Cycling

In 2000,1 the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (now the Department for Transport, DfT) published its strategy for road safety in Tomorrows Roads Safer for Everyone. In this document Mixed Priority Routes were identified as being among the least safe of urban roads. Subsequently, the DfT invited local highway authorities to submit schemes for inclusion in the Mixed Priority Routes (MPR) Road Safety Demonstration Project where DfT grants of up to £1 million were available for each participating authority. The ten schemes selected to be included in the project covered a spectrum of different types of authority and highway characteristics. This document reviews the experience from the ten schemes involved in the Demonstration Project and presents the lessons learned through the project to assist practitioners develop similar successful schemes. This report provides guidance for project managers and senior technical staff who might be involved in the development and delivery of MPR schemes, building on the experience of those that have already been through the process and understand the organisation and delivery issues involved. The MPR schemes have unique technical solutions to the redesign of their streets. It is not the purpose of this document to set out technical solutions. A brochure entitled High Street Renaissance and detailed scheme reports are also published on the DfT website, www.dft.org.uk. Summary Mixed Priority Routes are streets that carry high levels of traffic and also have: a mix of residential use and commercial frontages; a mix of road users, i.e. shoppers, cyclists, bus passengers, schoolchildren; a mix of parking and deliveries; They are not just transport routes. Although dealing with transport and safety is a key element, other concerns associated with the local economy and local communities may also generate an interest in improving the area with economic regeneration and environmental improvements. There are many benefits to be gained from enhancing the high street environment with an integrated approach. The investment is likely to contribute towards assisting the delivery of a range of local authority corporate objectives and targets including: accessibility planning; accident reduction; economic regeneration; Public Service Agreement; quality of life; and sustainability.

Encouraging more people to cycle is increasingly being seen as a vital part of any local authority plan to tackle congestion, improve air quality, promote physical activity and improve accessibility. This design guide brings together and updates guidance previously available in a number of draft Local Transport Notes and other documents. Although its focus is the design of cycle infrastructure, parts of its advice are equally appropriate to improving conditions for pedestrians. The guidance covers England, Wales and Scotland. Where the text refers to highway authorities (for England and Wales), the equivalent term in Scotland is road authorities.

Additional off-carriageway links can offer enhanced permeability, potentially safer routes for cyclists and advantageous journey times compared to motor traffic. These need to be designed, built and maintained so that they achieve their intention of drawing cyclists away from less attractive routes on the carriageway. The measures available to create cycle links can range from a cycle gap in a road closure to the construction of a new bridge. To be effective, cycle links should be clearly signed, direct and relevant to cyclists’ needs. Off-carriageway links need to be designed, built and maintained so that they achieve their intention of drawing cyclists away from less attractive routes on the carriageway.

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

The decision to provide cycle lanes should be reached by reference to the hierarchy of provision and such tools as the CROW derived ’speed/flow’ diagram; they should not be seen as a universal solution. Where provided, cycle lanes should be a minimum of 1.5m wide, continuous, made conspicuous across side roads at junctions and not abandon cyclists where roads become narrow, for example at right turning lanes. Where cycle lanes are being introduced, the cost of remedial measures to the carriageway surface should be included within the scheme budget.

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

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

The use of ‘Cyclists dismount’ and ‘End of route’ signs should always be avoided unless there is a proven need. The use of advance directions signs, particularly map-type where this will direct cyclists through complex junctions, can help cyclists conserve energy lost when stopping to read signs erected at junctions. Posts and sign faces should not reduce the effective width of a cycle track by being placed in the path of pedestrians or cyclists. Where possible, sign posts and lamp columns should be set back 500mm beyond the edge of a cycle track. Where walls or fences prevent this they should be placed tight up against them. Where vandalism is a problem signs should be mounted high enough to discourage graffiti and square posts used to prevent rotation. Sign x-heights should reflect the positioning and likely speed of approaching cyclists.

Cycle tracks may be provided with priority crossings of roads where speeds are less than 30 mph, total traffic flows do not exceed 4,000 vehicles per day and the crossing is sited on a flat-topped road hump. A number of mainland European countries allow the use of zebra-style pedestrian crossings by cyclists. At present it is not unlawful for cyclists to cycle across zebra crossings within the UK. However, since there is no legal requirement for motorists to give way when they do, encouraging this practice may increase hazards for cyclists. Where cycle tracks naturally bring cyclists to such facilities, wider than normal crossings should be provided and ‘Cyclists dismount’ signs used.

The creation of advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) should be considered at all signal controlled junctions. The depth of the reservoir should be designed to take account of all of the manoeuvres cyclists need to make when entering and leaving the ASL as well as the numbers of cyclists.