Cycle Infrastructure Design

Local Transport Note 2/08
October 2008
Cycle Infrastructure
Design
Cycle Infrastructure
Design
Department for Transport
Scottish Executive
Welsh Assembly Government
London: TSO
Published by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from:
Online
www.tsoshop.co.uk
Mail, Telephone, Fax & Email

TSO
PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN
Telephone orders/General enquiries: 0870 6005522
Fax orders: 0870 6005533
Email: [email protected]
Textphone: 0870 240 3701
TSO Shops
16 Arthur Street, Belfast BT1 4GD
028 9023 8451
Fax 028 9023 5401
71 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9AZ
0870 606 5566
Fax 0870 606 5588
TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents
This Local Transport Note was prepared by a team led by Ove Arup & Partners Ltd, on behalf of the Department for
Transport.
Most of the photographs in this document show examples of cycle infrastructure implemented through modification of
existing highways. These examples are not all correctly signed or marked and some may have other design deficiencies,
but they are included here for illustrative purposes. It should not be assumed that they are technically correct. Designers
should refer to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and the Traffic Signs Manual to ensure
compliance with legal requirements and recommendations.
Queens Printer and Controller of Her Majestys Stationery Office, 2008, except where otherwise stated
Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.
This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for noncommercial
research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately
and not used in a misleading context. The copyright source of the material must be acknowledged and the title of the
publication specified.
For any other use of this material, apply for a ClickUse Licence at www.opsi.gov.uk/clickuse/index.htm, or by writing to
the Information Policy Team, Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU or
email [email protected].
This is a value added publication which falls outside the scope of the Public Sector Information ClickUse Licence.
ISBN 978 0 11 553024 1
Printed in Great Britain on paper containing at least
75% recycled fibre.
Contents
Page
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................9
1.1 Context..................................................................................................................................9
1.2 Policy ....................................................................................................................................9
1.3 Underlying principles ............................................................................................................9
1.4 Networks links and connections ........................................................................................12
1.5 Typical cycle trip distances ................................................................................................14
1.6 Risk and liability ..................................................................................................................14
1.7 Cycle audit and review ........................................................................................................15
2 General design parameters........................................................................16
2.1 Clear space required by cyclists ........................................................................................16
2.2 Dynamic envelope ..............................................................................................................16
2.3 Critical distances to fixed objects ......................................................................................16
2.4 Cyclists passing other cyclists ............................................................................................17
2.5 Overtaking by motor vehicles..............................................................................................17
2.6 Dimensions of cycles ..........................................................................................................17
3 Signing issues ............................................................................................19
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................19
3.2 Coloured surfaces ..............................................................................................................19
3.3 The cycle symbol ................................................................................................................20
3.4 The END marking and the END OF THE ROUTE sign ........................................................20
3.5 GIVE WAY signing ..............................................................................................................20
3.6 The CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign ........................................................................................20
Cycle Infrastructure Design 3

4 Network management ................................................................................22
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................22
4.2 Road closures and turning restrictions ..............................................................................22
4.3 Parking control and vehicle restricted areas ......................................................................23
4.4 Planning and new development ..........................................................................................24
4.5 Cycle parking standards ....................................................................................................26
5 Reducing vehicle speeds on cycle routes ................................................27
5.1 Speed reduction ..................................................................................................................27
5.2 Cycle bypasses ..................................................................................................................28
5.3 Removal of centre lines ......................................................................................................28
5.4 Overrun areas and textured surfacing ................................................................................29
5.5 Road humps ........................................................................................................................29
5.6 Speed cushions ..................................................................................................................30
5.7 Pedestrian refuges, traffic islands and central hatching ....................................................30
5.8 Chicanes and other buildout arrangements ......................................................................31
6 Bus and tram routes ..................................................................................32
6.1 Bus lanes ............................................................................................................................32
6.2 Bus lane widths ..................................................................................................................32
6.3 Bus gates and busonly roads ............................................................................................33
6.4 Bus and tram stops ............................................................................................................33
7 Cycle lanes ..................................................................................................35
7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................35
7.2 Mandatory cycle lanes ........................................................................................................36
7.3 Advisory cycle lanes............................................................................................................36
7.4 Cycle lane widths ................................................................................................................37
4 Cycle Infrastructure Design

7.5 Other design considerations ..............................................................................................37
7.6 Contraflow cycle lanes ........................................................................................................37
7.7 Parking and cycle contraflows ............................................................................................39
7.8 Cycling and contraflow bus lanes ......................................................................................40
7.9 Twoway cycle lanes ..........................................................................................................40
8 Offroad cycle routes ..................................................................................41
8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................41
8.2 Design speed ......................................................................................................................41
8.3 Visibility criteria....................................................................................................................41
8.4 Geometric design ................................................................................................................42
8.5 Width requirements ............................................................................................................42
8.6 Crossfall, camber and drainage ..........................................................................................43
8.7 Gradients ............................................................................................................................44
8.8 Surfaces ..............................................................................................................................44
8.9 Dropped kerbs ....................................................................................................................46
8.10 Bus stops ............................................................................................................................46
8.11 Street furniture ....................................................................................................................47
8.12 Street lighting ......................................................................................................................47
8.13 Managing user conflict ........................................................................................................47
8.14 Access control ....................................................................................................................48
8.15 Speed control and segregation ..........................................................................................49
8.16 Tactile paving ......................................................................................................................50
8.17 Maintenance........................................................................................................................50
9 Junctions ....................................................................................................53
9.1 Visibility criteria at junctions and crossings ........................................................................53
9.2 Signalised junctions ............................................................................................................53

9.3 Signalised junction layouts..................................................................................................54
9.4 Advanced stop lines ............................................................................................................55
9.5 Raised tables at junctions ..................................................................................................57
9.6 Raised entry treatment at side roads ..................................................................................57
9.7 Roundabouts ......................................................................................................................58
9.8 Safety at roundabouts ........................................................................................................58
9.9 Large roundabouts ..............................................................................................................59
9.10 Cycle lanes on roundabouts................................................................................................59
9.11 Miniroundabouts ................................................................................................................60
10 Cycle track crossings ................................................................................61
10.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................61
10.2 Cycle track crossings on links ............................................................................................62
10.3 Cycle track crossings near junctions ..................................................................................64
10.4 Cycle track with cycle lane at side road crossing ..............................................................65
10.5 Signal controlled crossings ................................................................................................66
10.6 Parallel crossings ................................................................................................................67
10.7 Grade separated crossings ................................................................................................67
10.8 Ramp gradients and parapet heights..................................................................................67
10.9 Wheeling ramps alongside steps ........................................................................................68
10.10 Headroom and width ..........................................................................................................69
11 Cycle parking ..............................................................................................70
11.1 Locations for cycle parking ................................................................................................70
11.2 Residential cycle parking ....................................................................................................71
11.3 Onstreet cycle parking ......................................................................................................71
11.4 Cycle parking equipment ....................................................................................................71
11.5 Cycle centres ......................................................................................................................75
11.6 Cycle parking site considerations ......................................................................................75

12 Public transport integration ......................................................................76
12.1 Bike and ride ......................................................................................................................76
12.2 Cycle carriage on trains ......................................................................................................76
12.3 Routes to stations and stops ..............................................................................................77
12.4 Cyclefriendly interchange ..................................................................................................77
12.5 Cycle and tram routes ........................................................................................................78
References ............................................................................................................79
Appendix: Publications ........................................................................................83

1 Introduction
1.1 Context 1.2.2 Encouraging more people to take up

cycling can help deliver a broad range of transport
1.1.1 Encouraging more people to cycle is
outcomes and wider environment and health goals.
increasingly being seen as a vital part of any local
Local Area Agreements and Local Development
authority plan to tackle congestion, improve air
Frameworks offer an opportunity to consider how
quality, promote physical activity and improve
increasing cycling can deliver on these goals.
accessibility.
Developing a cycle route network plan that links key
origins and destinations can help to prioritise local
1.1.2 This design guide brings together and
authority work programmes and identify opportunities
updates guidance previously available in a number of
to secure infrastructure enhancements from
draft Local Transport Notes and other documents.
developers seeking planning permission. Many
Although its focus is the design of cycle infrastructure,
planning authorities adopt cycle parking standards for
parts of its advice are equally appropriate to
new development, and it can be helpful to developers
improving conditions for pedestrians.
if the standards include guidance on the quality of
equipment required.
1.1.3 The guidance covers England, Wales and
Scotland. Where the text refers to highway authorities
(for England and Wales), the equivalent term in

1.3 Underlying principles
Scotland is road authorities.
1.3.1 Planning and designing highquality

infrastructure involves developing individual site
1.2 Policy specific solutions, but there are some common
requirements that need to be satisfied. The
1.2.1 Cycling is convenient and practical for underpinning principle is that measures for
many journeys. The Department for Transport recently pedestrians and cyclists should offer positive
increased the budget for Cycling England to 140 provision that reduces delay or diversion and
million over three years to work with local authorities, improves safety. Table 1.1 shows when onroad or off
nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and others road provision is most suitable. When designing
with an interest in demonstrating the impact of various improvements to cycle infrastructure, the hierarchy of
cycling interventions and developing a better provision (Table 1.2) offers useful guidance on the
understanding of what works best. steps to be considered. These hierarchies are not
Table 1.1 Type of cycle facility
Factor Onroad or offroad?

High traffic volume/speed routes Offroad generally preferred, but see next item
Large number of side road junctions or property Makes onroad more attractive, as it reduces the
accesses along route potential for conflict at these locations
Busy pedestrian traffic along the route Onroad preferred, as it reduces the potential for
conflict
High levels of onstreet parking Makes onroad less attractive, but needs careful
consideration in view of the potential for increased
High levels of HGV traffic conflict using offroad provision

meant to be rigidly applied, and solutions in the upper Creating space for cyclists by taking existing footway
tiers of the hierarchy will not always be viable. space from pedestrians is generally the least
However, designers should not dismiss them out of acceptable course of action.
hand at the outset.
1.3.4 The Manual for Streets (DfT/CLG, 2007)
1.3.2 The road network is the most basic (and adopts a hierarchy of users to assist in design,
important) cycling facility available, and the preferred planning and development control decisions. This
way of providing for cyclists is to create conditions on places pedestrians at the top (including the access
the carriageway where cyclists are content to use it, requirements of people with disabilities), followed by
particularly in urban areas. There is seldom the cyclists, then public transport, with unaccompanied
opportunity to provide an offcarriageway route within privatecar users last. The aim is to ensure that the
the highway boundary that does not compromise needs of the most vulnerable road users are fully
pedestrian facilities or create potential hazards for considered in all highway schemes, but not
cyclists, particularly at side roads. Measures that necessarily to give priority to pedestrians and cyclists
reduce the volume or speed of motor traffic benefit in every circumstance.
other road users by making the roads safer and more
pleasant for them to use. Newbuild situations provide 1.3.5 There are five core principles which
good opportunities for creating attractive highquality summarise the desirable design requirements for
infrastructure for cyclists, either in the form of quieter pedestrians and cyclists. They have been derived
roads or direct cycle routes away from motor traffic. from the requirements for pedestrians included in
Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot (IHT et
1.3.3 An area cycle route network may be al., 2000) (connectivity, conspicuity, convenience,
achieved through a combination of measures to comfort and conviviality) and requirements for cyclists
manage the impact of motorised traffic as well as included in Cycle Friendly Infrastructure (IHT, 1996)
cyclespecific infrastructure. It is summarised in the (coherence, directness, comfort, safety, and
hierarchy of provision (see Table 1.2). The hierarchy is attractiveness). They are:
not mutually exclusive for example, reducing traffic
speeds on links may enable junction geometry to be Convenience: Networks should serve all the main
tightened to provide easier crossings for pedestrians; destinations, and new facilities should offer an
reducing the volume of traffic may release advantage in terms of directness and/or reduced
carriageway space to provide cycle lanes or tracks. delay compared with existing provision. Routes and
key destinations should be properly signed, and
Table 1.2 Hierarchy of provision
Consider first Traffic volume reduction
Traffic speed reduction
Junction treatment, hazard site treatment, traffic management
Reallocation of carriageway space
Cycle tracks away from roads
Consider last Conversion of footways/footpaths to shared use

for pedestrians and cyclists

street names should be clearly visible. Route maps The needs of pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians
should be made available, and onstreet maps can should be considered where their routes cross busy
be helpful. Routes should be unimpeded by street roads, especially in rural areas.
furniture, pavement parking and other obstructions
which can also be hazardous to visually impaired Comfort: Infrastructure should meet design
pedestrians. Delay for pedestrians and cyclists at standards for width, gradient and surface quality,
signalled crossings should be minimised. Tripend and cater for all types of user, including children
facilities should be clearly marked, conveniently and disabled people. Pedestrians and cyclists
located and appropriate for the likely length of stay. benefit from even, wellmaintained and regularly
Designers should consider the future ease of swept surfaces with gentle gradients. Dropped
maintenance, including access to vehicles for kerbs are particularly beneficial to users of
sweeping, trimming grass verges and surface and wheelchairs, pushchairs and cycles, and tactile
lighting repairs along offroad routes. paving needs to be provided to assist visually
impaired people. Dropped kerbs should ideally be
Accessibility: Cycling networks should link trip flush with the road surface. Even a very small step
origins and key destinations, including public can be uncomfortable and irritating for users,
transport access points. The routes should be especially if there are several to be negotiated
continuous and coherent (type and colour of along a route.
surfacing may be used to stress route continuity as
appropriate). There should be provision for crossing Attractiveness: Aesthetics, noise reduction and
busy roads and other barriers, and in some areas integration with surrounding areas are important.
there should be a positive advantage over private The environment should be attractive, interesting
motor traffic. Routes should be provided into and and free from litter and broken glass. The ability for
through areas normally inaccessible to motor people to window shop, walk or cycle two abreast,
vehicles, such as parks and vehicle restricted converse or stop to rest or look at a view makes for
areas. Safe access for pedestrians and cyclists a more pleasant experience. Public spaces need to
should be provided during road works. The needs be welldesigned, finished in attractive materials
of people with various types and degrees of and be such that people want to stay. The surfaces,
disability should be taken into account through landscaping and street furniture should be well
consultation and design. maintained and in keeping with the surrounding
area. Issues of light pollution should be considered,
Safety: Not only must infrastructure be safe, but it in addition to personal security in rural and semi
should be perceived to be safe. Traffic volumes and rural routes.
speeds should be reduced where possible to create
safer conditions for cycling and walking. Reducing 1.3.6 These principles are useful when designing
traffic can sometimes enable the introduction of for the differing priorities assigned to various aspects
measures for pedestrians and cyclists that might of a route (for example, perceived safety versus
not otherwise be viable. Opportunities for directness) for users with different requirements
redistributing space within the highway should be resulting from their journey purpose, level of
explored, including moving kerb lines and street experience or ability. The design of the most
furniture, providing rightturn refuges for cyclists or appropriate infrastructure needs to take account of
separating conflicting movements by using traffic the type(s) of cyclist expected to use it.
signals. The potential for conflict between
pedestrians and cyclists should be minimised. 1.3.7 Some cyclists are more able and willing to
Surface defects should not be allowed to develop mix with motor traffic than others. In order to
to the extent that they become a hazard, and accommodate the sometimes conflicting needs of
vegetation should be regularly cut back to preserve various user types and functions, it may be necessary
available width and sight lines. The risk of crime to combine measures or to create dual networks
can be reduced through the removal of hiding offering different levels of provision, with one network
places along the route, provision of lighting and the offering greater segregation from motor traffic at the
presence of passive surveillance from neighbouring expense of directness and/or priority. Such dual
premises or other users. Cycle parking should be networks may be considered analogous to a busy
sited where people using the facilities can feel safe.

main road carrying throughtraffic and a service road destinations. There are also multifunction
catering for access to homes and shops at lower environments, such as shopping arcades, market
speeds. places and public transport interchanges, where
people may wish to meet, relax or trade, but which
1.3.8 The different categories of cyclist include: also serve as throughroutes for pedestrians and
cyclists.
fast commuter confident in most onroad
situations and will use a route with significant traffic 1.3.11 Where the speed and volume of traffic is
volumes if it is more direct than a quieter route; high, it may be appropriate to consider an off
carriageway option for cyclists or, at least, wide cycle
utility cyclist may seek some segregation at busy lanes that allow for increased separation between
junctions and on links carrying highspeed traffic; cyclists and other vehicles.
inexperienced and/or leisure cyclist may be 1.3.12 Table 1.3 is based on the London Cycling
willing to sacrifice directness, in terms of both Design Standards (TfL, 2005). It gives an approximate
distance and time, for a route with less traffic and indication of suitable types of provision for cyclists. It
more places to stop and rest; is only a guide, and what is eventually provided will
depend on site conditions.
child may require segregated, direct largely off
road routes from residential areas to schools, even 1.3.13 Conversion of existing footways to permit
where an onroad solution is available. Design cycle use should only be considered when on
needs to take account of personal security issues. carriageway options have been rejected as
Child cyclists should be anticipated in all residential unworkable. In particular, hearing and sightimpaired
areas and on most leisure cycling routes; and pedestrians have problems sensing the presence of
cyclists. In vehicle restricted areas where the whole
users of specialised equipment includes users of
street width is available, cyclists can usually mix
trailers, trailercycles, tandems and tricycles, as
safely with pedestrians, especially outside the main
well as disabled people using handcranked
retail trading hours. The potential for conflict between
machines. This group requires wide facilities free of
cyclists and pedestrians is greatest where width is
sharp bends and an absence of pinchpoints or any
restricted, flows are heavy and their respective routes
other features that force cyclists to dismount. Cycle
cross each other, such as where a cycle track passes
tracks and lanes where adult cyclists frequently
a busy bus stop. The speed differential between
accompany young children should be sufficiently
cyclists and pedestrians can exacerbate this.
wide to allow for cycling two abreast. This enables
adults to ride alongside children when necessary.
1.4 Networks links and
1.3.9 Pedestrians and cyclists will use high
quality, wellmaintained, trafficfree routes away from
connections
the carriageway if they are more direct than the
1.4.1 The National Cycle Network and signed
equivalent onroad alternative and there are no
local cycle route networks and can help to encourage
personal security issues.
walking and cycling. The National Cycle Network
continues to attract more cyclists each year (Sustrans,
1.3.10 For most utility cyclists, convenience (in
2008). Pedestrians and cyclists need direct access to
terms of journey time and distance) and an acceptable
commercial, retail, education and employment areas.
degree of traffic safety and personal security are most
Nonmotorised users are particularly affected by
important. These are key factors when planning
indirect routes because of the additional physical
networks of routes. The journey purpose is important
effort required and the sometimes considerable
in defining the value attached to attractiveness. There
increase in journey time. Having an advantage over
are situations where walking or cycling for pleasure
private car users in terms of distance and/or journey
may be the only reason for the journey. These include
time will also help to encourage cycle use or walking
rural leisure routes, parks, urban squares and tourist
in preference to car use for short trips

Table 1.3 Approximate guide to type of provision
85th percentile speeds

Traffic flow <20 mph 2030 mph 3040 mph >40 mph
<1,500 vpd, or Cycle lanes or

<150 vph tracks
1,5003,000 vpd, or Cycle lanes or Cycle lanes or
150300 vph tracks tracks
3,0008,000 vpd, or Cycle lanes may be Cycle lanes may be Cycle lanes or Cycle tracks
300800 vph appropriate appropriate tracks
8,00010,000 vpd , Cycle lanes Cycle lanes Cycle lanes or Cycle tracks
or 8001,000 vph tracks
>10,000 vpd Cycle lanes or Cycle lanes or Cycle lanes or Cycle tracks
tracks tracks tracks
Notes:
1 vpd = number of motor vehicles in typical 24hour weekday.
2 vph = number of motor vehicles in typical morning peak hour.
3 Where traffic speeds/flows are low, the designer should assume a default position of no signs/markings
specifically for cyclists. However, there may be situations where it is appropriate to indicate the cycle route
using cycle symbol markings to diagram 1057 with advisory route signs to diagram 967.
4 Cycle lanes used in the higher speed/flow situations should provide good separation between cyclists and
motorists. Wide cycle lanes or buffer zones can help here.
5 Where cycle lanes or tracks are shown in the table, cycle lanes should be considered first. In general, cycle
tracks should only be considered if cycle lanes cannot be made to work.
6 In congested areas cycle lanes can be useful even when traffic speeds/flows are low.
1.4.2 The network of routes for nonmotorised 1.4.3 Cycle routes on back streets and offroad
users needs to be planned at a finer scale than the routes need to be clearly signed, and changes in
highway network, based around the principle of direction should be kept to a minimum. However, a
providing small connected blocks of development so balanced approach to signing is required to avoid
that walk and cycle distances are minimised. clutter. Designers should investigate options for
However, it is important to avoid creating long, narrow modifying existing signs or mounting new signs on
routes that are not overlooked by adjacent properties, existing poles or other street furniture. Creating a
as these can give rise to antisocial behaviour. smooth physical interface between different elements
Meeting the needs of larger vehicles in residential of a route by, for example, using dropped kerbs also
streets should not be to the detriment of pedestrians, helps to create a continuous, legible and coherent
cyclists and public transport users. Signed cycle network that is easy to follow.
routes can offer fine grain networks with greater
accessibility than for motor traffic by using quiet 1.4.4 Consultation with local cyclists both before
residential roads, contraflow schemes, paths and after scheme implementation will tap into local
alongside rivers and canals, disused railways, vehicle knowledge to help to identify and prioritise the
restricted areas and parks. Opening up paths for cycle development of a cycle route network.
use, such as when implementing a Rights of Way
Improvement Plan, may benefit pedestrians too. The 1.4.5 Detailed route design entails development
upgraded surface of the Thames River Path provides of a series of sitespecific solutions. It can be difficult
a good example see Figure 1.1. to apply a standard solution to the kind of issues that
arise when designing for pedestrians and cyclists.
Cyclists and pedestrians may, for example, ignore
formal crossing points. One way to consider the

Before After
Figure 1.1 Route improved by removing a gate and providing a wider, sealed surface (Patrick Lingwood)
process of infrastructure design is through a However, the vast majority of claims against highway
behavioural approach. Essentially this involves authorities relate to maintenance defects rather than
observing how users interact and then formulating a deficiency in design. An authority should not be
solution that accommodates the main movements of exposed to claims if there are robust design
each mode while minimising the potential for conflict. procedures in place where the resulting decisions are
This may be preferable, less unsightly and more recorded in an audit trail. The Manual for Streets
practicable than installing an arrangement that (DfT/CLG, 2007) suggests the following approach:
attempts to divert people from their desire lines
through the use of guard railing, signs and road set clear and concise scheme objectives;
markings. Such an approach may require a move
away from the idea of fully segregated areas for work up the design against these objectives; and
pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.
review the design against these objectives through
a quality audit.
1.5 Typical cycle trip
1.6.2 A risk assessment may be undertaken as
distances part of the design review process to determine the
scale and likelihood of any perceived hazard, and it
1.5.1 Urban networks are primarily for local
can be beneficial to involve user groups in this
journeys. In common with other modes, many utility
process. It is essential that the risk assessor fully
cycle journeys are under three miles (ECF, 1998),
understands the relative risks of various options. A
although, for commuter journeys, a trip distance of
common decision on cycle route provision involves
over five miles is not uncommon. Novice and
choosing whether to take cyclists off the carriageway
occasional leisure cyclists will cycle longer distances
by providing a cycle track. Making such a decision is
where the cycle ride is the primary purpose of their
rarely as straightforward as it might seem at first. A
journey. A round trip on a waymarked leisure route
cycle track frequently interrupted by side roads can
could easily involve distances of 20 to 30 miles.
have a significantly worse potential for accidents than
Experienced cyclists will often be prepared to cycle
the equivalent oncarriageway facility.
longer distances for whatever journey purpose.
1.6.3 The assessor should determine if the
1.6 Risk and liability proposal improves upon the existing situation and
whether any risk is justified when compared with
1.6.1 The Manual for Streets (DfT/CLG, 2007) alternative solutions. For example, some practitioners
acknowledges the reluctance of some authorities to dislike cycle contraflow schemes because they
implement innovative schemes or schemes that do believe that they are inherently hazardous. However
not meet all safety criteria, for fear of litigation.

contraflow travel can be safer than withflow travel as 1.7.4 Cycle review is a process of examining
the contraflow route may mean cyclists can avoid a existing infrastructure to explore ways of improving
longer, heavily trafficked alternative route. conditions for cyclists. The review procedures offer a
systematic way of identifying shortcomings and
potential enhancements to transport networks.
1.7 Cycle audit and review
1.7.5 The findings of a review can be useful when
1.7.1 A cycle audit is different from the risk evaluating design options a pedestrian/cycle review
assessment process described above, or safety can be applied to part or all of a network to identify
audits that consider road safety issues in isolation. It priority for action. It can also be used within the
is a check on the design of a highway scheme to design process.
ensure that it does not unduly affect cyclists. A cycle
audit should not be necessary if a scheme is 1.7.6 Guidelines for Cycle Audit and Cycle
specifically aimed at improving conditions for cyclists, Review (IHT et al., 1998) was published by the
because the design process should address all the Institution of Highways and Transportation. Many
relevant issues. However, such a scheme could authorities have customised this guidance to fit within
benefit from a pedestrian audit to help ensure that their particular planning, design and consultation
improvements for cyclists do not create difficulties for processes.
pedestrians. Many authorities conduct non
motorised user audits to ensure that new schemes 1.7.7 When planning a new road scheme or other
encompass the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, major works, highquality cycle and pedestrian links
equestrians and disabled people. A cycle audit should should be considered from the outset, rather than
not be limited to aspects that affect cyclists negatively being left until later. The nonmotorised user audit
it should also identify opportunities to improve procedures in the Design Manual for Roads and
conditions for cyclists. Bridges (HA, 1993 onwards) in Vol. 5, Section 2,
HD42/05, provide a framework for incorporating
1.7.2 Although campaign groups tend to focus pedestrians and cyclists into the design of major
on particular issues, they can be very helpful in schemes.
providing specialist expertise and may even undertake
audits.
1.7.3 Cycle audits may be undertaken at up to

four stages of the design process:
preparation of a design brief;
preliminary design;
detailed design;
substantial completion.

2 General design parameters
2.1 Clear space required by 2.2 Dynamic envelope

cyclists 2.2.1 At low speeds, cyclists are prone to wobble
and deviate from a straight line. For most cyclists, a
2.1.1 The space needed for a cyclist in which to
speed of 7 mph (11 km/h) or more is required to ride
feel safe and comfortable depends on:
comfortably in a straight line without a conscious
the cyclists dynamic envelope, i.e. the space effort to maintain balance. Above 7 mph, the amount
needed in motion; of deviation, i.e. the additional width needed when
moving, is 0.2 metres. Below this, deviation increases
the clearance when passing fixed objects; and at 3 mph deviation is typically 0.8 metres (see Figure
2.1). Hazards such as uneven gully gratings may
the distance from, and speed of other traffic. cause cyclists to deviate from their chosen line.
Additional width for cyclists is recommended where
These factors, and their impact on the design such hazards exist.
process, are critical to achieving a cycle friendly
environment. As the speed differential between 2.2.2 For simplicity, the dynamic width (actual
cyclists and motor traffic increases, greater separation width plus deviation) of a cyclist on the road may be
is required. This principle also applies where cyclists taken as 1 metre.
share space with pedestrians. If the design allows for
relatively high cycling speeds, larger separation
distances are beneficial. At very low speeds and on 2.3 Critical distances to
uneven surfaces, cyclists require additional width to fixed objects
maintain balance.
2.3.1 The following minimum clearances (Table
2.1) are recommended and should be increased where
possible. They are measured between the wheel and
the object.
Table 2.1 Minimum clearances
Object Distance from

wheel to object
(metres)
Kerbs under 50 mm 0.25 m
Kerb over 50 mm 0.5 m
Sign posts, lamp columns, etc. 0.75 m
Continuous features, e.g. walls, 1m

railings, bridge parapets
Deviation
0.2 m 0.8 m
Figure 2.1 Cyclist deviation from straight line

Table 2.2 Minimum passing distances
1 metre 0.5 m 1 metre
Measured from outside of cyclists dynamic

envelope
20 mph 1.0 metres
30 mph 1.5 metres
Table 2.3 Total width required for overtaking

Dynamic
envelopes
Vehicle type/speed Total width required
(metres)
Car passing at 20 mph 3.8 m
Car passing at 30 mph 4.3 m
Bus/HGV passing at 4.6 m

Figure 2.2 Width required by two cyclists 20 mph
Bus/HGV passing at 5.05 m
2.4 Cyclists passing other 30 mph
cyclists
2.5.4 The above advice applies to the general
2.4.1 Where cyclists need to pass each other, 0.5 width along a route. For localised narrowings such as
metres separation should ideally be allowed between between kerbs and central islands or pedestrian
the dynamic envelope of each cyclist. This gives a refuges, see Section 5.7.
desirable minimum width of 2.5 metres for twoway
cycle tracks (see Figure 2.2).
2.6 Dimensions of cycles
2.5 Overtaking by motor 2.6.1 Highway designers consider the
dimensions of motor vehicles and their swept paths to
vehicles determine carriageway widths, junction dimensions
2.5.1 Cyclists often feel uncomfortable when and parking layouts. The sizes and swept paths of
cars overtake, particularly if they do so at high speed. cycles are usually irrelevant in the design of onroad
Research from the Netherlands (CROW, 2003) shows cycle routes, but there are occasions where they need
that motorists driving at 20 mph will often pass to be considered. Examples include the approach to a
cyclists leaving a clearance of only 0.85 metres. This cycle gap, or the interface between the carriageway
distance increases to around 1.05 metres when and an offroad cycle route. Failure to provide the
passing at 30 mph. room a cyclist requires can make some routes
inaccessible or difficult to use, particularly for disabled
2.5.2 These clearances are not necessarily cyclists, tandem or trailer users and parents
sufficient for comfort and have been increased to transporting young children by bicycle.
establish the minimum suggested passing distances
in Table 2.2. Even these clearances will be
uncomfortable for some cyclists and should be
exceeded where possible.
2.5.3 Table 2.3 sets out ideal minimum total

widths (not necessarily lane widths) required for
vehicles overtaking cyclists.

2.6.2 A typical bicycle is approximately 1800 mm child, the more awkward it is to make a tight turn.
long and 650 mm wide, but there is a great variety of Table 2.4 is intended as a guide to typical minimum
types in use. Designers should anticipate the use of turning circles achievable at low speeds but designers
nonstandard cycles, particularly in areas with high should try to work to larger radii. The minimum inner
levels of utility cycling, on recreation routes and on kerb radius in cycle route design should be 4 metres
routes serving schools and nurseries. Designing to (unless a deliberately smaller radius is being used to
accommodate tandems, tricycles and trailers opens control motor vehicle and/or cycle speeds).
up cycle routes to families with children and users of
handcranked cycles. It also offers the opportunity to 2.6.5 Other factors also affect access for users of
cater for wheelchairs and other mobility aids. nonstandard cycles. It is impossible for some users
to lift their cycle to clear obstructions such as an
2.6.3 Most nonstandard cycles are bigger than access control.
the conventional bicycle and have larger turning
circles. They are therefore unable to be used on 2.6.6 Local authorities should consider the
facilities designed to the minimum dimensions position and design of cycle parking for nonstandard
required to accommodate a standard bicycle. Most cycles. For example, this could include extralong
access controls for offcarriageway paths do not allow Sheffield stands positioned to prevent trailers blocking
nonstandard cycles through (see Section 8.14). adjacent footways, particularly where trailers may be
commonplace, such as in town centres, primary
2.6.4 The minimum turning circle of a bicycle schools and leisure sites.
depends on the ability of the rider to balance at low
speeds. Where children are carried in child seats, the
centre of gravity is quite high, and the heavier the
Table 2.4 Minimum turning circles (mm)
Minimum turning circle

Overall length Outer radius* Inner radius**
Conventional bicycle 1800 1650 850
Bicycle and 850 wide trailer 2700 2650 1500
Bicycle and trailer cycle 2750 2050 700
Tandem 2400 3150 2250
* The outer radius governs the distance between walls required to execute a full turn.
** The inner radius indicates the size of an imaginary circular obstruction which the cyclist moves around.

3 Signing issues
3.1 Introduction or position themselves in the appropriate part of a

carriageway. Coloured surfaces have little or no effect
3.1.1 The design of all prescribed road signs (and at night.
markings markings are technically signs) should be
in accordance with DfTs working drawings, the advice 3.2.2 Coloured surfaces are relatively expensive
given in Chapters 3, 5, and 7 of the Traffic Signs to lay. If used to excess, they can be visually intrusive
Manual (DfT, 2008 and 2003a and 2003b) and the and lose their highlighting effect where needed most.
requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and For best effect they should be used sparingly. For
General Directions 2002 (TSRGD). For detailed example, rather than using colour for the whole length
guidance on the use of signs most relevant to cycling, of a cycle lane, consideration could be given to
and for examples of cyclespecific signing layouts, reserving it for specific locations where it would be
refer to Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual, Section most beneficial, such as where the cycle lane passes
17 (DfT, 2008). The advice given here complements sideroad entrances. Coloured surfaces are especially
that guidance by expanding on some signing issues useful for cycle lanes away from the kerb, such as a
particular to the design of cycle infrastructure. Unless nonnearside cycle feeder lanes for an advanced stop
otherwise stated, all diagram numbers below refer to line layout, or where a cycle lane runs along the
those given in TSRGD. offside of a dedicated leftturn lane.
3.1.2 For nonprescribed signs (i.e. signs not 3.2.3 Colour may be appropriate:
included in TSRGD), authorisation is required before
in the leadin lane and cycle reservoir at an
they can be used. The Department for Transport
advanced stop line arrangement;
authorises nonprescribed signs in England. The
relevant authority for Wales is Transport Wales (Welsh
in nonnearside and rightturn cycle lanes;
Assembly Government), and for Scotland it is the
Transport Directorate (Scottish Government). in contraflow cycle lanes;
3.1.3 Many signs are optional rather than in cycle lanes beside parking bays;
mandatory. It is useful to bear this in mind, as cycle
infrastructure can be quite signintensive and, if not in cycle lanes alongside narrow allpurpose lanes;
carefully designed, can create unnecessary visual
intrusion. Overuse of coloured surfacing adds to this. at junctions where certain manoeuvres are limited
Where appropriate, signs should be mounted on to cyclists;
walls, existing posts or other street furniture to
minimise the number of sign posts on the footway. at locations where the lane highlights a potential
risk, e.g. cycle lanes through pinch points;
3.2 Coloured surfaces in twoway cycle lanes (although such lanes are not
generally recommended as they can be confusing
3.2.1 Coloured surfaces are not prescribed by to motorists see Section 7.9).
TSRGD and they have no legal meaning. There is no
obligation to use them. They are included here 3.2.4 Selection of the appropriate colour is a
because they can be useful for emphasising cycle matter for the relevant highway authority but, in the
lane markings and to help remind motorists that the interests of consistency and simplifying maintenance,
surface is either primarily or exclusively for the use of it is recommended that one colour is used for cycle
cyclists. They can also help cyclists to follow a route infrastructure within a highway authoritys area. Green
and red surfaces are most commonly used.

Compared with road markings, the durability of such a 3.4.4 TSRGD lays down a hierarchy for the use of
surface can be poor, and it varies depending on the these diagrams. The END marking can be used with
materials, colour and the method of application. This or without the END OF ROUTE sign but, in either
needs to be taken into account when deciding if case, the cycle symbol to diagram 1057 must be used
coloured surfaces are necessary, because they add to because the END marking cannot be used without it.
the costs of maintenance. The hierarchy in order of increasing signing is
therefore:
3.3 The cycle symbol 1 the route ends with none of the above;
3.3.1 The cycle symbol, diagram 1057, is 2 it ends with the cycle symbol to diagram 1057 and
probably the most commonly used marking in cycle the END marking to diagram 1058;
infrastructure. It is generally used in conjunction with
vertical signs and is particularly useful at junctions 3 it ends with diagram 1057 and diagram 1058,
accompanied by the END OF ROUTE sign to
3.3.2 The cycle symbol is also one of the most diagram 965.
poorly replicated diagrams in practice. Some
examples of cycle symbols which do not conform to
DfTs working drawings are shown in the photographs 3.5 GIVE WAY signing
used in this document. Apart from being unlawful, the
results are almost invariably mediocre at best. Non 3.5.1 In a similar manner to END signing, TSRGD
conforming markings should not be used. lays down a hierarchy for GIVE WAY signing for
cyclists (this hierarchy also applies to GIVE WAY
signing in general). At its simplest, the need to give
3.4 The END marking and way is indicated by the double broken line to diagram
the END OF ROUTE 1003 across the end of the route. This marking may
be supplemented by the triangle marking to diagram
sign 1023. If a vertical give way sign to diagram 602 is
used, it must be in conjunction with markings to
3.4.1 The END marking to diagram 1058 and the
diagrams 1003 and 1023. The hierarchy in order of
END OF ROUTE sign to diagram 965 can be used
increasing signing is therefore:
where a cycle lane, track or route terminates.
However, in practice they are often provided 1 a double broken line to diagram 1003;
unnecessarily, possibly because of an assumption
that their use is mandatory it is not. 2 diagram 1003 with a triangle marking to diagram
1023;
3.4.2 In most cases, cycle lanes can simply stop.
For short breaks, such as where a cycle lane is 3 diagrams 1003 and 1023 with a vertical sign to
interrupted by a controlled crossing or a bus stop, diagram 602.
indicating that the lane has ended is never
appropriate. Indeed, it is likely that for the termination
of cycle lanes in general, diagrams 1058 and 965 are 3.6 The CYCLISTS
rarely required. DISMOUNT sign
3.4.3 When deciding whether to provide them, 3.6.1 The CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign to diagram
consideration should be given to the purpose they are 966 is another overused sign. On a well designed
meant to serve. They might be useful where a route cycle facility, it is very rarely appropriate. The sign is
terminates at a hazardous location, but, if the end of possibly the least favoured among cyclists each
the lane/track/route is obvious, these diagrams would time it is used, it represents a discontinuity in the
be redundant. If the cycle lane/track/route has to journey, which is highly disruptive.
concede priority on ending, GIVE WAY signing is used
instead.

3.6.2 In general, the sign should only be used in scheme design could not first be modified to make its
relatively rare situations where it would be unsafe or use unnecessary. In general, the sign should not be
impracticable for a cyclist to continue riding. used where a cycle track joins a carriageway directly.
3.6.3 If it looks as if the sign might be needed, 3.6.4 Where the signs use appears unavoidable,
practitioners should first check to see whether the practitioners should be able to defend their decision
and explain why it cannot be avoided by design.

4 Network management
4.1 Introduction 4.2 Road closures and

4.1.1 Schemes that reduce the impact of motor
turning restrictions
traffic can help deliver a pleasant environment for
4.2.1 It is sometimes necessary to restrict motor
cyclists, pedestrians and disabled users, as well as
vehicle access on certain routes, particularly in
meeting other policy objectives such as increasing
residential areas. Where this is achieved by closing
walking and cycling as well as improving health and
the end of a street, consideration should always be
the environment. They can also reduce the need for
given to allowing cyclists to continue using the route
cyclespecific infrastructure.
by installing a cyclegap in the closure. Such roads
can provide ideal conditions for cyclists, offering them
4.1.2 There are many ways of encouraging and
a quiet, highquality route with more direct access to
facilitating cycle use, including:
their destination. Detours along busy roads, gyratory
traffic management measures such as vehicle systems or oneway systems are a deterrent to
restricted areas or 20 mph zones; cycling, and can expose cyclists to additional
hazards. Where possible cyclists should be provided
redistribution of carriageway space by, for example with alternative routes to avoid them. Figures 4.1 and
providing cycle (or bus) lanes, or by simply 4.2 show examples of traffic restrictions that exempt
widening the nearside lane where possible; cyclists.
initiatives that encourage the use of public 4.2.2 Cycle gaps in road closures should be at
transport, such as BikeandRide; least 1.2 metres wide to accommodate tandems,
trailers and mobility scooters.
cycle parking
4.2.3 Care needs to be taken to ensure that
residential, workplace and school travel plans; parked vehicles do not obstruct cycle gaps. Gaps in
the centre of a closure are less likely to be blocked by
programmes of cycle skills training; parked vehicles.
individualised travel marketing;
selfcalming roads where geometric design and the

use of physical features such as buildouts,
planters or seating encourages lower speeds; and
Quiet Lanes, or area speed limits such as the

blanket 40 mph limit on rural roads in the New
Forest.
4.1.3 The following provides some examples of

how network management can enhance conditions for
cyclists.
Figure 4.1 A cycle route linking two culdesacs (Patrick

Lingwood)

Figure 4.2 Midlink road closure with cycle access (Patrick Figure 4.3 Rising bollards (Patrick Lingwood)
Lingwood)
4.2.4 Cyclists should usually be exempt from parking also helps. Parking control can also be used
prohibited turning movements or manoeuvres unless to support workplace travel plans or to protect
safety concerns dictate otherwise. An Order giving residential areas from excessive traffic by reducing the
effect to the prohibition will need to exempt cyclists. availability of longstay commuter parking. Removal of
The exemption is signed using the Except cycles onstreet parking spaces may enable space within the
plate (diagram 954.4) placed underneath the highway to be given over to pedestrians and cyclists.
appropriate regulatory sign.
4.3.4 It can be contentious to reintroduce cycling
into vehicle restricted areas (VRAs) but, as these areas
4.3 Parking control and are often prime destinations where shops and
vehicle restricted areas services are located, good cycle access is desirable.
Where new vehicular restrictions are to be introduced,
4.3.1 Many towns and cities have central areas serious consideration should always be given to
largely free of motor vehicles. These areas often form retaining cycle access. Traffic conditions on
hubs for radial routes to shops, services and unrestricted routes may be unattractive to cyclists,
employment. Restricting vehicular access in these and the routes can be indirect. Maintaining formal
areas can sever routes for cyclists unless they are cycle access needs to be considered against the
exempted from the restrictions. likelihood of cyclists using the VRA regardless of any
restrictions. Where cycling is permitted, most cyclists
4.3.2 The potential for shopping trips to be will usually dismount at the busiest times (DoT,
undertaken by cyclists should not be underestimated. 1993a).
It is sometimes suggested that limited carrying
capacity is a barrier to cycling to the shops, but it is 4.3.5 There are many successful examples of
not that difficult to carry significant amounts of VRAs where cycling is permitted. In Aylesbury, for
shopping in panniers and other bags mounted on the example, access for buses and cycles has been
cycle. Most shopping trips tend to be locally based, retained (see Figure 4.3). If restrictions on cycling are
and around half of all shopping trips in UK are under considered necessary, they may only be required at
two miles (Bach, 1995), so distance is typically not a certain times of day. Permitting cycling before 10 am
barrier to cycling for this purpose. Over 10 per cent of and after 4 pm can meet the need of commuter
all shopping journeys to town centres in Germany are cyclists while avoiding the busiest periods of
by bicycle (ECMT, 1996) compared with about 2 per pedestrian activity.
cent in the UK.
4.3.6 It is recommended that the authority makes
4.3.3 The control of car parking through charges a detailed assessment of how the vehicle restricted
or limiting capacity or duration of stay can encourage area will operate, to arrive at the best solution for all
cycling. Ensuring there is sufficient high quality cycle users. Some VRAs retain a defined carriageway (see
Figure 4.4), while others use a shared surface (see

Figure 4.4 Street with oneway bus access and twoway Figure 4.6 Contrasting surface treatments used to suggest
cycling (Patrick Lingwood) where cycling may be more appropriate (Patrick Lingwood)
Figures 4.5 to 4.7). Pedestrian and cyclist flows, street 4.3.9 Street furniture within vehicle restricted
widths, the availability and safety of alternative cycle areas should not compromise visibility to the extent
routes and the demand for cycling in the area all need that it becomes hazardous for pedestrians and
to be considered before allowing access by cyclists. cyclists. Where the area acts as a through route for
cyclists, marked cycle routes should keep cyclists
4.3.7 If proposals to allow cycling meet with away from doorways, benches, telephone kiosks and
opposition, one solution may be to introduce other features where pedestrians are likely to be
experimental traffic regulation orders (TROs) to permit moving across their path.
cycling on a temporary basis to see if it is creating a
problem. An experimental TRO can always restrict 4.3.10 Careful urban design can help to create an
cycling to certain hours if it is a borderline case. attractive and functional environment in which cycle
speeds are low and pedestrians clearly have priority.
4.3.8 Pedestrians and cyclists often claim a The positioning of features such as trees and benches
preference for marked cycle routes within and the use of surfacing materials can suggest a
pedestrianised areas (Davies et al., 2003). However, in preferred route for cyclists without employing road
practice this can lead to higher cycle speeds and signs while creating a legible environment for blind or
greater potential for conflict. Defining the cycle route partially sighted people.
may therefore not be the best solution in these cases.
4.4 Planning and new

development
4.4.1 Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG13)
(DTLR, 2001) recognises cycling as a sustainable
mode to be encouraged in new development,
especially in urban areas. PPG13 covers England. For
Wales, refer to Planning Policy Wales (2002) and
Technical Advice Note 18: Transport (2007). For
Scotland, refer to Scottish Planning Policies Planning
Advice Notes 75 (Scottish Executive Development
Department, 2005).
Figure 4.5 A cycle route in an otherwise pedestrianised area

(Patrick Lingwood)

Around 60 per cent of car trips are typically under five
miles and, given the right conditions, a significant
proportion of motorists could transfer to cycling.
4.4.3 Low vehicle speeds and flows in residential

and mixeduse developments can be achieved
through careful design and neighbourhood planning.
The location and grouping of buildings can create
areas of highquality public space overlooked by
building occupants, and attractive to pedestrians and
cyclists. The aim should be to create streets and
squares that are attractive places in their own right,
rather than their simply being corridors for movement.
Figure 4.7 This attractive route for pedestrians and cyclists is 4.4.4 New developments are usually designed to
overlooked by new housing and offers a parallel alternative discourage through traffic, but, where possible,
to a busy main road (Adrian Lord) pedestrian and cyclist networks should maintain direct
routes to encourage the use of these modes for local
4.4.2 New developments or regeneration trips.
schemes (see Figure 4.7) offer opportunities to
achieve a higher quality of design than is usually 4.4.5 Security and crime prevention are often
possible when making smallscale alterations to concerns, and encouraging street activity will usually
existing streets. In towns with a population of up to be beneficial in this respect (ODPM, 2004) through
200,000, the centre is usually no more than a 20 enhanced passive surveillance. Passive surveillance is
minute cycle ride from most of its residential areas. usually achieved by fronting buildings on to the route.
Figure 4.8 Cycle parking in the basement car park of a new development (CycleWorks)

4.4.6 Streets overlooked by housing generally applied with caution and flexibility. The appropriate
have good levels of personal security. To exploit the type and amount of parking will depend on the
security advantages arising from human activity, anticipated level of cycle use, the type of
pedestrian and cycle routes within new developments development, floor area and anticipated number of
may best be planned to follow the road network. employees/residents/visitors.
Where offroad pedestrian/cycle routes are necessary,
they should be well lit, overlooked by properties and 4.5.3 Current levels of cycle use may be
avoid features that create hiding places. Ideally, the determined by considering a range of sources:
routes should be short and wide.
census data on journeys to work, which give an
4.4.7 Where industrial, commercial or retail indication of the main mode of travel, but these are
developments generate high levels of traffic or only updated every ten years;
frequent movements of heavy goods vehicles, it may
be better to provide offroad routes for pedestrians school and workplace travel plans, which usually
and cyclists. incorporate surveys and ongoing monitoring by
mode of travel;
4.5 Cycle parking standards modal share data. Some authorities conduct
occasional or regular household surveys to
4.5.1 Most local planning authorities in England determine modal share for particular types of
have produced supplementary planning guidance with journey or general travel trends;
indicative maximum levels of car parking for different
categories of development based on national traffic counts and cycle counts. These may also
guidance in PPG13 (ODPM, 2001). PPG13 include counts of parked cycles;
recommends providing safe, secure public and
residential cycle parking in new developments (see demographic data which show patterns of
Figure 4.8). Residential cycle parking is also a commuting, both in and out of areas, including
requirement in the Code for Sustainable Homes. typical catchment areas for employment or
education.
4.5.2 Many local planning authorities have
developed minimum cycle parking standards for new 4.5.4 Guidance on cycle parking infrastructure is
development, but such an approach needs to be included in Chapter 11.

5 Reducing vehicle speeds on
cycle routes
5.1 Speed reduction 5.1.2 Table 5.1 provides examples of measures
that encourage lower speeds, a few of which need to
5.1.1 Many cyclists feel comfortable on roads be designed with particular care if cyclists are not to
with no cyclespecific infrastructure if traffic speeds be disadvantaged. Some of the measures are covered
are low enough. Lower speed not only reduces the in more detail below. More information on speed
likelihood of an accident, but it also reduces severity reducing measures can be found in Local Transport
of injury in the event of one. Note 1/07 Traffic Calming (DfT, 2007) and measures in
the Departments Traffic Advisory Leaflets on traffic
Table 5.1 Speedreducing measures
Measures Comments
Lower speed limits, 20 mph zones, Encourage drivers to reduce their speed, thus making conditions
Home Zones, Quiet Lanes more comfortable for other road users. Sometimes use shared
surfaces (see below).
Reallocating road space to cyclists Can be achieved by reducing the width of the allpurpose lane to
create room for a cycle lane. Another option is simply to widen the
nearside lane of a twolane road to create more room for cyclists.
However, care should be taken to ensure the extra width does not
encourage higher vehicle speeds.
Shared surfaces (i.e. where kerbs are Intended to remove any implied priority for motorists to improve
absent) with reduced signing and conditions for other road users. Careful design is necessary, as they
markings may create difficulties for some disabled people.
Low radius corners and narrower Can reduce speeds and are often appropriate on residential access
carriageways roads where flows are light.
Onstreet parking bays Groups of parking bays at intervals on alternating sides of the road
can create an indirect carriageway alignment to reduce speed.
Remarking the road to encourage lower Includes changing the road to make it appear narrower or removing
speeds the centre line marking. The latter needs to be carefully assessed,
as it is not appropriate for all roads.
Textured surfaces Block paving can reduce traffic speeds by between 2.5 and 4.5
mph and generally is acceptable for cycling. Cobbled surfaces are
less suitable for cyclists, although their speedreducing effect may
be greater.
Physical traffic calming features such as While any reduction in motor vehicle speeds is welcome, physical
speed humps or cushions, buildouts traffic calming measures can create problems for cyclists unless
and other road narrowings they are properly allowed for during design. Where practicable,
cycle bypasses are recommended, as they are often the best way
of avoiding these difficulties.

calming. See also the Traffic Calming Act 1992 and
the Highways (Traffic Calming) Regulations 1999 (SI
1999, No. 1026).
5.2 Cycle bypasses

5.2.1 Physical traffic calming measures can
sometimes create problems for cyclists. In general,
measures involving vertical deflection (e.g. humps or
cushions) tend to reduce cyclist comfort, while
horizontal deflection measures (e.g. buildouts or
other road narrowings) are more likely to introduce
cycling hazards.
Figure 5.1 Cycle bypass ramped up to footway level (Patrick
5.2.2 Central reserves, refuges, traffic islands, Lingwood)
and buildouts can create pinch points for cyclists
which can bring them into conflict with motor vehicles. 5.2.5 Bypasses need to be regularly swept, as
For example, drivers may attempt to overtake cyclists detritus can be a skid hazard and may cause
ahead of the narrowing to avoid being delayed (speed punctures. The bypass should ideally be wide enough
reducing features on the approach can help here). to accept a mechanical sweeper. If the bypass is at
Drivers may also attempt to overtake a cyclist within carriageway level, consideration should be given to
the narrowed section. moving surfacemounted gully gratings or replacing
them with kerb face gratings.
5.2.3 As traffic calming measures are
predominantly aimed at reducing motor vehicle speed, 5.2.6 Alternatively the bypass can be raised to
it is usually appropriate to provide a means for cyclists the level of the adjacent footway using a gentle
to circumvent them where practicable. In the gradient at each end. Figure 5.1 shows such an
particular case of features which narrow the road, a arrangement alongside a pinch point. Its raised profile
cycle bypass will not only reduce potential hazards for makes it less likely to become cluttered with unswept
cyclists, but it also allows the designer to choose a debris.
more effective width in terms of speed reduction.
Cycle bypasses are particularly beneficial at chicanes.
5.3 Removal of centre lines
5.2.4 Cycle bypasses should be at least 1.2
metres wide and free from sudden changes in 5.3.1 Removing the centre line can reduce traffic
direction (minimum radius 4 metres recommended). speeds, but the technique is not suitable for all roads.
This helps ensure they are accessible to cycle trailers Some authorities have chosen to remove the centre
and other nonstandard cycle arrangements such as line and create a single, wide twoway general
recumbents or tricycles. The exit alignment of a purpose traffic lane with advisory cycle lanes on either
bypass should not require cyclists to merge abruptly side (see Figure 5.2). When oncoming motor vehicles
with motor vehicles. If car parking near the bypass is need to pass each other, they can momentarily
likely to obstruct cyclists entering or leaving it, the encroach upon the cycle lanes.
arrangement should be designed to discourage or
prevent it by, for example, introducing waiting
restrictions or physical measures.

5.4.2 Stone setts are sometimes installed in short
sections to act as traffic calming devices, or they may
be used over some length as part of an urban
improvement scheme. They can be uncomfortable or
hazardous for cyclists and some disabled people.
These problems may be mitigated by careful
construction and maintenance. Concrete block or clay
paviours are smoother than stone setts, and they have
better skid resistance than paving slabs when wet, so
they may be preferable where cyclists are expected.
Blocks and setts require a high level of care during
reinstatement, so the maintenance implications
should be considered when planning a new paved
area. Some textured surfaces include a path through
Figure 5.2 Cycle lanes on road with no centre line (Tim the area for cyclists by incorporating strips of
Pheby) smoother paving along the line they might be
expected to take see Traffic Advisory Leaflet 12/93
5.3.2 Initial trials in Devizes, Wiltshire (Wiltshire
on Overrun Areas (DoT, 1993b).
County Council/TRL, 2003/4) suggest that removal of
centre lines contributed to a reduction in traffic
speeds. On roads where removal of the centre lines 5.5 Road humps
was accompanied by the introduction of cycle lanes,
traffic speeds were found to have fallen further. Some 5.5.1 The most common type of road hump
highway authorities (such as Essex, 200305) have (roundtopped, 75 mm high) gives good speed
introduced presumptions against the general use of reduction benefits and is more comfortable for cyclists
centre lines as part of their speed management than humps constructed to the maximum allowable
strategy (Essex County Council, 2003/05). height of 100 mm. Flattopped road humps can be
used as pedestrian crossings (formal or otherwise).
5.3.3 The technique is suitable for roads wide Road hump requirements are contained in Statutory
enough to accommodate two 1.5metre cycle lanes Instrument No. 1025, The Highways (Road Humps)
and a central general traffic lane of at least 3.5 metres Regulations 1999, for England and Wales.
(i.e. an overall carriageway width of at least 6.5
metres). It is best suited to locations where there are 5.5.2 Fullwidth humps can be uncomfortable for
few heavy goods vehicles and general traffic flows are cyclists. Sloping the ends to road level is often done
low. If carriageway width exceeds 6.5 metres, the to facilitate drainage and can provide a way for
additional space can be used to increase the width of cyclists to avoid the main profile. A cycle bypass
the cycle lanes, but they need to be clearly indicated, allows the hump to be avoided altogether. Where
otherwise motorists may confuse them with general cyclists have no choice but to cycle over humps, care
purpose lanes should be taken to ensure that the transition from road
to hump has no upstand. Some authorities specify a
reduced ramp gradient adjacent to the kerb on cycle
5.4 Overrun areas and routes.
textured surfacing
5.5.3 Sinusoidal ramps are more comfortable for
5.4.1 Overrun areas are used to delineate a tight cyclists (see Figure 5.3) and can be created by adding
road alignment to encourage lower speeds, while still fillets to a roundtopped hump to create a smooth
allowing for the occasional passage of larger vehicles. transition profile. The fillet should be about 1 metre
They often have a textured surface to deter wide, i.e. it should extend 500 mm before and after
encroachment by smaller vehicles, and this can be each road/hump interface. Any difficulties in achieving
hazardous for cyclists. Overrun areas should be the sinusoidal profile may be overcome by using pre
avoided where it is likely that cyclists may be forced formed sections. These are particularly useful for
onto them because of prevailing or expected traffic approaches to flattopped humps and speed tables.
conditions. The profile of precast products should be checked to
ensure it conforms to the Regulations.

Figure 5.3 Flattopped hump using preformed sinusoidal Figure 5.4 Cycle lane alongside refuge (Adrian Lord)
ramp face units (Tim Pheby)
5.5.4 Where they are provided, cycle bypasses introduced and it is not possible to provide a cycle
can simplify drainage arrangements by allowing for bypass, the width available should either be sufficient
the retention of kerbside channels. to allow vehicles to overtake cyclists safely, or narrow
enough to discourage overtaking altogether.
5.6 Speed cushions 5.7.2 TAL 15/99 Cyclists at Roadworks (DETR,

1999a) advises that gaps of between 2.75 metres and
5.6.1 Speed cushions are subject to The 3.25 metres over any distance should be avoided, as
Highways (Road Hump) Regulations 1999. They are car drivers may attempt to overtake even though there
sized so that widetracked vehicles such as buses, is insufficient room to do so safely. However,
ambulances and HGVs can straddle them. Cyclists conditions at roadworks are not necessarily the same
usually prefer speed cushions to humps because they as those at localised pinchpoints. While it remains
can more easily avoid them. Speed cushion gaps that true that widths within this range should be especially
cyclists are intended to use should be unobstructed avoided, cyclists can benefit from still wider
by parked vehicles. This may be addressed by clearances between physical features. In view of this
introducing waiting restrictions, physical measures (and in the absence of a cycle bypass) a minimum gap
such as parking bays or buildouts, or short sections of 4 metres is recommended unless additional
of mandatory cycle lane before and after the speed features to significantly reduce motor vehicle speeds
cushions. are incorporated. If the approach to the narrowed
section is not direct (e.g. at chicanes) or significant
5.6.2 A gap between kerb and cushion of
numbers of HGVs or buses are expected, it is worth
between 0.75 metre and 1 metre will enable cyclists to
considering increasing this minimum further.
pass conveniently. Larger gaps may encourage drivers
to avoid the cushion. Cushions adjacent to kerbside 5.7.3 It should be noted that, on their own, gaps
drainage gullies can be hazardous to cyclists. over 3.5 metres wide are not very effective in calming
traffic. In order for sufficient width to be provided to
help ensure cyclists are not put at a disadvantage, it
5.7 Pedestrian refuges, may therefore be necessary to use measures other
traffic islands and than road narrowing to control speeds.
central hatching
5.7.4 If a cycle lane passes through a pinch
5.7.1 These measures make it easier for point, it is recommended that it is at least 1.5 metres
pedestrians to cross the road, discourage overtaking, wide and mandatory. Where there is insufficient room
and in some cases, encourage lower speeds. to provide a mandatory lane of this width, an advisory
However, refuges and islands in particular can create 1.5 metre cycle lane should be considered. Figure 5.4
hazardous pinch points for cyclists. If they are shows localised widening with the addition of cycle

lanes at a road junction with a rightturning lane. If 5.8 Chicanes and other
there is not enough room to provide an advisory 1.5 m
cycle lane, it may be best to avoid a cycle lane buildout arrangements
through the pinchpoint altogether. There is evidence
5.8.1 Chicanes are usually constructed using two
that overtaking motorists refer to the cycle lane
or more buildouts alternating between each side of
marking rather than the cyclist when overtaking, and
the road. Lower vehicle speeds are realised through a
cars may pass too closely if the lane is narrower than
combination of carriageway deflection, road narrowing
1.5 metres.
and, in lower speed environments, reduced sight lines.
5.7.5 Central hatching has the effect of narrowing Providing staggered parking bays can achieve a
traffic lanes, thereby increasing separation between similar effect. A cycle bypass should be seriously
opposing traffic flows and discouraging overtaking. considered if chicanes are proposed, otherwise
The arrangement can be detrimental to cyclists if cyclists may face conflict with oncoming vehicles in
overtaking nevertheless takes place, because addition to those following them.
motorists may be reluctant to enter the hatched area.
5.8.2 Other buildout arrangements can also
Cycle lanes may help to keep vehicles away from the
create hazards for cyclists. On roads where vehicle
carriageway edge if central hatching is used (see
speeds are over 20 mph, cyclists can still come into
Figure 5.5).
conflict with following motorists, and cycle bypasses
should be considered.
Figure 5.5 Cycle lane continued at refuge (CTC Benchmarking

6 Bus and tram routes
6.1 Bus lanes 6.1.2 Withflow bus lanes are usually open to
cyclists. If a highway authority wishes to prohibit
6.1.1 Bus lanes form an important part of cycle cyclists from using a withflow bus lane, sign
route networks. They are often placed on primary authorisation is required.
transport routes, providing cyclists with direct routes
to town centres and other important destinations. Bus
lanes are generally popular with cyclists (Reid and
6.2 Bus lane widths
Guthrie, 2004). They are often preferred over offroad 6.2.1 The ease with which a bus can overtake a
facilities as a result of the advantage of remaining in cyclist depends on the width of the bus lane, the
the carriageway and therefore having priority at side width of the adjoining general purpose lane, and the
roads (Pedler and Davies, 2000). Cyclists in bus lanes volume and speed of traffic.
are able to avoid queues, and they value the
separation from general traffic that these lanes afford.
Figure 6.1 Narrow 3metres wide bus lane (Sustrans)

6.4 Bus and tram stops
6.4.1 Cycle lanes cannot be taken through a
marked bus stop area the cycle lane is simply
discontinued over the length of the bus stop markings
(see Figure 6.2).
6.4.2 Where the stop is located within a bus (or

allpurpose) lane less than 3.5 metres wide, cyclists
will need to leave the lane to pass a stopped bus. The
flow and speed of general traffic will determine
whether this proves hazardous. Where there is enough
room, localised widening of the lane at the bus stop
may be feasible.
6.4.3 Figure 6.3 shows a widened nearside lane,

with a cycle lane passing on the offside of the stop
and the parked vehicles downstream. Note the gap
between the parking bays and the cycle lane to
reduce the hazard of opening doors.
6.4.4 Bus boarders are sometimes used where

buses have difficulty rejoining traffic after stopping
(they also make passenger access easier). Bus
boarders extend the footway into the carriageway
Figure 6.2 Cycle lane discontinued at bus stop (Patrick over the length of the stop and discourage parking,
Lingwood) but they can create pinchpoints for cyclists. A wide
nearside lane can mitigate this to some extent.
6.2.2 A bus lane width of 4.5 metres will enable
buses to safely pass cyclists without having to leave
the lane. Widths below 4 metres generally result in
buses moving out of the lane when overtaking
cyclists, but this may be difficult if the adjacent lane is
congested (see Figure 6.1). Widths below 4 metres are
not recommended for bus lanes physically bounded
on both sides, unless they are over very short
distances.
6.3 Bus gates and busonly

roads
6.3.1 Access to routes mainly limited to use by
buses is sometimes controlled by bus gates. These
gates typically comprise rising bollards, traffic signals,
or a combination of the two. Where busactivated
signals are used, in the absence of a cycle bypass it
will be necessary to provide a means for cyclists to
activate the signals. This may be achieved through the
use of a pushbutton unit for cyclists to operate. The Figure 6.3 Cycle lane continued on the offside of bus stop
and parking bays (Alex Sully
installation of such equipment requires authorisation.

6.4.5 Where traffic speeds are high or there are 6.4.6 The cycle bypass can be ramped up to
large volumes of HGVs, it may be appropriate to footway level to allow for easier pedestrian access to
create a busboarding island and take the cycle lane the bus boarder, although this may create a tendency
behind the island. Figure 6.4 shows such an for passengers to stand in the cycle track. The
arrangement at a bus/tram stop, and its particular arrangement shown keeps the cycle bypass at
advantage here is that it avoids the need for cyclists carriageway level and uses dropped kerbs to facilitate
to cross, or pass close to, the nearside rail on the pedestrian movement across it.
main carriageway. However, in this example the cycle
bypass separates the bus shelter from the boarding
area, and this may not be appropriate at busy stops
where conflict with boarding and alighting passengers
is more likely.
Figure 6.4 Cycle bypass at a bus and tram boarding island. The cycle bypass separates the bus shelter from the boarding
area, and this may not be appropriate at busy stops where conflict with boarding and alighting passengers is more likely
(Steve Essex)

7 Cycle lanes
7.1 Introduction example, a nonnearside lane may be useful where

there is a need for cyclists to position themselves
7.1.1 Cycle lanes can benefit cyclists, but poorly away from the kerb in a multilane road. In general, a
designed lanes can make conditions worse for them. cycle lane located between two allpurpose traffic
There is no legal obligation for cyclists to use cycle lanes should have a minimum width of 2 metres.
lanes (or any other type of cycle infrastructure Coloured surface treatment will help increase the
provision).The potential benefits of cycle lanes are that conspicuity of such lanes.
they can:
7.1.5 On high streets with many side roads, bus
create a comfort zone, especially for less stops, kerbside parking and accesses, there can be
experienced cyclists nervous about mixing with many crossmovements for cyclists to contend with.
motor traffic; There may be little benefit in providing cycle lanes in
situations like this (see Figure 7.1).
assist cyclists in difficult or congested situations;
7.1.6 Where there is a significant gradient, a
allow cyclists to bypass features intended to slow cycle lane can be beneficial in the uphill direction the
or exclude motorised traffic; speed differential between cyclists and motorists
tends to be larger, while cyclists may wander a little as
help guide cyclists through complex junctions and their speed is reduced. A cycle lane in the downhill
provide route continuity to help with navigation; direction can make conditions worse for cyclists. As a
cyclists speed increases, the speed differential with
help control the speed of motor traffic by narrowing motor traffic speeds reduces or disappears, and the
the allpurpose traffic lane; and cyclist needs to take up a more prominent position
further from the nearside kerb. This helps ensure that
help to raise driver awareness of cyclists. drivers waiting to join from a side road can better see
them and helps drivers behind to judge when it is safe
7.1.2 Guidance on the correct signing and
to overtake. A single cycle lane of the recommended
marking arrangements for cycle lanes is given in
width going uphill is far preferable to substandard
Chapters 3 and 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual (DfT,
cycle lanes in both directions (see Figure 7.2).
2008 and 2003a).
7.1.3 Increasing the width of the nearside lane on

a multilane road allows drivers to provide greater
clearance when overtaking cyclists. The increased
width can make a cycle lane unnecessary. The
absence of a cycle lane may make it easier for cyclists
to avoid drainage gratings and other surface hazards
(in the presence of motor vehicles, cyclists sometimes
feel reluctant to leave a marked lane).
7.1.4 Cycle lanes are not always suitable and

may encourage cyclists to adopt inappropriate
positioning if the lanes are poorly designed. Designers
need to decide whether a cycle lane is going to help
or not. If so, its alignment should ideally reflect
Figure 7.1 Cycle lanes are not always appropriate in complex
guidance and training on safe techniques (Franklin,
street environments. (Patrick Lingwood)
2007) for manoeuvres undertaken by cyclists. For

Figure 7.2 Cycle lane on uphill side of steep hill, (Patrick
Lingwood)
7.2 Mandatory cycle lanes

7.2.1 Mandatory cycle lanes are bounded by a Figure 7.3 Mandatory cycle lane (Patrick Lingwood)
solid white line (diagram 1049) and other traffic is
excluded from them during their times of operation by
a traffic regulation order (TRO). If necessary, an
7.3 Advisory cycle lanes
experimental TRO will enable a scheme to be trialled
7.3.1 Advisory cycle lanes marked on the
before a decision is taken over establishing a
carriageway (diagrams 1004 and 1057) signify that
permanent order.
other vehicles should not enter unless it is safe to do
so. Advisory lanes are not recommended where they
7.2.2 Cycle lanes normally continue across side
are likely to be blocked by parked vehicles. They can
roads. At these locations, mandatory cycle lanes
work in circumstances where kerbside parking is
should be replaced by short sections of advisory lane
restricted during peak times but available at other
to enable motor vehicles to cross them.
times.
7.2.3 Where the lane operates only during certain
7.3.2 An advisory lane passing the mouth of a
periods, the times should be clearly displayed using
side road may help to raise driver awareness of the
the sign to diagram 961. Yellow lines (see Figure 7.3)
likely presence of cyclists. This is especially beneficial
and kerb noloading marks (supported by upright
in locations with generous carriageway width and
signs indicating the restrictions) are not strictly
where the side roads join the main alignment at a
necessary, unless waiting or loading is prohibited
shallow angle (see Figure 7.4). The use of a coloured
during nonoperational periods. However, if present,
surface and a cycle symbol help to emphasise the
they discourage motorists from stopping in the lane
lane at the junction and may also help prevent
and make it easier for enforcement officers to deal
encroachment by vehicles waiting at side road exits.
with any such encroachment.
7.3.3 Advisory cycle lanes can also be useful to

indicate routes through a large or complex junction.

Figure 7.4 Coloured advisory cycle lane crossing side road Figure 7.5 Cycle lane with buffer zone alongside parking
junction (Steve Essex) bays, Glasgow (Tony Russell)
7.4 Cycle lane widths 7.5 Other design

7.4.1 A cycle lane offers cyclists some separation
considerations
from motor traffic. Under the National Cycle Training
7.5.1 No lane markings are allowed within the
Standards, cyclists are trained to ride in a safe
controlled area of a pedestrian crossing, i.e. between
position in the carriageway which is usually at least
the start of the approach zigzags and the end of the
1 metre from the kerb edge to avoid gulley grates and
departure ones. The cycle lane marking should simply
debris, and to ensure that they are within the
stop where it meets the zigzags and restart
sightlines of drivers waiting at side roads.
afterwards without any start taper. See the Zebra,
Pelican and Puffin Crossing Regulations and General
7.4.2 Cycle lanes should be 2 metres wide on
Directions 1997 (SI 1997, No. 2400).
busy roads, or where traffic is travelling in excess of
40 mph. A minimum width of 1.5 metres may be
7.5.2 Cycle lanes can be marked on the offside
generally acceptable on roads with a 30 mph limit. For
of a line of parallel parking bays (see Figure 7.5). A
cycle feeder lanes to advanced stop line
buffer zone between the bays and the cycle lane of
arrangements, a minimum width of 1.2m may be
between 0.5 and 1 metre is generally recommended.
acceptable. Cycle lanes less than 1.2 metres wide
The angle between the cycle lane and the kerb on the
cannot easily accommodate tricycles or childcarrying
approach to the parking bays should be 1 in 10.
cycle trailers wholly within the lane.
7.4.3 Cyclists can overtake each other within a 2 7.6 Contraflow cycle lanes
metre wide lane and easily remain within it when
looking back to check for traffic, or when avoiding 7.6.1 Contraflow cycling provides permeability
kerbside drainage grates, etc. Drivers do not always for cyclists when the movement of other traffic is
realise that cyclists need to move away from the kerb restricted by oneway systems. Where oneway
to avoid surface hazards and may expect cyclists to systems are introduced, consideration should always
stay in lane regardless of its width. A narrow cycle be given to maintaining twoway working for cycles
lane may therefore give motorists (misplaced) through contraflow working, if it can be safely
confidence to provide less clearance while overtaking accommodated. The advice in this section is also
than they would in the absence of a cycle lane. At appropriate for authorities thinking of reintroducing
localised carriageway width restrictions, designers twoway cycling in existing oneway streets. TAL 6/98
can continue a fullwidth advisory cycle lane Contraflow Cycling (DETR, 1998a) gives additional
alongside a substandard allpurpose lane, or the advice on the technique.
cycle lane can simply be discontinued. A narrow cycle
lane should not be used here.

7.6.2 Contraflow schemes can function 7.6.5 Advisory contraflow cycle lanes (see Figure
satisfactorily in a variety of conditions, including very 7.7) and unmarked cycle contraflows require
narrow streets, streets with high pedestrian flows and authorisation, because the requisite signs are non
streets with high levels of kerbside parking or loading prescribed. See Traffic Advisory Leaflet 6/98 (DTLR,
activity. Cycling in contraflow can be safer as well as 1998a) for guidance on obtaining signs authorisation,
more convenient than cycling along an alternative but note that the procedure has been slightly modified
route, which is likely to involve longer distances and by paragraph 3.1.2 in this LTN. Advisory lanes may be
may be more hazardous. considered where the 85th percentile speed is less
than 25 mph or traffic flows are below 1,000 vehicles
7.6.3 The advice in this section can also be a day. Advisory lanes may be a suitable option where
applied to false oneway streets. A false oneway oncoming vehicles need to encroach into the lane to
street is a twoway street with entry to the street pass obstructions, or need to cross it to park.
prohibited at one end. Twoway working is possible by Advisory lanes also allow for occasional loading and
turning around in the street, but in practice they often unloading taking place within the lane.
operate as oneway streets.
7.6.6 Where the 85th percentile speed is less
7.6.4 Mandatory contraflow cycle lanes are often than 25 mph and traffic flows are below 1,000 vehicles
accompanied by waiting (and sometimes loading) a day, or where the street forms part of a 20 mph
restrictions to prevent them from being obstructed zone, it may be possible to dispense with any marked
(see Figure 7.6). These restrictions should be included cycle lane. As with advisory contraflow lanes, such an
in the traffic regulation order (TRO) used to create the approach requires nonprescribed signs to be
mandatory lane. Where parking takes place to the authorised.
nearside of a mandatory cycle lane and motor
vehicles have to cross the lane to park, the TRO will
need to allow for this.
Figure 7.6 Mandatory contraflow cycle lane (Coventry City Council)

Figure 7.7 Advisory contraflow cycle lane (Patrick Lingwood) Figure 7.8 Refuge and segregated entry to cycle cont
contraflow lane (Tony Russell CTC)
7.6.7 Cycle entry (and exit) points segregated

from the opposing flow are recommended, but they
7.7 Parking and cycle
are not essential. In some cases, segregation may not contraflows
be possible. TAL 6/98 (DETR, 1998a) gives some
examples of signing layouts. Where segregation is 7.7.1 Parallel parking bays do not pose any more
provided, the No entry requirement for motorists is of a hazard for cyclists in contraflow than they do
signed as usual (see Figure 7.8). If this is not possible, elsewhere. Indeed, drivers waiting to pull out of the
motor vehicles are prohibited using the sign to bays usually face oncoming cyclists, and, if a cyclist
diagram 619. The supplementary Except cycles should collide with a carelessly opened vehicle door,
plate (diagram 954.4) is not necessary here (and it contact will generally be with its panel rather than its
cannot be used with a No entry sign). edge. As such, it may be acceptable to reduce or omit
the buffer zone sometimes provided between parking
7.6.8 Where contraflow lane markings are meant bays and cyclists.
to be largely absent, a short section of lane with
coloured surfacing at each end of the road will help 7.7.2 Echelon parking always needs careful
alert drivers and pedestrians to the possibility of consideration, regardless of whether the road is one
encountering cyclists travelling in contraflow. way or not. Echelon bays should ideally be angled so
that drivers reverse into them. This means that they
exit facing forwards and so avoid the need to reverse
into the main flow to leave. It also means that, in
contraflow cycling schemes, drivers again leave the
bays facing approaching contraflow cyclists.

7.9 Twoway cycle lanes
7.9.1 Twoway cycle lanes are not generally
recommended, because they can be confusing to
motorists (see next paragraph). However, they can
overcome design issues that may be difficult to
resolve otherwise. For example, if two cycle routes
meet a major road close to each other and on the
same side of the road, a twoway cycle lane can be
used to link the routes, thus avoiding the need for
cyclists to cross the carriageway.
7.9.2 Twoway cycle lanes should generally be

separated from other traffic lanes by means such as a
kerb. If segregation is not adequately provided, the
arrangement may be confusing to motorists,
especially at night. Any twoway cycle facility needs to
be very carefully designed, mainly because of the
increased potential for conflict where these routes
cross the mouths of side roads. A driver waiting to
leave a side road may not be expecting to encounter
cyclists approaching from two directions.
Figure 7.9 Contraflow bus lane, Isle of Wight (Patrick 7.9.3 Other issues to consider include:
Lingwood)
the possible need for cycle gaps in the segregating

7.8 Cycling and contraflow feature, so that cyclists can get to and from cycle
lanes in the main carriageway;
bus lanes
additional signs and traffic calming may be
7.8.1 Cyclists are often permitted to use required;
contraflow bus lanes. Where this is so, the
recommended width of bus lane is 4.25 metres, with a drivers turning out of a side road may inadvertently
preferred minimum of 4 metres. However, for short enter the twoway cycle lane if it is not clearly
stretches, or where flows are low, narrower lanes may marked or protected by a bollard;
be acceptable. Figure 7.9 shows a 3metre wide
example. This is the minimum recommended width for arrangements for pedestrians become more
contraflow bus lanes. Further advice on bus complex near twoway cycle lanes, and
contraflow lanes is given in Chapters 3 and 5 of the pedestrians may not realise they need to look both
Traffic Signs Manual (DfT, 2008 and 2003a) and Local ways before crossing;
Transport Note 1/97 Keeping Buses Moving (DETR,
1997c). physical segregation of the lane prohibits activities
such as parking or loading on one side of the
carriageway this may lead to problems on the
other side.

8 Offroad cycle routes
8.1 Introduction created as additions to existing walking and cycling

networks, and thus represent an improvement for all
8.1.1 Offroad cycle routes almost invariably users.
accommodate pedestrians too. They vary
considerably in scope, from a shareduse track 8.1.5 New off road routes should be audited after
alongside an urban road to countryside leisure routes installation to ensure the design is working well.
such as those on converted former railway lines. Feedback from users can help this process.
Overall design will depend on how each route is used.
All routes should be safe and comfortable, but other 8.2 Design speed
design priorities will vary depending on the main
purpose a route is intended to serve. For example, 8.2.1 On commuter routes, cyclists usually want
routes used for commuting need to be fairly direct, to be able to travel at speeds of between 12 mph and
while on leisure routes directness may be less 20 mph, preferably without having to lose momentum.
important than providing an attractive environment Frequent road crossings, tight corner radii, the
where the route itself may be one of the main presence of other users and restricted width or
attractors. forward visibility all affect the speed with which
cyclists can travel and the effort required. Cyclists
8.1.2 In general, offroad cycle routes in urban tend not to favour cycle routes that frequently require
areas tend to be the least desired option, and it is them to adjust their speed or stop.
usually better to cater for urban cyclists onroad if this
is practicable. Offroad routes are often created by 8.2.2 A design speed of 20 mph is preferred for
converting existing footways/footpaths and, if such offroad routes intended predominantly for utility
routes are not carefully designed, pedestrians may cycling. This provides a margin of safety for most
view them as a reduction in quality of provision. It is cyclists. The average speed of cyclists on a level
important to consult with cyclists and pedestrian surface is around 12 mph.
groups on the design of such facilities. This can help
reduce the likelihood of objections to the conversion 8.2.3 Where cyclists share a route with
of pedestrian facilities. More information on the pedestrians, a lower design speed may be required.
establishment of shared use schemes is available in Routes with design speeds significantly below 20 mph
Local Transport Note 2/86 Shared Use by Cyclists and are unlikely to be attractive to regular commuter
Pedestrians (DoT, 1986). cyclists, and it may be necessary to ensure there is an
alternative oncarriageway route for this user
8.1.3 In addition, urban offroad routes may be category.
frequently interrupted by side roads. Track crossings
of side roads can be difficult to get right, and they
may become points of conflict between cyclists and 8.3 Visibility criteria
motorists. This aspect is covered in more detail in
Section 10.3. 8.3.1 For cyclists using the carriageway, the
forward visibility required to assess hazards and
8.1.4 Offroad leisure routes tend to be more obstacles ahead is governed by the road geometry,
attractive options because they do not usually suffer which is likely to be more than adequate for cyclists
from the same problems. Long, crosscountry routes, needs. For offroad routes, forward visibility needs to
for example, are unlikely to be frequently interrupted. be considered in more detail.
In addition, many offroad leisure routes have been

8.3.2 Two visibility parameters determine Table 8.1 Offroad route design parameters
whether cyclists can ride comfortably at their own
desired speed and react safely to hazards. They are Type of Design Min. Min.
the sight distance in motion (SDM) and the stopping offroad speed stopping radius of
sight distance (SSD). cycle sight curve
route distance
8.3.3 SDM could also be regarded as the comfort
Commuter 20 mph 25 metres 25 metres
visibility zone when cycling. It is the distance that a
route
cyclist needs to see ahead in order to make riding feel
safe and comfortable. Research (CROW, 1993) has Local 12 mph 15 metres 15 metres
determined this to be equal to the distance covered in access
8 to 10 seconds, i.e. between 50 metres and 80 route
metres at typical cycling speeds. SSD is the distance
that a cyclist needs to see ahead to recognise a estimated that minimum stopping distances should be
hazard, react to it and come to a halt. It is always increased by around 50 per cent for unsurfaced tracks
shorter than the SDM. (California DOT, 2001).
8.3.4 The ability of a cyclist to interact safely with 8.4.4 Physical constraints often make it
other cyclists and pedestrians will depend on the impossible to meet the desired geometric criteria. If
sightlines available. These in turn affect the ability to these cannot be achieved, mitigating measures may
maintain momentum, anticipate the actions of others be necessary, such as where a cycle track
and, if necessary, stop in time. It is also important for approaches a subway entrance at a right angle (see
personal security that cyclists can assess the situation paragraph 8.15.3). However, in many cases, cyclists
ahead. can be expected to slow down for their own safety.
8.4.5 Regardless of geometry, it is important that

8.4 Geometric design cycling speeds do not cause inconvenience or danger
8.4.1 SDM values on offroad routes may be to pedestrians. Generous sightlines on less busy
difficult to achieve, but failure to satisfy SDM routes can help pedestrians and cyclists to avoid each
requirements will not affect safety. However, providing other, but at some conflict points measures such as
adequate SDM sightlines is desirable, as they staggered barriers may be required to reduce cycling
enhance comfort and obviate the need to consider speeds.
SSDs.
8.4.2 The SSD depends on the riders initial

8.5 Width requirements
speed, perception/reaction time and the braking 8.5.1 The minimum widths given in this section
ability of the cycle. Table 8.1 gives suggested values relate to what is physically required for the convenient
for SSDs, which are similar to those given in the passage of a small number of users. They do not take
Manual for Streets (DfT/CLG, 2007). However, TA into account the need for increased width to
90/05 in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges accommodate larger user flows. Wherever it is
Vol. 6 (Highways Agency, 2005b) recommends a possible, widths larger than the minimum should be
higher minimum SSD of 30 metres at 30 km/h used. Practitioners should not regard minimum widths
(19 mph). Whichever figure designers use, it should be as design targets. When cyclists are climbing steep
noted that it relates to minimum SSDs, and any gradients, they will need additional width to maintain
increase over these values will enhance comfort and balance. Similarly, when descending steep gradients,
hence the attractiveness of the route. they can quickly gain speed, thus additional track
width or separation will reduce the potential for
8.4.3 Another geometric factor that affects the
conflict with pedestrians.
speed at which cyclists can travel comfortably is the
curvature of the cycle track. Whether considering 8.5.2 The minimum recommended width for
sight distance or curvature, designers should allow for urban footways on local roads is 2 metres. This is
sitespecific factors such as gradient or surface sufficient to allow a person walking alongside a
quality when applying them. For example, it is

pushchair to pass another pram or wheelchair user Table 8.2 Additional width required for footways
comfortably. A minimum width of 1.5 metres is and cycle tracks
recommended for a oneway cycle track. The
minimum recommended width for a twoway cycle Type of edge constraint Additional width
track is 3 metres. If these widths cannot be realised, required
the facility may become difficult for some people to Flush or near flush surface Nil
use. Narrow stretches should be kept to short lengths,
Low upstand up to 150 mm Add 200 mm
with passing places interspersed along the route.
Passing places should be within sight of adjacent Vertical feature from 150 mm Add 250 mm
ones. The distance between passing places should to 1.2 metres*
not exceed 50 metres.
Vertical feature above Add 500 mm
8.5.3 Where there is no segregation between 1.2 metres
pedestrians and cyclists, a route width of 3 metres * Including bridge parapets etc. over 1.2 metres
should generally be regarded as the minimum for short distances
acceptable, although in areas with few cyclists or
pedestrians a narrower route might suffice. In all
cases where a cycle track or footway is bounded by a 8.6 Crossfall, camber and
vertical feature such as a wall, railings or kerb, an
additional allowance should be made, as the very drainage
edge of the path cannot be used. Table 8.2 provides
8.6.1 Crossfall should be between 1 and 2.5 per
the recommended width additions for various vertical
cent to ensure adequate drainage. Excessive crossfall
features, and Figure 8.1 illustrates how these figures
can be uncomfortable for disabled people and
might be applied to 2metre cycle track alongside a
hazardous in icy conditions. On straight sections, the
1.5metre footpath.
track should ideally fall to either side from the centre.
If used, raised white lines (diagram 1049.1) to
segregate users may require regular gaps to allow
surface water to drain away.
Note: This figure is for

illustrative purposes only. 1.2 metre high barrier, say
Minimum widths should not 0.1 metre wide at the base Wall
be used as design targets. >1.2 metre
high
Edge of track flush with surface
(no extra width required)
Min. width of Min. width of

cycle track = 2 metres footpath = 1.5 metres
Add Add
Add
0.25m 0.25m
0.5m
0.1m
2.25 metres 2.25 metres
4.6 metres
Figure 8.1 Widths for cycle tracks and footpaths

8.6.2 A cycle track should always fall from its 8.7.3 It is worth bearing in mind that
outer edge to the inside on bends. If the track falls to recommendations on cycle route gradients relate to
the outside of a bend (negative camber), there is an comfort not safety. While it is always preferable to
increased risk of skidding. Super elevation, where the minimise gradients to reduce the effort required,
crossfall at a bend is increased to permit higher designers should not adhere too rigidly to the
speeds, is unnecessary. Crossfall should be no more recommended maxima if doing so rules out the option
than is required for drainage purposes. of providing the cycle route in the first place. A very
steep route may be better than none at all. In some
8.6.3 On unbound surfaces, it is important that hilly areas, it is not uncommon to find cycle routes on
the cycle track is constructed so that surface water is roads with gradients of between 10% and 15%.
shed to the sides. Water running along the surface
can cause erosion and ruts that require frequent 8.7.4 The above advice on gradients relates to
maintenance. cycle routes in general. For ramps to subways or
foot/cycle bridges, the gradient should normally be at
8.6.4 Drainage gullies on a sealed surface cycle 5% (see paragraph 10.8.1). Any less increases
track should be set flush with it. Grating slots should walking/cycling distances, while steeper gradients
be at right angles to the cyclists line of travel to avoid may cause difficulties for some users.
the risk of them catching cycle wheels. The position of
gullies should be noted during the design process, as
they may need to be moved or realigned where 8.8 Surfaces
footways are converted to shared use.
8.8.1 The type and quality of surface affects the
comfort and attractiveness of a route and the whole
8.7 Gradients life costs of the project. An initially high capital cost
for a goodquality specification may minimise
8.7.1 Cyclists often go out of their way to avoid maintenance and repair costs over the long term.
climbing a hill, especially where the gradient is steep. Some of the most common treatments are considered
The may also try to avoid losing height once it has in Table 8.3.
been gained. For new routes in a hilly area, therefore,
an indirect alignment may be preferable to one 8.8.2 Cycle tracks do not suffer the same degree
involving steep gradients. Where space permits, steep of wear as motor vehicle routes, but minor surface
gradients can be mitigated by providing ramps in a defects and debris that would be of little consequence
zigzag arrangement up the hill. Where this approach for motorised traffic can be uncomfortable to cyclists
is adopted, it is essential that the turning points are and may present a hazard.
kept as level as possible using the minimum crossfall
necessary to shed water. It is especially important to 8.8.3 Designers need to choose a suitable
avoid adverse camber at these locations. surface for the route. This will depend on its purpose,
its expected level of use, construction methods
8.7.2 In general, a maximum gradient of 3 per available, the available budget for construction and
cent is recommended, but this can rise to 5 per cent maintenance, and aesthetic and environmental
over a distance of up to 100 metres. Where steeper considerations (UK Roads Board, 2003).
slopes are unavoidable, the limiting gradient is 7 per
cent over a distance of up to 30 metres. Steeper 8.8.4 The construction specification will depend
gradients are not recommended, except over short on the strength of the sub grade, drainage, frost
distances. On the approach to priority junctions, the susceptibility, the design life and whether access is
gradient would ideally not exceed 3 per cent. Where also required by motorised traffic or horses.
cyclists have to stop, such as at junctions, a short
locally levelled section will be of benefit.

8.8.5 Within urban areas subject to high cycle 8.8.8 Unbound surfaces are generally unsuitable
flows, the preferred surface is a bound construction for use on commuter routes because they are less
similar to that of footways, with additional thickness durable, dusty when dry and can throw up dirt when
provided in areas subject to motor vehicle overrun. In wet. Surfaces can be sealed with tar spray and
rural areas, unbound surfaces may be more chippings on a suitable base, and this may also be a
appropriate. Guidance on the suitability of a range of solution where equestrian damage to unsealed
surface types for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians surfaces is a problem. The chipping surface offers a
may be found in DMRB Vol. 5, Section 2, Part 4 TA degree of grip for horses. Type 1 granular material is
91/05 (HA, 2005a). generally used as a base course for rural cycle tracks
and paths. Recycled surfacing material such as
8.8.6 Machinelaid cycle tracks are preferred. planings arising from highway maintenance activities
Handlaid surfaces may be acceptable for pedestrian can be used and may offer environmental benefits and
use, but they are often uncomfortable for cyclists. cost savings from reduced haulage and disposal
costs.
8.8.7 Where equestrians share wellused rural
offroad routes with cyclists and walkers, it may be 8.8.9 Additional strength or wearing resistance
desirable to provide a parallel track for horses. This is can be achieved through the use of fibrereinforced
because bound surfaces are generally unsuitable for surfacing techniques. Since these are usually
horses, except over short lengths, and, where the machinelaid, the construction thickness will need to
cycle track surface is unbound, it can be damaged by be increased to carry the weight of the machinery
their hooves. involved. Where these surfaces are used, it is important
their presence is recorded so that maintenance
activities, and in particular excavation, are carried out
in a manner that avoids damage to them.
Table 8.3 Typical cycle track construction
Surface Comment
Asphalt or Preferred surface, suitable for highflow routes, can be surface dressed, lower longterm
bituminous maintenance costs.
Concrete laid High installation cost but durable. Not very comfortable to ride on, and a textured surface
in situ may be required for adequate skid resistance. In rural locations a concrete surface may
be useful for localised areas such as cattle crossings.
Concrete block or Expensive, but durable.

clay paviours
Surface dressed More suitable in rural environments. Preferred to unbound surfacing, allows for colour
base course variation through choice of chippings. Fibrereinforced surfaces add strength.
Unbound Not generally recommended except on very quiet routes. Can be dusty when dry and
result in unpleasant spray when wet. Prone to erosion by poor drainage. Can have higher
longterm maintenance costs, and is prone to damage by horses and farm vehicles.

8.9 Dropped kerbs 8.10 Bus stops
8.9.1 The transition from cycle track to 8.10.1 Where shared use routes pass bus stops,
carriageway is an important detail for cyclists safety there is increased potential for conflict between
and comfort. An upstand crossed at a narrow angle or pedestrians and cyclists, especially where room is
when combined with loose debris in the channel can limited. Passengers alighting from buses are unlikely
be hazardous and is also a disadvantage to people to consider that cyclists may be passing.
with prams or wheelchair users on shared use
facilities. The transition between surfaces should 8.10.2 It is common practice for cyclists to be
ideally be flush (see Figures 8.2 and 8.3). placed closest to the carriageway when a footway is
converted to a segregated shared use cycle track.
8.9.2 Sometimes it is possible to omit kerbs This enables pedestrians to walk at the back of the
altogether, providing a continuous surface (see Figure footway and reduces the likelihood of cyclists
8.2). Where edge restraint is required, squareedged colliding with vehicles at driveway entrances. At bus
kerbs or channel blocks may be used. stops, this arrangement is not ideal, as it is more likely
to bring cyclists into conflict with bus users. Where
8.9.3 Gully gratings should be relocated clear of space permits, conflict may be reduced by swapping
the crossing point. If this is not possible, the grating the footway and cycle track positions so that cyclists
should be orientated so that the grating slots are pass behind the bus shelter and any waiting
roughly at right angles to the direction of cyclists flow passengers (see Figure 8.4).
to avoid the danger of a wheel becoming caught. A
dropped kerb at the carriageway edge should be wide
enough to accommodate cyclists turning at a
reasonable speed and without them needing to pull
out towards the centre of the carriageway to join or
leave the cycle track. A 4metre minimum radius
should be assumed when assessing entry angles.
Figure 8.3 Flush surfaces at dropped kerb (Alex Sully,

ERCDT)
Figure 8.2 Smooth transition from carriageway to cycle

track, Bingley. Note that the cycle symbol does not conform
to diagram 1057 (see paragraph 3.3.2). (Tim Pheby)

8.12 Street lighting
8.12.1 Lighting is normally provided on urban
routes where cycling can be expected after dark.
Lighting helps users detect potential hazards,
discourages crime and helps users to feel safe.
8.12.2 Cyclists using twoway cycle tracks

alongside unlit carriageways may be blinded or
dazzled by the lights of oncoming vehicles,
particularly on tracks alongside highspeed rural
roads. Drivers may also be confused when seeing
cycle lights approaching on their nearside. These
hazards can be reduced by, for example, locating the
track as far away as possible from the carriageway
edge, or by providing withflow cycle tracks alongside
Figure 8.4 Cycle track changing sides at bus stop both sides of the carriageway.
(Tim Pheby)
8.12.3 Cycle routes across large quiet parks or
along canal towpaths may not be well used outside
8.11 Street furniture peak commuting times after dark, even if lighting is
provided. In these cases a suitable street lit onroad
8.11.1 Where a footway or footpath is being alternative that matches the desire line as closely as
converted for cycle use, obstacles within the track possible should be considered. Subways should be lit
such as sign poles, lighting columns, pillar boxes, bus at all times, using vandalresistant lighting where
stops and telephone kiosks may need to be moved. If necessary. It is not expected that routes outside built
barriers or bollards are required to restrict motor up areas used primarily for recreation would normally
vehicle access to the route, they should be highlighted need to be lit except where there were road safety
through the use of reflective material or highvisibility concerns, such as at crossings or where the track is
paint, especially in areas where there is no street directly alongside the carriageway.
lighting. A cycle audit during the hours of darkness as
well as in daylight may help to identify potential 8.12.4 Where an offcarriageway track requires
hazards. lighting, the designer needs to consider the proximity
of an electricity supply, energy usage, and light
8.11.2 When cyclists lean into a bend, they may pollution.
extend over the inner edge of a cycle track. Poles,
fences or other vertical features on the inside of bends 8.12.5 The Highways Act 1980, section 65(1)
should therefore be set back and any overhanging contains powers to light cycle tracks. Technical design
tree branches or other vegetation cleared. guidance may be found in TR23, Lighting of Cycle
Tracks (ILE, 1998).
8.11.3 The area adjacent to a cycle track has an
impact on personal security. Landscaping and
planting should not impede forward visibility or the 8.13 Managing user conflict
effect of passive surveillance from surrounding
properties, nor create hiding places close to a path. A 8.13.1 Almost all offcarriageway routes for
verge or clear area ideally not less than 1 metre wide cyclists are used by pedestrians, and the potential for
may be provided on each side of a track, with planting user conflict needs careful consideration. Where there
near the track kept below 0.8 metre high. Vegetation is potential for conflict, separating user flows is an
that is likely to grow higher may be set further back. option but if room is limited, this may not be making
best use of the width available. Alternatively, cycling
8.11.4 The minimum recommended headroom speed can be reduced or accommodated.
under road signs which project above a cycle track is
2.3 metres.

8.13.2 It can be counterproductive to reduce 8.14.3 Arrangements may be required to
cyclist speeds by restricting forward visibility where a accommodate wheelchair users to comply with the
route is intended to encourage more cycling and Disability Discrimination Act 1995. A common method
walking doing so disadvantages pedestrians too and for allowing wheelchairs to bypass access controls is
may create conflict points. In a study of user to install a gate equipped with a RADAR (Royal
interaction on cycle tracks (Uzzell et al., 2000), the Association for Disability and Rehabilitation) lock.
speed of cyclists was significant in perceived conflict, These locks can be opened with a key purchased
but limited visibility was the most important factor in from RADAR. However, this may still result in loss of
actual conflict. access to some types of bicycle and tricycle, and
many disabled people will not have a key.
8.14 Access control 8.14.4 Bollards are the preferred method of

access control for larger vehicles, spaced a minimum
8.14.1 Barriers at cycle route access points are of 1.2 metres apart, preferably 1.5 metres. For an
commonly provided to prevent entry by cars and vans additional deterrent effect, they can be installed as
etc. They become more of a problem for cyclists when two staggered rows with a minimum 1.2 metres
designed to exclude motorcycles. Motorcycle barriers between rows (see Figures 8.5 and 8.6). Bollards
should only be introduced after a definite need has should ideally be placed at least 5 metres from any
been established, because measures that reliably bend or junction, so that riders can approach them
exclude motorcycles invariably exclude some cyclists, straight on. Bollards can be hazardous on unlit routes
including users of tricycles, cycle trailers and hand and at sites where forward visibility is restricted by the
cranked cycles. Wheelchairs and mobility scooters will layout or by other users.
also be excluded. Dismounting to manoeuvre a cycle
with an occupied child seat through barriers can be 8.14.5 Where motor vehicle access is required for
hazardous. maintenance, removable bollards or a selfclosing
gate for pedestrians and cyclists adjacent to a locked
8.14.2 Measures to control motorcycles are only main gate can be used. Selfclosing gates can also be
as good as the weakest point in the route boundary used where gates are required to prevent livestock
if fencing can be breached, access barriers will have escaping. If there is a series of gates in close
little or no effect. If potential misuse by motorcyclists succession it may be preferable to fence off the cycle
is raised as an issue during the consultation stage of a route to reduce the need for users to stop and start.
new project, it might be better to set capital funds This also reduces the likelihood of gates being left
aside to cover the cost of barriers, should they prove open. Specially designed cattle grids are available for
necessary, and monitor the scheme in operation. If use on cycle tracks and footpaths.
concerns are found to be justified, funds will therfore
be available to address them.
Figure 8.5 Bollard to prevent unauthorised car access (Alex Figure 8.6 Multiple bollards (Tony Russell)
Sully)

Figure 8.7 Barrier with wheelchair bypass (Tim Pheby) Figure 8.8 Aframe barrier (Steve Essex)
8.14.6 Barriers with a wheelchair bypass are

8.15 Speed control and
commonly used. They offer access for unladen solo
bicycles and will deter most motorcyclists (see Figure segregation
8.7). This type of barrier can cause problems for
cyclists with panniers, laden tandems, tricycles, child 8.15.1 Where there is potential for conflict, it may
trailers and some types of mobility scooter and is be better to widen the route or address visibility
therefore unsuitable for longdistance recreational issues rather than install controls. If this is not
routes. The low barriers can damage cycle wheels or possible, it may be appropriate to introduce measures
cause a fall if a rider fails to line up properly on to slow cyclists down, such as rumble surfaces,
approach. They may also create a trip hazard for blind humps, or staggered barrier arrangements (barriers
or partially sighted users should be considered last).
8.14.7 Aframe barriers (Figure 8.8) permit ordinary 8.15.2 Warning features such as SLOW markings
cycles, tandems and most wheelchairs to pass, but may be useful for alerting cyclists approaching a
they need to be carefully installed to ensure they hazard. The deliberate imposition of tight radii,
operate as intended. They exclude some powered although inappropriate in the general run of a path, is
wheelchairs, mobility scooters and many types of an effective way of bringing speeds down on the
bicycle trailer. approach to a potential conflict point. There should be
good visibility through bends or speedreducing
8.14.8 Where access controls are next to a features.
carriageway they need to be set back far enough to
accommodate likely users. For example, a family 8.15.3 Where cycle routes are retrofitted to
group waiting for others to pass through the controls pedestrian subways with rightangled approaches,
could require a space 5m long to ensure all are clear cyclists can be guided away from the inside of the
of the carriageway. corner using barriers or other means (see Figure 8.9).
This helps reduce the potential for conflict with
8.14.9 Conventional kissing gates can be altered pedestrians.
to accommodate solo cycles and wheelchairs but will
invariably exclude most nonstandard bikes including
trailer bikes, trailers, tandems, tricycles and many
cycles adapted for disabled users. They are not
generally recommended on cycle routes.

8.16 Tactile paving
8.16.1 Tactile paving surfaces can be used to
convey important information to visually impaired
pedestrians about their environment. On cycle routes,
they are applied where tracks meet
footways/footpaths and at intervals along some
shared use routes. Detailed advice is contained in
Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces
(DETR, 1998b). The following complements that
Figure 8.9 Barrier placed at foot of subway ramp
advice.
8.16.2 The ribbed (tramline/ladder) surface is used

to indicate the start of a shared use route where
cyclists and pedestrians are segregated from each
other. The ribs are orientated in a ladder pattern on
the pedestrian side, and tramline on the other.
Tramline paving is usually laid over a distance of
2.4 metres. Ideally, it should be sited so that cyclists
pass over all of the paviours in line with the ribs. If this
is not possible, it may be worth considering laying it
over a shorter distance to minimise the possibility of
skidding.
8.16.3 The corduroy surface is used to warn

visually impaired pedestrians of the presence of
Figure 8.10 Barrier to reduce speed on approach to subway specific hazards. In the cycling context, it should only
(CTC Benchmarking) be used as a warning that a footway or footpath is
about to join a shared route on the cyclists side.
8.15.4 Barriers placed under bridges on disused Corduroy should not be confused with ladder/tramline
railways and canal towpaths may introduce personal they have different rib profiles.
security issues, as people sometimes loiter and
congregate at these locations. Barriers are best 8.16.4 In complex situations, it may be difficult to
located in more open areas if practicable. follow published guidance to the letter, and tactile
paving arrangements can get a little complicated. If
8.15.5 If staggered (chicane) barriers are used, the there is potential for this to lead to confusion, it may
arrangement should be designed to slow cyclists be better to omit some tactile paving so that the
rather than force them to dismount (see Figure 8.10). remaining (more important) tactile messages can be
Chicane layouts should provide gaps of at least 1.5 better understood. In such complicated situations the
metres between barriers and walls, and at least the designer should seek advice from access officers or
same distance between barriers. Tandems, tricycles local representatives of visually impaired people.
and child trailers require at least 2 metres between
consecutive barriers.
8.17 Maintenance
8.15.6 Barriers and access controls need to be
clearly visible. Partially sighted people appreciate 8.17.1 Proper maintenance is essential if a cycle
colour as well as a tonal contrast in their surroundings route is to remain attractive to users. Potholes, ruts,
(DfT, 2002) Yellow and black gives the greatest uncleared debris and poorly reinstated surfaces can
contrast. Retroreflective bands should also be create hazards for pedestrians and cyclists. Guidance
considered. on the maintenance and construction of cycle routes,

both on and off road, may be found in the Application Works affecting cycle routes should be co
Guide AG26 (Version 2) (UK Roads Board, 2003). This ordinated to minimise inconvenience to the same
document can be used as a starting point for degree as those in the carriageway. Reinstatements
establishing maintenance standards, taking local carried out by the authority and statutory
circumstances into account. Table 8.4 gives an undertakers should be in accordance with good
example of a maintenance programme for offroad practice.
routes.
Regular sweeping is required to keep cycle tracks,
8.17.2 The following points should be considered: lanes and bypasses clear of accumulated debris,
especially where glass can be expected to
Cycle routes have an important role to play in accumulate, e.g. outside pubs and clubs etc.
helping local authorities meet a broad range of
policy objectives on sustainable transport, health Regular trimming of trees, hedges and grass
and, physical activity. Poor maintenance can deter growing alongside cycle facilities during the
cyclists and pedestrians, making these objectives growing season is recommended. The debris
harder to achieve. should be promptly cleared from the track to
minimise the risk of punctures.
Inspection frequency and intervention levels may
need to be made more onerous than suggested in The geometric and structural design of a cycle
AG26 in order to meet the needs of cyclists in some track may need to accommodate maintenance
situations. It is worth considering consultation with vehicles.
local user groups on proposed maintenance
standards. 8.17.3 If the condition of a cycle route is allowed
to deteriorate, people may stop using it. A costed
Routine and safety inspections are best carried out maintenance programme can be secured with long
from a bicycle to help ensure that the inspector has term funding if it forms part of a projects development
a better understanding of how even small defects and approval process. The daytoday costs of
can affect cyclists. inspection and lowlevel maintenance may be
reduced by using suitably trained volunteer staff,
Identified problems should be rectified as quickly where they are legally able to do so. One example of
as is practicable. This process can be helped by, this is the volunteer ranger partnership on some
for example, introducing a faultreporting hotline or sections of the National Cycle Network.
prepaid postcards.
Table 8.4 Typical maintenance programme for offroad routes
Issue Activity Notes Frequency Time of year
Cycle track Winter maintenance Consider importance as utility As necessary Winter

surface route
Inspection Staff undertaking maintenance Every time site Early spring, mid
works can also carry out site visited. Minimum summer, early
inspections (but not structures of 4 visits per year. and late autumn
see below) to avoid need for extra (before and after
visits leaf fall)
Repairs to potholes Reactive maintenance in As necessary n/a

etc. response to calls from public,
plus programmed inspections
Sweeping to clear Combine with other activities if Site specific n/a

leaf litter and debris possible

Table 8.4 Typical maintenance programme for offroad routes continued
Issue Activity Notes Frequency Time of year
Cycle track Cut back Once a year November, and

surface encroaching also when
vegetation on sweeping takes
verges place.
Programmed The need for remedial work will As necessary n/a

maintenance, such depend on the condition of the
as resurfacing cycle track. Unbound surfaces
may require more frequent
maintenance.
Drainage Clear gullies and Twice a year April, November

drainage channels
etc.
Vegetation Verges mow, flail To include forward and junction n/a May, July and
or strim visibility splays September
Grassed amenity Include with verge maintenance n/a n/a
areas
Control of ragwort, See Weeds Act 1959 and Wildlife Before seeding July or as
thistles and docks and Countryside Act 1981. Hand appropriate
etc. pull, cut or spot treat as
necessary.
Cut back trees and If necessary, allow for annual As necessary July
herbaceous shrubs inspection of trees depending on
number, type and condition
Signs Repair/replace/clea Maintenance will largely depend n/a n/a

n as necessary on levels of local vandalism
Access Repair/replace as Maintenance will largely depend n/a n/a
barriers necessary on levels of local vandalism
Fences Repair/replace as Dependent on licence n/a n/a
necessary arrangements with landowner
Structures, Inspections Carried out by suitably qualified Visual inspection n/a
including staff every 2 years and
culverts detailed structural
inspection every
6 years
Seating Maintain or repair If present n/a n/a

sculptures
etc.
Other Varies cheme-specific issues such as n/a n/a

Sites of Special Scientific Interest,
interpretation and information
measures, disability access etc.

9 Junctions
9.1 Visibility criteria at safety. Providing longer X distances makes it easier

for cyclists to use the junction without stopping. This
junctions and crossings is acceptable, because a cyclist, even when moving,
is unlikely to fail to notice a car approaching from the
9.1.1 Where a cycle track meets a road, visibility
side. Cyclists are generally reluctant to stop, because
splays are required to ensure cyclists can see and be
they like to conserve energy, so allowing them to see
seen by approaching motorists. Splays are defined by
along the main road while approaching it may give
their X and Y distances, and Figure 9.1 shows the
them more time to check properly. A longer X distance
basic layout. Figure 7.18 in the Manual for Streets
also makes a cyclist approaching or waiting at the
(DfT/CLG, 2007) (MfS) shows how splays are
junction more visible to drivers. A minimum X distance
measured on curved alignments.
of 2 metres is suggested.
9.1.2 MfS normally recommends an X distance

9.1.4 Where cycle tracks meet roads in builtup
(of 2.4 metres) which allows one car driver at a time to
areas, minimum Y distances can be taken from Table
check along the main alignment before exiting the
7.1 of MfS. For higherspeed roads, the Y distances
minor arm. Longer X distances are not generally
given in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
recommended. They increase junction capacity, but
(HA, 1995) will be more appropriate.
they also tend to allow drivers to see enough to
enable them to leave the minor arm without stopping,
and this may lead to a reduction in safety. 9.2 Signalised junctions
9.1.3 The circumstances are different at a cycle 9.2.1 Signalised junctions are one of the safest
track junction for one thing, the speeds involved are types of junction for cyclists. An advanced stop line
lower. In this case, longer X distances are preferred, (ASL) arrangement with a cycle feeder lane will enable
as they can reduce cycling effort and may enhance cyclists to pass queuing motor vehicles on the
Y distance Y distance
X distance
Visibility
splay
Cycle
track
Figure 9.1 Visibility splay measurements

approach and take up the appropriate position for 9.3 Signalised junction
their intended manoeuvre before the signals change
to green. ASLs are dealt with in more detail in layouts
Section 9.4.
9.3.1 Larger junctions with many arms, signal
9.2.2 Most signalised junctions do not require phases or multilane approaches can be more
any special adjustment to signal timings for cyclists. intimidating and hazardous for cyclists. If a route
At larger junctions, or where a junction arm has an through a signalised junction is specifically for
uphill gradient, the intergreen period may need to be cyclists, it may be appropriate to provide elephants
extended to ensure that cyclists are able to clear the feet markings (see Figure 9.3), but these require
junction before the next phase of the lights begins. authorisation. Policy on these markings (in England, at
Cyclists speeds and their ability to move off are least) has tightened up in recent years, and the
greatly affected by gradients. Where the junction is on Department for Transport now only considers
a gradient, either the intergreen period can be authorising them at signal controlled junctions where
extended for the appropriate signal phase (e.g. just on the cyclists route may not be obvious. As such, it is
the uphill gradient, or possibly all stages at a large unlikely that the example shown would be authorised
junction), or cyclists can be detected by loops or nowadays.
infrared/microwave systems that extend the
9.3.2 Cycle lanes that bypass the main signals
appropriate period only when necessary. The speed of
can reduce delays. A dedicated leftturn cycle lane
cyclists travelling through level signalised junctions
using a separate phase or green signal will enable
varies from around 4 m/s to 7 m/s (Wall et al., 2003).
cyclists to clear the junction ahead of other traffic.
9.2.3 Modern, wellpositioned detector Short bypasses with their own signal head can cater
equipment and suitable sensitivity settings enable for other movements, such as the example in Figure
cyclists to be detected at most signalcontrolled 9.4, which allows cyclists to go ahead where other
junctions. Figure 9.2 shows a typical loop detector traffic must turn left. If a pushbutton unit is provided
arrangement. Where a cycle track forms one of the to activate the signal, it will require authorisation. Note
arms of a junction, loop detectors can be provided in that, in the example shown, the signal head is
the track to trigger the appropriate phase at the incorrect, as it uses a red cycle symbol see diagram
signals. Alternatively, aboveground vehicle detection 3000.2 of TSRGD. If it is appropriate, the bypass can
equipment may be used see TAL 16/99, The use of be left unsignalled, using GIVE WAY markings instead.
above ground vehicle detectors (DETR, 1999b).
9.3.3 Any such proposals need careful design, as
it is essential that the needs of pedestrians, and
particularly disabled people, are taken into account.
Figure 9.2 Loop patterns to detect cyclists, (Alex Sully) Figure 9.3 Elephants feet markings, (CTC Benchmarking)

Figure 9.4 Cycleonly phase at signal controlled junction Figure 9.5 Cycle track bypass at a signalised Tjunction
(CTC Benchmarking). Note that the signal head is incorrect, (Patrick Lingwood)
as it uses a red cycle symbol.
9.3.4 If there is insufficient room in the 9.4.3 Advanced stop lines are generally popular
carriageway for a bypass, it can be created by with cyclists and may thereby encourage more cycling
converting part of the footway to a cycle track using (Scottish Government, 2001). They:
powers under the Highway Act 1980, such as in
Figure 9.5. In this case, cyclists going straight ahead allow cyclists to bypass queuing traffic to get to the
can use the track to bypass the signals at a Tjunction. front (via the leadin lane);
A good way of returning cyclists to the carriageway is
to place the end of the cycle track on a buildout and place cyclists in a more visible location ahead of
parallel to the main flow. Such an arrangement traffic, rather than at a potential blind spot to the
minimises the potential for conflict when cyclists left of traffic; this is especially important where
rejoin, and should allow them to do so without there are appreciable numbers of HGVs;
stopping.
allow cyclists to wait in an area relatively free from
exhaust fumes; and
9.4 Advanced stop lines
make it easier for righthandturning cyclists to
9.4.1 Advanced stop line (ASL) arrangements position themselves in the best location.
comprise a stop line for motor vehicles, an additional
stop line for cyclists nearer the signal heads, and a
leadin lane that allows cyclists to pass the first stop
line (see Figure 9.6). The area between the two stop
lines forms a reservoir for waiting cyclists to occupy.
ASLs are prescribed for signalised junctions only
they cannot be used at signalised pedestrian
crossings.
9.4.2 ASLs were originally introduced to reduce

conflict between cyclists and motorists when pulling
away from rest at signal controlled junctions. The main
conflicting movements are:
cyclists going ahead while other vehicles turn left;

and
cyclists turning right while other vehicles go ahead.

Figure 9.6 Typical ASL installation (Patrick Lingwood)

9.4.4 The ASL is marked using diagram 1001.2. the normal and peak time length of traffic queues;
Cyclists can feel intimidated by motor vehicles waiting
behind them when the signals are red. Cycle the available width of carriageway; and
reservoirs therefore must be at least 4 metres (and no
more than 5 metres) deep, as specified in the the length of time it takes a cyclist to clear the
regulations. This allows cyclists to wait a safe distance junction.
ahead of other traffic. The reservoir of the ASL
9.4.8 The leadin cycle lane of an ASL
extends across the full width of the lane/s and
arrangement can be mandatory or advisory. The main
includes a cycle symbol that is an integral part of the
function of a nearside leadin lane (apart from allowing
marking. Providing a coloured surface in the reservoir
cyclists to legally gain access to the reservoir) is to
can help discourage encroachment by other vehicles.
allow cyclists to get past stationary vehicles waiting at
Partwidth ASLs covering only one lane or part of a
the lights. As such, a minimum width of 1.2 metres is
lane require authorisation.
acceptable. Where traffic is generally freeflowing, a
9.4.5 ASLs can be installed relatively cheaply. wider lane is preferred. It may be better to use a wide
They have little or no negative impact on junction advisory lane, accepting that some vehicles may
capacity if the number of allpurpose traffic lanes encroach, rather than a narrow mandatory one. It may
remains unaltered. However, capacity will be affected be necessary to reduce the width of the adjacent
if an allpurpose lane is removed (Wall et al., 2003) traffic lanes to accommodate the leadin lane. A sub
Where an ASL is provided, the intervisibility zone for standard traffic lane width may be acceptable where
the junction is measured from a point 2.5 metres there is limited use by HGVs. The provision of
behind the cyclists stop line (in the absence of an nearside leadin lanes that are as long as the normal
ASL, intervisibility is measured relative to the peaktime traffic queues can help to keep the route to
motorists stop line) (HA, 2004). the ASL clear of queuing vehicles.
9.4.6 The installation of ASLs at a large junction 9.4.9 Nonnearside leadin lanes are particularly
can be complemented with minor changes to the useful when the nearside allpurpose lane is
signal timings to help make the junction more cycle dedicated to vehicles turning left. They may also be
friendly, such as additional time for cyclists to clear useful where a large proportion of cyclists turn right.
the junction. In most circumstances however, ASLs do Nonnearside lanes offer a degree of protection to
not require signal timing changes (Wall et al., 2003). cyclists who have moved away from the nearside, and
can help drivers anticipate cyclists occupying this
9.4.7 When designing an ASL, it is important to position in the carriageway. They are particularly
assess the way the junction operates. The main beneficial where traffic is flowing relatively quickly and
design issues concern the position and width of lead cyclists need to get into position some distance from
in cycle lanes. The following should be considered: the junction. However, they should not extend further
upstream than necessary excessively long non
the number of allpurpose lanes approaching each nearside lanes may increase the potential for conflict
arm; between cyclists and motorists. Because non
nearside lanes often place cyclists between two rows
the predominant motor vehicle and cycle of moving traffic, they should ideally be at least 2
movements at the junction, and the potential for metres wide to provide adequate separation (although
these to conflict; narrower lanes may be acceptable on lightly trafficked
roads). They must be marked as advisory lanes to
the presence of left or rightturning filters; allow motor vehicles to cross them. Nonnearside
lanes should be positioned so as to avoid the section
the red time at the junction in relation to the green
of road where most lanechanging movements are
time (sites with longer red times work better for
taking place, particularly those from left to right.
cyclists approaching the reservoirs);

Figure 9.7 Cycle leadin lane leading to ASL on the offside Figure 9.8 Table junction (Patrick Lingwood)
of a filter lane (Patrick Lingwood)
9.4.10 Where a lane gain is dedicated to left 9.5.2 The ramps for the table should be
turning traffic on the approach to an ASL, the best sufficiently far from junction mouths so that cyclists
option may be to start the leadin lane a little do not encounter them when turning. Buildouts,
upstream of the start of the dedicated lane. It can then bollards and parking restrictions, as appropriate, may
continue on the offside of the dedicated lane (see be needed to prevent parking around the junction.
Figure 9.7). Motorists moving to the left will then cross
the cycle lane, which may be much safer than 9.5.3 The speedreducing effect of speed tables
expecting cyclists to cross the dedicated lane. A can help mitigate problems of substandard visibility
coloured surface is particularly useful in situations like at junctions.
this.
9.4.11 At some junctions it may be beneficial to 9.6 Raised entry treatment

provide two or more separate leadin cycle lanes for at side roads
left and rightturning cyclists, especially where there
are filter lights, but this arrangement requires 9.6.1 Raised entry treatments, where a flat
authorisation. Where there are filter lights for left or topped road hump is placed at the entrance to a side
rightturning traffic, waiting cyclists should not be put road, can make pedestrian crossing movements more
in a position where they obstruct traffic moving off convenient (see Figure 9.9). Cyclists also benefit,
when the filter lane is active. because motor vehicles entering or leaving the side
road do so at reduced speed.
9.5 Raised tables at

junctions
9.5.1 Seventy per cent of injury accidents
involving cyclists take place at junctions. Raised
tables such as those in Figure 9.8 create safer
conditions for all users by reducing the speed at
which traffic negotiates the junction. Junction tables
extend from kerb to kerb and can be used at priority
junctions. The use of a table can avoid the need to
introduce separate cycle facilities.
Figure 9.9 Localised narrowing and raised table at a side

road junction (Patrick Lingwood)

9.7 Roundabouts continental and typical UK roundabouts are
summarised in TAL 9/97 Cyclists at Roundabouts
9.7.1 For detailed design guidance on Continental Design Geometry (DETR, 1997b).
roundabouts, see DMRB Volume 6, Section 2 (HA,
1993b). Roundabouts offer capacity advantages over 9.7.5 A central island of between 20 metres and
other forms of junction, but they can be hazardous for 40 metres diameter usually provides the best
cyclists. Finding a safe position to occupy in the geometry (Brude and Larsson, 2000) for this type of
circulatory carriageway may be difficult, and cyclists roundabout. Diameters below 20 metres often provide
are at risk of not being noticed by drivers entering or a sufficiently straight driving path for traffic to maintain
leaving the junction at relatively high speeds. higher speeds, and diameters exceeding 40 metres
Roundabouts with a dedicated leftturn slip lane to can encourage higher circulating speeds.
increase capacity pose an additional hazard for
cyclists, especially where the lane diverges. They are 9.8 Safety at roundabouts
not generally recommended on cycle routes.
9.8.1 Keeping well to the nearside on the
9.7.2 Many studies show there is a higher risk of circulatory carriageway is the typical approach
cyclist injury accidents at roundabouts compared with adopted by less confident cyclists, but this puts them
other junctions (Brude and Larsson, 2000). Injury in the most hazardous position for being hit by
accident rates for cyclists at roundabouts are up to vehicles entering or leaving the roundabout. They are
fifteen times greater than for car occupants (Maycock less visible to motorists entering the junction, and this
and Hall, 1984). Large, unsignalled multilane is where most conflicts occur.
roundabouts are generally the most hazardous and
intimidating for cyclists. Some cyclists will seek to 9.8.2 Where feasible, roundabouts on cycle
avoid them altogether, or may choose to dismount friendly routes should be designed for lower vehicle
and walk across each arm. speeds to allow cyclists to take up a position in the
centre of the circulatory carriageway, where motorists
9.7.3 Typical UK roundabouts (HA, 1993c) have are most likely to see them. Lower speeds also help
entries and exits that are flared, with two or more pedestrians crossing the arms.
lanes to increase vehicle capacity. Deflection may be
less than desirable because of the constraints on the 9.8.3 Entry and exit lanes that are aligned to be
room available. The relatively smooth path for motor more radial than tangential to the circulating
vehicles can result in high traffic speeds through the carriageway help reduce vehicle speeds by creating
junction. Continentalstyle roundabouts (also known greater deflection. Singlelane entries and exits ensure
as compact roundabouts) have tighter geometry that that sightlines are not obscured by other vehicles and
is more cyclefriendly. They may be around 1020 per prevent drivers from taking a racing line through the
cent safer for cyclists than signalised junctions (TRL, roundabout.
2001) serving the same vehicle flows. As the geometry
encourages lower speeds, cyclists generally pass 9.8.4 In areas of frequent traffic congestion, cycle
through the roundabout with other traffic. Motorists lanes on the approach and departure arms (but not
are unlikely to attempt to overtake cyclist on the the actual circulatory carriageway) can be useful.
circulatory carriageway because of its limited width. Cycle lanes on the circulatory carriageway are far less
These roundabouts can cope with flows of up to straightforward and are covered in Section 9.10
8,000 vehicles per day (1,000 per peak hour) (Schoon
and Minnen, 1994). 9.8.5 Excessive visibility to the right for motorists
entering a roundabout can result in high speeds on
9.7.4 Continentalstyle roundabouts have arms entry. Where this is a problem, drivers can be slowed
that are aligned in a radial pattern, with unflared, by installing sight screens to the right of entry lanes to
singlelane, entries and exits, and a singlelane reduce visibility (see Figure 9.10). However, care is
circulating carriageway. Deflection is therefore greater required to avoid this making cyclists on the
and the design is widely used as a speed reducing circulatory carriageway more vulnerable to vehicles
feature in mainland Europe. Technical details for entering the junction.

[ 9.9.2 Accidents involving cyclists can be reduced
by around 70 per cent on roundabouts with fulltime
signals on all or some of the arms (Local Transport
Today, 2005; TfL, 2005; Lines, 1995).
9.9.3 If none of the above is practicable, it may

be worth introducing peripheral cycle tracks, possibly
with Toucan crossings on the arms. Peripheral cycle
tracks offer a safe alternative, but they add
considerably to the journey time and effort involved.
9.10 Cycle lanes on

roundabouts
Figure 9.10 Visibility to the right reduced by sight screens
(Alex Sully) 9.10.1 The idea of marking cycle lanes on
roundabouts may appear, at first glance, to be a
9.8.6 A circulatory carriageway of around 56 relatively simple one, but it is not. Cycle lanes on
metres wide will discourage most motorists from roundabouts must be very carefully considered. There
attempting to overtake cyclists. In general, an outside is little evidence to suggest that they offer any safety
carriageway diameter of 30 metres will accommodate benefit to cyclists, and they may introduce additional
the largest typical vehicle (Brilon and Vendehey, 1998). hazards. Some cycle lanes on roundabouts have been
removed because they led to a deterioration in the
9.8.7 A overrun apron around the central island accident rate.
can offer a tighter geometry for cars by increasing the
islands effective diameter, while still allowing larger 9.10.2 Designers should first decide how the lanes
vehicles to use the junction (also see Section 5.4). To are intended to benefit cyclists and then balance this
be most effective, it should be slightly raised and/or with the problems they can give rise to. It is possible
textured, but hatching is sometimes used. that annular nearside cycle lanes can highlight the
presence of cyclists on the roundabout, but against
this is the risk that cyclists using the lanes may be
9.9 Large roundabouts taking up an inappropriate position, particularly near
exit arms. To a driver, it may appear that a cyclist
9.9.1 It is not usually possible to achieve
approaching an exit arm in such a lane intends taking
sufficient deflection at multilane roundabouts when
that exit because of his position in the circulatory
traffic flows are light, because motorists can
carriageway. If the driver intends to leave at the same
straighten their path through the junction by using
exit, he may attempt to overtake and be confronted
more than one lane. If such a situation is causing
with the cyclists turning across his path. On busy
problems for cyclists, the following design questions
roundabouts, it is important that the cyclist takes up a
need consideration:
prominent position nearer the centre of the
Can an alternative, relatively direct route be carriageway to ensure that drivers understand the
provided for pedestrians and cyclists to avoid the intended manoeuvre, and, for this reason, annular
junction altogether? lanes are not generally recommended.
Would the roundabout still have enough capacity if 9.10.3 An innovative roundabout at Heworth
it were to be reduced to singlelane operation? Green in York (Pheby, 2004) (see Figure 9.11) has wide
cycle lanes, a reduced circulatory carriageway width,
Is there scope for reducing individual entries or tight geometry and a smaller outside diameter than
exits to single lane operation? conventional roundabouts. It has led to a decrease in
cycle casualties at the site. The lanes only position a
Can the roundabout be signalised? cyclist close to the perimeter when he or she intends
leaving at the next exit otherwise, the cyclist is
positioned away from the perimeter. The success of

9.11 Miniroundabouts
9.11.1 Miniroundabouts share many
characteristics with other roundabouts, the major
difference being that the central island is replaced by
a circular road marking between 1 metre and 4 metres
in diameter. In some cases, the marking is placed on a
shallow dome (max. height 125 mm) to encourage
drivers to pass around it rather than over it. Mini
roundabouts can be fitted into a smaller space than
priority junctions require. Further guidance is given in
Mini roundabouts good practice guidance (DfT/CSS,
2006).
Figure 9.11 Roundabout with innovative cycle lane 9.11.2 Miniroundabouts do not generally carry
arrangement (Patrick Lingwood) much higher risk to cyclists than signalised junctions
(Kennedy and Hall, 1997). They can be used as a
the York design might in part be attributed to the large
speedreducing feature, but they require adequate
volume of cycle traffic using the junction, but it
deflection on all arms to achieve this. In Figure 9.12 a
illustrates how the intelligent use of lane markings can
raised table and overrun areas with textured surfaces
help guide cyclists away from conflict points.
have been used to reduce speeds and encourage lane
discipline at a spacious junction where drivers might
be tempted to cut the corners. A miniroundabout
allows cyclists to make right turns with relative ease,
compared with a priority junction.
Figure 9.12 Miniroundabout, raised junction and textured surfacing (Patrick Lingwood)

10 Cycle track crossings
10.1 Introduction correspondence from interested parties;
10.1.1 LTN 1/95 The Assessment of Pedestrian installation costs;

Crossings (DoT, 1995a) describes the procedures for
operating costs.
assessing pedestrian crossings, and similar
considerations may be applied to cycle track
10.1.3 The potential options are:
crossings. The following site characteristics are taken
into account: do nothing;
location; provide a crossing where the carriageway has

priority over the cycle track;
visibility;
provide a crossing where the cycle track has
complexity;
priority over the carriageway (but see below);
crossing traffic (e.g. cyclists, pedestrians, or both);

provide a signalised crossing; or
vehicle flows and speeds;

provide a grade separated crossing.
road accidents.
10.1.4 If traffic flows and speeds can be reduced,
a simple crossing facility may be all that is needed.
10.1.2 When deciding on the most suitable type of
Such an approach might also address road safety
crossing, the following factors need to be considered:
issues at the site.
current difficulty of crossing;
10.1.5 Table 10.1 is indicative of the appropriate
potential delay to traffic using the road; treatments for a standalone crossing of a twoway
carriageway. It is a guide only, and individual locations
potential delay to cyclists crossing the road; should be assessed on a casebycase basis.
road capacity;
Table 10.1 Crossing types
85th percentile Traffic flow Type of crossing

speed (twoway daily)
< 50 mph <6,000 Cyclists give way to road traffic
< 50 mph < 50 mph Cyclists give way to road traffic plus central refuge urban
< 60 mph <10,000 Cyclists give way to road traffic plus central refuge rural
< 50 mph >8,000 Signal controlled, including Toucans
> 50 mph >8,000 Grade separated crossing urban
> 60 mph >10,000 Grade separated crossing rural

10.2 Cycle track crossings 10.2.2 If the road has a speed limit of 30 mph or
less, the crossing may be placed on a flattopped
on links road hump. If so, it needs to be made quite clear to
cyclists that they must give way. Markings may need
10.2.1 The simplest form of cycle crossing is
to be supplemented by signs on the cycle track. A
where a track meets the road at a dropped kerb.
coloured surface may also be useful when the
Figure 10.1 shows a typical layout. Where it is not
crossing is placed on a road hump.
clear to cyclists approaching the crossing that they
are about to meet a road, it may be worthwhile adding
markings (and possibly signs) to indicating that they
give way.
950
950.1
Note:
The distance may be
SLOW added to the sign plate
to diagram 950.1
1024
Corduroy paving
Blister paving 956
Cycle
track
956
Note:
Dropped kerb flush
SLOW
1024
with carriageway
at crossing point
950
950.1
Figure 10.1 Typical cycle crossing

10.2.3 It is possible to give a cycle track priority diagram 602). Cycle priority crossings can only be
over the road being crossed, but this approach needs used on a road hump/speed table, and it is important
careful consideration, because of the potential that the arrangement provides good intervisibility
consequences of a driver failing to recognise the need between drivers and cyclists. Figure 10.2 shows a
to give way. GIVE WAY markings (diagrams 1003 and typical layout.
1023) should be accompanied by GIVE WAY signs (to
950
950.1
Note:
The distance may be
added to the sign plate
to diagram 950.1
602
956
Corduroy paving
SLOW
SLOW
Coloured surface 1058.1

preferred where Corduroy paving
cycle track
crosses road Flat topped road bump
956
Note:
It may be necessary to
restrict parking on the
approaches to ensure
there is adequate
602 visibility
950
950.1
Figure 10.2 Typical cycle priority crossing

Figure 10.3 Cycle priority crossing over quiet road. Note that Figure 10.4 Jughandle turning at busy nonpriority crossing
the sign to diagram 602 is incorrectly positioned (Rob (Patrick Lingwood)
Marshall)
10.2.4 Cycle priority crossings are best suited to 10.2.8 A straight line crossing is generally
quieter locations (see Figure 10.3) and where flow preferred, as central sheeppen refuges increase the
along the cycle track exceeds flow along the road. potential for conflict with pedestrians. Also, in practice
Note that, in this example, the sign to diagram 602 is there is often insufficient width available for these
incorrectly positioned. It should have been placed refuges to accommodate the swept path of a tandem
about 1 metre or so closer to the camera, so that it is or a cycle towing a trailer turning into them. If the
sited just upstream of the give way marking to crossing is signalised, then, depending on traffic
diagram 1003. conditions, it may be appropriate to allow cyclists to
cross both carriageways in one phase. This enhances
10.2.5 Justification for priority crossings is not route continuity and coherence for pedestrians and
straightforward, because the situations where they cyclists. It may be particularly useful on a busy cycle
work best tend to be those where they are least route linking, say, a town centre and an adjacent
needed. Designers should therefore consider whether development separated by an inner ring road.
a nonpriority crossing on a road hump might be a
better solution. In such situations, cyclists would 10.2.9 Where cyclists travelling along a busy
generally be able to cross without stopping anyway. carriageway need to turn right to join a cycle track on
the opposite side, it may be appropriate to get them
10.2.6 Where cycle routes cross roads with speed to the central refuge via a jughandle turning on the
limits above 30 mph or where vehicle flows are high, it nearside (see Figure 10.4). This gives them a safe
can be difficult to find an adequate gap in the traffic to waiting area away from moving traffic and provides
cross the carriageway in one movement. A central good visibility for crossing the carriageway.
refuge allows crossing to be undertaken in two easier
movements, but the arrangement needs to be
carefully designed to avoid the refuge creating pinch 10.3 Cycle track crossings
points that can disadvantage cyclists using the near junctions
carriageway.
10.3.1 When travelling along links, cyclists often
10.2.7 The crossing should be wide enough for feel safer on a track than on the carriageway itself,
pedestrians and cyclists to conveniently pass each and tracks are particularly attractive to new cyclists.
other, and preferably not less than 3 metres (HA, However, cycle tracks alongside carriageways can be
2005a), especially where family groups are likely. The problematic where they cross the mouths of side
central refuge should be at least 2 metres deep to roads. Frequent side road crossings are inconvenient
ensure that a typically sized bicycle does not because cyclists generally have to slow down or stop
encroach upon either carriageway. A depth of 3 at each side road. The crossings point may also be
metres will accommodate a cycle towing a trailer, or a blocked by vehicles waiting to join the main road.
tandem.

10.3.2 Of more concern is the potential for conflict
between cyclists and motor vehicles. It can be difficult
for cyclists to take in traffic approaching on the main
carriageway as well as the side road itself. They need
to look directly to their left and right, and ahead and
behind along the main carriageway, before deciding
whether they need to stop or not. This can make
crossing hazardous, particularly for younger cyclists
who may find it difficult to judge speeds and
anticipate the movements of other vehicles.
10.3.3 In addition, drivers turning into or out of a

side road may focus their attention on vehicles on the
main road. In doing so, they may fail to notice cyclists
approaching the side road crossing point. This is Figure 10.5 Bentout cycle track crossing (Alex Sully)
further complicated by twoway cycle flow. Cycle
tracks parallel to the carriageway tend to be used in 10.3.7 On a bentout crossing, the cycle track
both directions, and drivers may not anticipate this. In approaches are deflected away from the main
particular, drivers turning right from a main road into a carriageway to create a gap of one or two carlengths
side road may not notice cyclists on the track to their between the main road and the crossing. A gap of
right travelling in the same direction. about 5 metres is required to accommodate one car.
The arrangement allows drivers turning into the side
10.3.4 A report into cycle tracks crossing minor road extra time to notice the crossing and provides
roads (Pedler and Davies, 2000) concluded that the somewhere for them to stop for crossing cyclists
risk (of crossing the minor road) must be weighed without obstructing traffic on the main road. It also
against the risks to cyclists using the major road. The allows a vehicle waiting to exit the side road to do so
safer option will depend on a variety of sitespecific without blocking the crossing point.
factors. If satisfactory crossings of minor roads cannot
be provided, the creation of a cycle track may not be 10.3.8 These crossings can operate safely, but
a sensible option. designers need to keep their potential for conflict in
mind before deciding on whether to cater for cyclists
10.3.5 Good intervisibility between vehicles on the on a parallel cycle track. If there are several side road
main road and cyclists on the track is essential to crossings within a short distance, or where twoway
enable drivers wishing to enter the side road to judge flows on the side road can exceed 100 vehicles per
the speed and positioning of cyclists. Drivers on the hour, it may be better to keep cyclists on the
main road should be able to see the crossing and carriageway.
cycle track approaches well in advance of the
junction.
10.4 Cycle track with cycle
10.3.6 Crossings can be modified to mitigate lane at side road
hazards to cyclists and pedestrians. Possible
modifications include localised carriageway narrowing crossing
with tight kerb radii, and placing the crossing on a flat
10.4.1 As a result of concerns over the safety of
topped road hump (see paragraph 10.2.2). Where the
parallel cycle tracks crossing side roads, it is
crossing is placed on a road hump, it may be better if
becoming common European practice to reintroduce
it is bent out. Figure 10.5 shows such an
cyclists to the main road in advance of a junction.
arrangement in this case, a cyclepriority crossing is
Cyclists pass the junction on the carriageway and
shown.
then rejoin the cycle track.

Figure 10.6 Cycle track transition to withflow cycle lane Figure 10.7 Traffic light at end of cycle track (Rob Marshall)
(Patrick Lingwood)
10.4.2 Cyclists join the road in line with the main far side pedestrian/cyclist signals (but not a
flow on buildouts ramped to carriageway level (see combination of both), and may be installed at
Figure 10.6) and use an advisory cycle lane that junctions or as stand alone crossings. If the footway
continues past the junction until it rejoins the cycle and cycle track on the approach to the Toucan are
track. If a buildout is not possible, the cycle track segregated, segregation should stop short of the
may need to give way where it joins the carriageway waiting area (which should be shared use). If a
nearside signal aspect for pedestrians and cyclists is
10.4.3 The advantage of this arrangement is that it used, it must be positioned so that users look towards
gives the cyclist unambiguous priority at the junction. approaching traffic when looking at the signal.
The solution precludes twoway use of the cycle Nearside signal aspects on Toucan crossings can
track. The merge onto the carriageway should be at often be obscured by waiting pedestrians. A second,
least 30 metres from the junction to reduce the risk of higherlevel signal on the near side may be useful at
conflict with leftturning traffic. busy crossings.
10.5.3 Staggered or split crossings are not

10.5 Signalcontrolled generally recommended for cyclists, because they can
crossings cause delay to people crossing and give rise to
potential conflict between cyclists and pedestrians,
10.5.1 Where a cycle track enters a signal but in some locations they may be the only
controlled junction, cyclists can be provided with a practicable design solution. Refuges at staggered
dedicated phase in the signalling sequence (see also
Section 9.3). If the track is used solely by cyclists, with
pedestrians catered for elsewhere, the signal aspect
to diagram 3000.2 can be used (see Figure 10.7). Note
that, in this particular arrangement, pedestrian flow
across the cycle track should also be controlled by
signals, although the example shown does not make
this clear. It may be necessary to have a backup
pushbutton unit for cyclists. This will require
authorisation.
10.5.2 A Toucan crossing is a signalcontrolled

crossing for pedestrians and cyclists (see Figure 10.8).
Detailed advice on the design of Toucan crossings is
given in LTN 2/95, The design of pedestrian crossings
(DoT, 1995b). Toucan crossings can use nearside or Figure 10.8 Toucan crossing with central refuge and nearside
aspects (Alex Sully)

Figure 10.9 Twoway cycle track leading to a parallel Figure 10.10 Cycle bridge suspended from a railway viaduct
crossing (Rob Parsey (Tim Pheby)
crossings should be at least 2 metres wide between 10.7.3 Plans to convert existing subways, bridges
barriers to accommodate cyclists, and the stagger and tunnels to shared use should not unduly
should be arranged so that users are facing oncoming inconvenience pedestrians. The crossing should
traffic on the lane that they are about to cross. ideally be as safe and attractive as its atgrade
equivalent, to help ensure it will be used. Sometimes
existing canal, river or railway bridges and tunnels can
10.6 Parallel crossings provide opportunities to create attractive grade
separated crossings (see Figure 10.10).
10.6.1 When separate pedestrian and cycle routes
meet to cross a road, a parallel crossing may be 10.7.4 Where a new road scheme is to feature
appropriate (see Figure 10.9). This is especially useful grade separated crossings, the need to acquire
in places where there are relatively high cycle and sufficient land should be considered in the early
pedestrian flows across the road. planning stages.
10.7 Grade separated 10.8 Ramp gradients and

crossings parapet heights
10.7.1 Grade separated crossings for pedestrians 10.8.1 Ramps must accommodate the needs of
and cyclists comprise foot/cycle bridges and wheelchair users and other disabled people. A
pedestrian subways adapted for cycle use. In heavily gradient of 5% is optimum for limiting route distance
trafficked situations, they can be safer than other while ensuring the ramp is easy to climb. The
types of crossing, but they increase crossing generally preferred gradient is therefore 5 per cent,
distances and require the use of ramps and stairs. with 8 per cent as the absolute maximum (DfT, 2002).
Grade separated crossings should be reasonably However, shallower gradients can be used where the
direct, with good sight lines throughout. These ramp is on the desire line, such as where a footpath
facilities should be light, open and well maintained. alongside a road is gently raised to footbridge level.
The relative isolation of some bridges and subways Individual flights must not exceed 10 metres, and
can give rise to personal security concerns. intermediate resting places should be at least 2
metres long. Stepped ramps are not recommended
10.7.2 Grade separated crossings are
because of the problems they create for wheelchair
considerably more expensive than surface crossings
users and people with impaired mobility.
and may require landtake as well as special drainage
arrangements. They are rarely the preferred option,
except at highrisk sites on major roads.

10.8.2 Bridges for cyclists should ideally have a
parapet height of 1.4 metres (1.8 metres if also
providing for equestrian use). On existing structures
this cannot always be achieved, but it should not
necessarily preclude their use as crossings for
cyclists.
10.9 Wheeling ramps

alongside steps
10.9.1 Where cycle routes are introduced onto
routes originally designed mainly for pedestrian use
only, such as canal towpaths or railway footbridges,
flights of steps are sometimes unavoidable. To assist
cyclists, wheeling ramps may be added to one or both
sides of the flights using steel sections or by forming
them in concrete. A channel 100 mm wide and 50 mm
deep is generally suitable (see Figure 10.11).
10.9.2 Wheeling ramps should not obstruct

convenient access to the handrail nor be located in
the centre of the steps where they might form a trip
hazard. In most cases the ramp is fitted to one side,
usually on the right for people climbing.
10.9.3 Locating the wheeling ramp close to the

wall minimises the trip hazard for pedestrians, but this
reduces convenience for cyclists as the bicycle needs
to be supported at more of an angle (see Figure
Figure 10.11 Channel section wheeling ramp fitted to
10.12). This is made more difficult if pannier bags are existing footbridge (Adrian Lord)
fitted.
10.9.4 Ideally for cyclists, the distance between

the ramp and the wall should be enough to ensure
that the pedals and handlebars do not clash while the
bike is being held reasonably vertically, but the actual
position will depend on sitespecific conditions such
as the width of the stairs, the hand rail arrangement,
and the amount of pedestrian flow.
10.9.5 Steel sections should ideally have a non

slip surface so that the tyres grip the ramp on
descent. Fixing arrangement should not involve bolt
heads etc protruding into the running surface as they
may damage the tyres. Where the wheeling ramp is
formed in concrete it may be preferable to fill in the
gap between the ramp channel and the wall. Figure 10.12 Typical wheeling ramp installations

10.10 Headroom and width 10.10.2 The headroom in existing pedestrian
subways is typically 2.3 metres, and routes under
10.10.1 New subways for use by cyclists ideally canal bridges often have less clearance. The
require headroom of 2.4 metres (2.7 metres for lengths restricted height or width available should not lead to
over 23 metres) and widths of at least 5 metres to automatic rejection of a proposal to permit cycling. It
minimise the potential for conflict between cyclists may represent the best available option if potential
and pedestrians (HA, 1993d). New bridge decks and risks to users can be managed.
ramps should also be sufficiently wide to
accommodate segregation if necessary. Typically, a
minimum width of 4 metres is required in urban
applications, while on lightly used offroad routes in
rural areas 2metre wide bridge decks may be
acceptable.

11 Cycle parking
11.1 Locations for cycle

parking
11.1.1 Goodquality cycle parking is a key element
in developing a cyclefriendly environment. The
absence of secure, convenient cycle parking can be a
serious deterrent to cycle use. Cycle parking should
be provided at major destinations, public buildings,
schools and colleges, hospitals, large employment
sites, public transport interchanges and leisure
attractions (Figure 11.1). Parking should also be
provided at local journey attractors such as parades
of shops, health clinics, supermarkets and leisure
venues such as cinemas and theatres (Figure 11.2).
Figure 11.1 Cycle parking in town centre (Adrian Lord)
Space for cycle parking within residential areas is also
important, as it can be a major factor affecting the can also be a valuable component of a strategy to
decision to own a bicycle. encourage more people to cycle (Taylor, 1996). For
longstay parking at public transport and employment
11.1.2 Proximity to the destination is the major
sites, security is a major factor when choosing
influence on a cyclists choice of where to park (Taylor
whether or not to cycle. Location and level of security
and Halliday, 1997), regardless of the journey purpose.
are the main issues to be addressed when
The use of the bicycle as a feeder to public transport
considering the amount and type of cycle parking.
Figure 11.2 Cycle parking on a main street (Patrick Lingwood)

11.1.3 A count of the cycles locked to street 11.3 Onstreet cycle parking
furniture such as sign poles and railings can help to
indicate sites where there is an unsatisfied demand for 11.3.1 Part IV of the Road Traffic Regulation Act
cycle parking and how many spaces are required. 1984 allows for the provision of offstreet parking
Where existing stands are regularly filled, places for vehicles and authorises the use of any part
consideration should be given to increasing parking of a road as a parking place. These powers are
provision. extended by Section 63 of the Act to allow provision
in roads and elsewhere of stands and racks for
11.1.4 New cycle parking facilities should meet bicycles. A single Order under the Act can be used to
existing demand, with some capacity for future cover cycle parking in the whole of an administrative
growth. Local authorities may monitor the use cycle area. However, all the individual sites must be set out
parking stands to ascertain demand and provide in an accompanying Schedule.
additional places where necessary. Regular
monitoring may also enable underused stands to be 11.3.2 In vehiclerestricted areas, section 115B of
identified and relocated, and abandoned cycles the Highways Act 1980 (inserted in Schedule 5 of the
identified for removal. Highways Act 1982) enables a local authority to place
objects or structures on a highway to provide a
service for the benefit of the public or a section of the
11.2 Residential cycle public. Where pedestrianised areas have been
parking introduced under section 249 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990, this also gives local
11.2.1 Cycle parking for residents and visitors is authorities the powers to place objects or structures
covered in detail in the Manual for Streets (DfT/CLG, on the highway.
2007). This will generally mean covered secure cycle
parking within a building, garage, garden shed or a 11.3.3 If waiting and loading restrictions are in
communal area with restricted access. Cycle parking force, bicycles (like other vehicles) may not be legally
stands for visitors are also useful at flats, sheltered parked on the carriageway or the footway, unless
accommodation and student residences. exempt from the Order.
11.2.2 Groundfloor storage space within the 11.3.4 There is usually a compromise between
curtilage of a house is also valuable for people with convenience for cyclists and the needs of other road
pushchairs and wheelchairs and may help to users, but cycle parking areas should not present a
encourage walking journeys. The choice of transport hazard to pedestrians, especially to blind or partially
mode for short urban journeys depends on minor sighted people or place users in danger from motor
differences in time and convenience, and the traffic. Cycle parking should always be designed into
difference between car and cycle is often marginal plans for urban regeneration or remodelling of town
(DTLR, 1999d). The presence of a cycle ready and and city centres.
available at the front of a house, rather than locked
away at the back, can therefore be a significant factor
in cycle use. In some developments in the 11.4 Cycle parking
Netherlands, parking space for cars is deliberately equipment
designed out of residential forecourts, so that cars
have to be parked in less convenient locations. 11.4.1 The Bike Parking and Security Association
offers guidance (BP&SA, 2003) for the quality
11.2.3 Chapter 8 of the Manual for Streets manufacture and installation of cycle parking
(DfT/CLG, 2007) gives further advice on cycle parking. equipment to be used in the public domain. The
criteria for the provision of suitable cycle parking
facilities extend beyond the design and construction
of individual units. This includes such factors as
location, overall layout design and integration with the
surrounding environment.

11.4.2 The most popular and adaptable design is together, are easier to install, but some designs where
the Sheffield stand (Figure 11.3). It is simple and the ground level bar is constructed of the same tube
effective, being based on an inverted Ushaped metal as the racks can be less convenient to use. Stands
tube. The Sheffield stand is widely acknowledged as can be supplied in a variety of designs to tie in with
being the most convenient design for general on other street furniture and finished in plain galvanised
street bicycle parking and is recommended for most steel, a range of powder coated colours or with a
parking applications (DETR, 1997a). The stands are durable plastic coating, which is less likely to damage
easy to install and provide a high level of security paintwork. Stands can either be set into concrete
when combined with a quality cycle lock. If the stands footings to a depth of 300 mm or bolted to the surface
are installed under shelters (as in Figure 11.4) or within of paved or tiled areas using security bolts.
secureaccess buildings, design criteria for good
longstay cycle parking can also be met. 11.4.4 The usual dimensions are: length 7001000
mm (700 mm recommended); height 750mm (+/ 50
11.4.3 There are many variations on the basic mm); tube diameter 5090 mm (larger diameter is
Sheffield stand. The most useful one has an additional more secure, since there is less space to lever apart
crossbar, which provides extra security and support Dtype locks); corner radii 100250 mm. Stands
for smaller bicycles. The crossbar also acts as a low placed 10001200 mm apart will accommodate two
level tapping rail for visually impaired people (see bicycles on each stand. The ends of stands should be
Figure 11.3). In a row of stands, the end stands should 600 mm clear of walls and kerbs to allow for the
be fitted with a tapping rail. Other variants include bicycle wheels. A stand placed parallel to a wall or
features to help prevent the front wheel from turning, kerb should be at least 300 mm from the wall to allow
and M shaped Sheffield stands that offer a greater use on one side only, or 900 mm to allow use of both
variety of locking points. Toastracks of Sheffield
stands, comprising usually three or five stands joined
Figure 11.3 Sheffield stand with tapping rail and contrasting banding at beginning of row (Tony Russell CTC)

from the wall and be spaced at intervals of at least
1800 mm to prevent cycles from overlapping. Local
authorities will need to seek agreement with private
owners to attach such devices to walls adjacent to the
highway boundary if they do not own the boundary
wall.
11.4.8 Designs such as doubledecker stands (see

Figure 11.6) and vertical hangers may be wall
mounted or freestanding. Some are springloaded or
fitted with gas struts to make lifting easier. Most
devices for commercial use can be fitted with locking
bars to enable use in public places. Doubledecker
stands typically require a ceiling height of at least 2.7
Figure 11.4 Covered onstreet parking (Rob Marshall) metres and sufficient space in front of the stands to
enable the bike to be loaded on to the stand. Fixing
sides. A bikelength of clear space in front of the the stands at an angle of 45 degrees can help to
stand is required to enable cyclists to wheel their minimise the aisle width between rows of stands if
bikes into place. space is tight.
11.4.5 Sheffield stands can be equally attractive to 11.4.9 Cycle lockers enable bags, battery lights
motorcyclists. If they are using stands intended for and other accessories to be left on the cycle while it is
cyclists, it may be worthwhile providing additional parked. Lockers provide weather protection and
motorcycle parking nearby. additional storage space for helmets, panniers and
clothing. Several locking options are available,
11.4.6 Wall loops, bars and locking rings can be including keys and padlocks, smart cards and number
used to provide a spaceefficient parking arrangement keypads. As lockers can be visually intrusive, they are
where bikes are leaned against walls (see Figure 11.5). not appropriate for all locations.
They are best suited to shortstay parking needs and
located where passing surveillance and/or CCTV 11.4.10 Lockers for public use (see Figures 11.7
enhances security. Designs are typically simple rings and 11.8) and other secure cycle parking facilities (see
and bars. Figure 11.9) often require some form of supervision
and management to prevent abuse or vandalism or to
11.4.7 Loops or bars 600750 mm from ground meet the security requirements for public transport
level will be close to the top tube of a conventional interchanges. They are best suited to staffed locations
adult bike. They should project no more than 50 mm or places where there is a lot of public activity, such
Figure 11.5 Rings or wall bars can provide lowcost Figure 11.6 Springassisted stacking cycle rack (Tony
unobtrusive cycle parking (Patrick Lingwood) Russell CTC)

Figure 11.7 Lockers and stands in town centre (Adrian Lord) Figure 11.8 Cycle stands including storage for helmets and
other accessories (Rob Marshall)
as the ground floors of multistorey car parks, railway manufacturers offer a master key or override system
stations or large workplaces. Lockers typically have a to enable lockers at rail stations and airports to be
capital cost more than five times as much per bike opened by security staff. It is common practice in the
space as a Sheffield stand, as well as the ongoing Netherlands for locker space or other secure cycle
management cost, but this cost may be recovered if parking at stations to be booked either online or using
they can be commercially rented. The panels may also a mobilephonebased payment system or a smart
offer opportunities to rent advertising space. card such as a public transport pass. This enables the
same locker to be used by many people rather than
11.4.11 Some cyclists are prepared to pay a just a single key holder, but at the same time provides
reasonable charge (DETR, 1997b), although the operator with a record of who is using a locker in
inconvenient administration arrangements or poor the event of a security incident. Similar schemes are
choice of site will deter potential users. Some being introduced in the UK.
Figure 11.9 Secure payasyougo cycle park (Adrian Lord)

Parking facilities should be fit for purpose and easy
to use. Stands that support the cycle by gripping
the front wheel alone should be avoided, because
of the damage they can cause (this does not apply
where the cycle is suspended vertically by the front
wheel). Stands should have sufficient space around
them to ensure they are convenient to gain access
to (parallel stands should be at least 1 metre apart,
for example). Stands that require cycles to be lifted
are generally not preferred, although, where room is
limited, they may be necessary and appropriate.
The appearance of a cycle parking facility should

be appropriate to its surroundings. Abandoned
Figure 11.10 Cycle parking, sales, hire and repair centre cycles should be promptly removed to preserve the
(Adrian Lord) appearance and capacity of parking provision.
11.5 Cycle centres Cycle parking should not be sited in areas where it
may give rise to personal security concerns, or
11.5.1 Cycle centres are common in the where the stands or cycles parked in them can
Netherlands, where they typically provide space for create trip hazards.
between 1100 and 4000 bicycles. There is usually a
fulltime attendant staffing the facility. The cost of the Public transport interchanges, places popular with
facility may need to be subsidised by the local tourists and other such attractors should be
authority, as there is limited potential for it to be provided with cycle parking facilities appropriate to
commercially viable on its own. Centres offer secure demand. These locations may generate sufficient
and convenient parking and usually a range of other custom to sustain cycle centres providing cycle
services, including cycle hire, sales, repairs and local sale, hire and repair.
and tourist information (see Figure 11.10). A
newsagent shop or caf may be included as part of Bicycles are usually secured with owners locks,
the business to enhance viability. although some arrangements make this
unnecessary. Where appropriate, owners should be
able to secure the cycle frame. Public locking
11.6 Cycle parking site mechanisms such as coinoperated locks should
be easy to understand and operate.
considerations
Charges for lockers, staffed parking etc., should be
11.6.1 The following is a summary of good
minimised to encourage use. Payment/registration
practice based on a comparison of cycle parking
processes should be as simple as possible.
provision in a number of mainland European railway
Automated carousels or smart card operation
stations (Sully, 1998). Specific advice to train
should not create delays at peak periods.
operating companies is available in Bike and Rail
Policy 2006 (DfT, 2006).
Longterm parking for regular users should ideally
be placed within a secure access area and
Parking facilities should be easy to find and as
protected from the weather. The level of weather
close to destinations as practicable. Numerous
protection for other parking should be appropriate
small clusters of stands in a town centre are
for the length of stay.
generally preferable to one large parking area. If
stands are underused in any particular position,
they can be relocated to areas of higher demand if
appropriate.

12 Public transport integration
12.1 Bike and ride 12.2 Cycle carriage on trains

12.1.1 There is considerable scope for combining 12.2.1 There is limited access to invehicle
cycling with journeys on public transport such as a carriage of cycles on commuter routes during peak
train, tram, coach or bus. Specific advice on bike and hours, although growing numbers of commuters
rail integration can be found in Bike and Rail Policy overcome this problem by using folding bikes, which
2006 (DfT, 2006). This section provides a summary of can be taken on almost all heavy and light rail services
issues, but more detailed information on good as hand luggage. General information is available in
practice is also available in Bike and Rail: a Good the National Rail Cycling by Train leaflet. Specific
Practice Guide (CA/DfT, 2004). The combination of advice can be obtained from individual train operating
cycle and public transport overcomes many of the companies.
limitations of either mode, providing journey solutions
that can offer a similar level of flexibility, convenience 12.2.2 Rail operators make various provisions for
and speed to those of car journeys. For many cycle carriage and allow its use at the conductors
journeys it offers benefits, such as being able to avoid discretion. Some bus and coach operators in England
the inconvenience and expense of trying to find a and Wales provide for limited carriage of bicycles, in
parking space, and the risks and health problems some cases on external racks or trailers. Most heavy
associated with long distance driving. A large rail franchise agreements require that some dedicated
proportion of the population lives within 5 miles (a 20 provision is made for cycle carriage although
minute cycle ride) of a railway station. Bikerail has presently this often amounts to only one or two cycle
good potential to replace carcentred commuting for spaces per train.
longer journeys.
12.2.3 Because of variations between operators
12.1.2 The basic bike and ride options are: and differing levels of provision offered by different
rolling stock within the same operating company,
riding to the bus/tram/train stop, leaving the bicycle good local information about what is available is
securely parked and using public transport for the important. Provision of flexible space inside vehicles
remainder of the journey; or can help to increase peak hour passenger loading
while providing for cycle carriage during the off peak
riding to the stop, taking the bicycle on public period.
transport and using it at the other end; or
12.2.4 Dwell times for heavy and light rail services
keeping an additional bicycle parked at the far stop are not usually affected by cycle carriage. Cycle
(e.g. a city centre station) and using it to complete access is facilitated and dwell times can be minimised
the journey. if the cycle storage area is clearly marked on the
outside of the train, ideally at a height that will not be
12.1.3 Bike and ride is important in strategic obscured by passengers waiting to board. Dwell times
transport planning because it allows quick and easy are potentially an issue for cycle carriage on urban
access to trams and trains and, in rural areas in buses, but at present in the UK most bus services that
particular, longerdistance bus and coach services. carry cycles on external racks are on rural routes with
Cycling is typically four times quicker than walking, greater distances between stops.
and journey times are often comparable to driving, so
promoting cycle access can increase the catchment
area of stops and stations see Bike and Rail: a Good
Practice Guide (CA/DfT, 2004).

12.3 Routes to stations and 12.4.2 In stations, cyclists can benefit from ramps
and lifts as an alternative to flights of stairs and, where
stops these cannot be provided, wheeling channels on
steps. Stations with automated ticket barriers also
12.3.1 Many travellers might be prompted to cycle
require a gated access that can be used by cyclists,
if the journey to a station or a stop is convenient and
wheelchair users and people with pushchairs and
cycle parking facilities available. Depending on the
young children.
service frequency and destinations served, a 20
minute cycling isochrone and a 10minute walking one 12.4.3 Cycle parking areas within the interchange
will define the areas in which to concentrate should be clearly signed and sited in areas with high
connecting routes to stations. levels of passive surveillance such as platforms,
concourses or near main entrances (see Figure 12.2).
12.3.2 Local promotion of bike and ride may need
Where this is not possible, CCTV coverage may be
to be aimed at communities and workplaces, using
required. There are specific security restrictions
area maps or personal travel planning techniques. The
concerning the type and location of cycle parking
duration of the whole journey will affect the likelihood
permitted at some mainline railway stations.
of people using bike and ride. Bike and ride can be
promoted as a healthy lifestyle option and a better use 12.4.4 Maps of the local cycle route network can
of time for example, the invehicle element of the be made available at information centres or displayed
journey offers opportunities for reading and relaxation. at the station, with routes clearly signed from the
forecourt.
12.4 Cyclefriendly 12.4.5 Busier stations offer potential for cycle
interchange centres offering secure parking, repairs and hire (see
Chapter 11). There is also potential to develop low
12.4.1 Secure longstay cycle parking is required cost cycle hire at key stations using automated pay
at multimodal public transport interchanges, heavy asyougo systems (see Figure 12.3).
rail stations, park and ride sites and principal bus and
coach stations. There may also be opportunities to
introduce longstay parking facilities within the vicinity
of wellused light rail and bus stops in some areas,
and at the outer terminus of suburban heavy and light
rail lines.
Figure 12.2 Clear signs to cycle parking at London Bridge Figure 12.3 Automated cycle rental point at station (Adrian
station (Adrian Lord) Lord)

12.5 Cycle and tram routes found to fill the gap to prevent cycle wheels from
being deflected by the rails, but some skid resistance
12.5.1 Cycles are carried on some services on the can be built in. Crossing rails at an angle close to 90
continent (e.g. Basel, Strasbourg, Montpellier and degrees is safer, but drivers may not expect this
streetrunning parts of Stuttgart), but at present UK manoeuvre. Where space is available and conditions
light rail operators exclude nonfolding bicycles (some allow, offering cyclists a route where they can avoid
even exclude folding bicycles if not bagged), so crossing the rails is ideal.
quality cycle parking provision is important.
12.5.6 Tram boarders, like bus boarders, are
12.5.2 There is limited experience of mixing cycles localised footway buildouts at stops to improve
and streetrunning trams within the UK, but existing passenger access. At a tram stop, the buildout can
schemes have offered valuable lessons. Many of the deflect cyclists towards the nearside rail, making them
factors that make a good cycle route, such as gentle cross it at a shallow angle. Signing and marking
gradients, quiet streets and direct routes to key schemes with wide crossing angles have been used,
destinations, also make good tram routes. This can but at less heavily used stops it may be worth
give rise to clashes between existing cycle routes and considering allowing the cycle track to pass behind
proposed tram routes. the boarder see also Section 6.4. The potential for
conflict between cyclists and passengers boarding or
12.5.3 Provided there is sufficient space, the alighting the tram may make such a solution
introduction of a new tram system may create an impracticable at busier stops.
opportunity for funding to develop a highquality cycle
route superior to existing provision. This may be 12.5.7 Trams can be so quiet that a cyclist does
achieved by creating new offcarriageway routes and not hear them coming against the noise of other
possibly reducing motor traffic in areas where trams traffic, and the tram cannot stop quickly enough if a
use the carriageway. However, measures are still likely cyclist crosses its path or fails to avoid it. Tram
to be required to reduce problems for cyclists riding operators already include cycle awareness training for
along tram routes. drivers, but published promotional material such as
route maps should seek to educate cyclists about the
12.5.4 Many new tram systems incorporate particular dangers. Cycle training in areas with tram
measures to alleviate such problems. These include systems could include dealing with trams as part of its
Toucan crossings, provision for crossing at right syllabus.
angles to the tracks, and displaced cycle lanes at
tram corners and kerbside stops. 12.5.8 Further guidance on integrating cycle
infrastructure with tram and light rail systems is given
12.5.5 Probably the most significant factor to in The Interaction of cyclists and rapid transit systems
consider is the difficulty for cyclists crossing tram rails (MVA Consultancy, 1998).
at a narrow angle. No practicable material has been

References
Bach, M. (1995) PPG6: Town Centres and Retail Developments: Evolving Government Policy.
Bike Parking and Security Association (2003) Quality Cycle Parking Standard Issue 1. Bike Parking and Security
Association.
Brilon, W. and Vendehey, M. (1998) Roundabouts the State of the Art in Germany.
Brude, U. and Larsson, J. (2000) What roundabout design provides the highest possible safety? Nordic Road and
Transport Research, 2, 1721.
California Department of Transportion (2001) Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design. Highway Design
Manual. Sacramento: California Department of Transportion.
Countryside Agency/Department for Transport (2004) Bike and Rail: a Good Practice Guide. London: Department
for Transport.
CROW (1993) Sign Up for the Bike: Design Manual for a Cyclefriendly Infrastructure. Netherlands: Centre for
Research and Contract Standardisation in Civil and Traffic Engineering.
Davies, D. G., Chinn, l., Buckie, G. S. and Reid, S. J. (2003) Cycling in Vehicle Restricted Areas. TRL Report No.
583. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
Department for Transport (2002) Inclusive Mobility A guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and
Transport Infrastructure. London: Department for Transport.
Department for Transport (2003a) Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 5: Road Markings. London: The Stationery Office.
Department for Transport (2003b) Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 7: The Design of Traffic Signs. London: The
Stationery Office.
Department for Transport (2006) Bike and Rail Policy. London: Department for Transport.
Department for Transport (2008) Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3: Regulatory Signs. London: Department for
Transport.
Department for Transport/County Surveyors Society (2006) Miniroundabouts Good Practice Guidance.
London: Department for Transport.
Department for Transport and (Department for) Communities and Local Government (2007) Manual for Streets.
London: Thomas Telford.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1997a) Supply and Demand for Cycle Parking. Traffic
Advisory Leaflet 7/97. London: DETR.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1997b) Cyclists at Roundabouts Continental Design
Geometry. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 9/97. London: DETR.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1997c) Keeping Buses Moving. Local Transport Note
1/97. London: DETR.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1998a) Contraflow Cycling. Traffic Advisory Leaflet
6/98. London: DETR.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1998b) Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving
Surfaces. London: The Stationery Office.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1999a) Cyclists at Road Works. Traffic Advisory
Leaflet 15/99. London: DETR.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1999b) The Use of Above Ground Vehicle Detectors.
Traffic Advisory Leaflet 16/99. London: DETR.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1999d) Journey Times in London. London: DETR.
Department of Transport (1986) Shared Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians. Local Transport Note 2/86. London:
Department of Transport.
Department of Transport (1993a) Cycling in Pedestrian Areas. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 9/93. London: Department
of Transport.
Department of Transport (1993b) Overrun Areas. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 12/93. London: Department of Transport.
Department of Transport (1995a) The Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings. Local Transport Note 1/95. London:
Department of Transport.
Department of Transport (1995b) The Design of Pedestrian Crossings. Local Transport Note 2/95. London: HMSO.
Essex County Council (2003/05) Speed Management Strategy.
European Council of Ministers of Transport (1996) Sustainable Transport in Central and Eastern European Cities.
Brussels: European Council of Ministers of Transport.
European Cyclists Federation (1998) Cycling in Urban Areas. Brussels: European Cyclists Federation.
Franklin, J. (2007) Cyclecraft, 4th edn. London: The Stationery Office.
Highway Agency (1993a), Volume 5: Assessment and Preparation of Road Schemes. Section 2: Preparation and
implementation. Part 5 HD 42/05 Nonmotorised user audits (new standard). Design Manual for Roads and
Bridges. London: The Stationery Office.
Highways Agency (1993b) Volume 6: Road geometry. Section 2: Junctions. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.
London: The Stationery Office.
Highway Agency (1993c) Volume 6: Road geometry, Section 2: Junctions, Part 3 TD 16/93 Geometric design of
roundabouts. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. London: The Stationery Office.
Highways Agency (1993d) Volume 6: Road geometry. Section 3: Highway Features. Part 1 TD 36/93 Subways for
pedestrians and pedal cyclists. Layout and Dimensions. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. London: The
Stationery Office.
Highway Agency (1995) Volume 6: Road geometry. Section 2: Junctions. Part 6 TD 42/95 Geometric design of
major/minor priority junctions. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. London: The Stationery Office.

Highways Agency (2004) Volume 6: Road geometry. Section 2: Junctions. Part 3 TD 50/04 The geometric layout
of signalcontrolled junctions and signalised roundabouts. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. London: The
Stationery Office.
Highways Agency (2005a) Volume 5: Assessment and preparation of road schemes. Section 2: Preparation and
implementation. Part 4 TA 91/05 Provision for nonmotorised users (new advice note). Design Manual for Roads
and Bridges. London: The Stationery Office.
Highway Agency (2005b) Volume 6: Road geometry. Section 3: Highway features. Part 5 TA 90/05 Geometric
design of pedestrian, cycle and equestrian routes (new advice note). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.
London: The Stationery Office.
Institution of Highways and Transportation (2000) Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot. London:
Institution of Highways and Transportation.
Institution of Highways and Transportation, Cyclists Touring Club, Bicycle Association, and Department of
Transport (1996) Cycle Friendly Infrastructure: Guidelines for planning and design. London: Institution of Highways
and Transportation.
Institution of Highways and Transportation, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Scottish
Office, Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and Welsh Office (1998) Guidelines for Cycle Audit
and Cycle Review. London: PTRC Education and Research Services Ltd.
Institution of Lighting Engineers (1998) Lighting of Cycle Tracks. TR23. Rugby: ILE.
Kennedy, J. V. and Hall, R. D. (1997) Accidents at Urban Miniroundabouts. TRL Report No. 281. Crowthorne:
Transport Research Laboratory.
Lines, C. J. (1995) Cycle Crashes at Signalised Roundabouts. Traffic Engineering and Control. London: Printerhall
Ltd.
Local Transport Today (2005) Traffic signals at roundabouts cut cycle casualties. Local Transport Today, 409.
Maycock, G. and Hall, R. D. (1984) Crashes at Fourarm Roundabouts. TRRL Report No. LR 1120. Crowthorne:
Transport and Road Research Laboratory.
MVA Consultancy (1998) The Interaction of Cyclists and Rapid Transit Systems. Woking: MVA Consultancy.
National Rail (2008) Cycling by Train. Leaflet. National Rail.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2001) Planning Policy Guidance Note 13, Transport. London: The Stationery
Office.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Office (2004) Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime
Prevention. London: The Stationery Office.
Pedler, A. and Davies, D. G. (2000) Cycle Track Crossings of Minor Roads. Transport Research Report No. 462.
Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
Pheby, T. (2004) Heworth Green Roundabout Case Study.
Reid, S. and Guthrie, N. (2004) Cycling in Bus Lanes. Transport Research Report No. 610. Crowthorne: Transport
Research Laboratory.

Schoon, C. and Minnen, J. V. (1994) The safety of roundabouts in the Netherlands. Traffic Engineering and
Control, March, 142147.
Scottish Executive Development Department (2005) Scottish Planning Policies Planning Advice Notes 75 (SPP
75). Edinburgh: The Scottish Executive.
Scottish Government (2001) Sharing Road Space: Drivers and Cyclists as Equal Road Users.
Edinburgh: The Scottish Executive.
Sully, A. (1998) Cycle parking at railway stations: principles of best practice. Proceedings of the Velo Borealis
conference, Trondheim.
Sustrans (2008) The National Cycle Network Route User Monitoring Report. Bristol: Sustrans.
www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles/rmu/route_monitoring_report_end%2007.pdf
Taylor, S. B. (1996) Bike and Ride: Its Value and Potential. TRL Report No. 189. Crowthorne: Transport Research
Laboratory.
Taylor, S. and Halliday, M. (1997) Cycle Parking Supply and Demand. TRL Report No. 276. Crowthorne: Transport
Research Laboratory.
Transport for London (2005) Street Management, Do Traffic Signals at Roundabouts Save Lives? London: TfL.
Transport Research Laboratory (2001) Deliverable D5. Costbenefit Analysis of Measures for Vulnerable Road
Users. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
UK Roads Board (2003) Application Guide AG26 (Version2). Footway and Cycle Route Design, Construction and
Maintenance Guide. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
Uzzell, D., Leach, R., Ravenscroft, N. and Groeger, J. (2000) User Interaction on Nonmotorised Shared Use
Routes. Report to Countryside Agency, CRN 32.
Wall, G. T., Davies, D. G. and Crabtree, M. (2003) Capacity Implications of Advanced Stop Lines for Cyclists. TRL
Report No. 585. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
Welsh Assembly Government (2002) Planning Policy Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.
Welsh Assembly Government (2007) Technical Advice Note 18: Transport. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.
Wiltshire County Council/Transport Research Laboratory (2003/04) Trials in Devizes.

Appendix: Publications
Statutory Instruments and Acts
Highways Act 1980.
Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984.
The Cycle Tracks Act 1984.
The Cycle Traffic Act Regulations 1984 (SI 1984, No 1431).
The Traffic Calming Act 1992.
The Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996, No. 2489).
The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Crossing Regulations and general Directions 1997 (SI 1997, No. 2400).
Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings General (Amendment) Directions 1998 (SI 1998, No. 901).
The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999, No. 1025).
The Highways (Traffic Calming) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999), No. 1026).
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (Amendment) Act order 1999.
Greater London Authority Act 1999.
Transport Act 2000.
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (SI 2002, No. 3113).
The Traffic Signs (Amendment) General Directions 2003 (SI 2003, No. 393).
The Traffic Signs (Amendment) General Directions 2004 (SI 2004, No. 1275).
The Traffic Signs (Amendment) Regulations and General Directions 2005 (SI 2005, No. 1670).
Circulars
Circular Roads 1/86 Cycle Tracks Act 1984 and The Cycle Track Regulations 1984.
Circular Roads 01/93, Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984: Sections 8185 Local Speed Limits (cancelled, except
in Wales).
Circular Roads 05/99, 20 mph Speed Limits.
Circular 02/2003, The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002.

Local Transport Notes
Local Transport Note 01/78, Ways of Helping Cyclists in Built Up Areas.
Local Transport Note 02/78, Notes on the Preparation of Pedestrianisation Schemes.
Local Transport Note 01/83, Signs for Cycle Facilities.
Local Transport Note 01/86, Cyclists at Road Crossings and Junctions.
Local Transport Note 02/86, Shared Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians.
Local Transport Note 01/87, Getting the Right Balance: Guidance on Vehicle Restriction in Pedestrian Zones.
Local Transport Note 02/87, Signs for Cycle Facilities.
Local Transport Note 01/89, Making Way for Cyclists: Planning, Design and Legal Aspects of Providing for
Cyclists.
Local Transport Note 01/07, Traffic Calming.
Traffic Advisory Leaflets
03/90 Urban Safety Management Guidelines from IHT.
04/90 Tactile Markings for Segregated Shared Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians.
03/91 Speed Control Humps (Scottish version).
07/91 20 mph Speed Limit Zones (see TAL 09/99).
02/92 The Carfax, Horsham 20 mph Zone.
02/93 20 mph Speed Limit Zone Signs (see TAL 09/99).
03/93 Traffic Calming Special Authorisations.
07/93 Traffic Calming Regulations.
08/93 Advanced Stop Lines for Cyclists.
09/93 Cycling in Pedestrian Areas.
10/93 TOUCAN An Unsegregated Crossing for Pedestrians and Cyclists.
11/93 Rumble Devices.
12/93 Overrun Areas.
13/93 Gateways.
01/94 VISP A Summary.
02/94 Entry Treatments.
03/94 Fire and Ambulance Services Traffic Calming: A Code of Practice.

04/94 Speed Cushions (see TAL 01/98).
07/94 Thumps Thermoplastic Road Humps.
09/94 Horizontal Deflections (see also TAL 12/97).
11/94 Traffic Calming Regulations Scotland.
01/95 Speed Limit Signs A Guide to Good Practice.
02/95 Raised Rib Markings.
03/95 Cycle Routes.
06/95 Pedestrian Crossings Assessment and Design.
07/95 Traffic Islands for Speed Control.
08/95 Traffic Models for Cycling.
01/96 Traffic Management in Historic Areas.
02/96 75 mm high Road Humps.
03/96 Bike and ride.
05/96 Further Development of Advanced Stop Lines.
06/96 Traffic Calming: Traffic and Vehicle Noise.
07/96 Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1996.
08/96 Road Humps and Groundborne Vibrations.
01/97 Cyclists at Road Narrowings.
02/97 Traffic Calming on Major Roads: A49 Craven Arms, Shropshire.
04/97 Rising Bollards.
05/97 Cycles and Lorries.
06/97 Traffic Calming on Major Roads: A47 Thorney, Cambridgeshire.
09/97 Cyclists at Roundabouts Continental Design Geometry.
10/97 Halifax Historic Core Zone.
12/97 Chicane schemes.
01/98 Speed Cushion Schemes.
02/98 Lincoln Historic Core Zone, Newport Arch.
04/98 Toucan Crossing Development.

06/98 Contraflow Cycling.
07/98 Cycle Audit and Review.
08/98 The High Street route, Shrewsbury.
09/98 Sinusoidal, H and S humps.
01/99 Monitoring Local Cycle Use.
02/99 Leigh Park Area Safety Scheme, Havant, Hants.
05/99 Bikerail Combined Journeys by Cycle and Rail.
06/99 Cycle Parking. Examples of Good Practice.
08/99 Urban Safety Management Using SAFENET.
09/99 20 mph Speed Limits and Zones.
13/99 Historic Core Zone: Bury St Edmunds.
14/99 Traffic Calming on Major Roads: A Traffic Calming Scheme at Costessey, Norfolk.
01/00 Traffic Calming in Villages on Major Roads.
02/00 Framework for a Local Walking Strategy.
06/00 Monitoring Walking.
10/00 Road Humps: Discomfort, Noise and Groundborne Vibration.
11/00 Village Traffic Calming Reducing Accidents.
12/00 Urban Street Activity in 20 mph Zones. Ayres Road Area, Old Trafford.
01/01 Puffin Pedestrian Crossing.
03/01 Urban Street Activity in 20 mph Zones. Seedley, Salford.
09/01 The Nottingham Cycle Friendly Employers Project.
10/01 Home Zones Planning and Design.
01/02 The Installation of Puffin Pedestrian Crossings.
04/02 Benchmarking of Local Cycling Policy.
05/02 Key Elements of Cycle Parking Provision.
06/02 Inclusive Mobility: A Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure.
08/02 Home Zones Public Participation.
02/03 Signalcontrol at Junctions on High Speed Roads.

03/03 Equestrian Crossings.
01/04 Village Speed Limits.
02/04 Rural Traffic Calming: Bird Lane, Essex.
03/04 Quiet Lanes.
01/05 Rumblewave Surfacing.
02/05 Traffic Calming Bibliography (Revised regularly).
03/05 Cycling Bibliography (Revised regularly).
04/05 Walking Bibliography (Revised regularly).
05/05 Pedestrian Facilities at Signalcontrolled Junctions.
06/05 Traditional Direction Signs.
01/06 General Principles of Traffic Control by Light Signals.
02/06 Speed Assessment Framework.
Other guidance
Departmental Advice Note, TA 22/81. Vehicle Speed Measurement on All Purpose Roads.
Highway Agency (1993) Volume 6: Road geometry, Section 2: Junctions, Part 3 TD 16/93 Geometric design of
roundabouts. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. London: The Stationery Office.
Highway Agency (1995) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 6: Road geometry, Section 3: Highway
features, Part 4 TA 81/99 Coloured surfacing in road layout (excluding traffic calming). London: The Stationery
Office.
Department for Transport (2002) Cycling in Great Britain Personal Travel Fact Sheets 5a & 5b. London:
Department for Transport.
Department for Transport (2004) Tomorrows Roads Safer for Everyone: The First Threeyear Review. London:
Department for Transport.
Department for Transport 2004, Walking and Cycling: An Action Plan. London: Department for Transport.
Department for Transport (2004) Encouraging Walking and Cycling: Success Stories. London: Department for
Transport.
Department for Transport (2005) Delivery of the National Cycling Strategy: A Review. London: Department for
Transport.
Department for Transport (2005) National Cycling Training Standard. London: Department for Transport.
Department for Transport (2008) A Sustainable Future for Cycling. London: Department for Transport.

Nondepartmental guidance
Transport for London (2005), London Cycling Design Standards. London: Transport for London.
Sustrans (1997) The National Cycle Network Guidelines and Practical Details: Issue 2. Bristol: Sustrans.
Sustrans (2008) The National Cycle Network Route User Monitoring Report. Bristol: Sustrans.
www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles/rmu/route_monitoring_report_end%2007.pdf
Web pages
Bikeability: www.bikeability.org.uk
Bike Week: www.bikeweek.org.uk
CTC: www.ctc.org.uk
Cycling England: www.cyclingengland.co.uk
Department for Transport: www.dft.gov.uk
Sustrans: www.sustrans.org.uk
Transport for London: www.tfl.gov.uk
Printed in the United Kingdom by TSO
N5896150 c5 10/08

Department for Transport
Scottish Executive
Welsh Assembly Government
October 2008
Cycle Infrastructure Design
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 different Local Transport Notes
and other advice. It is hoped that, by bringing together relevant advice in a
single document, this guide will make it easier for local authorities to decide
what special provision, if any, is required to encourage more people to cycle.
ISBN 978 0 11 553024 1
29
www.tso.co.uk

Cycle Infrastructure Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cycle Infrastructure Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cycle Infrastructure Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of this document?

What is the purpose of this document?

What guidance does it provide?

What guidance does it provide?

Local Transport Note 2/08

Welsh Assembly Government

Mail, Telephone, Fax & Email

TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

ISBN 978 0 11 553024 1

Printed in Great Britain on paper containing at least

75% recycled fibre.

1.2 Policy ....................................................................................................................................9

1.3 Underlying principles ............................................................................................................9

1.4 Networks links and connections ........................................................................................12

1.5 Typical cycle trip distances ................................................................................................14

1.6 Risk and liability ..................................................................................................................14

1.7 Cycle audit and review ........................................................................................................15

2 General design parameters........................................................................16

2.1 Clear space required by cyclists ........................................................................................16

2.2 Dynamic envelope ..............................................................................................................16

2.3 Critical distances to fixed objects ......................................................................................16

2.4 Cyclists passing other cyclists ............................................................................................17

2.5 Overtaking by motor vehicles..............................................................................................17

2.6 Dimensions of cycles ..........................................................................................................17

3 Signing issues ............................................................................................19

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................19

3.2 Coloured surfaces ..............................................................................................................19

3.3 The cycle symbol ................................................................................................................20

3.5 GIVE WAY signing ..............................................................................................................20

3.6 The CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign ........................................................................................20

Cycle Infrastructure Design 3

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................22

4.2 Road closures and turning restrictions ..............................................................................22

4.3 Parking control and vehicle restricted areas ......................................................................23

4.4 Planning and new development ..........................................................................................24

4.5 Cycle parking standards ....................................................................................................26

5 Reducing vehicle speeds on cycle routes ................................................27

5.1 Speed reduction ..................................................................................................................27

5.2 Cycle bypasses ..................................................................................................................28

5.3 Removal of centre lines ......................................................................................................28

5.4 Overrun areas and textured surfacing ................................................................................29

5.5 Road humps ........................................................................................................................29

5.6 Speed cushions ..................................................................................................................30

5.7 Pedestrian refuges, traffic islands and central hatching ....................................................30

5.8 Chicanes and other buildout arrangements ......................................................................31

6 Bus and tram routes ..................................................................................32

6.1 Bus lanes ............................................................................................................................32

6.2 Bus lane widths ..................................................................................................................32

6.3 Bus gates and busonly roads ............................................................................................33

6.4 Bus and tram stops ............................................................................................................33

7 Cycle lanes ..................................................................................................35

7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................35

7.2 Mandatory cycle lanes ........................................................................................................36

7.3 Advisory cycle lanes............................................................................................................36

7.4 Cycle lane widths ................................................................................................................37

4 Cycle Infrastructure Design

7.6 Contraflow cycle lanes ........................................................................................................37

7.7 Parking and cycle contraflows ............................................................................................39