and implementation of new and upgraded cycling facilities. It details the main audit requirements and processes, discusses the audit report, and highlights some of the more common conflicts identified in Road Safety Audits.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter A5: Bicycle Network Planning Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter B2: Principles of Managing Conflict Chapter D4: Maintenance Orientated Design

B7.2

Background Definition: “A Road Safety Audit is the evaluation of road schemes during the design and construction stages, to identify potential safety hazards which may affect any type of road user, and to suggest measures to eliminate or mitigate those problems before the scheme is opened to traffic.”

A Road Safety Audit is a formal procedure for assessing accident potential and safety performance in the provision of new roads, road improvements and maintenance schemes. While safety-engineering schemes aim to treat existing safety problems, road safety audits seek to reduce the accident potential and safety problems of new schemes. More importantly, the audit process highlights areas requiring attention so as to reduce accidents and provide a safer road environment for all users. Road Safety Audits are required by the National Roads Authority (NRA) for all National road schemes, prepared in accordance with the National Roads Authority Standard HD/19, “Road Safety Audits”, as contained in NRA Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. In recent years, their use has become widespread on a range of other schemes.

B7.1 Chapter B7- Road Safety Audits (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The role of the Road Safety Audit should not be under-estimated in the design and implementation of cycling facilities, and the Dublin Transportation Office, for example, has a requirement that RSAs be carried out on all new cycle schemes funded from its Traffic Management Grants programme in the Greater Dublin Area. B7.3

Accidents and Cycling Safety Strategy National road accident statistics are published annually by the Road Safety Authority [ref. “Annual Collision facts” (RSA, 2006)] based on reported collision data supplied to An Garda Síochána. Prior to 2006, publication was undertaken by the National Roads Authority [ref. “Road Accident Facts: Ireland 2000 (NRA, 2001)]. Tables B7.1 and Table B7.2, below, show national statistics for fatal and total accidents, categorised by road user type, for the years 1995-2006. 1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Pedestrians

113

115

130

114

Pedal Cyclists

Motor Cyclists

Car Users

193

218

219

253

236

260

230

200

172

208

222

226

Other

Totals

437

453

472

458

413

415

411

376

335

374

396

365

Table B7.1: Number of persons killed, by road user type, National Accident Statistics, 1995-2006

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

1,775

1,832

1,759

1,583

1,398

1,332

1,202

1,196

1,115

982

1,063

1,017

893

835

676

592

475

451

363

296

307

298

233

220

1,291

1,263

1,282

1,136

986

1,179

1,084

1,031

840

681

591

534

Car Users

8,064

8,629

8,565

8,751

8,933

8,395

7,033

6,225

5,521

5,395

6,628

6,024

Other

1,087

1,213

1,305

1,169

961

1,101

951

834

814

885

1,199

1,145

Totals

13,110

13,772

13,587

13,231

12,753

12,458

10,633

9,582

8,597

8,241

9,714

8,940

Pedestrians Pedal Cyclists Motor Cyclists

Table B7.2: All Casualties by Road User Type, National Accident Statistics, 1995-2006

B7.2 Chapter B7- Road Safety Audits (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The above figures show the number of fatal and non-fatal cycling accidents in 2006 as having reduced to less than 25% of their respective 1995 numbers. However, for a more accurate perspective, this should be considered in the context of the specific targets contained in Section 5 of the Road Safety Authority’s Road Safety Strategy 2007-2012 – • •

To reduce fatalities (*1) to no greater than 60 fatalities per million by the end of 2012 and 50 or fewer in the following years with demonstrable downward reductions in each year of this Strategy, and To complete the database for serious injuries by 4th Quarter 2008 and reduce injuries by 25% (*1).

(*1: total for all modes) It has been estimated that Road Safety Audits can save around one casualty per year per scheme when compared with schemes that have not been audited (ref. “Guidelines for the Safety Audit of Highways”, The Institution of Highways and Transportation, UK). The benefits of auditing individual schemes become self-evident, therefore, particularly when considered in the light of national and local cycling safety strategies. Principle: Road Safety Audits should be conducted for all new cycling schemes at preliminary design, detailed design and construction stages, and should be conducted on a phased basis for all existing schemes as part of a planned maintenance programme.

B7.4

Traffic Management Guidelines The role of the Road Safety Audit is considered in Chapter 2, Section 2.3, of the Traffic Management Guidelines, which lists the aims of the audit as: •

to ensure all schemes operate as safely as practicable

•

to minimise accident numbers and severity

•

to consider the safety of all road users, and

•

to improve the awareness of safe design practices by design, construction and maintenance staff

The Guidelines identify a range of schemes which should be audited, including a number which are of particular relevance to the design, construction, operation and maintenance of cycling facilities, e.g., Cycle Tracks and Quality Bus Corridors, major junction improvement works, major maintenance schemes, and any scheme which materially affects vulnerable road users.

B7.3 Chapter B7- Road Safety Audits (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The Traffic Management Guidelines give various recommendations in relation to when and how schemes should be audited, who should carry out the audit, and what form the audit report should take. It also stresses the value of monitoring the schemes after completion to determine the effects of any audit recommendations and resulting changes to the design. These issues are addressed in the following sections, insofar as they apply to, or impact on, cycling facilities. B7.5

Road Safety Audit Requirements NB. Paragraph to be inserted on status of Safety Audit process vis-a-vis requirements under Construction Regulations; also changes in light of revised NRA guidelines, if any, with amendments as may be required to Road Safety Audits are generally carried out at three stages during the design/construction of a scheme, i.e. on completion of the preliminary design (Stage 1), detailed design (Stage 2) and scheme construction (Stage 3). For larger schemes, it can be beneficial, also, to carry out an initial audit at the feasibility stage. The following Table B7.3 describes each stage, and lists the typical information which should be audited at each stage: Stage

Description

F (*1)

Route selection stage, prior to route choice

Completion of preliminary design, prior to land acquisition procedures

Completion of detailed design, prior to tender of construction contract. (*2)

Typical Information Audited •

Consistency of standards (at tie-ins),

•

Overtaking opportunities,

•

Impact of design flows on standard of route

•

Impact of speed on safety, consistency, access control

•

Horizontal & vertical alignments, sightlines,

•

readability of junctions, accesses, road layout,

•

control of speed,

•

concept of road markings,

•

facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians,

•

drainage provision,

•

impact of landscaping on visibility

•

Road users’ perception of road layout,

•

locations of signs and markings to aid, inform & warn of hazards,

•

consistency of signing and marking

B7.4 Chapter B7- Road Safety Audits (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY information,

Completion of construction, prior to opening of the scheme to traffic wherever possible (*3)

•

consistency of lighting within the scheme and with the adjacent network,

•

positioning of signals and operation,

•

facilities for vulnerable road users,

•

impact of landscaping, protective aids (safety fences),

•

road surface characteristics

•

Needs of pedestrians, cyclist, equestrians, public transport operators, Heavy Goods Vehicles and car drivers (*4)

Table B7.3: Road Safety Audit Stages

Notes: *1 Feasibility Stage, generally only carried out on large schemes *2: In the case of Design and Build contracts, a Stage 2 Road Safety Audit should be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the contract *3: In situations where it is not feasible to undertake the Stage 3 Audit prior to opening of the scheme, e.g. where cycle facilities are being retro-fitted, it should be carried out at the earliest opportunity thereafter. *4 Full checklist contained in the National Roads Authority Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 5, Section 2. B7.6 Road Safety Audit Procedure [NB: Section B7.6 may need to be amended following publication of new NRA Standard document] The Audit Team: The most important aspect of any Road Safety Audit is that it must be undertaken as an independent exercise. The audit team cannot have an input into the design beyond making its recommendations on the design as presented, and neither should the designer seek to influence the audit team in any way. The Road Safety Audit must always be carried out by a competent auditor/audit team, independent of the designer. Ideally, the audit and design teams should not be selected from the same organisation or firm of consultants. If, due to lack of a suitable alternative, the same organisation supplies both teams, the teams must be from different branches of the organisation, who would not otherwise share inputs to each others’ project,

B7.5 Chapter B7- Road Safety Audits (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY and must be capable of demonstrating this clearly to the satisfaction of the client or commissioning authority. The Audit Process: As different requirements pertain for each Road Safety Audit stage (ref. Table B7.3, above), it is important that the designer or commissioning authority to identify clearly to the Audit Team which stage audit is required at the outset of the process, i.e. Stage 1, Stage 2 or Stage 3, so that the auditor/audit team can assess the scheme from the correct perspective, and with the proper level of information. It is essential that any drawings submitted by the designer for audit must be of a standard suitable for the audit stage being undertaken, as these drawings will form the basis of the audit and any recommendations by the audit team. Discussions can take place between the audit team and the design team to clarify issues, if necessary, but the teams will not otherwise seek to influence each other. It can be beneficial, in the case of larger schemes, to carry out an initial audit at feasibility stage. For minor schemes, the Stage 1 and Stage 2 audits may be combined into a single process, but generally it is preferable to complete the three stages unless there are persuasive reasons for not doing so. Principle: The Road Safety Audit Team must operate independently of the Design Team at all times, and must be able to demonstrate its independence if asked to do so. Its function is to assess and make recommendations, only, and it cannot otherwise influence the design process. The Audit Report: The Road Safety Audit is an objective assessment of potential safety problems, which is carried out on a scheme at a particular stage of its development, design or construction. It is undertaken from a road user point of view, as its primary concern is how cyclists and other people will use the scheme in practice. The audit is also an Accessibility Audit for the mobility impaired and vulnerable road user. The audit team should have access to the following information prior to undertaking its assessment: All relevant drawings for the audit stage, including site location Any previous Audits carried out on the project Accident data for the location and surrounding road network (previous 5 years)

B7.6 Chapter B7- Road Safety Audits (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY It is recommended that audits on all cycle schemes be carried out by a twoperson audit team, as this reduces the likelihood of potential safety problems being overlooked, and the second opinion can also help to ensure objectivity. In some cases, additional or specialist input may be required. Garda input should also form part of the Stage 3 audit. The Audit Report format is essentially a list of problems, for each of which it – •

confirms the location,

•

gives an explanation of the perceived safety issue,

•

identifies the road user(s) that are at risk due to the issue, and

•

recommends on action required to remove/reduce the risk.

The report should include the list of plans and other information examined, as well as the people involved in its preparation, and should be signed by each member of the audit team. The design and audit teams may elect to discuss the findings of the audit report, in draft form, prior to formal submission. Once the Stage Audit Report has been finalised and submitted, however, the design team must produce an Audit Response, using a standard Feedback Form, confirming its proposals for addressing the items raised in the Audit report. The audit team are required to sign off this Audit Response. If agreement cannot be reached on an item, or items, raised in the Audit Report, the Project Manager (Design Team) must prepare an Exception Report, listing each item where the design team and the audit team cannot agree the appropriate means of addressing the underlying safety problem identified by the Audit. The Exception Report should also give reasons for the lack of agreement, and include alternative remedies where these are proposed. It is important that the scheme should address the needs of vulnerable users. In the case of pedestrians, particular attention should be paid to the old, the young and those with mobility or sight impairment. In the case of cyclists, specific regard should be had to the needs of children, commuters and less experienced leisure users. Principle: Each vulnerable road user has different needs from the road network and it is important that designers and Auditors are aware of their specific requirements. The Auditor should view the design addressing the issues and needs of the vulnerable road user first, before progressing along to motorists and larger vehicles.

B7.7 Chapter B7- Road Safety Audits (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY B7.7

Road Safety Audits: Conflict Issues The following list, while not exhaustive, includes some of the more common issues which can arise in Road Safety Audits carried out on cycling schemes, and to which the designer should pay particular attention during the design process, if conflict is to be avoided: ♦ Incorrect road markings and signage, not in accordance with the Department of Environment “Traffic Signs Manual” (to be superseded) ♦ Intermittent provision of cycle lanes and/or tracks - continuity gaps ♦ Insufficient lane widths ♦ Conflict points between cyclist and pedestrians - in particular, conflict with the visually impaired on off-road facilities ♦ Conflicts at bus stops (see, also, Chapter C11: Cycling conflicts at bus stops) ♦ Incorrect vertical or horizontal alignments at entry/exit points to the cycle facility ♦ Difficulties caused by drainage, vegetation, street furniture and similar obstructions. ♦ Lack of consistency of cycle facility treatment throughout a long scheme For further information and guidance on addressing these issues, the designer should refer to the following chapters in this manual: RSA Topic

Reference Chapters

Cycle Tracks

Chapter B1, Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter B2, Principles of Managing Conflict Chapters B8-B9, Cycle Link Options, Integration and Segregation

Combined Bus and Cycle Facilities (incl. Quality Bus Corridors)

Chapter C10, Bus Lanes Chapter C11, Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stops

Junction Improvement Works

Chapters B10-15, Junction Design Principles

Maintenance Schemes

Chapter D4, Maintenance-orientated Design

Vulnerable Road Users

Chapter 8, Cyclists and pedestrians

Table B7.4: Cycle-related Road Safety Audits – Guidance on addressing common conflict issues

B7.8 Chapter B7- Road Safety Audits (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Audit Checklist Has the Audit reviewed all available accident data? Has the design been Audited for the following: Conflict between pedestrian and cyclist? Sufficient width for cycle lane / tracks for cyclists to pass / overtake safely? Correct road markings and signage in accordance with the Traffic Signs Manual? Adequate drainage / lighting for cycling facilities?

Adequate reduction / removal of conflict at nodes?

Does the resolution of conflict in one area give rise to additional conflicts elsewhere?

B7.9 Chapter B7- Road Safety Audits (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter B8: Cycle Link Options B8.1

General The selection of an appropriate link option will depend on the characteristics of the particular route along which the link is to be provided. It is likely that more than one option-type could be applied for each route, while others would be unsuitable and not recommended. An outline of the various options by reference to typical road conditions, related characteristics and key issues to be considered by the designer in each case is given in the following pages. This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter B3: Quality of Service Chapter B4: Providing Effective Cycling Space Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation Guidance

B8.2

Link Options The planning and design of a cycle network should seek to provide an appropriate, cycle-friendly environment that will meet the cyclistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; specific needs while at the same time balancing the needs of all users. Different design options will present themselves depending on the circumstances in each case, and will link together to form the overall network. The link options discussed in this chapter are:

B8.1

B8:Cycle Link Options (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY On-Road: • • • •

•

Mixed Street Mixed Bus Lane Cycle Lane: a. In Bus Lane b. In Contra-flow Bus Lane Cycle Lane: a. Advisory b. Mandatory c. Raised Contra-flow Cycling: a. Mixed b. Segregated

Off-Road: •

Segregated Cycle Track a. at grade (Mass) b. at grade (Speed) c. raised adjacent d. verge Cycle Way • • Two Way Cycle Track (part of road) • Cycle Trail

Table B8.1: Link options (Please refer to Introduction, Chapter I-O3 for current legal and statutory guidance and terminology)

B8.2

On-Road Cycle Links. Mixed Street Typical Road Environment: Access roads; environmental traffic cells; shopping streets – •

Traffic function is subordinate to VRU requirements

•

Low Speeds, Volumes (see Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation)

•

Not for multi-lane roads

Photo B8.2.1

B8.2

Photo B8.2.2

B8:Cycle Link Options (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo B8.2.3

Characteristics: • Quiet • High QOS possible • Unconstrained accessibility for cyclists Key Issues to be Considered: Essential that traffic follows cyclist – no overtaking; ensure road space narrow Should be designed for contra-flow cycling Consider Entry and Exit treatments Consider cycle lane if exit queuing occurs

Mixed – Bus Lane (3m) Typical Road Environment: Collector or low-speed Distributor Road, max. 50 km/h

Photo B8.2.4

Photo B8.2.5

Photo B8.2.6

Characteristics: • Cyclists share space with buses, coaches, taxi • Bus lane 3 metre width (minimum) Key Issues to be Considered: Impact on bus and cycle journey times 350 pcus max. peak hour flow (bus = 3 pcus) Problem if buses stacked (see photo B8.2.5) B8.3

B8:Cycle Link Options (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Off-peak vehicle speeds Time-plated bus lanes require separate assessment of cycling provision out-of-hours Adjacent traffic lane likely to be saturated/stationary Bus lane surface (rutting, drainage details) especially around bus stops

Cycle Lane in Bus Lane Typical Road Environment: Collector or District Distributor, max. speed 60 km/h.

Photo B8.2.7

Characteristics: • Cyclists share space with buses, coaches, taxi • Reduced frustration, higher QOS for both bus and bicycle modes • Large differential in mass between cyclists and buses Key Issues to be Considered: Mandatory cycle lane, except around stops Side-by-side width for buses and cyclists Consider at-grade segregation approaching junctions Time-plated bus lanes require separate assessment of cycling provision out-of-hours Bus lane surface (rutting, drainage details) especially around bus stops Cycle Lane in Contra-flow Bus Lane Typical Road Environment: Collector Road, max. speed 50 km/h.

B8.4

B8:Cycle Link Options (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo B8.2.8

Characteristics: • Cyclists share space with buses, coaches, taxi • Reduced frustration, higher QOS for both bus and bicycle modes • Large differential in mass between cyclists and buses • Large difference in speed between cyclists and opposing traffic Key Issues to be Considered: Essential to preclude cyclists passing buses, especially at stops. Sufficient side-by-side width for buses and cyclists is essential. 24 hour bus-lanes in all cases Mandatory vs. Advisory cycle lane Bus lane surface (rutting, drainage details) especially around bus stops

Cycle Lane – Advisory Typical Road Environment: Collector roads having single lane in each direction and maximum speed of 50 km/h.

B8.5

B8:Cycle Link Options (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo B8.2.9

Photo B8.2.10

Photo B8.2.11

Characteristics: • Broken white line between lane and carriageway allows shared use in congested circumstances or at junctions • Motorised traffic can encroach on cycle lane when safe to do so and when necessary due to oncoming traffic • Used in areas where there is kerbside parking or loading bays • Red surfacing only required at conflict points or where area might be confused with on-street parking Key Issues to be Considered: Consistent quality essential, no changes in lane width, no “gaps” Lanes should be wide enough to allow overtaking, with minimum cycle width of 1.25m (see Chapter B4, Table B4.1) Centre line should not be used if kerb-to-kerb width less than 7m. Smooth, flat, well-drained, well-maintained surface, with gullies located in kerb, not on cycle lane Times of operation Cycle Lane – Mandatory Typical Road Environment: Access Roads, and Collector roads having speeds 50-60km/h.

B8.6

B8:Cycle Link Options (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo B8.2.12

Photo B8.2.13

Photo B8.2.14

Photo B8.2.15

Characteristics: • Continuous white line between lane and carriageway prohibits motorised traffic from entering cycle lane • Highlights presence of on-road cyclists to other road users • May change to advisory lane on approach to junctions

Key Issues to be Considered: Consistent quality essential, no changes in lane width, no “gaps” Sufficient road width available to allow for provision in context of pedestrian and other traffic movements Smooth, flat, well-drained, well-maintained surface, with gullies located in kerb, not on cycle lane 24-hour operation Cycle Lane – Raised Typical Road Environment: Access Roads, and Collector roads having speeds 50-60km/h.

B8.7

B8:Cycle Link Options (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo B8.2.16

Photo B8.2.17

Characteristics: • Cycle lane, minimal separation from carriageway by low-level kerb • Visually and legally part of carriageway, but improved safety • Easier to provide than segregated cycle track • Change to advisory lane on approach to junctions Key Issues to be Considered: Lanes should be wide enough to allow overtaking Smooth, flat, well-drained, well-maintained surface, with gullies located in kerb, not on cycle lane 24-hour operation Safety issues vis-a-vis pedestrian traffic. Location of poles and public lighting columns Contra-flow Cycling – Mixed

Photo B8.2.18

Typical Road Environment: Access Roads, speed 30km/h or less (e.g., environmental cells). Characteristics: • Increased directness, especially in one-way street systems • Can eliminate detours and reduce journey times • Greater speed differential between cyclists and opposing traffic

B8.8

B8:Cycle Link Options (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY •

Increased perception of hazard may make it unsuitable for vulnerable users

Key Issues to be Considered: 24 hour in all cases Mandatory cycle lane Ensure continuity and coherence, no gaps Not suitable for areas with kerbside loading and parking Ability of other users to read and react to cycle facility (e.g. surface colouring, signs, road markings/arrows) Consider at-grade segregation if mass differential likely to be significant (buses, HGVs) Contra-flow Cycling – Segregated Typical Road Environment: Access Roads or low-volume Collector roads, speeds 50km/h or less

Photo B8.2.19

Photo B8.2.20

Characteristics: • Increased directness, especially in one-way street systems • Can eliminate detours and reduce journey times • Reduced risk arising from mass and speed differentials • Greater protection for vulnerable users Key Issues to be Considered: 24 hour in all cases Ensure continuity and coherence, no gaps Ability of other users to read and react to cycle facility Consider provision of bollards as additional protective measure Safety issues vis-a-vis pedestrian traffic NB. Need to check effective width

B8.3

Off-Road Cycle Links. Segregated Cycle Track – At Grade

B8.9

B8:Cycle Link Options (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Typical Road Environment: Collector roads, speeds 50-60km/h.

Photo B8.3.1

Photo B8.3.2

Characteristics: • Provides physical segregation between the cyclist and the carriageway • Motorised traffic prevented from driving over or parking on the track • At-grade segregation can be by means of bollards or continuous kerbing Key Issues to be Considered: Ensure continuity and coherence, no “gaps” Adequate clearance from obstacles (lamp-posts, signs, etc.) Conversion to cycle lanes at junctions and their approaches Overtaking within track width Access for maintenance Pedestrian conflicts

Raised Adjacent Cycle Track Typical Road Environment: Collector roads, speeds <80km/h. (May also be considered for Distributor roads if there is 24-hour bus lane n both directions)

Photo B8.3.3

Photo B8.3.4

Photo B8.3.5

Characteristics: • Cycle track adjacent to, but separated from carriageway by height difference (kerb)

B8.10

B8:Cycle Link Options (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY •

Useful when some physical segregation needed but insufficient space for fully segregated cycle track

Key Issues to be Considered: Vertical segregation from carriageway by standard height kerb Consider use of bollards or delineators along outside edge (see Photo B8.3.5 above) Sufficient track width required to allow overtaking at safe distance from kerb Adequate drainage arrangements Consider separation from footpath (ref. Table B4.1, Width Calculator, “Edge to pedestrians”) Need for dished kerbs Need for clear delineation between track and carriageway Location of poles and public lighting columns Segregated Cycle Track – Verge Typical Road Environment: Distributor and Collector roads with speeds >60km/h

Photo B8.3.6

Photo B8.3.7

Photo B8.3.8

Characteristics: • Grass or paved verge separating cycle track from carriageway • Trees, shrubs & street furniture can be placed along verge Key Issues to be Considered: Use paved verge in vicinity of pedestrian crossing points Trees, street furniture, etc. should be set back from edge of cycle track to prevent obstruction (see Chapter B4, Effective Cycling Space) Lanes should be wide enough to allow overtaking, and should be smooth, flat, well-drained and well-maintained Access for maintenance purposes essential Consider extent of segregation verge in relation to adjacent road speed Cycle Way (off-road)

B8.11

B8:Cycle Link Options (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Typical Road Environment: “Roads for cyclists” through parks, off-road short cuts or routes in rural areas

Photo B8.3.9

Photo B8.3.10

Characteristics: • Few intersections with roadways • High comfort levels due to absence of motorised traffic • Crossings rather than junctions • Combined utilitarian and leisure uses Key Issues to be Cnsidered: Need for compliance with Section 68 of Roads Act, 1993 Need for good visibility and lighting (social safety) Consider raised adjacent footpath where frequent use by pedestrians is likely Consistent quality with dedicated cycle signposting (coherence) Priority at crossing points and intersections

Two-way Cycle Track (part of road) Typical Road Environment: District and Collector roads with infrequent crossing points.

Photo B8.3.11

Photo B8.3.12

Characteristics: • Physical separation from carriageway by dividing verge (usually grass) • Physical separation from footpath by verge or height difference B8.12

B8:Cycle Link Options (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY • •

Directness (cyclists need not cross road when using two-way track Wider track allows more comfort and easier overtaking for cyclist

Key Issues to be Considered: Road Safety – readability (should be readily apparent to all road users that track is two-way) Careful treatment required in design of junctions and crossings and their approaches Consistency (no changes in width along road sections) Obstructions (poles, signs should be located in verge)

Trail (off-road, incl. pedestrians) Typical Road Environment: Parks and green areas, “Green Route” cycle facilities along railways, canals, waterways, and shore-lines

Photo B8.3.13

Photo B8.3.14

Characterisics: • Mixed/shared use with other “soft” transport modes • Functions primarily as leisure facility • Off-road, signed but no segregaton between modes • High comfort levels due to absence of motorised traffic Key Issues to be Considered: Shared use clearly identified (readability) Priority at crossing points and intersections Social safety issues B8.4

Link Options Summary The various link options discussed in this chapter can be summarized into five main design solutions: •

Segregated cycle tracks

•

Raised adjacent cycle tracks

•

Cycle lanes

•

Shared or mixed use lanes

B8.13

B8:Cycle Link Options (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY â&#x20AC;˘

Cycle Ways

In deciding which solution to apply, the designer must have regard to the typical road environment, in the first instance (i.e. whether it is an Access, Collector or Distributor road, whether it is one-way or two- way, and what its related speed and volume profiles are). The design solution/s should then be refined by a detailed consideration of the related link options as shown in the preceding pages. It is likely that a number of options will be applicable in most situations, while others would not be recommended. In arriving at a final decision on the preferred option, the designer should consider the main characteristics of each chosen option and how successfully the related design issues can be addressed.

B8.14

B8:Cycle Link Options (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation Guidance B9.1

General This chapter covers the integration or segregation of cycle traffic and motorised traffic, and is concerned primarily with cycle links. As a general rule junctions will be designed as integrated facilities irrespective of the link treatments leading to and from the junction.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter B3: Principles of Managing Conflict Chapter B4: Assessment of Quality of Service Chapter B8: Link Options

B9.2

Integration Integration refers to the mixing of cycle traffic with general traffic, without physical separation. Integrated facilities include: • • • • • • •

Streets with no markings Streets with advisory cycle lanes (broken line) Streets with mandatory cycle lanes (solid line) having no physical barrier Streets with time-plated facilities Streets shared between cyclists and pedestrians only Streets shared between cyclists and trams only Bus Lanes that allow cycling

There are a number of benefits to mixing cycle traffic with general traffic, though these should not be read as providing sufficient rationale in themselves for integration.

B9.1

Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation Guidance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Benefits of Integrated Facilities: •

Cost effective, i.e. cheaper to provide and maintain

•

Environmentally passive

•

Require less maintenance

•

More space efficient

•

Freedom of movement for cyclists

•

Self-enforcing

The guiding principle in deciding whether or not to integrate cycle traffic with other traffic should be “Equality of Action”. To achieve this, the designer should consider the following integration checklist: •

What type of facility would be appropriate to the environment?

•

Has specific provision been made for any other mode?

•

Can the target Quality of Service for the cycle provision be achieved without segregation?

•

Would integrated facilities satisfy the Principles of Sustainable Safety?

Following on from this, a number of other design criteria arise in deciding whether or not to integrate facilities along a particular link, including: •

Intensity & predictability of events e.g. vehicle loading, stopping and parking; opportunities for cyclists to anticipate or evade hazard (OTA/OTE)

•

Queue length approaching junctions – longer queues may require dedicated solid lane up to the junction

•

Speed differential (time-related) – lower traffic volumes at night can encourage greater vehicular speeds

•

Speed differential (mode-related) – potential hazard, especially between cyclists and pedestrians

•

Function of a given street – the desire to strike an appropriate balance between modes

•

Volume of pedestrians – consider the target Quality of Service for pedestrians

•

Crossing activity on the street – likely patterns and predictability

Notwithstanding the above, integrated facilities are inappropriate for Distributor or multi-lane roads in any circumstances, and in general should not be used for roads or streets having speed limit of more than 60km/h or traffic volumes greater than 15,000 vehicles/day. B9.2

Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation Guidance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Further guidance on the need for segregation of cycle traffic from other modes can be found in the Traffic Management Guidelines, Chapter 6: “Traffic Calming on Existing Roads” and Table 9.2: “Typical Lane Widths”. (See also Chapter C8: “Cyclists and pedestrians” and Chapter C10: “Cycling in bus lanes”, elsewhere in this Manual.)

B9.3

Segregation The rationale for segregating cycle traffic from other modes can be derived from a range of factors, including:

a. Sustainable Safety (mass, speed & direction conflicts, ref. Chapter B1, Table B1.3) b. Quality of Service improvements c. Stated Preference (survey results) Design considerations affecting each of these factors are set out below: a. Sustainable Safety Mass-related considerations affecting sustainable safety include: • • • • • •

Presence of HGVs, buses and trams on a route Have cyclists guaranteed priority (clear access) to the stop line? Level of comfort along route Presence of vehicles that are stopped, parked or loading (either obstructing or as danger) Exposed nature of route, e.g. does it suffer from crosswinds? Stability of route (hills, number of stops and starts)

Speed-related considerations affecting sustainable safety include: • • • • • •

Actual speed (i.e. operating speed), not speed limit or average speed Speed differential between peak and off-peak hours Differential acceleration of modes from a stop line Higher speed differentials between modes on inclines Whether road is also a bus route, and the number of stops and starts this imposes on cyclists Dominant function of road/street (segregation essential if vehicular traffic is dominant)

Direction-related considerations affecting sustainable safety include: • •

• B9.3

Number and design of junctions, and how cyclists negotiate them Traffic merges, left and right turns (in these cases, segregation is required well in advance of the point of conflict so that all users are made aware of, and can prepare for, the potential conflict) Weaving and multi-lane roads

Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation Guidance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY • • •

Driveways and entrances Roundabouts Motorbikes

b. Quality of Service Improvements Considerations affecting Quality of Service (QOS) improvements include: • • • • • •

The reliability and predictability of the route Whether there are dedicated facilities, e.g. cycle-friendly drainage, push-button units, automatic traffic counters, etc. Level of comfort, including noise levels, air quality and stress factors Whether two-abreast cycling is desired or required Protection from occasional activities Designation of cycle routes and/or bus lanes as 24-hour facilities

c. Stated Preference Considerations affecting Stated Preference include: • • • •

B9.4

Is route is attractive to inexperienced cyclists? Is route perceived as safe by all cyclists? What level of cycle provision is acceptable to motorists? Is there opportunity to see policy being put into action?

Segregation Options The need for segregation and the type of segregation measure/s to be provided will be determined in the first instance by the results of the above considerations. The main segregation measures and their appropriateness for the types of problem thus identified are shown in Tables B9.1 and B9.2 below.

Type of Segregation

Type of Cycle Facility

Mixed Use of the Carriageway

Two-way traffic One-way traffic Partial one-way traffic One-way street, except for cyclists

Visual Segregation

B9.4

On-road cycle track with continuous line

Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation Guidance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY On-road cycle track with broken line Contra-flow on-road cycle tracks

Physical Segregation

Two-way cycle track on one side One-way cycle track on one side One-way cycle-track on both sides Contra-flow cycle track Two-way cycle track on both sides Cycleway

Facilities for Cyclists and Pedestrians only

Shopping and residential areas Canals LRT (trams)

Table B9.1: Type of Segregation Rationale for Segregation Segregation Measure

Mass Differential

Broken white line (visual) Solid white line/hatching/buffer (visual)

Slow Zones

Speed Differential

Direction Differential

Quality of Service

In junctions only

Mixed Zones

In junctions only

Anti-parking

Raised/white line (visual/ physical) Line of bollards Upstand Kerb/Kerb segments Raised Cycle Lane

Many Driveways

Raised Adjacent Cycle Track

Reestablishing

Cycle Track with Verge

B9.5

Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation Guidance (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

Stated Preference

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Trail Cycle Way Table B9.2: Rationale for choice of segregation measures

Note: Boxes coloured Brown are measures considered unacceptable as design solutions for problems associated with the mass, speed or direction differential as shown. Boxes coloured Grey are measures considered to be of limited value in those circumstances. Other Design Constraints There are a number of other design constraints to be considered when introducing physical segregation along a cycle route. The degree to which these need to be addressed will depend on the type of segregation measure being provided. Referring to Segregation Measures in Table B9.2, these include: • Drainage (particularly relevant for measures in Blue Red boxes) • Maintenance (particularly relevant for measures in Green, Blue and Red boxes) • Junctions (if junctions occur frequently, measures in Red boxes should be avoided) • Severance/Exclusion (need to provide opportunities to leave and re-join off-road facility where necessary, i.e. “forgivingness gaps”) • Frequency of Conflict Events, e.g. parking, loading (need for clear readability measures – see also Enforcement) • Road works (need to provide temporary alternatives for related interruptions) • Enforcement (critical, if user behaviour is not self-enforcing) B9.5

International Guidance on Segregation The final choice in deciding which type of segregation measure or set of measures is the most appropriate for a given cycle facility will depend on all of the above considerations. In terms of sustainable safety, however, primary emphasis is placed on the combined effect of the mass, speed and volume of adjacent motorised traffic. Different combinations of such mass, speed and volume will require different levels of cycle segregation, and guidelines have been published by a number of agencies to determine the most appropriate threshold values for the various segregation measures. The following guidelines have been considered in the preparation of recommended threshold values in this manual:

B9.6

Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation Guidance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY 1. Provision of Cycle Facilities (DTO 1998) – Volume of motorised traffic counted in both directions (on one carriageway) vs. VA (85 percentile speed in Km/hr) (after SWOV) 2. Dutch National Information and Technology Platform for Infrastructure, Traffic, Transport and Public Space – CROW Manual (version 1 & version 2) 3. SUSTRANS (www.sustrans.org.uk) – Link Specification Criteria, Figure 4.1 (after Crow Manual, version 1) 4. UK Department of Transport, Local Transport Note LTN 1/04 – Total 2-way Traffic Flow vs. Traffic Speed (modified version of SUSTRANS) 5. Transport for London (TfL) – Matrix of cycle facility solutions based on motor traffic volume and speed (fig. 4.1) and related Two-way vehicle flow vs. 85%ile speed, mph (after CROW Manual, version 1) 6. Danish Road Directorate Manual, “Collection of Cycle Concepts” (www.vejdirektoratet.dk) –Example of separation principles, Motor vehicles per day (AADT) vs. Desired speed (kph) (ref. Chapter 6: Urban Planning) The DTO (1998), SUSTRANS, UK Department for Transport and TfL publications are based on the Dutch CROW Manual (version 1), which has now been superceded by a revised version of the CROW Manual, published in 2007. The Danish Cycling Concepts manual places a strong emphasis on road safety, and does not differ significantly from CROW (version 2) while noting, however, that “the separation of motor traffic and bicycles has been taken a couple of steps further in order to give cyclists greater comfort and to minimise perceived risk”.

B9.6

Proposed Guidance Segregated cycle tracks provide dedicated space for cyclists that cannot be accessed by motorised traffic. This makes segregated tracks appropriate for vulnerable users and, in general, makes them the safest and most comfortable facilities at road sections, if properly designed. The threshold guidelines researched and discussed above are either based on, or similar to the Dutch CROW Manual (version 1 or version 2), and the 2007 CROW thresholds do not differ significantly from those included in CROW (version 1). The main difference between the various documents is the way in which the guidance is presented. In this regard, CROW (version 2) adopts a Table format to determine appropriate threshold values for the various segregation measures, though it is considered that a graphic rather than a tabular format better illustrates the concept for the purposes of this manual.

B9.7

Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation Guidance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Accordingly, the recommended guidance for designers when selecting segregation measures based on speed and volume differentials is shown in Figure B9.1 below. It is not dependent on road category, and is founded on a traffic management strategy designed to “move” rather than “control” the actual traffic regime between zones. For these reasons, it is regarded as providing a “best fit” method for selecting segregation measures for Irish cycle facilities.

Figure B9.1: Threshold values for determining segregation measures (Ireland)

Notes: 1. In utilising the above graph, the designer should not assume that traffic speeds and volumes are fixed, i.e. that speeds or volumes cannot be reduced by a related change in the existing traffic management regime. 2. Speeds are the actual speeds of motorised traffic, not design speeds or speed limit. 3.

Volume of traffic is the total two-way vehicular flow per day based on AADT.

4. Many commuter routes in Ireland exceed the threshold for segregation (4,000 AADT) 5. For additional “local” factors, reference should be made to the ‘Segregation Options’ table elsewhere in this chapter for appropriate guidance (see Table B9.2 – Rationale for choice of segregation measures).

B9.8

Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation Guidance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Reminder: This chapter deals only with integration and segregation measures for route links. Different measures will normally be required for dealing with junctions and for transitions between links and junctions. For design guidance relating to junctions and their approaches, including transitions, please refer to Chapters B10 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; B15.

B9.9

Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation Guidance (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter C10: Providing for the Bicycle on a Bus Network

C10.1 General This chapter examines planning and providing for cycling within a bus network. It discusses how and when cycle facilities should be integrated with, or segregated from, bus activity, and gives guidance on the selection of appropriate design.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter A5: Cycle Network Planning Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter B4: Providing Effective Cycling Space Chapter B8: Link Options Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation Guidance Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stops

C10.2 Bus Networks and Cycle Networks Under current legislation, cyclists are permitted to cycle in a with-flow bus lane in circumstances where no other cycle facilities have been provided. This situation is more likely to arise where facilities are being retro-fitted to an existing road or street, as the designer will generally have sufficient space available in new developments to provide separate bus and cycle facilities. In the latter case, it is not necessary that the new cycle network should be aligned with the new bus network, but opportunities should be provided for interchange between the modes at key locations. [Please refer to Chapter A5 for further discussion on Cycle Network Planning.] Because of space limitations and other restrictions (e.g. carriageway widths, parking and loading requirements, etc.), the designer is immediately faced with the challenge of re-balancing street functions which heretofore may have been biased in favour of general vehicular traffic and/ or loading and parking when retro-fitting facilities to an existing streetscape. In these situations, the likelihood is that bus and cycle networks will have to overlap, and bus lanes will operate as shared facilities for both modes.

C10.1 Chapter C10: Cycling and Bus Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Design Principle: Retro-fitting on existing streetscapes will generally require a rebalance of intended street functions, cross-sectional shape, and actual usage The re-balancing principle illustrated in Figure C10.1, below, and is further discussed in Chapter A4: “The Road Hierarchy”.

Intended Function Movement, Stationary, LandUse related, Services, Leisure & Tourist

Cross Sectional Shape Footpaths, Lanes, Tracks, Islands Street Furniture

Usage Actual Behaviour of Road Users

Figure C10.1: Rebalancing street function, shape and usage

The precise rebalance between functions should be informed by the overall transport plan for the area under consideration, as this will lead to a better public understanding of schemes such as Quality Bus Corridors, street renewal schemes, primary destination-focussed cycle routes, etc.). For example, it is likely that the predominant traffic functions on Access Streets will be pedestrian and cycle movements, or stationary activities such as parking and loading. When retro-fitting to Collector and Distributor roads, on the other hand, parking and loading functions will be generally subordinate to the needs of traffic movement across the modes. C10.3 Bus and Cycle Options In a regime of severe traffic congestion, dedicated space for preferred modes (e.g. bus, bicycle, tram, etc.) can provide improved reliability and C10.2 Chapter C10: Cycling and Bus Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY journey time, particularly if such facilities are managed through the junctions. However, it is not the only option. The general range of integration/segregation options, shown in Table B9.1: “Type of Segregation”, is summarised in the first column of Table C10.1, below, and the equivalent range of options for combined bus-cycle facilities is shown in the second column:

Option

Types of Bus-Cycle Options

Mixed Street (no bus lane) – traffic speeds and volumes controlled to favour bus (or bus-only sections, etc.)

Bus lane - cyclists mix with (i.e. In front or behind) bus

Road markings between bus and cycle facilities (bus passing cyclists possible)

Physical separation between bus and cycle facilities

Table C10.1: Comparison of options

Selection of the optimum bus-cycle option should be determined by a range of criteria, including, in the first instance: •

Function of route for both cyclists and buses –  Are streets used primarily by cyclists and buses, or by general traffic?  Are routes predominantly commuter, school, leisure, or combination?

•

General traffic volumes –  Peak vs. off-peak?

•

Driving speeds –  Required speed (buses)?  Actual speeds, rather than speed limit (general traffic)?

•

Quality of service Intended  Existing and planned levels of service for the various modes, i.e. bus frequency and number of cyclists (peak, hourly, weekday vs. Weekend)

C10.3 Chapter C10: Cycling and Bus Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C10.3.1: Bicycle and Bus within the city centre â&#x20AC;&#x201C; sharing facilities is not necessarily the first or only option (especially for new areas)

Table C10.2, below, lists the road/street functions for which each option is generally considered most suited, together with the appropriate bus designspeed in each case:

Option

Bus-cycle facility

Function of the road in the network

Mixed street use

Environmental cells or streets where traffic function is subordinate to VRU requirements.

Max Speed of bus (km/h) < 30 km/h

Shared use of bus lane , Bicycle ahead / behind bus

Road/street may have substantial bus and cycling functions.

Overall quality of life and safety can be improved as a result of traffic calming. Designer must ensure lowvolumes, speeds 30-50km/h (can be one-way or twoway). (see Chapter 6, Traffic Signs Manual)

Predominantly used by buses, cyclists and pedestrians.

Key Issues

< 50 km/h

Overtaking by either mode is intended to take place by using the adjacent traffic lane. Clearly, if the adjacent lane is congested in peak hours, the level of service to both bus and bicycle is reduced. Noise, air quality and reduced forward visibility for bicycles following buses No evasion manoeuvres are possible, so low-speeds are recommended for braking reasons

C10.4 Chapter C10: Cycling and Bus Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Bicycle mixes with ambient traffic outside hours of bus lane operation 3.

Visual Delineation – Bus Lane outside bicycle lane

Road/street has substantial bus and cycling functions.

Physical Segregation

Road/street has main road function.

50-60 km/h

Bicycle mixes with ambient traffic outside hours of bus lane operation At 50km/h, the bus lane traffic should not exceed 450pcus – for higher volumes (a) segregation needed (see below) or (b) actual bus lane speeds need to be reduced / enforced (although Cycle QOS will be reduced)

> 60 km/h

Significant vehicular traffic speeds and volumes, including bus transport

Table C10.2: Bus and cycle applications and related criteria.

C10.4 Design Issues When designing a combined bus and cycle facility, sufficient lane width must be provided if the requirements of both modes are to be addressed in a safe and effective manner.

Chapter B4, “Providing Effective Cycling Space”, deals with this issue in terms of the cyclist’s requirements, only, and gives guidance on the level of clearance required for different circumstances and conditions , including where there is an adjacent at-grade bus lane (see Table B4.1: “Width Calculator”). Different issues arise when bus and cycle facilities are combined as, by its nature, sharing a facility means that either mode has the potential to inconvenience the other: •

Buses overtaking cyclists may be in conflict with approaching traffic

•

Conflicts at bus stops (see Chapter C11 – Bus Stops)

•

Cyclists overtaking buses, if bus is stopped or slowed by traffic further ahead

•

Buses delayed by cyclists

•

Parking and loading activities and related manoeuvres

C10.5 Chapter C10: Cycling and Bus Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C10.4.1: Parking and loading manoeuvres

Level of Service Limitations in a Shared Bus Lane – Cycling Issues: Cycling in relatively empty bus lanes can be attractive to cyclists, compared with negotiating general traffic. However, there is nothing attractive about cycling in the vicinity of buses. Travelling behind the bus can be an uncomfortable experience for the cyclist, due to exhaust emissions, engine noise, relative mass, and due to the bus setting down and picking up passengers at bus stops. Forward visibility for the cyclist can be obstructed, also, leading to poor assessment of surface defects, and a lack of understanding of traffic conditions ahead of the bus. If the bus is behind the cyclist, this can be intimidating, especially if there is a risk that the bus will attempt to overtake the cyclist. Cyclists may be conscious of holding up the bus, and may feel obliged to respond by cycling at a faster pace than is comfortable, or by cycling too close to the carriageway edge with increased risk of meeting dropped gullies, rutting, etc. The greatest difficulty arises when a bus is outside a bicycle – the cyclist is travelling between the bus and the kerb, with reduced evasion space. In these situations, the cyclist is more dependent on the quality of the road surface, as well as being dependent on the bus driver – • seeing the cyclists • maintaining enough clear space from the cyclist • not pulling into a bus stop until the cyclist has passed by. These problems are more pronounced with an articulated bus. Bus Issues:

C10.6 Chapter C10: Cycling and Bus Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The issue of safe passing distance is equally important from the bus-driver’s perspective. Ideally, the bus lane should be of adequate width to allow the bus to overtake the slower-moving cyclist without the need to encroach on the adjacent carriageway. The dimensions of the bus itself should also be taken into account: apart from the width of the bus (and its mirrors), the length of the vehicle will also have a bearing on the overtaking time. Table C10.3 shows widths and lengths for a range of buses currently operating in Ireland, together with the number of passengers carried in each case. As will be seen, the widths are fairly consistent (2.5m to 2.6m), whereas lengths range from 10.0m (Midi bus) to 18.0m (Articulated bus). The different bustypes are shown in Photos C10.4.2 to C10.4.7. Bus Classification

Width

Length

Bus Capacity (passengers)

Midi Bus

2.5m

10.0m

Single Deck

2.5m

12.0m

Single Deck (interurban)

2.55m

12.2m

51/53

Double Deck (Double–axle)

2.6m

10.5m

Double Deck (Tri–axle)

2.6m

12.0m

123

Articulated Bus

2.5m

18.0m

145

Table C10.3: Widths and lengths for different bus-types

Photo C10.4.2: Midi Bus PhotoC10.4.4:Inter-urban

Photo C10.4.3: Single-deck

C10.7 Chapter C10: Cycling and Bus Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photos C10.4.5 and C10.4.6: Double-deck (double and tri-axle) Articulated Bus)

Photo C10.4.7:

Note: Bus routes served by articulated buses require special design considerations (see also Chapter C11: “Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stops” for further consideration of this in relation to design of bus stops.) C10.5 Recommended Design Widths The Traffic Management Guidelines stipulate that bus lanes should be a minimum of 3.00m wide, i.e. 2.50m bus width plus 0.25m clearance on either side. Chapter 4, Table B4.1, gives guidance on calculating recommended design widths for cycle facilities in order to provide QOS A for cyclists. The figures in Table B4.1 are applied in the following sections to calculate the recommended design widths for various bus and cycle facilities options, previously mentioned in table C10.2. Variations and other related factors which should be considered by the designer in each case are also discussed.

C10.8 Chapter C10: Cycling and Bus Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Photo C10.5.1: Example of shared bus and cycle lane

Shared bus lane: 1. Cyclists and buses share dedicated lane space, but without any delineation between the modes. This option is better than no bus lane at all, but represents a compromise for both bus and bicycle. 2. This option should be reserved for retro-fitting into existing streets – in new developments and roads, the designer should seek to provide separate or segregated lanes for both bicycle and bus. 3. In a shared bus lane, cyclists are intended to take their position before or after, but not adjacent to, buses. The cyclist’s access to stop lines may be restricted due to vehicular traffic in the bus lane (see example in Photo C10.5.2, below).

Photo C10.5.2: Restricted access at stop lines

4. The design is not intended to facilitate overtaking by either mode within the curtillage of the shared lane – overtaking will necessitate encroachment into the next adjacent lane. 5. Due to limited forward visibility, limitations on evasion manoeuvres, etc., the lane speed ideally should be <30km/h, and a maximum of 50km/h. 6. Minimum lane width is 3.0m. Maximum shared bus lane width is 3.5m, as widths greater than this will encourage greater speeds, and may confuse lane users regarding overtaking. 7. If the available space for the shared bus lane is greater than 3.5m, (but not enough for a combined cycle lane and bus lane), the residual width may be marked as a buffer, measured from the inside kerb or road edge.

C10.9 Chapter C10: Cycling and Bus Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C10.5.3: Cycling in bus lane, inside space marked off (Note: hatching may be more appropriate)

8. Ideally, 24-hour operation should be considered as the preferred option for shared bus lanes, to cater for cycling provision. Alternatively, if the bus lane is to be time-plated, the designer should assess the traffic regime outside the proposed hours of operation before a final decision is made.

Photo C10.5.4: Shared Bus Lane (outside hours of operation)

Visually Delineated Facilities: Visually delineated facilities can be either advisory, i.e. cycle lane within bus lane, or mandatory, i.e. cycle lane beside bus lane (see Photos C10.5.5 and C10.5.6, below)

C10.10 Chapter C10: Cycling and Bus Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C10.5.5: Advisory (within bus lane) lane)

Photo C10.5.6: Mandatory (beside bus

1. The marking of a cycle lane within or beside a bus lane provides a better quality of service than shared bus/cycle lanes, with reduced frustration for both modes. Mass differential remains a design issue, but can be addressed by the correct choice of lane width. 2. From Table B4.1, the recommended lane width to allow lane demarcation between bus and cycle areas is 4.50m, allowing for single file cyclists, and solid line between cyclist and bus (except at bus stops). Kerb clearance

Min. cyclist

Wobble

Clearance to at-grade bus Lane (excluding marking)

Bus Lane

Total

0.25m

0.75m

0.25m

3.00

4.50m

3. An absolute minimum combined width of 4.25m (1.25m + 3.0m) is generally acceptable in the case of a cycle lane beside a bus lane, where the allowance for cyclist wobble is incorporated into the clearance to the bus lane. However this should only be considered for relatively lightly trafficked bus lanes with low volumes of cyclists and low speeds. [Junctions and their approaches are discussed separately in Chapter B10.] 4. The bicycle is at-grade with the bus. It is important that bus lane speeds remain low (<50km/h) as there is no physical protection for the cyclist. 5. Where the available width is less than 4.25m, lanes should be marked as Shared Bus Lanes, with or without buffer area (ref. Shared Bus Lanes, Item 7). 6. Ideally, 24-hour operation should be considered as the preferred option for visually-delineated facilities. Alternatively, if the bus lane is to be timeC10.11 Chapter C10: Cycling and Bus Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY plated, the designer should assess the traffic regime outside the proposed hours of operation before a final decision.

Cycling at Bus Plugs and Bus Gates: Insert TEXT and DIAGRAM (Figure C10.2)

Physically segregated facilities: Physical segregation is predominantly off-road, but can include raised cycle lanes and other forms of on-road segregation, e.g., low-level kerbs or bollards. Examples of physical segregation are shown in Photos C10.5.7 and C10.5.8, below.

C10.12 Chapter C10: Cycling and Bus Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Photo C10.5.7: Physical segregation (low kerb) segregation (bollards)

Photo C10.5.8: Physical

1. Physical segregation provides cyclists a greater sense of security in situations where bus and cycle numbers are high. Segregation is required where prevailing bus/adjacent traffic speeds are greater than 50km/h (see Table C10.1). It is the optimum design solution for bus-cycle facilities along Distributor routes. 2. From Table B4.1 above, the recommended lane width to allow physical segregation is 4.75m Kerb clearance

Min. cyclist

Wobble

Clearance to Kerb / Barrier at edge of cycle track

Bus Lane

Total

0.25m

0.75m

0.25m

0.50m

3.00

4.75m

3. The absolute minimum is 4.50m, where the bus lane is low speed and the clearance to the outer barrier is reduced to 0.25m (e.g. bollards, low kerb etc.).

Photo C10.5.9: Example of physical segregation (Distributor Route)

C10.6 Contra-flow Bus Lanes The majority of the bus lanes and bus-cycle lanes that have been provided to date are operated as “with flow” lanes, i.e. the bus (and cyclist) travels in the same direction as the rest of the traffic flow. Contra flow bus lanes, operating against the main traffic flow, are used mainly to provide a more direct route in situations where the alternative route may be lengthy or congested. C10.13 Chapter C10: Cycling and Bus Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Cycling in contra-flow bus lanes is not permitted under current Irish legislation. C10.7 Signs and Road Markings for Combined Bus-Cycle Facilities Currently, bus lanes are designed with a set-back approaching side roads and junctions, in order to allow left-hand turning traffic to access the inside lane before turning left. The requirement for greater priority for buses within the urban area may require bus lanes to be become continuous across junctions, with vehicular traffic crossing from the next adjacent lane. In these circumstances, the level of priority for buses and cyclists will significantly increase. The current regulatory upright signs for bus lanes, combined bus-cycle lanes, and contra-flow bus lanes are shown in Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual (DoT, 2008), while the regulatory road markings are shown in Chapter 7. These are reproduced in Figures C10.1 and C10.2, below: Figure C10.1 shows the requirements for a shared/combined bus-cycle facility (ref. TSM, Figure 5.55: “Signing for a With Flow Bus Lane”). Figure C10.2 shows the signing and marking requirements for a contraflow bus lane (ref. TSM, Figure 5.61: “Signing Scheme for Contra-Flow Bus Lanes”). As noted in Section C10.6, above, there is no provision in the current requirements for a combined bus-cycle contra flow facility. The current signing requirements are that the statutory signs, shown in Figures C10.2 and C10.3, be provided at the start of the bus-cycle or contra-flow lane, at set intervals along its length, and at the end

NB. CHANGES DEFINITELY REQUIRED

Figure C10.2: “Signing for a with flow bus-lane” (ref. fig.5.55, TSM 2008)

C10.14 Chapter C10: Cycling and Bus Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure C10.3: “Signing Scheme for Contra Flow Bus Lanes” (ref. fig.5.61, TSM 2008)

[NB. No sign shown for “end of bus lane” in DoT draft?]

C10.15 Chapter C10: Cycling and Bus Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stops C11.1 General: This chapter examines the issue of conflicts involving the cycling mode that can arise at or in the vicinity of bus stops. It identifies the main conflicts, assesses their impact and proposes a number of design solutions by which they can be managed, by reference to the principles already discussed in Chapter B2: “Principles of Managing Conflict.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter B2: Principles of Managing Conflict Chapter B8: Cycle Link Options Chapter B11: Managing Side Roads and Traffic Turning Left Chapter C8: Cyclists and Pedestrians Chapter C10: Cycling and Bus Lanes

C11.2 Design and Provision of Bus Stops Existing guidance on the design and provision of bus stops, including their location, will be found in the Traffic Management Guidelines, and the Department of Transport Sectoral Plan prepared in response to the Disability Act, 2005. Traffic Management Guidelines: As noted in the Traffic Management Guidelines (ref. Chapter 15: “Public Transport”) buses must not only be able to move around the road network with minimum delay, but must also be able to pick up and set down passengers quickly and conveniently, if their full potential is to be achieved. The design and location of bus stops is crucial in this regard, together with the resolution insofar as possible of any resulting conflicts with other transport modes. In particular, the interface with pedestrians and cyclists is noted as requiring careful design to ensure safe and convenient access. Section 15.5 of the Traffic Management Guidelines deals specifically with bus stop design, and sets out advice under a number of headings, including location, layout, passenger access arrangements, street furniture and C11.1 Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stop (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY adjacent parking. The following are considered key elements of good bus stop design, and should be incorporated wherever possible: • • • • • • •

Bus stop location should be at a point of high pedestrian accessibility within the chosen locality It is preferable that the bus stop is located in advance of crossing points from a traffic and safety viewpoint [Confirm] Where the crossing is located on a junction, care should be taken to ensure the bus stop does not visually obstruct the junction Bus stop should provide a good level of service to passengers, with good seating, shelter and lighting It should be designed and managed to address the needs of mobility impaired and disabled persons It should be visible and user-friendly for the approaching bus driver; Passengers waiting to board should be able to see the approaching bus, and have sufficient time to signal the bus to stop

Disability Act, 2005: Bus stations and bus stop design are included among the areas listed for action in the Sectoral Plan prepared by the Department of Transport as part of its response to the Disability Act, 2005. The plan requires that the needs of mobility impaired persons must be taken into account when designing busstops. For the purposes of the plan, mobility impaired persons include: • • • •

Persons who are visually impaired, or blind Persons who are hard of hearing, or deaf Persons with children in buggies Wheelchair users and people with crutches

While it is recognised that it will not always be possible to provide conflict-free access for all users to and from buses and/or bus stops, there is an onus on the designer, nevertheless, to ensure in respect of mobility impaired persons that access is facilitated, and that the highest degree of convenience is afforded them, insofar as is reasonably practicable. C11.3 Conflicts As noted above, a certain level of conflict with other transport modes is generally unavoidable at bus stop locations. From the cyclist’s perspective, possible sources of conflict might include  passengers waiting at the bus stop  passengers alighting from, or entering the bus  buses pulling into or away from the bus stop,  interaction between waiting passengers and other pedestrians C11.2 Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stop (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY  pedestrians on an adjacent crossing point, especially if these are obscured by other traffic, including a stationary bus  general traffic movements in the adjacent carriageway In this regard, bus stops are no different from other potential conflict locations such as junctions and pedestrian crossings. Like these, the conflicts can be addressed and managed by careful design consideration, and specifically by reference to the Principles of Managing Conflict discussed earlier in Chapter B2 of this manual. Applying those principles can help the designer to – 1. Identify the most likely cycling conflicts at bus stops 2. Assess the level of impact in each case, and 3. Develop appropriate design solutions that will address or substantially alleviate the impact for both bus passengers and cyclists alike. It is recommended that the final step in managing conflict, the monitoring process, should be followed through on all selected designs. Identifying the Conflict (Step 1): The main sources of potential conflict for cyclists at, or in the vicinity of, bus stops are set out in the following Table C11.1, together with a description of their normal occurrences in each case. Type Cyclist vs. Bus passenger and/or pedestrians

do.

Conflict

Occurrence

Example

Conflict with waiting passengers along the cycle route

Can occur if there is encroachment on to the cycle route due to passengers standing away from the bus stop for personal comfort or to get a better view of the approaching bus

Conflict with passengers accessing the bus stop

Can occur where a shared pavement has been provided, or where an off-road cycle track is brought behind the bus-stop area, with passengers and cyclists having to criss-cross each other

photo

Conflict with passengers alighting from the bus onto a cycle track (offroad)

Can occur where cycle tracks are laid in front of the bus stop or waiting area, passengers must alight into the path of an oncoming cyclist

photo

C11.3 Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stop (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

photo

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Conflict with pedestrians at adjacent crossing points

Can occur when pedestrians or advance warning signs are obscured by parked vehicles, or by buses at a bus stop

photo

Cyclist vs. Bus

Conflict with buses on a cycle lane (on-road)

Can occur if the oncoming cyclist is obstructed when a bus pulls in to the stop, unless there is provision for the cyclist to overtake or pass by safely.

photo

Cyclist vs. General traffic

Conflict with adjacent traffic beside the bus stop

Can occur if the cyclist crosses into a general traffic lane to avoid conflict with bus passengers. Conflict can arise also if motor vehicles are parked near the bus stop while waiting to transfer or collect bus passengers.

photo

Cyclist vs. Infrastructure

Conflict with related infrastructure

Shelters, street furniture, etc., may obstruct the cycle route unless measures to evade or avoid are built in to one or other facility.

photo

do.

Table C11.1: Main sources of potential conflict for cyclists at bus stops

Assessing the Conflict (Step 2): The standard risk assessment approach is considered to be the most appropriate for assessing cycling conflicts at bus stops. (See also Chapter B2: “Principles of Managing Conflict” for further advice in this regard.)

C=PxI Where

= Degree of conflict (risk)

= probability (or rate) of occurrence

impact (or severity) of outcome

C11.4 Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stop (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY In assessing each of the conflict types identified in Table C11.1 above, the designer or traffic manager should utilise the following: •

The accident history for the section of road under consideration – This will give a guide towards historical quantification of probability (P) and impact (I)

•

Reported accidents at bus stops

•

The likely rate of occurrence for each conflict type should be determined by reference to the following: o

Number of bus movements using the stop

Number of cyclists negotiating the location

Number of boarding / alighting passengers

Number of passing pedestrians

•

For existing bus stops, the rate of occurrence should be quantified through on-site measurement of actual numbers in each case, with particular attention being paid to peak movements

•

The likely impact or severity of the conflict should be informed by the following: o

The speed regime generally, and the relative speed differential

The mass and vulnerability of the conflicting parties

The environment in which the collision occurs, including the nature of traffic, proximity of solid obstacles etc.

The application of the above methodology will yield a range of values for each identified conflict type, based on the probability and frequency of occurrence and the likely severity of impact in each case. Using the matrix illustrated in Table C11.2 below, these can then be ranked as unacceptable, high, medium or low. IMPACT

BILITY (liklieh ood of occurr ence)

(possible level of severity if conflict occurs) Ranking

Medium

High

Unacceptable

C11.5 Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stop (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY 2

Low

High

Unacceptable

Low

Medium

High

Table C11.2: Conflict Ranking Matrix

Example:

Insert Photo illustrating Fig. 5.9, 1998 Manual

Photo C11.3.1: Pedestrian-cyclist conflicts

The layout shown in the above Photo C11.3.1 is based on a design layout included in the previous cycle design manual, “Provision of Cycle Facilities – National Manual for Urban Areas” (DTO/DoEH&LG, 1998), ref. Figure 5.9, page 151. 1. In this design, the bus stop is intended to provide a smooth transfer for passengers, including mobility impaired persons, to and from the bus. 2. Because cyclists and pedestrians are at the same level, parallel corduroy paving flags have been provided on the approach to the shared area. 3. The location is a busy inbound morning commuter stop served by a high-frequency QBC, with large numbers of cyclists also using the route during the morning peak. Conflict Assessment: The likelihood of cycle-pedestrian conflict is high due to the large numbers in each case and the likelihood is increased as the shelter has end-panels, and passing pedestrians are obliged to walk along the cycle track to avoid it. The degree of Probability is therefore assessed as 3. C11.6 Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stop (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY As the route is downhill, the cyclist’s speed may be higher than 15km/h, and the severity of any collision would therefore be high, including the possibility of serious injury if children are involved. The degree of Impact, or severity, is therefore assessed as 3, also. Using the above Conflict Ranking Matrix, the degree of risk in this instance is assessed as likely to be Unacceptable. On this basis, there is an urgent need to address the conflict. Addressing the Conflict (Step 3): Having completed the assessment process, the designer will be aware of the nature and extent of the conflicts to be addressed, and should proceed to address these by reference to the four options listed earlier: •

Avoidance – preclude the conflict possibility

(design it out/divert conflicting modes/curtail particular usage/remove conflict) •

Reduction – reduce the degree or potential severity of the conflict (reduce speed differential/review signing and lining conflicts/address obstructions, e.g. street furniture, adjacent parking)

•

Retention – accept the risk as being reasonable (check previous accident history and causes, e.g. whether due to design flaws or other factors/confirm likelihood or otherwise of repetition)

•

Management – address user behaviour of users and transfer the onus (raise conflict awareness by educational and publicity campaigns/provide information and guidance at bus stops/promote safety for cyclists and pedestrians)

In all cases, the designer should utilise the option or combination of options which are most appropriate to the particular circumstances:  All conflicts falling within the “unacceptable” or “high” ranking categories require immediate resolution, and must be analysed to determine the most suitable action  In the case of existing facilities, a set of remedial measures should be agreed for implementation as soon as practicable so as to contain the likely impacts  For new cycle facilities or new bus stops, the designer should take all reasonable steps to “design out” any serious conflicts where there is opportunity to do so

C11.7 Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stop (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY C11.4 Design Options for Bus Stops It will be apparent from the above that no single measure is likely to eliminate all conflicts, and also that elimination of conflict with one mode may sometimes result in the creation of conflict with another.

Where bus-stops are concerned, there are two fundamental design-types, both of which have the potential to generate conflicts for the cyclist, i.e. a. Bus directly adjacent to footpath (generating a bus-cycle conflict)  Option 1: On-road bus cage  Option 2: Indented bus bay b. Bus remote from footpath (generating a pedestrian-cycle conflict)  Option 1: Bus stop island  Option 2: Bus stop set back, continuous cycle track Bus directly adjacent to footpath, Option 1 – Bus Cage: The facility shown in Photos C11.4.1 and C11.4.2 avoids conflict between onroad cyclists and bus passengers (off-road). In addition, it provides a high quality of service and accessibility for mobility-impaired and disabled persons, and is very space-efficient. The facility may result in a reduced level of service for cyclists compared with other options, however, particularly where there is a medium-to-high frequency bus service, or where there is excessive bus dwell-time. While cyclists may be able to pass a stopped bus if the adjacent traffic regime is suitable, this may not always be appropriate, and the cyclist should wait until the bus pulls off from the stop in the latter circumstances.

Photos C11.4.1 & C11.4.2: On-road cycle facility avoids conflict with bus passengers

The following Design Principles should be noted: C11.8 Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stop (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY •

If a cycle lane is present, it should be marked through the bus stop as an advisory (broken line) lane.

•

If a bus cage is required, the cycle lane should be marked up to the bus stop, and recommence beyond it (as shown in Photo C11.4.1).

•

If a cycle track is present, it should be brought through a transition and re-established on road as an adjacent cycle lane in advance of the bus stop (see Photo C11.4.2). The transition should ensure the cyclist is re-established 20m in advance of the conflict point (bus stop area).

•

Attention should be paid to whether the cycle lane is advisory or mandatory approaching the bus stop.

•

This type of bus stop is not appropriate for articulated buses due to the risk of the cycle being trapped between the bus and the kerb.

Bus directly adjacent to footpath, Option 2 – Indented Bus Bay: The layout shown in Figure C11.1, and illustrated in Photo C11.4.3, avoids bringing cyclists into conflict with bus or passenger activities at the bus stop, but introduces a bus weave across the cycle lane when setting down and moving off. It offers an attractive solution for on-road cyclists for routes with low frequency of service. The layout generally provides room for only one bus at a time to pull in, but allows for express buses to overtake local buses. It can often be perceived by the bus driver as “losing place” in traffic.

Layout and cross-section sketches

Photo C11.4.3 and Figure C11.1: Indented bus bay

The following Design Principles should be noted in respect of indented bus bays:

C11.9 Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stop (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY •

The weave design for the bus bay should be in accordance with the weaving principles established in Chapter B11: “Managing Side Roads and Traffic Turning Left”.

•

Kerb radii at the entrance and exit of the bus bay should be sufficient to allow the bus to access the bus stop safely and comfortably, and to facilitate re-entry into general traffic, but should not be designed to allow the bus to sweep across the cycle lane at too high a speed when completing these movements.

•

Consideration may be given to providing at-grade segregation between bus and bicycle up to the point where the bus commences weaving; segregation should be used in any case, if the bus bay is intended to accommodate articulated buses.

•

If a cycle lane is present, it should be marked across the bus bay as an advisory (broken line) lane to allow buses to cross to the kerb.

•

The bus bay should be of sufficient length and width to allow buses sufficient room to pull in next to the footpath while keeping the passing cycle lane clear, so as to facilitate both passengers and cyclists.

Bus remote from footpath, Option 1 – Bus Stop Island: In the layout shown in Figure C11.2, and illustrated in Photo C11.4.4,  The bus is unaffected by cyclists who are brought to the rear of the island on a continuous, segregated cycle lane  Weaving across cyclists by other vehicles is avoided  Conflict between cyclists and bus passengers is limited to the passenger access area located to the rear of the island bus stop  Other pedestrian movements are fully segregated from cyclists  The layout provides a high level of service for cyclists Less favourable aspects of this layout are that  It requires more space than the on-road bus cage  It requires additional maintenance regarding litter and drainage  It may create difficulties for mobility and visually impaired bus passengers  Passengers may need to be ramped down across the cycle facility to access the bus stop; alternatively, cyclists may need to be ramped up across the pedestrian link from footpath to the bus island; cyclists must yield to pedestrians in all cases  If the bus island is less than 2m in width, passengers may be required to wait on the footpath. C11.10 Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stop (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Layout and cross-section sketches

Photo C11.4.4 and Figure C11.2: Bus-Stop island with segregated cycle lane to the rear.

The following Design Principles should be noted in relation to the provision of bus stop islands: • Reverse curve radii for the cycle facility should not be unduly sharp, nor should they allow for cycle speeds greater than 20 km/h in view pedestrian presence. •

The deflection should be minimised, to reduce disruption for pedestrians accessing the bus stop island, and reduce deviation from the cyclists’ desire line.

• The design layout should segregate cyclists from pedestrians and bus passengers except at designated crossing points, and signs and road markings should confirm pedestrian priority at all such crossing points. • The bus stop island should have sufficient space to meet the waiting, boarding and alighting requirements of all users, including wheelchair access, while also providing space for bus pole, lighting, and litter bins (a larger island may be required to accommodate bus shelter and bicycle parking). • The bus stop island and surrounding cycle track should be designed to allow ease of access by maintenance vehicles and/or equipment, and the facility should be maintained regularly to keep them free of litter, glass, and debris. Bus remote from footpath, Option 2 – Bus Stop set back, Continuous cycle facility: The design layout shown in Figure C11.3, and illustrated in Photo C11.4.5, shows the bus shelter constructed against the rear of the footpath, to maximise space for waiting passengers and passing pedestrians.

C11.11 Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stop (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The off-road cycle track is physically segregated from the pedestrian area by way of 50mm dropped kerb and coloured surface, and is also physically segregated from the bus lane. Passengers should have priority in the shared area when a bus is at the busstop. This should be reinforced by the design layout, and reflected in the signs and road markings.

Amended version of Figure 5.9, old manual, to include: Full footpath width End-free shelters Vertical segregation (see also TfL amended, Photo C11.4.5 and Figure C11.3: Bus stop set back, with continuous cycle facility (segregated)

The advantages of this layout are that  It is more “space-efficient” than other options  There is no conflict between the bus and the cyclist  Waiting passengers are physically segregated from passing cyclists The disadvantages of the layout are that  There may be significant passenger/cyclist conflict, especially when a bus is at the bus-stop  The layout is not suitable for high kerbs (e.g. Kassel Kerb or similar), as the inside footpath is too high, and requires a bus capable of dropping to allow access by mobility-impaired and disabled persons  It requires cyclists to stop when the bus is at the bus stop  It requires bus driver to check for cyclists before opening the doors Variant (Option 2) – Cyclist and pedestrian at same level: The variant option shown in Figure C11.4, and illustrated in Photo C11.4.6, below, shows the bus shelter constructed against the rear of the footpath, as before. However, while the off-road cycle track is physically segregated from C11.12 Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stop (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY the bus lane, it is separated from the pedestrian area by way of visual delineation only. As noted previously in Chapter C8, “Cycling and Pedestrians” (Section C8.4), the sharing of space between cyclists and pedestrians should always be considered equivalent to ‘cycling on the footpath’, whether or not the surfaces are divided by a white line, and is not generally recommended. Accordingly, this variant option should only be considered by the designer if space is at a premium, with no other satisfactory option available. Even then it should be subject to the following Design Principles: •

The area between the bus shelter and the kerb should be designed as a mixed-use, shared area for a suitable length (say 15 metres on either side of the bus stop

•

Pedestrians, including bus passengers, should have priority in the shared area, and this should be reflected in signs and road markings.

•

If a cycle track is present, it must be terminated in advance of the shared area and resumed afterwards

•

Tactile paving in the vicinity of the bus stop should be of a type and so laid in accordance with existing guidance that it will not create a trip hazard for either mode.

•

Rumble strips and other speed reduction measures should be introduced on the immediate approach to the shared area, to reduce cycle speeds.

•

Consideration may be given to re-establishing the cycle-track on-road at busier stops. However, this requires appropriate transitions, as well as a bus lane width of 4.25m, to avoid merely replacing a pedestrian/cyclist conflict with an equally unsatisfactory bus/cycle conflict.

Amended version of Figure 5.9, old manual, to include: Full footpath width; End-free shelters Visual separation (see also TfL amended, CCE/C28, page 220

C11.13 Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stop (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C11.4.6 and Figure C11.4: Bus stop set back, with continuous cycle facility (visually separated)

C11.5 Design Guidance Selecting an appropriate design is dependent on a number of factors which, inter alia, include: •

The frequency of bus service

•

The extent of bus passenger and other pedestrian activity

•

The nature of the adjacent traffic regime

•

The nature of the cycle facility

•

The extent of cycling activity

•

The amount of available space

The following, Table C11.4, shows the design solutions discussed in Section C11.4 as they might be applied to various conflict types. [This Table is for guidance purposes only. For further advice, including detailed drawings covering a range of bus stop designs, please see Appendix (?).]

Cycle Facility

Adjacent Traffic Regime

Frequency of Bus service

Preferred Design

Conflict Type

Comment

Shared Use

Low speed / low volume

Low Frequency

On road straight through

Low conflict between cyclists and buses

Use only if Space is severely limited

On-road cycle lane

Mixed traffic/ Established bus route

Low/medium Frequency

On road straight through

Low conflict between cyclists and buses

Change from mandatory (solid line) to advisory (broken line) cycle lane at bus stop

C11.14 Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stop (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY On road cycle lane in bus lane

Bus Lane

On road cycle lane in bus lane

Bus Lane

Raised cycle lane

Bus Lane

or Cycle track

or Bus Lane or traffic lane

Medium Frequency

Any Frequency

High Frequency

Indented bus bay (Divert bus inside cycle lane)

Cyclist must be well established – use kerb to keep bus weave at low speed from bus lanes

On road straightthrough;

Divert cyclists behind bus stop island

Expect and avoid high pedestrian / queue activity

On road straightthrough;

Divert cyclists behind bus stop island

Expect and avoid high pedestrian / queue activity

Continuous cycle facility– set back bus shelter or On road straight-through;

If bus lane is narrow, mandatory cycle lane + advisory sign “do not pass bus”

Table C11.4: Design guidance for addressing cycling conflicts at bus stops [subject to review]

C11.6 Conclusion A certain level of conflict is inevitable at all locations where mixed traffic is allowed to intersect or share space, and this is as true of cycling conflicts at bus stops as it is of more obvious examples such as pedestrian and toucan crossings, tram-lines on city streets, and bus-rail interchanges, etc. It is unlikely that any single design will eliminate all conflicts in every situation, whether between cyclist and bus, bus passenger, other pedestrians, other vehicles, or any combination thereof. However, it will be up to the designer to identify and assess the likely degree of conflict in all such circumstances before selecting the design, or combination of designs, most likely to give the best overall solution (see Design Checklist, below). All selected design/s should meet the following requirements, at minimum: ♦ Designs or design features which are likely to be ignored should be avoided, even if these are attractive in principle ♦ The design should comply with the requirements of the Disability Act 2005 ♦ Where there are space constraints, or during periods of heavy traffic congestion, it is reasonable to expect that all modes will experience C11.15 Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stop (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY some delays, and no single mode, be it bus, cycle or pedestrian, should presume entitlement to an uninterrupted journey. ♦ Bus/cycle interchange facilities (including secure parking bays) should be provided at bus stops where the demand exists, or where it is felt it can be developed.

Design Checklist Has the design addressed cyclists’ conflicts with: ♦ Pedestrian access to/from the bus stop? ♦ Passengers boarding/alighting from a bus? ♦ Passengers waiting for a bus? ♦ Buses pulling in and out from the kerb? ♦ Adjacent parking incl. passenger set-down/collection (kissand-ride)? Has the design included cycle parking?

C11.16 Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stop (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter C13: Cycling and Heavy Goods Vehicles C13.1 General This chapter examines the background and main design issues associated with cycling and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). It proposes a number of design solutions centred on Network Planning and the Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads. It recommends that conflicts be resolved by reference to the Principles of Managing Conflict, set out elsewhere in this Manual.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter A5: Cycle Network Planning Chapter A8: Cycling in Rural Areas Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter B2: Principles of Managing Conflict Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation guidance Chapter B10: On-road Priority Junctions

C13.2 Rationale The interaction between cyclists and heavy goods vehicles is one of the most critical issues which need to be resolved by the designer. Heavy Commercial Vehicles, more commonly referred to as Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs), are defined in the Traffic Management Guidelines (ref. Chapter 17, p.246) as commercial vehicles with a gross vehicle weight greater than 3.5 tonnes. Towns and cities require frequent access by HGVs to service leisure, shopping, business and commercial needs, and this can create conflict with other road users, especially in areas where road space is restricted, and/or when traffic is congested (see Photo C13.2.1, below).

C13.1 Chapter C13: Cycling and HGVs (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C13.2.1: HGVs in restricted or congested road space

In general, the concerns that people have about HGVs in urban traffic relate to the size of the vehicles, and related issues such as noise, vibration and local air pollution. From the cyclist’s perspective, however, the primary concern with HGVs is one of safety, and is specifically related to the HGV driver’s lack of visibility of the cyclist (especially when turning left), coupled with the significant mass differentials involved. This is illustrated in Figure C13.1 below.

1: sight by normal mirrors; 2: sight by footpath mirror; 3: sight through windows:

Figure C13.1: HGV/Cycle conflict points

[New Diagram required to show Irish situation]

Insert Photo or Figure showing Garda Freeflow poster: “If you can’t see me C13.2 Chapter C13: Cycling and then I can’t see you” (?)HGVs (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C13.2.2: “If you can’t see me...”

This concern is supported by statistical evidence from Ireland and elsewhere, showing that HGV/cycle conflicts are the most dangerous the cyclist is likely to encounter when travelling on, or adjacent to, the public road, particularly in an urban environment. The RSA report, Road Collision Facts 2007 includes accident data for the period 1998-2007. A summary of data contained in the report with particular reference to cycling is included in Chapter B7, “Road Safety Audits” (ref. Tables B7.1 and B7.2).  The total number of cyclist fatalities in 2007 was 15 (7 of them inside built-up areas): • 7 involved cars • 7 involved HGVs (5) and Public Service Vehicles (2) • 1 (no other vehicle involved) The main findings in the Dublin City Council study, “Cycle Collisions in Dublin City, 2002-2006” (DCC, 2009) reveal that  8 of the 11 cycle fatalities between 2002-2006 involved HGVs turning left at junctions  Cyclists were involved in 28 serious collisions between 2002 and 2005, the highest proportion of which (29%) was due to left turning vehicles, of which 63% were HGVs. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (UK) fact sheet, “Cyclists and Lorries” (RoSPA, 2006) highlights collisions involving HGVs as presenting the most dangerous conflict for the cyclist  While only 2% of all cycle collisions involve HGVs, HGV collisions account for 22% of all cycling fatalities.  75% of HGV/cycle collisions occurred either when •

HGV turning left

•

HGV and cyclist both turning left, or

•

HGV overtaking cyclist

Clearly, there is an onus on the designer to address the HGV/cycling conflict, and to develop solutions that will enable it to be managed effectively. This is C13.3 Chapter C13: Cycling and HGVs (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY especially the case for urban situations where significant volumes of cyclists and HGVs can have mutually exclusive needs, where road space is limited, and where the needs of other road users must also be accommodated.

Photo C13.2.2: Cycling adjacent to HGV traffic

C13.3 Design Solutions When developing design solutions to reduce and/or manage HGV/cycling conflicts, these should be based on Network Planning and the Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads in the first instance. Network Planning: Guidelines on planning and developing a cycle network are set out in Chapter A5. As suggested therein, the first step should be to plan separate networks for each transport mode, as each mode will have its own needs and priorities within the overall traffic pattern. The various mode-based networks can then be layered into a “best-fit” reconciliation. This is essential if conflicts between the modes are to be minimised.

Insert Diagram or Photo showing road network layout, to include cycle and HGV elements

Figure C13.2: Road network, including provision for cyclists and HGVs

“Best fit” reconciliations should be guided by the relevant policies and guidelines, as each will have its own considerations, e.g. directness, hours of

C13.4 Chapter C13: Cycling and HGVs (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY operation, regulation, etc. For HGVs and cyclists, these policies would include national, regional and local Freight and Cycle policies.

Photo C13.3.1: Reconciling different needs

As a general guideline, separate networks are desirable if conflict between HGVs and cyclists is to be minimised. Where this is not achievable, some form of segregation is necessary. Sustainable Safety: The primary task in designing for sustainable road safety should be to develop the road/street network so that its use and capacity can be maximised for all users, and the risk of collisions can be reduced through minimising actual or potential conflicts. The five principles of sustainably safe roads discussed in Chapter B1 are recalled hereunder. Homogeneity, readability and self-awareness are the most important of these when reconciling conflicts between cyclists and HGVs â&#x20AC;&#x201C;

Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads: (ref. Chapter B1) Functionality Homogeneity Readability Forgivingness Self-awareness

C13.5 Chapter C13: Cycling and HGVs (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Homogeneity requires the reduction of mass and speed differentials between modes, and is particularly relevant in light of the significant mass and speed differentials between cyclists and HGVs. Mass and speed are both factors when travelling outside built-up areas, e.g. the impact on vulnerable road users of localised air turbulence associated with the speed of an overtaking HGV (see also Chapter A8: “Cycling in RuralAreas”). Speed differential is less likely to present a problem within built-up areas, where speeds in general are reduced due to the short distance between junctions/crossings, traffic signal operations, the volume of other road users, and local constraints. Ideally, if a sustainably safe degree of homogeneity is to be achieved, HGVs and cyclists should always be separated from each other, though the degree of separation required will be influenced by the volume and mix of transport modes, the prevailing speeds, and the number of turning or crossing movements to be catered for – •

On high-level routes carrying significant HCV volumes, physical segregation of the cyclist will be required (see example in Photo C13.3.2, below).

•

In residential areas and access streets, consideration might be given to banning through-traffic HCVs, forcing them to relocate to a more suitable alternative route.

[See also Chapter B9, “Integration and Segregation” for a more detailed discussion of these issues.]

Photo C13.3.2: Segregation of HGV and cycle streams

Readability requires that the road network, including signs, markings and signals, should be readable (i.e. predictable) for all road users, as should other C13.6 Chapter C13: Cycling and HGVs (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY drivers’ behaviour and intentions. Good readability allows road users to recognise or anticipate hazards, and move or position themselves appropriately.  It is essential that cyclists and HGV drivers travelling adjacent to each other should always be aware of where each is positioned on the network, and it should also be clear from the network layout that both modes are where they should be.  “Mixed messages” should be avoided, particularly in the design and layout of junctions which facilitate left-turning HGV movements (see also Chapter B11, “Managing the Side Roads and Traffic Turning Left”). For cyclists and HGV drivers, the readability the route and each others intentions will be enhanced by their own level of Self- awareness, i.e. the degree to which they can correctly estimate their own skills and fitness to interact and negotiate the road network. Managing Conflicts: Conflicts between cyclists and HGVs should always be managed by reference to the Principles of Managing Conflict discussed in Chapter B2. The designer should follow the recommended methodology therein in respect of each of the four main steps, which are repeated, below . This should be reflected in any resulting design solutions –

Principles of Managing Conflict (ref. Chapter B2) Identify the Conflict Assess the conflict Address the conflict Monitor the outcome

In addressing the conflict, the designer is provided with four options, which can be used separately or in combination, depending on individual circumstances. Examples of how these may be applied in the resolution of HGV/cycling conflicts are considered here – 1. Avoidance, or designing out the conflict, can be achieved by diverting conflicting modes, or curtailing a particular usage. Solutions might include separating the networks, or banning HGVs from residential areas and low-level access streets, as noted earlier.

C13.7 Chapter C13: Cycling and HGVs (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

Insert Photo

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C13.3.3: HGVs banned from designated areas

2. Reduction, or reducing the potential severity of the outcome, involves maximising readability, reducing speed differentials, and/or reducing exposure to potential risks. Solutions include – •

better junction design, signals, traffic & cycle lane markings, including improved HGV manoeuvrability on turning circles

•

regular maintenance of surfaces, markings, drainage and lighting on high-level routes

•

Traffic calming and/or HGV speed restrictions on lower-level routes

•

Restricted hours of operation for loading/unloading activities

3. Retention, or accepting that it is reasonable to tolerate a certain level of risk, requires the designer to undertake a full investigation of the previous collisions history, to ensure that the likelihood of repetition is remote, and also to ensure the road design/layout was not a contributory factor. Note: If flaws in the original design are found to have played a part, the designer has a corresponding obligation to introduce improvements. 4. Management, or addressing and seeking to improve the behaviour of road-users, can include highlighting and raising awareness of potential conflicts through – •

Provision of signage and guidance along all high-level routes, including local signage for both modes approaching junctions

•

Introducing additonal road markings similar to the Danish example shown in Photo C13.3.4, below (part of a promotion campaign to increase cyclists’ awareness of the dangers of HGVs)

•

Considering the introduction of a permit system for HGVs in urban areas, to include safety and other conditions

C13.8 Chapter C13: Cycling and HGVs (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C13.3.4: Raising cyclist awareness of HGV dangers (Denmark)

C13.4: Summary From the cyclistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perspective, the interaction between cyclists and HGVs is critical, and it is essential that the issue be addressed by the designer so that associated conflicts are resolved or minimised. Design solutions dealing with HCV/cycling issues should have regard to Network Planning guidance (see Chapter A5). The design approach should be centred on the Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads, discussed in Chapter B1. The management and/or resolution of any conflicts should be in accordance with the Principles of Managing Conflict, and related methodology, set out in Chapter B2.

Photo C13.3.5: Keeping the cyclist in sight

The optimum design solution for dealing with HCV/cycling conflicts is to provide separate Cycle and HCV networks where possible. Where separate networks are not achievable, segregation will be necessary.

C13.9 Chapter C13: Cycling and HGVs (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Designers should have regard to the following additional checklist –

Designer Checklist: 1. Cyclists should always be physically segregated from HCVs on routes where there are significant HCV movements 2. General traffic lanes and cycle lanes should be of sufficient width to allow cyclists and HCVs to travel with sufficient free-space between them 3. Traffic movement priorities at junctions should be clearly defined at all times with vertical and horizontal markings, where required. 4. Straight-ahead cycle lanes should be marked through junctions, where appropriate. 5. On routes having significant HCV movements, signalised junctions should be managed so as to minimise HCV/cyclist conflicts (see also Chapter B10). 6. Particular attention should be given to the identification and management of “blind spots” at junctions.

C13.10 Chapter C13: Cycling and HGVs (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

C14: Cycling and Public Lighting C14.1 General This chapter considers the main requirements for public lighting for cycle facilities. It sets out design criteria for meeting those requirements, and looks at issues which can impact on the efficiency of the lighting arrangements. It notes the relevant codes of practice and guidelines for design, installation and maintenance of public lighting, and provides the designer with a related checklist for use in the design of cycle facilities.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter D2: Elements of Cycle Route Maintenance Chapter D3: Developing a Maintenance Programme Chapter D4: Maintenance Orientated Design

C14.2 Public Lighting Requirements Bicycle headlamps are not designed to illuminate the route. Their purpose is to alert other road users to the presence of the cyclist. Public lighting is generally provided in urban environments for the safety, comfort and security of all road users, including cyclists, and is an essential requirement for commuting during winter months. Local Authorities are statutorily required to maintain public roads, including cycle tracks and cycle ways, under the 1993 Roads Act (Section 13, Part 2). The provision and maintenance of public lighting facilities form part of this requirement.

C14.1 Chapter C14: Cycling and Public Lighting (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C14.2.1: Public lighting in an urban environment

A well-designed street-lighting network primarily helps road users to identify hazards, including the presence and activity of other road users. It increases the road user’s perception of safety and attractiveness, and the resulting environment can act as a deterrent against crime or anti-social activities. For cyclists, street lighting can highlight the presence of potential hazards along the route (e.g. vehicular, street furniture), and generally allows for better orientation. Where lighting is provided along a cycle route, whether on-road or off-road, it should be adequate to meet the following basic requirements: •

Illumination of the direction of the route – the cyclist can see where she/he is going

•

Illumination of all road surfaces

•

Illumination of junctions, access points, conflict points etc.

•

Illumination of all obstacles and users (pedestrians etc.) along the route

Well-designed public lighting increases the attractiveness of the route and gives the cyclist a greater sense of security. It can also increase the accessibility and utility of the route.

C14.2 Chapter C14: Cycling and Public Lighting (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C14.2.2: lighting increases the cyclist’s sense of security

C14.3 Design Criteria Whether designing a new public lighting scheme or upgrading, or renewing, an existing one, public safety should always be the highest priority, followed by road safety and user orientation. Where new cycle facilities are retrofitted to a street or carriageway, the existing public lighting arrangements should always be re-examined, as the changes to the road layout may require the existing lighting columns to be repositioned and/or additional lighting to be provided. When designing lighting facilities for a cycle route, the following must be considered – ♦ Category of road or street to be illuminated ♦ Design Speed ♦ Blinding ♦ Strength of Lighting ♦ Uniformity of Lighting ♦ Carriageway Lighting ♦ Lighting at crossings ♦ Maintenance ♦ Energy efficiency Road/Street Category: The height of lighting column to be provided will depend on the type of road, e.g. whether it is a Distributor, Local Collector or Access road.

C14.3 Chapter C14: Cycling and Public Lighting (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Generally, bus routes and distributor or higher-order collector routes benefit from higher lighting columns, while residential areas benefit from lower lighting columns.

Photo C14.3.1: Public lighting on a bus-priority route

Design Speed: The design speed is directly proportional to the sight distance required. The provision of lighting must allow a minimum sight distance for cyclists of between 20 metres to 40 metres, preferably towards the upper limit. Blinding: During dark conditions, passing motorists may temporarily “blind” approaching cyclists and lead to a greatly reduced sight distance. To combat this effect, the strength of the street lighting should be as consistent as possible, thereby obliging the motorist to use dipped headlights. Where two-way off-road cycle tracks are provided alongside unlit carriageways, drivers may be confused when seeing bicycle headlamps approaching on their nearside. The hazard may be reduced by locating the opposing track away from the edge of the roadway, bearing in mind the lighting availability to the relocated cycle track. Strength of Lighting: Street lighting should give enough light to enable all road users, including cyclists, to recognise each other, as well as objects on or next to the road, at a reasonable distance. The strength of lighting to be provided is measured in terms of its horizontal light intensity, i.e. the amount of light which falls on the road surface. The C14.4 Chapter C14: Cycling and Public Lighting (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY required intensity varies in relation to the prevailing traffic regime, and should comply with the following recommendations:  average horizontal light intensity of 7 Lux, on distributor higher-order collector roads  average horizontal light intensity of 2-5 Lux, on access streets and other local routes The amount of light which is reflected by the road surface determines the visibility of the surroundings, and this will depend, inter alia, on  the light intensity  the colour of light  the reflective properties of the road On major roads the lowest light intensity on the road surface should be at least 30% of the highest light intensity. On lower-order roads, a corresponding low-high ratio of 15-20% may be adopted. Uniformity of Lighting: The level of lighting on a road surface under a street lamp should not differ significantly from the level of light between two street lamps. Differences can be determined by the following:  distance between the street lamps  height of the street lamps  quality of the bulbs  quality of the optical system used in the fittings Further guidance is provided in the following Table C14.1, which shows recommended column heights and related distances between the columns for a range of lantern types. Lantern Type

Height of Column

Maximum Spacing of Column

Comment

70w Son-t

6 to 8 metres

34 metres

Generally provided in residential areas

150w Son-t

6 to 8 metres

34 metres

Mixed use areas

250w Son-t

8 to 12 metres

40 metres

Traffic Route & City Centre Standard

400w Metal Halide

8 to 12 metres

One each side of crossing

Used at crossing points on roads

Table C14.1: Recommended ratio of column height to distance (for stated lantern types)

C14.5 Chapter C14: Cycling and Public Lighting (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Notes on Table C14.1: ♦ All Lanterns should be to minimum standard IP65 for ingress protection ♦ Minimum Lighting standard for Residential areas is 5 Lux – Luminaries/m2 ♦ Minimum Lighting standard for Traffic Routes areas is 15 Lux – Luminaries/m2 ♦ BS 5489 calls for an average luminance of 10 Lux and a minimum luminance of 5 Lux for Footpaths and Cycle Paths Carriageway Lighting: It should not be assumed that an unlit cycle track, separated from the main carriageway, will receive sufficient light from the carriageway lights. Separate lighting of a cycle track should be introduced at locations where  the cycle track is located at a significant distance from the carriageway (in excess of 2 metres)  there are sudden bends or corners on an unlit cycle track  a cycle track diverges from the carriageway Lighting at Crossings: It is important that all crossings are well-lit. The lighting should highlight pedestrians and cyclists both approaching the crossing and on the crossing. This is best achieved by providing specific lighting for this purpose at both sides of the crossing, to ensure that all road users can be seen.

Photos C14.3.2and C14.3.3: Lighting at crossings

C14.6 Chapter C14: Cycling and Public Lighting (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Maintenance: Regular maintenance is an essential aspect of public lighting. [See Chapters D1-D3 for detailed discussion of this issue.]

Energy Efficiency: The Public Lighting network is a vital community asset, but has traditionally been seen as expensive to operate and maintain because of high energy and lamp replacement costs, whether due to poor specification at design stage, or reliance on old or out-of-date technologies. Given the increased availability of green technologies, street-lighting designers should now be required to deliver more eco-friendly solutions in keeping with sustainable development principles. The designer will need to assess the impact of any proposed solution on the use of the route by cyclists and other vulnerable users, e.g. balancing energy savings against reduced safety perception in the case of sensor-activated lighting. C14.4 Additional Concerns Additional design issues which are of specific concern from a public lighting perspective are highlighted in the following paragraphs (see, also, Section D: Maintenance, Chapters D1-D4, for further consideration) – ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Positioning of Lighting Columns Impact of Planting: Public Lighting Survey Lighting and Safety

Positioning of Lighting Columns: Care should be taken to avoid creating an obstruction for cyclists when positioning lighting columns at the edge of the roadway. Sufficient set-back should be allowed inside the cycle facility, where this has been provided. Where no cycle-lane is delineated, there should be a minimum clearance of 0.5m between the carriageway edge and the lighting column to allow for cycle wobble or swerving inwards to avoid other vehicles. Where a footpath adjoins an off-road cycle track, positioning can be problematic in the absence of a verge of sufficient width, as the placement of the column between the cycle-track and the footpath C14.7 Chapter C14: Cycling and Public Lighting (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY reduces the clearance available to both modes, and increases the risk of collision with the lighting column, particularly for cyclists where severe injuries can be caused if they are travelling at speed. Where cycle facilities are being retrofitted, existing public lighting columns should be relocated at an early stage of the project, if they are located on, or will impact on, the proporsed cycle facility. Vertical clearance should allow for maintenance and other access requirements. Taking these considerations into account, it is recommended that public lighting columns should be positioned to provide the following setback and vertical clearances –  Where verge is provided, clearance should be a minimum of 0.5 metres from the edge of the running surface, and preferably 0.8 metres.  If no verge is available, the column should be located to the back of the footpath, and adjusted if necessary to deliver the lighting levels attributed to the carriageway.  Vertical clearance should allow a minimum mounting height of 4.0 metres. Where lighting is required for an off-carriageway track, the designer needs to consider the proximity of an electricity supply, provision of cabling and ducting, energy usage, and light pollution i.e. use of low profile curved glass lantern to reduce upward light spill. In certain circumstances, e.g. for bridges and parapets, the use of deck, parapet or other non-column mounted lighting may be more appropriate. Impact of Planting: The positioning of public lighting columns in relation to existing trees and vegetation should be addressed during the design process (see Chapter D4 for further discussion of this issue).

C14.8 Chapter C14: Cycling and Public Lighting (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C14.4.1: Impact of trees onpublic lighting

Public Lighting Survey: Public lighting surveys are an integral part of normal maintenance operations. The survey should be undertaken in conditions that are dark enough to check the illumination of all road surfaces, and typically involves the use of a light meter, which needs to be calibrated. Separate surveys should be carried out during summer and winter months. The survey should take note of the environmental conditions, as lighting strengths may vary depending on the climate i.e. fog, snow, rain etc. As part of the survey, the views of the user (cyclist, pedestrians, vehicle drivers) should be sought. Lighting and Safety: Routes outside built-up areas that are used primarily for recreational purposes will not normally require lighting unless there are specific road safety concerns, e.g. at junctions or crossings, or where a cycle facility has been provided directly alongside the roadway. Cycle routes across large quiet parks or along canal tow-paths may not be well used outside peak commuting times or after dark, even where adequate lighting may have been provided. In such cases, considerations should be given to the development of a suitable on-road alternative along routes included in the street lighting network and that matches the cycle desire line as closely as possible.

C14.9 Chapter C14: Cycling and Public Lighting (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C14.4.2: Cycling along canal tow-paths

Underpasses require special attention to address a perceived sense of reduced personal safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Underpasses should be provided with appropriate lighting (> 2 Lux) at all times. If the underpass is fitted with CCTV, the lighting specification should be determined by the CCTV requirements.

Insert Photo of Underpass lighting

Photo C14.4.3: Lighting at underpasses

C14.10 Chapter C14: Cycling and Public Lighting (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY C14.5 Codes of Practice and Reference Guidelines The design, installation and maintenance of public lighting measures should be carried out in accordance with the Codes of Practice and reference guidelines listed below. Any proposed derivations should be subject to consultation with, and agreement by, the relevant Local Authority Public Lighting Department. BS 5489-1:2003 Code of practice for the design of road lighting I.S. EN 13201-2:2003 Road Lighting ILE TR 23 - Institute of Lighting Engineers, Technical Report 23

Designers should always consult with the Local Authority Public Lighting Department for advice on any specific requirements which the authority may have in force.

C14.6:

Design Checklist The following checklist summarises the main elements which should be addressed by the designer in the provision of public lighting:

Design Checklist ♦ Are lighting columns sited appropriately so that all areas, including the cycle facility are illuminated sufficiently? ♦ Are light fittings at the correct height and strength? ♦ Is there easy access to lamps and columns for maintenance, bulb replacement etc.? ♦ Is there any possibility of lighting being obscured by adjacent planting? ♦ Does lighting comply with relevant standards and energy efficiency guidelines?

C14.11 Chapter C14: Cycling and Public Lighting (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter C15 Drainage

C15.1 General This chapter addresses the issues associated with drainage of cycle facilities, in whatever form they take, and the effect of drainage measures on safety, maintenance, longevity of design life and environmental impact. This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainabl y Safe Roads Chapter D2: Elements of Cycl e Route Maintenance Chapter D4: Maintenance Orientated Design

C15.2 Drainage Facilities Good drainage design of cycle routes should take account of the following fundamental elements – • • •

Drainage efficiency of the surface Safe usability of the surface Maintainability and sustainability of the surface

Cycle facilities must be well drained safe usable envi ronments that can easily be maintained, if cycling is to be a viable travel mode for Ireland.

NB: Check if this photo has been used in another chapter

Photo C15.2.1: Cycle facilities need good drainage

1 Chapter C15: Drainage-final edit, signed off by WG, 02.jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY C15.3 Legislative Context Under the 1993 Roads Act (Section 13, Part 2), local authorities have an obligation to maintain public roads. The maintenance of cycle ways and cycle tracks falls within this remit. Local authorities have a similar obligation to maintain public drainage systems within their area, and this would include drainage associated with cycle facilities. C15.4 Drainage Design Strategy There is an underlying need to drain road and cycle route surfaces to maximise their design life, safety and usability. Water on a cycle route or associated road surface can be a serious problem both directly and indirectly to cyclists as well as pedestrians. In addi tion to reducing the effectiveness of braking systems, i t can lead to serious damage to the road surface, which affects the long-term stability and riding comfort for all vehicular modes. These issues are exacerbated for cyclists; hence, the standard of drainage associated with cycle routes must be over and above the normal standard proposed for motorised vehicul ar routes only. The reasoning for this can be linked to – •

Bicycle braking systems and tyres are not as effective in the wet – it is harder to stop, and there is more risk of skidding in the rain. There is also less scope to take evasive action

•

Poor drainage leads to standing water and spray, and this in turn extends the impact of associated inconvenience

•

Cyclists are not protected from standing water in the way that car users are

•

Standing water can conceal serious surface defects that increase the risk of accident for the cyclist or damage to the bicycle

•

Standing water can give rise to splashing from vehicles along poorl y drained roads, drenching both cyclists and pedestrians

•

Excessive standing water on dedicated cycle facilities can render them impassable in certain circumstances (see Photos C15.4.1 and C15.4.2, below)

2 Chapter C15: Drainage-final edit, signed off by WG, 02.jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photos C15.4.1 and C15.4.2: Impassable cycl e routes

C15.5 Design Philosophy The drainage of a cycle route must aim to remove surface water quickly and efficiently, in a manner that is cycle-friendly, and consistent with sustainable drainage principles.

SUSTAINABLE URBAN DRAINAGE: •

A sustainable drainage system aims to replicate natural systems with low environmental impact, to drain surface water run-off through collection, storage, and cleaning, before being released slowly back into the environment.

•

A sustainable drainage system deals with problems of flooding and surface water quality using the most reasonably practicable environmental solutions.

Good drainage design solutions for cycle routes require consideration of the following – The user (i.e. the cyclist) Choice of cycle facility Pavement & surface construction Surface profile and ironmongery Surface geometry Impact of new infrastructure and retrofitting Road markings and coloured surfacing Segregated cycle facilities and independent drainage 3 Chapter C15: Drainage-final edit, signed off by WG, 02.jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The User: Good drainage design should not be at the expense of the cyclist. Surfaces should be smooth and without obstacles, so as to minimise disruption while ensuring rider comfort and safety for the majori ty of users most of the time. The condition of the cycle route surface should not be compromised for the sake of an â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;easy or cheapâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; drainage design solution. This should hold true also for formation and surface construction.

Photo C15.5.1: User consideration

Choice of Cycle Facility: The various types of cycle facility and their approapriateness are dealt with in Chapter B8 (Link Options) and Chapter B9 (Integration or Segregation). While the design of drainage is an important consideration, drainage convenience is never the primary or sole rationale for determining which facility should be chosen. On-road cycle lanes are frequently perceived as the most convenient form of cycle facility from a design perspective, given the limited changes to infrastructure, including drainage, that are requi red. Mixed use access streets offer similar convenience for the designer, though less protection for the cyclist. Pavement and Surface Construction: The cycle route surface should be as smooth as possible for the majori ty of its length in order to promote efficient surface water run-off and provide a comfortable riding surface. However, a degree of surface friction is needed to provide sufficient grip, particularly at junctions. A rougher texture such as mastic asphalt will also reduce wheel spray more than a smooth texture such as hot rolled asphalt. Surfacing material choice is significant when allowing for effective drainage solutions, and the materials commonly used on sealed or impermeable surfaces include 4 Chapter C15: Drainage-final edit, signed off by WG, 02.jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY  45/6F or 45/10F hot rolled asphalt wearing course to EN13108: 4 (BS 594:1)  0/6 or 0/10 Dense bi tumen macadam surface course to EN13108:1 (BS 4987:1)  Close graded SMA (10mm or 6mm aggregate) to EN 13108-5 While high-friction (anti-skid) surfacing, in a range of colours, is often used to provide grip as well as delineation, the cost can be excessive, and its use should be limited to high-risk locations. Bound and Unbound Surfaces: When bound surfacing is used, e.g. on rural cycle routes, an edge drain should be used in addition to the required cross. This can be either connected to a water course or designed to soak away.

Alternative photo required

Photo C15.5.2: Bound Surfaces

Where an unbound surface is used, it is important that the cycle track is constructed so that surface water is shed to the sides, notwithstanding the fact that the surface is permeable. This is to prevent the sub-surface from becoming saturated. Unbound surfaces are appropriate to certain cycle routes, e.g. cycleways and cycle trails. Such surfaces, although providing a passive and sustainable drainage solution, will not meet criteria for a safe comfortabl e riding surface with longevi ty of design life, unless the drainage issues are specifically dealt with. Unbound surfaces are normall y formed in a well-graded granular material such as CL 804 Sub Base material (sometimes referred to as dry bound macadam) or 20mm single sized stone ‘pea gravel ’(see Photos C15.5.3 and C15.5.4, below).

5 Chapter C15: Drainage-final edit, signed off by WG, 02.jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photos C15.5.3: Graded surfacing and C15.5.4: Pea-gravel surfacing on Green Route (unbound)

If the surrounding geology is saturated, the provision of a ‘french drain’, directed away from the cycle facility to a suitable watercourse, should be considered. This will – •

Allow surface runoff from the track to be directed away quickly

•

Reduce the effects of ground saturation locally by lowering the water table in the vicinity of the edge, and

•

Limit erosion or rutting along the surface of the facility (exacerbated if the verge edge is higher than the track)

This type of passive and sustainable form of “over the edge” drainage should be employed for trails where possible. Surface Profile and Ironmongery: The surface profile of a cycle route should be smooth and clear of obstacles. The most common obstacles associated with the provision of roadside drainage are gullies, drainage channels and manhole covers. The drainage design should seek to remove these from the travelling surface in the first instance and, in any case, they should not be located on bends along the route, or where cyclists have to negotiate sharp curves. Options for this include – • • •

Offline positioning for manholes Side-entry gullies Combined kerb drainage

Where such ironmongery cannot be relocated, the standard of installation must be high, with the use of recessed lids for manhole covers, and tight tolerances for finished levels on these and other items (typically, flush +/5mm). Examples of side-entry drainage are shown in Photos C15.5.5 – C15.5.7, below. Photo C15.5.8 shows and example of a non-metal manhole-cover finished flush with the adjoining surface. 6 Chapter C15: Drainage-final edit, signed off by WG, 02.jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photos C15.5.5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; C15.5.7: Side-entry drainage

Photo C15.5.8: On-road manhole cover, flush with adjoining surface

Gratings with bars running parallel to bicycle wheels are a serious obstacle to cycling (see Photo C15.5.9, below). Gratings on gullies and linear channels should have thei r slots at right angles to the cycling direction, and care should be taken in the specification and supervision of all such installations to ensure compliance.

7 Chapter C15: Drainage-final edit, signed off by WG, 02.jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C15.5.9: Incorrect orientation for gullies

Surface Geometry: The surface horizontal and vertical geometry are related to the design speed and are defined elsewhere. From drainage perspective the use of cross and long falls can be used to clear the surface water quickly and efficiently if used in conjunction with the route geometry. Adequate drainage will generally be provided within the following gradient ranges:

Gradients Lateral: 1.25% - 2.5% Longitudinal: 0.5% - 5.0%

Depending on the width of the cycle route, the general topography in the location of the route and the horizontal alignment, the cycle route can either •

camber to both sides – e.g. cycleways and certain segregated cycl e tracks

•

cross-fall to one side – e.g. on-road cycle facilities and certain cycle tracks

A cycle track should always fall from its outer edge towardes the inside on bends. If the track falls to the outside on a bend (negative camber), there is an increased risk of skidding. Impact of New Infrastructure and Retrofitting:

8 Chapter C15: Drainage-final edit, signed off by WG, 02.jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY For new roads, if footpaths and cycle facilities are provided to both sides of the carriageway, this will effectively double the impermeable surface area for a standard 7.3 metre wide carriageway. Unless a swale or filter drain (see Photo C15.6.1) is provided between the roadway and cycle facility, this must be taken into account in the design of the overall drainage network.

Replace with photo of cycle facility filter drain?

Photo C15.5.10: Filter Drain

With a new road system, this can be managed using sustainable drainage solutions. Retrofitting cycle facilities to existing conditions is more problemmatic, however, as the potential for flooding is increased if the existing drainage network is not upgraded. Methods for managing this include – •

Upgrading the existing drainage network

•

Creating a permeable cycle route surface

•

Maintaining a small verge with linear filter trench.

•

Creating the cycle facility within the existing paved area

Road Markings and Coloured Surfacing: Designated on-road cycle facilities require solid or broken white edge lines as demarcation between them and the adjoining carriageway, as well as intermittent use of other markings, e.g. the cycle symbol. The use of red surfacing is also required in certain circumstances, e.g. when the cycle facility is continued through a junction. The notional extra thickness of such markings and coloured surfacing can lead to a reduction in the efficiency of flow to the existing gully or channel drainage system, by presenting a barrier to the natural ‘run off’ drainage from the main road surface. When forming on-road cycle facilities, therefore, lane width should be milled in advance of any new coloured or smoother surface application or markings, to provide a flush and consistent cross-fall gradient so that the efficiency of the existing drainage system can be maintained.

9 Chapter C15: Drainage-final edit, signed off by WG, 02.jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY When providing markings only, gaps will need to be provided in continuous lining to ensure flow is maintained to the gullies. Segregated Cycle Facilities and Independent Drainage: When an adjacent cycle track is formed, crossfall away from the main carriageway is more comfortable for cyclists. However, this means that the existing main road surface gully network cannot be utilised, and the cycl e faclity requires an independent gully or channel system (see Photo C15.5.11, below), though this can still be linked into the main drainage and sewer network.

Photo C15.5.11: Double drainage for raised adjacent cycle track, cross-fall away from carriageway

Note for Designers Table B4.1 (ref. Chapter B4: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Providing Effective Cycling Spaceâ&#x20AC;?) allows 250mm for drainage channels in calculating effective lane widths. Accordingly, the cycle facility designer should ensure that surface water does not accumulate in excess of this provision. Point drainage such as gulleys is very inefficient. The use if linear drainage options such as grated channel drains, long filter drainage or permeable pavements should be considered. Figure C15.1, below, shows a typical cross-section, including suitable roadside drainage arrangement.

10 Chapter C15: Drainage-final edit, signed off by WG, 02.jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure C15.1: Typical Cross-section

11 Chapter C15: Drainage-final edit, signed off by WG, 02.jul.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

C16: Two-Way Cycling C16.1 General This chapter defines two-way cycling, and notes the legislative context. It discusses the rationale for two-way cycling, highlights the main design issues arising, and provides guidance, together with related design solutions, on how those issues may be best addressed.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with Chapter A1: Legislative Context Chapter A8: Cycling in Rural Areas Chapter B10: On-road Priority Junctions Chapter C9: Cycling in Parks and Open paces

C16.2 Definition In this chapter, Two-Way Cycling refers primarily to situations where cycling in two directions has been provided on one side of the road, and which are offroad but adjacent to the carriageway.

Photo C16.2.1: An “ideal” example of a two-way cycle facility

Two-way cycling can also be provided on off-road facilities, such as routes through parks and open spaces, or off-road links connecting areas or other sections of the cycle network. These are considered separately in Chapter C9, “Cycling in Parks and Open Spaces”. C16.1 Chapter C16: Two-way Cycling (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Cycle trails are another type of cycle facility where two-way cycling is generally permitted, and these are discussed in Chapter A8, “Cycling in Rural Areas”.

C16.3 Legislative Context The Road Traffic (Traffic & Parking) (Amendment) Regulations, S.I. no. 274 of 1998 define a cycle track as  Part of a road, including part of a footway or part of a roadway, which is provided primarily for the use of pedal cycles. As discussed in Chapter A1, this definition applies to both on-road and offroad cycle facilities. For reasons of clarity, on-road facilities are generally referred to as cycle lanes in this manual, while the term cycle track refers to an off-road facility unless stated otherwise. The Regulations stipulate the regulatory signs (RUS) and road markings (RRM) to be used for cycle-tracks (including cycle lanes) as  Traffic sign number RUS 009 or RUS 009A provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM023 (broken white line) The Regulations state that RRM 022 and RRM O23 can be marked either on the right-hand edge OR the right-hand and left-hand edges of the cycle track. The Regulations make no provision for marking the track on the lefthand edge only. a) Marking on the right-hand edge defines the boundary between the cycle lane and the adjoining carriageway where both modes are travelling in the same direction, and is used mainly for on-road cycle facilities, where the inside boundary is defined by the kerb. b) Marking on both the right-hand and left-hand edges defines the boundaries along both edges, and can be used for off-road facilities, especially in situations where the cyclist’s travel direction may be against the prevailing traffic flow, i.e. two-way cycling (see Photo C16.3.1.)

C16.2 Chapter C16: Two-way Cycling (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C16.3.1: Two-way cycle track (segregated from carriageway and footpath)

C16.4: Rationale for Two-Way Cycling Cycle lanes and tracks are generally provided in a ‘with flow’ direction, on one or both sides of the road. Two exceptions to this rule are contra-flow cycling (discussed in Chapter C2), and two-way cycle tracks. While with-flow cycle facilities are generally to be preferred, and should always be considered as the “default design”, they can reduce the directness, safety and comfort of a route in certain circumstances by adding time and distance penalties, or presenting obstacles that require to be negotiated. Two-way cycle tracks may be more appropriate in cases where – •

Cyclists are otherwise prevented from crossing – e.g. on roadways with unbroken medians

•

Cyclists are prevented from gaining access to destination points without making lengthy detours or adding significantly to their journeytime, e.g. where schools and nearby housing estates are “on the wrong side” of each other

•

One side of the road contains significant obstacles , street furniture etc., making it difficult for cyclists to negotiate

•

There is potential for conflict because of a high pedestrian presence.

Two-way cycling facilities provide a useful solution for linking origins and destinations likely to generate a high degree of cycling movement (e.g. between a residential area and school, or place of employment), especially if both are located on the same side of the road. •

Potential dangers are reduced by eliminating road crossings

•

Children can benefit especially by the creation of a “safer route to school” (the designer should check if school has prepared a School Travel Plan)

Two-way cycle tracks should not be used as means of artificially increasing road capacity or efficiency, as this merely transfers the problem from the road to the cycle facility, to the detriment of everyone.

C16.3 Chapter C16: Two-way Cycling (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY C16.5:

Design Issues A number of issues need to be addressed when designing for two-way cycling – •

Existing two-way cycling arrangements often mirror on-road conditions, whereby cyclists always travel on the left hand side. This means the withflow direction is on the inside of the cycle-track, and the opposing direction is on the outside, i.e. against the flow of the adjoining traffic stream. As a result, speed differentials between vehicular traffic cyclists traveling in the opposing direction are increased.

•

There is potential for conflict between the two cycle streams at locations where with-flow and two-way cycle tracks merge. Problems can arise in relation to yielding priority where with-flow cyclists have to cross the opposing direction at the merge-point (see example in Photo C16.5.1).

Photo C16.5.1: Merging of with-flow and two-way cycle streams

•

Two-way cycle tracks can present problems for motorists, especially at junctions, where the cycle facility crosses the side-road. While motorists joining from the side road expect to yield to cyclists travelling on the main road, the normal expectancy is that cyclists are travelling in one direction only, and they are unlikely to anticipate cyclists coming from the opposite direction (‘the wrong way’) unless they have been clearly forewarned of this possibility.

•

The cyclists who are travelling in the opposing direction need to be aware of this issue, also, and they are as well to take a precautionary approach when crossing, rather than proceeding on the basis of an assumed priority.

•

Safety issues can arise due to difficulties in accessing the two-way cycle facility from across the carriageway or adjacent to the cycle track, and similarly when exiting. Poor connections between the facility and other routes may result in cyclists crossing the carriageway at unsuitable locations, with increased risk of accidents.

C16.4 Chapter C16: Two-way Cycling (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY C16.6 Design Solutions With-flow cycle facilities should always be provided on both sides of the road where this is feasible. Two-way facilities on one side should be seen as an additional facility rather than as a substitute in this regard. The designer should ensure the continuity of the route by providing connections to other cycle lanes or tracks. Consideration can be given to the provision of two-way cycling on both sides of the road in certain circumstances, e.g. for busy dual carriageways with central road barrier, where there is significant distance between designated crossing points. Figure C16.1, below, shows a typical layout for a two-way cycling facility, with links to adjoining routes.

Diagram needs to be updated, based on Figure 3.6, previous cycle manual

Figure C16.1: Layout diagram for Two-way Cycling Facility

C16.5 Chapter C16: Two-way Cycling (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Design guidance and solutions for dealing with the main elements of two-way cycle track provision are set out in the following paragraphs. Segregation: Two-way cycle facilities should only be provided as segregated off-road tracks, and never as delineated on-road cycle lanes – •

For two-way cycle-tracks beside a carriageway, segregation should be by means of a raised kerb between the track and the road. A grass verge should also be provided if space permits.

•

Crash barriers should be provided where the two-way facility is located within the clear-zone of a high-speed road (as defined in NRA-TD19).

•

The facility should be separated from any adjoining footpath. Preferably this should be by means of a stepped kerb or similar type of physical separation (see Photo C16.6.1). The barrier in the centre of the bridge, shown in Photo C16.6.2, is another alternative, and might be said to represent an extreme example in this regard.

Photo C16.6.1 & C16.6.2: Two-way cyclng and pedestrian separation

Crossings: Ideally, two-way cycling should be used only on road-links with few or no side access roads – •

Where crossing side streets, is unavoidable, cyclists travelling in the opposing direction (i.e. against the main traffic flow) must yield priority at junctions, and should stop and, if necessary, dismount before crossing. [CHECK Legal Position]

•

Advance warning signs should be installed on side streets in the run-up to the junction to alert motorists to the presence of cyclists crossing ahead of them from both left and right directions (see Photo C.16.6.2, below).

C16.6 Chapter C16: Two-way Cycling (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009) Insert photo showing cyclists in opposing direction stopped & yielding to traffic entering from the side.

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C16.6.2: Cyclists travelling against the main flow must yield priority at junctions

•

Where a mid-block crossing point is provided from a two-way facility to rejoin a with-flow facility on the opposite side of the road, it must be designated as a cycle crossing, and designed to the required standard.

•

Design details and sample layouts for two-way cycle crossings at junctions and mid-block are shown in Chapter B10, “On-road Priority Junctions”, Figure [ ] and Appendix [ ], Drawing no. [ ].

Signage: •

The fact that the cycle track is two-way should be clearly readable for all road-users.

•

Regulatory signs should be fixed to required locations along the route, and repeated where this is considered prudent.

•

In particular, signs advising the presence of a two-way track should be fixed on all side road approaches to a junction.

Markings: •

Two-way cycle-tracks should be marked with a solid line (RRM 022) on both edges.

•

Two-way cycle-tracks located beside a road should always be marked with a centre-line, marked as a broken line (RRM 023).

•

A centre-line is not essential for off-road tracks (e.g. through parks or open spaces).

Direction of Travel: •

The designer should consider reversing travel directions on the two-way facility, so that with-flow cyclists are travelling in the lane nearest the

C16.7 Chapter C16: Two-way Cycling (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY road, and opposing cyclists are on the inside of the track. [N.B. CHECK LEGAL POSITION] •

While this may not be desirable in all circumstances, it has the advantage of reducing the speed differential between the cyclist and adjacent traffic, and can be less confusing for the motorist (e.g. minimising confusion due to bicycle lights).

•

On the minus side, opposing cyclists will be approaching on the left hand side instead of on the right hand side, and this may create confusion.

Key Principles: Two-way cycling is an accommodation, rather than a full provision for cyclists. Two-way cycle facilities should only be provided as segregated cycle tracks, and never as on-road cycle lanes. Cyclists travelling in the opposing direction must always yield priority where there is a conflict with cyclists travelling in the with-flow direction. Cyclists travelling in the opposing direction must always yield priority to traffic on the side road at junction crossings.

C16.8 Chapter C16: Two-way Cycling (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter C1:

Hills and Gradients

C1.1 General This chapter examines the main design issues associated with hills and gradients from a cyclist’s perspective, and proposes a number of design solutions for both uphill and downhill situations.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter A5: Cycle Network Planning Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter B3: Quality of Service Chapter B4: Providing Effective Cycling Space

C1.2 Background The Quality of Service provided along a cycle network is related to the degree to which the network meets the cyclists’ main requirements, as described in Chapter B3 – •

Road Safety

•

Coherence

•

Directness

•

Attractiveness

•

Comfort

C1.1 Chapter C1: Hills and Gradients (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C1.2.1: Cycle Lane (uphill direction)

When designing a cycle network, the recommended practice is to avoid significant hills and gradients where possible. These can reduce the attractiveness and comfort of the route, and can act as a deterrent to cycling where alternative, flatter routes are not provided. There are occasions where significant hills and gradients cannot be avoided if network coherence and route directness are to be achieved, e.g., where they span a short distance or the resulting detour is too long. An alternative route should be available in these circumstances, especially in the case of signed tourist routes.

Map of Brussels showing uphill routes marked in Red (standard routes marked in Pink) [www.fiets.irisnet.be / www.velo.irisnet.be]

C1.3

Design Issues and Solutions

C1.2 Chapter C1: Hills and Gradients (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The inclusion of significant hills and gradients in the cycle network presents a number of design issues, which differ depending on whether the route is uphill or downhill. C1.3.1 Cycling Uphill In general, cycling uphill requires greater effort by the cyclist, while travelling at slower speeds. Greater effort results in increased instability or ‘wobble’. This, in turn, requires an increased effective width, whether or not dedicated cycling facilities are provided (ref. Chapter B3, “Providing Effective Cycling Space”, Table B4.1). The length of climb is also a significant factor.

Photo C1.3.1: Uphill cycling results in reduced stability and slower speeds

Design solutions include: •

Wider on-road cycle lanes to allow for increased instability. The width calculator in Chapter 4, Table B4.1, provides a minimum allowance of 0.25m for ‘wobble’. It is recommended that this be increased to 0.50m for uphill cycle lanes with significant gradient, i.e. > 3%.

•

Off-road provision, by means of a physically segregated cycle-track, where this is feasible.

•

‘Switch-back’ or ‘serpentine’ off-road cycle track. This should be considered when designing the vertical and horizontal alignments for new roads or cycle facilities over an increased distance.

•

Flights of steps. Although these require the cyclist to dismount, they can overcome significant barriers to network coherence where hills are too steep for cyclists to negotiate. If used, the steps should be provided with a channel, guide-rail, or smooth slope for wheels.

Ideally, the profile of the uphill slope should be such as to have the steepest incline first, with the gradient levelling off in later sections. C1.3 Chapter C1: Hills and Gradients (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C1.3.2: Cycling uphill with off-road physical segregation

IMAGES REQUIRED: Switch-back sketch Switch-back photo

Two examples of steps with channel or slope for bicycle wheels.

As a general guide, it is recommended that gradients and related lengths should not exceed the values shown in Table C1.1, below, which is based on current Danish practice. Gradient (%)

Maximum Length (metres)

50 m

C1.4 Chapter C1: Hills and Gradients (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY 4.5%

100 m

200 m

3.5%

300 m

500 m

Table C.1.1: Length of slope vs. Gradient (uphill)

Consideration should be given to the provision of flat sections on longer climbs, especially on rural routes or, where the above values are exceeded, in an urban context, in order to comply with the above guidance. A distance of 50m. is recommended between uphill sections to allow sufficient recovery time. (Compare Swiss and Scots- no results yet.) In addition, on longer routes, dedicated stopping areas or cycle lay-bys off the main carriageway should be considered, with sections of flat cycle lane/track to allow the cyclist to regain momentum. Such lay-bys should not be accessible to motorised vehicles. C1.3.2 Cycling Downhill Cycling downhill by its nature facilitates increased travelling speeds. The main design issue is the speed of descent of all road users, and how this can be regulated or controlled. This has a direct bearing on key safety matters such as the ability to stop or take evasive action if necessary. Other design issues include: •

the need to consider safe stopping distances in the approach to junctions;

•

the need for adequate sight lines at all times so that both cyclists and other users can see each other well in advance of any potential conflict; and

•

the need to avoid changes of direction involving sharp turns, which can present a particular hazard.

Safety issues can also arise due to unexpected objects in the cyclist’s path, e.g. trees, vegetation, or street furniture.

5 Chapter C1: Hills and Gradients-final-jan.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Better photo required to illustrate downhill issues

Photo C1.4.1: Downhill cycling issues

In addition to meeting the cyclistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; requirements for Quality of Service, discussed above, design solutions proposed in the case of cycling downhill should pay particular attention to the Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads (see Chapter B1), and especially those relating to Readability and Forgivingness. Design measures should be introduced to ensure the readability and forgivingness of the environment along all downhill sections, in particular at the approaches to junctions. All users need to be able to proceed with minimum distraction, and clear sightlines are essential, as is the necessity for evasion time and space along the route. Where adequate evasion time or space cannot be provided, the designer should consider the introduction of traffic calming measures (e.g. sinusoidal curves â&#x20AC;&#x201C; see example in Photo C1.4.2). If traffic calming measures are introduced, it is recommended that the route be designed to help cyclists maintain a safe travelling speed.

6 Chapter C1: Hills and Gradients-final-jan.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C1.4.2: Traffic calming for downhill speed reduction (Dutch example)

As with uphill gradients, it is preferable to have the steepest gradient at the beginning, with a gradual reduction, or levelling off, towards the end of the downhill profile. There should be no sharp turns or changes of direction along the route. â&#x20AC;˘

On very steep downhill gradients, it is preferable that the cyclist be relocated off-road to a physically segregated cycle-track of suitable gradient.

â&#x20AC;˘

Surface materials should have adequate friction on areas of significant downhill gradient, such as at the bottom of the gradient, where it reverses from downhill to uphill, and especially at all junction approaches.

Better photo required to illustrate downhill segregation

Photo C1.4.3: Segregated downhill cycle track (Dutch example)

Parking at Junction Approaches

7 Chapter C1: Hills and Gradients-final-jan.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY On approaches to junctions on downhill slopes, it is recommended that the cyclist be re-introduced on-road at a distance of 30 metres back from the junction, rather than the 20 metres required elsewhere. This will provide the additional stopping distance required to offset the downhill approach. If segregated facilities cannot be provided, considerations should be given to mixing the cyclists with other modes, rather than separating them with on-road delineation, as the latter may create a false sense of security for both cyclist and motorist alike. In these circumstances, no parking should be permitted on a downhill gradient within 50 metres of a junction, where there is increased hazard to cyclists if their path is blocked, and where there is reduced opportunity for evasive action, should this prove necessary, e.g. to avoid doors opening or other driver/passenger activity. C1.5 Miscellaneous Issues The following issues are considered in detail elsewhere in the Manual, but are noted here as issues to be addressed specifically in relation to designing for significant hills and gradients – •

Maintenance (see Chapters D1-D4): Because surface quality is critical on significant hills and gradients, especially in the case of downhill cycle facilities, the need for regular, planned maintenance is greater along these sections of the network. The route should also be checked regularly for obstacles, including litter and debris, or damaged gullies and manhole covers, as these will also present a more significant hazard for downhill cyclists.

•

Bus Lanes and Bus Stops (see Chapters C10 and C11): The designer should pay particular attention to shared or visually delineated bus and cycle facilities along sections of significant gradient. Specific allowance should be made for increased “wobble” in the design of lane widths on uphill gradients. Special consideration should also be given to how cyclists can best negotiate bus-stops, particularly on downhill sections and in the vicinity of junction approaches.

•

Signage (see Chapters A1 and A5-A8): Consideration should be given to indicating the gradient on cycle-related signage, where this is significant, especially in the case of tourist-related signs. Pending agreement on the tourist and leisure-related signing proposals being developed by Failte Ireland and the National Trails Office, however, all signs should be in accordance with the Traffic Signs Manual.

8 Chapter C1: Hills and Gradients-final-jan.09

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter C2: Contra-flow Cycling C2.1

General This chapter examines contra-flow cycling in the light of existing legislation and proposed legislative changes. It considers the main design issues likely to arise in the provision of on-road contra-flow cycle facilities, and suggests a number of design options to overcome them. This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter A1: Legislative Context Chapter A5: Bicycle Network Planning Chapter B3: Assessment of Quality of Service Chapter C4: Cycling and Car Parking Chapter C10: Cycling and Bus Facilities

C2.2

Definition and Legal Status Contra-flow cycling is defined as cycling on-road in the opposing direction to the main traffic flow, in a clearly-designated cycle facility. Two types of contra-flow cycling are considered in this chapter – 1. Contra-flow cycling on Access Streets with predominantly low-volume, low-speed traffic regime, having a single traffic lane in the opposing direction, and 2. Contra-flow cycling on busier roads, including Collector Roads having more than one traffic lane in the opposing direction [See Chapter B1 and Traffic Management Guidelines, p.22, for further discussion on Irish urban road categories.] The only circumstance where contra-flow cycling is permitted under existing Irish legislation is on two-way cycle tracks, in relation to which the Road Traffic (Traffic & Parking) (Amendment) Regulations, S.I. no. 274 of 1998, state – “Where a cycle-track is two-way, pedal cycles shall be driven as near as possible to the left-hand side of each lane.”

C2.1 Chapter C2-Contraflow cycling (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY New regulations, currently in preparation, include for provision of an on-road Contra-flow Cycle Track, together with appropriate signage to distinguish it from the more common with-flow cycle tracks, and in relation to which the standard cycle symbol and an associated direction arrow should be provided on-road. C2.3

Rationale for Contra-flow Cycling Cycle routes should be planned to provide the most direct links between origins and destinations, and to minimise the necessity for detours along the route. While one-way streets have a recognised function in managing general traffic, they can result in cyclists frequently having to make longer journeys than is necessary, along congested and more hazardous routes, with more junctions to negotiate. Contra-flow cycling can provide an effective way of addressing this situation, and can also help meet the separate objective of providing for two-way cycling on streets where a demand exists, which could not otherwise be achieved on one-way streets. (See Chapter C16 for further discussion on twoway cycle facilities.) The creation of more direct cycle routes, and the resulting time savings for cyclists, are in keeping with sustainable transport objectives encouraging a shift from the private car to the cycling and public transport modes.

Photo C2.2.1: Contra-flow cycling in a one-way street

C2.4

Design Issues Dedicated contra-flow routes can have considerable benefits for cyclists, but there are a number of issues for all road users that require careful consideration in the planning and design of these facilities. Use of the contra-flow facility should be mandatory for cyclists. A mandatory facility provides protected space for cyclists at all times, and highlights to

C2.2 Chapter C2-Contraflow cycling (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY motorists the need to anticipate cyclists travelling in the contra-flow direction. On-coming with-flow traffic should never meet a cyclist coming towards them in the same traffic lane. Cyclists in the contra-flow lane should be visible at all times. In a one-way street, other road users may not anticipate on-road cyclists coming against them, even where there is good visibility. Therefore, it is essential that drivers and pedestrians should be alerted to the presence of the contra-flow cycling facility before they enter the street. This is particularly important for vehicles joining the street from side roads or exiting from on-street properties, where they must cross a contra-flow cycle lane. On-street car-parking can present further problems, if located on the same side of the street as the contra-flow facility, as it is usually marked out between the contra-flow lane and the kerb. Drivers are likely to have barriers to their field of vision when accessing a parking space and, even more so, when exiting, as they will be crossing directly into the path of oncoming cyclists, who may also be at risk from opening car-doors, and similar driver activities. Ideally, on-street car parking should only be considered for streets with contra-flow facilities where the actual road speeds are 10 km/h or less. (Issues concerning car parking and cyclists are considered in greater detail in Chapter C4.)

Photo C2.3.1: Car-parking between the contra-flow lane and kerb

Set down, loading and unloading operations present issues for all users, which need to be addressed. In a with-flow cycle lane, the cyclists can move into the general traffic lane to avoid vehicles engaged in set down, loading or unloading activities. This is not feasible in a contra-flow lane for safety reasons, as the cyclist would be crossing into the path of oncoming traffic in doing so. Cyclists using the contra-flow lane can themselves have problems when accessing and exiting from the facility. Where the contra-flow lane provides the cyclist with a link between the junctions at either end of a street, the C2.3 Chapter C2-Contraflow cycling (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY design of these junctions is crucial, given the number of conflicting traffic movements likely to be encountered. To mitigate the situation, the design should incorporate adequate advance warning and visual highlighting of the one-way facility, with upright signs, road markings, and coloured surfaces at the entrance and exit points. (See Chapters B10 and B13 for further discussion on junction design.) The following checklist, adapted from UK Department for Transport guidance on the subject, should be used when assessing the suitability of any street for contra-flow cycling: • • • • • • • • • • • • C2.5

vehicle speeds (actual) traffic volumes (each mode) % local vs. through traffic % Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) junction turning movements and swept paths (both ends) visibility when entering and leaving (all users) carriageway width (kerb-to-kerb) on-street parking (turnover and duration) visibility at on-street entrances and exits approach sight lines (traffic entering from side roads) number of private accesses accident records

Design Options Access Streets: As a general guide, on-street contra-flow cycle facilities should only be provided on Access Streets. They should be single-lane, only, with separation from the opposing traffic flow either by visual delineation or physical segregation, depending on –  speed and volume of the opposing general traffic flow  existence of car parking, and  pedestrian footfall on the adjacent footpaths Busier Roads and Streets: In certain circumstances, contra-flow facilities may also be suitable for installation along busier Access Roads and streets, including some Collector Roads, where higher speeds and volumes prevail. There is an onus on the designer to carry out a full assessment of the traffic regime at preliminary design stage, and the provision of contra-flow facilities in such circumstances should always be subject to appropriate design measures. Visual Delineation:

C2.4 Chapter C2-Contraflow cycling (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY In general, visual delineation will be sufficient on low-speed or low-volume streets, i.e. streets where the prevailing actual speeds are 30km/h or less, or into which there are less than 200 turning movements per day, of which HGVs form less that 10% of the total. Because of the mandatory nature of the contra-flow cycle lane, visual delineation should always be by means of a solid white line.

Photo C2.4.1: Visual delineation of contra-flow cycle lane, one-way street (UK example)

Physical Segregation: Physical segregation between the contra-flow lane and the adjacent traffic lane is required on busier Access Roads and streets where the prevailing traffic speed exceeds 30km/h, or where volumes and HGV numbers exceed those noted above. Traffic speeds should not exceed 50km/hr in any case, nor should volumes exceed 1,000 vehicles per day. Physical segregation should always be used where contra-flow facilities are provided between car parking and the adjacent kerb, or where they are installed along Collector Roads. Segregation will generally be by means of fixed or flexible bollards, low-level kerbing, or raised-adjacent cycle-lane – ♦ The type of segregation used can have additional benefits for the street, e.g. rationalisation of on-street car parking, general speed reduction and traffic calming ♦ Bollards are not suitable for use on streets with two traffic lanes in the opposing direction. ♦ Contra-flow facilities are not suitable in any circumstance where there are more than two lanes of opposing traffic.

C2.5 Chapter C2-Contraflow cycling (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C2.4.2: Contra-flow cycling – physical segregation

Design Widths: Guidance on design widths for cycle lanes is given in Chapter B4. Using the width calculator, Table B4.1, the recommended minimum width for an onstreet, with-flow lane is 1.75m (i.e. 0.75m minimum effective width + 0.25m “wobble” + 0.25m inside edge clearance + 0.50m traffic lane clearance). This design width should be retained for contra-flow cycle facilities on busier roads and streets. As a departure, however, an absolute minimum width of 1.50m may be used for contra-flow cycle facilities on low-speed, low-volume Access Streets. Where considered appropriate, contra-flow cycle lanes should be subjected to Road Safety Audit before being brought into public use (see Chapter B7 for guidance on the Road Safety Audit process). Junctions, Side Access Points and Entrances: Where contra-flow cycling is permitted, segregation for cyclists at the entry to, and exit from, a one-way street should always be provided if there is sufficient space to do so, as these are the most likely points of conflict between contra-flow cyclists and motorised vehicles. Where space is not available, the designer will need to be satisfied that the arrangement is appropriate to the traffic environment and surrounding street layout, while still offering protection to the cyclist.

C2.6 Chapter C2-Contraflow cycling (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C2.4.3: Contra-flow cycling, exiting one-way street

Where minor access roads and entrances meet a one-way street with a contra-flow cycle lane, raised entry treatments should be provided to bring the contra-flow lane through the junction. In addition, signage is required on the minor access road to alert traffic to the existence of two-way traffic ahead (i.e., with-flow traffic lane and contra-flow cycling). Through advance warning signs and visual delineation, it should be obvious to all users that drivers entering from the minor road, or joining into the traffic stream from an on-street entrance, may expect to meet contra-flow cyclists in their path, and that such cyclists will have the right-of way.

Photos C2.4.4 and 2.4.5: Contra-flow cycling: Advance warning signs (German examples)

Car Parking: Contra-flow lanes should only be provided on the right hand (driverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s) side of a one-way street, i.e. where general traffic would be expected on a two-way street. To facilitate this, car parking should be restricted to the left-hand side, where it is aligned with the direction of the main traffic flow. C2.7 Chapter C2-Contraflow cycling (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C2.4.6: Car-parking on opposite side from contra-flow cycle lane

Where car parking already exists on the contra-flow side, a number of options can be considered by the designer. These are ranked, below, in order of preference from the cyclist’s perspective – 1. Removal of the parking facility 2. Relocation of the parking facility 3. Physically segregated lane between the parking and the footpath 4. Contra-flow lane outside the parking line, with delineated buffer zone 5. Contra-flow lane outside the parking line, without delineated buffer zone For Options 3 – 5, an assessment of parking turnover should be undertaken as part of the design process, to determine the extent to which motorists and cyclists may come into conflict, and how best such conflict may be mitigated. Set Down and Loading: Vehicles are prohibited under current legislation from parking on cycle tracks except in certain cases, e.g. buses stopping at bus stops, or vehicles loading and unloading (see Chapter A1, “Legislative Context”). The Regulations include a further prohibition on vehicles driving along or across a cycle track whose edge is bounded by a continuous white line. As on-road contra-flow cycle lanes will have a mandatory, continuous (solid) white line along the outer boundary, the remaining street-width for all vehicles travelling in the with-flow direction must be sufficient to allow vehicles to travel without entering, or infringing on, the contra-flow lane. Equally, the cyclist cannot move outside the lane to avoid set-down vehicles, and would be prohibited in law from doing so, in any case.

C2.8 Chapter C2-Contraflow cycling (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Accordingly, set-down and loading/unloading facilities that are permitted under current legislation will not be feasible on contra-flow cycling facilities, and alternative arrangements will be required. Such arrangements could include the provision of designated loading bays on the opposite side of the street, or restricting the hours at which loading and unloading can take place – the latter may require separate time-plating arrangements, and may not be feasible if contra-flow lanes are required to 24-hour/7-day operation. If there are significant loading/unloading or set-down requirements, and alternative arrangements cannot be provided, this may affect the suitability of the street for consideration as a contra-flow cycling link. Cycling in Contra-flow Bus Lanes: Under existing legislation, cyclists are only permitted to cycle in with-flow bus lanes, and are prohibited from using either contra-flow bus lanes or bus-only streets. This situation is likely to change, however, as consideration is being given to the possibility of permitting on-road cycle lanes inside contra-flow bus-lanes under new regulations, currently in preparation. Any such facility would have to be a mandatory lane, for safety reasons, and to ensure compliance and consistency with Road (Traffic) Regulations. C2.6

Exceptions On-road contra-flow cycle lanes are generally considered suitable for access streets, and can sometimes be introduced on more heavily trafficked streets if physical segregation is provided. Even here, however, they will not be suitable in certain circumstances where their provision would result in turbulence, disruption or increased risk to cyclists and other users. These exceptions include:  One-way streets that join with, or are intersected by, two-way streets where high traffic speeds and/or volumes prevail  Streets that function as main road links, having a significant number of minor access road junctions  Streets with high levels of parking, high parking turnover, or a significant loading and unloading function Alternative cycling facilities should be considered for streets where contraflow facilities are not suitable, and cannot be made so, but where there is an established demand for cycling (see also Chapters Chapter B8, “Link Options”, and C16, “Two-way Cycle Facilities”).

NB: Diagrams required to illustrate design concepts in text; possibly C2.9 Chapter C2-Contraflow cycling (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY similar to figures in UK DfT Guidance Note – see examples on next page.

Figure C2.1: Contra-flow cycle lane entry-point

Figure C2.2: Segregation at

C2.10 Chapter C2-Contraflow cycling (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter C3: Bicycle Parking Facilities

C3.1

General This chapter looks at the basic requirements which need to be considered by the designer when selecting an appropriate rack or stand for on-street and off-street bicycle parking facilities. It highlights a number of specific issues related to the type of facility, and shows how these issues may be addressed.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter A6: Bicycle Parking Strategy Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter C11: Cycling Conflicts at Bus Stops

C3.2

Requirements for Bicycle Parking Facilities Guidelines for developing a Bicycle Parking Strategy were set out in Chapter A6, and included a methodology for selecting the most appropriate type of bicycle parking facility, depending on location and user needs. The importance of Quality of Service for cyclists was highlighted, with emphasis on the degree to which this is influenced by the attractiveness of the cycle parking facility in terms of its functionality, safety and security. While Chapter A6 includes discussion of a wide range of quality indicators applicable to the bicycle parking facility in general, some are especially relevant to the bicycle rack, or stand, itself, and warrant attention by the designer when deciding on which type is to be provided:

How easy is it to place the bicycle? How easy is it to lock the bicycle? What are the risks of the bicycle being damaged? Will the bicycle be protected against the weather? How resistant is it to theft and vandalism?

C3.1 Chapter C3-Bicycle Parking Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY This chapter looks at how the cyclist’s requirements can be best met with regard to these indicators by examining the basic requirements applicable at all bicycle facilities, the additional requirements which should be considered in the case of public transport facilities, and the merits or otherwise of the different types of rack/stand design which are available.

C3.3

Basic Requirements (All Facilities) In general, while location, access, security, and other qualities are important, cyclists will tend to choose the easiest option when deciding where to park their bicycles. Accordingly, all bicycle parking facilities, whether on-street stands or racks, or off-street storage units, should be capable of performing the basic functions of supporting the bicycle from falling over, and protecting it against theft. Off-street storage/parking facilities, in particular, should also offer some degree of protection against the weather, as well as addressing other quality issues such as lighting, safety and security, ease of access and egress, and the level of supervision to be provided. Supporting the bicycle from falling over: Ideally, all racks/stands and bicycle clamps should provide enough support to prevent any type of bicycle from falling over. It is the case, however, that while any tree, fence or railing will fulfil this basic function, certain designs of cycle rack are inadequate in this regard, or only partly successful, at best. Units which are designed to grab the front wheel only, for example, will often have different levels of effectiveness, depending on the tyre width. Photo C3.3.1, below, shows how poorly designed racks/clamps are unable to meet the cyclist’s need and, as a result, can end up being used incorrectly. On the other hand, the Sheffield stand, shown in Photo C3.3.2, provides effective support for the bicycle, and is a good example of how the problem can be addressed.

Photo C3.3.1: Cycle rack w. badly designed clamps Photo C3.3.2: Sheffield stand

Protecting the bicycle against theft:

C3.2 Chapter C3-Bicycle Parking Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Bicycle parking facilities can protect a bicycle against theft in two ways, either by enabling cyclists to lock their bicycle to the rack (see examples in Photos C3.3.3 and C3.3.4), or by providing a built storage facility that can be locked or guarded by personnel and/or cameras.

Photos C3.3.3 and C3.3.4: Locking the bicycle to rack

The basic requirement for on-street racks is that it must be easy to lock the bicycle frame to the rack or stand. The “Tulip” bicycle clamp (see Photo C3.3.5) is a good example, with its special steel ring to lock both the bicycle frame and front wheel. This possibility is not offered by clamps which only grab the front wheel, and this, in turn, can led to unfortunate consequences of the type shown in Photo C3.3.6.

Photo C3.3.5: Locking the wheel and frame only?

Photo C3.3.6: Locking the wheel

Locked storage facilities of the type shown in Photo C3.3.7 offer additional protection against theft or vandalism. This type of facility is particularly suited to schools or places of employment where full-time supervision cannot be provided but where some degree of security may be desirable. Access arrangements can include keys/gate code being issued to individual cyclists, or made available from central location or caretaker. The bicycle parking cellar shown in Photo C3.3.8 is an indoor variation of the locked storage facility for use in residential units, especially apartment blocks.

C3.3 Chapter C3-Bicycle Parking Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C3.3.7: Locked storage unit (Danish) (Danish)

Photo C3.3.8: Bicycle parking cellar

Individual bicycle lockers (Photo C3.3.9) are another way to provide safe parking. This solution is particularly appropriate for commuters completing the main part of their journey by public transport, and can be used at bus stops, tram, light rail, or railway stations. Lockers can be hired out to cyclists on a day-today basis, or longer-term if required, with keys issued from a central location. The disadvantage, compared to other locked storage units, is that they occupy more space per bicycle, and are more costly to build and maintain.

Photo C3.3.9: Individual bicycle lockers

Guarded bicycle parking facilities (Photos C3.3.10 and C3.3.11) may offer the best way to protect bicycles from being stolen in busy areas such as shopping districts, bus depots and central railway stations, and city-centre locations. Full-time supervision is required, and cyclists will generally have to pay to park their bicycle. Facilities of this type are often associated with bike rental, repair and/or retail operations.

C3.4 Chapter C3-Bicycle Parking Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photos C3.3.10 and C3.3.11: Guarded storage unit (Dutch and Danish examples)

Protecting the bicycle against inclement weather: Rain has an adverse effect on the quality and comfort of the cycling mode, particularly for the less experienced cyclist. Prolonged exposure to inclement weather will also affect the condition of the bicycle itself. Covered bicycle parking facilities such as indoor storage units, bicycle sheds or lockers of the type discussed in the preceding paragraphs will help to keep the bicycle dry and in prime condition. This is attractive for long-time parking at home, at work or at public transport stations, where some kind of shelter is recommended. Open-covered bicycle sheds of the type shown in Photo C3.3.12 are especially suitable for use at suburban railway stations, at primary-level schools or at the work place. Lockable bicycle sheds (Photo C3.3.13) are used typically at larger schools, especially if there is a risk of theft or vandalism, and at workplaces where every employee gets a key. Larger sheds can be used to store raingear.

Photo C3.3.12: Open-covered bicycle shed Photo C3.3.13: covered, lockable bicycle shed

On-street racks and stands may be either open or covered, though convenience, accessibility, and proximity to origin or destination locations, are the primary requirements for these facilities, rather than the need for shelter.

C3.5 Chapter C3-Bicycle Parking Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Public sheltered bicycle parking facilities can either be guarded or not, depending on the circumstances of each individual location. C3.4

Additional Considerations (Public Transport Locations) When providing bicycle parking facilities at public transport locations, there are a number of factors which the designer should be aware of: • • • • •

Location characteristics – central, suburban, rural, extent of catchment area Catchment profile – commuter, schools/educational, leisure Type(s) of public transport serving the location – bus, rail, light rail, etc. Level of public transport serving the location – QBN, interurban, lowfrequency (bus)/suburban, mainline, light rail, tram (rail) Current modal split

Ideally, much of this data will have been collected and/or collated in the preparation of the Bicycle Parking Strategy for the area, and any gaps should be supplemented by local investigation. Such information will be of considerable assistance in determining the key design elements for bicycle parking facilities at public transport locations, i.e. the number of parking places to be provided and the most appropriate choice of parking facility to be used. Bicycle Parking at Railway Stations: The total number of parking spaces to be provided will depend on: • • •

The number of passengers that board and disembark at the station The number of people arriving at the station by bicycle (% of modal split in access). The number of people that leave the station by bicycle (% of modal split in egress).

Photo C3.4.1 and C3.4.2: Basic cycle parking provision at low-level public transport stops

At most bus or tram stops, a small number of bicycle parking places, say 5 to 20, will be sufficient (e.g. Photos C3.4.1 and C3.4.2, above). However, at major railway-stations where the daily passenger throughputs in the thousands, the amount of cycle parking needed will be considerably more than this, especially if targets for modal shift from private car to public transport and the softer transport modes are realised – though, even then, we are unlikely to see bicycle parking of the extent shown in Photos C3.4.3 and C3.4.4 below! C3.6 Chapter C3-Bicycle Parking Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photos C3.4.3 and C3.4.4: Bicycle parking at railway stations in The Netherlands and Denmark

There are a number of choices available to the designer in determining the most appropriate choice of bicycle parking facility to be used at public transport locations, including: • • • • •

Guarded, covered and free (subsidised) Guarded, covered and paid Lockers Covered, not guarded In the open, not guarded

Photo illustrations of these are included in earlier sections of this chapter. In making the final choice, however, it is recommended, ideally, that as many parking spaces as possible should be covered. Bicycle Parking at Bus Stops: Cyclists with long commute distances will switch to the bus mode if they can park a bicycle at a bus stop and deem it to be secure. It is important, therefore, that bicycle parking facilities be provided at bus stops to maximise the potential for modal integration of this nature.

Photo C3.4.5: Bicycle parking at bus stops

For high frequency routes, a degree of security is provided through passenger-activity around the bus stop. In such circumstances, daily bicycle

C3.7 Chapter C3-Bicycle Parking Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY commuters may be happy with well-positioned, on-street cycle parking of the type shown in Photo C3.4.5, above. Park & Ride sites should include a percentage of bicycle parking, say 10-20 spaces per 500 car spaces. As use of the site will be mainly long-stay (all-day) parking, it would be preferable to include parking facilities which provide a level of security (bicycle locker or lockable shed, paid/unpaid), though this may not be required if there is full-time supervision on site. For regional or long-distance commuter services, however, a more secure form of cycle parking facility may be appropriate, as bicycles will be left unattended for most of the day, perhaps at lightly trafficked locations. In The Netherlands, for example, some regional and local public transport companies have been putting simple automatic bicycle storage facilities near bus stops (see Photo C3.4.6, below). The facilities can be used 24 hours a day, have relatively low labour costs and make efficient use of available space. Alternatively, if supervision is difficult to provide, a smaller version of the facilities shown in Photos C3.3.7 or C3.3.13 could be considered.

Photo C3.4.6: Automatic storage facility (The Netherlands)

At low frequency suburban stops, on the other hand, the requirement for cycle parking should be determined before installing on-street facilities. It is likely that bus stops located near schools, shops, etc., will have a higher cycle parking demand than isolated low-frequency bus stops.

C3.5

Choosing an Appropriate Design of Rack or Stand While different designs for clamps, racks and stands are available from a wide range of specialist manufacturers and suppliers, they can be categorised into three basic types:

Clamps or racks that hold the wheel of the bicycle

Clamps or racks that hold the front fork of the bicycle

Stands that support the whole frame of the bicycle

C3.8 Chapter C3-Bicycle Parking Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Most wheel-holding clamps and racks are designed to hold standard-width bicycle tyres, only, and consequently have problems supporting both narrow tyres (e.g. race bicycles) and wide tyres (e.g. mountain bikes). In addition, a number of them are not designed to allow the bicycle frame to be attached and locked. In choosing a wheel-holding clamp or rack, therefore, the designer should ensure that it is of a type which supports a range of tyre widths and provides opportunity for locking the bicycle frame also. The “Tulip” (see Photos C3.5.1 and C3.5.2, below) is one of the better wheelholding designs, and is appropriate for tyre-widths in the range 27mm to 47mm. While this is not flexible enough to support very narrow or very wide tyres, support for the former is provided by the anti-theft steel ring to which the frame can be attached and locked.

Photo C3.5.1: “Tulip” stand narrow tyres

Photo C3.5.2: Anti-theft ring supports bikes with

Allowing for a standard bicycle length of 2.0m, the number of spaces which can be provided using this type of stand can be calculated by reference to the height and width dimensions shown in Figure C3.1 (1.42m x 0.466m overall). The pitch width of 0.375m means that stands should be placed at least 0.75 m. Apart, though this distance should be increased slightly to facilitate access and locking.

C3.9 Chapter C3-Bicycle Parking Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure C3.1: “Tulip” bicycle stand dimensions

The “D-Lock” bicycle stand, shown in Photos C3.5.3 and C3.5.4, and available from a number of suppliers, is another good example of a wheel-holding stand that provides a frame-locking capability similar to the “Tulip”. It is available in racks of 2, 4, 6 or 8 clamps, with a pitch of 0.50 m. and the clamp is particularly suited for mountain bikes and other bicycles with wider tyres.

Photos C3.5.3 and C3.5.4: “D-lock” stand, with locking ring, suitable for bicycles with wide tyres

Front fork-holding clamps and racks have an advantage over the wheelholding types, in that the stands are appropriate for any tyre width and, in addition, if the bicycle is pushed aside after it is secured, this will not damage the wheel, as will sometimes be the case with racks or clamps which are wheel-holding only. The “Fourchet” stand, which is manufactured by a number of producers, and is shown in Photos C3.5.5 and C3.5.6, is a good example of a front fork-holding stand. The pitch, in this case, is 0.375m, similar to the “Tulip” type.

Photos C3.5.5 and C3.5.6: “Fourchet” front fork holding bicycle stand.

C3.10 Chapter C3-Bicycle Parking Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Frame-supporting bicycle stands are the simplest type of bicycle parking facility, often being little more than a support rail, to which the bicycle frame can be locked without difficulty. Frame-supporting stands have the great advantage of being suitable for all types of bicycles and every tyre width, but have a wider pitch of 0.60m. The “Sheffield” stand, shown in Photo C3.5.7, below, and manufactured by a wide variety of producers, is probably the best known example of this type of facility. The stands can be used on both sides, as shown, and should be set between 1.20m and 1.50m apart to allow the cyclist enough room to place and access the bicycle. The “Connect” stand, shown in Photo C3.5.8, is another example of a frame-supporting stand.

Photo C3.5.7: “Sheffield” stand

Photo C3.5.8: “Connect” stand

Cycle Parking Area: Cycle parking areas with a large number of parking places need careful design, and the parking area layout needs to be borne is mind when selecting the type of rack or stand to be used. In general, frame-supporting stands are more appropriate for small parking clusters of up to up to 10 or 15 stands. Wheel-holding or front-fork types are usually more advisable for parking areas catering for large numbers of bicycles, however, as they allow for more organised parking and more efficient use of space due to their lesser pitch (between 0.35m and 0.50m vs. 0.60m required for frame-supporting types – see Figure C3.2).

C3.11 Chapter C3-Bicycle Parking Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure C3.2: Space requirements for wheel-holding/front-fork racks and clamps.

The final aspect of the parking layout to be considered is the space to be provided between parking rows. If we accept that the length of a standard bicycle is 2.00m, then a well-designed parking facility will provide that distance as a minimum, and preferably 2.50m, between the rows to allow cyclists room to manoeuvre when parking and collecting their bicycles (see Photos C3.5.9 and C3.5.10, below).

Photos C3.5.9 and C3.5.10: Well-designed bicycle parking facilities (Dutch and Danish examples)

The different types of clamps and racks discussed above are summarised in Table C3.1, below, together with an indication of their main characteristics, and their suitability for use in different parking layouts. Type Wheelholding e.g. “Tulip”, “D-Lock”

Characteristics •

Frame can be secured to antitheft steel ring

•

Pitch range: 0.35m - 0.50m

•

Some limitations on suitability for different tyre widths, e.g “Tulip” supports narrower tyres (race bikes), while wider pitch of “D-Lock” makes it suitable for mountain bikes

Suitability Suitable for large cycle parking areas , as pitch range allows for organised parking and efficient use of space

C3.12 Chapter C3-Bicycle Parking Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY •

[NB. Some designs do not allow frame to be secured, and should be avoided]

Front forkholding

•

Appropriate for any tyre width

•

Pitch: 0.375m

e.g. “Fourchet”

•

Greater support than wheelholding model – bicycle can be pushed aside without damage, once secured

Framesupporting

•

Frame can be secured to stand without difficulty (to both sides of the “Sheffield” stand)

•

Pitch: 0.60m

•

Suitable for use with all bicycles types and all wheel widths

e.g. “Sheffield”, “Connect”

Suitable for large cycle parking areas , as pitch allows for organised parking and efficient use of space

Suitable for clusters of low-volume parking (up to 10-15 stands) [NB. Less suitable for large parking areas due to 0.60m pitch]

Table C3.1: Summary of bicycle clamps and racks, their main characteristics, and general suitability

C3.13 Chapter C3-Bicycle Parking Facilities (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

C4: Cycling and Car Parking C4.1

General This chapter considers the impact of on-street car parking on cyclists with reference to the Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads. It examines the potential conflicts that can arise, the need to manage competing demands, and the suitability or otherwise of providing car-parking beside various types of cycle and bus facilities.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter B2: Principles of Managing Conflict Chapter C2: Contra-flow Cycling Chapter C5: Loading and Unloading

C4.2

Policy and Legislative Background Car parking policy should be determined in the first instance by reference to National policy on Sustainable Travel and Transport. The development and implementation of car parking strategy at a local level should be carried out as part of the overall network strategy for the area. Under current Roads and Traffic legislation, car parking is permitted on all public roads, except where governed by specific regulations. In the urban environment, exceptions include – • • •

Clearways Single and double yellow line markings On-road cycle facilities, other than for set-down, loading and unloading activities (maximum duration 30 mins.)

From a Road Safety perspective, the Traffic Management Guidelines also recommend that there should be no parking during peak hours along Primary or District Distributor Routes, and no parking at any time within 15m of a junction or within 50m of a traffic signal stop line. Cycling is permitted on public roads, with or without marked cycle facilities (tracks or lanes), unless forbidden or restricted by regulation, and subject to C4.1 Chapter C4: Cycling and Car Parking (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY an over-riding requirement (under current legislation) that obliges cyclists to use a cycle facility where one has been provided, except when changing direction, or where the facility is blocked by loading/unloading activities or by a bus stopped at a bus-stop. Car parking and cycling generally take place along the edge of the carriageway. Car parking may be located either on the carriageway itself, or in designated parking bays. Cycling may be either on road or in bus lanes, with or without visual delineation, or off-road on a physically segregated cycle track. C4.3

Types of On-Street Car Parking On-street car parking generally falls into one of three main categories (ref. Traffic Management Guidelines, Chapter 16) – •

Parallel to the kerb – generally in same direction as with-flow traffic

•

Perpendicular to the kerb – at right angles to the direction of traffic

•

Angled parking – 30o minimum angle between parking space and kerb

Photo C4.3.1: Parallel Parking Photo C4.3.2: Perpendicular

C4.2 Chapter C4: Cycling and Car Parking (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C4.3.3: Angled to kerb

The main characteristics for each parking space type are summarised in the following Table C4.1, extracted from the TMG recommendations.

Type Parallel

Recommended Dimensions (TMG)

Comment

6.0m x 2.4m (min. 6.0m x 2.1m)

Properly dimensioned spaces required to allow sufficient room for vehicles to manoeuvre

Buffer strips between spaces, if possible

Perpendicular

5.5m x 2.4m (min. 4.8m x 2.28m)

Buffers provide guide for drivers, and gaps for pedestrians

More difficult for drivers to negotiate than parallel parking Use only on roads with low speeds, low traffic volumes

Angled

Up to 5.5m perpendicular depth x 2.4m width

May help to provide more spaces than parallel parking

Variable angle to kerb, >30o

No significant benefit if angle to kerb <30o

Table C4.1: Main types of car parking spaces (ref. Traffic Management Guidelines)

C4.3 Chapter C4: Cycling and Car Parking (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY C4.4

Car Parking and Sustainably Safe Design Adherence to the Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads, discussed in Chapter B1, is an important factor in selecting the appropriate type of on-street car parking, and in the design and layout of such facilities. The potential impact on cyclists and cycle facilities needs particular consideration.

Photo C4.4.1: Car parking and sustainable safety

Issues which need to be addressed with regard to these principles are summarised in the following Table C4.2:

Principle

Main Issues

Functionality

Does road/street retain function as bicycle-friendly environment when car parking occurs? What is degree to which parking access impacts on through traffic movement, and vice versa? Which mode should have priority – parking access vs. bicycle? How onerous are parking-related activities, e.g. loading shopping, securing children vs. speed and volume of passing traffic?

Homogeneit y

Can two-way parking movement (both sides of street) be reconciled with passing (high) traffic volumes? How significant are speed and direction differentials between parking and moving vehicles? How significant are speed and mass differentials between parking vehicle and passing cyclists?

Readability

How readable/predictable are car parking activities from both cyclist’s and driver’s points of view, e.g. • Nature of car parking space and means of access/egress?

C4.4 Chapter C4: Cycling and Car Parking (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY • • • • • • • • • • 4.

Forgivingnes s

Likelihood of car door opening into path of oncoming cyclist? Behaviour of space-hunting driver? Unexpected or illegal parking (especially on cycle lanes or shared bus lanes)? Driver reversing out from nose-to-kerb parking? Driver’s sight-lines when pulling out from contra-flow car parking space? Visual delineation of cycle facility alongside parking areas? Presence and delineation/segregation of contra-flow cycling facility? Location of parking meters? Delineation of parking bays, especially in vicinity of cycle lanes? Are off-street car-park locations clearly sign-posted?

Can a buffer be provided between car parking and adjacent cycling facility? Is the cycle facility/shared bus lane wide enough to accommodate evasive actions by cyclist, if necessary? What are the predominant characteristics of the adjacent traffic regime, e.g. low-speed, low-volume?

SelfAwareness

Can the driver assess and execute the necessary parking movements with minimum delay or inconvenience to other road users? Can the cyclist assess and accommodate the driver’s parking intentions and actions?

Table C4.2: Issues affecting Sustainable Safety

C4.5

Car Parking and Cycling Conflicts Where car parking and cycling activities are contiguous, there is always a risk of (varying) potential conflict between them, and also between the corresponding uses and functions of the public road.

C4.5 Chapter C4: Cycling and Car Parking (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C4.5.1: Risk of potential conflict

The main types of conflict which can arise are summarised in Table C4.3, hereunder:

Conflict Type

Description

On-road Cyclist vs. Driver manoeuvring in or out of car parking space

Conflict exacerbated during heavy traffic conditions – level of conflict will vary significantly, depending on whether carking is parallel (low level) or perpendicular/angled to kerb (high level)

Driver crossing cycle facility from parking bay vs. Oncoming Cyclist

Must wait to rejoin general traffic flow (may be exacerbated if driver dependent on gaps in traffic)

On-road Cyclist vs. Driver/car passenger

Risk of cyclist being hit by opening door when driver or passenger exiting vehicle – can be offset by provision of buffer strip between parked vehicles and cycle facility (see Photo C4.4.1 & C4.4.2, below)

Off-road Cyclist vs. Driver/car passenger

Similar to previous, unless buffer provided between parking space and segregated cycle facility

On-road Cyclist vs. General Traffic

If driver (illegally) parked in cycle facility, cyclist must wait or cross into general traffic lane to avoid

On-road Cyclist vs. Buses or HGVs

If driver (illegally) parked in bus lane or general traffic lane, evasive action by cyclist carries increased risk due to significant mass differential

C4.6 Chapter C4: Cycling and Car Parking (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY (buses or HGVs) Table C4.3: Summary of car parking and cycling conflicts

The extent to which these, or similar, conflicts, are likely to arise, and the degree to which they can be eliminated or reduced, should be examined by the designer in any consideration of – ♦ The design of new cycle facilities adjacent to existing car parking ♦ The design of new car parking adjacent to existing cycle facilities ♦ The impact of car parking on cycling where no specific provisions have been made All conflicts should be managed using the methodology set out in Chapter B2, Principles of Managing Conflict.

Photo C4.5.2 and C4.5.3: Cyclist protected from opening doors by buffer strip

[See also Chapter C2: Contra-flow Cycling for additional discussion on car parking and contra-flow cycling facilities.] C4.6

Managing Competing Demands On-street parking spaces must be accommodated in a limited street space that also caters for general traffic lanes, bus and cycle lanes, footpaths, loading bays, and private entrances.

C4.7 Chapter C4: Cycling and Car Parking (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C.4.6.1: Competing demands for limited street space

In general, on-street parking provides a safety buffer between pedestrians and adjacent traffic, and it can also provide similar protection to cyclists in areas where the cycle facility is located between the parking area and the kerb, e.g., where car-parking is on the same side of the street as a contra-flow cycling facility (see Chapter C2). The trade-off, however, is a reduction in street space that might otherwise be used to provide wider footpaths, new or wider on-street cycle facilities, bus lanes, or additional space for general traffic. In determining parking requirements for a given location, the designer (or local authority) should carry out a proper assessment of likely or anticipated parking demand, as well as giving consideration to how this demand might best be managed in light of other demands on the available street-space. Relevant factors to be assessed include – •

Which areas have the greatest demand for on-street parking?

•

What are the variations in parking demand by time of day, day of the week, time of the year?

•

Where and when do businesses need loading and unloading areas?

•

Are different parking needs competing for the same space?

•

Can parking demand be accommodated within available curtillage in conjunction with the demands of other modes?

•

Can the parking demand be accommodated without prejudicing the safety of more vulnerable modes?

•

How can on-street parking demand be managed to prevent excessive spill-over to nearby residential areas?

C4.8 Chapter C4: Cycling and Car Parking (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY •

Are there areas where parking should be permanently or temporarily prohibited (pedestrian zones, clear ways, with-flow and contra-flow bus lanes and cycle facilities), and can alternative arrangements be made in such circumstances?

In addition to loading and unloading facilities (see Chapter C5), there will always be a demand for short-term passenger set down/pick up facilities. These are useful near bus-stops or train stations to allow transfer to public transport. They can also reduce all-day parking requirements at schools & workplaces, but are likely to cause disruption to cyclists, more than other, lessvulnerable, modes when located along an established cycle route. Car Parking and Schools: Unless they are strictly controlled, on-street parking and set-down/pick-up facilities in the vicinity of schools can present a particular problem. By their nature, cycle routes serving schools are intended to cater for use by schoolchildren, with or without accompanying adults, but will only be successful if they are usable at school opening and closing times. If the cycle lane is continually being blocked by drivers dropping off or collecting other children, or by drivers reversing in and out of parking spaces, young cyclists and, more importantly, their parents, will be discouraged from use of the cycling mode. Less-disruptive alternatives which might be considered include: •

Physical segregation of cycle facilities in the approaches to the school – will require on-road bollards, kerbing or bringing the cycle facility offroad

•

Enforcement of cycle route priority – though this may prove a drain on resources as it is likely to be required on an ongoing basis, or

•

A more robust approach to controlling set-down and pick-up activities – by having these relocated to within the school grounds, for example

It is recommended that these, and similar measures, can be best considered in the context of a School Travel Plan.

C4.9 Chapter C4: Cycling and Car Parking (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Figure C4.1: Car parking and Schools Photo C4.6.2 Car parking at schools

C4.7

“Weave” and “No-Weave” Parking On-street car-parking arrangements, whether parallel, perpendicular or angled to the kerb, can be classified from the cyclist’s perspective into two design types, “weave” parking or “no-weave” parking. A “weave” parking design is one where cyclists are protected at the commencement point of the car parking area by shifting them to the right (Photo C4.7.1). As eye-to-eye contact may not be possible it is essential that the requirement for cyclists to shift to the right is clearly conveyed to all users in advance. Design options may include building out the footpath at either end (Photo C4.7.2), and additional protection can be provided along the length of parking area by means of a buffer strip between the cyclist and the general traffic lane, if space permits.

C4.10 Chapter C4: Cycling and Car Parking (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C4.7.1: Shift cyclist to right footpath

Photo C4.7.2: Build out

Generally, where the parking area is set back from the carriageway, cyclists will not need to weave, but the car parking area should be clearly delineated with signs and markings to alert them to the potential conflict. It is also recommended that a buffer strip be provided between the cyclist and the embayed parking area, as this will provide some protection for cyclists against doors opening unexpectedly, and similar driver or passenger actions. Entrances to off-street car-park facilities should be similarly delineated.

Photo C4.7.3: Embayed parking

“No-weave” parking designs are suitable for situations where cyclists are not at risk from car parking manoeuvres and related activities because the cycle facility is located on the inside, between the parking area and the kerb or footpath. This is the case where the cycle track is off-road to begin with, or C4.11 Chapter C4: Cycling and Car Parking (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY where an on-road cycle lane is brought around the inside of the parking area, as in the case of contra-flow cycle facilities. Ideally, the cycle facility should always be physically segregated from the car parking area in such cases, though there is no need for a buffer strip, except in the vicinity of schools, and parking on the cycle facility itself should be expressly prohibited.

Photo C4.7.4 and C4.7.5: Off-road cycle track to rear of parking bays

C4.8

Recommendations The type of on-street car-parking provided can vary in suitability, depending on the prevailing traffic regime. In certain circumstances, e.g., along busier routes or where it is likely to generate significant conflict with other road users, it may be necessary to limit the hours of operation, or to prohibit on-street parking entirely. Cyclists, whether travelling in general traffic lanes or within dedicated cycle lanes, are vulnerable to the impacts of indiscriminate parking activities. Where bus lanes or combined bus and cycle facilities are provided, however, these allow for greater flexibility in the provision of on-street parking, as the wider lanes afford increased protection to the cyclist, or allow for weaving within the lane.

C4.12 Chapter C4: Cycling and Car Parking (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C4.8.1: Increased protection with combined bus-cycle facilities

Table C4.4, below, shows the preferred approach to on-street car-parking by reference to the prevailing traffic regime. It also includes circumstances where the prohibition of on-street car-parking is considered more appropriate.

Traffic Regime General Traffic (no cycle facilities delineated)

On-road Cycle Lane (road markings between cyclist and general traffic)

Recommendation Limited parking may be permissible along the street Parking may need to be prohibited on busier routes during morning and evening peaks

Comment Buses and other traffic at equal risk from vehicles pulling out. Cyclists at greater risk in light of mass differential.

Parallel parking preferred over perpendicular or angled nose-to-kerb

Preferably, parking should be organised in squares and/or garages (off-street).

Limited parking recommended in with-flow direction

Risk to cyclists when drivers are reversing into cycle lane.

Parking not recommended in contra-flow direction unless cycle facility can be relocated between parking and kerb.

Cycle facility should be physically segregated from outside parking Contra-flow readability essential Mainly suitable in low-speed, low-

C4.13 Chapter C4: Cycling and Car Parking (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY and kerb.

volume Access Streets

Parallel parking preferred (angled parking permissible where cycle facility is physically segregated) Bus Lane (cyclists mix with buses in dedicated lane)

Visual Delineation (road markings between bus and cycle facilities)

Limited parking permissible

Low-level parking movements recommended, to minimise disruption along bus route.

Parallel parking preferred over perpendicular or angled parking

Less risk of conflict with cyclists in shared bus lane when vehicles pulling out.

Parking not recommended unless build-outs can be provided at either end.

Parking can only be installed on LHS of combined bus-cycle facility, Risk to cyclists when drivers are reversing into cycle lane; reversing movement unlikely to encroach on bus lane. Short stay parking in front of shops should be avoided.

Physical Segregation (physical separation between bus and cycle facilities)

Parking can be installed between the cycle and bus lane sections of the combined facility. Angled parking preferred as it provides maximum capacity in low-risk situation

Minimum risk to cyclists in cycle lane section of combined facility.

Low risk of disruption to buses when parked vehicles return to main traffic lane (reversing or pulling out into bus lane).

Table C4.4: Recommendations for on-street car-parking, based on prevailing traffic regime

C4.14 Chapter C4: Cycling and Car Parking (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter C5: Loading and Unloading C5.1

General This chapter examines the main issues associated with kerb-side loading and unloading of vehicles, and how these relate to cycle planning. It offers a number of design solutions, having regard to current legislation.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter A1: Legislative Context Chapter A4: Balancing Function, Street Design, and Use (?) Chapter A5: Cycle Network Planning Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter B2: Principles of Managing Conflict Chapter C4: Cycling and Car Parking

C5.2

Background & Legislation The design and/or provision of facilities for the loading and unloading of vehicles on or adjacent to the carriageway is considered here as an extension or sub-set of the car parking facilities discussed in the previous chapter (see Chapter C4: Cycling and Car Parking), though with certain specific differences, as listed in Table C5.1 – Loading/Unloading

Car-Parking

♦ Generally of short-term duration and site-specific

♦ Can range from short (30mins) to long-term (all-day)

♦ Commercial vehicles

♦ Mainly cars and light commercial vehicles

♦ Proximity to specific destination essential ♦ Requires additional “circulating space” for loading/unloading activities ♦

Mainly located in city/town centre and retail/commercial

♦ Proximity preferred (not critical) ♦ No additional space required (except in the case of disability spaces) ♦ Located in city/town centre and suburban areas

C5.1 Chapter C5: Loading & Unloading (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY areas ♦ Serving mainly retail and commercial premises, offices, construction works & residential apartments

suburban areas ♦ Serving work, leisure and residential needs

Table C5.1: Loading/Unloading vs. Car-Parking requirements

Under current legislation, loading and unloading activities are governed by the various Road Traffic (Traffic & Parking) Regulations – Type of cycle facility None

On-road- Advisory (Lane) On-road- Mandatory (Track) Clearway / Time-plated

Loading arrangement Loading and unloading activities are subject to general parking prohibitions and controls, e.g. single and double yellow lines, clearways and designated “no-parking” zones. 30 minutes (max.) Not permitted during hours of operation Outside the hours of operation

Table C5.2: Loading/unloading permitted under current legislation

Photo C5.2.1: Loading/unloading set-down on “advisory” cycle lane (broken white line)

C5.3

Loading and Unloading Issues Provision for loading and unloading on or beside the carriageway has an impact on all other modes using the road. When planning for loading activity, it will be necessary first to determine the networks for the relevant modes and to decide of the quality of service desirable for each. This

C5.2 Chapter C5: Loading & Unloading (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY decision should be informed by Network Planning objectives (see Chapter A5). From the cyclist’s perspective, kerbside loading and unloading activities can be disruptive and hazardous. Such hazards include doors opening into the traffic stream, tailgates projecting from vehicles, and turbulence caused by trolleys and other associated delivery apparatus. For practical purposes, loading and unloading operations require vehicles to set down or park as close as possible to the premises they are serving. In the absence of lay-byes, loading bays or alternative off-street arrangements, this usually entails parking at the kerbside, which can result in varying degrees of conflict with other road users. Parking at the carriageway edge, especially on narrow streets or streets where parking is otherwise prohibited, will inevitably impede the general traffic flow.

Photo C5.3.1: Cyclists disrupted by loading/unloading activities

The impact on drivers and operators engaged in loading and unloading activities may need to be considered when designing mandatory cycle lanes, especially when these are intended for 24-hour operation. The following key issues need to be addressed: •

Function, shape and use of the road

•

Nature of through-traffic regime

C5.3 Chapter C5: Loading & Unloading (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY •

Necessity for loading/unloading along the route

•

Nature and extent of cycle facilities

•

Location, duration and frequency of loading/unloading requirements

•

Specialist loading/unloading requirements (e.g. cash-in-transit vans)

•

Degree of conflict and potential risk for each category of user, i.e. driver, cyclist, pedestrian and mobility impaired and disabled persons

•

Ameliorating measures (on-street)

•

Off-street alternatives

•

Does solution for one mode (e.g. cyclists) create additional conflicts with other modes, and to what extent can these be overcome

•

Legislative and/or Planning constraints

Evaluation: The function shape and use of the street, and the nature of the traffic regime, can be determined by reference to Chapter A4 of this manual, together with the urban road classifications discussed in Chapter B1. The nature of the cycle facilities, and the nature, location and duration of loading/unloading requirements, can be determined by survey and assessment. The degree of conflict and potential risks, including those associated with proposed design solutions, should be identified and addressed using the risk assessment methodology set out in Chapter B2.

C5.4

Loading and Unloading – Design Solutions Design solutions, prioritised in order of benefit to the cycling mode, are considered below: 1. Off-street (relocation) 2. Time-plating (re-timed) 3. Loading Bay 4. Increased width (buffer)

C5.4 Chapter C5: Loading & Unloading (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY 5. Evasion space 6. Outside cycle facility Construction SitesRelocate loading/unloading off-street:  Off-street design solutions for loading/unloading that can benefit the cyclist include relocating the loading bay to an adjacent side-street, away from the main traffic flow, or to an area within the premises if this can be accessed by side or rear entrance.  This eliminates or minimises disruption to cyclists and other vehicles in the main traffic flow, but increases the inconvenience and duration of set-down for loading/unloading personnel.

Time-plated cycle lanes and Clearways:  Time-plated cycle lanes facilitate loading/unloading activities along mandatory cycle lanes (solid white line along outer edge), as the legal prohibition on vehicles parking does not apply outside the hours of operation.  The traffic regime outside the proposed hours of operation should be assessed by the designer before any final decision is made on timeplating the cycle lane.  In the absence of mandatory on-road cycle facilities, time-plated clearways can provide the cyclist with a similar level of protection against indiscriminate loading/unloading activities during the hours of operation.  In all such circumstances, loading/unloading will normally be restricted to off-peak hours.

Insert photo of time-plated cycle-track sign

Photo C5.4.1: Time-plated cycle-facility

Insert photo of time-plated clearway sign

Photo C5.4.2: Time-plated Clearway

Loading bay:  Loading bays provide an attractive on-street solution that benefits the cyclist and other traffic as well as the loading/unloading vehicle itself.

C5.5 Chapter C5: Loading & Unloading (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY This is true regardless of whether or not on-road cycle facilities have been provided.  The loading bay allows for other traffic, including cyclists, to continue without obstruction, while loading/unloading operations are taking place.

Photo C5.4.3: Typical loading bay

Insert layout diagram (Loading Bay) Figure C.5.1: Layout diagram for Loading Bay

 Loading bays have the flexibility to function either on a 24-hour-basis, or to revert to other uses, e.g. as a taxi-rank or as a standard parking bay, outside the required hours of operation. The latter option ensures maximum use and usefulness of the bay, and may be more appropriate for towns and villages where the demand for loading/unloading facilities are not as great as more densely populated areas.  Loading bays should only be provided where there is sufficient setback space to do so. The set-back dimensions (depth and length) are critical to avoid vehicles straddling between the loading bay and the adjoining carriageway or cycle lane. C5.6 Chapter C5: Loading & Unloading (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY  Traditional loading bay design may need to be revised to take account of current HGV dimensions (see Trafic Signs Manual for further guidance). Increase width to allow buffer between loading/unloading and cycle lane:  As a general guideline, cycle lanes should be separated as much as possible from loading/unloading facilities, preferably by means of a visually delineated buffer zone.  The greater the distance between the cycle lane and the loading/unloading vehicle, the safer it is for both cyclists and vehicle operators.  The cyclist has a better chance of unimpeded travel, with reduced risk of obstruction (due to doors opening unexpectedly, etc.), while the loading/unloading operatives can move goods with greater freedom and less risk of being impeded by the cyclists.

Photo C5.4.4: Buffer between loading/unloading and cycle lane

Provide evasion space for cyclist, e.g. wider lanes, bending out:  While not as effective as a buffer area, the increased lane width affords the cyclist a better chance of unimpeded travel, and offers a degree of protection from loading/unloading activities, while minimising the need for the cyclist having to move into the general traffic lane.  Bending out the cycle lane should be done in a manner which is clearly visible to other general traffic, and should include appropriate signing and road-markings (see also Chapter C4). C5.7 Chapter C5: Loading & Unloading (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C5.4.3: Bend out cycle lane around loading/unloading area

Loading/unloading outside the Cycle Track:  An alternative solution is to restrict loading/unloading of vehicles to the carriageway or bus lane immediately outside a physically segregated the cycle track. This is approach is used extensively and effectively in Copenhagen, where physical segregation of cycle facilities by means of a raised adjacent track is the norm in the urban environment (see Photo C5.4.6, below).  While, theoretically, this can provide the minimum disruption for cyclists, the disadvantages are that it can only be used in wide, low-speed, low-volume streets if disruption to buses and other traffic is to be avoided, and cyclists can still be disrupted by the need to carry goods across the cycle track to serve the premises.

Photo C5.4.6: Loading/unloading outside the cycle track (Danish example)

Special consideration for Construction Sites: C5.8 Chapter C5: Loading & Unloading (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY  Construction Sites require the use of loading and unloading faclities throughout the period of the works, though individual loading/unloading activities will generally be of short-term duration.  Loading/unloading arrangements at construction sites should have regard to the Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads (ref. Chapter B1), especially the principles of Homogeneity and Readability.  Activities specifically related to off-road construction sites, e.g. unloading concrete, or overhead unloading (lifting pipes and other heavy and/or bulky materials using cranes or gantries), should be managed to minimise impact on adjacent cycle facilities. If disruption of cycle facilities cannot be avoided, cyclists should be given advance warning, and alternative arrangements should be provided where possible.  Loading/unloading activities at on-road construction sites (roadworks) should be consistent with overall arrangements for the control and management of traffic at the site, and should comply with the principles governing such arrangements, i.e. to Warn, Inform, Direct and Enforce (see latest DoT “Guidance for the Control and Management of Traffic at Road Works”).

C5.5

Planning and Legislative Considerations From a Planning perspective, loading/unloading is an issue that primarily affects traffic, including cycle and pedestrian, movements in commercial and retail districts, in central urban areas, and on busier routes. By the same token, it is generally less important on low-speed, low-volume streets, or in suburban residential areas. Ideally, loading and unloading should be considered on a strategic basis, as an integral element of the overall Cycle Network Strategy (see Chapter A5).

C5.9 Chapter C5: Loading & Unloading (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C5.5.1: Cycle lane separated from loading/unloading with delineated buffer zone

For new commercial or retail developments fronting urban streets, it is recommended that loading/unloading issues should be clarified and resolved at consultation stage, and related conditions stipulated in any resulting grant of Planning Permission. The legal requirement for the prohibition of loading/unloading along mandatory cycle routes can be examined on a case-by-case basis, with time-plating being introduced on certain cycle tracks if desirable and, more importantly, if by doing so the safety of the cyclist will not be adversely affected.

By their nature, all loading/unloading activities involve some degree of constraint on all transport modes. This is the case for both on-street and off-street locations. The aim should be to find the design solution, or combination of solutions, which best protects the more vulnerable users.

C5.10 Chapter C5: Loading & Unloading (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter C6: Treatment of Entrances C6.1

General This chapter deals with the design principles related to the interface between cycle links and entrances to properties and low-trafficked side-roads such as residential streets.

This Chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter B2: Principles of Managing Conflict Chapter B11: Managing the Side Road and Traffic Turning Left

C6.2

Background Entrances providing vehicular access/egress between the public road and adjoining properties will have an impact on any intervening road space, including on footpaths and cycle routes where these are provided. Within the urban area in particular, it is important that this impact be kept to a minimum given the presence of increased numbers of vulnerable road users, and the designer should keep this in mind when considering how best to provide this type of accommodation. In the past, property entrances opening on to collector and distributor roads have tended to be over-designed in favour of motorised traffic, especially in providing generous corner radii and wide aprons (see examples of this in Photos C6.2.1 and C6.2.2 below). While this minimises interruptions to the traffic flow, it represents poor design practice because it erroneously treats the entrance as an element of the road network, whereas in reality it is a connection across the non-motorised network(s) where more vulnerable road users (pedestrians and cyclists) should have priority.

C6.1 Chapter C6: Treatment of Entrances (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Photo C6.2.1: Layout favours motorised traffic motorised traffic

Photo C6.2.2: Layout favours

As can be seen from these photographs, where priority is given to motorised traffic at such locations, the designs can cause safety and alignment problems for vulnerable road users and can reduce the quality of service for cyclists C6.3

Design Principles The need for appropriate sight lines should be borne in mind by designers when managing entrance treatments. Key issues affecting sight lines include location, pavement width, boundary height(s), street furniture and landscaping.

In any entrance treatment, designers should have regard for appropriate sight-lines.

Vehicles emerging from or accessing properties should do so at low speed, yielding right-of-way to all modes moving in the direction of the main traffic. Priority on footpaths, cycle tracks or on-road cycle lanes rests with the pedestrian or cyclist at all times. Accordingly, the vertical profile of cycle tracks and footpaths should be maintained across entrances to the greatest extent possible, and changes to the profile of paths and tracks, whether perpendicular to or with the direction of flow, should be minimised.

In any entrance treatment, the designer should avoid creating the impression that the vehicle crossing the footpath or cycle track has priority.

Some of the main problems associated with treatment of entrances are discussed in the following paragraphs, together with suggested design solutions in each case which uphold the above principle. On-road Cycle Tracks: Where on-road cycle facilities are provided (cycle lanes, mixed traffic) the cyclist will inherently retains priority over access traffic joining or leaving the main road, as in Photo C6.3.1, below. This can be further ensured by observing the design principles for left-hand turning traffic with regard to tight kerb radii, narrow junction widths etc. (see Chapter B11.)

C6.2 Chapter C6: Treatment of Entrances (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C6.3.1: Cycle lanes provide inherent priority over access traffic

Entrance Aprons and Vertical Alignment: The provision of entrance aprons giving access onto the public road can frequently lead to possible confusion and conflict between cyclists and drivers. Vehicular turning speeds may be too high, priority can be unclear, vehicles accessing the roadway will often straddle the path or cycle track while waiting for an opening in the traffic stream, and vehicles turning into the entrance may block cyclists and pedestrians by stopping to open access gates. In addition, aprons introduce changes to the vertical alignment of cycle tracks, which are usually more pronounced at the kerb line, and surfaces tend to be less smooth as a result.

Photo C6.3.2: Aprons disrupt vertical alignment and surface smoothness

C6.3 Chapter C6: Treatment of Entrances (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Changes in vertical alignment occur specifically where footpaths and offroad cycle tracks are disrupted by entrance aprons which are laid and graded to prioritise crossing motorised traffic over other, straight-ahead movements. In cases where a number of such aprons occur in close proximity, this results in the creation of an undulating roller-coaster effect which is uncomfortable for cyclists and pedestrians.

Photo C6.3.3: “roller-coaster” effect

The correct solution in these circumstances is to maintain the vertical alignment on the cycle-track and footpath and accommodate the motorised traffic by means of a ramp, as discussed in the next paragraphs.

Maintaining Vertical Alignment - Ramps: The principle of pedestrian and cyclist priority can be maintained by providing a continuous vertical footpath/cycle track alignment, i.e. one in which the path or track is not dished but instead a short ramp for vehicular traffic is provided at each entrance.

Photos C6.3.4 & C6.3.5: Maintaining footpath/cycle track alignment with short access ramps

C6.4 Chapter C6: Treatment of Entrances (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Such a solution maintains an uninterrupted vertical alignment, and priority, for pedestrians and cyclists while also forcing motorised vehicles to reduce speed and cross the path slowly, in keeping with the principles of sustainable safety (see Chapter B1). •

These ramps should be short and can be relatively steep.

•

Care should be taken to ensure that any ramp provided does not encroach into the on-road cycling space by extending into the carriageway beyond the line of the kerb.

Photo C6.3.6 & C6.3.7: Maintaining footpath/cycle track alignment – further examples

Raised Crossing (Exit Construction) An ‘exit construction’ is defined as an entry or exit that crosses the footpath, and can present an ideal solution at side roads having a minor traffic function (e.g. residential streets) because motorised traffic crossing the footpath has to give priority to pedestrians who are clearly the primary users of the pedestrian pavement. Equally, an exit construction allows cyclist priority to be maintained where cycle lanes or off-road tracks are provided along the major road by having the lane/track continue across the entrance/side road, with access/egress traffic again having to give priority to cyclists as well as pedestrians. In summary, the main features for designing an exit-construction are: •

At side roads (with residential streets) the footpath is continued at the same level across the side road.

•

Two ramps (one at the side road and one at the exit with the main carriageway) are provided to allow motorised traffic to pass. A cycle track is continued over the exit.

C6.5 Chapter C6: Treatment of Entrances (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY •

No connecting curves are applied in linking the side-road to the main carriageway.

•

As motorists coming from the carriageway are crossing into the pedestrian/cyclist space and must give priority in this area, no traffic signs are needed.

A sample exit-construction layout is shown in Figure C6.1.

Figure C6.1: Exit-construction typical layout

Busy Entrances and Forecourts: At entrances in regular use or with high volumes, such as petrol stations, the provision of a raised cycle track, with appropriate transitions, is an attractive design solution. This discourages cars from obstructing the cycle lane while waiting to leave or join the traffic, and a low kerb between the lane and the carriageway (<50mm) combined with narrow entrance/exit widths (<4m) encourages lower vehicular speeds on approach.

C6.6 Chapter C6: Treatment of Entrances (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C6.3.8: Raised cycle track, forecourt entrance cycle track across entrance

Photo C6.3.9: Raised

Retro-fitting Existing Entrances: Where there is a high frequency of driveways resulting in considerable variation in vertical alignment, consideration should be given to the provision of either a continuous raised cycle track or a segregated at-grade cycle lane. Alternatively, the route could be downgraded as an access route, with speed restrictions implemented and advisory cycle lanes provided.

Photo C6.3.10: Raised cycle track advisory cycle lanes

Photo C6.3.11: Access route with

C6.7 Chapter C6: Treatment of Entrances (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter C7: Transitions C7.1 General In the context of cycling, Transitions refers to the provision of dedicated features designed to facilitate the smooth execution of significant level changes (vertical) and changes of direction (horizontal), or to encourage appropriate changes in cyclistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; behaviour, e.g. speed reduction. Transitions have been problematic within Irish road designs over the years. According to the Principles of Sustainable Safety, transitions must be functional, that is, they need to be designed such that cyclists can functionally cycle on them. Many are not, such as these transitions:

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The principal failures of these transitions are: (i) changes are too abrupt, and require bicycles to make turns that are too sharp â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in particular, the cyclist crosses kerblines and construction joints at a skewed angled, destabilizing the bicycle (ii) the changes impose unexpected (illegible) cycling activity on other road users (pedestrians, vehicles) (iii) there is a lack of smooth surface, tending to unbalance/ dislodge the cyclist

C7.1 Types of Transitions Transitions are used to migrate cycling facilities from one cross-sectional arrangement to another. The main transitions types are: -

Vertical, bringing cyclists down to road level, or up to track level Horizontal; shifting cyclists towards / away from traffic Combination, (generally merging / de-merging with pedestrians) Speed reduction transitions, slowing cyclists approaching an obstacle

The remainder of this chapter considers each of these types of transition:

C7.1.1 Vertical Transitions The principle use of vertical transitions is for moving cyclists from raised adjacent cycle tracks to re-establishing the cyclist in on-road cycle lanes approaching junctions (and vice versa). Transitions need to be gradual and smooth, so that the cyclists can focus on the conflict points ahead. In this manual (Chapter C1 and elsewhere) a maximum slope of 5% is recommended. A minimum longfall of 0.5% is required for drainage. Between these two, there is scope for providing a smooth transition. Generally, vertical transitions will be in the order of 150mm (raised adjacent dropping to road level) - a longfall of 0.5% will require a transition of 30m. It is possible to have sharper declines or inclines. However, the smoothness of the transition is affected by (i) the length of the transition and (ii) the vertical curve. Rule of thumb â&#x20AC;&#x201C; normal vertical transition length 10m:

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY In the picture above, the bicycle track drops to road level between A and B. The key problems with this example are: (i) this transition is in the wrong place – this transition should be located well in advance (20m) of the first point of conflict (point B) between bicycle and turning vehicle (ii) the cross-section surface is not horizontal – it tips the cyclist towards the road approaching the bottom of the slope (iii) the transition is too sharp – it represents a short acceleration and a bump across a short distance (iv) there is a construction joint at an oblique angle to the tyre direction In the above picture, the distance from A to B is less than 6 metres, i.e. less than 3 bicycle lengths. As a rule of thumb, a norm of 5 bicycle lengths (10m) should be taken for any transition, vertical or horizontal. Anything less may be too short for the bicycle vehicle to negotiate smoothly.

In this second example above, the transition is across a lower height differential, over a longer distance, and the cross-section is horizontal. This transition is very smooth, with no construction joints.

C7.1.2 Horizontal Transitions No need to slow down – 20m radius Horizontal transitions are designed to shift cyclists laterally to the right or left (see Chapter B12). As stated elsewhere in this manual, the degree to which cyclists can maintain momentum represents a key determinant of cycle friendliness. This preservation of momentum factor is reflected in generic indicators such as Quality of Service, and at a detailed level in designing for say left-hand turning traffic. In horizontal transitions, cyclists will preserve momentum until they have to brake. Research by the US Federal Highway Administration found that with the exception of recumbent bicyclists, most cyclists did not appear to slow down to take curves of 15.8 m (50 ft) or greater. This is in keeping with the standard Dutch advice regarding horizontal radii:

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Formula: Radius = 0.68 * speed – 3.62)

Figure 7.6.2: relationship between bend radius and cycle speed (ASVV, 1998) On the basis of this relationship the following limiting values are proposed: • Cycle routes within a built-up area: R ≥ 20m (geared to a design speed of 30km/h); • Minor cycle routes within a built-up area: R ≥ 10m (geared to a design speed of 20km/h); • R ≥ 25m (geared to a design speed of 40km/h) are recommended where there will be higher cycle speeds (e.g. downhill sections); • The absolute minimum curve radius is 4.00m for stability.

Horizontal transition using back-to-back reverse curves, Copenhagen

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Reverse Curve Detailing: The need for supereleveation should not arise at normal cycle design speeds (30 km/h or less). Camber or crossfall is determined by drainage requirements. As a result, it is possible to arrange horizontal transitions as simple back-to-back reverse curves (see photo below).

Preferred: Simple back-to-back reverse curves

The above arrangement is preferable to the provision of sharp corners joined by a section of straight cycle track (see photo below), which tend to challenge cyclists.

Not recommended: Sharp curves joined by straight section

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

The example above shows a number of horizontal transitions where cyclists can maintain momentum: - Above the road centerline, the cyclist is shifted 3.15m to the right (towards traffic) using the protection of a traffic island. The shift uses reverse curves of radius >20m, over a distance of > 10m (note- check drg dimensioning) - Below the centerline, left-hand turning cyclists are shifted left to the inside of a left-hand pocket using gentle reverse curves.

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Minimum Radius 4m In any case (even in terminating a cycle route), it is not possible to cycle with any stability if the horizontal curve radius is less than 4m.

Not recommended: 90 degree abrupt termination of a cycle track. The appropriate termination should use reverse curves (in this case bending first to the left, than right) to bring the cyclist at right angles to the kerb, on a 2m deep plateau.

Junction of two cycle routes within a traffic signalized junction (Copenhagen). In this example, the geometry (width) of the two cycle facilities allows for cyclists to choose a comfortable cornering radius (approximately 8m) for slow speeds. The ramp up from the blue cycle lane to the perpendicular cycle track is quite short, and only appropriate to low cycling speeds.

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY C7.1.3 Combination Transitions:

There are instances where cyclists will need to be introduced up into a shared pedestrian space, or dropped back into a cycle-only environment. These include in the vicinity of certain bridges, underpasses, pinchpoints, shared streets, and for certain bus stop designs. The cyclist will generally be brought up-and-left, or down-and-right. (i)

In these situations, where possible, raise or lower the cycle track without horizontal curves - it is more comfortable for the cyclist, - it provides parallel running to allow other road users to prepare to accommodate the cycle presence - it is easier to construct In other words, apply horizontal curves either before or after the transition, but not during the transition.

(ii)

Ensure that the cycle speed is appropriate to a receiving shared pedestrian environment (for up-and-left transitions).

Example: Bringing cyclists up-and-left (away from traffic)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Example: Bringing cyclists down-and-right (into traffic) In these two outlines, the key design features are: (i) Vertical transition without horizontal curves â&#x20AC;&#x201C; horizontal shifts should occur before or after the vertical shift (ii) Warning signs and lines for cyclists (iii) Careful positioning of tactile paving and pole (with sign with pedestrians on left, cyclists on right) at commencement of cycle ramp down

C7.1.4. Speed reducing Transitions (approaching an obstacle) This topic is covered in a section of Grade Separated Crossings (Chapter B15).

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter C8: Cyclists and Pedestrians C8.1

General This chapter considers the interaction between cyclists and pedestrians, including those with mobility or visual impairments, and assesses the relative merits of shared space vs. segregated facilities for each mode by reference to the Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads and the relevant provisions in the Traffic Management Guidelines.

This Chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads Chapter B7: Road Safety Audits Chapter B14: Signalised Junctions Chapter B15: Segregated Junctions

C8.2

Pedestrians and Sustainable Safety Pedestrians are the most vulnerable of all traffic modes, and collisions between cyclists and pedestrians, especially children, the elderly and blind, can have serious consequences. Accordingly, a high-quality pedestrian environment is at the heart of any sustainable city, and Quality of Service is a core principle in this regard. Any reduction in pedestrian quality of service on foot of accommodation of other modes should only be considered where no other option is available. With this in mind, the five Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads, discussed earlier in relation to cyclists and other road traffic, must be considered also when examining the interface between cyclists and pedestrians: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Functionality Homogeneity Readability Forgivingness Self-awareness

C8.1 Chapter C8: Cyclists and Pedestrians (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C8.2.1: Cyclists and pedestrians

When travelling adjacent to motorised traffic, pedestrians and cyclists will tend to pay more attention to the latter than to each other, as that is where the perceived danger lies. As a result, they may overlook potential conflicts with each other, and the fact that both cycling and walking are silent modes of transport increases the risk. It is essential, therefore, that the principles of Functionality and Readability, in particular, are adhered when designing or providing for interface between the two modes. Pedestrians and Functionality: The function of a road equates to its shape and use, both of which must be in harmony for sustainably safe roads. In this regard, footpaths accommodate a variety of pedestrian activities aside from walking, and these include standing, waiting, meeting, talking and observing. Cycling in proximity to pedestrians, gates, entrances, doorways, etc. (see example in Photo C8.2.1), is not recommended as it is generally unsatisfactory for both cyclists and pedestrians. It requires cyclists to exercise extreme caution and proceed at very slow speeds, and even then there can be a significant risk for both modes due to unpredictability and poor readability in cluttered environments (see Photo C8.2.2).

Photo C8.2.2: Cycling in proximity to gates & doorways â&#x20AC;&#x201C; not recommended

C8.2 Chapter C8: Cyclists and Pedestrians (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C8.2.3: Cycling in over-restricted (”cluttered”) environments – not recommended

Pedestrians and Readability: Pedestrian activity can be highly unpredictable and abrupt. Other vehicles sharing space with pedestrians (bicycles, maintenance vehicles, motorised traffic accessing entrances, etc.) should be aware of this fact and proceed at a pace sufficiently slow to anticipate all possible pedestrian activity. If the pedestrian area is intended primarily to accommodate recreation, assembly, etc., any intrusion into this space can impact negatively on pedestrian activity and safety. An alternative alignment for cycle routes should be planned in such circumstances in order to preserve the highest possible quality of service for pedestrians.

Photo C8.2.4 & C8.2.5: For pedestrian recreation areas, relocate cycling to alternative alignment

If no alternative route alignment is available, then conflicts can be avoided or minimised by providing vertical or horizontal segregation between footpath and cycle infrastructure, and sufficient width of footpath and cycle track to enable both modes to travel in comfort.

Pedestrians and Homogeneity, Forgivingness and Awareness

C8.3 Chapter C8: Cyclists and Pedestrians (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY While the remaining three principles (Homogeneity, Forgivingness and Awareness) are of lesser relevance in terms of cyclist and pedestrian interaction, they also warrant consideration: Pedestrians and Homogeneity (Mass, Speed, Direction): The mass difference between bicycles and pedestrians is not significant. Homogeneity of pedestrian direction can generally be achieved in circumstances of singular activity such as arena exits, but is otherwise significantly random. Homogeneity of speed requires bicycles to proceed at a walking pace, which is unstable for the bicycle (see Photos C8.2.5 and C8.2.6), and cyclists should therefore dismount. While most cyclists will respect a pedestrian-rich environment, appropriate signage may be required to reinforce pedestrian primacy (e.g. “cyclists dismount”, “pedestrian zone”). In such circumstances, an alternative cycle route is desirable.

Photos C8.2.6 & C8.2.7: Cycling in a pedestrian-rich environment – cyclists should dismount

Pedestrians and Forgivingness: Where pedestrian errors occur, the outcome should not be significant. The Forgivingness principle can be addressed by the designer by providing an environment for cyclists and pedestrians where cycling alignment and speed reduction measures allow both cyclist and pedestrian sufficient opportunity to be aware of the other’s presence see (i.e. Opportunities to See/OTS), and where is there is sufficient buffer space and/or evasion width to allow each mode to take evasive action and/or avoid potential conflicts (i.e. Opportunities to Avoid/OTA).

C8.4 Chapter C8: Cyclists and Pedestrians (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo C8.2.8: “Forgiving” environment environment

Photo C8.2.9: “Unforgiving”

Pedestrians and Awareness: The ability of pedestrians to understand and/or negotiate their immediate environment will always be varied, from children through adults to the mobility-impaired and disabled. Pedestrians behave differently (talking, texting, reading, etc.), and are less aware of other road users, once they are not in a vehicular traffic environment. As the less vulnerable of the two modes, cyclists should be aware of adjacent pedestrian activities at all times, and the cycle route should be designed to facilitate this.

Photo C8.2.10 & C8.2.11: Awareness and lack of awareness

While earlier discussion in this chapter has highlighted the need for cyclists to exercise care and attention in the vicinity of pedestrians, it may be noted that there is a corresponding obligation on pedestrians to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians [ref. 1997 Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations] . C8.3

Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists: Traffic Management Guidelines C8.5 Chapter C8: Cyclists and Pedestrians (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Guidance on the provision of facilities for vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists, children, the elderly and those with visual or mobility impairment) is set out in Chapters 12 and 13 of the Traffic Management Guidelines. The requirement for special consideration of the needs of such users in the design, construction and maintenance of the road and footpath network is emphasised. In general, the Guidelines recommend a minimum footpath width of 1.8 metres, or wider in the case of high pedestrian flows. This should be considered the minimum effective width. •

Wheelchair users and persons with buggies require uncluttered footways free of obstruction with sufficient width to pass other pedestrians as well as any obstructions.

•

They also require smooth, low-gradient transitions between footpath and road at crossing points.

•

While it may enhance the pedestrian environment, the presence of street furniture will often reduce effective width and create difficulties for persons with mobility or visual impairments.

The Guidelines provide advice on various types of controlled crossings, including Zebra, Pelican, Puffin and Toucan: •

Zebra crossings cause minimum delay to pedestrians (effectively crossing “on demand”) and are considered suitable for low-volume, low-speed, traffic-calmed roads. However, as they rely on drivers giving way to persons stepping on to the crossing, they are unsuitable for less able, less confident users.

•

Pelican crossings are more popular with the public, and the greater level of control makes them better for the less able, less confident user.

•

Puffin crossings are in use in the UK, though have not been introduced in Ireland to date. The use of pole-mounted detectors makes them more responsive to the needs of both pedestrians and drivers.

•

The Toucan crossing allows pedestrians and cyclists to cross together without the need for the cyclist to dismount, and is recommended for situations where users need to cross District Distributors and other main roads. The approaches to the crossing should be designed so as to minimise conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians.

The Guidelines place particular emphasis on the provision and maintenance of dished crossings, tactile paving and audible indicators as part of all new signal-controlled crossings, and these should also be considered in retrofitting existing crossings, in view of the assistance they provide to the most vulnerable users. The value and importance of tactile paving as a means of guiding visionimpaired pedestrians to controlled crossing facilities or through pedestrianised areas is highlighted, as is its usefulness in providing warning of segregated cycle tracks, bus and tram stops, etc. In this regard, a clear colour contrast C8.6 Chapter C8: Cyclists and Pedestrians (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY between the tactile paving and adjacent footway is essential. Red tactile paving should only be used at signal controlled or zebra crossings, with grey or buff paving being used at uncontrolled crossings and other areas. Finally, the Traffic Management Guidelines highlight a number of issues to be addressed by Roads Authorities (and their designers) in making infrastructural improvements to encourage walking and cycling, including: •

Provision of better walking and cycling facilities

•

Provision of pedestrian priority measures

•

Reduction in obstruction of footpaths and cycle tracks caused by parked vehicles and street furniture

•

Improved maintenance, lighting, and signing for footpaths and cycle tracks

•

Provision of specific facilities for people with mobility impairment

•

The carrying out of cycle and mobility audits

Further advice and guidance on these issues is contained in the Traffic Management Guidelines, the Traffic Signs Manual (Department of Transport), and the UK publication “Guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces” (DETR, UK). [See also this Manual, Chapters B14: “Signalised Junctions”, B15: “Segregated Junctions”, and C7: “Designing Transitions, Horizontal and Vertical”.] C8.4 Shared Space and Quality of Service The sharing of space between cyclists and pedestrians should always be considered equivalent to ‘cycling on the footpath’, whether or not the surfaces are divided by a white line, and is not generally recommended.

Photo C8.4.1 & C8.4.2: Sharing of space = “cycling on footpath”

C8.7 Chapter C8: Cyclists and Pedestrians (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY A painted white line separating the ‘walking side’ from the ‘cycling side’ (see Photo C8.4.3 below) may give cyclists an unreasonable expectation that pedestrians will confine themselves to the non-cycling side of the route. The level of awareness is not significantly improved by the presence of signs, regulatory or otherwise (see Photo C8.4.4).

Photo C8.4.3:”An unreasonable expectation of priority”? facilities

Photo C8.4.4: Shared

It is recognised, nevertheless, that a legacy of such signs and markings is already in place along existing shared facilities and that it would be unreasonable to expect their replacement or burning off as an immediate priority. Accordingly, it is considered acceptable that these be left in situ pending eventual replacement as part of a network retrofitting programme. In short, sharing space results in a reduced Quality of Service for both modes, and should be avoided in urban areas as far as possible. In situations where it is not possible to segregate cyclists and pedestrians, it should be an implicit assumption that pedestrian activities take precedence over cycling requirements, and this should be reflected in related signage. Tourist or recreational facilities are good examples of such situations, as movement is generally more relaxed in these areas, and is not prone to peak or “shock” loadings. As noted earlier, however, any shared space design requires the cyclist to respect all other users.

C8.8 Chapter C8: Cyclists and Pedestrians (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Photo C8.4.5: Recreational facility, relaxed movement have more primacy underneath)

Photo C8.4.6: Sign should emphasis on pedestrian (bicycle

Other locations where it the use of shared space may be justified (or necessary) include bridges or similar pinch-point infrastructure where low

volumes of both pedestrians and cyclists result in a suitable, if limited, Quality of Service for both modes (see Photo C8.4.7). Critical infrastructure pinch-points handling peak pedestrian loads (e.g. public transport stops, sports venue entrances, etc.) will not be suitable for cycling during peak periods, however, and this should be reinforced by appropriate signage or time-plating as necessary.

Photo C8.4.7: Shared space at low-volume locations

Where new bridges are provided for shared pedestrian-cyclist usage, it is recommended that they meet the requirements for the various parameters as listed in Table C8.1. Parameter

Design Requirement

External parapet

1.2m to 1.4m height

Clearance to parapet

See Chapter B4, effective widths & clearances (Table B4.1)

Surface Lighting Landing points (each end) Priority

Suitable for bicycle wheels and braking Sufficient for social security Bridge deck gradient < 1:20, to keep cycle speeds low Design to reinforce pedestrian priority in mixed area at bridge access/egress aprons

Table C8.1: Design requirements for shared-use bridges (pedestrians and cyclists)

C8.5

Safeguarding Quality of Service C8.9 Chapter C8: Cyclists and Pedestrians (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Problems associated with shared or semi-shared use can include a lack of sufficient width to provide effective space for each mode, inadequate delineation between the cycle and walking areas, and an absence of vertical segregation. Even where vertical segregation is provided the width of footpaths and cycle tracks that are adjacent to each other will influence users of both: •

If the footpath is too narrow, or is obstructed, this will result in pedestrians walking on the cycle track (Photo C8.5.1), whereas if the cycle track has insufficient width to provide effective space, this may force cyclists into using the footpath.

•

Alternatively, providing additional cycling space at the expense of pedestrians is of little merit, however, because insufficient pedestrian capacity will inevitably result in spill-over into the cycle zone (Photo C8.5.2).

Photo C8.5.1: Footpath obstruction footpath

C8.6

Photo C8.5.2: Spill-over from reduced-width

Summary The pedestrian mode is different in principle from every other mode, as pedestrian activity on the street is not simply about “A to B” movement. It is unpredictable in nature, non-uniform in flow, and contains the most vulnerable of all road users. When applied specifically to cyclists and pedestrians, the five Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads would tend to dictate that, as a general rule, facilities for both modes should be segregated (Photo C8.6.1) rather than shared, with few exceptions. In circumstances where cyclists are mixed with pedestrians, it should always be on the basis that the space is a pedestrian-priority zone, and delineation markings should be avoided as they may present cyclists with an incorrect sense of dedicated cycle space (Photo C8.6.2). Situations where shared or semi-shared uses cause relatively little problems are those where sidewalks are wide and volumes of pedestrians and cyclists

C8.10 Chapter C8: Cyclists and Pedestrians (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY low, e.g. in low-density towns and cities, and suburban or recreational areas. In general, however, shared facilities tend to be disliked by both pedestrian and cyclist alike, and are therefore best avoided.

Photo C8.6.1: Segregated facilities space

Photo C8.6.2: Undelineated shared

C8.11 Chapter C8: Cyclists and Pedestrians (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter C9: Cycling in Park and Open Spaces C9.1

General This chapter discusses the rationale for cycling in parks and open spaces by reference to Quality of Service and the main transport needs of cyclists. It highlights issues of concern in relation to pedestrian-cyclist interaction, and offers guidance on how these issues may be resolved to the satisfaction of both modes.

This Chapter should be read in conjunction with: Chapter A8: Cycling in Rural Areas Chapter B3: Assessment of Quality of Service Chapter B8: Link Options Chapter C8: Cyclists and Pedestrians Chapter C16: Two-way Cycling Chapter D4: Developing a Maintenance Programme

C9.2

Rationale Parks and open spaces offer an ideal environment for cycling, and are suitable for both commuter and leisure cycling – ♦ For the commuter, they can be linked to external facilities to provide continuity as part of an area-wide cycle network. ♦ For leisure activities, the park or open space can function as a desirable destination in its own right, and can be especially attractive from the perspective of the less-experienced user. ♦ Public parks can serve as a “seed-bed” for young children learning to cycle.

C9.1 Chapter C9: Cycling in Parks and Open Spaces (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Photo C9.2.1: “A desirable destination in its own right”

Cycle facilities in parks and open spaces are consistent with the main transport needs of cyclists (see Chapter B3: “Assessment of Quality of Service” for further discussion) – No.

Transport Need

Rationale for Consistency

Road Safety

Cycle facilities are located away from vehicular traffic in what is generally perceived to be a safe, non-threatening environment

Coherence

Cycle facility can function as part of a coherent and continuous network when linked to external cycle facilities It can also function as a coherent stand-alone facility

Directness

Design focus centred on cycle mode as other vehicular modes do not have to be catered for Detours and delays can be eliminated or minimised

Attractiveness

Parks and open spaces offer a pleasant, “stressfree zone” for cyclists because of the ambient “green” environment

Comfort

Parks and open spaces allow for cycle facilities with good, clean surfaces that are easy to cycle on

Table C9.1: Consistency with main transport needs of cyclists

The cycling environment in parks and open spaces can provide improved Quality of Service for all users. While the benefits for leisure cyclists are obvious, the rationale for use by commuter and other types of utility cycling (e.g. school travel) should not be underestimated either. Parks and open spaces can act as barriers to coherence (continuity) on commuter routes. However, providing a linked cycle route through the park can create a more direct route for the commuter, resulting in shorter journey times and the elimination of on-road detours. NOTE: Because of the sensitivity of the receiving environment, the following key points should always be adhered to by the designer when providing cycle facilities through parks and open spaces:

C9.2 Chapter C9: Cycling in Parks and Open Spaces (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY The Local Authority Parks and Landscaping Department should be consulted during the initial stages of the project, and also at preliminary and detailed design stages. Ideally, landscape consultants should be involved as part of the design team when designing cycle facilities through Parks and Open Spaces

C9.3

Design/Maintenance Issues A 2003 study on cycling in parks, “Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Cycle Survey”, found that cyclists and pedestrians have broadly similar views in relation to provision and management of cycle facilities in parks and open spaces, i.e. that these facilities meet the needs of cyclists without prejudicing the requirements of other users, and can add, rather than take from, the recreational value of the area for all users (see Figure C9.1).

Figure C9.1: Impact of cycle facilities on recreational value (DLRCC Cycle Survey, [NB, Graph should read “Category of Respondent”] 2003)

While the overall consensus is generally positive among cyclists and pedestrians, there are a number of potential conflicts associated with cycling in parks and open spaces that can impact on one or other mode, or both. These are listed in Table C9.2. Conflict

Comment

Conflict between cyclists and pedestrians on shared surfaces

the conflict can be exacerbated if the facility has insufficient width

Priority and right-of-way

unless otherwise stated, pedestrians have priority, and cyclists must always give way (see Chapter C8: “Cyclists and

C9.3 Chapter C9: Cycling in Parks and Open Spaces (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Pedestrians”) 3.

Crowding of pedestrians and/or cyclists

If volumes of one or other mode are significant, it may be better to segregate the modes, as visual delineation by itself is usually unsufficient, and tends to create false expectations of “ownership”

Conflict between leisure and commuter interests

parks and open spaces are primarily intended for leisure use, not all paths must be cycle friendly, and commuter requirements may need to be downgraded if there is conflict

Table C9.2: Cycling in parks and open spaces - conflicts

The resulting issues that need to be addressed by the designer are set out in Table C9.3, below, and can be grouped into four main categories: ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

General Design issues Network-related issues Issues related to Shared-use Facilities Maintenance issues Safety issues

Category General Design

Design Issues

•

Cycle tracks too narrow Poor signposting Poor Lighting Insufficent level of marking/segregation of the cycle track (a problem for both cyclists and non-cyclists) Lack of continuity with external cycling facilities

Network Planning

• • • •

Hours of operation Linking to external network Necessity for alternative routes Need for cycle parking

Shared-Use Facilities

• • • •

Pedestrians and cyclists not sufficiently segregated (can inconvenience all modes, but especially pedestrians) Cyclists overcrowding pedestrians (especially the elderly) Risk of collision with cyclists Use of facility by mixtures of small children and teenagers on bikes (conflict between experienced and inexperienced users)

• • • •

Poor surfacing Poor drainage Litter Obstructions on the cycle track, e.g. glass, leaves

Maintenan ce

• • • •

C9.4 Chapter C9: Cycling in Parks and Open Spaces (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Safety

•

Accessibility for maintenance

• • • •

Cyclists travelling too fast Suitability for night-time use, especially if pathway is unlit Anti-social behaviour Unsupervised dogs on or near the cycle lanes

Table C9.3: Design Issues associated with cycle facilities in Parks and Open Spaces

C9.4

Design/Maintenance Solutions Prior to selection of any design solution, the designer should – • • • • • • •

Review relevant Bye-Law provisions, if applicable. Establish how provision for cyclists is currently managed in the area Examine existing design criteria and how they might be improved Determine existing and potential cycling patterns (number of cyclists, age profiles and leisure/commuter split) Identify specific landscaping and surfacing requirements in consultation with the local authority Parks Department Assess the impact of a segregated facility on the recreational value (for cyclists and non-cyclists) Consider local feedback, including suggestions for improving existing facilities

Many of the issues listed in Table C9.3 can be readily addressed at the initial design stage or by incorporating suitable measures into a long-term maintenance programme (see Chapter D3: Developing a Maintenance Programme”). These include: • • • • • • •

Delineate cycle facilities more clearly (initial provision; long-term maintenance) consider change of surface colour to highlight presence of cycle facility (needs to be environmentally sensitive and consistent with surface finishes on external cycle facilities) Increase lane widths (design process – width restrictions are generally not an issue in parks/open spaces) Provide more, or better, lighting (at initial lighting design stage, and in ongoing monitoring, review and upgrades) Mark pedestrian and cycle symbols more clearly (initial provision; longterm maintenance) Provide more signs on cycle lanes (identify during initial audit process; long-term review and replacement) Remove litter and other obstructions (better litter collection arrangements, more litter bins)

Issues related to network planning, segregation of cyclists and pedestrians, and safety issues are discussed separately: Network Planning: Cycle facilities in parks and open spaces should ideally be designed for integration as part of an area-wide cycle network. However, the designer C9.5 Chapter C9: Cycling in Parks and Open Spaces (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY needs to consider requirements for alternative options when the facility is unavailable or is perceived to be undesirable. Park opening hours can be a significant issue if the cycle facility forms part of a strategic cycle network, in which case every effort should be made to ensure the facility remains open and available to cyclists at all times. Particular care needs to be taken when designing entry and exit points, where the on-road facility transfers to the parks facility, and where the route through the parks (or open space) returns on-road. • On entering the parks area, cyclists need to be aware that they are likely to meet significant pedestrian movement in a more informal, shared environment. • They will also need sufficient warning on exiting the park that they are returning to a more hazardous mixed traffic environment. • Pedestrian users will need to be advised that cyclists are entitled to use the park for leisure or recreational purposes. Cycle parking facilities should be provided at the entrance to all parks. In addition, where cycling is permitted in the park, cycle parking should be located at key points along the route.

Insert photo of cycle parking along route within park

Photo C9.4.1: Cycle parking example (1)

Photo C9.4.2: Cycle parking example (2)

Segregation: In considering the need for segregation between pedestrian and cyclist in parks and open spaces, the designer needs to assess the type of cycle facility to be provided in the first instance by reference to the traffic environment:  Areas of extensive parkland may need to cater for a mixed traffic environment (pedestrians, cyclists and motorised traffic), with through-roads at local collector level or higher.  Cycle facilities on such routes should be selected and designed in accordance with guidance contained in Chapter B8: Link Options” and elsewhere in this manual) as On-Road (cycle lanes), Adjacent to Road (Segregated), or Off-Road (cycle-tracks).

C9.6 Chapter C9: Cycling in Parks and Open Spaces (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY For all other circumstances, the options available to the designer are to provide either a dedicated cycle facility, or one that is shared between the cyclist and pedestrian modes.  Dedicated facilities are used infrequently in parks and open spaces, and should be avoided if possible. They are generally inconsistent with the ambient environment, and can encourage cyclists to travel at inappropriate speeds in a pedestriandominated area where the more vulnerable users may not read the facility as intended for cyclists only.  Shared cycle/walking facilities are generaly used. Pedestrians have priority as the more vulnerable mode. This should be highlighted with appropriate signage. As discussed in Chapter C8, visual delineation is an unsatisfactory means of separating cyclists and pedestrians on a shared facility. Separating the ‘walking side’ from the ‘cycling side’ by means of a painted white line can give cyclists an unreasonable expectation that pedestrians will confine themselves to the non-cycling side of the route, whereas physical segregation creates a clear differentiation between the modes. Physical segregation can be either horizontal or vertical, e.g. through use of raised central kerbing, landscaping, or level differences between the two modes. The cost implications of providing physical segregation need to be considered, however, as does its appropriateness in a parks environment. Safety: The safety issues identified in Table C9.3 fall into two categories, i.e. those which can be addressed by the designer and those which cannot. •

If parks are only open for day-time use, as is generally the case, issues concerning night-time safety will not arise. While leisure cyclists are unlikely to be affected, the impact on cyclist commuters, espcially during the winter months, will need to be assessed.

•

If the park remains open in the evenings, use of the facility during hours of darkness is likely to be greatly reduced if the paths are unlit.

•

Open spaces cannot be “closed” in any case, and should be lit for night-time use (the use of energy-efficient lighting is recommended). Similar considerations apply in the case of cycle facilities on canal tow paths.

•

Problems due to cyclists travelling too fast, unsupervised dogs on or near the cycle lanes, and anti-social behaviour are best addressed as part of the overall management and supervision of parks and open spaces, supplemented by warning signs and educational material.

•

Cyclists may need to dismount when entering or leaving parks, particularly where the parks are intended for leisure purposes only. Ideally, the need to dismount should be designed out where the route through the park forms part of a commuter cycle facility.

C9.7 Chapter C9: Cycling in Parks and Open Spaces (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY C9.5: Summary and Key Recommendations The use of parks and open spaces for recreational and other forms of cycling has been shown to have little or no impact on recreational values for other users, and should be promoted.  Cycling facilities in parks and open spaces have potential benefits for commuting cyclists as part of an integrated cycle network, particularly in areas of dense population and heavy traffic congestion.  If properly designed and maintained, conflict between commuter and leisure cyclists, and between cyclists and pedestrians, can be minimised or managed effectively.

Insert photo

Photo C9.5.1: Example of cycle facility in parks

The key recommendations to be considered for establishing and maintaining cycle facilities in parks and open spaces are summarised in the following Designer Checklist:

Designer Checklist:

Safety of pedestrians and cyclists should always be paramount

The priority given to pedestrians must always be acknowledged

Cycle facilities should not decrease the existing amenity value of the park.

Signage/marking should be appropriate.

Consideration should be given to road surfaces; colours should be sensitive to the environment.

The catchment area within which the facility is located is important – overuse of small park areas should be avoided.

Cycle paths should have a specific focus, whether this is for leisure or comuting purposes.

C9.8 Chapter C9: Cycling in Parks and Open Spaces (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Proposals for new cycle paths should take account of the environment and heritage of the area, as well as addressng the physical aspects of cycling (e.g. health and exercise)

Leisure cycling ideally requires a large parkland/open space area (sufficient to accommodate a min. 7-8 km route)

Long-term resources are required to ensure the future maintenance and safety of the cycle paths as part of a planned Mainentance Programme

The local authority Parks Department should be consulted at all key stages of the design process

C9.9 Chapter C9: Cycling in Parks and Open Spaces (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter D1: The Need for Maintenance D1.1

General This chapter discusses the role of maintenance in meeting the main transport requirements of cyclists. It sets out the key factors influencing the need for cycle route maintenance, and shows how effective prioritisation of resources can lead to long term benefits in quality of service.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with the following: Chapter I-O3: Legislation Summary Chapter B2: Principles of Managing Conflict Chapter B3: Assessment of Quality of Service Chapter B7: Road Safety Audits

D1.2

Maintenance and Cycling Transport Requirements Cycling can be considered a valid transport mode for journeys of short to medium duration, whether for the purpose of commuting to work or to school, recreation and leisure, or health and exercise. However, while dedicated and experienced cyclists may be willing to put up with inadequate or poorly maintained facilities, it is unrealistic to expect less experienced or new users to change their mode of transport from private car to cycling if their own expectations of (or demands for) safe, convenient and comfortable travel cannot be realised from the outset.

Photos D1.2.1 & D.1.2.2: “inadequate or poorly maintained facilities”

Insert Text from JMcC re maintenance integrity ..... .....

D1.1 Chapter D1-The Need for Maintenance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY ..... These expectations can be realised to a significant extent if an effective cycle-route maintenance regime is built in at conception stage and implemented as part of an overall planned maintenance programme from there on in. The Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads, and in particular the principles of Functionality and Readability, discussed in Chapter B1, are at the heart of any successful maintenance programme, as is the need to meet the cyclist’s main transport requirements discussed in Chapters B2: “Principles of Managing Conflict” and B3: “Assessment of Quality of Service”. The role of maintenance is especially relevant in meeting the cyclist’s requirements for Road Safety, Attractiveness and Comfort, as summarised hereunder: •

Road Safety: The perception of safety can be as critical as the actual safety level from a cyclist’s perspective and a perceived lack of safety can be as much of a deterrent as any real risk.

•

Comfort: The level of comfort available is an important criterion when it comes to modal choice, and everything that requires extra effort is detrimental to a cyclist’s comfort.

•

Attractiveness: For the beginner or casual recreational cyclist, in particular, the attractiveness of the cycling environment can be crucial in overcoming initial prejudice or concerns about safety and security issues.

A properly executed maintenance regime will enhance both actual and perceived safety levels by providing improved riding surfaces, eliminating unevenness, and removing obstructions, debris and other litter. A good quality surface enhances comfort, while keeping the route clean and tidy in addition to replacing and refurbishing lighting, signs and road markings, etc., increases the attractiveness of the route and addresses safety and security concerns.

D1.2 Chapter D1-The Need for Maintenance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Photo D1.2.3: Maintenance enhances safety, comfort and attractiveness

Effective cycle route maintenance enhances comfort and satisfaction with available cycle facilities for all users, and can encourage new or less experienced cyclists towards increased usage. D1.3

Factors Influencing the Need for Maintenance The statutory functions and responsibilities devolving on local authorities mean that, a number of other factors must also be considered when developing an effective maintenance regime, in addition to the primary task of meeting the cyclists’ transport requirements: 1. Integrated Transportation Policies/Traffic Management 2. Legal aspects 3. Risk assessment and control 4. Public perception/Local Authority Image 5. Resource Management and prioritisation 6. Maximisation of capital input 7. Effective Public Service provision Transportation Policy and Traffic Management: Cycling is an integral element of national, regional, and local transportation strategies, of particular relevance in the promotion of sustainable development. Well-maintained cycle-routes can only enhance perception of the environmental, economic and other benefits of the mode and encourage increased usage. Legal Aspects: The 1993 Roads Act (Section 13, Part 2) places an obligation on local authorities to maintain public roads. This obligation includes maintenance of cycle ways and cycle tracks. [Cycle Ways are defined in Section 68 of the 1993 Act, and Cycle Tracks are defined in Section 4(a) of the Road Traffic Regulations, S.I. No. 274 of 1998.] Recent legal cases have highlighted the duty of care local authorities have with regard to road maintenance. [See also Chapter I-O3, “Legal Context”] Risk Assessment and Control: There is increased emphasis on the need for regular risk assessment in respect of al engineering tasks undertaken by the local authority, including maintenance procedures, and the corresponding need to demonstrate effective action is taken when warranted by the results of

D1.3 Chapter D1-The Need for Maintenance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY such assessment. Compliance with risk assessment requirements will confirm the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the cycle network maintenance regime, and will also provide evidence in the event of any related litigation. [See also Chapter B7: “Road Safety Audits”] Perception and Image: If cycling is to develop as a transport mode of choice, it must be marketed as a convenient, safe, healthy and pleasant experience. There is a corresponding need, therefore, to ensure that the cycle route network is properly maintained to meet those objectives, so that it can be marketed accordingly.

Resource Management and Prioritisation: If maximisation of resources is to be achieved, there will always be a need to manage and prioritise them throughout the life of the asset. Cycle audits should be undertaken for all new schemes at key stages in the design process, and should include assessment of the resources required and frequency of allocation so as to ensure effective maintenance. It is recommended also that similar audits be undertaken on a phased basis prior to the retrofitting or improvement of existing facilities. Maximising Capital Input: As with Resource Management and Prioritisation, the asset must be properly maintained and upgraded throughout its useful life to ensure maximisation of the initial capital input. Effective Public Service: Increasingly, Local Authorities are working with public and private transport operators to develop integrated alternatives to the private car, especially along priority commuter routes. The development of a well-maintained cycle network linked to public transport termini with secure cycle parking facilities will benefit this objective. In summary, a well-planned, structured and cost-effective maintenance regime is an essential requirement for proper management of the cycle route network if overall transport and cycling policy objectives are to be achieved. D1.4

Resources and Quality of Service The substantial capital investment required for new road works can only be preserved through on-going maintenance or resurfacing of the protective wearing course.

D1.4 Chapter D1-The Need for Maintenance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY •

While the prioritisation of road maintenance resources is determined by various technical and political considerations, the optimal economic policy for road maintenance is to ensure that the total annual expenditure on resurfacing and repairs is as low as possible.

•

In this regard, the amount of expenditure on one will generally tend to determine the amount on the other, i.e. reducing or delaying expenditure on resurfacing will almost invariably result in increased expenditure on repairs and vice-versa.

•

The ideal situation, therefore, is to identify the stage where further postponement would lead to greater overall expenditure in the longer term, and undertake resurfacing without further delay.

•

Additionally in the case of cycle routes, resurfacing should receive higher priority than repairs or patching, even though it is generally more economical to carry the latter out in the short term, given that cyclists are more sensitive to surface unevenness than other users.

Poor route maintenance has a bigger impact on cyclists than other road users. If on-road, they can be put into potential conflict with motor vehicles by having to avoid sunken road gullies or badly reinstated trenches, etc., while poor off-road cycling surfaces create an unpleasant and potentially hazardous riding experience.

Photos D1.4.1 and D1.4.2: Impact of poor cycle route maintenance (on- and off-road)

D1.5 Chapter D1-The Need for Maintenance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter D2: Elements of Cycle Route Maintenance D2.1

General Having established the need for cycle route maintenance in Chapter D1, this Chapter examines the need for categorisation and prioritisation in planning to meet this need, and addresses key maintenance issues, with recommendations for action in each case. Finally, it draws specific attention to the role of maintenance in relation to cycling safety.

This chapter should be read in conjunction with

D2.2

•

Chapter A4: Balancing Function, Street Design and Usage

•

Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads

•

Chapter B7: Road Safety Audits

•

Chapter D1: The Need for Maintenance

Planning for Cycle Route Maintenance Cyclists are sensitive to the quality of pavement surface, whether on segregated cycle tracks, on-road cycle lanes, or mixed-use carriageways. Accordingly, these facilities require regular maintenance if cyclists are to be encouraged to make maximum use of them. Cycle route maintenance is generally carried out by Local Authorities and falls into three main categories: • • •

Preventive Maintenance Minor repairs Planned Maintenance for major refurbishments

Generally, the first two of these are funded from annual revenue allocations, and the third from the Capital Works programme. All cycle routes should be inspected regularly as part of a Preventive Maintenance programme. This has the advantage of picking up on minor defects at an early stage and dealing with them before they turn into serious safety hazards. Routine tasks such as gully cleaning, sweeping and litter collection are an important part of preventive maintenance also. D2.1 Chapter D2: Elements of Cycle Route Maintenance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Minor repairs, such as surface patching, replacement of signs and roadmarkings, etc., will require to be carried out on a regular basis, and it is advisable to set aside a percentage of the annual revenue allocation to cater for these, by-and-large, unplanned occurrences, including: •

Missing or damaged signs – cycle route signage should be consistent, and should be kept clean, clearly visible, and/or replaced when necessary; directional signs should be provided where required

•

Restoration of road markings – should be done as a matter of course

•

Minor patching and filling works – should be done as the need arises; repairs should be carried out in accordance with relevant standards and specifications, including repairs to any specialist surfaces.

Higher priority can also be given to repairs that improve conditions for cyclists on roads without cycle tracks, including replacement of wrongly oriented gully gratings and the repair of old, unevenly surfaced pipe and cable excavations. Where the condition of the cycle lane or track has failed or deteriorated significantly, it may be necessary to carry out a complete reconstruction/repaving of the area, including removal and replacement of sections of the base material, drainage, kerbing and, possibly, of the adjoining footpath. •

In view of the cost involved, such works may be better undertaken as part of an overall Planned Maintenance programme, and preferably done in tandem with other road or footpath improvement works.

•

Alternatively they might be undertaken in conjunction with laying/maintenance of underground utilities (cables, mains, etc.), subject to co-ordination of resources with external agencies or between the different local authority departments as appropriate.

Photo D2.2.1: “A Road of Many Patches” cycle track

Photo D2.2.2: Recently resurfaced

D2.2 Chapter D2: Elements of Cycle Route Maintenance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Recommendation: Regular inspection of all cycle routes is an essential part of a Preventive Maintenance programme Minor maintenance repairs, including replacement of defective or missing equipment, should be carried out immediately as the need arises Major refurbishment works should be carried out as part of a Planned Maintenance programme, if necessary in conjunction with other road improvement or underground utility works

D2.3

Maintenance Programme Issues With the exception of winter maintenance, which is considered separately in Chapter D3, “Developing a Maintenance Programme” (see Section D3.3), the main issues which need to be addressed as part of a suitable maintenance programme are: • • • • • • • •

Pavement Unevenness Access Covers and Gully Gratings Problems with Tree Roots and Weed Growth Use of Specialist Materials Lining and coloured surfaces Construction impacts Sweeping Lighting

Pavement Unevenness: Pavement unevenness is most commonly caused by poor resurfacing after roadworks, e.g. minor patching of defective sections, ramps/platforms and potholes, fraying or poor finish in the vicinity of utility covers, and poor restoration after laying or accessing underground utilities. For cyclists the full impact of unevenness will depend very much on the width of paths and tracks, i.e. the possibility of avoiding holes, cracks, depressions etc.

D2.3 Chapter D2: Elements of Cycle Route Maintenance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Photo D2.3.1: “Uneven surfaces reduce cyclist safety”

Poorly maintained, uneven pavements reduce cyclist safety and comfort, resulting in: •

increased risk of falling off or wobbling and colliding with pedestrians, other cyclists and motorised traffic

•

risk of permanent damage to the bicycle, especially to spokes, tyres and rims.

•

more uncomfortable to cycle

•

more energy required to cycle on an uneven surface

Recommendation: Maintenance contractors and direct labour units should be clearly instructed as to the correct manner and importance of carrying out surface repairs correctly without significant edges or deviations from the level of the existing road surface. Consideration should be given also to moving cables etc, from beneath the areas used by cyclists to the ground beneath the footpaths.

Access Covers and Gully Gratings: On-road access covers and gully gratings can be troublesome for cyclists depending on their placing, finished level or design. To the cyclist, access covers and gully gratings will often present themselves as hazards to be avoided, even where they are set flush with the road surface. This can give rise to a perception of unevenness, with the cyclist being tempted to make unnecessary or D2.4 Chapter D2: Elements of Cycle Route Maintenance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY dangerous changes of direction rather than ride over them, due to a fear of jolts and bumps. Access chambers should always be fitted with floating covers, and covers of the type which rests on the rim of the frame should be replaced as they can present a height difference in relation to the surrounding surface wearing course that is unacceptable for cyclists. Care should be taken in the initial location, particularly in the case of sewers, as inappropriately placed access chambers are often expensive and difficult to move. Gullies should always be located in the kerb, if this is feasible, and should be easily accessible for maintenance purposes. This is particularly important in the case of raised or segregated cycle tracks (see Chapter B8.3: “Link Options”), and should also be considered if access to gullies may be is hampered by vehicles parked adjacent to the kerbside. For on-road gullies – • Gratings should always be located set flush with the cycle lane and located immediately beside the kerb. • Gully gratings must be raised when the surrounding road levels are raised due to resurfacing. • Gratings should always be set such that bars are at 90 degrees to the kerb to avoid creating a trip hazard for cyclists, or replaced with a more bicycle-friendly type if this is not possible, e.g. grating built into kerb, or side-entry gullies which allow a lateral entrance to the drain.

Irish example (1)

Irish example (2)

Photos D2.3.2-D2.3.4: “Three bicycle-friendly gratings”

Recommendation: Access chambers should always be fitted with floating covers, with care taken in the initial location to avoid the need for future replacement Gully gratings should be located in the kerb if feasible. If on-road gullies are provided, they should be designed and located to minimise possible hazards for cyclists. Access chamber and gully locations should be easily accessible for

D2.5 Chapter D2: Elements of Cycle Route Maintenance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY maintenance purposes.

Problems with Tree Roots and Weed Growth: The planting of trees and shrubs in the vicinity of cycle tracks and on-road cycle lanes has been considered elsewhere in terms of potential obstruction (see Chapter B4, Providing Effective Cycling Space). In addition, trees planted too close to the cycle facility can cause problems from a maintenance perspective due to root extension under track or road surfaces, or under adjacent kerbing, though such problems can usually be pre-empted by judicious tree-selection and good growth management. If damage has been caused by tree roots, repairs will have only a temporary effect, as a rule, as the continued growth of the tree will eventually lift the surface or kerbing again, and in certain cases it may be necessary to prune or remove some roots by cutting them off and digging them up from under the traffic area. More serious problems can occur where the tree has been planted in too narrow a verge, and felling and replanting may have to be considered depending on the age and type of the tree. An alternative solution may be to limit the spread of the roots by cutting the tree crown regularly (pollanding). Weed growth is a perennial problem along cycle routes, and can adversely affect cycling comfort. Pavement surface cracks facilitate the growth and spread of weeds above and beneath the surface, and once weeds take hold, the surface breaks up faster. Cycle routes and adjacent vegetation should be inspected regularly, and treated with appropriate growth inhibitors, to prevent the spread of weeds.

Recommendation: When selecting and planting trees along cycle routes, care should be taken to allow sufficient room for root extension and the bed should be as large as possible to minimise risk of future pavement damage. The spread of the roots normally corresponds to the extent of the tree crown, and this should influence the suitability of any tree varieties selected. Cycle routes should be inspected and treated regularly to prevent the spread of weeds.

D2.6 Chapter D2: Elements of Cycle Route Maintenance (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Use of Specialist Materials: While cobblestones, concrete block or clay paviors can create an enhanced aesthetic environment in pedestrian zones, their use should be avoided along cycle routes as these forms of surface are more difficult and expensive to maintain and sweep than asphalt. • • • • •

Cobblestones create an uneven riding surface, and facilitate weed growth. While clay paviors provide better colour retention than concrete blocks, they increase risk of skidding as they polish more easily and are slippery when wet. The same is true of limestone setts. Block paviors can move or settle individually and this can lead to early flaking or disintegration of thermoplastic cycle lane markings As paviors are usually laid on sand, this brings increased risk of unevenness if not constructed accurately, resulting in paviors becoming loose or dislodging. Structural integrity can be further weakened by mechanical sweepers sucking up sand from joints.

For cycle routes where it may be considered necessary to differentiate the cycling surface finish from that of the adjacent carriageway, consideration can be given to the use of imprinted bitumen-based compounds or similar proprietary products which can accommodate thermoplastic road markings and are relatively easy to maintain.

Recommendation: Cobblestones, concrete block or clay pavers should not be used along cycle routes. If necessary, use low-maintenance bitumen-based compounds which can accommodate thermoplastic road markings

Lining and Coloured Surfaces: The use of painted cycle markings as an alternative to thermoplastic should be avoided, particularly at cycle crossing points and in the delineation of on-road cycle lanes. While it might appear cheaper in the short term, it is a false economy as painted markings have only about 1/10th the lifespan of thermoplastic markings so that the long-term maintenance implications are significantly higher.

D2.7 Chapter D2: Elements of Cycle Route Maintenance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY When coloured surfaces are used, there is a need to ensure that these are laid in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. They should be checked regularly to confirm that they are fit for use, and retain their design integrity. It should be noted, also, that specific budgetary provision is required for the maintenance of these materials, over and above that for ordinary surface finishes.

Recommendation: Thermoplastic cycle track markings should always be used as they are far more economical in the long term than painted markings. Coloured surfaces should be checked regularly for design integrity, and their maintenance requires a specific budgetary provision. Danes believe that better maintenance Construction Impacts: Long-term maintenance problems can occur as a result of faulty or badly finished construction work, whether undertaken on behalf of the local authority, external agencies or private parties. From initial conception stage onwards, therefore, the need to minimise or reduce the impact of future maintenance works on cyclists should be considered as a priority Commonly encountered problems include wrongly orientated gully gratings, badly fitting access chamber covers, badly grounded signal and lighting columns, non-functioning drain constructions, incorrect or missing road markings, surface unevenness and pavement failure. If incidences of this nature are to be minimised or reduced, it is considered desirable that – • • • •

maintenance personnel should be consulted as part of the design process, any interference with existing road or cycle facilities should be subject to licence from the Roads Authority and the prior lodgement of an appropriate bond or insurance policy before commencement of the formal maintenance period, the maintenance department should be given the opportunity to inspect the works while the contractor is still on site, and all identified problems should be remedied before the contractor is released from his obligations.

D2.8 Chapter D2: Elements of Cycle Route Maintenance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Recommendation: Maintenance should be considered as an integral part of the design process Before commencement of any formal maintenance period, the Maintenance Department should inspect the site to determine any outstanding issues affecting its current or future operations The contractor should not be released from his obligations until the maintenance department is satisfied all issues, including those likely to have a negative impact on cyclists, have been remedied

Sweeping: As cyclists are more susceptible to on-route obstructions than other, less vulnerable users, it is important that all cycle tracks and on-road cycle lanes are kept clear of debris, litter, leaves, etc. All cycle routes should be swept regularly as part of a Routine Maintenance programme, and gully gratings should be freed of any materials which might lead to blocking, if ponding along the cycle route is to be avoided. As a general guideline, sweeping should be carried out on a systematic rota ranging from twice monthly to once every second month, depending on the importance of the route. •

Operating plant should be of the right size and weight to avoid pavement damage, particularly on tracks of lighter-strength construction.

•

If mechanical sweepers are used, they should be able to access the full cross-section.

•

Provision should be made for additional sweeping to remove fallen leaves, particularly during the autumn months.

•

A standby service should be available to remove dangerous items, e.g. broken glass, particularly at the weekend when emergency clean-ups may be required.

Recommendation: D2.9 Chapter D2: Elements of Cycle Route Maintenance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY All cycle routes should be swept and gully gratings cleared regularly as part of a routine maintenance programme. A standby service should be available for weekend and emergency use Operating plant should be of the right size and weight, and be able to access the full route-width

Lighting: On-road cycle lanes or adjacent cycle tracks are generally lit by means of primary street lighting installations. These should be designed to provide adequate light distribution for the cyclist to travel safely and avoid conflict with pedestrians and motorised traffic. They should be located so as not to impede movement or obstruct sightlines for all users, and the light beam should not be obstructed, e.g. by tree canopy. Segregated cycle-tracks, cycle trails and cycleways may require site-specific lighting installations which can be maintained without vehicular access. Photoelectric cells, lanterns, refractors, reflectors and other components affecting optical performance should be thoroughly cleaned at set intervals, and left in correct adjustment afterwards. Replacement lamps should always be of the same technology, reliability, flux output and colour temperature as the original. All lighting installations should be subject to regular inspection, including night inspection, to identify lamp outages, knockdowns, cable faults, etc., and repairs effected as soon as possible to ensure uniformity of lighting and avoidance of glare. It may be necessary to increase the frequency of night inspections along certain routes during winter months.

Recommendation: Cycle route lighting should provide adequate light distribution for cyclists to travel safely and avoid conflict with other transport modes Lights should be cleaned regularly, and all replacement lamps should be of the same specification as the original Lighting installations should be subject to regular night inspections, the frequency of which may need to be increased during winter months D2.4

Maintenance and Cycling Safety

D2.10 Chapter D2: Elements of Cycle Route Maintenance (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY While accidents generally are caused by a number of interrelated factors, single vehicle incidents tend to have fewer causative factors than multi-vehicle collisions. This applies in the case of cycling accidents as well as those involving motorised vehicles. Irish accident statistics indicate that most fatal or serious injury accidents to cyclists involve motor vehicles, particularly the larger, heavier kind, in mixedtraffic or on-road cycle lanes, and frequently at junctions. However, cyclists will always remain at risk of being involved in traffic accidents as a consequence of poor road or cycle track maintenance, and roads with a poor surface quality will also present a serious risk of single bicycle accidents though the latter risk can be reduced through more frequent sweeping of roads and paths, and by quicker repairs of potholes in cycle tracks and carriageways. In addition, cyclists are particularly vulnerable in winter, and their needs should not be forgotten when determining winter maintenance requirements. Cycle tracks and on-road cycle lanes should be salted/gritted before they become slippery or icy, with warning signs placed along the route to advise the cyclist of the need for caution.

Photos D2.6.1 – D2.6.2: Examples of Poor Maintenance

Finally, major road improvement schemes should always incorporate measures designed to improve safety and quality of service for cyclists. Cycle audits and Road Safety Audits should be used to ensure an optimal outcome in this regard (see Chapter A7: “Cycle Audit and Review”, and Chapter B7: “Road Safety Audits” for further guidance). D2.11 Chapter D2: Elements of Cycle Route Maintenance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Recommendation: The risk of cyclists being involved in traffic accidents, whether single-bicycle or multi-vehicle, should be reduced, insofar as possible, through regular road and cycle route maintenance Winter maintenance measures should include specific provision for the needs of cyclists Measures to improve safety and quality of service for cyclists should be incorporated in all major road improvement schemes

D2.12 Chapter D2: Elements of Cycle Route Maintenance (Draft National Cycle Manual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY

Chapter D3: Developing a Maintenance Programme D3.1

General This Chapter sets out a methodology for developing an effective maintenance programme, with frequency of inspection and prioritisation of repairs based on ranking hierarchy and budgetary restrictions. The Chapter includes specific recommendations in regard to cycling and winter maintenance. This chapter should be read in conjunction with

D3.2

•

Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably Safe Roads

•

Chapter B7: Road Safety Audits

•

Chapter D1: The Need for Maintenance

•

Chapter D2: Cycle Route Maintenance Issues

Developing an Effective Maintenance Programme Poor route maintenance affects cyclists much more than other road users. This applies equally to road carriageways with or without cycle lanes, and to off-road cycle tracks. Given the limited revenue resources available to road maintenance authorities, it is essential to develop an effective and systematic maintenance programme that will deliver the required quality within an acceptable value-for-money framework. Two key factors are central to this delivery: • a systematic approach will yield better results if it is objectively rather than subjectively based, and • proactive (planned) maintenance is more effective than reactive maintenance Proactive maintenance is generally identified by detailed serviceability inspections carried out either routinely or on a planned basis. It is related to maintaining the asset value, and normally deals with defects before they become a safety hazard.

D3.1 Chapter D3: Developing a Maintenance Programme (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)

DRAFT FOR NOMINATED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ONLY Reactive maintenance deals with potentially dangerous defects identified by safety inspectors or reported in by complaint/users. As a first step in developing an effective maintenance programme, the overall cycle route network should be categorised in a ranking hierarchy, as shown in the following table: