2. Learning Outcomes
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.
3. By 2020, 10% of all
journeys in
Scotland will be by
bike.
3
9. Introduction
Presentation Content
• Why Cycling by Design?
• The Evolution of Cycling by Design
• A Tour of the Document
• The Cycle Audit Process
• Summary
9
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
10. Why Cycling by Design?
‹#›
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
11. Trunk Road Cycling Initiative
Policy
•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
Led to the Creation of Cycling by Design 1999
11
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
12. CAPS
Policy
•Launched June 2010 by
Transport Minister
•Contains 17 Actions to
Promote Cycling in Scotland
• Skills Development
• The Network
• Delivery
•Multi-agency Approach
Vision: By 2020, 10% of All Journeys Taken in Scotland by Bike
12
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
13. CAPS
Policy
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
CBD is the Design Guidance outlined in CAPS
13
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
14. Road Safety
Policy
•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”
14
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
15. 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
15
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
16. Scotland PLC
National Cycle Network
Tourism
Trunk Road Network
High Interaction between NCN and Trunk Road Network
16
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
17. Public Health
Policy
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
17
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
18. Planning
Policy
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
Important for Development Management
18
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
19. Designing Streets
Policy
• 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
CBD Compliments Designing Streets
19
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
20. Disability Discrimination
Policy
• Cyclist facilities often shared
with pedestrians
• Gradients and crossfalls
• Dropped kerbs and crossing
points
• Wheelchair and mobility
scooter users
• Visually impaired users
CBD Guidance has Access for Disabled People Built In
20
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
21. Why Cycling by Design?
Policy
Cycling by Design aims to Implement these Policies for Cyclists
21
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design - 2010 Edition
22. Why Cycling by Barriers to Cycling
Design?
Policy
What is the principal factor that deters you from
What factors deter you from cycling / cycling more often?
cycling/ cycling more often?
50
Barriers to Cycling
40
What factors deter you from cycling / cycling more ofte
50
30
%
40
29
30
%
26
20
29
26
20
10
7
6
6
Not
enough
road
space
Lack of
good
routes
No
access
to bike
10
10
0
Danger
from
traffic
10
7
6
6
Not
enough
road
space
Lack of
good
routes
No
access
to bike
10
12
10
0
Danger
from
traffic
Journey Weather
Too
time too
physical
long
Other
Infrastructure Related Issues - 49% of Responses
Good Quality Design an Imperative!
22
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
Journey Weather
Too
time too
physic
long
24. Background
Cycling by Design
• 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
24
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
25. 2010 Update Process
Cycling by Design
Technical Guidance
1999 Consultation
Comments received
Cycling by Design 1999
Independent Review Fife
Council
City of Edinburgh Council
Glasgow City Council
Forestry Commission
Sustrans
25
25/11/2013
UK 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)
Cycling by
Design 2010
Disability
Discrimination Act
Transport Scotland’s Good Practice
Guide for Roads
Good Practice Design
Examples
Technical Expertise
Cycle Designers, Roads Designers,
Accessibility experts, Economists,
Planners, Environmental Consultants,
Maintenance experts, Road Safety Auditors
East Renfrewshire
Clackmannanshire
City of Edinburgh
Fife
Dumfries & Galloway
Argyll & Bute
Highland
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
26. Key Changes
Cycling by Design
• 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
26
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
27. A Tour of The Document
‹#›
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
28. Document Tour
Cycling by Design 2010
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
28
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
29. Document Tour
Cycling by Design 2010
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
29
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
30. Planning for Cyclists
Overview
Workshop
• Cyclists’ Needs & Trip
Purposes
• Core Design Principles
• Hierarchy of Measures
Review
• Link Specification Guide
• Network Planning Process
30
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
37. Document Tour
Cycling by Design 2010
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
37
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
38. Geometric Design
Overview
Workshop
• Cycle Design Speed
What would you use as a
design speed?
Review
• Visibility Parameters
• Alignment
38
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
40. Geometric Design
Design Speed & Visibility
Y-Distance
(Refer to Table 3.3)
Y-Distance
(Refer to Table 3.3)
Carriageway
Visibility Envelope
X-Distance
(Refer to Table 3.2)
Cycle
Route
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
40
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
41. Vertical & Horizontal Alignment
Geometric Design
Network hierarchy
Design parameter
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
Desirable Minimum Crest (k)
14.1
6.8
Absolute Minimum Crest (k)
5.3
1.3
Vertical alignment
Sag values are not likely to be a controlling factor at cycle speeds and are, therefore, not
specified.
Gradient
41
25/11/2013
3%
3%
Absolute Maximum*
Crossfall
Desirable Maximum
7%
7%
Absolute Maximum
2.5%
2.5%
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
42. Vertical Alignment - DDA
Geometric Design
Location
Gradient
General cycle facility
Desirable Maximum
3%
Absolute Maximum
5%
7%
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%
*DDA Implication – Gradients Above 5% are Considered a Ramp
42
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
Over 5m*
Over 10m*
Over 5m*
Over 10m*
43. Facilities for Disabled People
Rest Areas on an Off-road Route
43
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
Geometric Design
Rest Areas on a Bridge Structure
44. Document Tour
Cycling by Design 2010
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
44
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
46. Carriageway Conditions
Traffic Volume & Speed
Good Conditions: <3,000 veh/day and <35kph 85th %ile speed
46
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
47. Traffic Volume & Speed
Traffic Management
Various features may be used to
create road closures:
- Extended footway
- Landscape planters/tree planting
- Permanent and lockable bollards
- Emergency gates
Bollards
Two way road
Build-out may be provided to prevent
parked cars obstructing cyclists.
1.5m Desirable Minimum
1.2m Absolute Minimum
1.5m Desirable Minimum
1.2m Absolute Minimum
Diag No.955
Diag No.616
Minor Road Closure
Bollards
Build-out may be provided to
prevent gap being obstructed by
parked cars.
Bollards
1.5m Desirable Minimum
1.2m Absolute Minimum
Diag No.616
Diag No.955
False One-way Street
Presumption Cyclists Exempt from Access Restrictions & One Way Streets
47
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
48. Traffic Volume & Speed
Traffic Calming
Clearance strip of min 0.5m
width to discourage
encroachment on cycle lane
Verge marker posts
Cycle
Lane
3.0m
1.5m desirable min
1.2m absolute min
Crossing point
where appropriate
Verge marker post
Verge marker post
1.5m desirable min
1.2m absolute min
Cycle
Lane
Verge marker posts
Segregation kerb of min 0.5m width
to prevent vehicles encroaching on
cycle lane.
Central Island
Pinch Point
Verge marker posts
W
A
Verge marker posts
Chicane
Desirable Min 1.5m, Absolute Min 1.2m – But don’t forget the Gullies!
48
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
49. Rural Situations
Traffic Volume & Speed
Diag No. 619
Diag No. 816
Diag No. 620
Diag No. 954.4
Field Access
Signs and combinations of signs to be used for
restricted access to roads. Further options include:
- Weight/width restrictions
- "unfit for Motor Traffic" sign
- "Road Closed...Miles Ahead" sign
- "Gated Road" sign
Road closure or gate. Gate
can be left locked or unlocked.
Typical Restricted Access Plan
1.2m min
1.5m
preferred
max.
Optional
cattle grid
Typical Gated Road Closure
49
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
50. Document Tour
Cycling by Design 2010
Introduction
1. Planning for Cyclists
2. Geometric Design
3. Traffic Volume & Speed
4. Allocating Carriageway Space
5. Off-Carriageway Facilities
6. Junctions & Crossings
7. Cycle Parking
8. Public Transport Integration
9. Construction & Maintenance
10.Cycle Audit System
Appendices
50
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
51. Carriageway Space
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
51
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
53. Carriageway Space
Cycle Lanes
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
53
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
54. Carriageway Space
Cycle Lanes
Diag. 1057 at regular intervals
over length of parking bays
Diag. 1040.4 hatching.
1 in 10 taper
Diag.
1004
Coloured
surfacing
Footway
Parking bays
Refer to Table 5.3
Refer to Table 5.2
Parking bays
Diag 1024
(1600 high)
Footway
Standard
Desirable
Minimum
Absolute
Minimum
Width
(m)
Comments
1.0*
Ensures that a cyclist does not need to deviate if a car door is opened
fully.
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.
54
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
55. Carriageway Space
Dealing with Bus Stops
Back of
footway
Nominal footprint of
bus shelter 4.0m x 1.05m.
Nominal 12m
Bus Layby
Mandatory
cycle lane
Mandatory
cycle lane
Advisory
cycle lane
Tactile Paving
& Drop kerbs
2m desirable min
(1.5m absolute min)
Tactile Paving
& Drop kerbs
Kerb-face
inlet gullies
Footway
Refer to
Table 5.2
Mandatory cycle lane
Mandatory
cycle lane
Nominal footprint of
bus shelter 4.0m x 1.05m
Nominal footprint of
bus shelter 4.0m x 1.05m.
Kerb face
inlet gullies
Back of footway
ramp
3.6m
ramp
1.8m
ramp
1.8m
0.5m
Mandatory
cycle lane
ramp
3.6m
0.5m
Refer to
Table 5.2
Access kerb & transitions
Nominal 7.6m
Mandatory
cycle lane
Guidance on On/Off-Street Transitions also Given
55
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
56. Carriageway Space
Bus Lanes
Standard
Width (m)
Optimal Width
Desirable
Minimum Width
4.6
4.25
Absolute
Minimum Width
Limiting Width
4.0
3.0 – 3.2
Comments*
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.
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.
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.
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
56
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
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?
58
59. Workshop 3 – Actual Route Objectives
1. Remove Physical Barrier
2. Segregated Facility
3. Quality Infrastructure – Central Station –
Destination
4. Deprived Area
5. Active Travel and Route Connections
59
60. Existing Route - Characteristics
Town Centre
Grid Plan
Main East / West Links
Origin / Destination
Route set by Bridge and Station
60
61. Workshop 4 - On Road Design
Waterloo Street
One Way Street – Towards M8
3 Travelling Lanes – Bus Stops/Route
North Side of Street – Horizontal Parking
61
62. Document Tour
Cycling by Design 2010
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
62
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
64. Off-Carriageway Facilities
When to Segregate?
1000 peds/hr/metre width (0.2 peds/m length/m width)
2m
width
50m length
500 peds/hr/metre width (0.1 peds/m length/m width)
2m
width
50m length
300 peds/hr/metre width (0.06 peds/m length/m width)
2m
width
50m length
200 peds/hr/metre width (0.04 peds/m length/m width)
2m
width
50m length
100 peds/hr/metre width (0.02 peds/m length/m width)
2m
width
50m length
Based on a walking pace of 5km / hr
Combined density
(users/hr/m)*
< 100
Shared use is usually appropriate (cycles give way).
101 – 199
> 200
64
25/11/2013
Recommended arrangement
Segregation may be considered.
Segregation should be considered.
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
65. Off-Carriageway Facilities
Segregated Cycleways
Footpath
Segregated
Cycleway
'Start' and 'End'
tactile area
Reminder tactile
area
2.4m
Carriageway
Shared Cyclepath
2.4m
0.8m
0.8m
2.4m
Segregated
Cyclepath
2.4m
Ladder tactile
Tramline tactile
Max 50mm
vertical kerb
Pedestrians
Only
SEGREGATED BY KERB
Cycles Only
Cycles Only
Pedestrians
Only
Pedestrians
Only
65
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
1.0m
Verge
SEGREGATED BY CENTRAL
DELINEATOR STRIP (NOTE 2)
Cycles Only
SEGREGATED BY VERGE
66. Off-Carriageway Facilities
Shared Cycleways
Facility
Segregated
cycleway or
cyclepath
Width (m)
One way cycles only
Comments
*
**
The running width required that is free from obstructions such as debris,
gullies, line markings and street furniture.
Desirable
Minimum
3.0
Operates satisfactorily for two-way flows up to 300 cycles per hour.
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.
Desirable
Minimum
2.0
The minimum width in normal circumstances to permit unobstructed passage
by opposing wheelchairs.
1.5
Acceptable over short distances in specifically constrained environments,
such as at bus stops or where obstacles are unavoidable (Transport Scotland
2009).
Desirable
Minimum
3.0
Typically regarded as the minimum acceptable for combined flows of up to
300 per hour.
Absolute
Minimum
Pedestrian and cycle
space
1.5
Absolute
Minimum
Shared
cycleway or
cyclepath
Operates satisfactorily for one-way flows of up to 150 cycles per hour with
minimal overtaking anticipated.
Absolute
Minimum
Pedestrian only
space
2.0
Absolute
Minimum
Two way cycles only
Desirable
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
66
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
68. Off-Carriageway Facilities
Access Controls
Preferably two gaps
Lockable/removable
bollard for maintenance
Gap 1.2m absolute min
1.5m Preferred max
3.0m desirable min
2.0m desirable min
1.5m absolute min
Note: Rider meets barrier on left hand side first
68
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
69. Document Tour
Cycling by Design 2010
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
69
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
70. Junctions & Crossings
Overview
• Crossing Assessment
• At Grade Junctions &
Crossings
• Grade Separated Junctions &
Crossings
70
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
71. Extent of warning
contrasting colour
treatment
Junctions & Crossings
Footway
At-Grade Crossing - Urban
Diag No.950
Note: Distance plate Diag
No.572 may be applied.
Reflective bollards
Min 10m
Build-out
Diag No.956
Cyclepath
Cyclepath
Coloured surface preferred
Diag No.956
Footway
Buff coloured blister tactile
Diag No.950
Dimensions for Central Islands also Provided
71
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
72. At-Grade Crossing - Rural
Cycles
crossing
XXX yds
Cycles
crossing
XXX yds
Diag No.950 with supplementary
plate to diagram No. 950.1
Diag No.950 with supplementary
plate to diagram No. 950.1
Edge of carriageway marking
Verge
Admiral™ or similar
specification bollards
Chicane
Refer to Note 1
Diag No.1012.1
(width of line 150mm)
55m
10m
Diag No.956
2.5m
absolute
minimum
5.75m min
Buff coloured blister tactile
Diag No.956
Verge
High Friction Surfacing
(black calcined bauxite)
should only be used on
roads with speed limits
> 40mph
Rumble strips
(15mm height, vertical
face not to exceed 6mm)
Cycles
crossing
XXX yds
Diag No.950 with supplementary
plate to diagram No. 950.1
72
25/11/2013
Cycles
crossing
XXX yds
Diag No.950 with supplementary
plate to diagram No. 950.1
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
Junctions & Crossings
73. At-Grade Crossing - Dual
Junctions & Crossings
Variable width
Cycles
crossing
XXX yds
White Admiral™ or similar
specification bollards
3.0m min
Diag No.956
Buff coloured blister tactile
10m desirable minimum
Chicane
Refer to Note 1
Min 10.0m
Extent of warning
contrasting colour
treatment
2.5m absolute
min.
Min 5.0m
Verge
Diag No.956
Cycles
crossing
XXX yds
73
Diag No.950 with supplementary
plate to diagram No. 950.1
25/11/2013
Drop kerb at crossing point
to be flush with carriageway.
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
74. Junctions & Crossings
Side Road Crossings
Buff coloured blister tactile
Diag No.602
Diag No.956
Bendout
Absolute min 2.5m
(Refer to note 1)
Diag No.956
Restrict on-street parking
to ensure visibility
Diag No.950
Note: Distance plate Diag
No.572 may be applied.
74
Diag 610
Illuminated Bollard
25/11/2013
3.0m desirable minimum
(Refer to note 2)
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
75. Junctions & Crossings
Roundabouts
a) COMPACT ROUNDABOUT
FOR USE BY MIXED TRAFFIC
ICD range of 25m-35m
Single lane entry and
exit width (4.25m)
Minimal flares on entries
Narrow circulating
lane width (5-7m)
Central overrun area
may be provided
Red coloured
blister tactile
Entry and exits are perpendicular
to the centre of roundabout
Central island diameter
range of 16-25mm
Ladder tactile
Toucan crossing
(staggered)
Tramline and ladder tactiles to
indicate segregated cycleway
Segregated cycleway
facility
Shared cycleway
Buff coloured blister tactile
Priority crossing
Ladder tactile
For transitions refer
to Figure 6.8
75
25/11/2013
It is recommended that the cycleway
should be two-way wherever possible.
Cycle lanes
b) ROUNDABOUT WITH
CYCLEWAYS
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
76. Junctions & Crossings
Grade Separation
Pedestrians
(Refer to Table 6.2)
Cycles
(Refer to Table 6.2 and 6.3)
1.4m
Central delineator strip
FIGURE 7.17A : NEW BRIDGE SECTION
Existing parapets should be retained subject
to safety audit and monitoring
2.0m min one way
3.0m min two way
0.5m Clearance where practical
(Refer to Table 6.3)
Shared cycleway
Where required, consideration should
be given to reducing carriageway lane
widths in order to widen the cycleway.
FIGURE 7.17B : EXISTING ROAD BRIDGE SECTION
76
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
77. Document Tour
Cycling by Design 2010
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
77
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
78. Cycle Parking
Overview
• Planning for Cycle Parking
• Location and Access
• Detailed Design
78
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
79. Planning for Cycle Parking
• Basic Requirements
• User Requirements
• Demand and Capacity
Requirements
79
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
Cycle Parking
80. Cycle Parking
Location & Access
• Proximity to Destinations
• Security
• On-street/Off-Street
80
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
81. Cycle Parking
Detailed Design
0.9m
2.0m Desirable Min
1.8m Absolute Min
1.8m Absolute
minimum
clearance
2.0m Desirable Min
1.8m Absolute Min
1.2m Desirable Min
1.0m Absolute Min
Sheffield
stands
0.6m Desirable Min
0.5m Absolute Min
2.5m Desirable
minimum
clearance
1500mm
0.9m
1500mm
1500mm
In Line Configuration
1500mm
1500mm
Parallel Configuration
1900mm
Unit height : 1400mm
Door Opening : /50mm
Door Arcs : 95°
650mm
Recommended 1500mm access aisles around three sides of units.
81
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
Note: All dimensions are in millimetres
900mm typ.
1500mm
82. Cycling by Design 2010
Document Tour
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
82
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
83. Public Transport
Overview
• Importance of Integration
• Bike and Ride
• Cycle Carriage
• Public Cycle Hire
83
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
84. Public Transport
Integration
• Links to Rail Stations
• Parking at Stations
• Buses, Coaches & Ferries
• Cycle Hire Schemes
84
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
85. Document Tour
Cycling by Design 2010
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
85
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
87. Construction/Maintenance
Cycleway
Margin. (refer to note iii)
Surface Course
Kerb detail as
required
Typical road drainage
Refer to note ii
375x150mm Class ST1
concrete kerb foundation
and haunch
Binder Course
Subbase
Fall=2.5%
FORMATION
200x50mm flat-topped
P.C heel kerb, laid flush
300x100mm Class ST 1
concrete kerb foundation and haunch
87
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
88. Construction/Maintenance
Rural Cyclepath
Minimum 60mm deep layer of DBM
(14mm stone). Path to have minimum
2.5% camber on dismantled railway, fall
to suit tie-ins at disused road.
Formation to be sprayed with approved
non-toxic weedkiller
Minimum 100mm deep sub-base of
Type 1, compacted to refusal.
Desirable width of
soft verge 500m
Geotextile
FORMATION
2500mm Shared cyclepath
3500mm
Absolute minimum width of Type 1
verge to be 300mm. Desirable
minimum width to be 500mm.
88
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
Use additional Type 1 to blind off any
exposed geotextile, and build up edge
of path. Difference between level of
path edge and verge to be between
40mm and 60mm.
500mm
91. Document Tour
Cycling by Design 2010
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
91
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
92. 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
92
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
93. Avoiding Imbalanced Needs
Source: David Owen / Warrington Cycle Campaign
93
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
Cycle Audit Overview
94. Audits in Scotland
Cycle Audit Overview
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.
Key Objective – Meeting the Needs of Cyclists
94
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
95. Roles & Responsibilities
Cycle Audit Overview
Project 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
95
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
96. Process Overview
Cycle Audit in Action
Objective Setting and Context Report
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
96
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
97. Context Report
Cycle Audit in Action
• 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
97
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
98. 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
98
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
Cycle Audit in Action
99. Post Construction Audit
Cycle Audit in Action
• 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?
99
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
100. Cycling by Design 2010
Document Tour
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
100
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
101. Appendix A
Appendices
• 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
101
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
102. Appendix B
Diag No 955
Route for use by pedal cycles only
Diag No 958
With-flow bus lane ahead
Appendices
Diag No 956
Route for use by pedal cycles
and pedestrians only
Diag No 957
Route comprising two ways, separated
by the marking shown in Diag No. 1049
or 1049.1 or by physical means, for use
by pedal cycles only and by pedestrians
Diag No 956
With-flow bus lane which pedal cycles may
also use. Note: Any vehicle may enter the bus
lane to stop, load or unload where this is
not prohibited
Diag No 958.1
With-flow cycle lane ahead
• General design principles on
signs and markings
• Sign sizes
• Avoiding ambiguity and
coherence
Diag No 959.1
With-flow cycle lane
Diag No 960
Contra-flow bus lane.
Note: Any vehicle may enter the
bus lane to stop, load or unload
where this is not prohibited.
(Cycle symbol may be added
below the bus symbol)
Diag No 960.1
Contra-flow cycle lane
• Legislation and guidance
• Examples
Diag No 962.1
Cycle lane on road at junction
ahead or cycle track crossing road
Diag No 963.1
Cycle lane with traffic proceeding from right
(Sign for pedestrians)
Diag No 962.2
Contra-flow bus lane which pedal
cycles may also use on road at
junction ahead
102
25/11/2013
Diag No 952.1
Cycle lane on road at junction
ahead or cycle track crossing road
Diag No 968
Parking for pedal cycles
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
103. Evolution of Cycling By Design
Beyond 2010 Edition
‹#›
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
104. Beyond CBD 2010
Evolution
• 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
104
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
106. 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
106
25/11/2013
Cycling by Design – A User‟s Guide
109. How to design Bicycle facilities
Safety
Directness
Cohesion
5 main
requirements
Comfort
Attractiveness
109
110. Sustainable Safety
Function
of road
Function, form and use
in balance, from road safety
point of view
Design
of road
function:
design:
use:
Use
of road
use of the road as intended by the road authority
the physical design and layout properties of the infrastructure
actual use of the infrastructure and behaviour of the road user
110
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
111
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
120
123. The Basics of Monitoring
In essence, there are two levels:
– Strategic:
• Vision, Aim, Mission, etc.
– Specific:
• Objectives, Targets, Goals, etc.
123
124. Strategic – Vision, Aim, etc.
What is the aspiration? What are you aiming for?
– More people on bikes…?
– More people active…?
124
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.”
125
126. Getting More Specific – Objectives
Objectives
– Specific, measurable steps
– What do you want to happen?
“To increase the number of children cycling to
school”
126
127. Targets
Targets
– Results to be achieved
– Mostly quantifiable
“To increase the number of children cycling to
school by 15%”
127
128. Targets (2)
SMART
– Specific
– Measurable
– Achievable
– Realistic
– Time-bound
Establish a baseline!
128
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”
129
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”
130
132. Targets Summary
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
132
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
133
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
134
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
135
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/
136
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/
137
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
138
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?
139
140. The Final Stage
Doing something to act on the learning – MAKE
CHANGES!
Without the final stage the evaluation is
useless
140
141. Worked example…
What is/are the vision/objectives/targets you
work towards in your organisation?
What if vision/objectives/targets change
abruptly?
141
142. By 2020, 10% of all
journeys in
Scotland will be by
bike.
What do you think the 10%
is now? Comments…
142
144. National Picture – Scotland Performs
Objectives
– Wealthier and Fairer
– Safer and Stronger
– Smarter
– Greener
– Healthier
Which of these are relevant to cycling? Why?
144
145. National Picture – Scotland Performs
16 National Outcomes
– Key words for cycling...
•
•
•
•
•
“sustainable places”
“communities”
“environment”
“environmental impact”
“employment opportunities”
145
146. National Picture – Scotland Performs
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”
146
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.
147
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
149
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…
150
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
152
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
153
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
154
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!
155
156. So what do you monitor?
Manual counts
Automatic counts
School travel
Cycle parking/usage
Census
Household surveys/travel diaries
User surveys
Others?
156
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
157
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
158
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
159
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
160
161. MONITORING TOOLKIT
Travel 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
161
162. MONITORING TOOLKIT
Before 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
162
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
163
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
164
165. MONITORING TOOLKIT
Household 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 …
165
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
166
167. MONITORING TOOLKIT
User 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
167
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?
168
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%!
170
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
171
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
172
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.
173
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?
174
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
175
176. Relate this to Funding
Who are the funders for cycle projects at present?
177. Funders
Government / Transport Scotland
Sustrans
Leader
Awards for All
Local Authorities
For further information review Spokes Briefing
178. 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/spokesbulletin-114/
179. Sustrans – Community Links
Yesterday I provided information from my own projects
how monitoring has allowed me to provide job
satisfaction.
180. Sustrans – Community Links
Project Summary
Show Origin and Destinations
Places of Interest
Design – Use their manuals
181. Sustrans – Community Links
Project Endorsement
Community Council
Primary School
Sports Clubs
182. Sustrans – Community Links
Match Funding
RTPS
Other Council Projects
Community Funding
Celebrities
183. Sustrans – Community Links
Aims and Benefits
Using existing counts (nearby data)
Hands Up Survey
But how to turn them around
Money Talks – North Sea Cycle Route – £33 a day
184. Sustrans – Community Links
Aims and Benefits
Using existing counts (nearby data)
Hands Up Survey
But how to turn them around
Money Talks – North Sea Cycle Route – £33 a day
185. 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
186. Sustrans – Community Links
School Links
Bikeability
Transport Hubs
Get the providers to endorse the project
Council Departments
Sounds daft but Access Officer, Planner and Parks
for instance
187. Sustrans – Community Links
Community Engagement
Opportunities to see the project and participate
Equal Input / Influence
188. Sustrans – Community Links
Monitoring
Discussed this at length yesterday
I maintain get a counter in your bid
189. Sustrans – Community Links
Deliver and Phasing
Make sure the title includes Phase 1 – Prove you have
further projects.