MCM Cycle Demonstration - Glasgow (Mar 12)

Editor's Notes

1. 1
2. 1
3. Each trainer is to complete this section for the specific training activity
4. These are the subjects we will be covering today
5. These are the subjects we will be covering today
6. These are the subjects we will be covering today
7. These are the subjects we will be covering today
8. So why should we design for cyclists? Why not let them just be part of the road network or path network. Touch on a module presented by Jim Riach on Policy.
9. Money is no issue, Scotland Obesity, You need to change behaviour 3 main objectives, modal split, European experience CBD – LTN 2/08
10. 1. Mitigate the physical severance caused by the M8 Anderston Interchange by the creation of a traffic free route for pedestrians and cyclists travelling from Anderston and the West End into the heart of the City Centre 2. Segregating cyclists and pedestrians from traffic by creating a traffic free route to encourage lapsed cyclists, children and less confident cyclists to try cycling in what they perceive to be a safer environment 3. Significantly improving multi-modal transport interchange by delivering a quality walking and cycling route to Glasgow Central Rail Station 4. Improve access to jobs, education, leisure by low cost and sustainable travel modes for residents living in Anderston, one of the most deprived areas of the country 5. Expand and enhance the local cycle network, connecting into the quality existing routes such as The Colleges Cycle Route, the Forth & Clyde Canal and NCN 7 and provide opportunities for healthy active travel and reduce carbon emissions associated with trips under 5km between the West End and the City Centre
11. Peter to Read out Groups Split into your groups a joint exercise first – Just shout out design manuals you know of and use at present. Summarise the flip chart by grouping the manuals Then split into your groups I would ask within your field how would you use the manuals?
12. Each trainer is to complete this section for the specific training activity
13. List of the manuals above So how do I use them? Again an information sheet is available and will be sent out and is available on our web
14. Over the years Sustrans has developed guidelines for the design and construction of off road cycle ways. These tend to be philosophical as well as specifications. The greenway guide was developed primarily to be used by partners on the connect 2 projects although it is fully relevant to any other greenway project. The guide covers technical aspects such as designing of gradients etc and also talks about wider aspects such as monitoring and land arrangements. The NCN guidelines in muchly superseded by the likes of cycling by design it was written to provide a standard for the development of the NCN and still has uses in the standards to be used for NCN routes. Making ways for the bicycle is the early Sustrans design and construction guidance and has useful information on path construction techniques.
15. List of the manuals above So how do I use them? Again an information sheet is available and will be sent out and is available on our web
16. Sustrans produces a range a TINs designed for internal use – however many of these are available for partners from Sustrans staff. The information sheets are availible on the Sustrans website under resources but many of these are out dated and superseded by other guidance. TINs cover a range of subjects: Speed humps for motorcycles Alternatives to statutory guidance Signing – which has lots of examples and standards Aggregates for paths Path surfaces – discussing the merits and problems of different types of materials Access controls and barriers Trees Side road crossings Zebra Crossing Toucan Crossings
17. List of the manuals above So how do I use them? Again an information sheet is available and will be sent out and is available on our web
18. Hierarchy of Provisions
19. Hierarchy of Provisions
20. Flip Chart – Using roads and footways?
21. The wider range of disabilities and access requirements is included in the first category. Question: do you agree with this hierarchy? Question: motorcycles are not included – where do you think they might fit? There is no right model as some authorities may choose to change the order of the first three depending on such issues as topography etc
22. Flip Chart – Name types of users we design for.
23. Specialist Equipment
24. In terms of what we are here for today we wish to design for all of the above but if we had all afternoon I would discuss how each of the trips would influence design but I only have a short time so here is have my own family review. Recently I have had to change behavior as have my family. Neighborhood - I now have Ruaridh behind me. Previously I would go to Morrison's or the Coop on road with the use of the off road on the way back. Now I use the footway to access the great NCN near my house. Commuting - Father – No longer in a job that needs a car to get between construction sites. He now cycles to work. Infrastructure has changed his route. Avoids the hills and asks for help at junctions. Schools – I am not there yet only 4 years to go Day Trips – Father in law had a triple bypass so requires to get some exercise. We again use the NCN beside us to have a leisure ride down to lochwinnoch. We need a café. Touring / Sports – Bro is over in Perth Australia so has no weather complaints but he has cycled all over Scotland MTB/Sportives/24 hour races coast to coast so will go anywhere on a bike and has commuted all his life so again does so 12 months a year.
25. The five core principles are set out here and explored in more detail in the following slides. They may be found in Local transport Note 02/08 DfT 2008 Note: this is almost identical to guidance contained within Cycling by Design. The order and wording is slightly different but the principles remain the same. Exercise – What do they mean?
26. Coherence – On your door step linking you to destinations. Easy to navigate Direct – Time saving, benefit to allow the behavior change Safety – Reduce perceived and actual risk, FEEL SAFE Comfort – Surfacing, Width etc Attractive – Fit with it surroundings
27. Taking from this morning session I would like to have an exercise with the following table Hand Out Table – I would like us to rank the priorities of each of the following users against design principle. Split you into groups – list available –
28. Hierarchy of Provisions
29. But first consider this: A truly cycle friendly environment does not depend upon ‘visible’ cycle-specific measures such as cycle lanes and advance stop lines. It is created by the reduction of traffic speeds and volumes within an area to the point that the road network is suitable for all users without fear or intimidation by other users. So how do we provide this kind of environment? …
30. 1. Mitigate the physical severance caused by the M8 Anderston Interchange by the creation of a traffic free route for pedestrians and cyclists travelling from Anderston and the West End into the heart of the City Centre 2. Segregating cyclists and pedestrians from traffic by creating a traffic free route to encourage lapsed cyclists, children and less confident cyclists to try cycling in what they perceive to be a safer environment 3. Significantly improving multi-modal transport interchange by delivering a quality walking and cycling route to Glasgow Central Rail Station 4. Improve access to jobs, education, leisure by low cost and sustainable travel modes for residents living in Anderston, one of the most deprived areas of the country 5. Expand and enhance the local cycle network, connecting into the quality existing routes such as The Colleges Cycle Route, the Forth & Clyde Canal and NCN 7 and provide opportunities for healthy active travel and reduce carbon emissions associated with trips under 5km between the West End and the City Centre
31. Yes or No – No sitting on the fence
32. Yes or No – No sitting on the fence
33. How do we improve on road cycling within the road of Edinburgh Discuss 20mph zones being promoted by Edinburgh. So we have highlighted the hierarchy of provision but we still require to install lanes on some of the roads within Edinburgh. In your groups can you take the following 4 roads One – Standard 7.3m wide road – no on road parking Two – New housing estate (designing streets) Three – Two lane traffic with the promotion of a bus lane Four – 9m wide road with on street parking
34. 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.
35. 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
36. Kerb-segregated cycle lane Standard Width (m)* Comments Desirable Minimum Width 2.0 Typically operates satisfactorily for flows of up to 200 cycles per hour. The minimum width that should be considered to permit cyclists to pass each other. With-flow or contra-flow lane Absolute Minimum Width 1.5 Typically operates satisfactorily for flows of up to 100 cycles per hour. Desirable Minimum Width 3.0 Typically operates satisfactorily for two-way flows of up to 300 cycles per hour and will permit some overtaking. Two-way lane Absolute Minimum Width 2.0 The minimum width that should be considered to permit cyclists travelling in opposite directions to pass each other. Operates satisfactorily for twoway flows of up to 200 cycles per hour.
37. 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.
38. As does this example even if the use of the solid white line to segregate the cycle lane from the parking is incorrect
39. An additional aid within LTN 2/05 is the diagram which compares the cycle flows on a link with traffic speed and provides guidance on the type of facility appropriate for a given set of circumstances. This is based upon Dutch guidance originally found in the CROW manual ‘Sigh up for the bike’ but has subsequently been revised by Sustrans and in the London Cycle Network Design Manual with a simplified version set out in the LTN It should be noted that figures for traffic volumes and speed have been deliberately omitted from this diagram. This is to emphasis the fact that there is no exact correlation between these and the most appropriate facilities to employ. It is also important to remember that the first course of action must be to consider what can be done to reduce speeds and flows before referring to this diagram for guidance on what to implement (if anything). Put more simply this is not a diagram that may be used without applying thought to the process.
40. Just to get us back in the mood before we go onto the hierarchy of provision – question?
41. Yes or No – No sitting on the fence
42. There is no single ‘right’ answer. As vehicles within the meaning of the law bicycles are vehicles and are entitled to use the carriageway except where prohibited (by traffic regulation order, bylaw or certain classes of road i.e. motorway. It is also obvious that it is not a realistic proposition to create wholly segregated facilities to link the front door of every home with the front door of every destination. Whilst it may seem reasonable to think that cyclists will be inherently safer when segregated from other traffic this takes no account of the fact that cyclists are most at risk at junctions where over 70% of accidents occur involving cyclists (DfT figures). Studies also show that cyclists are more at risk when cycle tracks cross side roads than if they had remained on the carriageway. Not all off-road facilities adequately cater for the inevitable return to the carriageway or the need to achieve a safe means of joining cycle tracks that involve a right turn. All of these issues add up to a more un-safe off-road environment than is often experienced on the carriageway. It is also worth mentioning that studies have shown that those people who ride solely on off road cycle paths have poor road skill that do not fit them well for mixing with other traffic when they do meet it.
43. Any prizes for what type of crossing this is? Any ways of improving the symbols?
44. Thanks to Alan – So taking what the council have in place can we discuss the use of Zebra Crossings
45. 1. Mitigate the physical severance caused by the M8 Anderston Interchange by the creation of a traffic free route for pedestrians and cyclists travelling from Anderston and the West End into the heart of the City Centre 2. Segregating cyclists and pedestrians from traffic by creating a traffic free route to encourage lapsed cyclists, children and less confident cyclists to try cycling in what they perceive to be a safer environment 3. Significantly improving multi-modal transport interchange by delivering a quality walking and cycling route to Glasgow Central Rail Station 4. Improve access to jobs, education, leisure by low cost and sustainable travel modes for residents living in Anderston, one of the most deprived areas of the country 5. Expand and enhance the local cycle network, connecting into the quality existing routes such as The Colleges Cycle Route, the Forth & Clyde Canal and NCN 7 and provide opportunities for healthy active travel and reduce carbon emissions associated with trips under 5km between the West End and the City Centre
46. The five core principles are set out here and explored in more detail in the following slides. They may be found in Local transport Note 02/08 DfT 2008 Note: this is almost identical to guidance contained within Cycling by Design. The order and wording is slightly different but the principles remain the same. Exercise – What do they mean?
47. The five core principles are set out here and explored in more detail in the following slides. They may be found in Local transport Note 02/08 DfT 2008 Note: this is almost identical to guidance contained within Cycling by Design. The order and wording is slightly different but the principles remain the same. Exercise – What do they mean?
48. Designing for a range of users presents challenges and guidelines are available from a number of perspectives. The
49. The requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 are likely to have an impact on cycle facilities, especially where use is shared with pedestrians. The purpose of the following section is to highlight the importance of the Act rather than give a detailed explanation. Where detailed guidance is required, delegates consult their authority’s disability access officer
50. Designing for a range of users presents challenges and guidelines are available from a number of perspectives.