2013 11-11 Planning and Designing for Cyclists

Planning and Designing for CyclistsPeter Leslie – Senior Engineer

By the end of this workshop, candidates will be able to:

1. Discuss current policy and guidance aiding the delivery of cycle infrastructure in Scotland.

2. Identify design principles for planning and designing for cyclists.

3. Explain the basic principles of retrofitting cycle route design into existing infrastructure.

Learning Outcomes

3

By 2020, 10% of all journeys in

Scotland will be by bike.

150km of routes designed and installed

Numerous more reviewed/audited

Loon fae Aberdeen

Change Behaviour

Why was I not on site for the M77 / M74 / AWPR?

Cycle Action Plan for Scotland

Sustrans (Funding)

CSGN - Planning

How do you look to change behaviour In your work

You - What is your role

Appin – Car Park

Cycle Action Plan for Scotland

11/04/20239 Cycling by Design – A User’s Guide

Introduction

Presentation Content

• Why Cycling by Design?

• The Evolution of Cycling by Design

• A Tour of the Document

• The Cycle Audit Process

• Summary

10 11/04/2023 Cycling by Design – A User’s Guide

Why Cycling by Design?


Trunk Road Cycling Initiative

•Trunk Road Cycling Initiative launched November 1995

•Five Actions Detailed in Office Instruction 3/96

• Trunk Road/NCN Development

• Co-operation with Sustrans

• Redetermination of footways

• A74(M) Cycleway

• Consideration of cyclists in all new schemes

Policy

Led to the Creation of Cycling by Design 1999


CAPS

•Launched June 2010 by Transport Minister

•Contains 17 Actions to Promote Cycling in Scotland

• Skills Development

• The Network

• Delivery

•Multi-agency Approach

Policy

Vision: By 2020, 10% of All Journeys Taken in Scotland by Bike


CAPS

CBD Supports several CAPS actions, but especially:

Action 8: To promote the use of planning policy, access legislation and design guidance to a wide range of professionals; and to promote the outcomes of access legislation in the form of leisure activities.

Outcome 8: More well designed, accessible cycling facilities across Scotland

Policy

CBD is the Design Guidance outlined in CAPS


Road Safety

•Cyclists recognised as having less protection if an accident occurs

•Accidents involving vulnerable users including cyclists one of four main accident types

•Action 11: “…improve cycling provision with cycle friendly design”

Policy


Scotland PLC Tourism

VisitScotland figures (2003):

• Cycle tourism responsible for 1 million trips to Scotland (8% of all visitors)

• Revenue from cycle tourism: £219 Million

• 50% increase in cycle tourism by 2015

• Scotland is a world leader in mountain biking

• Sustrans National Cycle Network


Scotland PLC Tourism

National Cycle Network Trunk Road Network

High Interaction between NCN and Trunk Road Network


Public Health

Obesity Route Map Action Plan, March 2011:

•to deliver the Cycle Action Plan for Scotland

•to maintain and extend the National Cycle Network

•ensuring development plans take into account walking and cycling

Policy


Planning

New development must:

•be accessible by cyclists

•make best use of or add to existing cycle networks, or create new networks

•prioritise walking and cycling above motorised modes

Policy

Important for Development Management


Designing Streets

• Complements principles

• Encourages direct and coherent routes for cyclists

• Has presumption in favour of cyclists at access controls

• Promotes permeability

• Recognises at low volume/low speed dedicated facilities may not be required

• CBD intended for wider area application, not just residential streets

Policy

CBD Compliments Designing Streets


Disability Discrimination

• Cyclist facilities often shared with pedestrians

• Gradients and crossfalls

• Dropped kerbs and crossing points

• Wheelchair and mobility scooter users

• Visually impaired users

Policy

CBD Guidance has Access for Disabled People Built In

11/04/202321 Cycling by Design - 2010 Edition

Why Cycling by Design? Policy

Cycling by Design aims to Implement these Policies for Cyclists

Barriers to Cycling

What factors deter you from cycling / cycling more often?

29

7 6 610

26

1012

0

10

20

30

40

50

Dangerfromtraffic

Notenough

roadspace

Lack ofgood

routes

Noaccessto bike

Journeytime too

long

Weather Toophysical

Other

%

Barriers to Cycling

What is the principal factor that deters you from cycling/ cycling more often?


Why Cycling by Design? Policy

Infrastructure Related Issues - 49% of Responses Good Quality Design an Imperative!

23 11/04/2023 Cycling by Design - 2010 Edition

Evolution of Cycling by Design


Background

• Cycling by Design originally published 1999 as a consultative draft

• Updated June 2010

• Contains information on cyclists’ needs, network planning, geometric standards and cycle audit

• Consideration mandatory on the Trunk Road network

• Commended for use by local authorities and others

Cycling by Design


2010 Update Process

Cycling by Design 1999

Technical ExpertiseCycle Designers, Roads Designers, Accessibility experts, Economists,

Planners, Environmental Consultants, Maintenance experts,

Road Safety Auditors

Disability Discrimination ActTransport Scotland’s Good Practice Guide for Roads

Independent Review Fife Council

City of Edinburgh CouncilGlasgow City CouncilForestry Commission

Sustrans

Good Practice Design Examples

East RenfrewshireClackmannanshireCity of Edinburgh

FifeDumfries & Galloway

Argyll & ButeHighland

Technical GuidanceUK Cycle Design Guidance

(DfT, TfL, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire, SESTRANS,

Edinburgh)UK Roads Design Guidance (DMRB, Transport Scotland)

European Cycle Design Guidance (CROW, Malmo, Copenhagen, Danish Cycle

Parking)


1999 ConsultationComments received

Cycling by Design


Key Changes

• Revisit aim of the document: technical guidance not policy

• Technical update of design guidance

• Incorporate Scottish good practice

• Improve navigation

• New definitions of terminology

• Clear definition of minimum widths

• Rationalisation of design speeds

• Taking the pragmatic view

Cycling by Design

27 11/04/2023 Cycling by Design – A User’s Guide

A Tour of The Document



1. Introduction

2. Planning for Cyclists

3. Geometric Design

4. Traffic Volume & Speed

5. Allocating Carriageway Space

6. Off-Carriageway Facilities

7. Junctions & Crossings

8. Cycle Parking

9. Public Transport Integration

10.Construction & Maintenance

11.Cycle Audit System

Appendices

Document Tour



1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour

11/04/202330

Overview

Workshop

• Cyclists’ Needs & Trip Purposes

• Core Design Principles

• Hierarchy of Measures

Review

• Link Specification Guide

• Network Planning Process

Planning for Cyclists

Cycling by Design – A User’s Guide

11/04/202331

Hierarchy of Measures Planning for Cyclists


11/04/202332

On or Off Carriageway? Planning for Cyclists


11/04/202333

Network Planning Process Planning for Cyclists


Skill Level

Skill Level• Novice;• Intermediate; and• Experienced.

Journeys completed by Cyclists

• Neighbourhood• Commuting• School• Day Trips• Touring• Sports

(Based on CBD 2010)

Design Principles

• Coherence – • Door step

• Directness – • Time Saving

• Safety – • Feel Safe

• Comfort – • Surface

• Attractiveness – • Fit Surroundings

11/04/202337


1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202338

Overview

Workshop

• Cycle Design Speed

What would you use as a design speed?

Review

• Visibility Parameters

• Alignment

Geometric Design


11/04/202339

Design Speed & Visibility Geometric Design

1.0m(min)

Eye Height2.2m max

Visibility Envelope

Dynamic Sight Distance

1.0m(min)

Eye Height2.2m max

1.0m(min)

2.2m

Eye Height2.2m max

Visibility Envelope

Stopping Sight Distance

Dynamic Sight Distance Stopping Sight Distance


Design parameter

Network hierarchy

Long distance/ commuter Local access

Design Speed (kph)30 20

Minimum Dynamic Sight Distance (DSD) (m)65 45

Minimum Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) (m)35 25

11/04/202340

Design Speed & Visibility Geometric Design

CycleRoute

Visibility Envelope

Carriageway

Y-Distance(Refer to Table 3.3)

Y-Distance(Refer to Table 3.3)

X-Distance(Refer to Table 3.2)

Junction/Crossing Visibility Splay


‘X’ distance (m) Control and Comments

4.0m Cycle route approach to a road – Desirable Minimum

2.0m Cycle route approach to a road – Absolute Minimum

1.0m ‘Jug handle’ crossing* – Absolute Minimum

85th Percentile speed of main road vehicles (kph)

120 100 85 70 60 50 30

Y-Distance (m) * 295 215 160 120 90 70 35

Also Reduced Values for Cycle/Pedestrian Networks in CBD

11/04/202341

Vertical & Horizontal Alignment Geometric Design


Design parameter

Network hierarchy

Long distance/ commuter Local access

Design Speed (kph) 30 20

Minimum Dynamic Sight Distance (DSD) (m) 65 45

Minimum Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) (m) 35 25

Horizontal alignment Desirable Minimum Radius (m) 25 15

Minimum Bellmouth Radius at junctions (m)

4.0 4.0

Vertical alignment Desirable Minimum Crest (k) 14.1 6.8

Absolute Minimum Crest (k) 5.3 1.3

Sag values are not likely to be a controlling factor at cycle speeds and are, therefore, not specified.

Gradient Desirable Maximum 3% 3%

Absolute Maximum* 7% 7%

Crossfall Absolute Maximum 2.5% 2.5%

11/04/202342

Vertical Alignment - DDA Geometric Design


Location Gradient

General cycle facility Desirable Maximum 3%

Absolute Maximum 5%7%

Over 5m*Over 10m*

On the immediate approach to priority junctions Absolute Maximum 3%

On the approach ramp to a bridge or subway (7% also requires speed controls)

Desirable Maximum 3%

Absolute Maximum 5%7%

Over 5m*Over 10m*

*DDA Implication – Gradients Above 5% are Considered a Ramp

11/04/202343

Facilities for Disabled People Geometric Design


Rest Areas on an Off-road Route Rest Areas on a Bridge Structure

11/04/202344


1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202345

Overview

• Appropriate Carriageway Conditions

• Traffic Management

• Traffic Calming

• Rural Situations

Traffic Volume & Speed


11/04/202346

Carriageway Conditions Traffic Volume & Speed


Good Conditions: <3,000 veh/day and <35kph 85th %ile speed

11/04/202347

Traffic Management Traffic Volume & Speed

1.5m Desirable Minimum1.2m Absolute Minimum

Tw

o way road


Build-out may be provided to preventparked cars obstructing cyclists.

Various features may be used tocreate road closures:- Extended footway- Landscape planters/tree planting- Permanent and lockable bollards- Emergency gates

Diag No.955Diag No.616

Bollards

Diag No.616Diag No.955


Build-out may be provided toprevent gap being obstructed by

parked cars.Bollards

Bollards

Minor Road Closure

False One-way Street


Presumption Cyclists Exempt from Access Restrictions & One Way Streets

11/04/202348

Traffic Calming Traffic Volume & Speed

Central Island Pinch Point

1.5m desirable min1.2m absolute min

Segregation kerb of min 0.5m widthto prevent vehicles encroaching oncycle lane.

Crossing pointwhere appropriate

CycleLane


CycleLane

Clearance strip of min 0.5mwidth to discourage

encroachment on cycle lane

Verge marker postVerge marker post

3.0m

Verge marker posts

Verge marker posts

W

A

Verge marker posts

Verge marker posts

Chicane


Desirable Min 1.5m, Absolute Min 1.2m – But don’t forget the Gullies!

11/04/202349

Rural Situations Traffic Volume & Speed

Road closure or gate. Gatecan be left locked or unlocked.

Field Access

Signs and combinations of signs to be used forrestricted access to roads. Further options include:

- Weight/width restrictions- "unfit for Motor Traffic" sign- "Road Closed...Miles Ahead" sign- "Gated Road" sign

1.2m min1.5mpreferredmax.

Optionalcattle grid

Diag No. 619 Diag No. 816

Diag No. 620 Diag No. 954.4

Typical Restricted Access Plan

Typical Gated Road Closure


11/04/202350


Introduction


2. Geometric Design





7. Cycle Parking


9. Construction & Maintenance


Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202351

Overview

Workshop

• Cycle Lanes

Width of Lanes?

• Kerb Segregated Cycle Lanes

Two Way verus One Way

• Bus Lanes

Width?

• Cycle Lanes at Bus Stops

Design out the issue

Carriageway Space


11/04/202352

Cycle Lanes Carriageway Space


11/04/202353



Standard Width (m) Comments

Maximum Width 2.5*Lanes of this width should be used where cycle flows are expected to be >150 cycles/ peak hour and therefore cycles overtaking within the lane can be expected.

Desirable Minimum Width 2.0*The minimum width that should be considered for a cycle lane with width for cyclists to pass each other.

Absolute Minimum Width 1.5**The running width of the lane should be free from obstructions such as debris and unsafe gullies.

* Cycle lanes over 2.0m wide in areas of car parking may attract drivers to park in them. Physical barriers, mandatory lane markings or parking and loading restrictions can prevent this.

** Lane widths narrower than 1.5m can present a hazard to cyclists and motor vehicle drivers. Only in exceptional circumstances should widths down to 1.0m be considered where it is safe to do so – for example where stationary traffic blocks the route to an advance stop line and the proposed lane is safe from obstructions such as gullies.

Similar Tables also Provided for Contraflow and Kerbed Cycle Lanes

Diag. 1040.4 hatching.1 in 10 taper

Refer to Table 5.2

Diag 1024(1600 high)

Diag.1004

Diag. 1057 at regular intervalsover length of parking bays

Colouredsurfacing

Parking bays

Parking bays

Refer to Table 5.3

Footway

Footway

11/04/202354



StandardWidth

(m)Comments

Desirable Minimum

1.0*Ensures that a cyclist does not need to deviate if a car door is opened fully.

Absolute Minimum

0.5

Will require a cyclist to deviate within the cycle lane if a car door is opened. The cycle lane width in this case should be at least 1.5m, otherwise the cyclist will need to leave the cycle lane to avoid collision.

* Where required, a clearance strip of 1.5m will permit access for disabled people, without affecting cyclists using an adjacent lane.

11/04/202355

Dealing with Bus Stops Carriageway Space

Nominal footprint ofbus shelter 4.0m x 1.05m.

Mandatorycycle lane

Advisorycycle lane

Mandatorycycle lane

Back offootway Nominal 12m

Bus Layby

Nominal footprint ofbus shelter 4.0m x 1.05m

2m desirable min(1.5m absolute min)

Kerb-faceinlet gullies

Refer toTable 5.2

Footway

Tactile Paving& Drop kerbs

Tactile Paving& Drop kerbs

Mandatorycycle lane

Mandatory cycle lane

Back of footway

Refer toTable 5.2

Access kerb & transitionsNominal 7.6m

Nominal footprint ofbus shelter 4.0m x 1.05m.

ramp1.8m

ramp1.8m

Mandatorycycle lane

Mandatorycycle lane

0.5m

ramp3.6m

ramp3.6m

0.5m

Kerb faceinlet gullies


Guidance on On/Off-Street Transitions also Given

11/04/202356

Bus Lanes Carriageway Space


Standard Width (m) Comments*

Optimal Width 4.6

This width allows a bus to pass a cyclist within the bus lane. A 1.5m wide advisory cycle lane may be provided within the bus lane if considered desirable.

Desirable Minimum Width

4.25

Although a bus is still able to pass a cyclist within the bus lane, safe passing width is affected and this width of lane should only be provided over short distances. A 1.2m wide advisory cycle lane may be provided within the bus lane if desirable.

Absolute Minimum Width

4.0

An Absolute Minimum width of 4.0m allows cyclists to pass stopped buses within the bus lane but may encourage unsafe overtaking of cyclists by buses, particularly where the adjacent traffic lane has queuing traffic.

Limiting Width 3.0 – 3.2

The width of the bus lane to prevent overtaking within the lane itself. A bus will be required to straddle adjacent lanes to pass a cyclist, thereby encouraging safe overtaking.

Lane Widths between 3.2m and 4m Should be Avoided

57

Workshop 3 – Route Objectives

58

Workshop 3 – Route Objectives – 5 minutes

You are the Local Authority

Who would you design it for – Change Behaviour?

What would be your 3 main objectives of the project?

59

Workshop 3 – Actual Route Objectives

1. Remove Physical Barrier2. Segregated Facility

3. Quality Infrastructure – Central Station – Destination

4. Deprived Area5. Active Travel and Route Connections

60

Existing Route - Characteristics

Town CentreGrid Plan

Main East / West LinksOrigin / Destination

Route set by Bridge and Station

61

Workshop 4 - On Road Design

Waterloo Street

One Way Street – Towards M8

3 Travelling Lanes – Bus Stops/RouteNorth Side of Street – Horizontal Parking

11/04/202362


1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202363

Overview

• Principles

• Cycleways

• Cycle Paths

• Vehicle Restricted Areas

• Access Controls

Off-Carriageway Facilities


11/04/202364

When to Segregate? Off-Carriageway Facilities

1000 peds/hr/metre width (0.2 peds/m length/m width)

50m length

2mwidth

Based on a walking pace of 5km / hr





50m length

50m length

50m length

50m length

2mwidth

2mwidth

2mwidth

2mwidth


Combined density (users/hr/m)*

Recommended arrangement

< 100 Shared use is usually appropriate (cycles give way).

101 – 199 Segregation may be considered.

> 200 Segregation should be considered.

11/04/202365

Segregated Cycleways Off-Carriageway Facilities

Carriageway

2.4m

2.4m

2.4m

Fo

otp

ath

SegregatedCycleway

0.8m 0.8m

Shared Cyclepath

Reminder tactilearea

'Start' and 'End'tactile area

2.4m

SegregatedCyclepath

Tramline tactile Ladder tactile

Max 50mmvertical kerb

SEGREGATED BY KERB

SEGREGATED BY CENTRALDELINEATOR STRIP (NOTE 2)

SEGREGATED BY VERGEPedestrians

OnlyCycles Only1.0m

Verge

Cycles Only

Cycles Only

PedestriansOnly

PedestriansOnly


11/04/202366

Shared Cycleways Off-Carriageway Facilities


Facility Width (m) Comments

Segregated cycleway or cyclepath

One way cycles only Desirable Minimum

2.0 Operates satisfactorily for one-way flows of up to 150 cycles per hour with minimal overtaking anticipated.

Absolute Minimum

1.5 The running width required that is free from obstructions such as debris, gullies, line markings and street furniture.

Two way cycles only Desirable Minimum

3.0 Operates satisfactorily for two-way flows up to 300 cycles per hour.

Absolute Minimum

2.0* Operates satisfactorily for two-way flows of up to 200 cycles per hour free from obstructions such as debris, surface gullies, line markings and street furniture.

Pedestrian only space

Desirable Minimum

2.0 The minimum width in normal circumstances to permit unobstructed passage by opposing wheelchairs.

Absolute Minimum

1.5 Acceptable over short distances in specifically constrained environments, such as at bus stops or where obstacles are unavoidable (Transport Scotland 2009).

Shared cycleway or cyclepath

Pedestrian and cycle space

Desirable Minimum

3.0 Typically regarded as the minimum acceptable for combined flows of up to 300 per hour.

Absolute Minimum

2.0** Can operate for combined flows of up to 200 per hour but will require cycles and pedestrians to frequently take evasive action to pass each other.

* Widths as low as 1.5m may be acceptable over short distances where there is no alternative.** In particularly constrained situations or for combined flows of less than 100 per hour, a width of 1.5m may be considered over short distances

where no alternative is available.

Guidance also Provided for Clearances to Fixed Objects

11/04/202367

Cyclepaths Off-Carriageway Facilities


11/04/202368

Access Controls Off-Carriageway Facilities

Preferably two gaps

1.5m Preferred maxGap 1.2m absolute min

Lockable/removablebollard for maintenance

3.0m desirable min

Note: Rider meets barrier on left hand side first



11/04/202369


1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202370

Overview

• Crossing Assessment

• At Grade Junctions & Crossings

• Grade Separated Junctions & Crossings

Junctions & Crossings


11/04/202371

At-Grade Crossing - Urban Junctions & Crossings


Diag No.956

Diag No.956

Build-out

Foot

way

Coloured surface preferred

Min 10m

Diag No.950Note: Distance plate DiagNo.572 may be applied.

Diag No.950

Extent of warningcontrasting colour

treatment

CyclepathCyclepath

Reflective bollards

Foot

way

Buff coloured blister tactile

Dimensions for Central Islands also Provided

11/04/202372

At-Grade Crossing - Rural Junctions & Crossings

Diag No.956

Verge

Diag No.956

Verge

Rumble strips(15mm height, verticalface not to exceed 6mm)

High Friction Surfacing(black calcined bauxite)should only be used onroads with speed limits> 40mph

Edge of carriageway marking

Diag No.1012.1(width of line 150mm)

Diag No.950 with supplementaryplate to diagram No. 950.1

XXX ydscrossingCycles

55m







2.5mabsoluteminimum

ChicaneRefer to Note 1

5.75m min

10m

Admiral™ or similarspecification bollards



Diag No.956

Drop kerb at crossing pointto be flush with carriageway.

Variable width

Verge

Diag No.956

10m desirable minimum

3.0m min

ChicaneRefer to Note 1

2.5m a

bsolute min

.

Min 10.0m

Extent of warningcontrasting colour

treatment

Min 5.0m


CyclescrossingXXX yds

CyclescrossingXXX yds


specification bollardsWhite Admiral™ or similar

11/04/202373

At-Grade Crossing - Dual Junctions & Crossings


11/04/202374

Side Road Crossings Junctions & Crossings

Buff coloured blister tactile Diag No.956

3.0m desirable minimum

Diag No.956

Diag No.602

Absolute min 2.5m(Refer to note 1)

Diag No.950Note: Distance plate DiagNo.572 may be applied.

Restrict on-street parkingto ensure visibility

Bendout

Diag 610Illuminated Bollard

(Refer to note 2)


11/04/202375

Roundabouts Junctions & Crossings

a) COMPACT ROUNDABOUTFOR USE BY MIXED TRAFFIC

Central overrun areamay be provided

Single lane entry andexit width (4.25m)

Narrow circulatinglane width (5-7m)

Toucan crossing(staggered)

Segregated cyclewayfacility

Priority crossing

Cycle lanes

Shared cycleway

b) ROUNDABOUT WITHCYCLEWAYS

ICD range of 25m-35m

Entry and exits are perpendicularto the centre of roundabout

Central island diameterrange of 16-25mm

Minimal flares on entries

It is recommended that the cyclewayshould be two-way wherever possible.

Red colouredblister tactile


Ladder tactile

For transitions referto Figure 6.8

Ladder tactile

Tramline and ladder tactiles toindicate segregated cycleway


11/04/202376

Grade Separation Junctions & Crossings

Pedestrians Cycles

Central delineator strip

1.4m

FIGURE 7.17A : NEW BRIDGE SECTION

3.0m min two way2.0m min one way 0.5m Clearance where practical

(Refer to Table 6.3)

Shared cycleway

FIGURE 7.17B : EXISTING ROAD BRIDGE SECTION

Existing parapets should be retained subjectto safety audit and monitoring

Where required, consideration shouldbe given to reducing carriageway lanewidths in order to widen the cycleway.

(Refer to Table 6.2) (Refer to Table 6.2 and 6.3)


11/04/202377


1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202378

Overview

• Planning for Cycle Parking

• Location and Access

• Detailed Design

Cycle Parking


11/04/202379

Planning for Cycle Parking

• Basic Requirements

• User Requirements

• Demand and Capacity Requirements

Cycle Parking


11/04/202380

Location & Access

• Proximity to Destinations

• Security

• On-street/Off-Street

Cycle Parking


11/04/202381

Detailed Design Cycle Parking

Sheffieldstands

1.8m Absoluteminimumclearance

0.9m

1.2m Desirable Min1.0m Absolute Min




0.9m

2.5m Desirableminimumclearance

1500mm

1500mm

Parallel Configuration

150

0m

m

In Line Configuration

Recommended 1500mm access aisles around three sides of units.

Note: All dimensions are in millimetres

650mm 900mm typ. 1500mm

190

0m

m1

50

0m

m1

50

0m

m

Unit height : 1400mmDoor Opening : /50mmDoor Arcs : 95°


11/04/202382


1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202383

Overview

• Importance of Integration

• Bike and Ride

• Cycle Carriage

• Public Cycle Hire

Public Transport


11/04/202384

Integration

• Links to Rail Stations

• Parking at Stations

• Buses, Coaches & Ferries

• Cycle Hire Schemes

Public Transport


11/04/202385


1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202386

Overview

• Sustainability

• Construction within Carriageway

• Construction outwith Carriageway

• Lighting

• Maintenance Regime

Construction/Maintenance


11/04/202387

Cycleway Construction/Maintenance

Fall=2.5%

Surface Course

Binder Course

Subbase

300x100mm Class ST 1concrete kerb foundation and haunch

200x50mm flat-toppedP.C heel kerb, laid flush

FORMATION

Kerb detail asrequired

375x150mm Class ST1concrete kerb foundation

and haunch

Typical road drainageRefer to note ii

Margin. (refer to note iii)


11/04/202388

Rural Cyclepath Construction/Maintenance

Minimum 60mm deep layer of DBM(14mm stone). Path to have minimum

2.5% camber on dismantled railway, fallto suit tie-ins at disused road.

2500mm Shared cyclepath

Formation to be sprayed with approvednon-toxic weedkiller

Minimum 100mm deep sub-base ofType 1, compacted to refusal.

Use additional Type 1 to blind off anyexposed geotextile, and build up edgeof path. Difference between level ofpath edge and verge to be between40mm and 60mm.

Desirable width of soft verge 500m

Geotextile

3500mm

500mm

Absolute minimum width of Type 1verge to be 300mm. Desirableminimum width to be 500mm.

FORMATION


11/04/202389

Maintenance - Sweeping Construction/Maintenance


11/04/202390

Maintenance - Cutting Construction/Maintenance


11/04/202391


1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/202392

Trunk Road Audit Process Cycle Audit Overview

• Cycle Audit part of wider audit process on Trunk Roads

• Road Safety Audits and Accessibility Audits also undertaken

• Key Principle – Designers design, Auditors audit

• Audits to advise Designers/Project Sponsor of issues for consideration

• Final decisions on priorities taken by the Designer/Project Sponsor, not the Auditors

• Audits need to be seen in the context of the scheme as a whole


11/04/202393

Avoiding Imbalanced Needs Cycle Audit Overview

Source: David Owen / Warrington Cycle Campaign


11/04/202394

Audits in Scotland

The objectives of Cycle Audit are as follows:

• To ensure that the current and future needs of cyclists within a scheme are recognised and developed;

• To ensure that the infrastructure provided for cyclists is in accordance with current best practice; and

• To ensure that there are no elements of infrastructure within a scheme that will endanger or unnecessarily impede cyclists or other users.

Cycle Audit Overview

Key Objective – Meeting the Needs of Cyclists


11/04/202395

Roles & ResponsibilitiesProject Sponsor • Key responsibility: approval• Agreeing the terms of reference for the scheme• Providing appropriate background information • Approves proposed Design Team Cycle Auditor

Design Team Leader • Key responsibility: facilitation. • Ensure that the objectives of the scheme are fully understood by

team• Ensures audit findings process flows through to the design itself• Proposes the Design Team Cycle Auditor

Design Team Cycle Auditor • Key responsibility: to set cycling objectives and audit design

against them• Consults with stakeholders, analyses & gathers of background data• Available to discuss issues and advise design team – a continuous

process

Cycle Audit Overview


11/04/202396

Process Overview

Objective Setting and Context Report

Cycle Audit in Action

Preliminary Design Audit (Stage 1 Cycle Audit)

Detailed Design Audit (Stage 2 Cycle Audit)

Post-Construction Audit(Stage 3 Cycle Audit)

Progression from Each Stage only after Project Sponsor Approval


11/04/202397

Context Report

• Undertaken before design commences

• Aim: to provide designers with an understanding of cyclists’ needs

• Review trip patterns

• Generators/attractors

• User characteristics

• Opportunities and constraints

• Consult with stakeholders

• Define scheme objectives



11/04/202398

S1 & S2 Design Audits

• Undertaken at key points in design process

• Aim: to check that design meets with defined objectives

• Demonstrate to Project Sponsor that cyclists’ needs are being met

• Check compliance with current best practice

• Highlight scheme constraints where limitations may apply for consideration



11/04/202399

Post Construction Audit

• Undertaken once scheme in use

• Aim: check the detail

• Have objectives been met in practice?

• How are cyclists using the scheme?

• Is the route clear as expected?

• Is the quality of infrastructure right?

• Did anything change during construction?

• Are Improvements Possible?



11/04/2023100


1. Introduction


3. Geometric Design





8. Cycle Parking




Appendices

Document Tour


11/04/2023101

Appendix A

• Details key features of principal legislation

• Roads (Scotland) Act

• Road Traffic Regulation Act

• Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act

• Land Reform (Scotland) Act

• Disability Discrimination Acts 1995 and 2005

• Equality Act 2010

Appendices


11/04/2023102

Appendix B

• General design principles on signs and markings

• Sign sizes

• Avoiding ambiguity and coherence

• Legislation and guidance

• Examples

Appendices

Diag No 955Route for use by pedal cycles only

Diag No 956Route for use by pedal cycles

and pedestrians only

Diag No 957Route comprising two ways, separatedby the marking shown in Diag No. 1049or 1049.1 or by physical means, for useby pedal cycles only and by pedestrians

Diag No 958With-flow bus lane ahead

Diag No 958.1With-flow cycle lane ahead

Diag No 956With-flow bus lane which pedal cycles may

also use. Note: Any vehicle may enter the buslane to stop, load or unload where this is

not prohibited

Diag No 959.1With-flow cycle lane

Diag No 960Contra-flow bus lane.

Note: Any vehicle may enter thebus lane to stop, load or unload

where this is not prohibited.(Cycle symbol may be added

below the bus symbol)

Diag No 960.1Contra-flow cycle lane

Diag No 962.1Cycle lane on road at junction

ahead or cycle track crossing roadDiag No 963.1

Cycle lane with traffic proceeding from right(Sign for pedestrians)

Diag No 952.1Cycle lane on road at junction

ahead or cycle track crossing road

Diag No 962.2Contra-flow bus lane which pedalcycles may also use on road at

junction ahead

Diag No 968Parking for pedal cycles


103 11/04/2023

Evolution of Cycling By Design Beyond 2010 Edition


11/04/2023104

Beyond CBD 2010

• Account will be taken of future legislation/design changes

• Learning from implementation

• Comments welcomed from users of the document, cycling groups and individuals

• Document will evolve over time

• Acknowledgement that UK research base limited

• Further research may be undertaken

Evolution


105 11/04/2023

Summary


11/04/2023106

Summary

• CBD 2010 incorporates changes to legislation, latest best practice and stakeholder comment

• Document includes simpler navigation; more focus on guidance rather than policy

• Clearer definitions and emphasis on cyclist needs

• Cycle Audit system - an objective led approach

• Complements Other Scottish Government Policy

• Requirement on Trunk Roads

• Commended to others

• Understanding needs is key to success


107

Are we different from the market leaders

CROW vs CBD?

108

Cycling Scotland 2012 Conference

Think Bike Workshop

109

How to design Bicycle facilitiesSafety

Attractiveness

Directness

Cohesion

Comfort

5 mainrequirements

110

Sustainable Safety

Function, form and usein balance, from road

safety point of view

function: use of the road as intended by the road authoritydesign: the physical design and layout properties of the infrastructureuse: actual use of the infrastructure and behaviour of the road user

Functionof road

Designof road

Useof road

111

Road categorization Through roads: Long distance traffic Distributor roads: Connects areas Access roads: Access to properties Urban area: Distributor road Access road

Consequences:• Network• Routes

• Sections• Junctions

112

1970’s: Turning point

Workshop - What changed their mind?

113

Space

114

Traffic lights at National Museum:

± 20 cars in 40 seconds

> 50 cyclists in 10 seconds

Time

115

116

How to design Network

117

Single lane roundabout:

Outside build-up areaPriority to cars

Multi lane roundabout:

Junction / crossing

118

119

Bicycle is King

120

Why monitor cycling?

To measure impact on overarching objectives

To measure and demonstrate trends and progress

To account for the use of funds at local and regional level

To demonstrate links with other projects/departments

121

What do you monitor and why?

122

123

The Basics of Monitoring

In essence, there are two levels:– Strategic:

• Vision, Aim, Mission, etc.– Specific:

• Objectives, Targets, Goals, etc.

124

Strategic – Vision, Aim, etc.

What is the aspiration? What are you aiming for?– More people on bikes…?– More people active…?

125

Vision - Active Travel, Active Scotland

“Our vision is for walking or cycling to be the natural choice for short journeys, creating a healthier, socially inclusive, economically vibrant, environmentally friendly Scotland.”

126

Getting More Specific – Objectives

Objectives– Specific, measurable steps– What do you want to happen?

“To increase the number of children cycling to school”

127

Targets

Targets– Results to be achieved– Mostly quantifiable

“To increase the number of children cycling to school by 15%”

128

Targets (2)

SMART– Specific– Measurable– Achievable– Realistic– Time-bound

Establish a baseline!

129

Targets (3)

Inputs– Resources used

• “Amount of time spent training children to cycle”

Outputs– Measurable activities, things we

make/do• “Length of on-road cycle network”

Outcomes– Impacts from outputs, benefits of what

we make/do• “Number of children cycling to school”

130

Targets (3)

Indicators– Help measure the target:

• “number of children cycling to school”• “number of children receiving cycle training”• “number of bicycles repaired”• “number of cyclists on a particular road”

131

132

Do:– Have a number of SMART targets– Have a plan that identifies targets and how they

all link together– Use both output and outcome performance

indicators Do NOT:

– Have few and/or ill-defined targets – Rely on output performance indicators alone– Use a limited range of monitoring techniques– Have no idea what you are monitoring

Targets Summary

133

Assessment

What are the impacts of what we are doing and how are we doing in each aspect?

Use tools to help assess:– STAG– HEAT– SROI– National Assessment

134

Assessment - STAG

Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG)– When?

• Gov’t funding, support or approval for proposals to change transport system

– What?• Environment, Safety, Economy, Integration,

Access and Social Integration– Who?

• SG, LAs, developers and transport operators

www.transportscotland.gov.uk/stag

135

Assessment - HEAT WHO Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT)

– When?• To understand economic impact of health

benefits from cycling and walking– What?

• Savings in costs and mortality from walking/cycling interventions

– Who?• Anyone, but limited to adults and better at

‘population level’

www.heatwalkingcycling.org

136

Assessment - SROI

Social Return on Investment (SROI)– When?

• Understanding social impacts of interventions

– What?• Measure the difference made to people’s

lives and the level of impact– Who?

• Third sector normally

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/15300/SROI and http://www.sroi-uk.org/

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/15300/SROI


137

Assessment – National Assessment

National Assessment of Cycling Policy– When?

• Assess the policies in place in LAs to support cycling

– What?• Looks at three elements: Planning, Action

and Monitoring– Who?

• Local Authorities (and Nat’l Parks in future)

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/15300/SROI and http://www.sroi-uk.org/



138

Evaluation

Comparative by nature – past with present ( baseline data or

starting point or recall of where things were in comparison with now)

– comparing examples of similar projects or programmes

139

Evaluation Did we do what we planned to do? If not, why

not? What worked? Why? What did not work? Why? What difference, if any, does the project make?

How have things changed over time and for whom ?

Is the project meeting needs? Whose needs? What do users/members/beneficiaries think about

the work? Is the donor's money well spent? Is it achieving

what the donor intended? What could we do differently? How can we use the learning to develop the

work?

140

The Final Stage

Doing something to act on the learning – MAKE CHANGES!

Without the final stage the evaluation is useless

141

Worked example…

What is/are the vision/objectives/targets you work towards in your organisation?

What if vision/objectives/targets change abruptly?

142

By 2020, 10% of all journeys in

Scotland will be by bike.

What do you think the 10% is now? Comments…

143

National Picture – Scotland Performs

144


Objectives– Wealthier and Fairer– Safer and Stronger– Smarter– Greener– Healthier

Which of these are relevant to cycling? Why?

145


16 National Outcomes– Key words for cycling...

• “sustainable places”• “communities”• “environment”• “environmental impact”• “employment opportunities”

146


50 National Indicators, cycling relevant?– “Increase the proportion of journeys to

work made by public or active transport”– “Reduce Scotland’s carbon footprint”– “Increase physical activity”– “Reduce traffic congestion”– “Increase people’s use of outdoors”– “Reduce premature mortality”– “Increase proportion of healthy weight in

children”

147

National Picture – CAPS (2010)

10% of journeys in Scotland by bike by 2020

Local authorities – CAPS Delivery Forum– Other action-specific forums

Other organisations– CS, Sustrans, Transport Scotland

Other forums?– NCIG, CPG, Vulnerable Road Users, etc.

148

Local Authority Picture

32 different ways of doing things…

149

Local Authority Picture - Edinburgh

Active Travel Action Plan “By 2030, to make Edinburgh’s transport system

one of the most environmentally friendly, healthiest and most accessible in northern Europe…” – Transport 2030

Objectives– Better health; Better road safety; Better

environment; Benefits to businesses; Wider economic benefits

Targets (by 2020)– Cycling: 10% overall; 15% to work– Walking: 35% overall; 22% to work

150

What about data? Scottish Household Survey Scottish Recreation Survey Hands Up Scotland Survey Bikeability Scotland data Local cycling counts (automatic/manual) Local surveys (e.g., Citizen Panels) Project specific/event specific feedback On and on…

151

The Big Picture?

Making sense of it all

152

Monitoring Cycle Use - MVA Review current information sources

– Desktop– Consultation

Make recommendations on appropriate methods for LAs and others on collecting information for monitoring progress against SG targets/vision

153

Monitoring Cycle Use – MVA (2) Consultation

– 40 stakeholders and key partners– View on key aspects– Awareness of relevant datasets– How project could benefit– Views on ‘good’ and ‘bad’ practice

154

Monitoring Cycle Use – MVA (3) Datasets and SHS

– Good potential for existing data, but not sure how best to use it

– Are datasets relevant at local level?– Inconsistency on questions– Support for HUSS

Auto/manual counters– Main focus at a local level– Issues with consistency of data, resource and

maintenance

155

Monitoring Cycle Use – MVA (4) Resource and budgets

– Limited and stretched resource– Neglect of data collection and maintenance– Not always a priority– Concerns on ability to match fund

STANDARD GUIDANCE REQUESTED!

156

So what do you monitor? Manual counts Automatic counts School travel Cycle parking/usage Census Household surveys/travel diaries User surveys Others?

157

MONITORING TOOLKIT

Manual counts: Can give a detailed

picture of cycle usage over a short period

Can be used to validate automatic counts

Care needs to be taken in the location of counts

158

MONITORING TOOLKIT

Automatic cycle counts: Can give a detailed

picture of cycle usage over time

Can be used to validate manual counts

Care needs to be taken in the siting of counters, especially on-road cycling

159

MONITORING TOOLKIT

Automatic cycle counts: Are generally more statistically reliable Off-road counts alone may give a skewed

picture Data can be collected remotely

160

MONITORING TOOLKIT

School travel counts: Can be effective and

represent an important target area

Helps to reinforce children’s enthusiasm

Ideally should be carried out as part of a school travel plan

161

MONITORING TOOLKITTravel plan surveys: Can be effective and represent an

important target area Help to reinforce the organisation’s

commitment Questionnaires should gather both

qualitative and quantitative data on cycling

High response rate achievable Allows for an incremental approach

to provision e.g. parking

162

MONITORING TOOLKITBefore and after monitoring: Should be carried out on all new

schemes Useful to establish precedents

for similar schemes elsewhere May not be representative of

whole authority Capital costs for automatic

counters can be found as part of overall scheme

163

MONITORING TOOLKIT

Counts of cycle parking use: Can be carried out at specific

locations, such as health centres

Can help to assess the effectiveness of policies to encourage cycling to these destinations

If carried out regularly can be used as a proxy for overall cycling levels

164

MONITORING TOOLKIT

Census information: Measures journeys to work only Unparalleled accuracy of local information

on these journeys Useful to assess relative levels in different

local authority areas Unsatisfactory for assessment of

objectives, since monitoring only occurs every 10 years

165

MONITORING TOOLKITHousehold surveys / travel diaries: Useful data on attitudes (e.g. satisfaction

and perception) as well as usage Also information on modal choice factors Can measure background factors, such as

car ownership, income levels and place of work

but …

166

MONITORING TOOLKIT

Household surveys / travel diaries: Need high level of respondents to be

statistically reliable Most useful carried out in conjunction with

regular usage monitoring National Travel Survey add-ons are

possible but expensive - only feasible in large urban areas

167

MONITORING TOOLKITUser surveys: Can provide useful data on

user attitudes, especially satisfaction and perception

Need to be targeted carefully Are useful if looking at

reasons for choice of mode and route

168

Worked example… What about the 10%?

– Who are we measuring?– What is a ‘journey’?– How do we measure those journeys as a

proportion of all journeys?– What are some limitations?

169

170

Monitoring Cycle Use MVA Recommendations/findings:

– Any reporting of cycling mode share needs to incorporate other modes as well

– Household-based travel diary – Phrasing matters! ‘Usual mode’ questions are

biased against cycling Other datasets can inform other targets, but

they do not feed into the 10%!

171

Monitoring Cycle Use (2) Healthier

– HUSS, recreational trips, total trips/commuting trips, casualty/KSI

Greener– Total trips/commuting trips, HUSS

Wealthier– Total trips/commuting trips, tourism, cycling related jobs

Safer– 20mph zones, casualty/KSI

Smarter– Improved school performance, productivity

172

Taking Monitoring Forward Establishing a set of indicators to support

monitoring the 10% But is it enough? No! So let’s look at a few more

things:– Cycling to work/education– Cycling to school– Cycle training (adults and children)– Safety– Health– Economic benefit– Return on investment– Environmental impacts

173

Using Monitoring to Access Funding

Varies depending on funding source, but cycling cuts across many things

Examples– Cycling Scotland

• Bikeability Scotland, Support Plus – How many schools are delivering on-road training now? How many will deliver on-road training as a result of the funding?

• Cycle Friendly & Sust. Communities – Project aims, modal share changes, emissions, impact on sustainability in community, project partners, + or – outcomes, barriers?

– Sustrans• Accurate stats on usage and benefits, auto- or manual

counts, surveys of users.

174

Worked example…

What types of monitoring would help you in delivering cycling?– Think about: partners, funding

opportunities What should you monitor to help ‘future-

proof’ delivery of cycling?

175

Summary Strategic as well as specific Targets – Link to outcomes Ensure that you do monitor, but be clear on WHY

you are monitoring Ensure that what you monitor provides evidence

to support your vision and objectives Cycling cuts across many departments, utilise

this to the fullest

Relate this to Funding

Who are the funders for cycle projects at present?

Funders

Government / Transport ScotlandSustransLeaderAwards for All

Local Authorities

For further information review Spokes Briefing

How much do they each contribute?

The government through Transport Scotland / Sustrans are still the predominate funder for active travel projects

http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2012/10/spokes-bulletin-114/



Sustrans – Community Links

Yesterday I provided information from my own projects how monitoring has allowed me to provide job satisfaction.


Project SummaryShow Origin and Destinations

Places of Interest

Design – Use their manuals


Project EndorsementCommunity CouncilPrimary SchoolSports Clubs


Match FundingRTPSOther Council ProjectsCommunity Funding Celebrities


Aims and BenefitsUsing existing counts (nearby data)Hands Up Survey

But how to turn them aroundMoney Talks – North Sea Cycle Route – £33 a day


Aims and BenefitsUsing existing counts (nearby data)Hands Up Survey

But how to turn them aroundMoney Talks – North Sea Cycle Route – £33 a day

Stop Moaning

Justify a larger spend?

STAG – Project for a Bypass

We need to prove projects using the data which is of a benefit to the projects.

Adrian Davies / John Parkin


School LinksBikeability

Transport HubsGet the providers to endorse the project

Council DepartmentsSounds daft but Access Officer, Planner and Parks for instance


Community EngagementOpportunities to see the project and participateEqual Input / Influence

Sustrans – Community LinksMonitoring

Discussed this at length yesterday

I maintain get a counter in your bid

Sustrans – Community LinksDeliver and Phasing

Make sure the title includes Phase 1 – Prove you have further projects.

FundersOther Funders

LeaderCSGNActive Places – 2014Awards for AllLocal Authority - CWSS

SummaryTaken you through funding application

So what are the next steps for you and Cycling Scotland?

The floor is open to you to question or discuss any of the topics we’ve discussed

Thank You

Education

2013 11-11 Planning and Designing for Cyclists