Cycle

Infrastructure
Design

Local Transport Note 1/20

July 2020
Cycle
Infrastructure
Design

Local Transport Note 1/20

July 2020
This Local Transport Note was commissioned by the Department for Transport.
It was led by WSP and Phil Jones Associates in collaboration with a DfT-led expert steering group.

Published by TSO (The Stationery Office), part of Williams Lea, and available from:

Online
www.tsoshop.co.uk

Mail, Telephone, Fax & E-mail

TSO
PO Box 29, Norwich, NR3 1GN
Telephone orders/General enquiries: 0333 202 5070
Fax orders: 0333 202 5080
E-mail: [email protected]
Textphone 0333 202 5077

TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents

Published with the permission of the Department for Transport on behalf of the
Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

© Crown copyright 2020

All rights reserved

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

You may re-use this document/publication (not including logos) free of charge in any
format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this
licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3
or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey
TW9 4DU; or email: [email protected].

First published 2020

ISBN 978 0 11 553713 4

Printed in the United Kingdom for TSO (The Stationery Office)

J003658610 c2.5 07/20
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Contents

Foreword........................................................................................ 3

1 Introduction........................................................................ 5

2 Cycling in context............................................................ 15

3 Planning for cycling......................................................... 21

4 Design principles and processes.................................. 29

5 Geometric requirements................................................. 39

6 Space for cycling within highways................................ 49

7 Quiet mixed traffic streets and lanes............................ 73

8 Motor traffic free routes................................................. 83

9 
Transitions between carriageways, cycle lanes
and cycle tracks............................................................... 89

10 Junctions and crossings................................................. 95

11 Cycle parking and other equipment............................ 131

12 Planning and designing for commercial cycling.........141

13 Traffic signs, road markings and wayfinding............. 145

1
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

14 
Integrating cycling with highway improvements
and new developments................................................. 153

15 Construction and maintenance................................... 163

Appendices................................................................................ 171

Appendix A: Cycling Level of Service Tool............................. 172

Appendix B: Junction Assessment Tool................................. 178

Appendix C: Legal issues......................................................... 185

Appendix D: Image list and credits......................................... 193

2
Foreword

As the Prime Minister said when he launched the The Department for Transport will also reserve the right
Government’s ambitious plan for cycling in July 2020, to ask for appropriate funding to be returned for any
cycling will play a far bigger part in our transport system schemes built in a way which is not consistent with the
from now on. We need to see significant increases in guidance. In short, schemes which do not follow this
cycling in our cities and towns, and everywhere else too. guidance will not be funded.

To achieve that, the quality of cycling infrastructure This guidance has been developed closely with
must sharply improve. Properly-protected bike lanes, stakeholders so that it reflects the latest developments
cycle-safe junctions and interventions for low-traffic in cycle infrastructure design, including proven design
streets encourage people to cycle. elements pioneered by Transport for London and by
the Cycle Ambition Cities and in Wales under the
Too much cycling infrastructure is substandard, providing Welsh Active Travel Design Guidance. I am grateful
little protection from motorised traffic and giving up at the to our stakeholders for their valuable input into the
very places it is most needed. Some is actually worse review process.
than nothing, because it entices novice cyclists with the
promise of protection, then abandons them at the most It reflects current best practice, standards and legal
important places. Poor cycling infrastructure discourages requirements. Inclusive cycling is an underlying theme
cycling and wastes public money. throughout so that people cycling of all ages and abilities
are considered. The design options include segregation
In some places, even without much special provision, from traffic, measures for cycling at junctions and
cycling is already mass transit. Last year in Greater roundabouts, and updated guidance on crossings, signal
Manchester, for example, as many journeys were made design and the associated traffic signs and road markings.
by bike as on the conurbation’s entire Metrolink tram
system. In central London, bikes made up almost a third Furthermore, to receive Government funding for local
of rush-hour traffic. And that was before the COVID19 highways investment where the main element is not
pandemic, which resulted in large increases as people cycling or walking, there will be a presumption that
rediscovered cycling and walking during lockdown. schemes must deliver or improve cycling infrastructure
to the standards in this Local Transport Note, unless it
This updated national guidance for highway authorities can be shown that there is little or no need for cycling in
and designers aims to help cycling become a form of the particular highway scheme.
mass transit in many more places. Cycling must no longer
be treated as marginal, or an afterthought. It must not be The Department will work with the highways and
seen as mainly part of the leisure industry, but as a means transportation professions to ensure that the guidance is
of everyday transport. It must be placed at the heart of understood by local authorities and their supply chain so
the transport network, with the capital spending, road that it is embedded in local highways design standards,
space and traffic planners’ attention befitting that role. which will enable people of all ages and abilities to cycle.

The guidance delivers on our commitment to boost The guidance will be reviewed regularly to ensure it
design standards and improve safety. It sets out the continues to reflect the latest developments in cycle
much higher standards now expected, and describes infrastructure design practice.
some of the failings common in the past, which will be
strongly discouraged in future.

The Government intends that all proposed schemes will

be checked by a new inspectorate against the summary
principles before funding is agreed, and that finished
schemes will be inspected as appropriate to ensure that
they have been delivered in compliance with them.

It will be a condition of any future Government funding Chris Heaton-Harris MP

for new cycle infrastructure that it is designed in a Minister of State with responsibility for cycling
way that is consistent with this national guidance. and walking

3
 1
Introduction

The statutory Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS) sets a clear ambition
to make cycling and walking the natural choices for short journeys or as part of a
longer journey with supporting objectives to increase cycling and walking levels.
This guidance supports the delivery of high-quality cycle infrastructure to deliver
this ambition and objective; and reflects current good practice, standards and
legal requirements.

Inclusive cycling is the underlying theme so that people of all ages and abilities
are considered.

Much has changed in the world of cycle infrastructure since LTN 2/08 was published
over a decade ago and this guidance has been developed in partnership with a range
of stakeholders and experts to ensure it reflects the latest developments in cycle
infrastructure design, including proven design elements pioneered in London under
Transport for London and in Wales under the Welsh Government.
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

1.1 Summary of 1.2 Purpose

requirements 1.2.1 This Local Transport Note provides guidance
and good practice for the design of cycle infrastructure,
1.1.1 Local authorities are responsible for setting in support of the Cycling and Walking Investment
design standards for their roads. This national guidance Strategy. The scope of the document is limited to design
provides a recommended basis for those standards matters. Further reading on related matters, helpful tools
based on five overarching design principles and 22 and advice on procedural issues are included in the
summary principles. There will be an expectation that Appendices. Local Transport Note (LTN) 1/20 replaces
local authorities will demonstrate that they have given due previous guidance on cycle infrastructure design
consideration to this guidance when designing new provided by LTN 2/08, and accordingly LTN 2/08 is
cycling schemes and, in particular, when applying for withdrawn.
Government funding that includes cycle infrastructure.
1.2.2 LTN 1/20 also replaces LTN 1/12: Shared Use
1.1.2 The guidance contains tools which give local Routes for Pedestrians and Cyclists, and accordingly,
authorities flexibility on infrastructure design and sets a LTN 1/12 is now withdrawn. See also Chapter 6,
measurable quality threshold to achieve when designing Section 6.5.
cycling schemes. The Cycling Level of Service (CLoS) at
Appendix A and the Junction Assessment tools (JAT) at
Appendix B are new mechanisms introduced to set
minimum quality criteria. Only schemes with a minimum
1.3 Application
score of 70% under the CLoS, no critical fails and under
the JAT no red-scored turning movements will generally 1.3.1 The guidance covers England and Northern
be considered for funding. Where schemes are proposed Ireland. A number of other documents can also be used
for funding that do not meet these minimum criteria, in Northern Ireland and designers should take advice
authorities will be required to justify their design choices. from the roads authority before initiating any design.
It still gives local authorities flexibility on design of Where the text refers to highway authorities for England,
infrastructure, but sets an objective and measurable the equivalent term in Northern Ireland is road authority.
quality threshold. Use of these tools is explained in more In Northern Ireland the Department for Infrastructure is
detail in Chapter 4, Section 4.5. the sole road authority. The guidance should be applied
to all changes associated with highway improvements,
1.1.3 To effectively apply this guidance those new highway construction and new or improved cycle
designing cycling and walking schemes should have facilities, including those on other rights of way such
an appropriate level of of experience and training. as bridleways and routes within public open space.
An example would be the Institute of Highway Engineers’ Separate guidance is available for Scotland and Wales.
Professional Certificate & Diploma in Active Travel that In Scotland, the relevant guidance is Cycling by Design
allows applicants to demonstrate their experience published by Transport Scotland and in Wales, the
and produce work to the required standard. For more relevant guidance is the Active Travel Design Guidance,
information please see: www.theihe.org/courses/ published by the Welsh Government.
active-travel
1.3.2 The CWIS recommends that local authorities
prepare Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans
(LCWIPs). This guidance (see Chapter 3) should be
applied when identifying the infrastructure required to
create good quality cycle networks when preparing the
LCWIP or other local network plan for cycling.

6
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

1.4 Definitions 1.5 Core design

1.4.1 The built environment should be accessible to principles
all, including young people, older people, and disabled
people. The concept of ‘inclusive design’ underpins the 1.5.1 There are five core design principles which
document, although it is acknowledged that what represent the essential requirements to achieve more
individual people consider to be acceptable will vary. people travelling by cycle or on foot, based on best
Design should begin with the principle that all potential practice both internationally and across the UK.
cyclists and their machines should be catered for in all
cycle infrastructure design. 1.5.2 Networks and routes should be Coherent;
Direct; Safe; Comfortable and Attractive.
1.4.2 For the purpose of this document, the term
cycle refers to the full range of vehicles shown in 1.5.3 Inclusive design and accessibility should run
Figure 5.2 in Chapter 5 and described in the through all five of these core design principles. Designers
accompanying text, including hand-cranked cycles and should always aim to provide infrastructure that meets
cycles that conform to the Electrically Assisted Pedal these principles and therefore caters for the broadest
Cycle Regulations 1983 (as amended). It does not range of people.
include mopeds, stand-on scooters or other powered
1.5.4 Infrastructure must be accessible to all and the
two-wheeled vehicles. The terms cyclist and cycling
needs of vulnerable pedestrians and local people must
refer to anybody using a human powered vehicle as
be considered early in the process to ensure schemes
described above.
are supported locally in the long term. The Equality Act
1.4.3 The terms pedestrian and walking include 2010 requires public sector authorities to comply with
people using mobility aids such as wheelchairs and the Public Sector Equality Duty in carrying out their
mobility scooters designed for use on the footway, and functions. This includes making reasonable adjustments
people with physical, sensory or cognitive impairments to the existing built environment to ensure the design of
who are travelling on foot. infrastructure is accessible to all.

1.4.4 The term cycle lane has the meaning given in

Schedule 1 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General
Directions 2016 (as amended).

1.4.5 For ease of reading the term cycle track is

used in its widest sense (rather than the legal definition) to
describe routes for cycling within the highway boundary
that are physically separated from motor vehicles and
pedestrians, such as by a kerb, verge, level difference or
material delineation. Paths away from the highway that
have been designated for cycling are variously described
as cycle tracks, cycle paths, greenways and
towpaths. Off-carriageway cycling provision may either
be physically segregated from pedestrian facilities or a
common surface may be shared.

1.4.6 Cyclists and pedestrians are considered to

be ‘traffic’, within the meaning of the Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984 and the Traffic Management Act
2004, and therefore duties to manage the road network
to secure ‘expeditious and safe movement for all traffic’
apply to them as well as motorised modes.

7
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 1.1: Core design principles

Accessibility for all

Coherent Direct Safe Comfortable Attractive

DO Cycle networks DO Cycle routes DO Not only must DO Comfortable DO Cycle infrastructure
should be planned and should be at least as cycle infrastructure be conditions for cycling should help to deliver
designed to allow direct – and preferably safe, it should also be require routes with public spaces that are
people to reach their more direct – than perceived to be safe so good quality, well designed and
day to day destinations those available for that more people feel well-maintained finished in attractive
easily, along routes that private motor vehicles. able to cycle. smooth surfaces, materials and be places
connect, are simple to adequate width for that people want to
navigate and are of a the volume of users, spend time using.
consistently high minimal stopping and
quality. starting and avoiding
steep gradients.

DON’T Neither cyclists DON’T This track DON’T Space for DON’T Uncomfortable DON’T Sometimes
or pedestrians benefit requires cyclists to give cycling is important but transitions between well-intentioned signs
from unintuitive way at each side road. a narrow advisory cycle on-and off carriageway and markings for
arrangements that put Routes involving extra lane next to a narrow facilities are best cycling are not only
cyclists in unexpected distance or lots of general traffic lane and avoided, particularly at difficult and
places away from the stopping and starting guard rail at a busy locations where conflict uncomfortable to use,
carriageway. will result in some junction is not an with other road users is but are also
cyclists choosing to acceptable offer for more likely. unattractive additions
ride on the main cyclists. to the street scape.
carriageway instead
because it is faster
and more direct, even
if less safe.

8
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

1.6 Summary Principles 2) Cycles must be treated as vehicles and not as

pedestrians. On urban streets, cyclists must be
physically separated from pedestrians and
The following summary principles should not share space with pedestrians.
Where cycle routes cross pavements, a
form an integral part of this physically segregated track should always
guidance. be provided. At crossings and junctions,
cyclists should not share the space used by
1.6.1 Creating a national default position where high pedestrians but should be provided with a
quality cycle infrastructure is provided as a matter of separate parallel route.
course in local highway schemes requires a long term
commitment to deliver the solutions outlined in this Shared use routes in streets with high pedestrian or
document. The 22 summary principles below will help cyclist flows should not be used. Instead, in these
practitioners deliver high quality infrastructure based on sorts of spaces distinct tracks for cyclists should be
the lessons learned from cycle infrastructure delivered to made, using sloping, pedestrian-friendly kerbs and/
date – both where this has been done well but also or different surfacing. Shared use routes away from
where delivery did not meet the outcomes desired. streets may be appropriate in locations such as
canal towpaths, paths through housing estates,
1) Cycle infrastructure should be accessible to parks and other green spaces, including in cities.
everyone from 8 to 80 and beyond: it should Where cycle routes use such paths in built-up areas,
be planned and designed for everyone. you should try to separate them from pedestrians,
The opportunity to cycle in our towns and perhaps with levels or a kerb.
cities should be universal.
Figure 1.3: Dedicated cycle facility in area with high
The ability to deliver a right to cycle requires pedestrian flows
infrastructure and routes which are accessible to all
regardless of age, gender, ethnicity or disability and
does not create hazards for vulnerable pedestrians.
Improvements to highways should always seek to
enhance accessibility for all.

Figure 1.2: Accessible cycle infrastructure

9
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

3) Cyclists must be physically separated and 5) Cycle infrastructure should be designed for
protected from high volume motor traffic, both significant numbers of cyclists, and for
at junctions and on the stretches of road non-standard cycles. Our aim is that thousands
between them. of cyclists a day will use many of these
schemes.
Protection can be achieved either by creating
physically separated cycle facilities, or by the closure We also want to see increasing numbers of cargo
of roads to through motor traffic using bollards, bikes to replace some van journeys. Cycle routes
planters or other physical barriers (with access, Blue must be accessible to recumbents, trikes, handcycles,
Badge holders, buses and so on still allowed). and other cycles used by disabled cyclists.
Segregated facilities can be implemented with full Many current tracks and lanes are too narrow or
kerb segregation or light segregation (for example constrained to meet these objectives. To allow faster
with wands, stepped kerbs, planters etc.) On roads cyclists to overtake, and make room for non-standard
with high volumes of motor traffic or high speeds, bikes, cycle tracks should ideally be 2 metres wide in
cycle routes indicated only with road markings or each direction, or 3 to 4m (depending on cycle flows)
cycle symbols should not be used as people will for bidirectional tracks though there may have to be
perceive them to be unacceptable for safe cycling. exceptions.

Figure 1.4: Cycle lane incorporating light segregation with 6) Consideration of the opportunities to improve
flexible wands provision for cycling will be an expectation of
any future local highway schemes funded by
Government.

To receive Government funding for local highways

investment where the main element is not cycling or
walking, there will be a presumption that schemes
must deliver or improve cycling infrastructure to the
standards in this Local Transport Note, unless it can
be shown that there is little or no need for cycling in
the particular highway scheme. Any new cycling
infrastructure must be in line with this national
guidance. The approach of continuous improvement
is recognised in both the National Planning Policy
Framework and Local Cycling and Walking
Infrastructure Plan Guidance. Cycle infrastructure
requirements should be embedded in local authority
4) Side street routes, if closed to through traffic planning, design and highways adoption policies
to avoid rat-running, can be an alternative to and processes.
segregated facilities or closures on main roads –
but only if they are truly direct. 7) Largely cosmetic interventions which bring few
or no benefits for cycling or walking will not be
For directness it will often be necessary to mix the funded from any cycling or walking budget.
two, with stretches of routes on back streets joined
to segregated routes on main roads and across Too many schemes badged as being for cycling or
junctions where there is no sufficiently direct side walking do little more than prettify the status quo,
street. Routes that are not direct or that see such as installing nicer-looking pavements and road
significant volumes of rat-running traffic will not be surfaces but doing little or nothing to restrict through
used and should not be provided. traffic or provide safe space for cycling. Schemes
whose main purpose and/or effect is aesthetic
improvement of the public realm must be funded
from other budgets.

10
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

8) Cycle infrastructure must join together, or join 10) Schemes must be legible and understandable.
other facilities together by taking a holistic,
connected network approach which recognises Cyclists, pedestrians and motorists alike must be in
the importance of nodes, links and areas that no doubt where the cycle route runs, where the
are good for cycling. pedestrian and vehicle space is and where each
different kind of user is supposed to be. Some
Routes should be planned holistically as part of a schemes deliberately create confusion or ambiguity
network. Isolated stretches of provision, even if it is with, for instance, only minimal signs in a paved area
good are of little value. Developing a connected to show that cycling is permitted. This is another
network is more than lines on a map. It is about way of managing cyclist-pedestrian interactions that
taking local people on a journey with you in order to inhibits cycling and is not suitable for places with
understand who currently cycles, where they go and large numbers of cyclists and pedestrians.
why they go there and, more importantly, who does
not currently cycle and why. 11) Schemes must be clearly and comprehensively
signposted and labelled.
Figure 1.5: Example of isolated cycle lane provision
Users must feel like they are being guided along a
route. They should not have to stop to consult maps
or phones. Directions should be provided at every
decision point and sometimes in between for
reassurance. Signs should be clear, easily visible
and legible.

Figure 1.6: Example of wayfinding signs for cyclists

9) Cycle parking must be included in substantial

schemes, particularly in city centres, trip
generators and (securely) in areas with flats
where people cannot store their bikes at home.
Parking should be provided in sufficient
amounts at the places where people actually
want to go.

Cycle parking should be pleasant, sufficient and

convenient to allow people to cycle for commuting
and utility journeys and to know that there will be
both short or long-term parking at their destinations.
Cycle parking should consider the needs of all
potential users and the range of cycles which will
use the facilities. The provision of other services
such as maintenance facilities will improve the
experience for users and deter cycle theft.

11
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

12) Major ‘iconic’ items, such as overbridges must heritage value. Level changes on the main route
form part of wider, properly thought-through such as raised tables and humps are not necessary
schemes. if the guidance on reducing traffic volumes and/or
creating separated space has been properly
There is sometimes a temptation to build costly followed. Side road entry treatments such as raised
showpiece structures in isolation without thinking tables across the mouth of side roads can reduce
enough about the purpose they truly serve and the the speed of vehicles turning in and out of the
roads and routes which lead to them. We will only junction improving safety for cyclists and can help
support such things when they overcome a major pedestrians. Materials such as loose gravel should
barrier on a desire line which cannot safely be also be avoided.
crossed in other ways, and where they form an
essential, properly-connected part of a wider 15) Trials can help achieve change and ensure a
network of good, safe routes. permanent scheme is right first time. This will
avoid spending time, money and effort
13) As important as building a route itself is modifying a scheme that does not perform
maintaining it properly afterwards. as anticipated.
Road markings get dug up by utility contractors, If there is dispute about the impact of a road
ignored in repaints or just worn away; tarmac is change, we recommend trialling it with temporary
allowed to crack and part; tracks and lanes are materials. If it works, it can be made permanent
seldom or never swept, leaving them scattered with through appropriate materials. If it does not, it can
debris and broken glass. In winter, cycle lanes are be easily and quickly removed or changed.
usually the last place to be cleared of snow and ice, However, it is important that the scheme is designed
if they are cleared at all. Routes must be properly correctly at the beginning, to maximise the chances
maintained and swept frequently for debris and of it working.
broken glass. Route proposals should always
include a clear programme of maintenance. 16) Access control measures, such as chicane
barriers and dismount signs, should not
Figure 1.7: Poor road surface conditions within a cycle lane be used.

They reduce the usability of a route for everyone,

and may exclude people riding nonstandard cycles
and cargo bikes. They reduce the capacity of a route
as well as the directness and comfort. Schemes
should not be designed in such a way that access
controls, obstructions and barriers are even
necessary; pedestrians and cyclists should be kept
separate with clear, delineated routes as outlined in
the principles above.

Figure 1.8: Barriers to cycling along a shared-use route

(note yellow sign is not permitted in TSRGD)

14) Surfaces must be hard, smooth, level, durable,

permeable and safe in all weathers.

Surface materials should be easy to maintain, for

example asphalt and other materials highlighted in
Chapter 15. Materials such as brick and stone
should generally be avoided on cycle routes. They
are expensive, yet often quickly become dirty, ugly,
broken and rough to ride on under the impacts of
vehicles and can be slippery in wet weather.
Exceptions will be allowed for streets of special

12
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

17) The simplest, cheapest interventions can be 19) Schemes must be easy and comfortable to ride.
the most effective.
Cycling is a physical effort. Schemes should not
Perhaps the single most important tool to promote impose constant stopping and starting or
cycling may be the humble bollard, used to prevent unnecessary level changes. Traffic calming measures
through traffic. It is relatively inexpensive and can be such as road humps are mainly installed to reduce
erected quickly. With a Traffic Order in place to traffic speeds, but if through traffic is no longer
restrict use of the road by motor traffic, such present on the street or in the segregated lane,
low-cost modal filters can increase safety by they are not necessary. If traffic calming measures
reducing through traffic, while retaining cycle and are needed, they should always be designed so
pedestrian access. Provided they have real effect, that they are not inaccessible to people on tandems
swift, pragmatic interventions are preferred over and tricycles.
elaborate and costly ones.
Figure 1.10: Example of kerb-segregated cycle track
Figure 1.9: Bollards used to create modal filter, preventing
through traffic

20) All designers of cycle schemes must

experience the roads as a cyclist.

Ideally, all schemes would be designed by people

who cycle regularly. But in every case, those who
18) Cycle routes must flow, feeling direct design schemes should travel through the area on a
and logical. cycle to understand how it feels - and experience
some of the failings described above, to understand
Users should not feel as if they are having to double
why they do not work. The most effective way to
back on themselves, turn unnecessarily, or go the
gain this understanding is to get out and cycle the
long way round. Often, cycling schemes - when
route and observe users’ behaviour.
crossing a main road, for instance - require cyclists
to make a series of ninety-degree turns to carry out
21) Schemes must be consistent.
a movement that a motor vehicle at the same
location could do without turning at all. Schemes A scheme is only as good as its weakest point.
should be based on a proper understanding of how Strenuous efforts should be made to avoid
people actually behave rather than how they might inconsistent provision, such as a track going from
be expected to behave. the road to the pavement and then back on to the
road, or a track which suddenly vanishes.

22) When to break these principles.

In rare cases, where it is absolutely unavoidable,

a short stretch of less good provision rather than
jettison an entire route which is otherwise good
will be appropriate. But in most instances it is not
absolutely unavoidable and exceptions will be rare.

13
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Bringing it all together – Making the

case for change to get schemes
delivered
A clear stakeholder engagement plan to articulate
the case for change can take time but will increase
political and public acceptance of a scheme at an
early stage.

Before any specific proposal is put forward, the ground

must be carefully prepared, with the public persuaded of
the need for change and an attractive alternative to the
status quo laid out that people can get interested in –
this should relate proposals to things that affect people’s
lives directly, not just technical proposals and show why
there’s a problem to fix. Articulate a clear vision of what
you want a place to look like.

Work out every technical aspect of a proposal

thoroughly and in detail before you present it, to
anticipate and pre-empt likely objections, and get it as
right as possible at the beginning. When communicating
the proposals be confident about it and absolutely be
clear about your intentions, the benefits and
disadvantages. Proposals must be clear and
unambiguous, as detailed as possible, including good
maps and drawings, and frank about the disadvantages,
to build trust and discourage misrepresentation.

14
 2
Cycling in
context

Cycling in the UK has seen a revival in recent decades in regions that have
invested in high quality infrastructure. Based on experience in central
London and other major cities, investment in high quality cycle routes
could unlock huge potential. It is a form of transport but also an activity
for leisure and tourism. For individuals, the immediate benefits include
improved physical and mental health. The benefits of investment in cycling
therefore extend beyond just transport and environment. Mass cycling
requires routes that are accessible to all, and this includes ensuring that
the cycle infrastructure does not create hazards that will deter pedestrians.
Improvements to roads and paths should always seek to enhance
accessibility for all.
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

2.1 Introduction 2.2 The potential

2.1.1 This document is about infrastructure design, for cycling
but it is important to understand the context in which
design is taking place. This chapter describes the role of 2.2.1 Utility and leisure cycling facilities and services
cycling as a means of transport, physical activity, leisure in the UK are at an early stage of development
and tourism activity. It looks at some of the benefits that compared to many other countries, with a huge
accrue from more people cycling more safely and more opportunity for growth (see Figure 2.1).
often. Careful design, construction and maintenance is
required to ensure that cycling is accessible to all 2.2.2 Recent growth of cycling recorded in central
potential cyclists. London and other towns and cities following
programmes of investment have illustrated that there is
2.1.2 Increasing levels of traffic congestion, air significant potential for change in travel behaviour and
pollution and poor health associated with inactivity that more people cycle for everyday journeys1 where
require new approaches to transport planning. Towns acceptable conditions are provided. Two out of every
and cities around the world are embracing cycling as a three personal trips are less than five miles in length2 –
vital component of their sustainable transport policies. an achievable distance to cycle for most people,
with many shorter journeys also suitable for walking.
For schoolchildren the opportunities are even greater:
three quarters of children live within a 15-minute cycle
ride of a secondary school, while more than 90% live
within a 15-minute walk of a primary school.

Figure 2.1: Cycling potential baseline statistics, 2016

Source: Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy, DfT, 2016

1 Aldred R, Goodman A, Gulliver J and Woodcock J, Cycling injury risk in London: A case-control study exploring the impact
of cycle volumes, motor vehicle volumes, and road characteristics including speed limits. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
Vol 117, August 2018
2 Transport Statistics Great Britain, DfT, 2016

16
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 2.2: The benefits of cycling and walking investment, DfT, 2018

Source: Government response to Call for Evidence: Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy: Safety Review, DfT, 2018

2.2.3 Cycling for leisure and tourism has also 2.3.2 Cycling brings many economic benefits,3
experienced rapid growth. Sustainable tourism can be reducing some of the external costs of congestion and
an important factor in supporting rural economies, and pollution associated with motor traffic, and reducing the
cycling and walking are both very accessible activities to healthcare costs associated with physical inactivity and
improve public health. poor air quality.4

2.3.3 Cycling improves physical and mental health,

2.3 The benefits reducing healthcare costs and costs of absenteeism.
Many people simply find it a pleasurable activity that can
of cycling be easily combined with the daily journeys that they
need to make for other purposes.
2.3.1 Enabling more people to cycle will help local 2.3.4 There is a growing body of evidence to
authorities to achieve a broad range of positive transport suggest that cycle and pedestrian-friendly streets can
outcomes and wider environment and public health boost footfall and retail sales, helping to revive
goals. Local land use and transport strategies provide traditional high streets and town centres by creating
the opportunity for local authorities to plan how to more pleasant conditions.5,6
increase cycling to help deliver these goals.

3 PJA/University of Birmingham The Value of Cycling: rapid evidence review of the economic benefits of cycling, DfT, 2016
4 Brooke Lyndhurst Investing in Cycling and Walking, Rapid Evidence Assessment, DfT, 2016
5 Brooke Lyndhurst Investing in Cycling and Walking, Rapid Evidence Assessment, DfT, 2016
6 PJA/University of Birmingham The Value of Cycling: rapid evidence review of the economic benefits of cycling, DfT, 2016

17
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 2.3: Effects of cycling investment 2.3.6 Successive programmes of investment such
as the Sustainable Travel Towns programme, the Local
Sustainable Transport Fund, and the Cycle City Ambition
Grant programme have yielded positive increases in
cycling where new and better infrastructure has
been provided.7

2.4 Inclusive cycling

2.4.1 Cycling should be accessible to people of all
ages and abilities. The Equality Act 2010 places a duty
on public sector authorities to comply with the Public
Sector Equality Duty in carrying out their functions.
This includes making reasonable adjustments to the
existing built environment to ensure the design of new
infrastructure is accessible to all.

2.4.2 For many people, a cycle is a mobility aid that

helps them get around or carry items or passengers.
This does not have to be a specially-adapted cycle –
it may simply be a conventional cycle that enables them
to travel when they cannot drive, or walk very far, due to
a health condition or disability. For other people, an
adapted cycle such as a handcycle or a tricycle may be
a mode of independent transport that frees them from
reliance on assistance from others. A visually impaired
person may be traveling on a tandem; parents may be
carrying young children in a trailer or specially designed
cargo bike.

2.4.3 Data collected by Transport for London8

found that the proportion of disabled Londoners who
sometimes use a cycle to get around (15%) is only
slightly less than for non-disabled Londoners (18%),
demonstrating that cycling is an important mode of
transport for everyone. The role of cycling as an aid to
mobility is often overlooked. It can help many people to
travel independently, but only if the infrastructure is
accessible to a range of cycles used by people with
children and disabled people. It is therefore very
important to ensure that new cycle infrastructure is
Source: Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy, DfT, 2016
designed for use by everyone.

2.3.5 As an affordable mode of transport, cycling

can be an important way for people to access local
services, education and employment. This is particularly
the case for those who need to travel when public
transport is unavailable.

7 Value for Money assessment of cycling grants, DfT, 2014

8 Wheels for Wellbeing, Guide to Inclusive Cycling, 2017

18
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 2.4: Adapted cycle in use, London

19
 3
Planning
for cycling

The concept of a connected network is fundamental to transport planning

for all modes. Networks comprise nodes (junctions, origins and destinations)
and links. Developing an intended network plan follows a process of thinking
about the people who make trips, the places that they go to and the journey
purpose. This approach provides a sound basis for funding applications
and the development of business cases for investment in infrastructure.
Technological improvements are providing more detailed information about
the movements of people, enabling the volume and spatial distribution
of short trips (over distances that could be easily cycled) to be identified.
This offers the opportunity to pursue a demand-led approach to cycle
infrastructure provision.
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

3.1 Introduction Figure 3.1 LCWIP stages

Stage 1: Determining Scope

3.1.1 This chapter looks at the process of planning
Geographical extent, governance and timescales
local networks for cycling and explains various
techniques for applying data to network planning Stage 2: Information Gathering
and delivery. It summarises the information in the
Identify existing patterns and potential new journeys
Department’s Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure
Plans9 suite of guidance. Stage 3: Network Planning for Cycling
3.1.2 A network plan is a vital component of Identify origins, destinations and cycle flows. Convert into
infrastructure development, setting out the connections a network of routes and determine the types of
improvements required.
between origins and destinations, providing a basis for
prioritisation in investment programmes, and informing Stage 4: Network Planning for Walking
design teams about the routes likely to carry higher
volumes of cycle traffic. Identify key trip generators, core walking zones and routes,
audit existing provision and determine the type
3.1.3 Planning for cycling should be based around of improvements required
providing a network of on- and/or off-carriageway routes Stage 5: Prioritising Improvements
that are suitable for all abilities. Subject to topographical
constraints, the aim is to create a densely spaced Develop a phased plan for future investment
network (typically with 250m to 1km spacing between
Stage 6: Integration and Application
routes depending on the density of land use) so that all
people can easily travel by cycle for trips within and Integrate outputs into current policies and strategies
between neighbourhoods. In addition to this there will be
longer distance routes within the local network that may
serve leisure, tourism and utility cycling.
3.2 Demand-based
3.1.4 The guidance on Local Cycling and Walking
Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs) gives details on the
planning
process for developing a local cycle network and
prioritising the interventions for implementation. 3.2.1 The CWIS is particularly focussed on
This chapter draws on that guidance to put the various opportunities to get people to make regular short local
design elements described in subsequent chapters trips on foot or by cycle instead of private car, and so
of this document into context. networks should ideally be based around enabling those
trips. This requires analysis of existing travel behaviour
3.1.5 The LCWIP guidance suggests a six-stage and trip patterns (Figure 3.2) to gain an understanding of
process for developing an Infrastructure Plan as shown local travel demand and which trips might be possible to
in Figure 3.1. These stages are common to all network cycle or walk. This does not rule out opportunities to
planning activities regardless of whether they form part repurpose existing infrastructure such as former/disused
of a formal LCWIP or not. Planning a network for walking railway lines, so long as these offer good potential to
is part of the process because most of the core enable local trips by active modes.
destinations are common to both modes, and
redesigning streets to accommodate cycle infrastructure 3.2.2 The Propensity to Cycle Tool (www.pct.bike)
also requires accompanying changes to improve the provides analyses of local trips based on Census
pedestrian environment and mitigate any negative Journey to Work and school travel data, and includes a
impacts of new cycle infrastructure. ‘scenario planning’ function to show how trips might
increase given the right conditions. The tool also enables
the user to allocate the trips to the transport network to
build up a picture of the relative cycle flows in different
parts of the network.

9 Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan Guidance and Toolkit, DfT, 2017

22
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 3.2: Analysis of local trip patterns using travel survey data

3.2.3 Some local highway authorities have additional infrastructure and funding opportunities may also be
data from area transport models and travel surveys, taken into consideration when prioritising which routes
which can help build up a more comprehensive picture to develop first in a programme of network development.
of travel patterns. Any geo-coded spatial data can be When looking at existing patterns of behaviour, it should
imported to Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and be borne in mind that some potential travellers may not
displayed in a graphic form that gives viewers an ‘at a be represented because they are afraid to travel in
glance’ insight to local travel patterns. existing conditions, or unable to travel because the
routes currently available are inaccessible to people
3.2.4 Local transport and land use policies set out riding their type of cycle.
the aspirations for a wide range of issues to which
cycling can contribute, providing the local spatial and
transport planning context for the development of a
cycle route network. Local Plans should consider
3.3 Stakeholder
section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework
on “Promoting sustainable transport”,10 including
participation
consideration of high quality cycling and walking
3.3.1 Engagement with professionals working in
networks and supporting facilities such as cycle parking,
transport, planning, traffic engineering and public health
drawing on LCWIPs.
within the local authority, and with external organisations
3.2.5 Existing data such as traffic counts, census is important. This helps to pool local knowledge and is a
journey to work information and local travel surveys can first stage towards political and public endorsement of
help build up a picture of the journeys to focus on. Other the network plan and associated infrastructure schemes.
issues such as deprivation, public health, links to existing Where the objective of a scheme is wider than transport

10 National Planning Policy Framework, MHCLG, 2019

23
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

provision, for example to enable improved public health engagement because the venues or media used are not
or access to employment and education opportunities, accessible. Wheelchair accessible venues, information in
it is essential that relevant officers and representatives easy-read format etc. should always be provided so that
from those sectors are involved from the beginning everyone can take part. Opportunities for online
alongside transportation professionals and advocates participation can be helpful to parents of young children
to ensure acceptance of the scheme. and other members of the public who may find it difficult
to attend formal meetings, including people with
3.3.2 Network planning across a whole city or region physical, sensory and cognitive impairments. Children
can be difficult for stakeholders as individuals generally and young people are covered by the Equality Act and
know their patch or regular route, but not other areas. should be encouraged to participate through appropriate
A series of community-based workshops supported by engagement methods.
online opportunities can be an effective way to gather
local knowledge. 3.3.6 Scheme promoters should actively seek out
groups that may not be aware of the planned scheme
3.3.3 New cycle infrastructure is often delivered and ensure they have the opportunity to comment.
within a local policy context of creating better places and This may require a separate process, for example
healthy lifestyles, and can involve major changes to the arranging meetings with local disability groups.
look and feel of a street. Communicating the vision
behind a scheme is important, particularly as many 3.3.7 Guidance on good practice in engagement is
people who participate in engagement have rarely available, for example in the Chartered Institution of
used a cycle themselves. While it is inevitable that not Highways & Transportation (CIHT) document ‘Involving
everybody will welcome changes, those in opposition the Public and other Stakeholders’.
are often the most vociferous participants and the
engagement process should try to build consensus.
It should also enable a record of design decisions and
the rationale behind them to be developed to help
3.4 Components of
build consensus. the network
3.3.4 Strong political leadership and a
3.4.1 A local network will typically be made up
comprehensive evidence base will help to ensure a
of various elements:
scheme progresses through to implementation.
Typical stakeholders are shown in Figure 3.3. a Dedicated space for cycling within highways;
3.3.5 People in protected groups under the Equality a Quiet mixed traffic streets;
Act 2010 are sometimes inadvertently excluded from

Figure 3.3: Illustrative range of stakeholders

Public Interest Delivery Partners Other Organisations

a Cycling, walking and equestrian a Adjoining local authorities a Local elected members
organisations
a Network Rail a Local MPs
a Groups representing disabled people
a Train operators a Other local authority departments
a Local residents
a Bus operators a Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs)
a Local campaign groups
a Sustrans a Rights of Way Improvement Plan
a Local schools (ROWIP) reference groups
a Canal & River Trust
a Business groups and major employers a Neighbourhood planning groups
a Public health bodies
a Universities a Parish Councils
a Tourism operators
a Places of worship a Police and emergency services

a Taxi operators a Business Improvement Districts

a Freight operators

24
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

a Motor traffic free routes; 3.4.4 As well as cycle-specific infrastructure, general

highway improvements, other capital transport schemes,
a Junction treatments and crossings; and local traffic management and speed management
measures can play an important role in creating
a Cycle parking at origins, destinations and conditions conducive to more cycling (see Chapter 14).
interchanges with other modes
3.4.5 There may be more than one way to connect
3.4.2 Cycle routes may also fulfil various functions two places in a network. The Route Selection Tool (RST)
as part of the network: in the LCWIP guidance offers a way to compare the
qualities of each potential alignment.
a Primary routes – between major trip generators;

a Secondary routes – connections into local centres;

a Local access to streets and attractors; and

3.5 Network planning
a Long distance and leisure routes
techniques
3.5.1 Mesh density (as shown in Figure 3.4) can be
3.4.3 All elements listed above can form an
used to analyse the coverage of existing (and planned)
integrated network. The appropriate design depends on
cycle routes in order to help identify where there are
traffic speeds and flows, whether the network is rural,
gaps. It is a simple analysis of the length of cycle route
urban or residential, and scheme-specific factors such
within each kilometre square. In a built-up area, the
as the available budget and political support. Further
spacing of routes should typically be 250m – 400m,
guidance on selecting the appropriate type of cycle
but this will decrease in outer suburbs where the density
provision is given in Chapter 4.
of development is lower.

Figure 3.4: Example of cell-based route density analysis

25
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 3.5: Example of an area bound route density map (PJA/Salford Council)

3.5.2 The kilometre squares can be replaced by 3.5.5 An area-based approach, linking areas of low
local areas bounded by the road network; a technique traffic volume with facilities and crossings on busier
developed by TfL (see Figure 3.5). The density streets, can be an effective way to build up and link
calculation is made with regard to the size of each area. together cycle-friendly neighbourhoods. Comprehensive
area traffic management can be used to create these
3.5.3 This can be misleading in hilly topography and quiet zones. This approach is best suited where there is
other areas where the density of settlement and quality good connectivity between quieter streets in the network
of available routes may be highly variable. A more (see Chapter 7, Section 7.1).
simplistic approach, of plotting the connections between
the main trip attractors and origins (such as major 3.5.6 Area-based schemes require careful planning
residential areas) can be just as effective and may be all and assessment of impacts. Traffic management
that is required to identify gaps in the cycle network in measures may displace traffic onto neighbouring streets.
most towns and smaller cities. Access for the emergency services and practicalities
such as refuse collection have to be accommodated.
Area based approach to delivery
Trials
3.5.4 The local network typically includes all local
quiet streets where the speed and volume of traffic is 3.5.7 Trials are one way to get an understanding of
acceptable for on-carriageway cycling. An alternative potential impacts, and to help demonstrate a potential
approach is to consider which streets are suitable for scheme. A trial may involve temporary barriers and
Bikeability Level 2 skills (typically independent travel by landscaping such as planters that can be installed for a
a 12 year old child), and then which would require few weeks, or simply coning-off a lane to demonstrate
treatment to enable cycling with this level the impact of reallocating space for a cycle lane or track.
of competence. It is important that local communities are made aware of

26
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

trials well in advance, and that they take place for long 3.5.9 It is important to monitor behaviour before
enough to allow a scheme to settle down as people get and during the trial period, and after final scheme
used to the new arrangements. It is particularly implementation. Trials can form an important part of the
important to make local disability groups aware of engagement process, helping to generate local support
changes, which may impact on their ability to navigate, and explain how the issues encountered might be
or to gain access to facilities such as disabled parking addressed in the final scheme. Sharing data and
spaces. Engagement sessions with local disabled experience is important to help build up knowledge of
people may help identify and communicate alternative the processes of planning, engagement and
accessible routes. The provision of travel buddies to help participation that result in successful scheme
visually impaired people learn to adjust to changes along delivery, and which are just as vital as the physical
previously familiar routes at the start of trial schemes design aspects.
may be particularly helpful and is recommended.

3.5.8 Trials will require the appropriate temporary or

experimental traffic orders where existing legal
arrangements on the highway (such as parking, turning,
access) are being altered. Trials will also need to comply
with relevant legal requirements, including the Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD).11

Figure 3.6: Simple mode filters, such as this one in Hackney, help form cycle-friendly neighbourhoods

11 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, DFT, 2016

27
 4
Design principles
and processes

Cycle traffic has its own characteristics that are distinct from motor traffic and
pedestrian traffic. These should be recognised and incorporated from the outset of
the planning and design process. There are five fundamental design principles for all
cycle infrastructure that will ensure it is accessible to all. The relative importance of
each attribute, and how each is delivered, will depend on the situation in which design
is being applied. For example, safety for cyclists is largely determined by achieving
separation from busy and fast motor traffic, but this can be achieved in several ways,
by provision of separate infrastructure, through removal of traffic from an existing
street, or a reduction in traffic speed or volume. There are audit and review procedures
that offer a framework to help understand the issues behind the five criteria and how
to prioritise addressing them when designing schemes. When designing new highways
and improvement schemes, planning for cycling from the outset can ensure that
sufficient land is acquired to accommodate the optimum design.
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

4.1 Introduction Coherent

4.2.4 Cycle networks should be planned and
4.1.1 This chapter looks at some of the basic ideas
designed to allow people to reach their day to day
that underpin the design process for cycle route
destinations easily, along routes that connect, are
networks. Dimensions to meet the needs of all people
simple to navigate and are of a consistently high quality.
able to use a cycle are set out in Chapter 5 and
Abrupt reductions in the quality of provision for cyclists –
subsequent chapters covering design elements.
such as a busy high-speed roundabout without
This chapter includes:
facilities – will mean that an otherwise serviceable
a The basis of designing for cyclists’ needs; route becomes unusable by most potential users.
Sections that do not meet accessibility standards,
a Minimising the effort required to cycle; such as steps on a cycle route, will render a whole
journey inaccessible for some people.
a Providing protection from motor traffic in different
circumstances; and 4.2.5 Main roads are often the only direct, coherent
route available to move between places, but these are
a Quality assessment techniques usually the roads where people most fear the danger
from motor vehicles. Consequently, the provision of
adequately safe, attractive and comfortable facilities
4.2 Core design along these roads is crucial to creating a coherent
cycling network.
principles 4.2.6 A cycle route may vary in nature along its
length, for example a signed route along a quiet street
4.2.1 There are five principles which represent the may continue as a motor traffic free route through a
core requirements for people wishing to travel by cycle green space, but the connection between successive
or on foot. Accessibility for all is a requirement that sections should be obvious. Similarly, a route through a
should always be considered in relation to each of the complex junction should be clear to all road users.
principles. Designers should always aim to provide Direction signs, road markings and coloured surfacing
infrastructure that meets these principles and therefore in combination with physical design features can all
caters for the broadest range of people. While cyclists help to provide coherence.
and pedestrians share the same underlying design
principles, the geometric design requirements for
pedestrians and cyclists are not the same, owing to the Direct
differential in speed and mass. Geometric requirements
are explored in Chapter 5. 4.2.7 Directness is measured in both distance
and time, and so routes should provide the shortest
4.2.2 When people are travelling by cycle, they need and fastest way of travelling from place to place.
networks and routes that are: This includes providing facilities at junctions that
minimise delay and the need to stop. Minimising the
a Coherent; effort required to cycle, by enabling cyclists to maintain
momentum, is an important aspect of directness.
a Direct; An indirect designated route involving extra distance
or more stopping and starting will result in some
a Safe;
cyclists choosing the most direct, faster option,
a Comfortable; and even if it is less safe.

a Attractive 4.2.8 To make cycling an attractive alternative to

driving short distances, cycle routes should be at least
4.2.3 These design principles are further as direct – and preferably more direct – than those
described below. available for private motor vehicles. Permitting cyclists
to make movements prohibited to motor traffic,
allowing contraflow cycling, and creating links between
cul-de-sacs to enable cyclists to take the shortest route,
should be the default approach in traffic management

30
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

schemes and new road networks. Area-wide schemes Comfortable

and new developments can enable filtered permeability,
allowing cyclists and pedestrians to take more direct 4.2.14 Comfortable conditions for cycling require
routes than motorised traffic. routes with good quality, well-maintained smooth
surfaces, adequate width for the volume of users,
Safe minimal stopping and starting, avoiding steep gradients,
excessive or uneven crossfall and adverse camber.
4.2.9 Not only must cycle infrastructure be safe, The need to interact with high speed or high-volume
it should also be perceived to be safe so that more motor traffic also decreases user comfort by increasing
people feel able to cycle. the level of stress and the mental effort required to cycle.

4.2.10 Safety and environmental improvements for all 4.2.15 Adequate width is important for comfort.
road users can be achieved by reducing motor traffic Cycling is a sociable activity and many people will want
volumes and speeds, for example by introducing filtered to cycle side by side, and to overtake another cyclist
permeability or traffic calming. Reducing motor traffic safely. It is important that cyclists can choose their own
may also release space to enable the construction of speed so that they can make comfortable progress
separate facilities for cyclists on links and at junctions. commensurate with the amount of effort they wish
to put in.
4.2.11 On busy strategic roads where a significant
reduction in traffic speeds and volumes is not 4.2.16 Designers should consider comfort for all
appropriate, safety will need to be achieved by providing users including children, families, older and disabled
dedicated and protected space for cycling, which may people using three or four-wheeled cycles. Families are
involve reallocating existing space within the highway more likely to use off-carriageway facilities. Young
(or providing a parallel route). Reallocation will typically children may need additional space to wobble or for
involve moving kerb lines and street furniture, and an accompanying parent to ride alongside.
providing well-designed crossings and facilities at
junctions where most casualties occur. The potential Attractive
for conflict between pedestrians and cyclists should
be minimised by keeping them separate except in low 4.2.17 Cycling and walking provide a more sensory
speed, low traffic environments (see Figure 4.2). experience than driving. People are more directly
Where pedestrians and cyclists share surfaces, exposed to the environment they are moving through
sufficient width should be provided to enable users and value attractive routes through parks, waterfront
to feel safe by allowing them to see other users and to locations, and well-designed streets and squares.
avoid each other when passing. Cycling is a pleasurable activity, in part because it
involves such close contact with the surroundings,
4.2.12 Cycle routes remote from roads may have
but this also intensifies concerns about personal
other risks relating to crime and personal security.
security and traffic danger. The attractiveness of the
The risk of crime can be reduced through the
route will therefore affect whether users choose cycling
removal of hiding places along a route, by providing
as a means of transport.
frequent access points, by providing lighting, and by
passive surveillance from overlooking buildings and 4.2.18 The environment should be attractive,
other users. stimulating and free from litter or broken glass.
The ability for people to window shop, walk or cycle
4.2.13 Maintenance to address surface defects,
two abreast, converse or stop to rest or look at a view,
overgrown vegetation, fallen leaves, snow and ice will all
makes for a more pleasant experience.
help to reduce the likelihood of falls and crashes for all
people and preserve available width and sight lines for 4.2.19 Cycle infrastructure should help to deliver
cyclists. Cycle parking should be sited where people public spaces that are well designed and finished in
using the facilities can feel safe from traffic and crime, attractive materials and be places that people want to
and away from pedestrian paths. spend time using. The surfaces, landscaping and street
furniture should be well maintained and in keeping with
the surrounding area. Planting in parks and rural areas
should consider the aesthetic and sensory qualities that
create attractive vistas and fragrances as well as
practical considerations about maintenance.

31
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Table 4-1: Factors affecting cycling effort

Factors Comments Design implications

The cycle and rider – Energy is required to move from rest to the cyclist’s Routes that are direct and allow cyclists to
speed, mass and chosen speed, depending on the rate of maintain a steady speed are the most appealing.
acceleration acceleration and the mass of the rider and cycle.
Designers should avoid layouts which make
Stopping and then restarting means that significant cyclists stop, slow down, or deviate unnecessarily
additional effort is required, over and above from their desired route.
maintaining a constant speed.

Surface quality and The greater the surface resistance, the harder it is Cycle routes should be surfaced in smooth bound
resistance to cycle. This is particularly true for small-wheeled materials that are unaffected by weather and are
cycles. well-maintained at all times of year.

Gradient The steeper the gradient, the more energy is Directness of route may need to be balanced with
required to overcome it. avoiding steep gradients. The Route Selection
Tool (RST), used as part of the LCWIP process,
Three and four wheeled cycles are affected by can be useful in assessing alternatives.
excessive camber, making it hard to steer. All
cyclists are affected by camber in icy conditions. Camber should be adequate for drainage but not
excessive, and fall to the inside of bends.

Air resistance Air resistance can add significantly to the effort Windbreaks using planting, trees, hedges or
required to cycle, particularly for ‘city bikes’ where fences, can help mitigate the effects of strong
the rider is more upright. prevailing winds.

Cycling into a prevailing headwind, which can be

exacerbated by a local microclimate, can increase
this effort.

4.3 The effort required 4.4 Protection from

to cycle motor traffic on
4.3.1 The effort required to cycle and to maintain a highway links
constant speed is affected by physical conditions and
the local environment: surface quality, surface material, When to protect
gradients, deflections and undulations, and
prevailing winds. 4.4.1 Motor traffic is the main deterrent to cycling for
many people12 with 62% of UK adults feeling that the
4.3.2 Minimising effort should be a key consideration
roads are too unsafe for them to cycle on.13 Providing
in the design of any infrastructure, so that cycling is a
protected space has resulted in huge increases of
comfortable and pleasant experience. Suggested
cyclists on routes in London,14 Manchester and other
positive steps to achieve this are shown in Table 4-1.
major cities.15 The need to provide protected space for
E-bikes (electrically-assisted pedal cycles) also
cycling on highways generally depends on the speed
overcome some of these issues by providing a boost
and volume of motor traffic. For example, in quiet
in power to assist the rider.
residential streets, most people will be comfortable
cycling on the carriageway even though they will be
passed by the occasional car moving at low speeds.

12 Davies, D, Gardner, G, Gray, C, Harland, G A Quantitative Study of the Attitudes of Individuals to Cycling, TRL Report 481, 2001
13 Walking and Cycling Statistics: England 2017, DfT, 2018
14 London’s Cycling Infrastructure Report, London Assembly Transport Committee, March 2018
15 Cycle City Ambition Programme, Baseline and Interim Report, Transport for Quality of Life (for DfT), 2017

32
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

On busier and faster highways, most people will not be speed limits where HGV traffic is limited and traffic
prepared to cycle on the carriageway, so they will not flows are less than 6,000 PCU per day.
cycle at all, or some may unlawfully use the footway.
a Although there may be fewer cyclists and pedestrians
4.4.2 Figure 4.1 summarises the traffic conditions in rural areas, the same requirement for separation
when protected space for cycling (fully kerbed cycle from fast moving motor vehicles applies. A well-
tracks, stepped cycle tracks and light segregation), constructed shared use facility designed to meet the
marked cycle lanes without physical features and cycling needs of cycle traffic – including its width, alignment
in mixed traffic are appropriate. and treatment at side roads and other junctions – may
be adequate where pedestrian numbers are very low.
4.4.3 More detail on the design of these types of
cycle infrastructure is given in Chapters 6 and 7. a Reducing the volume and speed of motor traffic can
create acceptable conditions for on-carriageway
4.4.4 Figure 4.1 shows that: cycling in mixed traffic and should always be
considered as it delivers other safety and environmental
a Protected space for cycling will enable most people to benefits to streets. This is often the only feasible
cycle, regardless of the volume of motor traffic, approach on narrow roads lined by buildings.
although stepped cycle tracks and light segregation
are not generally considered suitable for roads with a Cycle lanes on the carriageway can be appropriate on
speed limits above 40mph in urban areas. Stepped less busy roads with lower speed limits, but do not
cycle tracks and light segregation may be appropriate provide any physical protection from motor vehicles
on some suburban and interurban roads with 40mph and so do not adequately meet the needs of most
people on busier and faster roads.

Figure 4.1: Appropriate protection from motor traffic on highways

33
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

4.4.5 The values in Figure 4.1 are derived from the Protection on highway links in
following guidance: Tables 5.2 and 5.3 in the Design
Manual for Bicycle Traffic, CROW Record 28, 2016; different contexts
London Cycling Design Standards, Chapter 2, TfL 2016
and the Urban Bikeway Design Guide, NACTO, 2012. 4.4.7 Where highway conditions require cycling in a
The numbers are based on the frequency of interactions protected space, the design affects the appearance of
between opposing vehicles at different speed/flow the street. The additional separation from motor traffic
permutations and user satisfaction surveys (in the that a cycle track provides can make streets more
research for CROW and TfL design guides) which attractive with better ambience for pedestrians.
helped to define the points at which people feel However, additional street clutter such as signs,
uncomfortable sharing the carriageway. coloured surfaces or upstand kerbs also has potentially
negative impacts that need to be minimised.
4.4.6 When cycle tracks or light segregation are
used to provide protected space for cyclists this 4.4.8 Aesthetic qualities are subjective, but a
potentially introduces issues for kerbside access for rationale can be achieved by considering the forms of
parking and delivery, and additional complications protection in relation to street functions. Manual for
around pedestrian crossing points and bus stops that Streets16 introduced the concept that the primary
will need to be addressed during design. Suitable functions of urban streets are movement (by all modes)
protection will also need to be provided through and place. The place function considers the street as a
junctions as well as on links to create a complete, destination in its own right, and where people may
coherent and safe route that is useable by most simply wish to spend time (see Figure 4.2). Design of
people. Guidance on the design of junctions is given cycle facilities also needs to be responsive to these
in Chapter 10. considerations. Figures 4.3 and 4.4 illustrate how
different approaches can be used in different
circumstances.

Figure 4.2: Typical road and street types in the place and movement hierarchy (from Manual for Streets)

16 Manual for Streets, Department for Transport, 2007

34
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 4.3: Edge of city distributor road, Oxford uses a stepped cycle track for separation from motor traffic

Figure 4.4: City centre access road, Norwich, uses a mode filter and vehicle restricted area to provide separation from motor
traffic

35
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

4.4.9 For streets with a high place value, greater design needs to address. The tool includes some factors
emphasis will need to be placed on the effect on ‘place’ that are considered to be ‘Critical Fails’ – results that
functions of the chosen method of protecting space for represent unsafe conditions for cycling which must be
cycling. This includes the needs of pedestrians moving addressed (or an alternative route found).
around the area, as well as its visual impact.
4.5.4 Cycling rarely happens in isolation, and it may
4.4.10 Further details on these types of cycle facility be useful to consider adopting a whole street approach,
are given in Chapters 6 and 7. such as TfL’s Healthy Streets Check for Designers.17

4.5.5 Good cycle infrastructure is normally

4.5 Assessment accessible to a wide range of people but an independent
Access Audit (see 4.5.11) should be carried out to
techniques and audits identify any negative impacts on other users such as
access to disabled parking bays or potential trip
hazards. Within that context, it is still important to meet
4.5.1 Chapter 1 describes the tools that should be
the cycling design quality, which the CLoS
used as part of the funding process and includes the
tool measures.
Cycling Level of Service and Junction Assessment
tools. Assessment techniques offer a framework to 4.5.6 A cycle route may consist of different types of
ensure that a scheme conforms to good practice and infrastructure along its length. It may therefore be
that it is accessible and safe. The assessment may be necessary to split the route into consistent sections
a simple checklist to prompt designers to consider the (in terms of design) and then assess each section
issues, or a more complex appraisal process that can independently. It may only be necessary to assess the
help to demonstrate how well a scheme meets various more problematic sections to analyse the type and
design criteria. An audit is typically applied during the severity of the issues, on the basis that the overall
various stages of scheme design, including post- quality of the route is determined by its constraints.
opening. A review is usually carried out on an existing
road or facility in order to assess the current conditions
and issues to help inform the design process. In practice Junction Assessment Tool
these terms are often used interchangeably and further
detail of the methodology is given in the source 4.5.7 It is often at junctions that safety risks are
guidance for the various techniques that are highest and the relationships between safety, comfort
summarised below. and directness are more complex. A Junction
Assessment Tool (JAT) is therefore included in
Appendix B which enables designers to assess how well
Cycling level of service a junction provides for cycling. The JAT examines all
potential movements at a junction, not just those that
4.5.2 While minimum dimensions provide a guide to may be associated with a designated cycle route, to
what constitutes adequate cycling conditions, there are identify the potential for conflicts and therefore what
other aspects to be taken into consideration, all of which measures may be required to reduce them.
can contribute positively or negatively to the experience
of cycling. These make up distinct elements of the five
core design principles (see section 4.1) that contribute to Road safety audit
an overall level of service within a given situation. These
include, for example, the likelihood of coming into 4.5.8 A road safety audit is a formal process that
conflict with other users and the impact of crowding in can be applied during the design stages and post-
busy periods, which affect comfort or safety. construction. It is performed by a qualified team of
Traditionally, traffic engineering places great emphasis on practitioners who are independent of the design team,
road safety in relation to motor traffic, but as discussed solely concerned with highlighting safety issues (for all
above, this is just one of the design considerations. users) that may need to be addressed. A standard
approach to road safety audit is given in the Design
4.5.3 A recommended Cycling Level of Service Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)18 that is also
(CLoS) tool is provided in Appendix A. This includes a commonly applied on local authority roads.
simple scoring assessment based on attributes of the
five design criteria, which can be used to identify
strengths and weaknesses, and therefore what the

17 Healthy Streets, Checklist for Designers, TfL, 2018

18 DMRB, GG119 Road Safety Audit

36
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

4.5.9 A road safety audit will only consider one of

the five core design principles (i.e. safety). If a problem is
highlighted, the design modification recommended may
adversely affect how well the scheme meets the other
four principles. For example, if a road safety audit
recommends that cyclists should lose priority at a
junction as a mitigation measure for an identified risk,
this would have an adverse effect on comfort and
directness. It is for the designer to decide whether and
to what extent to accept the recommendations of the
safety audit, taking into account the overall impact on
the level of service for cycling. Any decisions should be
documented as part of the audit process.

Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding

Assessment and Review
4.5.10 DMRB also contains guidance on undertaking
a Walking, Cycling & Horse-Riding Assessment
and Review (WCHAR).19 Although this is applicable to
trunk roads, it provides a good basis for assessing the
needs of all users along and across interurban roads.

Equality and access assessments

4.5.11 Local authorities are bound by the Equality Act
2010 in discharging their functions, which includes
managing their road networks. Designers should provide
infrastructure that is accessible to all, and the
dimensions and other features set out in this guidance
should help ensure that their designs comply with the
Public Sector Equality Duty. An Access Audit should be
undertaken of all proposals to ensure that a scheme
meets the needs of those with protected characteristics
under the Equality Act 2010, particularly people with a
disability. The Access Audit (also formerly known as a
DDA audit, Disability Discrimination Act Audit or Disabled
Access Audit) is an assessment of a building, a street
environment or a service against best-practice standards
to benchmark its accessibility for disabled people. It may
form part of an overall Equality Impact Assessment.

19 DMRB, Volume 5, Section 2, HD42 Cycling, Walking and Horse-Riding Assessment and Review

37
 5
Geometric
requirements

Meeting the core design criteria requires attention to the space, sightlines,
gradients and surface conditions available for cycling. The geometric
conditions that provide a good level of service for cycling are universal and
should apply to all types of cycle infrastructure. This document takes the
dimensional requirements of the concept ‘design cycle vehicle’ described
below as the determinant of the minimal dimensions for widths, lengths and
corner radii to ensure that routes are accessible to all.
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

5.1 Introduction Figure 5.1: Dynamic kinetic envelope of cyclists

1m 0.5 m 1m

5.1.1 This chapter looks at the dimensions that are

required to accommodate cyclists on a variety of typical
cycles and trailers when travelling at their
desired speeds.

5.1.2 Urban cycling speed averages between

10mph and 15mph but will typically vary from 5mph on
an uphill gradient to around 40mph on a prolonged
downhill gradient and cyclists may be capable of up to Dynamic

25mph on flat unobstructed routes. There are

envelopes

considerable differences in speed between cycle traffic

going uphill and cycle traffic going downhill. For different
reasons, in both cases a more generous dynamic kinetic
envelope is required.

5.1.3 Designers should aim to provide geometry

to enable most people to proceed at a comfortable
speed, typically around 20mph. 5.3 Headroom
requirement
5.2 Dynamic kinetic
5.3.1 Signs should ideally be placed so as not to
envelope of the user overhang cycle infrastructure but sometimes this is
unavoidable. The recommended minimum mounting
5.2.1 A cyclist in motion moves laterally to maintain height in the Traffic Signs Manual for most signs that
balance, especially at lower speeds. A typical cyclist is may overhang cycle tracks is 2.3m (signs may need to
about 0.8m wide at the shoulder (or handlebar) and be placed higher if visibility is likely to be obscured by
needs at least 0.2m for balance to keep a straight line other users). Cyclists ideally require a minimum of 2.4m
when in motion at over 7mph. This gives a typical space of headroom at underbridges and subways (see Chapter
profile of around 1.0m for a moving cyclist on a standard 10). This should be increased to at least 2.7m where an
bicycle (dynamic kinetic envelope), as shown in Figure underbridge is longer than 23.0m to allow more natural
5.1. Tricycles, quadricycles and cycle trailers typically light. Headroom on bridleways should ideally permit
have an axle width of 0.8m (wider for passenger carrying ridden horses rather than requiring a dismount.
rickshaws) and while they do not wobble to maintain
balance they still require adequate clearance to fixed 5.3.2 At existing structures, lowering the minimum
and moving objects. headroom to 2.2m may be acceptable but decisions will
need to be taken on a case by case basis, based on
5.2.2 At speeds less than 7mph the deviation to relevant factors such as the forward visibility. Where the
maintain balance on two wheels can increase by up to minimum headroom cannot be achieved (e.g. at a low
0.8m. It is not uncommon for cyclists to travel this slowly railway bridge on a cycle track), a warning sign to
on steeper uphill gradients and therefore they will require TSRGD diagram 530A should be provided (see Traffic
more space and separation from faster vehicles. Signs Manual, Chapter 4, Section 7).

5.2.3 Cyclists travelling side by side (on a level

surface) require a minimum space of 1.0m each plus
0.5m separation between them. Additional width is
5.4 Dimensions and
required to negotiate uneven surfaces and drainage
gulleys. This is especially important for riders of 3 and 4
types of cycle
wheeled cycles which can become unstable and
5.4.1 Figure 5.2 shows the range of dimensions for
uncomfortable if a wheel drops into a gulley or pothole.
cycles typically in use. It is important that infrastructure
can accommodate the full range of cycles to ensure
routes are accessible to all cyclists. Cycle trailers and
tricycles are usually about 0.8m wide, but adapted
cycles can be up to 1.2m wide. The cycle design vehicle

40
 Cycle
CycleInfrastructure
Infrastructure Design
Design

Figure 5.2: Typical

Figure 5.2: Typicaldimensions
dimensions of
of cycles
cycles

41
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Table 5-1: Size and minimum turning circles of cycles

Type of Cycle Typical length (m) Typical width (m) Minimum turning circle (m)

Outer radius Inner radius

Cycle design vehicle 2.8 (max) 1.2 (max) 3.4 (max) 0.1 (min)*

2.5m (3 and
4 wheel cycles)

Solo upright cycle 1.8 0.65 1.65 0.85

Cycle plus 850mm wide trailer 2.7 0.85 2.65 1.5

Tandem 2.4 0.65 3.15 2.25

*applies only to some cycles that can pivot at very low speeds

referred to in this document represents a composite of 5.4.4 E-bikes are generally heavier than ordinary
the maximum dimensions shown in Figure 5.2 is cycles and can be more difficult to balance/handle at
assumed as 2.8m long and 1.2m wide. low speeds and when stationary. In design terms
however, they are considered to be pedal cycles, and
5.4.2 The design, width and length of a cycle has an can use cycle lanes, tracks and parking spaces in the
impact on the turning circle required and therefore the same way. They do not generally travel at a higher speed
kerb radii that can be negotiated and the required track than an ordinary cycle, as the motor must cut out above
widths at corners and bends (see Table 5-1). These are 15.5mph. The geometric requirements given in this
the minimum turning radii suitable only for low speed chapter are therefore suitable for e-bikes.
manoeuvres such as access to cycle parking. The
minimum radii for curves at typical cycling speeds are
given in Table 5-7.
5.5 Cycle lane and track
Electrically assisted pedal cycles widths
(E-Bikes)
5.5.1 Table 5-2 sets out the recommended absolute
5.4.3 Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles (EAPCs) or and desirable minimum widths for different types of
e-bikes are becoming increasingly popular in the UK. provision, including recommended additional width to
An electric motor provides assistance up to a maximum accommodate higher cycle flows.
speed of 15.5mph, reducing the effort required of the
cyclist and making it easier to tackle gradients, carry 5.5.2 The absolute minimum width should only be
loads or passengers. Electric assist is also increasingly in used for sections where there is a physical constraint on
use for commercial applications such as rickshaws and an existing road. Designers should take account of the
cargo bikes (see Chapter 12). An e-bike must conform potential loss of width of usable track due to drainage
to the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle Regulations 1983 gullies where these reduce the effective width (as cyclists
(as amended). No licence is required to ride one in will avoid overrunning gully gratings).
England, Scotland and Wales, but a moped licence is
5.5.3 Where a route is also used by pedestrians,
needed to ride one in Northern Ireland. E-bike riders
separate facilities should be provided for pedestrian and
must be a minimum age of 14 years old.
cycle movements. However, away from the highway,
and alongside busy interurban roads with few
pedestrians or building frontages, shared use might be
adequate (see Chapters 6 and 8). Such facilities should
be designed to meet the needs of cycle traffic, however
– including its width, alignment and treatment at side
roads and other junctions. Conversion of existing
footways to shared use should only be considered when
options that reuse carriageway or other (e.g. verge)
space have been rejected as unworkable.

42
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Table 5-2: Cycle lane and track widths

Peak hour cycle flow Desirable Absolute

(either one way or two-way minimum minimum at
Cycle Route Type Direction depending on cycle route type) width* (m) constraints (m)

Protected space for cycling 1 way <200 2.0 1.5

(including light segregation,
stepped cycle track, kerbed
cycle track)

200-800 2.2 2.0

>800 2.5 2.0
2 way <300 3.0 2.0
>300-1000 3.0 2.5
>1000 4.0 3.0

Cycle lane 1 way All – cyclists able to 2.0 1.5

use carriageway to overtake

*based on a saturation flow of 1 cyclist per second per metre of space. For user comfort a lower density is generally desirable.

Table 5-3: Additional width at fixed objects

Additional width required to maintain

Type of edge constraint effective width of cycle track (mm)

Flush or near-flush surface including low and splayed No additional width needed
kerbs up to 60mm high

Kerbs 61mm to 150mm high 200

Vertical feature from 151mm to 600 mm high 250

Vertical feature above 600 mm high 500

Additional width at fixed objects equestrian traffic to avoid conflict and allow cyclists
to travel at a comfortable speed (see Chapter 6).
5.5.4 Where a cycle track is bounded by a vertical Where cycling is on-carriageway, it is assumed that
feature, people will not be able to use the entire width as the geometry provided for motor traffic will be adequate
they will naturally be wary of riding immediately next to to cater for all types of cycle.
walls and kerbs. Designers should provide additional
width as shown in Table 5-3. Table 5-4: Design Speed for off-carriageway
cycle routes

5.6 Cycle design speed Design speed

Absolute min
design speed
Circumstance (kph) (kph)
5.6.1 The design speed determines relevant aspects
of horizontal and vertical geometry of cycle tracks. General off- 30 20
The design speeds in Table 5-4 should be used for cycle carriageway cycle
only tracks and for rural shared use facilities where there tracks
are few pedestrians – such routes should be designed
as cycle tracks which pedestrians may lawfully use Downhill gradients 40 N/A
> 3%
rather than a footway that can be cycled on. Cycle traffic
should preferably be separated from pedestrian and

43
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

5.6.2 Designers should aim to achieve the design Table 5-5: Stopping sight distances
speeds shown above. It should rarely be necessary to
restrict cycle speeds on or along highways where the Minimum stopping sight
alignment is suitable for motor vehicles. Methods of Design speed (kph) distance (m)
reducing speed in off-highway and shared use
situations, using features such as humps and rumble 40 47
strips, are discussed in Chapters 6 and 8 respectively.
30 31
5.6.3 Deliberately restricting space, introducing
20 17
staggered barriers or blind bends to slow cyclists is likely
to increase the potential for user conflict and may
prevent access for larger cycles and disabled people 5.7.2 Designers should ensure that objects between
and so should not be used. the carriageway surface and a height of 2.4m are
visible from an eye height in the range of 0.8m to 2.2m.
These values accommodate a range of cyclists including

5.7 Stopping sight recumbent users, children and adults (Figure 5.3).

distance 5.7.3 Isolated objects with widths of less than

300mm may not have a significant effect on visibility.
This should be considered on a case-by-case basis,
5.7.1 Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) is the distance taking account of the actual speeds of cycle traffic.
required for a rider to perceive, react and stop safely. It is
measured in a straight line between two points at the
centre line of the route, with the line of sight lying within
the highway or cycle track boundary. SSDs for cyclists
5.8 Visibility splays
travelling at different speeds are given in Table 5-5.
These distances are based on the same perception 5.8.1 Visibility splays should be provided for motor
reaction times and deceleration rates for comfortable traffic on the main route approaching a crossing used by
and emergency braking as assumed in DMRB TD 9 cycle traffic. Manual for Streets 221 provides advice on
Highway Link Design.20 calculating y-distances approach to the design speed.

Figure 5.3: Visibility envelope (length is stopping sight distance from Table 5-5)

20 TD 09, Highway Link Design, DMRB – based on an extrapolation of values.

21 Manual for Streets 2: Wider Application of the Principles, CIHT, 2010

44
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 5.4: Visibility x and y distance for a cycle track as the minor arm

5.8.2 Any crossing of a highway or junction Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian
between cycle routes should be located such that all Routes.
users have full visibility as shown in with Figure 5.4.
The x distance is in Table 5-6 and y distances are as 5.8.6 The y distances should be measured for an
shown in Table 5-5 (SSD). eye height of 0.8m to 2.2m for cyclists (see Figure 5.3).
The object height shall be taken as between 0.26m to
5.8.3 The x distance is measured from the give way 2.0m in accordance with TD 09 and CD 195 in DMRB.23
or stop line, back along the centre line of the minor arm.
The y distance is measured on the highway from the
centre of the minor arm. 5.9 Horizontal and
5.8.4 The x distances for cyclists equate to the eye
positions for one or two cycle design vehicles. The
Vertical alignment
desirable minimum x distance allows two users to
observe the full y distance and both accept the gap in Horizontal alignment
traffic. Designers should seek to improve visibility along
the y distance before reducing the x distance. 5.9.1 The guidance in this section is most likely to
be applicable when designing new highway
Table 5–6: x Distances for cycle traffic infrastructure. A good horizontal alignment will not
include diversions or fragmented facilities; it is
Desirable minimum (m) Absolute minimum (m) recommended not to include any obstacles within the
route.
4.5 2.4
5.9.2 Changes in horizontal alignment should be via
5.8.5 For y distances, the major arm being joined simple curves, typically circular. Appropriate SSD for
may be a carriageway with adjacent footways, a cycle traffic should be achieved by providing appropriate
bridleway or footpath, or another cycle track. The y radii in both horizontal and vertical planes.
distance on a junction of two cycle tracks is the same as
5.9.3 Table 5-7 provides minimum horizontal curve
the SSD on the major arm (see Table 5-5). Where the
radii which should be used for cycle traffic on cycle
major arm is a highway, the y distance is that identified in
routes including shared use facilities alongside rural
the Manual for Streets (based on SSD for motor vehicle
highways where there are few pedestrians. These radii
speeds). Where the major arm is an equestrian route,
are based on being able to accommodate the turning
the y distance is that identified in Table 3.2 of TA 9022

22 TA90 Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian Routes, DMRB

23 CD 195 Designing for Cycle Traffic, DMRB

45
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

space required by the cycle design vehicle (i.e. the Table 5-8: Maximum length for gradients
actual turning radius of the vehicle) and to provide
adequate stopping sight distance at typical cycling Desirable maximum length
speeds, enabling the cyclist to maintain momentum and Gradient % of gradient (m)
thus reduce the effort required to cycle. Objects such as
walls, fences and trees should not be sited close to the 2.0 150
cycle track on the inside of bends as this will potentially
affect the visibility. 2.5 100

3.0 80
Table 5-7: Minimum horizontal radii
3.5 60
Minimum horizontal
4.0 50
Design speed (kph) radius (m)
4.5 40
40 40
5.0 30
30 25

20 15 5.9.8 Cycle routes along existing roads and paths

will usually have to follow the existing gradient although
10 4
there may be opportunities for signed diversions onto
alternative routes to avoid the steepest uphill gradients,
Vertical alignment or to reduce gradients through earthworks where
sufficient space is available.
5.9.4 It is difficult to alter vertical dimensions on
5.9.9 As well as the length of the gradient, the
existing routes without major reconstruction. On new
speed of travel is another important factor to consider.
build projects and major highway alterations vertical
Steep gradients can lead to high speeds for descending
curves should be provided at changes of gradient on the
cyclists or low speeds for climbing cyclists, which can
cycle facilities. The desirable minimum length of the
create hazards for all users of the route. Stopping
vertical curve is determined by the algebraic difference
distances also increase on down gradients in excess
between the gradients, multiplied by a constant K value.
of 3%.
5.9.5 In new construction the minimum sag K value
5.9.10 Where height differences at new build sites
should be 5.0 for comfort, and for stopping sight
suggest longer lengths of gradients than those given in
distance, the minimum crest K value should be 6.0.
Table 5-8 earthworks designs should be adjusted or the
This will limit vertical acceleration to less than 0.3m/s².
horizontal alignment adjusted to limit the length or
Values for existing highways will generally be determined
severity of the gradient. Level sections of 5.0m minimum
by the local topography or existing construction.
length can be used between gradients to achieve
5.9.6 The SSD should always be checked because compliance with Table 5-8.
it is affected by the interaction of vertical alignment with
the horizontal alignment of the cycle route, the presence
of crossfall, superelevation or verge treatment and 5.10 Crossfall and
features such as signs and structures adjacent to
the route. camber
Longitudinal gradient 5.10.1 Cycle tracks can be constructed with either a
crossfall across the whole width or a central camber to
5.9.7 Unlike motor traffic, human physiology means help surface water to clear, but in either case the
that people can cycle steep gradients that are fairly short gradient should not exceed 2.5% as this could cause
but are not capable of maintaining high levels of effort for wheels to slide in icy conditions. Three and four-wheel
longer distances. Cycle routes should therefore, where cycles (and children in trailers) are particularly affected
possible, be designed in such a way that the steepness by variations in camber that can make steering more
and maximum length of longitudinal gradients meets the difficult and the riding experience uncomfortable.
requirements of Table 5-8. While superelevation is not typically required along a
cycle route, negative camber that falls to the outside of
a bend should be avoided.

46
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

5.11 Edge protection

5.11.1 Gradients present a potential hazard where
cyclists could lose control. Designers should carefully
consider the combination of horizontal and vertical
geometry where gradients are greater than 3%.
Unguarded hazards (e.g. fixed objects, steep drops or
water hazards) should not be permitted within 4.5m of
the route where they would lie in the path of an out-of-
control cycle. An example location where a hazard
should be guarded is adjacent to the vertical drop to the
water at the bottom of an access ramp that approaches
a river bank or canal towpath.

5.11.2 Edge protection may be necessary including

alongside ramps to overbridges and underbridges (see
Grade Separation in Chapter 10).

5.11.3 A crash barrier or safety fence may be

necessary alongside roads with speed limits of 50mph
or above where there is a physical constraint such as a
bridge parapet or steep embankment that places the
cycle track immediately alongside the carriageway
without a verge or separating margin.

47
 6
Space ffo
or c
cy
ycl
clin
ing
g
within highways

On busier and faster roads, which are usually the most direct routes
between places, it will be necessary to provide dedicated space for cycling.
Facilities that provide physical protection for cyclists are preferable to cycle
lanes. It might be necessary to reallocate some road space from moving
and/or parked motor vehicles to allow good quality cycle facilities to be
installed. Dedicated space for cycling should continue past bus and tram
stops but here and in other places it is essential that the needs of
pedestrians are taken into account, particularly disabled people.
Cycle facilities should preferably be located between parked and service
vehicles and the footway. Access for these vehicles will need to
be considered in any design.
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

6.1 Introduction 6.1.5 Facilities of this type will meet most people’s
needs, regardless of the volume of motor traffic and
cycle traffic. Stepped cycle tracks and light segregation
6.1.1 This chapter discusses how to provide for are generally considered less suitable for urban
cyclists on busy or high-speed roads. These roads often highways with speed limits above 30mph. Stepped
have a high proportion of HGV traffic, bus routes and tracks typically have no horizontal separation margin
kerbside deliveries and car parking to accommodate. between the cyclist and the carriageway, whilst light
Because of this, they can be hostile environments for segregation could be a hazard for motor vehicles moving
cycling. Cyclists will therefore benefit from space at higher speeds, particularly powered two-wheelers.
allocated specifically to them in the form of cycle tracks
or lanes within the highway boundary. 6.1.6 Cycle lanes have been used extensively in the
UK, including on major roads with high speeds.
6.1.2 A cycle route network will include busier major However, as they do not provide any physical protection
roads as these are usually the most direct routes from moving motor vehicles most people will perceive
between key attractors. Minor road networks are them to be unacceptable for safe cycling on busy or
sometimes less well connected (Figure 6.1). fast roads.
6.1.3 Section 4.4 of Chapter 4 and Figure 4.1 6.1.7 Light segregation adds some protection to a
provide guidance on the different types of separation mandatory cycle lane. It can be installed relatively
from motor traffic available to provide conditions that cheaply, for example when routine maintenance and
enable most people to cycle. general highway improvements are being carried out.
However, low level light segregation can present a
6.1.4 Figure 4.1 shows that protected space for tripping hazard to pedestrians and should not therefore
cycling is generally required to create inclusive cycling be used on pedestrian desire lines.
conditions on busier or faster highway. This can take
the form of: 6.1.8 Cycle tracks and lanes must meet the key
design requirements set out in Chapter 5 to enable
a Fully kerbed cycle tracks; inclusive cycling, including the dimensions of the cycle
design vehicle.
a Stepped cycle tracks; or

a Light segregation (protected mandatory cycle lane)

Figure 6.1: In typical post-WW2 developments (a), the main roads are often the only through routes. In more historic areas (b),
there may be quiet parallel routes that could be made suitable for cycling (images from Manual for Streets)

50
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Road space reallocation Figure 6.2: Newark Street, Leicester – Trial of traffic lane
closure and new two-way cycle track taking the place of the
6.1.9 Creating space for cycling may require the coned-off lane
reallocation of space within the highway boundary.
Wherever possible, this should be achieved by
reallocating carriageway space, not reducing the level of
service for pedestrians. Only where there are very wide
or lightly-used footways should part of the space be
considered for use by cyclists, and the minimum
footway widths recommended in Inclusive Mobility24
should be retained.

6.1.10 Where the footway has (or will have) a peak

Pedestrian Comfort Level (PCL) of C or less25 (21 to 23
pedestrians per minute per m width) space should
normally not be taken from it for cycling.

6.1.11 Space may be taken from motor vehicles by

reducing the carriageway’s width and/or number of
lanes. UK practice has generally adopted a standard
carriageway lane width of 3.65m (12 feet) but this should
not be taken as a preferred value. Narrower lanes may
be appropriate, particularly in built up areas, resulting in
carriageways that are easier for pedestrians to cross and
encouraging low traffic speed without causing a
significant loss of traffic capacity. Lanes wider than
around 3m are not necessary in most urban areas
carrying mixed traffic – see Table 7-2. More advice is
given in Manual for Streets 2.

Trials and modelling

6.2 On-highway cycle
6.1.12 The effect of reducing the width and number
of general traffic lanes can be assessed using standard
tracks
traffic modelling software. These techniques may not
take into account any local reduction in traffic flow Introduction
caused by the reduced traffic speed and any shift to
cycling and walking. An area-wide multi-modal model 6.2.1 Cycle tracks within the highway may be:
may be used to estimate these wider impacts.
a Fully kerbed cycle tracks, protected from
6.1.13 Trials may be used to give a real-world motor traffic by a full-height kerb, preferably with
indication of the effects of road space reallocation, as some buffer space between the cycle track and
shown in the example in Figure 6.2. They also help make carriageway; and
a strong statement of the intention to give greater priority
to active travel modes, and offer a high-profile way to a Stepped cycle tracks set below footway level,
stimulate feedback in the stakeholder participation typically protected from the carriageway by a lower
process – see also Sections 3.3 and 3.5 in Chapter 3. height kerb and usually directly next to it.

6.2.2 Cycle tracks within the highway are created

through an order made under Section 65 of the
Highways Act 1980. Further details on legal procedures
are given in Appendix C.

24 Inclusive Mobility – A Guide to best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure, DfT, 2002
25 Pedestrian Comfort Guidance for London, TfL, 2010

51
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Fully kerbed cycle tracks 6.2.5 Carriageway-level cycle tracks in existing

streets are usually created by taking space from the
6.2.3 Fully kerbed cycle tracks may be set at carriageway by building a continuous kerbed buffer
carriageway level, at footway level or at an intermediate strip to provide protection from motor vehicles.
height between the two – see Figure 6.3. See Figure 6.4.

6.2.4 The choice of cycle track level should reflect

the functional and aesthetic context in which it is being
provided, as discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.4 in
Chapter 4.

Figure 6.3: Cycle tracks with full kerb separation from carriageway

52
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 6.4: Carriageway-level cycle track with continuous kerbs to footway and carriageway

6.2.6 Intermediate level cycle tracks are at a level 6.2.7 Cycle tracks in all forms should be clearly
between the carriageway and existing footway (see distinguishable from the footway. The preference among
Figure 6.5). They, and footway level cycle tracks, may be visually impaired people is for a level difference between
created by repaving and lowering the footway or the cycle track and footway as this is the most easily
preferably by raising the carriageway. A buffer or verge detectable form of separation. Colour and tonal contrast,
strip should again be provided between the cycle track and different surface materials – for example asphalt on
and carriageway where possible. the cycle track and concrete flags on the footway – also
help (see Figures 6.6 to 6.8) This is particularly important
for footway-level and intermediate-level cycle tracks.

Figure 6.5: Intermediate level cycle track, with level difference to footway and carriageway, London

53
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 6.6: Footway-level cycle track with different surface Figure 6.8: Detail of trapezoidal strip and different surface
materials to footway, London materials for footway and cycle track

6.2.8 A kerb at least 50mm high or a strip of light

coloured material that can be detected with a cane
helps visually impaired people to detect and negotiate 6.2.9 Guidance on cycle track widths is given in Table
the track. This could be achieved by using a raised strip 5-2 in Chapter 5. This takes into account the volume of
which is trapezoidal in cross section, or some other cycle traffic and whether the track is one way or two-way.
textured material. Simply using a white line road marking Where cycle tracks are bounded by vertical features such
to TSRGD diagram 1049B is ineffective, while the as full height kerbs, the additional width outlined in Table
thermoplastic raised white line to 1049.1 may also be 5-3 should be provided. Fully battered (splay) kerbs offer a
disregarded by pedestrians and is difficult to maintain. more forgiving edge that will not catch pedals and are less
Further advice is given in the Guidance on the Use of likely to throw a shadow across the cycle track, helping to
Tactile Paving Surfaces.26 increase the useable width.

6.2.10 The buffer or verge strip between the cycle

Figure 6.7: Footway level cycle track with raised trapezoidal
track and carriageway can vary in width and can
strip, London
contribute positively to the quality of the streetscape,
with the potential to accommodate planting and
sustainable drainage. If the buffer is of a hard surface
and of sufficient width, it provides a place for pedestrians
to wait to cross. A width of 1.5m will be sufficient to
accommodate users of wheelchairs and mobility
scooters.27

6.2.11 The buffer or verge also helps protect cyclists

from the air turbulence created by passing motor traffic
and from debris thrown up from the carriageway.

Table 6-1: Minimum recommended horizontal separation between carriageway and cycle tracks*

Desirable minimum horizontal Absolute minimum horizontal

Speed limit (mph) separation (m) separation (m)

30 0.5 0

40 1.0 0.5

50 2.0 1.5

60 2.5 2.0

70 3.5 3.0

*Separation strip should be at least 0.5m alongside kerbside parking and 1.5m where wheelchair access is required.

26 Guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces, DfT, 2007

27 Inclusive Mobility – A Guide to best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure, DfT, 2002

54
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 6.9: Carriageway level cycle track with gaps in buffer strip to access side road – Camden

Minimum recommended separation widths are given in 6.2.16 Two-way cycle tracks may result in the
Table 6-1, based on the speed limit. following problems:

6.2.12 Wider buffer strips may accommodate a bus a transitioning between the cycle track and the
stop and shelter, as part of a bus-stop bypass carriageway is more difficult for cyclists travelling
arrangement (see Section 6.6). Wider buffer sections against the flow of traffic;
may also be used for kerbside loading and car parking
areas, with the buffer providing a zone within which a car a the interface between the cycle track and major
door can be opened and passengers disembark safely junctions along the route can be more complex;
away from the cycle track.
a there may be more risks associated with retaining
6.2.13 To enable mobility impaired people to cross priority over side roads or busy accesses;
the carriageway, regular dropped kerbs should be
provided along the buffer strip. Alternatively, gaps in the a cyclists’ accessibility to premises along the route on
strip should be provided where the cycle track is at the opposite side of the carriageway is reduced;
carriageway level. Tactile paving should be provided
a it is more difficult for pedestrians, especially disabled
following the principles of Guidance on the Use of Tactile
people, to cross a two-way cycle track where they do
Paving Surfaces.
not have priority; and
6.2.14 Gaps in the buffer strip at side-road junctions
a in some locations, especially rural areas without street
are also needed to enable cyclists to enter and leave the
lights, cyclists may be dazzled by the headlights
protected cycle track space – see Figure 6.9.
of motor vehicles. Similarly, cyclists’ use of high-
powered lighting can dazzle or be confusing to
Two-way and one way tracks oncoming drivers.

6.2.15 Fully kerbed cycle tracks alongside the 6.2.17 Providing a one way cycle track on each side
carriageway can be either be two-way or one way. of the carriageway addresses most of these issues.
Two-way tracks are usually provided only on one side of
the road, but two-way provision on both sides is useful 6.2.18 Nevertheless, there are space advantages to
where it is difficult for cyclists to cross major highways. two-way tracks. A 3.0m wide two-way track will cater
One way tracks are usually provided on both sides of the for a significant flow of cycle traffic while allowing faster
road, with cyclists travelling in the same direction cyclists to overtake slower cyclists. It will also allow for
as other traffic. side-by-side cycling when flows in the opposite direction

55
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

are light. A 2.0m wide cycle track will be needed on both Stepped cycle tracks
sides of the carriageway to enable overtaking and
side-by-side cycling (but this width will only cater for 6.2.24 Stepped cycle tracks are raised above the
two cycles). carriageway surface but sit below the level of the
footway. The height difference from the carriageway
6.2.19 Where cycle flows are tidal (with significantly
should be a minimum of 50mm with at least a further
larger flows in one direction during the peak periods),
50mm step up to the adjacent footway (see Figure 6.10).
two-way tracks can represent a more flexible use of
space than one way tracks. This is because cyclists can
Figure 6.10: Stepped cycle track, London
move out into the ‘opposing lane’ within the cycle track
to overtake.

6.2.20 Two-way tracks may also be useful where

there are many more side roads and greater levels of
kerbside activity on one side than the other, or where
those conditions can be created, with the two-way track
located on the side with less activity. Two-way tracks
can be successfully accommodated in complex
signal-controlled junctions.

6.2.21 Table 6-2 summarises the opportunities and

challenges associated with two-way tracks.

Table 6-2: Two-way cycle tracks: opportunities

and challenges
6.2.25 Stepped cycle tracks are normally one way
and in the same direction of flow as the adjacent traffic
Opportunities Challenges lane, although contraflow and two-way stepped tracks
might be appropriate in certain circumstances to link up
Where buildings, active uses Can be unintuitive and
other components of a cycle route network.
and side roads are entirely generate risks associated with
or largely on only one side motorists and pedestrians
6.2.26 The key advantage of stepped cycle tracks is
(a waterside location, for not looking both ways when
example) crossing a track that they provide physical protection from motor traffic in
a space-efficient way. They take a similar amount of
Where kerbside activity or Potential safety concerns at space to a cycle lane, and allow cyclists to take priority at
side road access may be side roads and accesses side road junctions – either by dropping down to become
reconfigured to take place a marked cycle lane or preferably by remaining at the
largely on one side same height past the junction, for example as part of a
Arterial roads such as wide Complex transitions from one raised entry treatment (see Section 10.4 in Chapter 10).
dual carriageways with way, with-flow to two-way
infrequent crossings cycle provision 6.2.27 Cyclists must be able to join and leave the
stepped track at junctions and other locations, including
One way systems and Connectivity for cyclists to continuing in the same direction, to and from a cycle
gyratories and from the track can be lane or the carriageway. A flush kerb is preferred at key
difficult to manage locations to allow for this transition. An alternative is to
use continuous fully battered low-height kerbs with a
6.2.22 Centre line markings 50mm wide to TSRGD very gentle slope, at the edge of the cycle track so that
diagram 1008 should be applied to two-way tracks cyclists can join and leave at any point along its length,
alongside highways to remind users that it is two-way as used by Cambridgeshire County Council and hence
and to help distinguish the cycle track from the footway. known as the Cambridge Kerb – see Section 10.5 in
Chapter 10.
6.2.23 One way fully-kerbed cycle tracks may be
used in the contraflow direction to general traffic, on 6.2.28 If the stepped track is arranged so that it
either side of the carriageway. They provide a high level slopes from the carriageway towards the footway, it
of protection from oncoming vehicles that may not should be possible to achieve greater kerb heights on
anticipate cyclists coming towards them. Further advice both sides. However, this will require additional
on contraflow cycling facilities is given in Section 6.4. drainage facilities at the cycle track/footway kerb –
see Figure 6.11.

56
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

and in one direction, pedestrians can cross in the gaps

Figure 6.11: Contraflow stepped cycle track, London,
between cyclists. On tracks that are two-way or with
showing cycle track draining towards footway
high cycle speed and flow, pedestrians should be
provided with formal crossings.

6.2.30 Any level difference between the footway and

the cycle track should be removed at the crossing point,
either by raising the cycle track to footway level or by the
use of dropped kerbs. Tactile paving should be provided
to the layout set out in the Guidance on the Use of
Tactile Paving Surfaces. Dropped kerbs (or a gap in a
buffer strip) will also need to be provided to enable
pedestrians to reach the carriageway without difficulty.

6.2.31 Pedestrian priority crossings of cycle tracks

can be either zebra or signal-controlled. Zebra crossings
create less delay to both pedestrians and cyclists, but
signal crossings may be preferred if there are concerns
over the willingness of cyclists to slow or stop to allow
pedestrians to cross, especially where cycle speeds
are high.

6.2.32 TSRGD allows the zig-zag markings and

yellow globes to be omitted at Zebra crossings placed
Pedestrian crossings across across cycle tracks – see Figure 6.12. Humps may be
cycle tracks placed in the cycle track to slow cyclists at or on the
approach to the crossing.
6.2.29 Pedestrians should be provided with
sufficiently frequent suitable opportunities and facilities to
cross cycle tracks, particularly at locations such as bus
stops and junctions. Where cycle flows are relatively light

Figure 6.12: Zebra crossing of cycle track, London

57
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Tactile paving for cycle tracks Traffic signing for cycle tracks
6.2.33 Tactile paving should be applied wherever 6.2.38 Signs to TSRGD diagram 955 (preferred) or
footways/footpaths cross cycle tracks. It is important at 957 are required to indicate the presence of the track to
transitions to carriageways where a cycle track merges all users, and to give effect to the traffic order creating
or diverges from carriageway level to footway level (see the cycle track – advice on sign placement is given in
Chapter 9) so that visually impaired people do not Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual. Cycle symbol
inadvertently follow the cycle track into the carriageway. markings to TSRGD diagram 1057 should be placed
Detailed advice is contained in Guidance on the Use of at regular intervals along cycle tracks. The cycle
Tactile Paving Surfaces. The following paragraphs symbols should be placed in the direction of the flow
complement that advice. of cycle traffic, and therefore in both directions on
two-way tracks.
6.2.34 Tactile paving should be used where
pedestrian routes cross cycle tracks and at crossing 6.2.39 Any traffic sign posts should be placed at the
points. This paving should be red at zebra and signalised interface between the footway and the cycle track so
crossings. that neither user group is affected and clutter is reduced.
Signs may be placed on illuminated or retroreflective
6.2.35 The tramline/ladder surface should be used to bollards – more advice is given in Traffic Advisory Leaflet
indicate the start of a path that is divided into two 3/13: Traffic bollards and low level traffic signs.
different sides for pedestrians and cyclists. The ribs are
orientated in a ladder pattern on the pedestrian side, Figure 6.14: Cycle track with sign to TSRGD diagram 955
and tramline on the cyclist side (ribs in the direction of
travel) (see Chapter 9).

6.2.36 Ladder and tramline paving can be problematic

for some users, particularly near to junctions where there
may be many potential route choices and transitions
between separate and shared facilities. Wheelchair users
may find ladder paving difficult to cross and cyclists may
need to exercise appropriate care when moving over
tactile paving and other changes in surfacing.

6.2.37 Cycle tracks and footways should be designed

to be perceived as wholly separate facilities, even if they
are at the same level and alongside one another, so that
ladder and tramline paving is not needed. Other visual
and tactile cues may be used to identify the footway and
cycle track, for example the use of contrasting paving
materials, a continuous upstand or raised strip, and
cycle symbol road markings to TSRGD diagram 1057.

Figure 6.13: Double TSRGD diagram 1057 symbols on one way stepped cycle track, Cambridge

58
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Servicing and car parking alongside 6.2.42 Kerbed island separation or light segregation
(see Figure 6.15) that provides a buffer zone of at least
cycle tracks 0.5m between cyclists and parked vehicles is
recommended to minimise risk of collision between
6.2.40 Providing a cycle track between parked cyclists and vehicle doors. A clear, level width of 2.0m is
vehicles and the footway provides a much higher level of required alongside disabled parking bays to allow users
service in terms of safety and comfort than having a to unload a wheelchair and turn within the space.
cycle lane on the offside of parking/loading areas; and
requires no additional width. 6.2.43 Where waiting and loading are restricted, the
required road markings should be provided along the
6.2.41 The introduction of cycle tracks generally kerb at the edge of the carriageway, including along
requires servicing activity to take place from the offside stepped tracks.
of the cycle tracks, including in marked bays, so that
goods can be moved across the tracks themselves.
Similarly, car parking may need to be provided alongside
the cycle track.

Figure 6.15: Inset parking bays alongside one way cycle tracks

59
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Detailed design and maintenance 6.3.4 Light segregation can be used as a temporary
feature to quickly and cost effectively create a protected
6.2.44 It is important that cycle tracks are designed to space for cycling on highways to help prove the case for
a high quality so that they provide a suitable environment a more permanent solution such as a fully-kerbed or
within which to cycle and which can be maintained. stepped cycle track. However, it should be remembered
Further details are given in Chapter 15. that without a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), the space
is not protected from motor vehicles in law.
6.2.45 Fully kerbed cycle tracks should preferably fall
from the outer edge to the inside on bends to avoid Figure 6.16: Light segregation using planters and low level
negative crossfall. Crossfall should be no more than is features, Camden
required for drainage purposes, as steep cambers can
cause instability for cycles with more than two wheels.
Recommended maximum crossfall is given in Chapter 5.

6.2.46 Stepped cycle tracks should preferably fall

towards the footway so that cyclists are not drawn
towards motor traffic. This will require drainage to be
placed at the kerb between the footway and cycle track
as well as between the cycle track and carriageway.

6.2.47 Kerb face or slot drainage is preferable to

gullies on a cycle track. If slotted gully gratings are used,
the slots should be at right angles to the cyclist’s line of
travel to avoid the risk of them catching cycle wheels.

6.2.48 Taking cyclists out of the main carriageway will

mean that authorities will need to put in place additional
means to keep the cycle track clear of debris and free of
ice during the winter (see Chapter 15).

6.3.5 Light segregation is generally used to support

6.3 Light segregation mandatory lanes for one way cycling but can also be
used to protect two-way cycle facilities. The guidance
6.3.1 Light segregation describes the use of given in Section 6.2 on the benefits and disbenefits of
intermittent physical features placed along the inside two-way tracks also applies to light segregation.
edge of a mandatory cycle lane to provide additional
protection from motor traffic. This can give a greater 6.3.6 Light segregation features are not considered
perception of safety, which is important in encouraging to be traffic signs, and therefore require no special
people to cycle. authorisation. As with other types of street furniture,
Local Authorities will need to satisfy themselves as to the
6.3.2 The relatively low cost of light segregation balance of benefits and risks. They should be used on
means that it can, in appropriate locations (see 6.1.7 the cyclist side of a mandatory cycle lane marking to
and 6.1.8), be considered as a beneficial addition to TSRGD diagram 1049B, as shown in Figure 6.17,
mandatory cycle lanes. so that the light segregation features physically enforce
the restriction on motor vehicles entering the lane.
6.3.3 A variety of features can be used, such as
traffic wands, proprietary raised features constructed
from PVC or recycled rubber, or other similar objects.
The features are intermittent to allow cyclists to enter
and leave the cycle lane as necessary, avoiding any
impact on drainage and allowing the layout to be cost
effective and flexible. Planters may also be used (see
figure 6.16) but if so, a plan should be put in place for
ongoing maintenance, as without this they are likely to
quickly become unsightly, for example due to littering.

60
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 6.17: Low level light segregation features adjacent to Figure 6.18: Local kerbed island for servicing across light
a mandatory cycle lane segregation facility

6.4 Cycle lanes

6.4.1 Cycle lanes are areas of the carriageway
reserved for the use of pedal cycles, as defined in
Schedule 1 of TSRGD. Mandatory cycle lanes are
marked with a solid line to TSRGD diagram 1049B.
Optional upright signs to TSRGD diagram 959.1 may
also be provided. Motor vehicles must not enter the lane
during its hours of operation – if no upright sign is
provided, the lane operates at all times. Advisory cycle
lanes are marked with a broken white line to TSRGD
6.3.7 Low level light segregation can present a diagram 1004 and should not be entered by other
tripping hazard to pedestrians and should not therefore vehicles unless it is unavoidable.
be used in areas where high numbers of people cross
the road, whether that is at a formal crossing place or 6.4.2 The width of cycle lanes should meet the
informally at a point of their choosing. A run of low level geometric requirements set out in Chapter 5. A 2.0m
features should begin with a vertical feature to alert road wide lane allows space for overtaking within the lane and
users to their presence, particularly motorcyclists, who is the minimum recommended width.
may lose control if they strike a light segregation feature
unexpectedly. The vertical features should be repeated 6.4.3 Cycle Lanes less than 1.5m wide should not
where light segregation is interrupted at a side road or normally be used as they will exclude the use of the
major access. Light segregation should not be used facility by larger cycles and are therefore not inclusive.
where general traffic is expected to straddle it. They can also encourage ‘close-passing’ of cyclists by
motorists, who tend to judge their road position with
6.3.8 Where regular servicing access is required reference to the nearside marking.
across light segregation, a local kerbed island may be
required – see Figure 6.18. 6.4.4 Cycle lanes are part of the carriageway,
therefore a number of factors should be considered:
6.3.9 Where space is limited, car parking bays can
be marked adjacent to the light segregation. A buffer a Cyclists are not physically protected, and it is
strip is preferred to allow for car doors to be opened important that the traffic conditions are appropriate
safely without compromising the safety of cyclists. to the presence of cyclists on the carriageway
(see Section 4.2 in Chapter 4).

a The design of cycle lanes needs to consider the

movements of both cyclists and other vehicles.

61
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

a Nearside lanes can conflict with other kerbside Advisory cycle lanes
activities such as car parking, loading and bus stops.
Designers should aim to minimise interactions with 6.4.8 Advisory lanes are marked with a broken white
moving traffic and passengers opening car doors by line to TSRGD diagram 1004 which indicates that other
using features such as inset parking and loading bays. moving vehicles should not enter unless it is
unavoidable. Cycle symbols to TSRGD diagram 1057
a Cycle lane markings cannot be used with zig-zag
can be used within the lane to reinforce its meaning.
markings at controlled crossings, but the zig-zag
markings can be placed up to 2m from the kerb to 6.4.9 Advisory lanes should only be used when
maintain space for cycling and act as the continuation limitations on the overall space available mean that
of the cycle lane – see Figure 6.19. motor vehicles will sometimes need to enter the cycle
lane. Advisory lanes are not recommended where they
Figure 6.19: Zig-zag markings placed away from the kerb
are likely to be blocked by parked vehicles.
to continue cycle lane, Greenwich

Cycle lanes at side roads

6.4.10 Cycle lanes across side road junctions ensure
continuity and help improve cycle safety. Mandatory
cycle lane markings must not be placed across a
junction mouth, but can be placed across
private accesses.

6.4.11 At these locations, mandatory cycle lanes

should be replaced by short sections of advisory lane or
road markings to TSRGD diagram 1010. Cycle symbols
to TSRGD Diagram 1057 should also be placed within
the lane at the junction mouth to raise the awareness of
drivers to the potential for cycle traffic and help prevent
encroachment by vehicles. Coloured surfacing may also
be used.

6.4.12 Increasing the cycle lane width locally at side

Mandatory cycle lanes roads as shown in Figure 6.20 can help encourage
cyclists to position themselves further from the kerb.
6.4.5 Mandatory lanes are marked with a continuous This can enable them to avoid vehicles that might be
white line to TSRGD diagram 1049B, which prohibits edging into the main road from the side road, or
driving in a cycle lane. Mandatory lanes therefore provide overtaking and then turning left across the front of the
greater legal protection than advisory lanes and are the cyclist.
preferred type of cycle lane.
6.4.13 Side road entry treatments are raised tables
6.4.6 TSRGD schedule 9 part 6 sets out the across the mouth of the side road (see Chapter 10) and
exemptions for mandatory cycle lane operation. help reduce the speeds of vehicles turning in and out of
Accordingly, a TRO is not necessary, unless exemptions the junction, further adding to the safety of cyclists.
are required beyond those included. Mandatory cycle They also bring significant benefits to pedestrians.
lanes can also operate part-time but this is not
recommended, as space for cycling should be available
at all times.

6.4.7 The mandatory cycle lane marking prevents

driving in the lane. If it is necessary to prevent parking
and loading activity, then waiting and loading restrictions
will be needed, indicated by the appropriate road
markings and signs, supported by a TRO.

62
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 6.20: Cycle Lane at side road showing optional local widening of cycle lane

Removal of centre lines Figure 6.21: Centre line removal, Norwich

6.4.14 Removing the centre line can reduce traffic

speeds,28 but the technique is not suitable for all roads.
It may be useful where narrow carriageway widths would
not otherwise enable the introduction of cycle lanes.

6.4.15 In addition to providing marked space for

cyclists, the lanes have a psychological traffic-calming
effect by visually narrowing the carriageway, further
helping to reduce speeds. An example is shown in
Figure 6.21.

6.4.16 On narrower roads, where oncoming motor

vehicles pass each other, one or both vehicles may need
to momentarily pull into their respective near-side
advisory cycle lanes, with drivers having first checked to
see the lanes are clear of cyclists. This arrangement is
only suitable on quieter roads, with a maximum two-way
motor vehicle flow of around 4,500 motor vehicles a day,
or 500 per hour at peak times. With higher volumes of
traffic there is a higher risk of conflict with cyclists, and
the benefits of the cycle lanes are lost.

6.4.17 On wider roads, the removal of the centre line

has been shown to reduce traffic speeds by up
to 3mph.29

28 Manual for Streets, Section 9.3

29 Centre-line Removal Trial, TfL, 2014

63
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Cycle lanes and waiting and loading 6.4.20 As noted in Section 6.2, it is preferable to
place a cycle track between the parking and loading
restrictions provision and the footway. This arrangement, shown in
Figure 6.15, provides greater protection for cyclists and
6.4.18 Cycle lanes are only useful when they are clear does not occupy any greater width.
of parking and loading activity – see Figure 6.22. Cycle
lanes should always be kept clear by the appropriate
use of parking and loading restrictions. This is Contraflow cycle lanes and tracks
particularly important wherever demand for kerbside
access is high, for example in town centres. 6.4.21 There should be a general presumption in
favour of cycling in both directions in one way streets,
Figure 6.22: Car Parking in cycle lane, rendering it useless unless there are safety, operational or cost reasons why
for cycling it is not feasible.

6.4.22 Cycle lanes and tracks may operate in the

opposite direction to motor traffic, although contraflow
cycling is also permissible with signs but without a
marked lane or cycle track – see Chapter 7.

6.4.23 Contraflow cycle lanes should normally be

mandatory, although an advisory lane may be
considered where the speed limit is 20mph and the
motor traffic flow is 1,000 PCU per day or less.
The entrance to the street for cyclists in the contraflow
direction should always be protected by an island to
6.4.19 Cycle lanes can be designed to continue past give protection against turning vehicles (see Figure 6.25)
parking and loading bays, provided there is a buffer zone where traffic speed and flow is higher.
of at least 0.5m width between the cycle lane and the
bay – see Figure 6.24. The resulting narrowing of the
adjacent general traffic lane should not be such as to
lead to close passing by motor vehicles. Where there are
gaps between parking or loading bays of less than 30m,
the cycle lane should not return to the kerb but should
continue in the same position in the carriageway.

Figure 6.23: Mandatory contraflow cycle lane passing loading bays with buffer

64
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Diag 1057
at 20m min
intervals

Diag 1057
1:10 taper
at 20m min
Figure 6.24: Cycle lane passing parking and loading bays
intervals

0.5m Min 0.5m Min

Diag 1057 1:10 taper
at 20m min
intervals

1:10 taper

0.5m Min
Diag 1057
at 20m min
intervals

Diag 1057
0.5m Min 0.5m Min

0.5m Min 0.5m Min

at 20m min
intervals

Diag 1057 30m MAX

at 20m min
intervals

30m MAX
0.5m Min

0.5m Min
30m MAX

Diag 1057
at 20m min
intervals
1:5 taper

Diag 1057
0.5m Min 0.5m Min

at 20m min
intervals
1:5 taper

Diag 1057
at 20m min
intervals
1:5 taper
0.5m Min

6.4.24 There may be conflicts if other road users are End markings
not aware that cycling is permitted in both directions.
This could include pedestrians crossing the street and 6.4.25 The end of a cycle lane, cycle track or route
drivers turning into and out of side roads across the should not normally be marked by the END marking
cycle track. If necessary, the conspicuity of the cycle (TSRGD diagram 1058) as the end of the facility should
lane or track may need to be increased by road be obvious. Give way markings to Diagram 1003B
markings, signs or coloured surfacing. should be avoided at the end of a cycle lane – alternative
designs should be considered.

65
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 6.25: Contraflow cycle lanes

66
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

6.5.3 White line segregation is not recommended

Figure 6.26: The END marking (TSRGD diagram 1058)
and the term ‘shared use’ within this document refers
and give way marking (TSRGD diagram 1003B) should not
normally be used.
only to facilities without any marked separation between
pedestrians and cyclists. Where cycle tracks are
provided at the same level as a pedestrian route, they
should be clearly designed and marked as cycle tracks
– see Section 6.2 and Chapter 8.

6.5.4 In urban areas, the conversion of a footway to

shared use should be regarded as a last resort. Shared
use facilities are generally not favoured by either
pedestrians or cyclists, particularly when flows are high.
It can create particular difficulties for visually impaired
people. Actual conflict may be rare, but the interactions
between people moving at different speeds can be
perceived to be unsafe and inaccessible, particularly by
vulnerable pedestrians. This adversely affects the
comfort of both types of user, as well as directness

6.5 Shared use for the cyclist.

6.5.5 Where a shared use facility is being

6.5.1 For the purpose of this document shared use considered, early engagement with relevant interested
is defined as a route or surface which is available for use parties should be undertaken, particularly those
by both pedestrians and cyclists. Within the highway, representing disabled people, and pedestrians and
it is normally created by converting the footway using cyclists generally. Engaging with such groups is an
the power in Section 65 of the Highways Act 1980 important step towards the scheme meeting the
(see Appendix C). The issues around separating authority’s Public Sector Equality Duty.
pedestrians and cyclists on off-highway routes are
discussed in Chapter 8, section 8.2. 6.5.6 Shared use may be appropriate in some
situations, if well-designed and implemented. Some are
6.5.2 The term ‘shared use’ has been used to listed below:
describe both unsegregated and segregated routes, the
latter typically being achieved with a white line marking a Alongside interurban and arterial roads where there
to TSRGD diagram 1049B to separate pedestrians and are few pedestrians;
cyclists. This form of separation is not well observed,
a At and around junctions where cyclists are generally
and pedestrians walking on or crossing the cycle side
moving at a slow speed (see Figure 6.27), including in
can encounter greater conflict than with unsegregated
association with Toucan facilities;
facilities due to the increased cycling speeds that can
result from the designation. a In situations where a length of shared use may be
acceptable to achieve continuity of a cycle route; and

Figure 6.27: Large shared use area at Hyde Park Corner, showing how high levels of cyclist and pedestrian use occur at
different times.

67
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

a In situations where high cycle and high pedestrian 6.6.2 Where cyclists are using bus lanes, the lane
flows occur at different times (also see Figure 6.27). should be at least 4m wide, and preferably 4.5m,
to enable buses to pass cyclists with sufficient room.
6.5.7 Recommended minimum widths of shared use Bus lanes less than 4m in width are not recommended
routes carrying up to 300 pedestrians per hour are given and widths between 3.2m and 3.9m wide should not
in Table 6-3. Wherever possible, and where pedestrian be used.
flows are higher, greater widths should be used to
reduce conflict. 6.6.3 Cycle lanes or protected space for cycling may
be provided within or adjacent to bus lanes where the
Table 6-3: Recommended minimum widths for overall width available is 4.5m or more – see Figure 6.28.
shared use routes carrying up to 300 pedestrians At bus stops a bus stop bypass or bus boarder
per hour arrangement may be appropriate (see 6.6.7).

Cycle flows Minimum width Figure 6.28: Cycle lane within bus lane, Brighton

Up to 300 cyclists per hour 3.0m

Over 300 cyclists per hour 4.5m

6.5.8 Designers should be realistic about cyclists

wanting to make adequate progress. The preferred
approach for shared use routes is therefore to provide
sufficient space so that cyclists can comfortably
overtake groups of pedestrians and slower cyclists.

6.5.9 Research shows that cyclists alter their

behaviour according to the density of pedestrians –
as pedestrian flows rise, cyclists tend to ride more slowly
and where they become very high cyclists typically
dismount.30 It should therefore rarely be necessary to
provide physical calming features to slow cyclists down
on shared use routes, but further guidance on this, and
reducing conflict more generally, is given in Chapter 8,
section 8.2.

Bus gates and bus-only roads

6.6 Cycling on bus and 6.6.4 Bus gates are used to control routes and
tram routes access to bus-only roads by preventing access by
general traffic. Nearside bus gates and bus-only roads
should by default be accessible by cyclists.
Bus lanes
6.6.5 Bus gates may be implemented through the
6.6.1 Cyclists are usually permitted to use with-flow use of rising bollards, traffic signals or simply traffic
and contraflow bus lanes. Whilst not specifically a cycle signs. Where bus activated signals are used without a
facility, bus lanes can offer some degree of segregation cycle bypass, it will be necessary to provide a means for
for cyclists as they significantly reduce the amount of cyclists to activate the signals. This may be achieved by
interaction with motor traffic. However, they do not a suitable means of detection or a pushbutton unit for
provide an environment attractive to a wide range of cyclists to operate. Care should be taken to ensure
people and should therefore not be regarded as push-buttons can be reached by cyclists who cannot
inclusive. Some bus lanes also allow taxis and dismount, including from a recumbent position.
motorcycles to use them, which can significantly
increase traffic flows, thereby acting as a deterrent to
cycling while also increasing risk of conflict.

30 Davies DG et al. (2003) Cycling in Vehicle Restricted Areas: TRL583

68
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Bus and tram stops severance for pedestrians, which will need to be
managed through the application of the design principles
6.6.6 Bus routes, and to a lesser extent tram routes, set out below and through early engagement with
are generally implemented on highways where motor relevant groups.
traffic speeds and flows are relatively high and therefore
6.6.9 The cycle track is typically at carriageway level,
on routes where protected space for cycling or cycle
although it should be raised to footway level at the
lanes are justified. Cyclists therefore need a means of
pedestrian crossing points so that cycle speed is
passing stationary buses and trams without having to
reduced at these points of potential conflict.
come into conflict with faster vehicles on the
carriageway. Removing cyclists from the carriageway 6.6.10 The island between the cycle track and the
to pass to the nearside of the bus introduces potential carriageway needs to be wide enough for people to
interactions with pedestrians who need to cross the path stand and wait for a bus and to site a shelter if one is to
of cyclists. be provided. The island should be a minimum of 2.5m
wide, which will accommodate parents and buggies,
6.6.7 Separation from the carriageway can be
visually impaired people with a guide dog or a person
achieved through the provision of a bus stop bypass,
using a wheelchair to allow a bus wheelchair ramp to
or bus stop boarder. However, bus stop boarders
be deployed.
incorporate areas of shared use, which can be difficult
for some groups, particularly visually impaired people, to 6.6.11 Pedestrian crossing points should be
navigate. If a bus stop bypass or boarder is being controlled if cycle traffic speed and flow are high.
considered, it is essential that early engagement with Where a bus/tram stop bypass is being considered,
visually impaired people is undertaken. early engagement with relevant interested parties
should be undertaken, particularly those representing
Bus stop bypass disabled people, and pedestrians and cyclists generally.
Engaging with such groups is an important step towards
6.6.8 With a bus stop bypass, a cycle track is taken the scheme meeting the authority’s Public Sector
around the rear of the stop – see Figures 6.29 and 6.30. Equality Duty.
This design has the potential to introduce conflict and

Figure 6.29: Bus stop bypass, London

69
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 6.30: Bus stop bypass layout

Bus stop boarder engagement with relevant interested parties should be

undertaken, including those representing disabled
6.6.12 At a bus stop boarder, cyclists are brought up people, and pedestrians and cyclists generally.
onto a footway-level cycle track which passes between Engaging with such groups is an important step towards
the footway and the edge of the carriageway – see the scheme meeting the authority’s Public Sector
Figure 6.31. This technique is not common, and Equality Duty.
research is ongoing into the impacts.
6.6.15 Good intervisibility is required between
6.6.13 If space permits, a contrasting buffer area can pedestrians (those waiting for a service as well as those
be provided between the cycle track and the kerbline passing) and cyclists. This minimises the potential for
which bus passengers can board from and alight onto. conflict and the stop should be apparent to cyclists, who
To help minimise conflict, the area should have a width will need to be able to adjust their behaviour and speed,
of 1.5m to 2.0m with a further footway width of 2.0m to particularly when a bus is at the stop. The use of
3.0m behind the bus stop. contrasting materials for the footway and cycle track,
both in colour and texture, is useful to highlight the
6.6.14 Bus stop boarders introduce an area of shared difference between the two, to both pedestrians
use directly at the point where people board and alight and cyclists.
the bus. Because of the potential for conflict this brings
between pedestrians and cyclists, this layout is best
suited to bus and tram stops with less frequent services
and lower passenger and pedestrian volumes. Where a
bus/tram stop boarder is being considered, early

70
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 6.31: Bus stop boarder at quiet suburban bus stop, 6.6.18 It is therefore important that tram systems
Oxford provide suitable routes and space for cyclists that are
separated from the tram tracks. Where cycle routes
cross the tracks, they should ideally be perpendicular,
or at least 60 degrees to the rails. An absolute minimum
of 45 degrees may be considered.

6.6.19 Any cycle routes separate from the tram tracks

should also be as direct as possible, both in terms of
distance and time, to provide an alternative to remaining
on the tram route.

6.7 Coloured surfacing

6.7.1 Coloured surfaces for cycle facilities are not
prescribed by TSRGD and have no legal meaning.
There is no obligation to use them and they may result
Interaction with tram tracks in increased maintenance costs. They are included here
because they can be useful for emphasising cycle lane
6.6.16 Tram tracks can pose a severe safety problem markings and to help remind motorists that the surface
to cyclists using the carriageway. There are two principal is either primarily or exclusively for the use of cyclists.
types of incident: They can also help cyclists to follow a route or position
themselves in the appropriate part of a carriageway, to
a Skidding of cycle tyres on the smooth surface of the
remind pedestrians and motorists to look out for cyclists
tram track, particularly during wet conditions; and
at conflict points, help cyclists to follow a route or
a Cycle tyres becoming trapped in the rail grooves. position themselves in the carriageway. Coloured
surfaces have little or no effect at night.
6.6.17 Either of these situations can occur quickly
and unexpectedly. Rule 306 of the Highway Code 6.7.2 Where they are applied as an overlay over
recommends that cyclists take particular care when standard asphalt coloured surfaces can be visually
crossing tram tracks at a shallow angle, on bends and intrusive and lose their highlighting effect where
at junctions to minimise the risk of a wheel skidding on needed most. For best effect coloured overlays should
or falling into the track. Bear in mind that this may be be used sparingly.
difficult for cyclists where they are also required to
concentrate on motor traffic around them.

Figure 6.32: Bus stop boarder layout

71
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 6.33: Red pigmented asphalt is used for all cycle 6.7.4 Coloured surfacing may be useful in the
routes in Cambridgeshire following situations:

a Cycle lanes across the mouth of junctions;

a Routes through complex junctions;

a Cycle lanes alongside on-street car parking

(in addition to the buffer strip); and

a Advanced stop line reservoirs and their feeder lanes,

particularly central feeders

6.7.5 Some authorities have adopted a policy of

using coloured asphalt with a pigmented binder for all
cycle routes, which brings a consistency of approach
and helps to make cycle routes more legible to all road
users (see Figure 6.33). Using coloured materials in bulk
will tend to make them more affordable.
6.7.3 Overlay materials should be specified and laid 6.7.6 The choice of colour is a matter for the local
with care as they can result in a poor-quality riding highway authority but, in the interests of consistency and
surface, particularly if they are poorly maintained. simplifying maintenance, a single colour should be used
Compared with road markings, the durability of such a for cycle infrastructure within a highway authority’s area.
surface can be poor, and will vary depending on the Green and red surfaces are most commonly used.
materials, colour and the method of application.
This needs to be taken into account when deciding if
coloured surfaces are necessary, as they add to the
costs of maintenance. Any coloured surfacing material
should provide adequate skid resistance.

72
 7
Quiet
mixed traffic
streets and lanes

On existing streets where the principal function is access to local properties,

and on rural lanes where traffic flows are light, there is less need for separate
cycle facilities. Achieving lower traffic flows or speeds might require physical
and legal measures to control access and motor vehicle speeds. As well as
enabling cycling, such measures can bring wider environmental benefits by
reducing noise, air pollution and traffic danger. In urban areas the measures
may include Home Zones and Vehicle Restricted Areas. In rural areas,
Quiet Lanes designation can help drivers to anticipate the presence of
cyclists, walkers and equestrians within the carriageway.
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

7.1 Introduction impacts on the wider community. The findings can then
be used to modify the scheme as necessary.

7.1.1 Where motor traffic flows are light and

speeds are low, cyclists are likely to be able to cycle
on-carriageway in mixed traffic, as shown in Figure 4.1.
7.2 Spatial considerations
Most people, especially with younger children, will not
feel comfortable on-carriageways with more than 2,500 Primary and secondary riding
vehicles per day and speeds of more than 20 mph.
These values should be regarded as desirable upper positions
limits for inclusive cycling within the carriageway.
7.2.1 In normal traffic conditions, cyclists using the
7.1.2 Traffic calming and traffic management carriageway are advised to ride approximately 0.5m from
techniques can be used to help reduce motor vehicle the nearside kerb, to enable them to avoid gully grates.
speed and volume to make cycling in mixed traffic less This is known as the secondary position. On narrower
hazardous and more comfortable. Crossings and streets, on the approaches to side roads and in other
junction treatments for cyclists at major roads can circumstances where it is unlikely that a motorist could
then help connect local networks of quieter streets. overtake safely, cyclists are advised to adopt a primary
An important element of such streets and lanes is the position in the centre of the traffic lane, as shown in
removal of non-local through-traffic to reinforce the Figure 7.2.
primary function of local access, sometimes called
‘mode filtering’ such as the example in Figure 7.1. 7.2.2 The primary position makes cyclists more
visible to motorists approaching from behind. It enables
7.1.3 This Chapter also covers single track rural lanes the motorist to appreciate that it will be necessary either
which may have higher speed limits but where the daily to cross the centre line to overtake or wait behind until
traffic flow is typically much less than 2,500 vehicles per there is sufficient space. Many people, particularly
day. The requirement for formal Quiet Lanes designation children, will only feel comfortable adopting the primary
is fewer than 1000 vehicles per day (see paragraph 7.5.3). position where the speed and volume of motor traffic is
There is large variation in motor traffic speed, volume and very low. Similarly, car drivers are more likely to accept
in the geometry of rural lanes, so any design interventions short delays on quiet streets where they are not
need to be specific to the local context. perceived to be delaying other motor traffic.

7.1.4 Most cycling on these types of streets and 7.2.3 Mixed traffic streets should therefore aim to
lanes takes place without any special infrastructure for offer conditions where most people would feel confident
cycling. This chapter assumes that the techniques and comfortable enough to use the primary position
described will mainly be applied where providing when necessary. An overtaking clearance of 1.5m is
separate space for cycling is not viable due to spatial preferred in free-flowing traffic, and a 1.0m clearance is
constraints. In some places such as village centres acceptable on roads with a 20mph limit (see Table 7-1).
where alternative routes are not available, it may be
difficult to reduce traffic volumes to the level given in Table 7-1: Minimum overtaking clearances
Para 7.1.1. At flows of above 5000 vehicles per day few (measured from outside of cyclist’s kinetic
people will be prepared to cycle on-street, however. envelope)

7.1.5 Area-wide treatments, such as the Liveable Minimum overtaking

Neighbourhood and Mini-Holland schemes in London, clearances (m)
might be trialled with temporary modal filters, and Desirable Absolute
supportive community events to help establish the Speed limit minimum minimum
scheme and to monitor the potential impact on traffic
levels and movements. Trials should generally last for at 20 mph 1.5 1.0
least a few weeks to give the scheme time to settle in as 30 mph 1.5 1.5
there will always be some uncertainty during the first few
days until people become aware of any new restrictions
and alter their behaviour. 7.2.4 Close overtaking can be intimidating and
hazardous to cyclists in free-flowing traffic. Only at speeds
7.1.6 It is important to use any trials to monitor actual lower than 30mph might a minimum clearance of 1.0m be
behaviours and impacts accurately. Trial periods can acceptable. No values are given for speed limits greater
provide the opportunity for supporters and opponents to than 30mph because cyclists should be provided with
publicise their views of the temporary changes and the protected space away from motor traffic (see Figure 4.1).

74
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 7.1: Simple modal filters can reduce through traffic while retaining cycle and pedestrian access. The central position
enables kerbside car parking to be provided without blocking the facility, and the lockable bollard enables emergency access,
Haringey.

75
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 7.2: Primary and secondary riding positions

Carriageway and lane widths Figure 4.1 in Chapter 4 which advises on when it is
necessary to separate cyclists from motor traffic.
7.2.5 UK practice has generally adopted a standard Additional width may be required at sharp bends and at
lane width of 3.65m, which gives a standard single junctions to accommodate turning and larger vehicles.
carriageway of 7.3m. However, this width can be
7.2.7 A highway typically includes several other
unsatisfactory for cycling in mixed traffic as it does
features (shown in Table 7-3) that may reduce the space
not include any allowance for cycle facilities on the
available for cycling. Providing sufficient width for these
carriageway and the lane widths are unsatisfactory. Lanes
other functions will help to prevent cyclists coming into
between 3.2m and 3.9m wide allow motor vehicles to
conflict with other road users.
drive alongside a cyclist without crossing the centre
line, but without any safety margin for the comfort and
protection of cyclists. This will potentially lead to close Critical widths at pinch points
overtaking behaviour that may endanger the cyclist.
7.2.8 The National Cycle Training Standards
7.2.6 For locations where on-carriageway cycling is recommend that cyclists ride away from the edge of the
appropriate, Table 7-2 sets out minimum acceptable carriageway to avoid gulleys and to make themselves
lane widths. This should be viewed in conjunction with visible to other carriageway users.

Table 7-2: Minimum acceptable lane widths*

Desirable Absolute
Feature minimum minimum Notes

Traffic lane (cars only, speed limit 3.0m 2.75m 2.5m only at offside queuing lanes where there
20/30mph) is an adjacent flared lane

Traffic lane (bus route or >8% HGVs, 3.2m 3.0m Lane widths of between 3.2m and 3.9m are not
or speed limit 40mph) acceptable for cycling in mixed traffic.

2-way traffic lane (no centre line) 5.5m 4.0m 4.0m width only where AADT flow <4000
between advisory cycle lanes vehicles** and/or peak hour <500 vehicles with
minimal HGV/Bus traffic.

* these lane widths assume traffic is free to cross the centre line, see 7.2.9 for details on critical widths at pinch points
** While centre line removal is still feasible with higher flows, the frequency at which oncoming vehicles must enter the cycle
lane to pass one another can make the facility uncomfortable for cycling.

76
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Table 7-3: Minimum widths of other carriageway features*

Feature Preferred Minimum Notes

Bus lane shared with cyclists 4.5m 3.2m Avoid widths of between 3.1m and 3.9m to
deter close overtaking, especially at pinch
points such as central refuges (see 7.2.9)

Bus lane where off-peak parking is 4.5m 4.5m Allows 1.5m space alongside parked cars.
permitted

Buffer zones and verges (kerb >0.5m 0.5m Increased separation required where traffic
segregation feature, hatched area speeds and volumes are greatest.
where cycle facility adjacent to parking
bays, verge between cycle track and
carriageway with 40mph+ speed limit,
separation from adjacent footway)

Car parking bay 2.0m 1.8m Allow 0.5m buffer to any cycle lane

Disabled parking bay >2.7m 2.7m Allow 0.5m buffer to any cycle lane

Loading bay 2.7m 1.8m Allow 0.5m buffer to any cycle lane.

*Separation strip should be at least 0.5m alongside kerbside parking and 1.5m where wheelchair access is required.

7.2.9 Chicanes and pinch-points should be Encouraging through traffic to use main roads can
designed in such a way that cyclists are neither provide benefits for pedestrians and residents,
squeezed nor intimidated by motor vehicles trying to particularly children and vulnerable adults, as well as
overtake. The preferred option is to provide a bypass enabling cycling. This can be achieved through
or alternatively sufficient lane width (more than 3.9m) implementing measures such as turning bans and one
so that the cyclist can remain in the secondary position way streets, and by mode filtering (see paragraph 7.1.5).
and be overtaken safely. Where the lane or cycle bypass These measures also have the benefit of making short
is bounded by fixed objects such as full height kerbs, the journeys quicker on foot or cycle compared to driving,
additional widths given in Table 5-3 should be provided. providing a disincentive to using a car for short trips.
Care should be taken that traffic management measures
7.2.10 When width is insufficient for a bypass, the do not exclude disabled people. Good quality inclusive
carriageway width is restricted to prevent overtaking. walking environments should be provided throughout, as
This will not be desirable over long lengths unless motor set out in Inclusive mobility.31 Access and car parking for
traffic volumes are also very low, as cyclists will feel blue badge holders should be retained for these areas.
intimidated by vehicles waiting to overtake. Gaps Disabled cyclists who cannot dismount and walk their
between kerbs (or kerb and solid white centre line) cycles will need to be allowed access.
should be a maximum of 3.2m. As noted above,
widths between 3.2m and 3.9m may encourage close 7.3.2 Traffic management measures available to help
overtaking by motor traffic at pinch points and should reduce motor traffic on-streets used by cyclists include
not be used. the following:

a Mode filtering through Traffic Regulation Order (TRO)

7.3 Reducing use by exemptions

motor traffic a Vehicle restricted areas (including HGV bans);

a Bus gates and other modal filters;

7.3.1 Reducing traffic flow to enable cycling in mixed
traffic streets can be achieved through a range of a Turning bans (with exemptions for cyclists);
measures involving area-wide treatments across a
neighbourhood, usually with enhancements to the a One way streets (with two-way cycle access); and,
appearance of key streets as illustrated in Figure 7.3.
a Time based restrictions to access or kerbside parking.

31 Inclusive mobility, DfT, 2005

77
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 7.3: Landscaped quiet street environment achieved through traffic management measures

Mode filtering through exemptions Figure 7.4: Contraflow cycling in a narrow street with no
to TROs for cycling marked lane, Brighton

7.3.3 An assessment should be undertaken to

review whether cyclists can be safely exempted from
turning bans, No Entry and one way restrictions and be
permitted access to vehicle restricted areas either at all
times or within peak hours.

7.3.4 Permitting contraflow cycling in one way

streets and using point-closures to close certain streets
to motor vehicle through traffic will generally provide a
more direct route for cyclists and should always be
considered. On quiet low speed streets, there may
be no need for a cycle lane (see Figure 7.4 and
Section 6.4), enabling cyclists to use narrow streets in
both directions. Where there is good visibility cyclists
and on-coming drivers should be able to negotiate
passage safely. Contraflow cycling should be signed in
accordance with the advice in the Traffic Signs Manual.

7.3.5 Where speed is low in urban areas, contraflow Traffic reduction through control of
cycling without a dedicated cycle lane has been found to car parking
be successful even on narrow streets with on-street car
parking. The following minimum carriageway widths are 7.3.6 Cycling is generally supported by other
recommended: sustainable transport measures. The control of car
parking through charges, limiting capacity or duration of
a 2.6m with no car parking stay can be an important element in reducing private car
traffic in central and other urban areas. Ensuring there is
a 3.9m based on car passing cycle, no car parking sufficient high-quality cycle parking also helps. Parking
control can also be used to support workplace travel
a 4.6m with car parking on one side of the road
plans or to protect residential areas from excessive traffic
a 6.6m with car parking on both sides of the road by removing long-stay commuter parking. Removal of
on-street car parking spaces may enable space within
the highway to be provided to pedestrians and cyclists.

78
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

7.4 Cycling in vehicle and 8. Where cycling is permitted, most cyclists

will usually dismount when pedestrian numbers are
restricted areas (VRAs) greatest.32 Cycle parking should be provided at regular
intervals within the zone (Figure 7.6).
7.4.1 Vehicle Restricted Areas are used in many Figure 7.6: Vehicle restricted area with cycle access and
towns and cities. Pedestrian Zones or Pedestrian and parking facilities, Norwich
Cycle Zones are indicated by appropriate traffic signs
(Figure 7.5). These zones often form hubs for radial
routes to shops, services and employment. Restricting
vehicular access in these areas can sever routes for
cyclists unless they are exempted from the restrictions.
VRAs signed to TSRGD diagram 619 (‘No motor
vehicles’) allow access by cyclists, including those using
e-bikes, while zones signed with the ‘no vehicles’ sign to
TSRGD diagram 617 prohibit all vehicular traffic,
including cyclists, from entering.

Figure 7.5: Entrance signs to VRAs

7.4.4 Experimental TROs can be used to permit

cycling on a temporary basis (usually 6 to 12 months)
and performance monitored. The temporary order is
reviewed at the end of the period prior to the decision to
make it permanent or not. Cycling may also be restricted
to certain hours, indicated by appropriate signs. As part
of this process early engagement with relevant interested
parties should be undertaken, including those
representing disabled people, and pedestrians and
cyclists generally. Engaging with such groups is an
important step towards the scheme meeting the
authority’s Public Sector Equality Duty.

7.4.5 Pedestrian and cyclist flows, street widths,

7.4.2 VRAs are often important destinations for the availability and safety of alternative cycle routes
access to shops and services by cyclists, and for and the demand for cycling through the area should be
through-cycle traffic. A high street is usually the most considered when deciding whether including cyclists
direct route across a town centre. Requiring cyclists to in the restrictions is justified. Where they are judged
travel longer distances via routes around the zone, necessary on safety grounds, restrictions on cycling may
possibly on heavily trafficked roads, will tend to suppress only be appropriate at certain times of day. For example,
cycle trips and reduce cycle safety. permitting cycling before 10am and after 4pm may enable
commuter cycling, while avoiding the busiest periods of
7.4.3 There should always be a preference for pedestrian activity. Cycling should not be restricted during
allowing cyclists to access VRAs unless there is good any times when motor vehicles are permitted.
evidence that this would cause significant safety
problems. However, the possible impacts on 7.4.6 Both pedestrians and cyclists may express a
pedestrians, and disabled people particularly, must preference for clearly-defined cycle routes. However, this
be considered carefully. Visually impaired people, can lead to higher cycle speed and greater potential for
in particular, may not feel comfortable sharing a conflict with pedestrians. Careful urban design can help
pedestrianised area with cyclists – see Chapters 6 to create an attractive and functional environment in

32 TRL Report 583 – Cycling in Vehicle Restricted Areas (2003)

79
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

which cycle speed is low and pedestrians clearly have on rural lanes where actual speeds are under 40mph,
priority. The positioning of features such as trees and and motor traffic volumes are less than 1,000 per day.
benches and the use of surfacing materials can suggest The intention is to indicate to road users that the whole
a preferred route for cyclists. This approach can help surface of a lane is likely to be used by pedestrians,
keep cyclists away from areas where pedestrians are equestrians and cyclists as well as motorised traffic.
likely to be moving across their path, such as near shop DfT Circular 02/2006 gives information about the
doorways, seating areas and children’s play areas. Street process and recommended criteria for creating a
furniture within VRAs should not compromise visibility to Home Zone or Quiet Lane.
the extent that it becomes hazardous for pedestrians
and cyclists. 7.5.4 Some major highways include service roads
on one or both sides which provide direct access to
dwellings or other types of development while through
7.5 Home zones, quiet traffic uses the main carriageway. Such streets are
sometimes described as ‘boulevards’ (see Manual
lanes and other mixed for Streets 2).34 The service roads can provide good
conditions for cycling as long as they meet the basic
use streets criteria for traffic volume and speed set out in Figure 4.1
and there is good continuity for cyclists at the start and
7.5.1 The design of new residential access streets end of the links and at any intermediate junctions.
and redesign of existing streets can create very low
speed environments which enable cycling without the
need for specific measures (see Figure 7.7). Such streets 7.6 Reducing motor
are mainly used by local residents, their visitors and
deliveries and servicing traffic. There is therefore no need traffic speed
to provide geometry that accommodates higher
vehicle speed.
Lower speed limits
7.5.2 Streets can be made attractive with hard and
soft landscaping that reinforces the traffic-calming effect 7.6.1 20mph is being more widely adopted as an
of the geometrical layout. Home Zones can be formally appropriate speed limit for access roads and many
designated and signed as prescribed in the Home Zones through streets in built-up areas, with 30mph limits
and Quiet Lanes (England) Regulations 2006, although the retained on locally strategic roads. However, changes to
principles can be more widely applied on other residential the speed limit will have a limited impact unless there is
streets, as described in the Manual for Streets.33 enforcement or physical measures that make it difficult
to drive above the speed limit. Gateway features can be
7.5.3 Quiet Lanes designation was introduced at used to visually reinforce changes to speed limits at
the same time as Home Zones, and may be appropriate entry points to villages and high streets.

Figure 7.7: Cycle route in home zone, Chester

33 Manual for Streets, DfT, 2007

34 Manual for Streets 2, CIHT, 2010

80
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 7.8: Sinusoidal Ramps (Hump may be round or flat-top)

Traffic calming measures and 7.6.4 Cycle bypasses should be provided alongside
horizontal measures such as chicanes or narrowings;
cycling the gap should be at least 1.5m wide to accommodate
all types of cycle and to allow access by sweeping
7.6.2 Physical traffic calming measures can be machinery. Where debris is likely to collect in the bypass
horizontal (road narrowing or chicanes) or vertical (speed at carriageway level, an alternative is to ramp up the
humps, speed tables and speed cushions). Reallocation cycle lane across the top of the buildout (see Figure 7.3).
of road space through narrowing the carriageway to The bypass should be arranged so that cyclists
provide cycle lanes, cycle parking or wider footways can re-entering the carriageway are protected and not
also help reduce traffic speed. Advice on designing placed in conflict with passing vehicles.
traffic calming measures is given in Local Transport Note
1/07: Traffic Calming. 7.6.5 Vertical deflection features: Sinusoidal
ramps have a smooth transition profile on both sides
7.6.3 Road narrowing and horizontal deflection: of the hump as shown in Figure 7.8. They are more
Section 7.2 sets out recommended widths at road comfortable for cyclists and should normally be
narrowings to enable cyclists to adopt the primary or used where on-carriageway cycling is anticipated.
secondary positions safely. Kerb build outs may be used Any difficulties in achieving the sinusoidal profile may
to protect car parking bays or to provide areas for cycle be overcome by using preformed sections. These are
parking stands. They should have a tapered approach to particularly useful for approaches to flat-topped humps
reduce the risk of cyclists moving suddenly into the path and speed tables. The profile of precast products
of following vehicles. The placement of parking bays, should be checked to ensure it conforms to current
bus stops and other built-out features can be used to regulations.
create chicanes and deflections in straight sections of
carriageway to help reduce speed.

Figure 7.9: Trial site in Bristol to provide smoother surface, and similar application in Bruges with setts in a different colour
from the adjacent traffic lane.

81
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

7.6.6 Flat-topped road humps can be used as 7.6.10 Side Road Kerb Radius: Tight kerb radii at
pedestrian crossings (formal or otherwise). The side roads will help to reinforce lower speeds for turning
requirements for road humps are contained in the vehicles and offer a better crossing environment for
relevant regulations.35 pedestrians and should be used more widely (see Figure
7.10). Side Road Entry Treatments (raised tables across
7.6.7 A separate cycle bypass allows the hump to the junction mouth) will also help. Research carried out in
be avoided altogether (with 1.5m spacing between any London36 found that such treatments have significant
kerbs). Where cyclists have no choice but to travel over safety benefits, with a 51% reduction in cyclist collisions
humps, care should be taken to ensure that the where they were installed.
transition from road to hump has no upstand.

7.6.8 Speed cushions are a form of road hump and

are therefore subject to The Highways (Road Hump) 7.7 Kerbside activity
Regulations 1999. The dimensions allow wide tracked
vehicles such as buses, ambulances and HGVs to 7.7.1 Kerbside vehicle parking or loading can be
straddle them. Cushions are not a preferred form of hazardous for cyclists because of the risk of vehicle
traffic calming on cycle routes because they constrain doors being opened into their path, or conflicts where
the ability of cyclists to choose their preferred position in cyclists must leave the secondary position to pass
the carriageway and are particularly hazardous to riders stationary vehicles.
of three wheeled cycles.
7.7.2 Raised inset bays can be helpful in offering a
7.6.9 Surface Treatments: Textured surfaces such smooth kerbline along the carriageway of mixed traffic
as block paving and setts can help reinforce speed streets which is easier for cycling. When not in use the
reduction. They provide a visual and audible reminder area offers additional space for pedestrians. Guidance
that the section of carriageway is a low speed on the design of cycle lanes adjacent to car parking is
environment. Because these can create high levels of given in Chapter 6.
discomfort, in particular for disabled cyclists, older and
younger cyclists, they should be used sparingly. Overrun 7.7.3 The arrangement of parking or bus stops into
areas can be used around junctions to help visually bays on alternate sides of the road can also help to
narrow the entrance to the junction while maintaining create a ‘chicane’ effect that can help reduce traffic
access for larger vehicles. speeds (see Figure 7.11). Removal of centre lines
alongside parking bays can help discourage close
overtaking.
Figure 7.10: Tight kerb radii at residential side street

Figure 7.11: Inset loading bay ensures that carriageway

remains ‘narrow’ to reinforce low speeds and provides
space for pedestrians.

35 The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999, for England and Wales, and The Road Humps Regulations (Northern
Ireland) 1999. In Scotland The Roads (Traffic Calming) (Scotland) Regulations 1994, The Road Humps (Scotland)
Regulations 1998, The Road Humps and Traffic Calming (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1999 and The Road Humps
and Traffic Calming (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002
36 TRL (2006): Effect of Side Raised Entry Treatments on Road Safety in London

82
 8
Motor
traffic free
routes

Motor traffic free routes away from the highway can form important links
for everyday trips. They are attractive to those who prefer to avoid motor
traffic. To achieve their full potential, off-highway routes need to be designed
and maintained to a high level of quality, particularly in terms of surfacing,
accessibility and lighting. They also need to be well maintained and kept free
of leaf debris, ice and snow in winter. It may be appropriate to design them
as shared use paths, with an expectation that all users will take care, but
in some situations such as busier commuter routes it will be preferable to
provide separation between pedestrians and cyclists.
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

8.1 Introduction a For year-round utility cycling, a sealed surface is

necessary (see Figure 8.1), and street lighting should
be provided. Where the purpose of the route is
8.1.1 This chapter provides guidance on the design primarily for leisure trips, typically in rural areas, these
of motor traffic free routes away from highways. These features may be less important. However, loose gravel
include routes on disused railway lines, through parks surfaces can be difficult or inaccessible for people in
and public open space, on canal and riverside towpaths, wheelchairs and some types of adapted cycle.
and public rights of way.

8.1.2 Some key design considerations are

listed below: 8.2 Managing user
a With suitable widths and surface materials, off- conflict
highway routes can provide a high level of service
for utility cycling. They can be attractive to people 8.2.1 The potential conflict between pedestrians
who may be unwilling or unable to mix with motor and cyclists is often a concern when designing routes
traffic and can form essential links within the cycling away from highways. Although there are few recorded
network. Guidance on width requirements for collisions between pedestrians and cyclists on shared
cycle routes is given in Chapter 5 and on surfacing use paths, the fact that the two user groups travel at
materials in Chapter 15. different speeds and sometimes in different directions,
can affect the level of comfort of both groups. It is
a Off-highway routes should be integrated with the a particular concern for visually impaired people.
wider network, with clear signing to and from adjacent Reference should also be made to Section 6.5 of
areas, and properly constructed links between the off- Chapter 6 when unsegregated off-highway routes are
road sections and the adjacent highways. Canal and being considered.
former rail corridors sometimes bypass central areas
and other attractors, so it is important to provide clear 8.2.2 Providing sufficient width for the anticipated
waymarking for orientation at access points. levels of use will help minimise the risk of conflict
between different user groups. Existing heritage features
a On some routes access points may be far apart, and such as canal towpaths should not be excluded from a
the alignment may be separated by level from its network solely due to width or headroom restrictions,
surroundings. This may lead to anti-social behaviour, unless there are serious safety concerns.
crime and/or the fear of crime. Achieving a good
level of social safety should be considered in the 8.2.3 Where space and budget allows, the most
design process. effective way to minimise conflict and increase comfort is
to provide separate routes for walking and cycling. This
technique is commonly used on Forestry Commission
Figure 8.1: Resin bonded aggregate surfacing on widened
land and country parks to separate mountain bikers
towpath, Birmingham
and walkers. It is also used alongside some main roads
where the footway and cycle tracks are separated by a
grass verge or hedge. Recommended widths are set out
in Chapter 5.

8.2.4 Where there is insufficient space to separate

the pedestrian and cycle paths, a level difference
(preferably 60mm or more) and/or different surface
texture should be used to clearly indicate separate
surfaces intended for either cycle or pedestrian use,
as discussed in Section 6.2.

8.2.5 Where the surface is fully level, a raised strip

(trapezoidal in cross section), or some other textured
material should be used. The white line road marking to
TSRGD diagram 1049B or 1049.1 may be less easily
detected by visually impaired people and is unlikely to
provide sufficient separation.

84
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

8.2.6 As with cycle tracks adjacent to footways, be distinguished by its appearance. Many users will be
it may be necessary to use ribbed (tramline/ladder) unaware of whether cycling is permitted on different
tactile paving to indicate which parts of a route are for types of path or on access land. Symbols can be used
pedestrians and for cyclists. Advice is given in Guidance on signs (see Figure 8.2) to help clarify which routes are
on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces.37 available to cyclists.

8.2.7 Where routes intersect with the highway and 8.2.11 It may be necessary to encourage cyclists
cross other footways, such as the approach to a toucan to slow at certain points, such as the access to cycle
crossing, short sections of route that are fully shared tracks, areas of high localised pedestrian activity, steep
between pedestrians and cyclists are often the simplest gradients and locations where there is the potential for
way to accommodate all movements. conflict such as junctions and the entrances to subways
and bridges, particularly if visibility is constrained.
8.2.8 A fully shared surface is preferable to creating
sub-standard widths for both pedestrians and cyclists 8.2.12 Measures can be used to reduce cycle speed
where the available width is 3.0m or less. This allows which are broadly similar to those used for motor traffic,
users to walk or cycle side by side and negotiate the albeit at reduced scale, including horizontal deflection,
space when passing. Guidance on the number of users sinusoidal speed humps and thermoplastic rumble strips.
that can be accommodated on shared use routes is These traffic calming devices will inevitably also introduce
given in Table 6-3 in Chapter 6. potential hazards and discomfort for disabled users (both
pedestrians and cyclists). They should be used sparingly
8.2.9 Prescribed traffic signs to indicate a shared and only in response to site-specific problems that cannot
route can also be used away from the highway. be addressed in another way.
Alternative signs with legends such as ‘Share with
Care’ or ‘Give Way to Pedestrians’ signs may be used
but these are not prescribed traffic signs and must not
be used on the public highway. Periodic information
8.3 Access controls
campaigns can help remind all users to be considerate
to others. 8.3.1 Access controls can reduce the usability
of a route by all cyclists, and may exclude some
8.2.10 In rural and suburban areas, there may be disabled people and others riding nonstandard cycles.
various rights of way and permitted paths away from There should therefore be a general presumption
the highway. The legal status of a route cannot easily against the use of access controls unless there is a
persistent and significant problem of antisocial moped
Figure 8.2: Off-highway sign with symbols illustrating or motorcycle access that cannot be controlled through
permitted users, Lake District National Park periodic policing.

8.3.2 Access controls that require the cyclist to

dismount or cannot accommodate the cycle design
vehicle are not inclusive and should not be used.

8.3.3 Access controls should not be required simply

to control cyclists on the approach to a road or footway
crossing. It will normally be sufficient to provide good
sightlines and road markings so that cyclists clearly
understand the need to take care and give way to
pedestrians and otherr traffic at such points.

8.3.4 Chicane barriers cannot be used by people

on tandems, tricycles, cargo bikes and people with child
trailers. They may also be inaccessible to some types of
wheelchair and mobility scooter. An access control that
requires cyclists to dismount will exclude hand cyclists
and others who cannot easily walk. Barriers fitted with
plates that are designed to be narrower than motorcycle
handlebars will also leave a gap that is narrower than
many larger cycles. This will require cyclists to stop and

37 Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces, published by DfT

85
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

put a foot down to pass through, which can be difficult

when carrying children or heavy luggage. 8.4 Junctions on cycle
8.3.5 An alternative method is to provide bollards tracks off-highway
at a minimum of 1.5m spacing, which allows users to
approach in a straight line whilst permitting all types 8.4.1 Where a cycle track meets another cycle
of cycle and mobility scooter to gain access. If access track, it may require some indication of priority,
is required by wider maintenance vehicles, a lockable depending on the level of use. Give-way markings
bollard can be used (see Figure 8.3). are prescribed in TSRGD at a suitable size for use on
for cycle tracks within the highway and can also be
8.3.6 Bollards and barriers should contrast with used at junctions on tracks off the highway. Centre line
the background and may be fitted with retroreflective markings may also be required to help remind cyclists
material to ensure they can easily be seen in all to stay on the left side when turning but can generally
conditions. be omitted on cycle tracks away from highways. Centre
line markings are generally recommended on two-way
Figure 8.3: Simple removable bollard on cycle track, cycle tracks alongside highways – see Section 6.2 in
Scottish Borders Chapter 6.

8.4.2 Visibility splay requirements and corner radii for

junctions where cycle tracks meet should be provided
based on the criteria given in Chapter 5.

8.4.3 An off-highway cycle track will often need

to cross a footway at the junction with a carriageway.
As with side roads, designers may opt to give priority
either to the footway or to the cycle track depending
on the relative levels of use.

8.4.4 The footway may continue across the junction

as a ‘blended footway’ with a give-way marking on
the cycle track, or the cycle track can be continued
through the footway. Appropriate tactile paving such as
the blister paving seen in Figure 8.5, should be installed
to alert disabled people to the presence of the cycle
8.3.7 Where it is necessary to control the movement track.38 Where it is considered necessary to provide
of livestock a cattle grid should be used, in preference pedestrians with legal priority across the cycle track a
to a gate which will cause delay to cyclists. Experience zebra crossing may be used.
in Cambridge showed that a cattle grid with closely-
spaced (100mm) threaded rod bars can be crossed
by cycles without undue difficulty (see Figure 8.4). 8.5 Appropriate surface
materials
Figure 8.4: Cattle grid access control, Cambridge
8.5.1 Surface quality affects the comfort and effort
required when cycling. Loose surfaces such as gravel
or mud make cycling more difficult and can also present
a skidding hazard, increase the risk of punctures and
make cycles and clothing dirty in bad weather. Cyclists
are also affected by ruts and potholes that can throw
them off balance and cause loss of control.

8.5.2 Smooth, sealed solid surfaces, such as

asphalt or macadam, offer the best conditions for
everyday cycling. Cycle routes within the highway should
meet at least local minimum standards of construction.
Routes away from the highway should also be smooth

38 Guidance on the use of tactile paving, DfT

86
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 8.5: Cycle route crossing a footway, Newcastle

and well-maintained to ensure they play a useful role in

the cycle network.
8.6 Construction details
8.5.3 Good quality machine-laid surfaces are of 8.6.1 Traffic free routes require proper construction
benefit to all cycle users. Smooth surfaces also offer of each element to ensure that they remain safe and
greater accessibility and safety for other potential users attractive to all users. The elements below are covered in
such as wheelchair users, mobility scooter users and Chapter 15.
visually impaired people.
a Formation and sub-base.
8.5.4 Sealed surfaces should normally be provided
within towns, cities and villages and on utility routes from a Surfaces.
the immediate hinterland. This might include rural cycle
routes between villages, for example where pupils might a Edges and verges.
be expected to travel to school.
a Ecology.
8.5.5 Outside built-up areas, treatments such as
a Drainage.
crushed stone have often been applied to off-highway
routes for aesthetic, heritage or nature conservation a Ancillary works such as lighting, fencing, access
reasons. These treatments are a cost-effective way to controls and landscape features.
create lengthy off-road links, but require more frequent
maintenance if they are to avoid becoming uneven 8.6.2 More detailed information on the detailed
and muddy. However, they will generally be unusable design and construction of traffic free routes is available
by wheelchair users and anyone on smaller wheeled from Sustrans.39
cycles, including small children. Where there is a need
to avoid the use of black asphalt, consideration should
also be given to other forms of sealed surface such as
resin-bound stone.

39 Traffic free routes design guide, Sustrans, 2019

87
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

8.7 Lighting 8.8 Maintenance

8.7.1 In urban areas, highway standard street 8.8.1 Traffic free routes quickly become unattractive
lighting may be appropriate for off-carriageway routes or unusable when littered with broken glass or dumped
and will assist in offering a good degree of personal refuse and should be included in routine cleansing
security. Energy consumption and impact on wildlife operations.
can be reduced if the lighting is switched off between
midnight and 5am when there is unlikely to be much 8.8.2 Autumn leaf-fall and subsequent leaf mould
use. Lighting can also be operated by detectors can be slippery and hazardous if not cleared. Unlike
which are triggered by the presence of cyclists and highways, there is no natural sweeping effect from the
pedestrians. passage of cyclists and pedestrians. Where a traffic
free route forms part of the local cycle network for utility
8.7.2 Low level lighting on bollards or solar LED trips it should be prioritised for snow and ice clearance
studs can also be used and will offer some improvement (see Chapter 15).
in social safety. Solar lights should not be placed in
areas where the tree canopy or adjacent buildings will
significantly obscure daylight, although most will work
where there is partial shading. The manufacturer’s
instructions will provide advice on exact requirements
for each product.

8.7.3 Further guidance on the design of lighting for

off-highway cycle routes is available from Sustrans.

88
Transitions
9
between
carriageways,
cycle lanes
and cycle tracks
Transitions between on and off-carriageway provision are essential
elements of any coherent cycle route network. It is important that the
point of transition offers protection from motor traffic and a comfortable
and coherent route that cyclists can follow. There should be appropriate
definition for all road users to recognise the boundaries between the
footway, the cycle track and the carriageway.
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

9.1 Introduction 9.2 Cycle track to

9.1.1 A transition is where a cycle track joins the carriageway transitions
carriageway or vice versa. Transitions between different
types of provision pose different hazards for users: 9.2.1 Cyclists leaving an off-carriageway facility to
rejoin the carriageway can be at risk of conflict with
9.1.2 Cyclists can be at risk from motor traffic when motor traffic. Careful design and implementation can
joining a carriageway from a cycle track; and help to reduce these risks and provide smooth
transitions between on and off-carriageway cycle routes.
9.1.3 Pedestrians and cyclists can be at risk where
cycle tracks and footways merge and diverge. 9.2.2 Where a cycle track merges back to the
carriageway, the merge should be designed to reduce
9.1.4 Attention to design details can help improve the risk of cyclists being hit by traffic from behind whilst
safety and create a welcoming environment. also not inconveniencing on-carriageway cyclists
(see Figures 9.1 to 9.3).

Figure 9.1: Cycle track joins advisory cycle lane, York

Figure 9.2: Cycle track entry and exit ramps at a signalised junction, Newcastle (Note: double yellow lines not required
across transition ramps)

90
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 9.3: Cycle track joins cycle lane after bus stop, Gateshead

9.2.3 Tactile ladder and tramline paving is essential simply by the kerbline of the existing verge/footway,
if the footway/cycle track is on a level or shared surface, with a gentle diverge away from the carriageway.
to ensure that pedestrians do not inadvertently walk
into the cycle track. Where there is some physical 9.3.3 Transitions between the cycle track and the
separation between pedestrians and cyclists this issue carriageway should not be across a kerb; the transition
might be less likely to arise, and tactile paving may should be continuous surfacing course.
not be required. Each site should be assessed on a
case-by-case basis. 9.3.4 Where cyclists leave the carriageway to
access a crossing facility they will then need to make a
turn, usually of around 90 degrees. This arrangement is

9.3 Carriageway to known as a `jug handle’ turn and may impact on verge
or footway space. The preferred arrangement will be for
cycle track transitions the jug handle cycle track to be at carriageway level so
that conflict between pedestrians and cyclists is

9.3.1 Cyclists leaving the carriageway can be at risk

of losing control if their wheels hit an upstand such as a Figure 9.4: Cycle lane to cycle track transition
kerb, or if they have to slow down to make a sharp turn
to join the cycle track. Where cyclists leave the
carriageway on link sections, the design should
enable them to avoid having to make a sharp turn
(See Figure 9.4). This may be achieved with a kerb-build
out that is preceded by a section of mandatory cycle
lane or taper markings. The build-out may need a bollard
to ensure that it is visible to road users. Advice on
placing signing on bollards is given in Traffic Advisory
Leaflet 3/13: Traffic bollards and lowlevel traffic signs.

9.3.2 Where the cycle track is immediately adjacent

to the carriageway, such as stepped tracks or footway-
level cycle tracks, the kerb build out may precede the
diverge point. Alternatively, protection may be offered

91
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

avoided. In some cases, however, it may be necessary to site constraints. An arrow marking on the
due to space or engineering constraints for the facility to carriageway can assist with wayfinding in such
be at footway level (Figure 9.5). In such cases the impact circumstances (see Figure 9.7). Where dropped kerbs
on pedestrians will need to be carefully considered. are used, they must be laid flush with the carriageway
surface and should be of sufficient length and width to
enable the design cycle to leave the carriageway without
9.3.5 There will inevitably be some places within making a sharp turn. This arrangement is only suitable
existing highways where the ideal transition from the for locations where it is unlikely that more than one or
carriageway to the cycle track cannot be achieved due two cyclists are ever present at the same time.

Figure 9.5: Jug handle cycle track at footway level

Figure 9.6: Stepped cycle track diverges from carriageway, Gateshead

92
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

9.4 Separated cycle restricted such as near bus stops, around toucan
crossings and at junctions. The change may also occur
track to shared use at the transition from a built-up area to an interurban
shared footway where light use is anticipated. Users
with pedestrians may be travelling across a shared area in several
different directions where they are at junctions or provide
access to crossings.
9.4.1 Pedestrians and cyclists may find themselves
in conflict where areas of shared use connect with 9.4.3 Tactile paving and signs should be used to
areas of separate cycle track and footway. This is remind people of the change in conditions. Where a
especially the case for visually impaired people who separate cycle track and footway converge into a shared
rely on tactile paving and kerbs to help interpret and footway for example at a toucan crossing. Ladder and
navigate the street. tramline tactile paving should be used as set out in the
Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces. Upright
9.4.2 There are various situations where separate
signs to TSRGD diagram 956 and 957 are also required
cycle tracks and footways merge into a single shared
(Figure 9.8). Signs may be placed on a bollard or post.
surface. The most common areas are where width is

Figure 9.7: Use of arrows to direct cyclists to off-carriageway route, Shepherds Bush

Figure 9.8: Correct use of tactile paving and low kerbs at start of segregated area, Leicester

93
 10
Junctions
and
crossings

It is essential that the needs of cyclists are taken into account in the design of all new
and improved junctions, not just those on designated cycle routes, and that crossings
are provided where cycle routes continue across busy highways. Safety is vital, but
junctions and crossings should also enable cyclists to negotiate them in comfort
without undue delay or deviation. Junctions should be designed to enable cycle
movements in all permitted directions. The design of cycle facilities should take into
account the volume and speed of motor traffic and the type and size of the junction.
At quieter junctions it may be safer to integrate cyclists into the general traffic streams
to reduce the number of conflicts but at busier junctions it will be necessary to
separate and protect cycle movements. The Junction Assessment Tool (Appendix B)
should be used to assess how well junctions meet cyclists’ needs.
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

10.1 Introduction 10.2.3 It may be possible to create quieter parallel

routes to avoid a particularly difficult junction altogether.
Where this strategy is adopted there may be cyclists
10.1.1 Providing separation between conflicting who will still need to use the junction for local access
streams of traffic (including pedestrian and cycle traffic) and their needs should be taken into account. It may
is fundamental to improving safety. This Chapter looks at also be possible to design facilities that bypass one
how this is achieved at different types of junctions and or more arms of a junction to reduce the potential
crossings. The advice should be read in conjunction with for conflict for the cycle trips that use them.
Chapter 6 of the Traffic Signs Manual. See Figure 10.1.

10.2 Network planning 10.3 Design principles

considerations and processes
10.2.1 The impact of major junctions on cycle routes
should be considered at a network level and with regard Core design principles
to the strategic movement of people and goods. When
considered in strategic terms, moving high volumes of 10.3.1 Junctions and crossings should be designed
pedestrian and cycle traffic through a junction may be a with features to enable inclusive cycling. Junctions and
preferred and more efficient use of the available space crossings are where most conflicts occur, and the actual
compared to moving high volumes of motor traffic. and perceived hazards are greatest. Junctions are often
the most hazardous and intimidating parts of a journey
10.2.2 Improving provision for cycling at an existing for cyclists. A junction that does not provide safe
major junction may require funding, and may cause facilities may prevent people from cycling through the
some increase in delays to other users, but it can be the junction, but may also be the reason that people will not
key to opening areas and routes to cycling. Increasing use the remainder of a route.
levels of cycling, through the provision of cycling and
other traffic management measures, may have a positive 10.3.2 New junctions should be designed to provide
impact on journey times along a route if this leads to a good conditions for cycling in all permitted directions,
reduction in the level of motor traffic. This may help regardless of whether they are on a designated route,
offset any negative impact on motorised traffic at a unless there are clearly-defined and suitable alternatives.
single junction. The provision of inclusive cycle facilities should be

Figure 10.1: Cycle bypass, Castle Boulevard, Nottingham

96
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

prioritised at existing junctions where there is a high 10.3.6 Separating streams will generally be
level of existing and/or suppressed demand for cycling, appropriate at junctions along major roads when
or a poor casualty record. protected space for cycling is provided on the link(s)
(see Chapter 6). Integrating cycle and traffic streams will
10.3.3 The five core design principles (set out in typically apply where motor traffic speeds and flows are
Chapter 4) should be addressed at junctions and low enough for cyclists to share the carriageway (see
crossings as shown in Table 10-1. Figure 4.1) – i.e. mixed traffic (see Chapter 7). Where
cycle lanes are used on the approaches to junctions,
10.3.4 A Junction Assessment Tool (JAT) to aid designers will need to consider carefully which design
designers is provided in Appendix B. The JAT examines approach is appropriate.
all potential movements at a junction, not just those that
may be associated with a designated cycle route, to 10.3.7 A combination of design approaches may be
identify the potential for conflicts and should be used used at a single junction. For example, cycling in mixed
whenever new and improved junctions are being traffic may be appropriate on a very lightly-trafficked
designed. This helps to clarify what measures are arm of a signal-controlled junction which operates in its
required to address any conflicts. own stage.

Design approaches – junctions 10.3.8 Separating cycle and motor traffic streams
will increase the number of potential conflict points to be
10.3.5 There are two alternative design approaches considered and managed (see Figure 10.2), which may
for junctions: increase the overall time delay at a junction. Integrating
traffic streams reduces the number of conflicts but mixes
a Separating cycle and motor traffic streams; and cycle and motor traffic. This is less likely to
be appropriate at busier locations or where speeds
a Integrating cycle and motor traffic streams are higher.

Table 10-1: Application of core design principles to junctions and crossings

Core design
principle Design aspects to consider

Safety Junctions should be designed to remove or manage conflicts between cyclists, motor traffic and pedestrians by
one or more of the following:
a separating cyclists from motor traffic and pedestrians in space and/or time;
a banning one or more motor traffic movements;
a providing priority for cyclists over motor traffic; and/or
a reducing the speed and volume of motor traffic movements so that cyclists can safely be integrated with them
Designs should identify and reduce conflict with Heavy Goods Vehicles.

Directness The distance and time required for cyclists to travel through a junction should be minimised. Wherever possible
their level of delay should be less than for motor traffic without increasing pedestrian delay.
Exempting cycles from turning movements that are banned for other vehicles will significantly increase
directness and should always be considered.
Cycle crossings at junctions and across links should not be staggered.

Coherence Junctions should enable and facilitate cycle movements in all permitted directions.
These should be made in a legible manner, without requiring people to deviate significantly from their overall
desire lines.

Comfort The occasions when cyclists need to stop or to give way should be minimised.
Routes through junctions should ease the passage of cyclists by providing a smooth surface of adequate width,
with flush surfaces at transitions, and avoid street clutter.

Attractiveness Junctions are often important places where people gather and should be designed to suit and enhance their
context.

97
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 10.2: Illustration of conflict points at a T-junction with cycle movements on-carriageway (left) and off-carriageway (right)

10.3.9 These approaches can be applied to all types For existing junctions, the impact of cycle traffic on
of junction – for example a compact roundabout with saturation flow (traffic signals) and slope and intercept
low traffic flows can enable cyclists to be safely values (priority junctions and roundabouts) can be
integrated with motor traffic, whereas larger and busier measured, which will enable site-specific factors to be
roundabouts will require cycle flows to be separated out. taken into account.

10.3.10 Designers should ensure that the space 10.3.14 At cycle-only stop lines a saturation flow of
provided for cycling at junctions is sufficient to one cyclist per second per metre of cycle track/lane
accommodate the cycle design vehicle so that all width has been found to be appropriate. Ignoring any
types of user can negotiate the junction. This will be small loss of effective green time at the start, and
particularly critical where cycling is provided for assuming a green time for the cycle phase of 7 seconds
through facilities separated from motor vehicles. (see 10.3.15), this means that a 2m wide stopline would
discharge 14 cycles per signal-cycle, or 840 cycles per
10.3.11 Cyclists should preferably be kept separate hour based on a 60 second signal-cycle time.
from pedestrians through junctions.
10.3.15 A green time of 7s for the cycle phase will
Junction capacity modelling often provide enough time to discharge a waiting queue
of cyclists. Where demand is high designers should
10.3.12 Standard junction modelling software does not assess whether the green period should be increased,
easily allow for cycle traffic to be modelled separately based on the cycle flow and width of the facility.
from other types of vehicle. It can include cycles as part Guidance on timings is given in Tables 10-3 and 10-4.
of an overall mixed traffic stream and, for traffic signals,
10.3.16 In situations where cycle numbers are high,
assess the effect of cycle-only phases or other cycle-
it may be necessary to model junctions in more detail.
specific features (e.g. early-release) on the overall cycle
This can be achieved using microsimulation which can
time and junction capacity.
model the behaviour of cycles as individual vehicles.
10.3.13 Research carried out by TRL40 recommends a Microsimulation models can also model the operation of
Passenger Car Unit (PCU) value of 0.2 to assess the roundabouts, priority junctions and cycle priority
impact of cycles as vehicles within a mixed traffic crossings, including parallel crossings. Careful choice of
stream, but this is a relatively simplistic approach. parameters will be necessary to achieve an accurate
model, which may vary between time periods.

40 Kimber, RM, McDonald, M and Hounsell, NB Research Report 67 – The Prediction of Saturation Flows for Road Junctions
Controlled by Traffic Signals, TRL (1986)

98
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

10.3.17 When assessing cycle traffic capacity, the 10.4.2 Crossings can be divided into the
following factors should be considered: following types:

a Suppressed demand for cycling may be significant a Uncontrolled crossings

a Cycle traffic may peak at different times to motor – With or without refuge
traffic and may be relatively low outside the morning
and evening peak hours a Controlled crossings

a Cycle traffic is subject to seasonal variation, being – Cycle priority crossing using give-way markings.
higher in the summer months
– Parallel crossing.
a The width and capacity of the cycle tracks or lanes
approaching the junction may be as significant as the – Signal controlled – Toucan and Cycle Signal
capacity of the junction itself (Figure 10.3) Crossings.

10.4.3 Guidance on grade separated crossings is

given in Section 10.8.
10.4 Cycle crossings
10.4.4 Table 10-2 provides an indication of the
suitability of each type of crossing, depending on the
Introduction speed and volume of traffic and the number of lanes to
be crossed in one movement.
10.4.1 Cycle crossings are mid-link stand-alone
facilities to enable cyclists to cross a carriageway that
would otherwise form a hazardous or impenetrable
barrier on the cycle route network. Crossings may also
form part of junction treatments where cyclists are taken
off the carriageway. They may be used to connect
off-highway cycle routes across a major road and enable
connections with quieter street networks via cycle-only
access points.

Figure 10.3: Cycle traffic capacity may be an issue at busy junctions (London)

99
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Table 10-2: Crossing design suitability

10.4.5 Table 10-2 is a guide only, and individual may typically wait on them, including pedestrians at
locations should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. toucan and other shared crossings.
In many situations, reducing the speed of motor traffic
using the carriageway will enable additional options for Figure 10.4: Parallel crossing with refuge
the crossing design to be considered.

10.4.6 In urban areas, placing cycle crossings on

raised tables may reduce speeds locally and improve
safety. Raised tables must comply with the relevant
legislation – the Highways (Road Hump Regulations)
1999, the Road Humps and Traffic Calming (Scotland)
Regulations 2002, or the Road Humps (Amendment)
Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007. Outside London,
DfT authorisation will be required to place toucan and
parallel crossings on road humps. Within London, local
authorities may place toucan and parallel crossings on
road humps without such authorisation, provided they
follow the procedures set out in section 90CA of the
Highways Act 1980.

10.4.7 Refuges can be used to divide the crossing

movement into stages (Figure 10.4). Refuges should be
free of clutter, and at least 3.0m long (in the direction of
travel for the cyclist) to protect users, including the cycle
design vehicle, wheelchairs and mobility scooters.
The refuge should be wide enough to accommodate
the cycle design vehicle, and the number of people who

100
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 10.5: Uncontrolled crossings may not meet the needs of all people

Uncontrolled crossings as illustrated in Figure 10.6, but this is not a requirement.

A parallel crossing may now be used as an alternative
10.4.8 Cyclists crossing carriageways, for example (see Figure 10.7), which also provides a crossing
where an off-highway route crosses the road, must give for pedestrians.
way to motor traffic unless a controlled crossing is
provided. Cyclists should be able to cross a two-way Parallel crossings
carriageway via an uncontrolled crossing in lightly
trafficked conditions, but at higher speeds and traffic 10.4.12 The parallel crossing is similar in form and
volumes uncontrolled crossings are unlikely to meet the application to a zebra crossing, but with a separate
needs of all users (see Table 10-2 and Figure 10.5). parallel cycle crossing alongside the zebra crossing.
The layout is prescribed in TSRGD diagram 1001.5, and
10.4.9 Where uncontrolled crossings are being includes yellow globes, a controlled area indicated by
considered the delay to cyclists may be assessed by zig-zag markings, and a give-way line (See Figure 10.7).
counting the number and frequency of gaps between Drivers must give way to pedestrians and cyclists using
vehicles which meet the minimum cycle crossing times the crossing. It provides a more demand responsive and
given in Table 10-3. lower cost solution compared to signalised facilities.
Parallel crossings can be used on links and on the arms
10.4.10 Uncontrolled crossings may be provided with
of priority-controlled and roundabout junctions.
warning signs to TSRGD diagram 950 to warn drivers
that cyclists may be crossing ahead. Designs can make 10.4.13 Parallel crossings provide a legal priority to
use of contrasting paving materials, street furniture and pedestrians and cyclists. The use of globes and zig-zag
changes in carriageway width and level to highlight the markings enhances the visibility of the crossing to
crossing area. In slow traffic speed environments, these drivers, compared to a cycle priority crossing. They are
features can encourage drivers to stop for cyclists, even therefore more suitable at sites with higher traffic flows
though they are not required to in law. and speeds (see Table 10-2).

Cycle priority crossings 10.4.14 As with zebra crossings, parallel crossings

may be divided into two parts by a central refuge or
10.4.11 A cycle route crossing a lightly trafficked street median. This is likely to improve the ease of use of the
may be given priority over traffic on the carriageway by crossing for both pedestrians and cyclists as they only
using give-way markings to TSRGD diagram 1003. need to watch for oncoming traffic in one direction
The cycle track crossing should be placed on a hump, (see Figure 10.4).

101
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 10.6: Cycle priority crossing

10.4.16 Toucan crossings can use nearside or farside

Figure 10.7: Parallel crossing, Hackney
pedestrian/cyclist signals, but not a combination of both.
Farside pedestrian and cycle signal heads are prescribed
in TSRGD diagrams 4003.5 and 4003.6, nearside
toucan signal heads are prescribed in TSRGD diagram
4003.7. High level repeater signals to TSRGD diagram
4003.7A may also be used with nearside signal heads.
Farside signals may be fitted with countdown timers.

10.4.17 Toucan crossings should be used where it is

necessary to provide a shared facility, for example when
there are space restrictions or where there is a shared
use path or area leading to the crossing. As they
incorporate shared use facilities, where such a crossing
is being considered, early engagement with relevant
interested parties should be undertaken, including those
representing disabled people, and pedestrians and
cyclists generally. Engaging with such groups is an
important step towards meeting the local authority’s
Public Sector Equality Duty.
Toucan crossings 10.4.18 Minimum crossing times at toucans are
defined by walking speeds. Advice on timings is given
10.4.15 Toucan crossings are signal-controlled
in Chapter 6 of the Traffic Signs Manual.
crossings shared between pedestrians and cyclists,
with no separation between the two types of user. 10.4.19 On wider roads and at busier junctions, a
They may be installed at junctions or as stand-alone staggered toucan crossing is often used to combine
crossings. Zig-zag markings must not be placed at pedestrian and cycle movements and minimise delay to
toucan facilities at junctions. motor traffic. However, negotiating a staggered refuge

102
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

can be highly problematic and sometimes impossible for

Figure 10.9: Single-stage straight-over cycle crossing
those using non-standard cycles. It can also give rise to
next to multi-stage staggered pedestrian crossing, South
additional conflict with pedestrians in the confined space Gloucestershire
available (see Figure 10.8). At pedestrian refuges,
pedestrian guardrailing should not be installed as a
default choice. The advice on the use of pedestrian
guardrailing in Local Transport Note 2/09: Pedestrian
Guardrailing, and Chapter 6 of the Traffic Signs Manual,
should be considered.

Figure 10.8: Toucan crossing with stagger – can be highly

problematic

Figure 10.10: Two-stage angled crossing with cycle signals

on the central island (Norwich)

10.4.20 Where it is necessary to stagger pedestrian

crossing facilities, a separate single stage crossing for
cyclists should be provided (see Figure 10.9), or
alternatively an angled crossing on a wider central
refuge (see Figure 10.10).

Signal controlled cycle facility

10.4.21 A signal-controlled cycle facility may be 10.4.23 The design of the cycle crossing should make
provided where a cycle track is connected across a road it clear that it is not to be used by pedestrians. The
or an arm of a junction. The crossing may be for cyclists footway and cycle track on the approach to the crossing
only, but can be provided adjacent to a pedestrian should be paved in contrasting materials and preferably
crossing facility which may be useful where separate at different levels, separated by a kerb.
but parallel routes exist. The pedestrian and cycle
crossings do not have to operate with the same 10.4.24 When provided as part of a junction, or as a
signal timings. stand-alone facility, signal controlled cycle facilities must
not be marked with a controlled area indicated by
10.4.22 The pedestrian crossing is signalled in the zig-zag markings.
usual way, and the cycle facility is indicated using signals
to TSRGD diagrams 3000.2 or 3000.2A, and markings 10.4.25 However, a stand-alone pedestrian crossing
to TSRGD diagram 1055.3. Cyclists generally travel (puffin or pedex) provided alongside a signal controlled
faster than pedestrians and the cycle crossing should cycle facility will require a controlled area in the usual
preferably operate as a single stage, without the need way. Sufficient space will need to be provided between
for cyclists to wait on refuges in the middle of the the crossing and the cycle facility to accommodate this,
carriageway. This can be achieved by setting the cycle noting the flexibility in the number of zig-zag marks that
crossing outside any pedestrian crossing refuges. may be provided. Where this is not possible, the
On two-stage crossings a straight or angled alignment Department may consider authorising a controlled area
at the refuge should be provided for cyclists even if the to be placed in a layout that encompasses both facilities.
pedestrian crossing is staggered (see Figures 10.9
and 10.10).

103
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Signal timings for cyclists Table 10-4: Intergreen timings to accommodate

cycle traffic
10.4.26 At junctions where no specific facilities for
cyclists are provided, adjustments to signal timings for Difference in distance
cyclists may nevertheless be beneficial, particularly at to conflict point from
larger junctions, or where a junction arm has an uphill closing cycle phase Flat, downhill
gradient. Timings should be validated on site and and opening traffic Uphill or uphill
adjusted where necessary to ensure the available phase (AB minus BC gradient of gradient of
on Figure 10.11) 3% or more less than 3%
clearance time for cyclists is correct.
1-3 5 5
10.4.27 Cycle phases at junctions should have a
minimum green duration of 7s, but longer green times 4 6 5
may be necessary where cycle flows are high.
5-9 6 6
10.4.28 The minimum duration of a cycle stage (green
10-14 8 7
period plus clearance time) should be sufficient to enable
a cyclist to clear the junction when setting off from rest. 15 8 8
This applies to both junctions and crossings.
16-18 9 8
10.4.29 Cyclists crossing the stop line at the end of the
19-21 10 9
phase losing right of way may be travelling more slowly
than motor traffic and have the potential to conflict with 22-23 11 9
traffic starting to move in the phase gaining right of way.
24-27 11 10
10.4.30 For signal crossings the distance to the conflict
point should be measured to the far side of the crossing. 28-33 13 11

34-36 14 12
10.4.31 Cyclists’ speeds and their ability to move off
are greatly affected by gradients. Design parameters
10.4.32 Figure 10.11 shows how the difference in
for cycles at traffic signals are shown in Table 10-3.
distance to the conflict point (B) from the cycle phase
These have been used to calculate the intergreen times
losing right of way, and the phase gaining right of way is
in Table 10-4,41 taking into account cyclists’ slower
measured, as the distance AB minus the distance BC.
speed and allowing for gradients.

Table 10-3: Design parameters for cycles at Figure 10.11: Distances to potential conflict point
traffic signals

Parameter Value Notes

Acceleration 0.5 m/s2 < 3% uphill gradient

0.4 m/s2 ≥ 3% uphill gradient

Design speed 20 kph < 3% uphill gradient

15 kph ≥ 3% uphill gradient

Length of cycle 2.8m Cycle Design Vehicle

41 Taken from Parkin. J (2018): Designing for Cycle Traffic – International Principles and Practice. ICE, London

104
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

10.5 Priority junctions a Reducing all movements through a junction to a

single lane;

10.5.1 Priority, or give-way junctions are the most a Adopting lane widths that allow cyclists to
common type of junction. comfortably take either the secondary position or
(when traffic flows and speeds are low) the primary
Priority junctions in mixed traffic position (see Chapter 7);

a Tight corner radii and raised entry treatments or wider

10.5.2 Where cycling takes place in mixed traffic the
junction tables that slow vehicles at the conflict points;
key issues relate to the safety and comfort for cyclists
going straight ahead on the major arm while motorised a Banning one or more turning movements that conflict
traffic turns in or out; and the safety, comfort and with major cycle flows (and ensuring that the conflict
directness for cyclists when turning into and out of the is not simply transferred elsewhere);
minor arm.
a Providing refuges to allow cycles to cross junctions
10.5.3 Any turn that involves crossing multiple lanes and to turn in more than one stage, but being careful
of traffic in one movement is likely to be difficult for most to avoid creating pinch points;
cyclists, particularly where motor traffic speeds and
volumes are high. Therefore, in all cases, speed a Changing priorities at junctions to give priority to a
reduction through and on the approaches to junctions, heavy cycle flow, possibly requiring a change of
and on turning, are recommended as measures that will layout; and
benefit both cyclists and pedestrians.
a Providing road markings to highlight the presence of
10.5.4 The following features may be considered to cyclists to other road users, such as cycle symbols to
help achieve this: TSRGD diagram 1057, lines to TSRGD diagram 1010
and advisory cycle lanes, as well as coloured
surfacing (Figure 10.12).

Figure 10.12: Right turn refuge, cycle lanes, cycle symbols and side road entry treatment at priority junction

105
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

10.5.5 Many of these design features are also 10.5.9 In rural areas, and where the speed limit is
beneficial when cycle facilities are provided off- greater than 40mph, it will not normally be appropriate in
carriageway, as outlined below. Guidance on designing safety terms to provide simple priority across side road
cycle lanes at priority junctions is given in Section 6.4. junctions. Further guidance on designing non-priority
cycle crossings of side roads is at the end of this Section.
10.5.6 Where a designated cycle route via minor
streets needs to cross a major highway at a staggered 10.5.10 Figure 10.13 shows options for providing for
junction, a right-left stagger is preferred so that the cycle priority at side roads in urban areas. These have
right turn manoeuvres are made on the minor road. been classified by position of the cycle facility relative
to the major road kerbline.
Priority crossings of cycle tracks at a Full set back – at least a car length (5m) from
side roads the kerbline;

10.5.7 In urban areas, where protected space a Partial set back – less than a car length from
separate from the carriageway is provided for cycling, it is the kerbline;
important to design priority junctions so that wherever
possible cyclists can cross the minor arms of junctions in a No set back – at the kerbline
a safe manner without losing priority. This enables cyclists
to maintain momentum safely, meeting the core design 10.5.11 They have also been classified according to
outcomes of safety, directness and comfort. whether full legal priority is given over traffic leaving and
entering the side road, or whether effective priority is
10.5.8 Taking cyclists off the main carriageway achieved through design, where changes in surfacing
creates additional points of conflict, as indicated in and minimal (if any) road markings are used to
Figure 10.2, and so careful consideration must be given distinguish the cycle crossing from the main carriageway.
to how these conflicts are managed and minimised. Both approaches may be used, with the choice

Figure 10.13: Priority crossings of cycle tracks at side roads*

* Note – yellow globes at parallel crossings omitted for clarity.

106
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

depending on factors such as the context and the 10.5.16 The give-way markings for general traffic
available budget. should preferably be set at least 5.0m back from the
major road kerbline to allow space for one car to wait.
10.5.12 In all cases, it is preferable in safety terms that Tight corner radii should be used, preferably no more
cycle tracks crossing side roads are one way in the than 4.0m, and 6.0m at most. Give way triangle road
direction of traffic on the main carriageway. Drivers are markings to TSRGD diagram 1023A may be used to
less likely to be aware of cyclists travelling in the other reinforce the requirement for drivers to give way.
direction when turning into and out of the side road.
Nevertheless, these conflicts can be managed by 10.5.17 This arrangement reduces the likelihood of the
making the crossing conspicuous and reducing the cycle track crossing being blocked by cars waiting to
speed of turning traffic. turn out of the junction.

Full set back, marked priority crossing 10.5.18 This layout does not provide any specific
facility for pedestrians. A parallel crossing placed in the
10.5.13 This type of side road crossing is sometimes same position as the give way markings would benefit
called a ‘bent-out’ crossing, where a cycle track is inset both user groups, and is suitable for crossing a busier
from the main road carriageway at a distance that minor arm.
enables a car to stop if a cyclist is crossing. Effectively,
this is a crossroads junction of the minor arm with 10.5.19 Where the cycle route is bent out towards the
priority given to the cyclist using standard give way building line it may mean that the desire line for
markings. It is suitable where traffic flows on the minor pedestrians cuts across the cycle track, which can
arm are up to around 2,000 PCU/day. If the cycle track introduce conflict with cyclists. If there is insufficient
on the approach to the crossing is already far enough space to provide a clear route for pedestrians an
from the kerbline to enable a driver to stop at the alternative design should be considered.
crossing, it may not need to be ‘bent out’.
Partial set back, marked priority crossing
10.5.14 This type of crossing requires sufficient space
at the junction to accommodate the required geometry 10.5.20 This arrangement may also be used where the
and may therefore be more difficult to achieve in built-up set-back into the junction is less than 5.0m, as shown in
areas where there are no verges. It can be used on Figure 10.16. It requires clear visibility to the crossing
two-way tracks, but the problems set out in Section 6.2 from the main road.
should be noted.
10.5.21 This arrangement should be used with caution
Figure 10.14: Full set back, marked priority (bent-out)
and only where traffic volumes and speeds are low.
crossing, Enfield The requirement for drivers to give way to cyclists when
turning , through the use of road markings, will also tend
to reduce the speed of through traffic.

10.5.22 Vehicles waiting to turn out of the junction tend

to block the cycle crossing and so this arrangement
should only be considered where traffic flows on the
minor arm are very light, typically less than 2,000 PCU/
day, and where there are frequent gaps in traffic on the
major arm so that there is minimal queuing on the
side road.

10.5.23 A parallel crossing may be preferable instead,

provided there is sufficient setback to accommodate the
minimum requirements for zig-zag markings. This has
the advantage of providing pedestrians with priority
across the mouth of the junction without deviating from
their desire line.

10.5.15 The crossing should preferably be raised and

paved in a material which contrasts with the carriageway
and which is the same as the cycle track on either side,
to emphasise the priority movement, as shown in
Figure 10.15.

107
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Design priority, no setback 10.5.25 This arrangement may be used at stepped

cycle tracks which continue past the mouth of a side
10.5.24 This approach is suitable for one way tracks road junction with no change of material or level. Motor
travelling in the same direction as the adjacent traffic vehicles entering and leaving the side road will pass over
lane, as shown in figure 10.17. Drivers must give way to a slight rise. A chamfered kerb may assist with this, as
cyclists when leaving the side road, but there is no pioneered in Cambridgeshire – see Figure 10.19.
priority for cyclists over traffic turning in.

Figure 10.15: Full set back, marked priority (bent-out) crossing

108
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 10.16: Partial set back, marked priority crossing, Hillingdon

Design Priority, full and partial setback 10.5.27 The use of markings to diagram 1055.3 at
unsignalised junctions is not permitted in TSRGD.
10.5.26 Priority for cyclists and pedestrians across Alternative markings may be used, such as broken lines
minor side-road junctions can also be achieved through to diagram 1010 and cycle symbols to diagram 1057.
design priority, where the mouth of the junction is
redesigned to emphasise the continuity of the footway No Set Back, Marked Priority Crossing
and cycle track. The technique has not yet been widely
applied in the UK, but could be considered for two-way 10.5.28 Give way markings can be applied close to the
and preferably one-way cycle tracks across minor edge of the carriageway between narrow kerbed islands
accesses. to indicate that cyclists passing the junction have legal
priority over traffic turning in and out of the side road.

Figure 10.17: No setback crossing with design priority,– Bournemouth

109
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 10.18: Cyclists give way on minor arm

Note:
Traffic speed and volume may warrant
cycle crossings of major arm and minor
arm being signal-controlled Min
3m

Min 3m
Min 10m

Min 3m

Min 3m

Min 3m

10.5.29 The positioning of cyclists close to the edge of 10.5.34 At rural junctions where the cycle track
the carriageway means that they are more visible to crosses a side road with less than 2000 AADT, there
vehicles turning into the minor arm and the cycle track is should be no marked priority for either cycle traffic or
unlikely to be blocked by vehicles waiting to turn out of traffic using the minor arm, and a minimum set back
the junction. distance of 5m may be used.

10.5.30 This arrangement is typically used in Figure 10.19: The ‘Cambridge Kerb’
conjunction with carriageway-level kerbed cycle tracks
but can also be used with light segregation and cycle
lanes. It can be used on two-way tracks, but the
problems set out in Section 6.2 should be noted.

Non-Priority Crossings of Cycle Tracks at

Side Roads

10.5.31 Where the speed limit is greater than 40 mph

it will not normally be appropriate in safety terms for
cyclists to be given priority over turning traffic at priority
junctions.

10.5.32 At busier junctions where traffic flows are such

that cyclists would experience significant delay in waiting
for a gap to cross the minor arm, consideration should
be given to providing a signal controlled or grade-
separated crossing.

10.5.33 Where cyclists need to give way, the point at

which they cross the minor arm should be set well back
from the edge of the major carriageway so that they are
able to ascertain when vehicles are about to turn into the
junction. The desirable minimum set back distance is
10m, or the tangent point if the corner radius exceeds
10m. It should be measured from the kerbline of the
nearside diverging lane if present (see Figure 10.18).

110
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

10.6 Signalised junctions 10.6.5 Types of cycle facilities at traffic signals,

generally in descending order of protection for
cyclists, include:
Introduction a Cycle bypasses;
10.6.1 The safety, comfort, directness and coherence a Separate cycle phases;
of cycle routes can be improved through remodelling or
introducing signal control at junctions, particularly where a Cycle and pedestrian-only stage;
signal timings can be changed to reallocate time from
motor traffic to generate time savings for cyclists. a Hold the left;
Guidance on minimum green and intergreen times are
given in Section 10.4. The advice in this section should a Two stage right turns;
be read in conjunction with Section 12 of Chapter 6 of
the Traffic Signs Manual. a Cycle gate;

10.6.2 However, introducing more complex traffic a Early release; and

signal stages may increase overall delays, particularly
a Advanced stop lines.
during off peak periods, compared to give-way junctions
and roundabouts. Sometimes there are benefits in
removing traffic signals or providing cycle bypasses of Cycle signals
signals, for example across the head of a T-junction.
The needs of all users, including pedestrians, will need 10.6.6 TSRGD prescribes two types of signal heads
to be considered when making any such changes. to control traffic consisting solely of pedal cycles.
Those to TSRGD diagram 3000.2 have 200 mm
10.6.3 Traffic signals are typically installed at busier diameter aspects, with the amber and green aspects
junctions where facilities that separate and protect being cycle symbols. TSRGD diagram 3000.2 may
cyclists from motor vehicles will normally be required incorporate either a full red aspect or a red cycle symbol
(see Figure 4.1). aspect. Where compliance with the red signal is an
issue, the red cycle aspect may help reinforce the
10.6.4 Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) are unlikely to be message to cyclists. It also allows other traffic to
adequate by themselves to encourage most people to recognise the phase as applying only to cycles.
cycle through major junctions. Further guidance on the
design of ASLs for use at quieter signalised junctions is
given below.

Figure 10.20: LLCS used to control cycle-only movements on a cycle track (Battersea)

111
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

10.6.7 Signals to TSRGD diagram 3000.2 are 10.6.11 Where the use of LLCS is proposed, any
sometimes referred to as high level cycle signals (HLCS). existing signal equipment will need to be checked to
They may only be used to control a cyclist-only ensure it is using Extra Low Voltage (ELV) and that the
movement on a segregated cycle track or approach to a signal aspects are LEDs. Older installations may require
junction. equipment upgrades to enable the installation of LLCS.
Advice on timings is given in Chapter 6 of the Traffic
10.6.8 Low level cycle signals (LLCS) are prescribed Signs Manual.
in TSRGD diagram 3000.2A, in two different variations,
both with 100 mm diameter aspects. 10.6.12 LLCS must not be used as repeaters when
the associated traffic signal includes a filter arrow as the
10.6.9 The Regulations allow considerable flexibility in LLCS cannot be direction-specific. Where an approach
how LLCS are used (see Figures 10.20 and 10.21): is signalled with an Indicative Green Arrow, for example
to enable an early cut-off sequence, an LLCS repeater
a on their own to signal segregated cycle movements, may be fitted to the primary signal as the indicative
arrow is placed only on the secondary signal head.
a as repeater signals mounted on the same post as
traffic signals to TSRGD diagram 3000 10.6.13 The signs to TSRGD diagrams 612 and 613
(no left turn, no right turn) and TSRGD diagram 606
a as repeater signals mounted on the same post as full
(white-on-blue directional arrow) (see figure 10.22) may
size cycle signals to TSRGD diagram 3000.2; or
all be varied to between 95 and 110 mm in diameter for
a as an early release function mounted on the same post use as regulatory box signs with LLCS. Where used, the
as full-size cycle signals to TSRGD diagram 3000. restriction should apply to all traffic, including cycles.
If the movement is “except cycles” the signals to TSRGD
10.6.10 Unlike standard signals to TSRGD diagram diagram 3000 should have standard box signs with
3000, the minimum requirement is for one cycle signal exception plates. This is not required for the associated
per approach. This may be full size or low level, but low LLCS as the movement is permitted to cyclists.
level is likely to be more visible in the cyclist’s eye-line.
Figure 10.22: Regulatory signs for use with cycle signals
They must be placed in conjunction with a stop line to
TSRGD diagram 1001, placed in advance of the signal.
TSRGD diagram 606:
Depending on the layout and context of the junction it
may be appropriate to provide both types at the primary
signal location and to provide an HLCS as a secondary
signal beyond the stop line.

Figure 10.21: A LLCS used as a repeater beneath an

TSRGD diagrams 612 and 613
HLCS (London)

10.6.14 The green cycle aspect prescribed in TSRGD

diagram 3001.4 can be used, either together with LLCS
or as an alternative, to provide priority through an ‘early
release’ for cyclists. This works in a similar way to a
green arrow filter, giving cyclists’ a few seconds head
start before the main traffic flow. The aspect can be
mounted below the full green, to the left or to the right.
A 4-in-line arrangement is generally used, as placing the
aspect to the left or right of the full green may result in
cyclists assuming they can only move in those
directions.

112
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Wherever possible it should be achieved by reallocating

Figure 10.23 ‘Cycle Filter’ signal used for an early release,
carriageway or verge space rather than by taking space
Cambridge
from the footway.

Dedicated cycle phase

10.6.16 Where a cycle track or cycle-only on-road
provision, such as a contraflow lane, enters a signal-
controlled junction, cyclists can be provided with a
dedicated phase (see Figure 10.25). The signal aspect
to TSRGD diagram 3000.2 or 3000.2A can be used,
or a combination of both.

10.6.17 Cycle-only phases may be demand

dependent, preferably using appropriate detection or
push buttons to TSRGD diagram 4003.6 or 4003.8.
Care should be taken to ensure push-buttons can be
reached by cyclists who cannot dismount, including
from a recumbent position.

10.6.18 Separate cycle phases can be useful:

a Where cyclists can undertake a manoeuvre not

Cycle bypasses permitted to general traffic, and which is not shared
with pedestrians, such as travelling between the
10.6.15 Where space and the level of pedestrian use
carriageway and a cycle track; or
allow, it is often possible to provide a section of cycle
track that enables cyclists to bypass the red signal (see a Where cyclists need to be separated from other traffic
Figure 10.24). This arrangement is used to allow cyclists for safety reasons – for example in a ‘Hold the Left’
to turn left, or to continue straight ahead across the arrangement (see Figure 10.27); or
head of a T-junction. Any such proposals need careful
design, as it is essential that the needs of pedestrians, a Where a two-way cycle track passes through
and particularly disabled people, are taken into account. a junction.

Figure 10.24: Cycle bypass of signals, Oval, London. Cyclists may turn left at the signals onto a shared use path.

113
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

any necessary adjustments to the layout may be made

Figure 10.25: Separate cycle phase, Camden
post-opening.

Figure 10.26: Circulating Cycle Stage Junction,

Waltham Forest

Cycle and Pedestrian-Only Stage

Full toucan stage 10.6.22 Cycle tracks on either side of the carriageway
on all arms feed into parallel signalised pedestrian and
10.6.19 Toucan facilities can be provided at signal cycle crossings which operate simultaneously. Zebra
junctions, either in a walk-with-traffic configuration, or as crossings should not be provided across the cycle
a full toucan stage. However, to accommodate this it is tracks in association with the signalised pedestrian
necessary to provide shared use facilities around the crossings of the carriageway to prevent any confusion,
junction and therefore it is unlikely such an arrangement particularly for visually impaired people.
would be suitable where pedestrian and cyclist flows are
10.6.23 The duration of the cycle and pedestrian stage
high. Parallel cyclist and pedestrian facilities are likely to
should at least be the time taken for a pedestrian to
be more appropriate than a toucan stage, to reduce the
cross the longest arm and preferably the time required
need for shared use. If a full toucan stage, with
for a cyclist to make the longest right turn movement.
associated shared use, is being considered it is essential
that local accessibility groups are involved at an early 10.6.24 This technique may be appropriate where the
stage. Any shared use areas should be indicated with space or time for separate stages or a hold-the-left
tactile paving to the recommended layouts and colours turn arrangement is not possible, or would make the
in the ‘Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces’. junction staging overly complex. The overall cycle time
should be kept as short as possible so that delays to
10.6.20 Toucan facilities may use nearside signals to
pedestrians and cyclists are minimised. Allowing the
TSRGD diagram 4003.7, or farside aspects to TSRGD
pedestrian/cycle stage to run more than once in the
diagram 4003.5 with a push button to TSRGD diagram
overall signal cycle would further reduce wait times
4003.6 or 4003.8. Farside and nearside signals must not
and should be considered.
be combined in the same installation. Nearside signal
aspects can be obscured by those waiting, and
supplementary signals to TSRGD diagram 4003.7A may Hold the left
be useful at busy sites.
10.6.25 In this arrangement, a nearside cycle track is
Circulating Cycle Stage Junction given a dedicated green signal while conflicting general
traffic turning across the cycle track – typically the left
10.6.21 This layout enables cyclists to make all turn but also any opposing right turn – is held on a red
movements, usually in a clockwise direction, around a signal. The turning motor traffic only receives a green
junction during a single stage, subject to its duration. signal when cyclists are held on a red signal. This
The cycle stage is normally associated with a full removes potential for ‘left and right hook’ conflicts
pedestrian stage (all-red to general traffic). Only a few between cyclists and motor traffic. The layout is shown
examples of this type of junction have been constructed in Figure 10.27.
in the UK at present (Figure 10.26) and therefore any
new installations should be monitored closely so that

114
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 10.27: Hold the left layout (also showing 2-stage right turn)
Cycles run straight ahead
with general traffic

Left held while cycle

traffic is on green

c
c

c
1 2

Secondary cycle signal to green at the same time

Two-stage straight across
as the low-level cycle signal for early release for
pedestrian crossing
cyclists waiting behind the stop line; the green cycle
aspect must then terminate once the associated
traffic phase gains right of way.

3 4 Secondary cycle signal must always be far-sighted

even if motor traffic secondary signal is near-sighted.

Early
Start

Early
Start

10.6.26 Depending on the geometry of the original site, Two stage turns
this design may require additional space for splitter
islands between the various movements and to mount 10.6.28 The two stage turn arrangement enables
the required signal heads and so may be difficult to cyclists to turn right without having to move to the centre
accommodate at some locations. It also makes the of the carriageway (Figure 10.29). It can be of benefit on
method of control more complex, which may reduce a multi-lane approach where the speed and volume of
junction capacity, although this can be mitigated by motor traffic makes a conventional right turn manoeuvre
banning some turns. difficult for cyclists, even with an advanced stop line.
10.6.27 If a right turn for cyclists is permitted at the 10.6.29 Provision is made for cyclists to pull in to an
junction, a two-stage right turn facility as described area of the carriageway in advance of the stop line and
below should normally be provided to avoid having to pedestrian crossing (where present) on their left, and to
run the separate cycle approach in its own stage. wait there until that junction approach has a green
signal. At that point, cyclists make a straight across
Figure 10.28: Hold the left junction, London movement to complete their right turn. The waiting area
is indicated by cycle symbols to TSRGD diagram 1057
and a right turn arrow to TSRGD diagram 1059.
A coloured surfacing patch may also be used to highlight
the waiting area.

10.6.30 Two stage turns do involve additional delay for

cyclists compared to turning right from the centre of the
junction in mixed traffic, and are therefore less suitable
for junctions with long signal cycles, although the
method of control should be designed to ensure as
short a wait period as possible. Intergreen periods
should be calculated to take into account cyclists

115
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 10.29: Two stage right turn

General traffic signals

Cycle lane, stepped cycle track or plus low level signal
lightly segregated cycle lane with early cycle release

c
approach to ASL

Waiting area for

right turning cycles

c
c
c

c
c
1 2

c
Diag. 1057 and Diag 1059 At Secondary cycle signal to green at the same time
centre of nearside approach as the low-level cycle signal for early release for
lane including cycle lane cyclists waiting behind the stop line; the green cycle
aspect must then terminate once the associated
traffic phase gains right of way.

3 4 Secondary cycle signal must always be far-sighted

c

even if motor traffic secondary signal is near-sighted.

moving off to complete their turn. The size of the area

Figure 10.30: Two stage right turn
provided for cyclists to wait to complete the turn should
be large enough to accommodate the cycle design
vehicle and the total number of cyclists that are
expected to make the turn at peak times.

10.6.31 Two traffic signs to support a two-stage turn

layout have been designed. One informs cyclists to
make a right turn in two stages. If the right turn is
otherwise banned to cyclists (i.e. they must not turn in
the conventional manner) an ‘except in two stages’ box
sign may be placed on traffic signals to accompany a
sign to TSRGD diagram 612 (Figure 10.30). These signs
require special authorisation and designers wishing to
use them should contact the Department in sufficient
time to ensure this is obtained before the scheme
is installed. 10.6.33 Two stage turn arrangements are usually
provided with hold the left layouts and can also be
10.6.32 Cyclists waiting to complete the right turn used to enable cyclists to turn right and left from
in advance of the stop line must be able to see a two‑way tracks – see Figure 10.31.
secondary signal on the far side of the junction in order
to know when it is safe to proceed. This may include a
cycle priority signal to TSRGD diagram 3001.4 to give an
early release to cycle traffic waiting to complete the turn,
thus reducing conflict from left turning motor traffic.

116
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 10.31: Signs and markings for two-stage turns from two-way cycle track, London

Cycle gate 10.6.36 Cycle gates require a substantial amount of

space in terms of road width and depth of reservoir.
10.6.34 A cycle gate provides a reservoir area with Although they may help at sites where there is a large
separately controlled entry points for cyclists and motor amount of left-turning motor traffic, they can be
traffic. Cyclists and motor vehicles are held in the confusing if the design or operation leads cyclists to
reservoir at a second set of signals, at different stages assume the first green light gives permission to proceed
in the signal cycle – see Figures 10.32 and 10.33. into the junction itself, instead of to the second stop line.
The disadvantage of this arrangement is that cyclists are
10.6.35 Unlike an advanced stop line, the controlled always required to stop, either at the cycle entrance or
access to the reservoir means that cyclists do not have the second main stop line, affecting directness and
to travel through the junction at the same time as motor comfort. The arrangement can also be confusing with a
vehicles. It also eliminates the conflict that can occur green light to proceed quickly followed by a red light at
when cyclists reach an ASL just as the signals change to the second stop line. Cycle gates can be useful where
green. They can provide time and space to move away there are a large number of left-turning motorised
from a junction ahead of motorised vehicles. vehicle movements, or ‘scissor movement’ conflicts.
They require a substantial amount of space in terms of
Figure 10.32: Cycle gate, Southwark Bridge, London road width and depth of reservoir.

10.6.37 The reservoir should not be marked in such a

way as to make it appear like an ASL – for example,
it should not have coloured surfacing or be marked
with cycle symbols. To avoid potential problems with
see-through, the recommended minimum separation
between the two stop lines for general traffic is 18m,
as shown on Figure 10.33. This ensures signals can be
clearly associated with each stop line.

10.6.38 The timings of the three sets of signals on

each arm are shown in Figure 10.34 and are such that:

a The reservoir is clear when the cycle signals go green

so that cyclists can move to the front of the area

a The signals controlling the exit from the reservoir go

green in advance of those on the general traffic entry,
to give cyclists in the reservoir a head start. LLCS
can be used at this stop line to give an additional
early release.

117
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 10.33: Cycle gate layout

Low level cycle signal High Level Traffic signal with

Cyclist Stop Line (LLCS) LLCS as repeater

c
c

7m Min

Reservoir
18m Minimum

Primary Signal for Secondary Signal LLCS

Traffic in for Traffic in
Carriageway Carriageway

Early release 10.6.40 The early release phase should be long

enough to allow cyclists to travel beyond the left turn
10.6.39 LLCS used in this way are programmed to conflict point before other vehicles reach that point.
turn green a few seconds before the main traffic. Experience so far suggests an early start phase of 4
This enables cyclists to establish themselves within the seconds gives cyclists good priority without unduly
junction ahead of the release of general traffic, in order delaying traffic. Designers may start with this as a default
to reduce the risk of potential conflicts between cyclists value, but should confirm this is suitable through on-site
and turning traffic. LLCS are generally used with an ASL, observations once installed, and adjust if necessary.
allowing cyclists to position themselves in front of the A longer advance green time may tempt cyclists into
traffic queue and gain maximum advantage. turning right across oncoming traffic. An early start
phase of less than 3 s is not recommended.

Figure 10.34: Cycle gate signal sequence

118
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

10.6.41 Although early release reduces conflicts at the first stop line at any point, whether or not an approach
start of the green period, it does not overcome other lane or gate is provided, but must stop at the second.
problems associated with advanced stop lines since it
only benefits those at the stop line at the start of the 10.6.43 ASLs do not remove conflict with motor
green period. vehicles and are therefore unattractive to less confident
cyclists. Moreover, they do not resolve all problems at
traffic signals even for more confident cyclists. ASLs only
Advanced stop lines (ASLs) provide benefit to cyclists on a signal approach when
the traffic signals are on red. They have little value on
10.6.42 An ASL enables cyclists to take up the
approaches that are free-flowing for most of the cycle,
appropriate position in the waiting area between the
and/or with multiple lanes, as cyclists will find it difficult
two stop lines, for their intended manoeuvre ahead of
to manoeuvre themselves into an offside lane to make
general traffic, before the signals change to green.
a right turn.
Figure 10.35 shows the typical arrangements of ASLs.
Vehicles other than pedal cycles must stop at the first
stop line when signalled to do so. Cyclists may cross the

Figure 10.35: Typical arrangements for ASLs

119
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

10.6.44 ASLs should therefore only be considered to

meet the full accessibility needs of most people on a 10.7 Roundabouts
junction approach which meets the following criteria:

a traffic flows of less than 5,000 PCUs per day;

Introduction
a there are no more than two traffic lanes; 10.7.1 Roundabouts account for around 20% of all
reported cyclist killed or seriously injured (KSI)
a the approach is on green for no more than 30% of casualties,42 and roundabouts designed to standard UK
the cycle time; and geometry can be hazardous for cyclists. They usually
have flared entries and exits with two or more lanes and
a there is a nearside protected route to the ASL that is wide circulatory carriageways which are often unmarked,
of sufficient width to accommodate the cycle lead to high differences in speeds and inherent conflicts
design vehicle. between cyclists and motor vehicles. The relatively
smooth path for motor vehicles helps increase capacity
10.6.45 Three types of ASL are prescribed, TSRGD but can result in high traffic speeds through the junction,
diagrams 1001.2, 1001.2A and 1001.2B. TSRGD particularly on large diameter roundabouts outside urban
diagram 1001.2 incorporates an advisory or mandatory areas where traffic is free-flowing.
cycle lane, provided to enable cyclists to enter the
reservoir. TSRGD diagram 1001.2A replaces the 10.7.2 Finding a safe position to ride around the wide
approach lane with a diagonal “gate” marking. TSRGD circulatory carriageway may be difficult. Cyclists are at
diagram 1001.2B has neither approach lane nor gate, but risk of not being noticed by drivers entering or leaving
consists of two stop lines placed parallel to each other. the junction at relatively high speeds. Roundabouts with
a dedicated left turn slip lane to increase traffic capacity
10.6.46 Approach lanes are not required if TSRGD pose an additional hazard for cyclists, both where the
diagram 1001.2B is used, but they will enable cyclists to lane diverges and on the merge at the exit, where a
easily pass queuing motor traffic on the approach to the cyclist travelling straight ahead or turning right will leave
stop line. They should be at least 2.0 m wide to the roundabout between two fast moving traffic lanes.
accommodate the cycle design vehicle. ASLs to TSRGD
diagram 1001.2B may not be accessible to all, for 10.7.3 Normal roundabouts with flared geometry
example, three and four wheeled cycles and child and no additional cycle facilities are unsuitable for
cyclists may not be willing or able to overtake, especially most people wishing to cycle and can pose a high risk
when vehicles are already queuing. even for experienced cyclists. New roundabouts on
all-purpose roads should be provided with cycle facilities
10.6.47 Approach lanes are usually provided on the as recommended in this guidance, unless there are
nearside. Where there are high numbers of left turning clearly-defined and suitable alternative routes.
vehicles mixing with cyclists going ahead or right, central
or offside feeder lanes between the general traffic lanes 10.7.4 Roundabouts that are designed to enable
could be considered. However, such lanes involve riding inclusive cycling can offer advantages over traffic signals
between motor traffic streams and are therefore not if cyclists can keep moving through the junction with no
usually considered safe by less confident riders and loss of momentum.
people with younger children. Where provided they
should be at least 2.0m wide. 10.7.5 There are two ways to accommodate cyclists
more safely at roundabouts (depending on traffic
10.6.48 In some circumstances, it may be appropriate conditions, as described in Figure 4.1):
to split the ASL so that cyclists making a particular
movement are encouraged to wait in part of the ASL a Roundabouts with protected space for cycling
box. This will require DfT authorisation. – Where traffic volumes are high, and at roundabouts
with high-speed geometry, provide protected space
10.6.49 ASLs may now be provided at standalone for cycling away from the carriageway, preferably
signal crossings as well as at junctions. They may be with cycle priority or signal-controlled crossings of
appropriate where cyclists need to take up a particular the roundabout entries and exits (or grade
position in the carriageway, whether to make a turn separation); or
downstream of the crossing or for another reason.
The general comments made above regarding the
suitability of ASLs also apply in this situation.

42 Pedal Cycling Road Safety Factsheet, DfT, March 2018

120
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

a Roundabouts for cycling in mixed traffic conditions – Figure 10.36: Footway-level cycle track around large
Compact or Mini-roundabouts, where traffic volumes roundabout, Harrow
and speeds are (or can be made) low, and the lane
widths are narrow so that with other traffic cyclists
can safely share the single lane entries, exits and the
circulatory carriageway in the primary position.

10.7.6 At existing normal roundabouts the options for

improving conditions for cycling are:

a Remodel the junction as a Compact Roundabout,

with or without protected space depending on motor
traffic volumes and speeds;

a Provide protected space for cycling around the

junction, with suitable crossings of each arm;

a Provide grade separated cycle tracks around and/or

across the junction;

a Introduce signal control to the roundabout, with

protected space or other suitable facilities for cycling;
or
10.7.10 Two-way cycle tracks reduce the distance
a Replace the roundabout with a signal controlled or cyclists need to travel when making right turns.
other form of junction, with appropriate cycle facilities. However, where cyclists have priority over the
roundabout entries and exits, one way circulatory cycle
10.7.7 Cycle lanes on the outside of the circulatory tracks have the advantage that they would only
carriageway should not be used, even on compact and approach from the right, i.e. in the same direction as
mini-roundabouts, since cycle lanes offer no physical motor traffic on the roundabout, meaning that drivers are
protection and cyclists using them are very vulnerable more likely to be aware of them.
to ‘left hook’ collisions when motor vehicles are exiting
the junction. 10.7.11 Median islands should be provided on the
roundabout arms to achieve deflection and provide
Roundabouts with protected space for cycling refuges for cycle and pedestrian crossings.

10.7.8 Roundabouts with higher traffic flows and 10.7.12 The preferred type of cycle crossing of the
speeds should have protected space for cycling, both roundabout entries and exits should follow the guidance
around the junction and on all approaches and exits, given in Section 10.3. In urban areas, parallel crossings
so that cyclists do not need to cycle in mixed traffic. may be appropriate, and have the advantage that they
give immediate priority to cyclists and pedestrians, and
10.7.9 The design of the protected space should reduce delays to motor traffic unless the numbers
reflect the local context, as described in Chapter 4, crossing are high. They can also be placed close to the
Section 4.4. Fully-kerbed cycle tracks will often be circulatory carriageway and so provide a reasonably
appropriate. As with all cycle tracks they will need to be direct route for both types of user. A suggested layout
able to accommodate the anticipated volume of cycle for a roundabout with one way off-carriageway cycle
traffic and the cycle design vehicle. tracks and parallel crossings is shown in Figure 10.37.

121
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 10.37: Roundabout with one way cycle tracks and parallel crossings

Figure 10.38: Roundabout with parallel crossings and 10.7.14 Uncontrolled crossings, where cyclists need to
shared use paths, Bournemouth give way to vehicles entering and exiting the roundabout,
should only be used at lower traffic flows and speeds
and where there are no more than two traffic lanes to be
crossed, as shown in Table 10-2. Uncontrolled crossings
at roundabout exits should be situated beyond the end
of the exit flare and a minimum of 10m from the
circulatory carriageway so that people waiting to cross
can differentiate between vehicles exiting and continuing
to circulate the roundabout.

10.7.15 As with all crossings, there should be no

stagger between the crossings for cyclists of the
roundabout entry and exit.

10.7.13 Where motorised traffic has higher flows and Signal-controlled roundabouts
speeds, signalised crossings will be necessary. These
will need to be placed as close as possible to the 10.7.16 The introduction of signal control to
outside of the circulatory carriageway to minimise any roundabouts, particularly large normal roundabouts,
deviation in the path of cyclists. The distances required will provide opportunities to improve conditions for
can be assessed using microsimulation. Advice on siting cycle traffic.
crossings on the approach and exit to a roundabout is
given in Chapter 6 of the Traffic Signs Manual. 10.7.17 Signalisation has been shown to improve
safety even where no dedicated facilities are provided,43

43 Kennedy J and Sexton B Literature review of road safety at traffic signals and signalised crossings, TRL, PPR 436, 2009

122
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 10.39: Carriageway-level cycle track used with ‘hold the left’ traffic staging

although there can still be a significant conflict between a Provide a cycle track across or around the central
cyclists and left turning vehicles and on multi-lane island, with crossings of the circulatory carriageway
approaches. Even when large roundabouts have been and the roundabout entries and exits as necessary,
signalised they are likely to remain a deterrent to most as part of the overall junction control
people wishing to cycle. They should therefore not be
regarded as inclusive unless protected space for cycling On-carriageway facilities at the signalised nodes
is provided.
10.7.19 Separate stages for cyclists at the signalised
10.7.18 At signalised roundabouts there are three nodes mean that they only proceed when there is no
suitable approaches to providing for cycle traffic conflict with motor traffic.
at-grade. These are:
10.7.20 One way of achieving this is to use a ‘hold the
a Provide facilities on-carriageway at the signalised left’ arrangement where left turning general traffic is held
nodes, so that cyclists are separated and protected on a separate red signal while all circulating traffic
from conflict with motor traffic; (cycles and motor vehicles) are given a green signal.
Motor traffic turning left to leave the roundabout is given
a Provide a cycle track around the junction with a green aspect at the same time as traffic entering the
signal‑controlled crossings of the roundabout entries roundabout, so that each signal node still operates
and exits, as part of the overall junction control; and efficiently, with two stages (see Figure 10.39).
An example is shown in Figure 10.40.

123
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

traffic can cross while circulatory traffic is receiving a

Figure 10.40: Queens Circus roundabout, Battersea
green aspect. Detection equipment should be provided
to enable cycle traffic to call a green signal when
required.

10.7.23 Where the red period for traffic entering the

roundabout is not long enough to enable a minimum
green to be provided for cycle crossing movements
(as given in Table 10-3), an alternative stage of an
appropriate length should be provided on demand.

10.7.24 Separate cycle crossings of the roundabout

exits will also be needed, which should be as close as
possible to the circulatory carriageway, as discussed
above. Short-term motor traffic queuing back from the
crossing onto the circulatory carriageway may be
10.7.21 For the reasons given in Section 10.6, simply acceptable at the end of the red period, depending on
introducing ASLs at the signalised nodes of a the progression of traffic platoons around the junction.
roundabout will rarely create conditions that enable most
people to cycle and should not be regarded as Cycle track across or around the central island
an inclusive approach.
10.7.25 In some locations, particularly where the
Cycle Track around the signalised roundabout roundabout is large, it may be helpful to provide direct
with crossings routes for cycling across or around the central island,
as shown in Figure 10.41.
10.7.22 Cycle crossings of the roundabout entries can
be integrated with the junction control so that cycle

Figure 10.41: Cycle track and crossing routes through a larger signalised roundabout

124
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

10.7.26 Cyclists will often be able to travel to and from Roundabouts with cycling in
central islands without reducing junction capacity by
crossing the roundabout entry while circulating traffic mixed traffic
has a green signal and crossing the circulatory
carriageway while entry traffic has a green signal. Compact roundabouts
This will involve some delay for cyclists, as they will have
to wait a whole signal cycle to reach and then leave the 10.7.28 Compact (sometimes known as Continental
central island. Signalised roundabouts often run on a style) roundabouts44 have a tighter geometry that is
short cycle time, however which will reduce the delays. more cycle friendly than most existing UK roundabouts
(see Figure 10.44). As the geometry encourages lower
Figure 10.42: Cycle and pedestrian route across Belgrave speeds, cyclists can use the carriageway to pass
Roundabout, Leicester through the roundabout in the primary position.
Motorists are unable to overtake cyclists on the entry,
circulatory carriageway and exit lanes because of their
limited width.

10.7.29 Compact roundabouts without protected

space for cycling should only be used in conditions
where cycling within the carriageway is appropriate on
the approaches to the junction (see Section 4.2) and are
generally suitable for a total junction throughput of up to
around 8,000 PCUs/day. At higher flows or speeds,
protected space will be required on compact
roundabouts.

Figure 10.44: The Perne Road Roundabout in Cambridge

after remodelling to compact geometry
10.7.27 A preferable solution is to introduce a third
stage on demand at the signalised node where both the
entry and exit are held on red, while cyclists can cross to
and from the central island in one diagonal movement
(Figure 10.43).

Figure 10.43: Parliament Square – diagonal cycle crossing

of signalised gyratory node

10.7.30 Compact roundabouts have arms that are

aligned in a radial pattern, with unflared single lane
entries and exits, and a single lane circulatory
carriageway (Figure 10.45). It may be necessary to have
short sections of ‘re-entrant curves’ on the outside of
the circulatory carriageway where the outside kerbline is
concentric with the central island.

10.7.31 Deflection is therefore greater than with normal

roundabouts and the design can be used as an effective
speed reducing feature. Cycle symbols to TSRGD
diagram 1057 may be placed on the entries, exits
and circulatory carriageway in the primary position.

44 See DMRB TD16/07 for definition of Compact roundabout

125
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 10.45: Compact roundabout geometry

10.7.32 Compact roundabouts will tend to have a 10.7.35 They should be designed to reduce speeds at
lower traffic capacity than conventional roundabouts, the junction using tight geometry, with single lane
and can be assessed using traffic modelling software. approaches and exits so that cyclists and motor vehicles
pass through the roundabout in a single stream
Mini-roundabouts (see Figure 10.46). To be comfortable for cycling, the
inscribed circle diameter should not be greater than
10.7.33 Mini-roundabouts can work well for cycling in 15.0m. Cycle symbols to TSRGD diagram 1057 may be
a mixed traffic environment (see Section 4.2) when traffic placed in the primary position to guide cyclists and to
speeds and volumes are low and can provide an alert motorist to their presence.
alternative to priority junctions since traffic on all arms
is required to give way. 10.7.36 Mini roundabouts on busier four or more arm
junctions, and double roundabouts can be
10.7.34 Mini-roundabouts must be indicated using uncomfortable and less safe for cyclists using
road markings to TSRGD diagram 1003.4 and upright the carriageway.
signs to TSRGD diagram 611.1.
10.7.37 At larger and busier mini-roundabouts,
off-carriageway protected space for cycling should
be provided.

126
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 10.46: Mini-Roundabout on designated mixed Figure 10.47: Schematic arrangement of grade
traffic cycle route, London separated junction

10.8.4 Grade separation can also be an attractive

10.8 Grade separated and comfortable option for cycling at major at-grade

crossings and junctions junctions. It should be considered as an option where

there is a conflict between heavy cycle and motor traffic
flows and the topography means that steep ramps are
not necessary, as seen in Figure 10.48.
Introduction
10.8.5 Careful attention should be given to the need
10.8.1 Separating cycle movements vertically across to maintain routes in good condition, particularly the
links and at junctions, as well as at obstacles such as lighting and drainage of underbridges which could
rivers and railways, can provide a high level of service otherwise become unattractive and a potential location
because cyclists are removed from any conflict with for anti-social behaviour.
motor vehicles and are not required to stop or give way.
This approach is more likely to be suitable on larger Figure 10.48: Cycle and pedestrian route grade separated
roads with higher speeds. from carriageway, Arnhem, Netherlands

10.8.2 However, grade separation can involve cyclists

in changes in level and a deviation from their overall
desire line, is costlier than at-grade provision and may
be difficult to retro-fit into existing junctions due to space
and cost constraints. There can also be concerns over
personal security on grade separated routes, particularly
underbridges and subways.

10.8.3 Wherever new grade separated junctions are

being designed, provision should be made for any cycle
facilities to continue so that cyclists do not need to
change levels more than is necessary. Figure 10.47
shows a schematic arrangement for a major dual
carriageway passing beneath a roundabout with cycle
tracks on the main line passing through underbridges on
circulatory carriageway and across an overbridge of the
main alignment.

127
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

10.8.6 New overbridges can be designed as major Bridge widths

features along a route and may become attractors in
their own right (Figure 10.49). They are generally cheaper 10.8.9 The minimum effective width of cycle tracks
than constructing new underbridges beneath existing across and through under- and overbridges should be
highways and other barriers. determined based on the forecast level of use following
the guidance given in Table 5-2. Overbridges for cyclists
Figure 10.49: Diglis Bridge, Worcester are usually also used by pedestrians and a footway
should be provided – 2m is the minimum recommended
width. Where space is constrained so that shared use is
necessary, reference should be made to Chapter 6,
Section 6.5 for the minimum effective width.

10.8.10 Bridges and subways are usually bounded by

vertical features that reduce the useable width (see Table
5-3) which mean that an additional 0.5m is required at
the edge of the cycle track.

10.8.11 Designers should consider providing more

than these minimum widths to increase the
attractiveness of the facility and (for underbridges) the
amount of natural light in the structure. The additional
cost of providing a more generous structure will not be
proportionate to the increase in its width.

10.8.12 The overall desirable minimum widths between

walls/parapets for over- and underbridges are therefore:

a 5.5m separate provision (2m footway, 3m cycle track,

10.8.7 However, underbridges have the advantage 0.5m clearance on one side)
that cyclists can build up speed on the downward ramp,
which helps to carry them up the other side. a 4m shared use (3m useable width, 0.5m clearance on
Overbridges with uphill approach ramps require more both sides)
effort to cross.
10.8.13 Cycling can still be permitted on existing
10.8.8 Under- and overbridges will normally be used structures, including subways, that do not meet these
by both pedestrians and cyclists. Separate provision is dimensions depending on the level of use, but structures
preferred to enable each type of user to travel at their with a width less than 5m overall should normally be
chosen speed, as shown on the example in Figure shared use. It may be necessary to take steps to
10.50. This will have implications for the width of the encourage courteous behaviour by all users at shared
bridge structure as discussed below. use bridges – see Chapter 8, Section 8.2.

Figure 10.50: Covered pedestrian/cycle bridge across Parapet height at overbridges

railway tracks, Cambridge
10.8.14 A parapet height of 1.4m is recommended on
new overbridges where the cycling surface is immediately
adjacent to it (1.8m if equestrians also use the bridge).
It should be noted that Highways England now specify a
minimum parapet height of 1.5m for new structures on
trunk roads. However, the lower 1.4m height is
acceptable for cyclists on other roads.

10.8.15 On existing structures, an absolute minimum

parapet height of 1.2m may be acceptable on cycle
tracks, subject to a risk assessment; and is always
acceptable where a footway or barrier is next to the

128
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

parapet. Designers should consider the likelihood of high Figure 10.51 Underbridge near Cowley on Oxford Bypass
crosswinds and the overall proposed alignment of the with at-grade approach, wing walls and clear sightlines
cycle track relative to the parapet when determining
these risks. Further guidance on the assessment of
parapet heights is given in AASHTO guidance.45

Headroom
10.8.16 Headroom at new underbridges and covered
overbridges should meet the desirable minimum
clearance for cycle routes of 2.4m, as given in Chapter
5. Where an underbridge is longer than 23m the
desirable minimum clearance is 2.7m to increase natural
light (see below).

10.8.17 An absolute minimum headroom of 2.2m may

be acceptable at existing structures. When deciding
whether a headroom below desirable minimum is Figure: 10.52 Underbridge (cycle and pedestrian-only)
acceptable designers should consider the forward with divided carriageway above to create opening – Lund,
visibility to the underbridge offered by the vertical and Sweden
horizontal geometry. Signs to TSRGD diagrams 530A
and 530.2 should be used to warn of the low headroom.

Improving natural light in

underbridges
10.8.18 Underbridges should be designed to maximise
natural light and user perceptions of safety, for example
by using increased headroom, keeping the approaches
to the structure straight and at the same level as the
natural ground and providing splayed wingwalls and
openings in the structure above (see Figures 10.51
and 10.52).

Figure: 10.53: Overbridge with curved ramp approach, Belfast

45 Determination of appropriate railing heights for bicyclists, NCHRP 20-7 (168), AASHTO, 2004

129
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Alignment of cycle tracks and Figure: 10.54: Wheeling Ramp, Cambridge Station
ramps
10.8.19 The horizontal and vertical alignment of cycle
tracks through grade-separated structures and any
ramps on their approaches should follow the
recommendations given in Chapter 5.

10.8.20 Where ramps are in a zig-zag arrangement,

horizontal curves should be provided at the ends of the
ramp sections with a minimum radius of 5m, so that
cyclists can maintain momentum. An example of a
more generous curved approach ramp is shown in
Figure 10.53.

10.8.21 Ramps will normally be used by both cyclists

and pedestrians and gradients should be suitable for
wheelchair users and other disabled people. It is Figure 10.55: Cycle lift and wheeling ramps, Utrecht
preferable that ramps consist of a separate footway and Station – most people use the ramps on the stairs because
cycle track. As noted in Table 5-8, a gradient of 5% they are quicker but the lift meets the needs of people
should be regarded as the desirable maximum for who cannot use them. (Note that the road markings do not
slopes of up to 30m in length and will often be optimum comply with UK regulations.)
for limiting the diversion distance while ensuring the
ramp is easy to climb. An absolute maximum of 8%
should be used for ramps.

10.8.22 Shallower gradients should be used where

possible and the approach to the structure is on the
desire line, such as where a cycle track alongside a
road is gently raised to bridge level.

10.8.23 Ramps of 5% gradient and above should be

divided into sections that do not exceed 10m in length,
and with intermediate resting places at least 2m long.

10.8.24 Stepped ramps should not be provided

because they are inaccessible for cyclists and mobility
impaired people.

Wheeling ramps
10.8.25 Wheeling ramps can be provided to enable
cycles to be rolled up or down a flight of steps that
interrupt a cycle route, such as Figure 10.54. While they
are better than simply requiring people to carry their
cycle up and down stairs, they are not inclusive; they do
not cater for non-standard cycles and are inaccessible
to many people.

10.8.26 They will therefore only form part of an

inclusive system if an alternative facility is provided
which will cater for all users – see Figure 10.55.

130
 11
Cycle parking and
other equipment

Cycle parking is an essential component of cycle infrastructure. Sufficient

and convenient residential cycle parking enables people to choose cycling.
At the trip end, proximity to destinations is important for short stay parking,
while for longer-stay parking security concerns can be a factor. As with
other infrastructure, designers should consider access for all cycles and
their passengers. Additional equipment and services enhance the quality
of experience and convenience of cycling, making it accessible and
attractive to more people.
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

11.1 Introduction 11.2.2 Personal security within cycle parking areas

may also be a concern if the parking is remote and not
overlooked by adjacent buildings. Cycle parking, and
11.1.1 This chapter covers design of parking facilities routes to and from it, should be clearly marked,
and other ancillary services such as cycle maintenance overlooked, well-maintained, well-lit and integrated into
hubs. Cycle parking should be provided at the following the built environment.
locations:

a Places of residence; Short stay parking

a Interchanges with other modes of transport; 11.2.3 For short stays, users will be most concerned
with convenience of access while having a safe place to
a Short stay destinations such as shops and cafes; and secure their cycle. Cycle parking located close to shop
fronts will generally provide good passive surveillance.
a Long-stay destinations such as for work and Small clusters of stands close to main attractors are
education preferable to one central ‘hub’, although in retail malls,
a central facility on the ground floor of a car park or near
11.1.2 Cycle parking is integral to any cycle network, the main pedestrian entrance to the mall may be the
and to wider transport systems incorporating public optimum location. Proximity is also essential for disabled
transport. The availability of secure cycle parking at cyclists who may be unable to walk very far.
home, the end of a trip or at an interchange point has
a significant influence on cycle use.
Longer stay parking
11.1.3 On-street cycle parking can be a cost-effective
‘quick win’ that is easy to deliver. Parked bicycles 11.2.4 Security is the primary consideration for longer
provide evidence of demand and patterns of use and stay parking. Many users will be willing to trade some
can form part of a monitoring regime. Supporting convenience for additional security such as CCTV
features, such as on-street toolkits and pumps, coverage, shelter from weather and secure access
supplement cycle infrastructure and cycle parking by (i.e. not open to the passing public). However, there is a
recognising the specific needs of people who cycle and limit to how far people will be prepared or be able to
providing a strong visual symbol of cycling within the walk to the final destination, so secure parking in railway
transport environment. These supporting features are stations, education buildings and workplaces should still
explained at the end of this chapter. be close to the main entrances and easy to access from
the local cycle route network (see Figure 11.1).
11.1.4 Space for cycle parking should be considered
at the earliest possible stage of a scheme design or 11.2.5 Similarly cycle parking in dwellings must be
building development. convenient, either in the home, within the building or in
the immediate vicinity.

11.2 Cycle parking – 11.2.6 Specific areas should be set aside for
three-wheel cycles (Figure 11.2), which are problematic
general principles to secure to traditional upright hoops, in the most
accessible parts of a large cycle park so that they can
also be used by disabled people with adapted cycles.
11.2.1 The fear or direct experience of vandalism and
Accessible cycle parking should normally also be placed
theft deters cycling. This includes lack of convenient
close to accessible car parking spaces. Isolated cycle
space to keep a bike in the home, which can be
stands for short-term parking should be configured to
particularly problematic in apartments, and for
bear in mind the length of cargo bikes and tandems,
disabled cyclists who need easy access for their cycle.
and the width of tricycles and side-by-side cycles.
A proportion of people that experience cycle theft stop
cycling altogether.46 Investment in new routes and
infrastructure may not reach its full potential if cycle
parking security is not considered at the planning and
design stages. Cycle parking provision should consider
all types of cycle vehicle and all types of cycle user.

46 Bryan-Brown, K and Savile, T Cycle Theft in Great Britain, Transport Research Laboratory, 1997

132
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 11.1: Relationship between cycle parking duration of stay, location and ancillary facilities47

Figure 11.2: Designated area for cargo bike and tricycle 11.3.2 As with car parking, a proportion of the
parking at Malmö Central railway station, Sweden cycle parking (typically 5%) should be provided for
non-standard cycles to accommodate people with
mobility impairments.

11.3.3 Data gathered for Local Cycling and Walking

Infrastructure Plans and other planning documents may
be helpful when predicting the potential growth in cycling
and understanding the demand generated by typical
local trip patterns. This may enable a more considered
approach, with a variation in standards related to
location as well as type of land use. An example of this
approach can be seen in the research base for London’s
cycle parking standards.48

11.3.4 Spare capacity should always be provided to

cater for growth and turnover. The effect of new
infrastructure should also be factored into any decisions
about planned reserve capacity of cycle parking facilities.

11.3.5 Regular surveys of the numbers of cycles

parked and the locations being used can help inform
11.3 Quantity of cycle decisions about how much cycle parking to provide in
new developments and where additional capacity is
parking required at existing sites. Monitoring and consultation
can include:
11.3.1 A local authority may set out minimum or a Surveys of existing cycle parking – existing public
preferred capacity standards and acceptable types of spaces, private spaces and “fly-parking”;
cycle parking in local planning guidance for new
developments. In the absence of any local guidance or a Engagement with businesses and organisations to
standards, Table 11-1 suggests typical minimum cycle understand how customer and visitor patterns vary
parking capacities for different classes of land use.47 across the day, week or year;

47 Active Travel Wales Design Guide, Welsh Government, 2013 (based on original research undertaken by TfL)
48 Cycle Parking: Part of the London Plan Evidence Base, Mayor of London/TfL, 2017

133
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Table 11-1: Suggested minimum cycle parking capacity for different types of land use

Short stay requirement

Land use (obvious, easily accessed Long stay requirement (secure and
type Sub-category and close to destination) ideally covered)

All Parking for adapted cycles for 5% of total capacity co-located 5% of total capacity co-located with
disabled people with disabled car parking. disabled car parking.

Retail Small (<200m²) 1 per 100m² 1 per 100m²

Medium (200-1,000m²) 1 per 200m² 1 per 200m²

>1,000m² 1 per 250m² 1 per 500m²

Employment Office/Finance (A2/B1) 1 per 1000m² 1 per 200m²

Industrial/Warehousing (B2/B8) 1 per 1,000m² 1 per 500m²

Leisure and Leisure centres, assembly Greatest of: 1 per 5 employees

Institutions halls, hospitals and healthcare
1 per 50m² or 1 per 30 seats/
capacity

Educational Institutions – Separate provision for staff and students.

Based on Travel Plan mode share targets,
minimum:
Staff: 1 per 20 staff
Students; 1 per 10 students

Residential All except sheltered/elderly – 1 per bedroom

housing or nursing homes

Sheltered/elderly housing/ 0.05 per residential unit 0.05 per bedroom

nursing homes

Public Standard stop Upon own merit –

Transport
Interchange Major interchange 1 per 200 daily users –

a Engagement with local cycling representative groups

to understand existing problem locations – either 11.4 Cycle parking types
where absence of parking is an issue, or where there
are ongoing security concerns. Police liaison may also
and dimensions
be helpful regarding the latter;
11.4.1 Just as the location and comprehensiveness
a Engagement with local pedestrian and accessibility of cycle parking varies with the type of destination
groups to understand where fly-parking presents an served, so does the appropriate form of parking
obstruction or hazard; provided. Common types are described below.

a Reviewing existing trip generators and the ability to Front wheel support
access them easily by cycle – locations more easily
accessible by cycle may justify an increased level of 11.4.2 Concrete ‘slots’ or metal hoops that support
provision of cycle parking; and only the front wheel and do not enable the frame to be
secured should not be used for public cycle parking.
a Introducing temporary cycle parking stands as a trial
Many cycles are fitted with quick release wheels, and
measure and monitoring use.
this type of support increases the risk of theft.

134
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Sheffield stand too close together will reduce capacity by preventing the
usual practice of one Sheffield stand being used for two
11.4.3 The preferred and most common form of cycles (one each side). Where cycle stands are placed
cycle parking is a tubular metal stand anchored into immediately adjacent to a carriageway there is a risk to
the ground at two points, sometimes known as a cyclists stopping and wheeling bikes into and out of the
“Sheffield stand” (see Figure 11.3). These can be used stand. Designers should consider the speed and volume of
as standalone cycle stands in small shopping streets local traffic when assessing this risk. The position of other
(two cycles per stand), in small shelters typically with existing or proposed street furniture, such as bus shelters
5 or 6 stands, and in large quantities in rows. or benches, should be taken into account. Stands should
not be placed where they obstruct the flow of pedestrian
11.4.4 The advantages of a tubular stand are security, traffic or reduce available footway width for pedestrians
relative cost-effectiveness, and stability for locked bikes. beyond the recommended minimum.
Two-point locking enables both wheels and the frame to
be secured to the stand, increasing the amount of time 11.4.8 The table below gives recommended and
required to steal a bike and thus decreasing the chances of minimum dimensions where Sheffield stands are placed
a quick, opportunistic theft. Two-point locking also reduces in a parallel or “toast rack” arrangement. Note that
the risk of single components being stolen, e.g. a wheel, as where provision is required for three-wheeled cycles,
both wheels, and the frame, can be secured more easily. lateral spaces between stands should be increased to
at least 2.0m.
11.4.5 An “M-profile” stand is a variant of a Sheffield
stand also supports two-point locking and makes theft Figure 11.3: Standalone Sheffield-stand able to
even more difficult by reducing the ability for the locked accommodate a cargo bike in Waltham Forest, London
bike to be moved. The ‘M’ shaped stand offers better
support to small-wheeled bikes and children’s bikes.

Positioning
11.4.6 Cycle stands require at least 0.6m clearance
to walls, and a clear space of 1.0m in front to enable the
bicycle to be wheeled into position. A distance of at least
1.0m between stands enables bicycles fitted with
panniers or child seats to gain access. Other types of
cycle are longer and wider and will require additional
space (see Figure 11.3 and Table 11-2).

11.4.7 Cycle stands placed too close to a wall or

fence will inhibit two-point locking and consequently the
bike may be more likely to fall over. Cycle stands placed

Table 11-2: Recommended and minimum dimensions for banks of Sheffield stands

Recommended Minimum

Bay length (length of cycle parked on a stand) 2m 2m

Bay length (tandems, trailers and accessible cycles) 3.0m 2.5m

Access aisle width (if larger cycles use the end bay only) 3m 1.8m

Access aisle width (if large cycles use internal bays) 4m 3m

Edge access aisle + one bay to the side 5m-6m 3.8m-5m

Central access aisle + one bay to each side 7m-8m 5.8m-7m

Spacing between stands 1.2m 1.0m

Gap between stand and wall (part of bay width) 700mm (typical wheel diameter) 500mm

135
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Two-tier stands Figure 11.5: Public cycle hub at Cambridge station. Note
the wheeling ramp to access cycle parking upstairs: such
11.4.9 Two-tier racks can be used to provide ramps may not be suitable for “non-standard” cycles, but
additional density, offering around a third more cycle here dedicated parking provision for these is available at
parking capacity in the same footprint. However, two-tier ground level, and generally well-respected
cycle racks are typically optimised for a “standard”
two-wheeled, two-m-long cycle.

11.4.10 Additional provision for three-wheelers,

tandems, recumbents and other “non-standard” cycles
should also be provided where two-tier racks are in use.

11.4.11 Two-tier stands require a ceiling height of at

least 2.7m (see Figure 11.4), so may not fit in all older
buildings or basement parking areas of new
developments. Some users will find it difficult to lift their
bike from the floor onto the tray of the upper tier,
although the mechanisms to lift the stands into position
are spring loaded or gas-assisted.

Figure 11.4: Example of two-tier cycle racks at Sheffield Figure 11.6: Secure cycle-hub (pass holders only) at
station Coventry station

11.4.13 A simple cycle shelter can provide an elevated

level of service by keeping parked cycles under cover, and
can still be co-located with an air pump and tool set.
Cycle hubs
Figure 11.7: Multi-purpose cycle hub within a railway
11.4.12 A cycle hub is any location where cycle platform: secure lockers for regular users, plus covered
parking is provided in great numbers, generally within stands to accommodate ad hoc users and Northern Rail’s
a building, and often co-located with maintenance “Bike-n-Go” cycle hire vehicles
facilities, cycle hire, changing rooms, lockers, showers
or retail units (see Figures 11.5 to 11.9). Cycle hubs may
be restricted to key or pass holders, or general access.
Restricted use facilities that charge a fee may be more
economically viable, but the social impact of fly-parking
by those unwilling or unable to pay may have to be
borne in mind. Cycle hubs may also include pumps
and repair tools required for quick on-the-go cycle
maintenance. It is important that cycle hubs are
regularly maintained to ensure that all equipment is
working correctly. Robust tool stations (see Figure 11.9)
designed for public installations are readily available.

136
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 11.8: Canvas cycle shelter at the Department of

Mathematics, University of Cambridge
11.5 Cycle parking in
town centres
11.5.1 Cycle parking in town centres is most likely to
cater for shoppers or those undertaking social or leisure
activities. Short stay parking should be located on-street
rather than in hubs or shelters. Unplanned or badly
planned cycle parking of this type in town centres has
the potential to distract from visual amenity at best, and
present an obstruction at worst.

11.5.2 Extra care should therefore be taken to

position cycle parking in locations that do not impinge
on key pedestrian desire lines, but are still sufficient in
volume and convenience of location to be of use to
cyclists. The position of other existing or proposed street
furniture, such as bus shelters or benches, should be
taken into account. Stands should not be placed where
Figure 11.9: Air pump and repair tools at Bedford station
they obstruct the flow of pedestrian traffic or reduce
available footway width for pedestrians beyond the
recommended minimum. Bespoke or higher-
quality designs may help minimise the visual impact
of cycle parking.

11.6 Interchange
facilities
11.6.1 Cycling increases the reach of public transport
services, and the combination of cycling and public
transport helps people to make journeys that are too
long to cycle. Cycling generally provides reliable journey
times between the home and station, little affected by
peak time traffic congestion. A high proportion of the
UK population lives within 2 miles of a railway station.

11.6.2 Cycle hubs are generally the most appropriate

form of cycle parking at public transport stations
(see 11.4.12). At smaller, unstaffed stations or tram
stops, the absence of passive surveillance will be of
concern to users who will need to leave their cycle
locked up for prolonged periods. Even at busier stations
this may be a concern. The chosen location should be
covered by CCTV.

137
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 11.10: Small cycle hub at Ealing Broadway offering Figure 11.11: Cycle parking at interurban bus stop in
CCTV secure parking and cycle hire Humberside

11.7 Workplace facilities

11.6.3 Park & Ride sites may attract users to cycle to
them and are often expressly set up to enable this. Cycle 11.7.1 The advantage of workplace cycle parking is
hub-style parking facilities (covered, secure) would be that it can be incorporated within a site’s secure
the most appropriate solution at most Park & Ride sites perimeter, or located close to main entrances for natural
because of their more remote location. surveillance (see Figure 11.12).

11.6.4 Some authorities also encourage park-and- Figure 11.12 Cycle parking clearly marked at workplace
cycle, where people drive to a Park & Ride, a Park & basement entrance, Birmingham
Choose site or a dedicated Park & Cycle site, and cycle
the rest of their journey (either by taking their cycle from
the car, or collecting their cycle from a locker or secure
parking facility). Park & Ride is often financed solely via
revenue from fares, and therefore local authorities may
choose to charge a fee for secure overnight cycle
parking. At Park & Cycle sites, the need to store
cycles securely overnight suggests that a cycle-hub
solution is more appropriate than uncovered and
unsecured stands.

11.6.5 Bus stops should also be considered as

locations where cycle parking has potential to fulfil a role
as an intermodal option (Fig 11.11), particularly in less
dense suburban and rural locations where bus routes
may be further from people’s homes or places of work.
High-quality interurban bus routes or limited stop
express routes may draw users from a further catchment 11.7.2 Places of work where staff need to wear
than the traditional 5 or 10-minute walking distance special clothes will already have changing, shower and
hinterland normally assumed for bus services. Central locker facilities, but the design of new or refurbished
bus hubs will also have a large catchment area where office buildings should consider similar features to
the choice of routes may be significantly better than support cycle commuting. While people who commute
what is available within walking distance from a short distances may well be able to do so without
residential area. wearing specialist cycling clothing, those riding longer
distances will appreciate changing rooms and lockers,
preferably with facilities to dry clothing.

138
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

11.8 Residential facilities 11.9 Ancillary equipment

11.8.1 It is good practice to provide dedicated cycle 11.9.1 Ancillary equipment can help remove some of
parking within new development as outlined in the NPPF the barriers to cycling and give a positive message that
in the same way as car parking is provided. Many cycling is a legitimate and valid form of transport.
people choose to keep their cycle inside their house or
flat for security. However, the absence of internal cycle 11.9.2 Footrests (Figure 11.15) at traffic signals or
storage may lead to the blocking of internal circulatory other locations where cyclists need to stop and wait can
spaces and stairwells, which inhibits evacuation and assist with moving off again, as can a handrail for
rescue in the event of fire or other emergency. New “clipped in” cyclists to hold rather than putting their
developments should always therefore provide foot down.
dedicated ground floor cycle storage.
Figure 11.15: Integrated footrest and handrail on the Farum
11.8.2 In areas where existing houses and flats are to Copenhagen cycle route. Note the route branding and
accessed by steps, or have no outside storage space waymarking incorporated into the feature.
for cycle sheds, on-street cycle parking may be more
practicable (see Figure 11.13). This potentially presents
problems of security and exposure to the elements.

Figure 11.13: Secure on-street “Cycle Hangar” in Hackney,

London

11.9.3 Air pumps and toolkits can also be located

across the network and at rest stops to further increase
the convenience to potential cyclists.

11.9.4 Digital cycle counters (Figure 11.16) showing a

real time total of cyclists per day or per year provide a
strong visual nudge that cycle infrastructure is a serious
part of the transport system, and communicates to
cyclists that they are valued. They provide evidence of
11.8.3 On-street cycle parking “hangars” can be the level of use of a facility, which can be useful in
retro-fitted to a street or within an estate, and are discussions with decision makers.
normally only available to registered key-holders. Cycle
hangars provide a dedicated place to park a cycle
Figure 11.16: Real time cycle counter in Manchester
securely outside the curtilage of an existing building and
not on the footway. Cycle parks are commonly located
underground in residential blocks (see Figure 11.14).

Figure 11.14: Basement cycle parking in residential

development, London

139
 12
Planning and
designing for
commercial
cycling
Public cycle hire schemes are increasingly being offered in urban areas
as an option for short journeys. Like other forms of public transport, cycle
hire schemes require space to operate and a degree of regulation. The
outsourcing of business services, growth in e-commerce and fast food
delivery has driven an increase in cycle logistics. While this brings benefits
of a reduction in light goods vehicles on the roads, it also brings challenges
in establishing convenient locations for micro-consolidation hubs and
accommodating larger cycles on cycle infrastructure. The increasing
availability of electrically assisted pedal cycles is helping to extend the
range of hire bikes and cycle logistics into areas beyond city centres.
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

12.1 Public cycle hire 12.1.4 All systems normally require premises for
back-office operations and cycle maintenance.
These offices may also be a ‘hub’ for other related
12.1.1 A wide variety of business models are in use activities such as public cycle parking, repair and
throughout the UK to offer ‘public bikes’ for hire. These maintenance services or cycle logistics (see Cycle
can be traditional cycle hire from a staffed location, Parking in Chapter 11).
automated docked systems offering trips between fixed
docking stations, and dockless systems where bikes 12.1.5 Including cycle hire as a service on pre-
may be activated by smart-phone for door to door trips payment cards or mobile apps for public transport can
within a geo-fenced area. further assist with integration of cycling with public
transport. The ability to ‘turn up and go’ using a bank
12.1.2 Regardless of the means of operation, most card or app allows the systems to be easily available to
public bikes are stored on-street and need highway new and occasional users.
space to be allocated. Docked systems also require
local planning permission to install the equipment. 12.1.6 Many public bike schemes in the UK and
An electrical supply is required, along with cycle parking elsewhere are dependent on revenue support to
docks and additional space for the terminal. A bank of maintain them. Before investing capital expenditure on
10 docked cycles will therefore take up about twice as docking stations and other permanent infrastructure,
much space as 10 parked cycles. There is usually a the local authority should be satisfied that there are
need to redistribute docked bikes throughout the day as long-term revenue funding arrangements in place.
certain journeys are more popular and in response to These issues should be thoroughly explored during
‘tidal’ trips during commuting hours, and so docking feasibility studies and risks addressed in the
stations will also need adequate space for maintenance procurement procedures.
vans to load and unload bikes.

12.1.3 Dockless bikes can be left anywhere (within

areas of operation agreed between operators and local
12.2 Cycle freight
authorities), but in practice these also typically require
some redistribution. Parking for docked and dockless 12.2.1 Manual and electrically assisted pedal cycles
bikes can take up slightly more space than Sheffield (e-bikes) are increasingly used as an efficient and low
stands because the cycles are not locked together, so a polluting method to move items within urban areas.
single cycle will typically take up at least 1.0m width. This may be as part of a delivery logistics chain,
Bikes left on footways are hazardous to pedestrians, business to business supplies, express local delivery,
particularly visually impaired people. Providing dedicated or other services such as food delivery.
parking areas for the bikes can help, but may reduce
some of the ‘door to door’ convenience that attracts
users to the scheme.

Figure 12.1: Typical cycle logistics models

142
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

12.2.2 Commercial operators are also attracted by 12.2.4 Logistics operations will also typically require
the ability of cycles to move quickly through congested adequate space for cycles to be stored securely when
areas and ease of parking whilst loading and unloading. not in use. This is normally the office from which the
It is important that the cycle infrastructure can business operates (for smaller concerns) or a local
accommodate the range of vehicles. distribution centre (for large freight operators).

12.2.3 Cycle freight logistics is most efficient within 12.2.5 A range of cycles are in common use
areas of high density land use as illustrated in (see Figure 12.2) and can be accommodated within
Figure 12.1. An additional infrastructure requirement for the parameters of the ‘design vehicle’ described in
freight may be the introduction of micro-consolidation Chapter 5. E-bikes enable riders to work for longer,
centres for first/last mile delivery services to enable overcome hills and carry greater loads. E-bike
interchange with longer distance freight such as vans or operations also require recharging facilities although
lorries. Finding suitable space for logistics consolidation this is generally done overnight between shifts.
in high density central areas can be challenging.
Consolidation centres can take up as little space as two
standard car parking spaces, and may be on-street,
in existing car parks, or in commercial premises but also
need access for vans/lorries to pick up and drop off.
In some cases, the cycle-freight operation centre may
be combined with other businesses such as a cycle
shop, café or cycle hire centre.

Figure 12.2: Typical range of cycles

143
 13
Traffic signs, road
markings and
wayfinding

Traffic signs and road markings must comply with the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions, or be authorised by the Secretary
of State, when used within the highway, but the legislation allows for
considerable flexibility in their use. There is a balance to be struck between
providing enough signs for people to be able to understand and follow
cycle infrastructure and ensuring that the signs themselves do not create
confusion or street clutter. Routes on other rights of way not on the highway
can use customised waymarking.
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

13.1 Principles 13.1.6 There is freedom to install locally distinctive

signing (such as wooden signs) on routes away from
highways, although standard road signs may be used,
13.1.1 The first part of this chapter covers the which can aid consistency and maintenance. Signs
requirements for traffic signs, road markings and signals. away from highways should be accessible to all and
Traffic signs, road markings and signals for use on the follow the guidelines set out in Inclusive Mobility.50
public highway are prescribed in the Traffic Signs In general, symbols and diagrams can be understood
Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD). All signs by a wider range of people and are therefore more
erected on the highway must comply with TSRGD or be inclusive than written material.
specially authorised by the Secretary of State. Advice on
sign design is given in the Traffic Signs Manual (TSM)
and designers should refer to this. The second part of
this chapter considers signing issues for cycle routes
13.2 Mounting heights
that are not on the highway. and positions
13.1.2 Designers should always question whether
new signs are needed at all, and whether existing 13.2.1 Where signs are erected above footways and
signs and posts can be re-used when introducing cycle tracks, adequate clearance is required for
signs for cycling.49 pedestrians and cyclists. A minimum height of 2300 mm
for pedestrians and 2400 mm for cyclists is
13.1.3 Some cycle facilities require appropriate signs recommended – see Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs
and/or road markings to give effect to Traffic Regulation Manual. Signs on bollards are typically mounted at least
Orders. Other signs are used to provide information, 0.8m high to ensure they can be easily seen, and signs
warn of hazards and give directions. on walls placed at a height of 1.5m.

13.1.4 Many signs that relate to cycle infrastructure 13.2.2 Sign posts should be placed at least 0.5m
are prescribed at smaller sizes than those used for from the carriageway and cycle track edge, but no more
general traffic, but use of these needs to be balanced than 1.0m from the route to ensure that they are visible
against the requirement for signs to be visible and to users. Where bollards are placed in cycle tracks a
legible at cycling speeds. Some key principles are clear width of 1.5m is required for access by the full
applicable everywhere: range of cycles.

a Signing should be kept to the minimum to reduce

street clutter and maintenance costs;
13.3 Regulatory signs
a The size of a sign and x-heights should be
appropriate to ensure it can easily be read by cyclists 13.3.1 Advice on design and use of regulatory signs
and/or drivers depending on the purpose and location is given in Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual. Traffic
of the sign; and Regulation Orders (TROs) made under the Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984 require regulatory signs and
a Sign posts and lighting columns should not be placed markings to give them effect and enable enforcement
within a cycle track or footway wherever possible (see Appendix C). A one way or two-way cycle track
(other than signs mounted on bollards). Ideally posts within the highway can only be created under the
should be 0.5m clear of the riding surface but if this Highways Act 1980.
cannot be achieved, they should be placed at the
back of the cycle track or footway. 13.3.2 Most orders relate to on-carriageway
restrictions, such as speed limits, cycle exemption from
13.1.5 TSRGD offers a flexible approach to ‘no entry’ or banned turns, and restrictions on car
information and direction signs, enabling highway parking and motor vehicle access.
authorities to create signs appropriate to local
circumstances within an overall framework of design 13.3.3 Where necessary, cyclists can be exempted
elements. This helps minimise the need for special from prohibitions on movements such as no entry, no left
authorisation of non-standard signs. turn and no right turn, through use of the appropriate
plate (‘Except Cycles’ or ‘Except Buses and Cycles’).
This must be reflected in the TRO.

49 Traffic Signs Manual: Chapter 1, DfT

50 Inclusive Mobility – A Guide to best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure, DfT, 2002

146
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

13.4 Informatory signs 13.5 Road markings

13.4.1 The CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign to TSRGD 13.5.1 Advice on the use of road markings is given in
diagram 966 should not normally be used – on a Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual. They are used to
well-designed facility, it is very rarely appropriate and indicate prohibitions, delineate carriageway space or
represents a discontinuity in the journey, which is highly crossing points, and provide information to assist with
disruptive. It should only be used in situations where it wayfinding such as direction arrows. Half-size versions
would be unsafe or impracticable for a cyclist to of give way markings and centre line markings are
continue, or at the complete termination of a route, for prescribed for use along cycle tracks.
example at a railway station forecourt. It should be borne
in mind that some people with mobility impairments will 13.5.2 The road marking to TSRGD diagram 1049B
be unable to dismount. There will seldom be justification is used to indicate mandatory cycle lanes, and to
for using the sign where a cycle route crosses or joins a TSRGD diagram 1004 to indicate advisory cycle lanes –
carriageway, and the alternative permitted variant see Chapter 5 of Traffic Signs Manual. Markings such as
‘CYCLISTS REJOIN CARRIAGEWAY’ may be more direction arrows are less obtrusive than upright signs
appropriate (see Figure 13.1). and can be a valuable aid to cyclists, especially at
transitions between on and off-carriageway routes and
13.4.2 Designers should design or modify schemes to mark the path through complex junctions. Markings
to ensure that its use is avoided. For existing signs, it is may either supplement or replace upright signs, subject
recommended that authorities review locations and to the requirements of TSRGD.
consider alternative provision to enable cyclists to
proceed without dismounting, such as the use of the 13.5.3 Road markings should always be well-laid and
‘CYCLISTS REJOIN CARRIAGEWAY’ alternative. clear. They require regular maintenance to ensure they
Where the sign’s use appears unavoidable, designers remain legible. Advice on maintenance is given in UK
should be able to defend their decision and why it Road Liaison Group’s document ‘Well-managed
cannot be avoided. Highway Infrastructure: A Code of Practice’.

13.4.3 The END OF ROUTE sign to TSRGD diagram

965, and the END marking to TSRGD diagram 1058,
are not mandatory, and should be used sparingly.
13.6 Direction signs
As with CYCLISTS REJOIN CARRIAGEWAY, where their
use appears unavoidable, designers should be able to
and markings within the
defend their decision and why it cannot be avoided. highway
When deciding whether to use them, consideration should
be given to the purpose they are meant to serve. If the 13.6.1 As well as showing the destination, and its
end of the route is obvious, they are redundant. If the cycle direction and distance, direction signs can also help with
route cedes priority on ending, GIVE WAY signing is used orientation so that the user can work out their location.
instead. See also Chapter 6 on use with cycle lanes.

Figure 13.1: A positive instruction should be used where a

Distance and time units
sign is necessary to indicate the end of a route.
13.6.2 Distances must be expressed in miles,
fractions of miles and yards as set out in TSRGD.
Estimated journey times in minutes may be shown on
cycle and pedestrian signs. Time and distance must
not be shown on the same sign.

13.6.3 An average speed of 10mph provides a

baseline for calculating cycle journey times but this
needs to be modified to take account of any steep or
long hills on a route. Local authorities should check
actual journey times when developing a sign schedule.
Beyond four to five miles, journey time estimates will
become more inaccurate and distances should be
used instead.

147
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

13.7 Direction signs Figure 13.2: Example of local branding applied to different
sign layouts
13.7.1 TSRGD allows flexibility for direction sign
designs on cycle routes. The smaller x-height of 25mm
may be used for direction signs. This size may be
suitable for quiet and low speed off-road routes, but not
for higher speed sites.

13.7.2 Local route branding patches may be used

on direction signs as well as National Cycle Network
branding. Identification numbers of routes may include
capital letters. If not a national or regional route, the
route number and patch may be in any contrasting
colour. This allows route branding to be used on cycle
route signing.

13.7.3 Signs should preferably be placed on existing

street furniture to reduce the need for additional posts.
Where cycling is on-carriageway the signs may be
incorporated into general traffic signs, as illustrated in
Chapter 7 of the Traffic Signs Manual, thereby reducing
street clutter. Advance direction signs may be used
ahead of the junction to warn and allow cyclists to
position themselves for a manoeuvre, together with
flag-ended signs at the junction. Route confirmatory
signs after a junction help confirm that the correct route
has been chosen. 13.7.7 A map-type explanatory sign can be used
where the cycle route leaves the carriageway on a
13.7.4 Direction signs are provided to guide route different alignment to that of on-carriageway traffic
users, but they may also have the side-effect of promoting (Figure 13.3). Note that this sign required DfT
the route, making potential users aware of it. Signing the authorisation.
links to/from/across the route as well as along it can help
to promote more use. Local route branding using colour Figure 13.3: Map type sign, London
coding or a numbering system can be applied to direction
signs as shown in Figure 13.2.

13.7.5 The presence of a signed route may create an

expectation in users that that route will provide a certain
level of service. Poor provision will undermine trust in the
signed network. Designers need to be mindful of the
quality of any signed link and capabilities of the intended
users. Poor maintenance will also deter users, for
example if signs are twisted or missing, leading to issues
with navigation. See Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs
Manual for advice on sign mounting and maintenance.

13.7.6 Direction signs may be more necessary in

back street or traffic free routes than on busier roads,
where direction signs for general traffic can provide for
cyclists and pedestrians. Links to a route from
surrounding origins such as residential areas and from
the route to nearby destinations will need to be signed.
A route provides for a range of journeys along its length
and the corridor it serves.

148
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

13.8 Direction signs for 13.8.2 In rural areas, cycling is permitted on certain
types of public path, bridleways, byways and roads used
off-highway routes as public paths, as well as permissive routes on private
land. Signs can aid people’s understanding of where
they may or may not cycle – see Figure 13.5.
13.8.1 Direction signs for off-highway routes do not
have to comply with TSRGD, but should still include
information about distances, destinations and direction.
(see Figure 13.4). A consistent approach to design and 13.9 Preparing a signing
branding will assist with this.
schedule
Figure 13.4: Locally branded signs on off-highway route
13.9.1 A signing schedule will need to be prepared to
work out what direction signs are required and where to
place them. It is important to cycle the route in both
directions to consider where to place signs that will be
visible to users, and to consider what signs to and from
adjoining routes will be required. When undertaking the
site investigation, existing street furniture such as other
sign posts, bollards or panels of guard rail should be
noted where this could provide a place to mount a sign.
Some highway authorities also permit direction signs to
be placed on lamp columns.

13.9.2 The signing schedule is typically set out in

tabular format. The coordinates of each location can be
recorded by taking photographs with a GPS enabled
camera and plotting these on a base map on which the
proposed position of the sign can be illustrated. It should
also be noted whether the sign will be placed on existing
street furniture or a new pole, and whether any existing
signs are to be removed. The compass orientation of the
sign should be recorded together with the content
(destinations, direction and distance) and pattern style
of the sign (using the TSRGD reference number).
Commercial packages are available to design signs and
when these are used, an illustration of the proposed sign
can also be included. GIS can be used to record and
share this information.
Figure 13.5: Off-road signs, Lake District National Park
13.9.3 Most built-up areas will have important primary
destinations such as the Town Centre and secondary
destinations such as District Centres already in use on road
signs which should form the basis of the signing strategy.
Local destinations such as schools, shopping parades
or attractions can be signed from within a mile or at the
junction of the cycle route and the spur to the destination.
Specific cycle route signing may not be needed where the
route is already signed for motor traffic.

149
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

13.10 Orientation 13.11 Branding cycle

13.10.1 Area maps can be helpful to understand, routes and networks
and to provide a general overview of, the local area,
especially for those making longer journeys. Off-road 13.11.1 Many local authorities have branded their cycle
routes in railway and canal cuttings can be quite route networks, and TSRGD allows for branding patches
isolated, making it harder to work out distances and to be placed on direction signs. Branded routes are
locations without the aid of a map. generally longer linear routes radiating from a town or
city centre. Typically, in a large city, these radials might
13.10.2 Information totems offer a way to display extend three to five miles into a suburb or even link
on-street maps. They may be associated with cycle hire neighbouring towns. Radial routes usually pass through
docking stations, cycle parking stands or placed at several important local destinations such as district
regular intervals and at strategic points where a route centres and public transport interchanges. In this way,
choice must be made. The advantage of maps is that they can be likened to bus, tram and train routes and a
they can tell the reader where they are in relation to their similar mapping style can be applied to the totems
destination and isochrones can be used to provide an (see Figure 13.6), helping cyclists to measure their
estimate of cycling times. Research and trials for the progress along a route.
Legible London mapping (used on cycle hire and
pedestrian signs) informed the design of the mapping 13.11.2 Standard cycle route direction signing should
to include: be used wherever possible, as prescribed in TSRGD.
This will reduce costs by avoiding the need for special
a Orientation of the map in the same direction as the signs authorisation, and ensure consistency across
viewer is facing; neighbouring networks. In some towns and cities, and
on the National Cycle Network, routes use a numbering
a Street names on the map; system, while in other towns colour coding is used.
Where a route logo is to be incorporated as part of a
a Sketches/photos of significant buildings and other branding patch on direction signs, it is important to
landmarks; and remember that TSRGD requires the standard cycle
symbol to be included on the signs, and incorporating a
a Isochrones showing typical walk/cycle times

Figure 13.6: Information totems and maps in London

150
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

cycle symbol into the logo will merely be repeating Table 13-1: Lane widths at roadworks
existing required information.
Lane width Implications
13.11.3 It is important to remember that route
identifiers such as numbers and colours are of little <3.2m Consider 20mph speed limit.
benefit without an accompanying map. Signs with
numbers on are not by themselves very informative 3.2m to 3.9m To be avoided
without destinations.
3.9m+ Wide enough for all vehicles to overtake
on lower speed roads (20mph)
13.11.4 Route names can be of benefit when they
relate to the local geography such as a river valley, but 4.25m+ Wide enough for all vehicles to overtake
again the branding should ideally be accompanied with on higher speed roads
information about the local destinations. Leisure trails are
a destination in themselves and may be included as 13.12.3 Where portable traffic signals are in use, it is
‘places’ in local signs. important that the signal timing allows cyclists to get
through the roadworks before the opposing traffic is
13.11.5 On-street, digital and paper maps should released. This should be checked on site when the lights
reflect any branding and naming of routes that are on are in operation as gradients or uneven surfaces may
the signs. make cyclists travel more slowly than usual. Long
lengths of roadworks (over 100m) can be particularly
problematic and it may be better to try to split the works
13.12 Signing for into shorter sections if cyclists are using the carriageway.
Guidance on minimum green times for cyclists is given in
roadworks Chapter 10, Section 10.4.27.

13.12.1 Roadworks can introduce additional hazards 13.12.4 Temporary road closures for motor traffic
for cyclists such as uneven surfaces, slippery metal usually permit pedestrian access unless there are safety
plates, narrow traffic lanes and the construction vehicles concerns and are often accessible by bicycle. Permitting
themselves. Temporary signs and markings can be used cycle access is often a safer option than a diversion onto
to highlight issues to other road users, while markings a longer or busier route, provided this does not
and traffic cones or wands can be used to create introduce conflict with pedestrians.
protected space for cycling51.

13.12.2 One of the main issues for cyclists at

roadworks is that traffic lanes are narrower than usual
and often bounded by vertical features such as fencing
and bollards. In combination with close overtaking by
motor traffic, this can be intimidating. Guidance on
appropriate lane widths and associated techniques to
help enhance cyclists’ safety is in Table 13-1.

Figure 13.7: Warning signs and temporary markings at

construction site

51 Safety at Street Works and Road Works – a Code of Practice, DfT, 2013

151
 14
Integrating cycling
with highway
improvements and
new developments
There are significant and cost-effective opportunities to provide cycle
infrastructure during the construction and maintenance of highway works,
particularly in new developments. This is recognised in the National
Planning Policy Framework and the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure
Plan Guidance. It is important that cycle infrastructure requirements
are embedded into local authority planning, design and highway
adoption policies and processes. This will ensure that good quality cycle
infrastructure is delivered in all new developments, new highways and
highway improvement schemes.
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

14.1 Introduction 14.2.3 The NPPF in Para 91 sets the overall

requirement that planning policies should ‘aim to achieve
healthy, inclusive and safe places’ and that this can be
14.1.1 This chapter covers the delivery of new and achieved by promoting social interaction and healthy
improved cycle infrastructure as an integral part of lifestyles through layouts and easy connections that
general highway improvement and maintenance work encourage walking and cycling.
and in new developments.
14.2.4 Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans
14.1.2 Appropriate cycle facilities should be provided (LCWIPs) are described in more detail in Chapter 3,
within all new and improved highways in accordance and supported by the NPPF. They offer a well-founded
with the guidance contained in this document, process for local authorities to identify how cycling and
regardless of whether the scheme is on a designated walking networks should be provided and improved
cycle route, unless there are clearly-defined and across a wide area.
suitable alternatives.
14.2.5 The LCWIP guidance states that they should
14.1.3 With appropriate policies and processes in be incorporated into local authority policies so that
place, most schemes for cycle traffic will be delivered appropriate consideration is given to cycling and walking
alongside other highway works and as part of new in all local planning and transport decisions.
developments. There are opportunities to specify and
enforce the requirement for a good standard of cycle 14.2.6 LCWIPs should expressly consider planned
provision to developers and contractors through new developments, both in terms of the additional
planning briefs, supplementary planning guidance and demands they will create for cycling and walking and
contract procurement documentation, as appropriate. more significantly how new and improved highway
infrastructure created and funded by development can
14.1.4 The requirements should include the provision contribute to these networks. This can be achieved
of new cycle routes connecting to and through through the Community Infrastructure Levy, Section 106
developments and enhancing the provision for cycling contributions and Section 278 highway agreements.
when making alterations to links and junctions on
existing highways. It will not usually be acceptable to 14.2.7 Where local authorities have developed a
maintain an existing poor level of service when future cycling network through an LCWIP it will enable
undertaking highway improvement schemes. More them to seek meaningful and worthwhile contributions
modest but still effective improvements can be achieved from new developments rather than ad-hoc and isolated
as part of highway maintenance – for example when measures which do not enable active travel journeys
road markings are being renewed. beyond the site.

14.2.8 The LCWIP guidance also notes that

14.2 Policy background opportunities should be taken to embed the
requirements of cyclists and pedestrians in other
transport schemes, such as junction improvements or
14.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework maintenance works. When maintaining, improving or
(NPPF)51 sets out the national policy context for land use creating new highways, authorities should therefore treat
planning and states that planning policies should: walking and cycling with the same importance and
consideration as motorised transport.
a ‘provide for high quality walking and cycling networks
and supporting facilities such as cycle parking 14.2.9 It should also be noted that the Network
(drawing on Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Management Duty placed on traffic authorities by the
Plans)’ (Para 104d). Traffic Management Act 2004 to manage their road
networks with a view to securing ‘expeditious movement
14.2.2 The NPPF also states that applications for
for all traffic’ includes pedestrian and cycle traffic.
development should:

a ‘give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements,

both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas’
(Para 110a).

154
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

14.3 Providing for cycling 14.3.3 Relevant LCWIP proposals should be reflected
in area- and site-specific plans and documents such as
in new developments Supplementary Planning Guidance, a Development
Framework Document or an Area Action Plan. These will
inform the overall requirements for the
Planning processes development, including:

14.3.1 New housing development provides a major the principal points of connection to the wider
opportunity to create new and improved cycle cycle network
infrastructure.
any requirements for off-site cycle route
14.3.2 LCWIPs should be undertaken by local improvements
authorities to plan the wider cycle network across an
general principles of the on-site cycle network
area. These network plans should reflect the demand for
new cycle journeys created by planned development to general requirements for other cycle infrastructure
key locations such as town centres, employment hubs such as cycle parking.
and schools; as well as the potential for new links to be
provided through a site to connect existing places 14.3.4 New highways are normally promoted, funded,
(see Figure 14.1). designed and built by the private sector as part of new
developments. Local highway authorities should use
their development control powers to approve technical

Figure 14.1: Integration of planned development in a future network – Melton Mowbray

155
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

designs to enable people to use cycles for everyday 14.3.10 Since 2010, planning authorities have also
journeys. New highways (including cycle tracks) created been able to use the Community Infrastructure Levy
within a development will normally be offered for (CIL) to ‘pool’ charges made on various new
adoption to the highway authority under Section 38 of developments. This is as an alternative to Section 106.
the Highways Act 1980 (see Appendix C). The advantages of CIL are that it can be charged on any
residential development and all developments over
14.3.5 The planning and design of the site accesses, 100m sq. (with some exemptions) and that the money
the internal network and any off-site highway levied can be spent to improve infrastructure across the
improvements will usually be informed by the Transport whole local area, not just that related to the development
Assessment (TA) for the new development. This is used site. The amount of the levy is set by the local authority
to forecast the all-mode travel demands of the site each year and is directly related to the size of
and assess their impact on the surrounding network. development. This gives planners and developers more
It should be noted that smaller developments which fall certainty about the amounts involved for a given
below the normal thresholds to provide Transport development.
Assessments should still be required to provide and/or
contribute towards new and improved cycle
infrastructure.
Planning the network
14.3.6 It is important that the TA does not 14.3.11 Manual for Streets provides guidance on the
overestimate motor traffic travel demands, which could planning of transport networks for new developments
make it difficult to provide well-designed cycle and generally recommends that they are well connected
infrastructure, particularly at the site access points. to their surroundings with a choice of routes. In some
Travel demand forecasts should take into account the cases, however, it may be appropriate to provide fewer
potential for the increased levels of cycling that will be accesses and routes for private cars to give priority to
enabled by high-quality cycle facilities, both on- and sustainable modes of transport (filtered permeability) –
off-site. see Chapter 7.

14.3.7 New developments that have important 14.3.12 Cycling facilities should be regarded as an
destinations within them, such as schools and retail essential component of the site access and any off-site
centres, should be provided with cycle and pedestrian highway improvements that may be necessary.
links to adjacent residential areas and local cycle routes Developments that do not adequately make provision
so that residents can cycle to the new facilities. Similarly, for cycling in their transport proposals should not be
large new residential developments should offer external approved. This may include some off-site improvements
links to adjacent employment, education, administrative, along existing highways that serve the development.
transport interchange and retail destinations.
14.3.13 Within larger sites it will be necessary to plan a
14.3.8 Planning conditions can require that specific network of cycle routes that connect all parts of the
cycle parking and cycle routes are provided, and specify development. This network should follow the principles
the standard that should be met within the new site for set out in Chapter 3. The opportunity of designing a
planning permission to be formally granted. Reference wholly new highway network means there should be a
may be made to a design code which is usually presumption of providing a densely-spaced network
prepared by the development team and agreed with the with around 250m between designated cycle routes.
local highway authority. The local authority must provide
14.3.14 Cycle networks within new developments
a reason for the conditions – such as fulfilling the policies
should generally be made up of the elements listed in
set out within a local cycling strategy, meeting the cycle
Chapter 3, Section 3.4, i.e.:
parking standards in local planning guidance, or
contributing to the schemes in the LCWIP. a Dedicated space for cycling within highways
(Chapter 6)
14.3.9 Planning obligations or agreements (Section
106 agreements) can also be used. Planning obligations a Quiet mixed traffic streets (Chapter 7)
apply to the land rather than the developer, including
future users, and are often used to secure funding to a Motor traffic free routes (Chapter 8)
mitigate the negative impacts of the development. This
might for example be by providing improved crossings a Junction treatments and crossings (Chapter 10)
or cycle routes in the locality, or providing infrastructure
elsewhere to compensate for a loss of green space. a Cycle parking at origins, destinations and
interchanges with other modes (Chapter 11).

156
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 14.2: Proposed cycle network, Northstowe phase 2, Cambridge

14.3.15 Networks need to meet the five Core Design cycle facilities should be provided in all
Principles set out in Chapter 4: new developments.

a Coherent; 14.3.18 Design codes for new developments may be

useful documents which establish the dimensions,
a Direct; layout and the materials palette for different types of
route, including walking and cycling-only links. A design
a Safe; code will help ensure a consistent approach is taken
across the site and at different phases of development
a Comfortable; and
where growth takes place over several years. Design
a Attractive codes are typically prepared by the development team
and approved by the highway authority.
14.3.16 This means that while cycle routes across a
development should form a legible and high-quality grid 14.3.19 A cycle network plan should be included in
of routes, the nature of the routes may change along the design code, setting out what type of route
their length – for example a designated route along a (off-carriageway cycle track, on-carriageway, or
quiet residential street may lead into a motor traffic free greenway) will be provided in each location as part of
route through a green space – see Figure 14.2. the overall layout. The design code should include
typical cross-sections for the different types of route.
This level of detail is important so that decision-makers
Designing the network and designers are all clear about the quality of the facility
that is to be provided.
14.3.17 The design of cycle facilities within new
highways constructed in developments should adhere to 14.3.20 During the detailed design and delivery stages,
the guidance given in the relevant chapters contained in development control and highways staff should have
this document. Typically, there are few constraints oversight and review of designs to ensure that they are
preventing designers from meeting desirable geometric being delivered as intended. New residential
standards and so the expectation is that high quality development should follow the principles in the Manual
for Streets.

157
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Main streets 14.3.24 The highway cross-section will typically

incorporate many requirements appropriate to the
14.3.21 Many large new developments will provide context, such as street trees, verges and car parking,
new main streets or spine roads and these will often be but the need for these features should not lead to the
the most direct route through the site, typically serving omission of the cycle infrastructure.
facilities at the centre of the new community such as
shops, schools and employment. It is therefore Quiet streets and cycle streets
important that they are suitable for all members of the
community to cycle along and across. 14.3.25 Most residential streets in new developments,
including smaller schemes, will be suitable for cycling in
14.3.22 The speed and volume of motor traffic on mixed traffic as the speed and volume of motor traffic
these routes will often mean that protected space for will be low. However, in cases where streets serve a
cycling is required (see Figure 4.1), as well as regular larger area of development designers may need to make
crossing facilities. Designers should follow the traffic forecasts of the internal links to ensure that
guidance given in Chapter 6 to provide high quality on-carriageway cycling is suitable for most people,
provision for cycling. based on Figure 4.1. Where volumes are considered too
high it may be necessary to introduce some filtering of
Figure 14.3: Poor quality provision for cycling in a housing the network to create acceptable conditions and give
development – no priority at side road, compounded by priority to cycling and walking.
barriers
14.3.26 As recommended by Manual for Streets,
the minor street network should create a series of
reasonably direct and well connected routes for cycling,
rather than forming a convoluted layout of curved streets
and cul-de-sacs.

14.3.27 Although the minor street network should all

provide good cycling conditions it may be appropriate
to designate some streets as important cycle routes,
for example those which lead directly to an off-highway
route through a green space. These ‘cycle streets’
could be indicated through changes in paving material,
planting or other design changes so that they are
understood as being principally for cycling (see
Figure 14.5).
14.3.23 Bus-only routes, or new tram routes, should
include a parallel cycle track.
Motor traffic free routes
Figure 14.4: One way footway level cycle track past bus
stop, North-West Cambridge development. 14.3.28 Many large developments, particularly garden
towns and villages, provide significant areas of new open
space for the benefit of residents. These areas provide
opportunities to create new cycling and walking routes
between different parts of the development and to the
areas beyond the site. Such facilities should not be seen
as only for recreational use, but should be designed in
accordance with the advice in Chapter 8.

14.3.29 They should be reasonably straight and form a

connected part of the overall network, and with a
cross-section that meets the level of use that is
expected, preferably with separate provision for walking
and cycling (see Figure 14.6). Routes should be well lit,
hard surfaced and well-drained so that they are useable
at all times and seasons.

158
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 14.5: Illustration of a cycle street

Figure 14.6: Traffic free route in new housing development, 14.3.30 In some cases it will be necessary to provide
Lewisham substantial infrastructure to achieve these traffic free
routes – see Figure 14.7.

14.3.31 Designers should consider the personal

security issues that may be associated with cycle routes
away from buildings. Routes with ‘active frontage’
overlooked by buildings are preferred, as shown in
Figure 14.8.

159
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure 14.7: Proposed bridge connecting the Northstowe development to a nearby village

Figure 14.8: Off-highway cycle route in new residential 14.4 New highways and
scheme, West Bromwich
improvement schemes
14.4.1 Manual for Streets (2007) set out a generic
process for all highway schemes, as shown in Figure
14.9.

Figure 14.9: Highways, overall improvements process

160
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

14.4.2 Further details on this process are given in 14.4.7 When new highways are being planned,
Chapter 3 of Manual for Streets, but in terms of careful consideration of walking and cycling must be
providing for cycling, the key steps are: done at an early stage in the planning and design
process to ensure that sufficient land is available to
a Objective setting; meet infrastructure requirements – in particular the
need for separation from motor traffic as set out in
a Design; and Figure 4.1, and space at junctions to provide
comprehensive solutions. Where schemes are in
a Auditing.
development and land take is already fixed, authorities
14.4.3 Schemes to build new or improved highways should still incorporate cycle facilities meeting the
will have a prime objective – for example to reduce guidance in this document as far as is possible.
congestion or to provide access to a new area of This may require some rethinking of the space and
development. It is still important that authorities consider provision given to motor traffic.
how a new scheme can add to or improve existing
walking and cycling networks. Auditing and risk assessment

Objective setting 14.4.8 Authorities should consider audit and review

techniques that could be used to check how well a
14.4.4 To meet the objectives of the CWIS and to design meets the objectives that were set for it.
deliver LCWIPs, authorities should always include the The various audit techniques and their application
objective of enhancing provision for cycling and walking, are described in Chapter 4.
and translate this into specific and measurable
outcomes; for example, making a suitable link from a
residential area to a school. This will enable the emerging 14.5 Local authority
designs to be assessed against local policies and
design guidance. design guides and
14.4.5 There is sometimes a tension between standards
objectives, for example between increasing motor traffic
capacity, accommodating kerbside activities and 14.5.1 Local authorities are responsible for setting
providing for pedestrians and cyclists. There is a growing their own design standards for their roads.
body of evidence demonstrating that rapid growth in
cycling and walking levels can occur once safe and 14.5.2 DfT recommends that local authorities follow
attractive conditions are created. Monitoring schemes the advice contained in Manual for Streets 1 and 2 when
before and after implementation can help demonstrate developing their standards. These stress the importance
the benefits such as collision reduction of placing a high priority on meeting the needs of
and improvements in air quality. pedestrians and cyclists, so that growth in these
modes of travel is encouraged.
Design 14.5.3 Authorities should review their design
guidelines to ensure that they are consistent with this
14.4.6 New and improved highways will need to LTN so that developers’ design teams are aware of what
strike an appropriate balance to best meet the various is expected of them, so that they will include appropriate
design objectives that have been set, including the measures for walking and cycling as a matter of course.
needs of people using cycles as set out in Chapter 4.
14.5.4 Similarly, where local authorities have
prepared standards which they themselves use for the
design of new highways and highway improvements,
these documents should be updated to take account
of this LTN.

161
 15
Construction
and
maintenance

Routine and seasonal maintenance plays a major role in cycle safety.

Cyclists are particularly vulnerable to defects and debris on the surface
which can destabilise the rider. Maintenance costs can be minimised
through careful design and selection of construction materials. Regular
inspections enable maintenance work to be cost effectively programmed
and prioritised. Cycle track construction can be more lightweight than the
carriageway but needs to be of robust materials that offer a long-lasting safe
and comfortable riding surface. Winter maintenance of cycle tracks differs
from the carriageway due to the lightweight construction of the track and
the mechanics of the de-icing process.
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

15.1 Introduction standards of construction. There is much greater

variation in quality on routes away from the highway.

15.1.1 This chapter considers maintenance of cycle 15.2.5 Outside built-up areas, treatments such as
facilities from the perspective of design and crushed stone may be applied to off-highway routes for
construction. While it includes some commentary on aesthetic, heritage or nature conservation. These
routine maintenance, more detailed sources of advice on treatments are a cost-effective way to create lengthy
this aspect are in the further reading and references. off-road links but will be less accessible.

15.1.2 Careful design and selection of construction 15.2.6 Cycle tracks require proper construction of
methods and materials will reduce the long-term costs each element:52
of maintenance. Cycle-only routes and shared facilities
do not require the same construction strength as a Formation and sub-base;
carriageways, but do need to be able to withstand
maintenance vehicles where these are used. There is no a Surfaces (including transitions, see Chapter 9);
natural ‘sweeping effect’ from passing cyclists as there
a Edges and verges;
is on the carriageway, and limited crushing action from
bicycle tyres. Cyclists are more directly affected by a Ecology;
hazardous surfaces so routine and winter maintenance
of cycle tracks requires a different approach to that used a Drainage; and
on-carriageways.
a Ancillary works such as lighting, fencing, access
controls and landscape features.
15.2 Construction
Formation
materials
15.2.7 The sub-grade must provide stable conditions
15.2.1 Surface quality affects the comfort and effort on which the track can be formed (usually present
required when cycling. Loose surfaces such as gravel or already within highways). Away from the existing
mud can also present a skidding hazard, increase the highway this can be simply done by compacting the
risk of punctures and make cycles and clothing dirty in natural ground, but where the ground is contaminated or
bad weather. Cyclists are also affected by ruts and unstable, a capping material may be required.
potholes that can throw them off balance. Smooth, Geotextiles (felt, polypropylenes or plastic grid systems)
sealed solid surfaces offer the best conditions for can be used to add stability.
everyday cycling.
15.2.8 Cyclists and pedestrians do not create a high
15.2.2 Good quality machine laid surfaces will appeal loading requirement, but where vehicles and machinery
to a wide range of users from people on lightweight are to be used for construction and maintenance, the
racing cycles through to child cyclists. Smooth surfaces formation must be able to support these. All vegetation
also offer greater accessibility and safety for other must be removed with the top soil. Decomposing matter
potential users such as wheelchair users, mobility can lead to voids and subsidence. ‘No-dig’ construction
scooters and blind and partially sighted people. may be required in places of ecological or
archaeological significance.
15.2.3 Sealed surfaces should normally be provided
within towns, cities and villages and on commuter routes
from the immediate hinterland. This might include rural Sub-base
cycle routes between villages, for example where pupils
might be expected to travel to school. 15.2.9 The sub-base provides the main load-bearing
layer, helping to distribute loads evenly across the path.
15.2.4 Cobbles and setts are uncomfortable for Existing stable surfaces such as disused railway lines or
cycling, although in heritage areas a 2.0m wide virtual roads will generally not require thick sub-base, while less
cycle lane can be created using setts or cobbles that stable environments such as clay will require a
have been sliced or planed to create a smoother thicker base.
surface. Most local highway authorities specify that cycle
routes within the highway must adhere to local minimum

52 Sustrans Design Manual, Chapter 6. Detail design of traffic free routes, Sustrans, 2014 (draft)

164
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

15.2.10 Typical cycle tracks will have a 150mm suitable due to lower skid resistance and the likelihood
sub-base layer which can also cope with occasional use of rocking and cracking. Tactile paving blocks (as
by maintenance vehicles. Type 1 aggregate (stone and opposed to tactile paving slabs) can be used to avoid
dust mix) is normally used and can be supplemented cracking and lifting where vehicles need to overrun for
with plastic grid for additional strength. maintenance.

15.2.11 The type of stone used should reflect local 15.2.17 Non-standard surfacing material (such as tiles)
acidity conditions to avoid changes to pH of adjacent are sometimes introduced in public realm schemes.
soils when water percolates through the sub-base. Designers should ensure that the skid resistance value is
Maximum stone size must be no greater than half of the adequate for cycling in both dry and wet conditions.
thickness of the sub-base layer. To ensure a smooth
surface the sub-base should be compacted and levelled 15.2.18 Unbound surfaces are generally unsuitable for
with a roller to a tolerance of 10mm. utility cycling and in practice have proven to require
regular maintenance and repair, being prone to erosion
on gradients and easily damaged by horses. Further
Surfacing advice on construction is available from Sustrans and
other organisations.
15.2.12 Sealed surfaces are more expensive to install;
however, this additional cost is more than offset by
reduced maintenance requirements over the whole life of Edges and verges
a scheme. While there may be initial concerns about
disturbance to the natural environment or the 15.2.19 Concrete kerbs or timber/concrete edgings
appearance, these can be addressed through choice of often form a part of highway construction standards.
materials and the overall reduced impact on wildlife due Edgings are less frequently required on tracks away from
to reduced maintenance following construction. These the highway due to the simpler characteristics of the
issues may need careful explanation during discussions path. Edging may be required in more formal settings
with local stakeholders. such as parks and public realm schemes, or to reinforce
construction such as preventing the movement of block
15.2.13 The base (binder) course is recommended to paving, or wash out of the base in areas prone
be a 60mm layer of asphalt concrete with a coarse stone to flooding.
size overlain by a 20mm smooth asphalt riding surface.
An 80mm single-layer (AC14) construction with 14mm 15.2.20 The verges adjacent to off-road paths act as
stones is also commonly used. A paving machine should natural drainage, absorbing the run-off from the sealed
be used to create a smooth riding surface. surface. French (stone) drains may provide additional
absorption if required. Vertical features such as hedges
15.2.14 Spray and chip surfacing offers a sealed and walls reduce the useable width, so ideally a mown
surface with a more natural appearance than black grass verge or low, slow growing plants should be
bituminous surfacing, and provides more grip in icy and provided for 1.0m immediately next to the path.
wet conditions. A 6mm rounded profile stone should be
used, to avoid creating a puncture hazard. The loose Hedgerows and fences
gravel surface takes several weeks to bed in on cycle
routes and may need some sweeping. The surfacing can 15.2.21 Hedgerows should be set back at least 1.0m
only be applied in dry and warmer conditions (usually from the path and maintained in such a way that they do
May to October). An increasing range of products based not overhang, encroach across, or drop thorns on the
on recycled rubber or plastic is also available to provide path (new plants adjacent to cycle tracks should be
a similar effect to tar spray and chip. non-thorn varieties). A fence height of 1.5m will be
sufficient for stock control and enable most adult cyclists
15.2.15 Concrete can be used as a base and wearing
to see over the top. Barbed wire fencing should be
course that provides additional strength. This may be
attached on the stock side of any posts. Network Rail
required to accommodate farm vehicles or HGV access
requires at least 4.0m clearance between the operational
for example. The joints should be smooth. A brushed
railway line and fences. Weldmesh fencing offers lower
surface provides skid resistance without the
security than palisade fencing but is less visually
uncomfortable corrugation of a tamped surface.
intrusive.
15.2.16 Block paving can offer a reasonable surface
15.2.22 Fencing may also be required to protect path
and different coloured blocks can help delineate the
users from steep drops, water or high-speed traffic
cycle path although it will require greater effort to cycle
immediately alongside the cycle path.
on than bituminous surfacing. Paving slabs are less

165
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Drainage vandal resistant lighting where necessary. It is not

expected that routes outside built up areas used
15.2.23 Paths should be constructed with crossfall or primarily for recreation would normally need to be lit
camber, as set out in Chapter 5, with drainage falling to except where there were road safety concerns, such as
the inside on bends. If drainage gulleys are used, grates at crossings or where the track is directly alongside
should use patterns that will not catch bicycle wheels. the carriageway.
The path itself should not be lower than the adjacent
15.3.3 Where an off-carriageway track requires
natural ground because water will then have no
lighting, the designer needs to consider the proximity of
escape route.
an electricity supply, energy usage, and light pollution.
15.2.24 Paths in wetland, adjacent to rivers or in
15.3.4 The Highways Act 1980, section 65(1)
cuttings prone to flooding, can be built on a causeway
contains powers to light cycle tracks. Technical design
to make the path more resilient. However, an
guidance may be found in TR23, Lighting of Cycle
understanding of the potential impact on drainage and
Tracks (ILE, 1998).
ecology is required. In some cases, a boardwalk may
offer the better ecological solution.

15.2.25 Simple ditches or swales alongside the path 15.4 Importance of

will help avoid surface water run-off from flooding into
adjacent areas. UPVC filter drains set in a stone bed can maintenance
help water to percolate more slowly however, will require
maintenance as they can become blocked by roots from 15.4.1 Poorly maintained cycle and pedestrian
vegetation. Regular inspection pits can help to isolate surfaces are hazardous and unattractive to users.
the location of blockages to ease maintenance. Pipe Potholes, debris, fallen leaves, poor drainage or snow
gradients should be between 1:15 and 1:50. Soakaways and ice can all increase the likelihood of a collision or fall.
can be used to divert collected water back into the Routes that form part of the highway are generally
natural water table. included within the local authority highway maintenance
regimes for cleansing and repair, but routes in parks and
15.2.26 Culverts can offer a more cost effective and on other public rights of way may have much more
less visually intrusive option to bridges where a cycle variable arrangements.
track crosses a small stream or drainage feature.
15.4.2 The most important routes within a local
network may be away from the highway and will
15.3 Lighting potentially require more frequent inspection and
maintenance than other off-road environments due to
their status within the cycle route network.
15.3.1 Within urban areas standard street lighting is
Accumulations of mud, fallen leaves, overgrown
usually designed to cover footways and cycle tracks as
vegetation and low overhanging branches can be
well as the carriageway. People using tracks alongside
hazardous. Where surfaces are allowed to significantly
unlit carriageways may be blinded or dazzled by the
deteriorate, cyclists will use nearby carriageways that
lights of oncoming vehicles, particularly on tracks
offer better conditions or will stop cycling altogether.
alongside highspeed rural roads. Drivers may also be
confused when seeing cycle lights approaching on 15.4.3 In May 2018 the UK Roads Liaison Group
their nearside. These hazards can be reduced by, for (UKRLG) updated its guidance on the construction,
example, locating the track further away from the maintenance and management of footways and cycle
carriageway edge, or by providing with flow cycle routes to reflect current good practice. The guidance
tracks alongside both sides of the carriageway. supports the ‘Well Managed Highway Infrastructure’ code
of practice of the UKRLG. The documents recognise the
15.3.2 Cycle routes across large quiet parks or along
various ways in which maintenance is considered:
canal towpaths may not be well used outside peak
commuting times after dark, even if lighting is provided. a Selection of design and construction materials;53
In these cases, a suitable street lit onroad alternative that
matches the desire line as closely as possible should be a Reviewing risk (including seasonal risks) and
considered. Subways should be lit at all times, using risk‑based maintenance regimes;54 and

53 Asset Management Guidance for Footways and Cycleways: Pavement Design and Maintenance, UKRLG, 2018
54 Asset Management Guidance for Footways and Cycleways: An Approach to Risk Based Maintenance Management,
UKRLG, 2018

166
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

a Maintaining a level of service that is attractive 15.5.5 Information on the site layout may be available
to users.55 from existing records or may be gained from an initial
site appraisal and topographic survey. Designers should
also consider whether the cycle track will be disrupted
15.5 General maintenance by access for utilities works. In new build situations,
utilities should be placed in the verge rather than
considerations in design beneath the cycle track or footway.

15.5.6 Poor drainage will potentially lead to ponding

15.5.1 Some civil engineering factors will impact
or erosion on the surface or a weakening of the
directly on costs and feasibility of construction such as:
sub-surface. It is generally possible and desirable to
a Local topography and site layout; tie-in any new cycle track drainage to the existing
carriageway drainage. This will require knowledge of the
a Presence of utilities and other assets; and location and capacity of the existing systems. Significant
new schemes may offer opportunities to introduce
a Ground conditions or construction and condition of sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS).
any existing paths and tracks.
15.5.7 If it is likely that vehicles will overrun a surface
15.5.2 Planners and designers should check layouts (such as where there are frequent kerbside deliveries),
with engineers at an early stage to ensure that the designing features that can either withstand occasional
proposed solution can feasibly be constructed and still heavy loading or prevent vehicle access can help save
meet the design requirements for acceptable levels of on future repair costs.
user service and comfort.
15.5.8 The design should be of sufficient width and
15.5.3 The layout information should typically include: strength to accommodate maintenance vehicles such as
mechanical sweepers and access platforms for
a Plan location and dimensions; lighting replacement.

a Levels and vertical dimensions; 15.5.9 Upstands and ironwork can cause skid
hazards to cyclists, they should be flush with the riding
a Location of other assets, e.g. structures, lighting, surface and of materials or design that provides
signs etc; adequate skid resistance. Drainage gulley slots can
potentially trap wheels and should be perpendicular to
a Location of utilities; and
the line of travel.
a Location of street furniture.
15.5.10 Damage from tree roots can quickly make a
15.5.4 From this the designer should seek to ensure surface unrideable. Selection of deep-rooted species
that: and use of tree pits can prevent this problem in new
build situations. Where there are established trees,
a There is adequate depth of construction/natural it may be necessary to build-up the surface or align the
ground to accommodate the pavement construction/ cycle route away from the trees. Fallen leaves can be
treatment; very slippery, especially on corners, and should be
cleared regularly during the autumn and winter.
a There is adequate surface profile for efficient drainage;

a There is adequate clearance to other assets/furniture;

15.6 Routine
a The gradients and radii are appropriate for safe and
comfortable use; and
maintenance
a The works do not impact subsurface utilities (it may 15.6.1 Routine maintenance including regular
for example be more cost effective to build a cycle sweeping is important to ensure that routes remain safe,
track up on top of an existing surface rather comfortable and attractive to users at all times of the
than excavate). year (see Table 15-1). For local authorities, regular
maintenance is a more sustainable approach that will
help reduce costs over time by avoiding the need for
complete reconstruction.

55 Footways and Cycle Routes Research – Task 3 Cycle Service Levels and Condition Assessment

167
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Table 15-1: Typical maintenance programme for off-road routes

Issue Activity Notes Frequency Time of year

Cycle track Winter maintenance Consider importance as utility route As necessary Winter
surface
Inspection Staff undertaking maintenance works Every time site visited. Early spring, mid­
can also carry out site inspections Minimum of 4 visits per summer, early and
(but not structures – see below) to year. late autumn (before
avoid need for extra visits and after leaf fall)

Repairs to potholes Reactive maintenance in response to As necessary n/a

etc. calls from public, plus programmed
inspections

Sweeping to clear leaf Combine with other activities Site specific n/a
litter and debris if possible

Cut back encroaching Once a year November, and

vegetation on verges when sweeping
takes place.

Programmed The need for remedial work will As necessary n/a

maintenance, depend on the condition of the cycle
such as resurfacing 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 areas Include with verge maintenance n/a n/a

Control of ragwort, See Weeds Act 1959 and Wildlife Before seeding July or as
thistles and docks etc. and Countryside Act 1981. Hand pull, appropriate
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/clean Maintenance will largely depend n/a n/a

as necessary on levels of local vandalism

Access barriers Repair/replace as Maintenance will largely depend n/a n/a

necessary on levels of local vandalism

Fences Repair/replace as Dependent on licence arrangements n/a n/a

necessary with landowner

Structures, Inspections Carried out by suitably qualified staff Visual inspection every n/a
including 2 years and detailed
culverts structural inspection
every 6 years

Seating Maintain or repair If present n/a n/a

sculptures etc.

Other Varies Scheme-specific issues such as n/a n/a

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

168
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

15.6.2 The most heavily used parts of the cycle route

network should be prioritised for maintenance. This may
be determined through monitoring of use or by a
definition of strategic, secondary and local access routes
within a formal cycle network plan. Local stakeholders
may also be a valuable source of information about
specific problems. When authorities adopt an area-wide
risk-based approach they will also need to consider the
age and present condition of the facility when prioritising
routine maintenance so that deteriorated surfaces
can be repaired.

15.6.3 Seasonal maintenance may include clearing

sand and beach debris in coastal areas, clearing leaf fall,
clearing flooding debris alongside rivers and keeping
routes free of snow and ice.

15.6.4 Further detail on assessing maintenance

priorities is included in the UKRLG guidance.

169
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Appendices

171
172

Appendix A: Cycling Level of Service Tool

Cycle Infrastructure Design

Key Factor Design principle Indicators Critical 0 (Red) 1 (Amber) 2 (Green) Score Comments
requirement

Connections Cyclists should be able to 1. Ability to Cyclists cannot Cyclists can Cyclists have
easily and safely join and join/leave route connect to other connect to other dedicated
navigate along different safely and routes without routes with connections
sections of the same route easily: consider dismounting minimal disruption to other routes
and between different routes left and right to their journey provided, with no
in the network. turns interruption to their
journey

Continuity Routes should be complete 2. Provision Cyclists are The route is made Cyclists are
and with no gaps in provision. for cyclists ‘abandoned’ at up of discrete provided with a
Wayfinding ‘End of route’ signs should not throughout the points along the sections, but continuous route,
be installed – cyclists should whole length of route with no cyclists can clearly including through
be shown how the route the route clear indication of understand how to junctions
continues. Cyclists should not how to continue navigate between
be ‘abandoned’, particularly their journey. them, including
at junctions where provision through junctions.
may be required to ensure safe
crossing movements.

Density of Cycle networks should 3. Density of Route Route contributes Route contributes
network provide a mesh (or grid) of routes based contributes to a to a network to a network
routes across the town or city. on mesh width network density density mesh density mesh
The density of the network ie distances mesh width width 250 – width <250m
is the distance between the between >1000 1000m
routes which make up the primary and
Cohesion

grid pattern. The ultimate aim secondary

should be a network with a routes within the
mesh width of 250m. network

Distance Routes should follow the 4. Deviation of Deviation factor Deviation factor Deviation factor
shortest option available route Deviation against straight against straight against straight
and be as near to the Factor is line or shortest line or shortest line or shortest
‘as‑the-crow-flies’ distance calculated by road alternative road alternative road alternative
as possible. dividing the >1.4 1.2 – 1.4 <1.2
actual distance
along the route
by the straight
Directness

line (crow-fly)
distance, or
shortest road
alternative.
 Key Factor Design principle Indicators Critical 0 (Red) 1 (Amber) 2 (Green) Score Comments
requirement

Time: The number of times a cyclist 5. Stopping The number of The number of The number of
Frequency has to stop or loses right of and give way stops or give stops or give ways stops or give ways
of required way on a route should be frequency ways on the on the route is on the route is less
stops or give minimised. This includes route is more between 2 and 4 than 2 per km
ways stopping and give ways than 4 per km per km
at junctions or crossings,
motorcycle barriers,
pedestrian-only zones etc.

Time: Delay The length of delay caused by 6. Delay at Delay for cyclists Delay for cyclists Delay is shorter
at junctions junctions should be minimised. junctions at junctions is at junctions is than for motor
This includes assessing impact greater than for similar to delay for vehicles or cyclists
of multiple or single stage motor vehicles motor vehicles are not required to
crossings, signal timings, stop at junctions
toucan crossings etc. (eg bypass at
signals)

Time: Delay The length of delay caused by 7. Ability to Cyclists travel at Cyclists can Cyclists can
on links not being able to bypass slow maintain own speed of slowest usually pass slow always choose an
moving traffic. speed on links vehicle (including traffic and other appropriate speed.
a cycle) ahead cyclists

Gradients Routes should avoid steep 8. Gradient Route includes There are no There are no
gradients where possible. sections sections of route sections of route
Uphill sections increase time, steeper than steeper than which steeper
effort and discomfort. Where the gradients the gradients than 2%
these are encountered, routes recommended in recommended in
Directness

should be planned to minimise Chapter 5 Chapter 5

climbing gradient and allow
users to retain momentum
gained on the descent.

Cycle Infrastructure Design

173
174

Cycle Infrastructure Design

Key Factor Design principle Indicators Critical 0 (Red) 1 (Amber) 2 (Green) Score Comments
requirement

Reduce/ Where cyclists and motor 9. Motor 85th percentile > 85th percentile 85th percentile 85th percentile
remove speed vehicles are sharing the traffic speed 37mph (60kph) >30mph 20mph-30mph <20mph
differences carriageway, the key to on approach
where reducing severity of collisions and through
cyclists are is reducing the speeds of junctions where
sharing the motor vehicles so that they cyclists are
carriageway more closely match that of sharing the
cyclists. This is particularly carriageway
important at points where risk through the
of collision is greater, such as junction
at junctions.
10. Motor 85th percentile > 85th percentile 85th percentile 85th percentile
traffic speed 37mph (60kph) >30mph 20mph-30mph <20mph
on sections
of shared
carriageway

Avoid high Cyclists should not be required 11. Motor >10000 AADT, or 5000-10000 2500-5000 and 0-2500 AADT
motor traffic to share the carriageway traffic volume >5% HGV AADT and <2% HGV
volumes with high volumes of motor on sections 2-5%HGV
where vehicles. This is particularly of shared
cyclists are important at points where risk carriageway,
sharing the of collision is greater, such as expressed as
carriageway at junctions. vehicles per
peak hour

Risk of Where speed differences 12. Segregation Cyclists sharing Cyclists in Cyclists in cycle Cyclists on route
collision and high motor vehicle flows to reduce risk carriageway – unrestricted lanes at least away from motor
cannot be reduced cyclists of collision nearside lane traffic lanes 1.8m wide traffic (off road
should be separated from alongside or in critical range outside critical on‑carriageway; provision) or in off-
traffic – see Figure 4.1. from behind between 3.2m range (3.2m to 85th percentile carriageway cycle
This separation can be and 3.9m wide 3.9m) or in cycle motor traffic speed track. Cyclists
achieved at varying degrees and traffic lanes less than max 30mph. in hybrid/light
through on-road cycle lanes, volumes prevent 1.8m wide. segregated track;
hybrid tracks and off-road motor vehicles 85th percentile
provision. Such segregation moving easily into motor traffic speed
should reduce the risk of opposite lane to max 30mph.
Safety

collision from beside or pass cyclists.

behind the cyclist.
 Key Factor Design principle Indicators Critical 0 (Red) 1 (Amber) 2 (Green) Score Comments
requirement

A high proportion of collisions 13. Conflicting Side road Side road Side roads closed
involving cyclists occur at movements at junctions junctions or treated to blend
junctions. Junctions therefore junctions frequent and/ infrequent and in with footway.
need particular attention to or untreated. with effective entry Major junctions,
reduce the risk of collision. Major junctions, treatments. Major all conflicting
Junction treatments include: conflicting cycle/ junctions, principal cycle/motor
Minor/side roads – cyclist motor traffic conflicting cycle/ traffic streams
priority and/or speed reduction movements not motor traffic separated.
across side roads Major separated movements
roads – separation of cyclists separated.
from motor traffic through
junctions.

Avoid Avoid complex designs which 14. Legible road Faded, old, Generally legible Clear,
complex require users to process large markings and unclear, complex road markings and understandable,
design amounts of information. Good road layout road markings/ road layout but simple road
network design should be unclear or some elements markings and road
self‑explanatory and self- unfamiliar road could be improved layout
evident to all road users. layout
All users should understand
where they and other road
users should be and what
movements they might make.

Consider and Routes should be assessed 15. Conflict with Narrow cycle Significant Some conflict No/very limited
reduce risk in terms of all multi-functional kerbside activity lanes <1.5m or conflict with with kerbside conflict with
from kerbside uses of a street including car less (including any kerbside activity activity – eg less kerbside activity or
activity parking, bus stops, parking, buffer) alongside (eg nearside frequent activity width of cycle lane
including collision with opened parking/loading cycle lane < 2m on nearside of including buffer
door. (including buffer) cyclists, min exceeds 3m.
wide alongside 2m cycle lanes
kerbside parking) including buffer.

Reduce Wherever possible routes 16. Evasion Cyclists at risk of The number of The route includes
severity of should include “evasion room and being trapped by physical hazards evasion room
collisions room” (such as grass verges) unnecessary physical hazards could be further and avoids any
where they do and avoid any unnecessary hazards along more than reduced physical hazards.

Cycle Infrastructure Design

occur physical hazards such as half of the route.
guardrail, build outs, etc.
Safety

to reduce the severity of a

collision should it occur.
175
176

Cycle Infrastructure Design

Key Factor Design principle Indicators Critical 0 (Red) 1 (Amber) 2 (Green) Score Comments
requirement

Surface Density of defects including 17. Major and Numerous minor Minor and Smooth high grip
quality non cycle friendly ironworks, minor defects defects or any occasional defects surface
raised/sunken covers/ number of major
gullies, potholes, poor quality defects
carriageway paint (eg from
previous cycle lane)

Pavement or carriageway 18. Surface type Any bumpy, Hand-laid Machine laid
construction providing smooth unbound, materials, smooth and
and level surface slippery, and concrete paviours non‑slip surface –
potentially with frequent eg Thin Surfacing,
hazardous joints. or firm and
surface. closelyjointed
blocks
undisturbed by
turning heavy
vehicles.

Effective Cyclists should be able to 19. Desirable More than 25% No more than Recommended
width without comfortably cycle without risk minimum widths of the route 25% of the route widths are
conflict of conflict with other users according includes cycle includes cycle maintained
both on and off road. to volume of provision with provision with throughout whole
cyclists and widths which widths which are route
route type are no more no more than 25%
(where cyclists than 25% below desirable
are separated below desirable minimum
from motor minimum values.
vehicles).

Wayfinding Non-local cyclists should be 20. Signing Route signing is Gaps identified Route is well
able to navigate the routes poor with signs in route signing signed with signs
Comfort

without the need to refer to missing at key which could be located at all
maps. decision points. improved decision points
and junctions
 Key Factor Design principle Indicators Critical 0 (Red) 1 (Amber) 2 (Green) Score Comments
requirement

Social safety Routes should be appealing 21. Lighting Most or all of Short and Route is lit to
and perceived and be perceived as safe route is unlit infrequent unlit/ highway standards
vulnerability of and usable. Well used, well poorly lit sections throughout
user maintained, lit, overlooked
routes are more attractive and
therefore more likely to be
used.

22. Isolation Route is Route is mainly Route is

generally away overlooked and overlooked
from activity is not far from throughout its
activity throughout length
its length

Impact on Introduction of dedicated 23. Impact on Route impacts No impact on Pedestrian

pedestrians, on-road cycle provision can pedestrians, negatively on pedestrian provision
including enable people to cycle on-road Pedestrian pedestrian provision or enhanced by
people with rather than using footways Comfort Level provision, Pedestrian cycling provision,
disabilities which are not suitable for based on Pedestrian Comfort Level or Pedestrian
shared use. Introducing cycling Pedestrian Comfort is at remains at B or Comfort Level
onto well used footpaths may Comfort guide Level C or below. above. remains at A
reduce the quality of provision for London
for both users, particularly if (Section 6.1)
the shared use path does not
meet recommended widths.

Minimise Signing required to support 24. Signs Large number Moderate Signing for
street clutter scheme layout informative of signs needed, amount of signing wayfinding
and consistent difficult to follow particularly around purposes only
but not and/ or leading junctions. and not causing
overbearing or to clutter additional
of inappropriate obstruction.
size

Secure cycle Ease of access to secure cycle 25. Evidence No additional Some secure Secure cycle
parking parking within businesses and of bicycles cycle parking cycle parking parking provided,
on-street parked to street provided or provided but not sufficient to meet
Attractiveness

Cycle Infrastructure Design

furniture or cycle inadequate enough to meet demand
stands provision demand
in insecure
nonoverlooked
areas

Audit Score Total 0 0

177
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Appendix B: Junction Assessment Tool

1. Introduction
As junctions pose the greatest risk of collisions to all road users, they require close attention to
create conditions which will attract a wide range of new users. Fear of motor traffic in the current
highway environment is a major factor preventing the uptake of cycling by a broader range
of people.56

The Junction Assessment Tool (JAT) is an adaptation of a similar tool in the 2014 London Cycling
Design Standards (LCDS), and is intended to be used at the design stage as well as for the
assessment of existing junctions. It follows the same themes as the critical junctions assessment
in the Route Selection Tool, but looks more closely at how a cyclist would move through
a junction.

The tool has been expanded to be more explicit for a range of junction types and to aid its use
by practitioners who may lack experience in objectively considering cycle safety and perception
of cycle route quality. The outputs and methodology are similar to the LCDS tool.

A junction assessment should consider ALL potential cycle movements through a junction. It is
not sufficient to plan a cycle route as a linear corridor from A to B if joining or leaving it midway
is problematic, dangerous or impossible. However, there may be some situations where not all
movements at a junction need to be considered if some are not permitted for cyclists (e.g. at the
ends of a motorway slip road) or if some turning movements are banned (although an exemption
for cycles should always be considered).

2. Scoring cycle movements and the

overall junction
The junction assessment should be represented graphically by colour-coding each movement
red, amber or green.

Movements designated as red are the most uncomfortable or unsafe for cyclists, and so on:

a Red: where conditions exist that are most likely to give rise to the most common collision
types, then the movement should be represented on the plan as a red arrow

a Amber: where the risk of those collision types has been reduced by design layout or traffic
management interventions, then the movement should be coloured amber

a Green: where the potential for collisions has been removed entirely, then the movement should
be coloured green

56 Pooley, C, Tight, M, Jones, T, Horton, D, Scheldeman, G, Jopson, A, Mullen, C, Chisholm, A, Strano,

E & Constantine, S 2011, Understanding walking and cycling: summary of key findings and
recommendations. Lancaster University, Lancaster

178
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

‘Green’ should be taken to mean suitable for all potential cyclists; ‘red’ means suitable only for a
minority of cyclists (and, even for them, it may be uncomfortable to make). Green movements will
exceed the standards that have typically been achieved in the UK to date.

To aid option appraisal and a comparison with existing provision, proposed schemes should be
assessed numerically by giving a score of 0, 1 and 2 to the red, amber and green movements
respectively.

In addition, any banned movements for cycling (shown on the diagram in black with a cross at
the end) will also score zero.

An overall percentage score for the junction should be derived by dividing the total score for all
of the possible movements with the maximum possible score, if all were coded green.

The worked example below, taken from Section 2.2.7 of the London Cycling Design Standards
shows how this is done.

3. Applying the tool

Criteria for the types of collision, conflicts and conditions which would be scored 0,1 or 2 are
listed in the red-amber-green tables below.

The first section of the table gives criteria for all junctions, and should be applied in conjunction
with the section specific to the type of junction (e.g. priority junction) under consideration.

Where a movement would meet criteria falling into more than one scoring band (e.g. red and
amber) the worst score should be taken – i.e. meeting any red criterion means the movement
is scored as red.

4. Worked example
This example shows a busy high street crossed by a cycle route on offset side streets that are
closed to motor vehicles. Traffic signals hold general traffic on the high street in both directions to
allow a separate stage for cycle movements only.

Cycle movements out of the side streets are all shown with green arrows as they can take place
unopposed during that stage. Cyclists on the high street turning right into either side street have
to cross two lanes of general traffic and then look for a gap in a further two lanes of oncoming
traffic. The presence of the right turn-pocket is helpful but without separation in time and space
this movement is still difficult and should be marked as red.

Cyclists moving along the high street can do so within a bus lane and so this movement is
shown as amber as they do not have to mix with the main traffic flow. The other side street to
the south has banned movements for all vehicles including cyclists and so this is shown as black
with a cross at the end.

The overall junction score is 24/40, or 60%.

179
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

5. Junction assessment tool scoring

criteria
Conditions relate to cycling in mixed traffic unless otherwise indicated. Figure 4.1 in the guidance
offers general advice on when segregation from motor traffic is preferred.

180
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Type of Cycle Suitable only for Likely to be more Suitable for all
junction movement confident existing acceptable to most potential and
being cyclists, and may cyclists, but may still existing cyclists
assessed be avoided by some pose problems for less
The potential for
experienced cyclists confident or new cyclists
collisions has
Conditions are most The risk of collisions been removed, or
likely to give rise to has been reduced managed to a high
the most common by design layout or standard of safety
collision types traffic management for cyclists
interventions
Score = 0 Score = 2
Score = 1
Any type of Any a Cycle movement in a Cycle movement in a Low60 traffic speed
junction movement potential conflict57 with potential conflict with and volume in mixed
heavy motor traffic moderate traffic flow.59 traffic environment
flow.58 (e.g. access-
a Cycle lanes through only streets in a
a Cycle movement junction meeting residential area).
mixed with or crossing appropriate desirable
traffic with 85th minimum width a Cycle movement
percentile speed requirements for the separated physically
exceeding 60kph, movement under and/or in time from
or where vehicles consideration. motor traffic and
accelerate rapidly. also separated from
a Raised table at junction pedestrians.
a Necessary to cross crossed by traffic in
more than one potential conflict with a Cycle movement
traffic lane (without cycle movement. bypasses junction
refuge or protection) completely, including
to complete cycle a Cycle movement made via good quality
movement unless by transiting onto section grade separation.
traffic flows are low. of shared use footway.

a Cycle movement
crosses wide junction
entry or exit: e.g. with
merge or diverge taper
or slip lane.

a Pinch points on
junction entry or
exit (lane width
3.2m-3.9m).

a Cycle movement
affected by very poor
surface quality utility
reinstatement, gully
positioning, debris.

57 ‘In potential conflict with’ means where heavy motor traffic movements cross or run alongside cycle movements without
being separated physically and/or in time
58 Heavy traffic flow = > 5000 motor vehicles per day and/or HGV and bus flow > 500 per day
59 Moderate traffic flow = 2500-5000 motor vehicles per day and/or HGV and bus flow 250-500 per day
60 Low traffic flow – < 2500 motor vehicles per day and/or HGV and bus flow < 250 per day

181
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Type of Cycle Suitable only for Likely to be more Suitable for all
junction movement confident existing acceptable to most potential and
being cyclists, and may cyclists, but may still existing cyclists
assessed be avoided by some pose problems for less
The potential for
experienced cyclists confident or new cyclists
collisions has
Conditions are most The risk of collisions been removed, or
likely to give rise to has been reduced managed to a high
the most common by design layout or standard of safety
collision types traffic management for cyclists
interventions
Score = 0 Score = 2
Score = 1
Simple priority Right turn a Heavy traffic a Central refuge allowing a Cycle movement
T-junction from minor movements and/or two-stage cycle made via crossing
arm high bus and HGV movement crossing one of major arm with
In addition
flows in potential traffic lane at a time. dedicated cycle
to and
conflict with cycle signals or cycle
notwithstanding
movement, with no priority.
any of the above
physical refuge in the
“any junction”
centre of the major
conditions
road (including ghost
(Note – island junction).61
staggered
junctions Left turn a Side road entry treatment a Continuous footway
assessed as from major (table across minor arm). and cycle track
two separate arm across minor arm.
T-junctions) Right turn a Heavy traffic a Protected turning refuge a Cycle movement
from major movements and/or allowing two stage cycle made via crossing
arm high bus and HGV movement, crossing one of major arm via
flows in potential lane at a time. dedicated cycle
conflict with no signals or cycle
physical refuge in the priority.
centre of major road
(including ghost island
junction).
Ahead on a Congested conditions a Junction free from a Off-carriageway
major arm, causing poor visibility queueing traffic and cycle track or
crossing for right-turning motor cycle lane on major stepped cycle track
minor arm vehicles from major arm meeting desirable alongside major
arm. minimum width arm, crossing minor
requirements. arm with priority over
a Junction corner radius turning traffic.62
≥9m, including where a Junction corner radius
off-carriageway cycle <9m, including where
track crosses minor off-carriageway cycle
arm. track crosses minor arm
without priority.

a Side road entry treatment

(table across minor arm).

61 Where there is a continuous gap of at least 10s in both major road traffic streams every 60s, a score of 1 will be appropriate
62 A cycle priority side road crossing would score 1 instead of 2 if the flow of traffic entering and leaving the side road is
moderate or high (see notes 3 and 4)

182
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Type of Cycle Suitable only for Likely to be more Suitable for all
junction movement confident existing acceptable to most potential and
being cyclists, and may cyclists, but may still existing cyclists
assessed be avoided by some pose problems for less
The potential for
experienced cyclists confident or new cyclists
collisions has
Conditions are most The risk of collisions been removed, or
likely to give rise to has been reduced managed to a high
the most common by design layout or standard of safety
collision types traffic management for cyclists
interventions
Score = 0 Score = 2
Score = 1
Crossroads – as Ahead from a Heavy opposing traffic a Protected pocket refuge a Cycle movement
T junction plus: minor arm movements with for ahead cycles allowing made via crossing
no physical refuge two stage movement, of major arm via
In addition
(including ghost island crossing one lane at a dedicated cycle
to and
junction).63 time. signals or cycle
notwithstanding
priority.
any of the above
“any junction”
conditions
Traffic Signals All a Single or multiple a Advance Cycle Stop a Cycle movement has
movements queuing lanes with no lines, at least 5m deep64 no potential conflict
In addition
cycle lanes or tracks and where the signals with motor traffic,
to and
on approaches. on the approach are on e.g. dedicated cycle
notwithstanding
green for <30% of the stage, conflicting
any of the above a Junctions with cycle time. traffic movement
“any junction” unsignalised left turn held or banned.
conditions merge/diverge and a Signal timings adjusted
signalised ahead to provide extended
lanes. intergreen to suit cycle
movement under
consideration.

a Cycle/pedestrian
scramble (toucan
crossings with all-red
stage).

a Early release for cycles,

with enough time
to clear junction for
cycle movement being
considered.
Right turn a Two-stage right turn via a Two-stage right
ASL or marked area in turn with physically
front of stop line. protected waiting
area.

63 Where there is a continuous gap of at least 10s in both major road traffic streams every 60s, a score of 1 will be appropriate
64 7.5m deep ASLs are preferred

183
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Type of Cycle Suitable only for Likely to be more Suitable for all
junction movement confident existing acceptable to most potential and
being cyclists, and may cyclists, but may still existing cyclists
assessed be avoided by some pose problems for less
The potential for
experienced cyclists confident or new cyclists
collisions has
Conditions are most The risk of collisions been removed, or
likely to give rise to has been reduced managed to a high
the most common by design layout or standard of safety
collision types traffic management for cyclists
interventions
Score = 0 Score = 2
Score = 1
Roundabouts All a Any type of a Compact roundabout or a Off-carriageway
movements roundabout with high raised mini roundabout cycle track with
In addition
traffic throughput.65 with no more than crossings of entries
to and
moderate traffic and exits with
notwithstanding a Normal roundabout throughput.66 signals or cycle
any of the above with multi-lane flared priority.
“any junction” approaches. a Off-carriageway cycle
conditions track with crossings of
a Any type of entries and exits without
roundabout with cycle priority, crossing
annular cycle single traffic lanes with
lane marked on traffic flows < 4000
the circulatory vehicles per day or 400
carriageway. HGV/bus flow.

65 Heavy traffic throughput: >8000 motor vehicles per day and/or HGV and bus flow > 800 per day
66 Moderate traffic throughput: ≤8000 motor vehicles per day and/or HGV and bus flow ≤ 800 per day

184
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Appendix C: Legal issues

These notes are for guidance only. Practitioners will need to obtain their own legal advice before
acting on information provided in this appendix.

Descriptions and definitions

Cycling may be legally permitted in several different places:

a On the Highway

a On a Cycle Track

a On a Bridleway

a On a Restricted Byway (formerly Road Used as a Public Path)

a On a Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT)

a On paths within some public parks, open spaces or across private land

a On canal and river towing paths

Different laws apply to the creation of the different types of cycling provision. Most cycle routes
form part of the highway or public rights of way networks. Definitions of the most common types
of provision are given below:

Highway: This is defined as “a way over which the public has the right to pass and repass, and
may be any way, court, alley, footpath, bridleway.” While most ‘highway’ forms part of the road
network, other types of route can still form part of what is legally termed maintainable highway.

Carriageway: A way constituting or comprised in a highway (other than a cycle track), over
which the public have a right of way for passage of vehicles. [Highways Act 1980 (S329)].
Cycle lanes are part of the carriageway.

Cycle Track: A way constituting or comprised in a highway, over which the public have the
following, but no other, rights of way; a right of way on pedal cycles (other than pedal cycles
which are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1988) with or without a right
of way on foot. [Section 329(1) Highways Act 1980; the words in brackets were inserted by
section 1 of the Cycle Tracks Act 1984 and updated by the Road Traffic (Consequential
Provisions) Act 1988]. Cycle tracks may be newly constructed or created through conversion of
a footway or footpath.

Footway: A way comprised in a highway, which also comprises a carriageway, over which
the public has a right of way on foot only [Section 329(1) Highway Act 1980]. Footways are
the pedestrian paths alongside a carriageway, referred to colloquially as the pavement.
Driving a vehicle (including cycling) or riding a horse on a footway is an offence under the
Highways Act 1835.

Public Rights of Way: These comprise Footpaths, Bridleways, Restricted Byways and Byways
Open to All Traffic. All public rights of way are highways and are shown on the Definitive Map
held by local highway authorities, which is required to be constantly reviewed and updated.

Footpath: A highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a footway
[Section 329(1) Highways Act 1980].

185
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Bridleway: A right of way on horseback (or leading a horse), foot and bicycle. The Countryside
Act 1968 gave cyclists a right to use bridleways; however, they must give way to pedestrians
and equestrians. There is no penalty for failing to comply. Since the bridleway forms part of the
highway it remains for case law to establish whether the offending cyclist could be said to be
‘furiously driving a carriage on a highway so as to endanger life and limb’, see Highways Act
1835. There may occasionally be a local byelaw to prohibit cycling on a particular bridleway.

Restricted Byways: Are generally open only to pedestrians, cyclists, horse-riders and
horsedrawn vehicles and replace the former category of Roads Used as Public Paths
(RUPPs). Created by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (S48).

Byways Open to All Traffic (BOATs): Are open to motorised traffic, but are used by the
public mainly for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are used. They rarely have a
sealed surface and are generally used in a similar way to restricted byways and bridleways.
The definition was created under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (S66).

Towing Path: The towpath alongside a canal or river. There is no general statutory right to cycle
on a towpath in England and Wales (although some sections may also be public rights of way).
Cycling may be permitted (or prohibited) through a byelaw.

Cycleway and Cycle Path: Neither of these terms has any legal definition but they often
describe continuous cycle routes (usually away from the carriageway) that may be formed by any
permutation of the above.

Transport device definitions

Cycle: A pedal cycle is defined as ‘a bicycle, a tricycle, or a cycle having four or more wheels,
not being in any case a motor vehicle’ (Section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52)). In law,
a cycle is considered a ‘vehicle’ as a consequence of the Ellis v Nott-Bower judgment in 1896.
A cycle is also considered a carriage by section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888.

Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles (EAPCs): Electrically assisted pedal cycles, often known
as e-bikes, are defined in the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle Regulations 1983 (as amended).
They can legally be ridden where pedal cycles are allowed, but only by someone aged 14 years
or more. They are not classed as motor vehicles for the purposes of road traffic legislation.

Manual powered wheelchairs and mobility scooters: These are defined as ‘invalid
carriages’ in law, and there are three classes:

Class 1 – Manual, self-propelled or attendant propelled wheelchairs.

Class 2 – Powered wheelchairs and mobility scooters with a maximum speed of 4 mph.

Class 3 – Powered wheelchairs and mobility scooters with a maximum speed of 8 mph

Invalid carriages can be used on footways, footpaths, bridleways or pedestrianised areas,

provided that they are used in accordance with prescribed requirements. Users of invalid
carriages have no specific right to use a cycle track, but they commit no offence in doing so
unless an order or local by-law exists creating one.

Class 2 wheelchairs and mobility scooters are intended to be used predominantly on footways.
Class 3 wheelchairs and mobility scooters are intended for use on footways and along roads.
They can travel at up to 8 mph on roads, but must be fitted with a switch that reduces their top
speed to 4 mph for use on footways.

186
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Powered invalid carriages are not classed as motor vehicles for the purposes of road traffic
legislation (Road Traffic Act 1988, section 185(1)). However, the Vehicle Excise and Registration
Act 1994 requires that Class 3 wheelchairs and mobility scooters are registered with the Driver
and Vehicle Licensing Agency for road use. They are exempt from vehicle excise duty, but are still
required to display a valid (nil duty) tax disc.

Motor vehicle: For use on public roads, motor vehicles must be registered and fitted with a
registration plate or plates. They must also be insured and taxed for road use, and they can only
be operated by someone in possession of a driver’s licence. Motor vehicles cannot normally be
used on footways, footpaths or cycle tracks.

Creating cycle tracks

Creating a cycle track within the highway boundary. Procedure – Highways Act 1980

There are two ways in which this can be achieved. Either all or part of the existing footway is
converted to a cycle track, or a new cycle track can be constructed alongside the footway.

Section 21 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence to drive or park a motor vehicle
wholly or partly on a cycle track, and the making of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is therefore
no longer required to control such use. A TRO may be required if the intention is for the cycle
track to be one way only, as the default is for two-way cycling. This situation could apply on
stepped cycle tracks, for example. However, if vehicular rights for private access existed prior to
the conversion of a footway to a cycle track, these are not necessarily extinguished on creation
of the cycle track.

Public consultation is not a mandatory requirement, however, engagement with those likely to be
affected is strongly recommended, particularly groups representing disabled people.

Converting a footway to cycle track: To create a cycle track using part or all of an existing
footway (or extending the kerbs into the carriageway) the Highway Authority must first ‘remove’
the existing footway under Section 66(4) and then ‘create’ the cycle track under Section 65(1).
The process need not involve physical construction work other than the erection of signs.

Creating a new cycle track: A local authority may create a new cycle track “in or by the side of
a highway” under section 65(1) of the Highways Act 1980. This would apply where the sole
purpose of widening the footway is to create a cycle track, i.e. the footway is not altered.

The creation or conversion of a cycle track is normally completed by a resolution of a Highway

Authority committee, regardless of whether any actual construction is required or if it is simply a
change of status of an existing footway. There needs to be clear evidence that the local highway
authority has exercised its powers, which can be provided by a resolution of the appropriate
committee or portfolio holder etc. to ensure that a clear audit trail has been established.

Highway authorities also have a general power of improvement under the Highways Act 1980,
which allows them to create, alter or remove footways without the need to seek planning
consent.

Creating a cycle track outside the highway boundary. Procedure – Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 and Highways Act 1980

If there is no suitable public space within the highway boundary, then the adjacent land (i.e. not
existing highway land) could be used. The land must be acquired from the owner (by
Compulsory Purchase Order or dedication) to enable use by pedestrians and cyclists.

187
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

General powers to acquire land are provided by the Highways Act 1980 s239. Local authorities
may resolve to exercise compulsory purchase powers, either to improve the highway or to
promote countryside access. The former is more commonly known, but the latter does provide
opportunities to create facilities for leisure that have a low utility component. More information is
available in the latest edition of ‘The Compulsory Purchase Procedure Manual66.

Creating cycle tracks in new development – dedication of land to the highway.

Procedure – Highways Act 1980 and Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Sections 37 and 38 of the Highways Act provide the means for land to be dedicated as public
highway. The Act does not refer to the nature of the use, simply referring to dedicating a “way as
a highway” and may therefore be for any function acceptable to the Highway Authority e.g.
footway, cycle track, carriageway etc.

Agreements under Highways Act 1980 S38 between developers and highway authorities will
include confirmation that the developers are the owners of the land, and through the S38
agreement, are dedicating the land, shown on development plan drawings, to the highway
maintainable at public expense. Such plans/drawings invariably indicate the nature of the works
to be undertaken and, therefore, the future use of the land e.g. bridge, carriageway, cycle track
etc. that establishes the status of each element as additions to the highway network.

The dedication as highway is often confirmed by the signing of the S38 agreement before the
physical completion of the carriageway, footway, cycle track etc. This enables the Highway
Authority to exercise its various powers to do works within the highway and complete any
outstanding construction works in the event of the failure of the developer to complete their
obligations under the agreement. This also indicates that the dedication to the highway is not
dependent on works being carried out by the landowner prior to that dedication.

Where a cycle track is to be created by the Highway Authority, consent under the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 will often be required for the change of use and engineering works to
create the cycle track.

Converting an existing footpath to a cycle track: Procedure – Cycle Tracks Act (CTA)
1984 (as amended) to convert all or part to shared use

An existing urban footpath or alleyway may be suitable for shared use by cyclists and
pedestrians. This is typically a maintainable highway not adjacent to the carriageway and not on
the definitive map, with or without a cycle prohibition order (which may be in the form of a
byelaw). The new Order could allow cyclists to use part or the entire width of the footpath. Rural
footpaths are more likely to be recorded as rights of way on the definitive map, but broadly the
same procedures apply.

Under the CTA, a Highway Authority may designate “any footpath for which they are highway
authority”, or part of it, as a cycle track. There is no differentiation in it being a definitive footpath
(appearing on the definitive footpath map), or an urban footpath (surfaced highway as found in
urban areas and created after the drawing up of the definitive map). Any footpath which forms
part of the highway, whether or not surfaced or maintained by the Highway Authority, is a
footpath for the purposes of the CTA and should be converted by its application.

To convert all or part of an urban footpath maintainable as highway or a public footpath recorded
in the rights of way map to a cycle track, a Cycle Tracks Order must be made under Section 3 of
the CTA and the Cycle Tracks Regulations 1984 (SI1984/1431). Detailed advice on the
conversion of footpaths is contained in Circular Roads 1/86 (Background to the Cycle Tracks Act
1984 and the Cycle Tracks Regulations 1984).

188
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

If the land is not owned by the Highway Authority, it must ensure that the landowner has
consented in writing [CTA s3]. Any land lying outside the width of the existing footpath which
needs to be acquired for the purposes of constructing the cycle track must be dedicated to/
purchased by the Highway Authority to enable widening to take place.

Public consultation is a mandatory requirement for conversions carried out under the 1984 Act.
The Regulations specify that, before making the order, a local highway authority has to consult:

a. one or more organisations representing persons who use the footpath involved or who are
likely to be affected by any provision of the proposed order;

b. any other local authority, parish council or community council within whose area the footpath
is situated;

c. those statutory undertakers whose operational land is crossed by the footpath; and

d. the chief officer of police for the police area.

Where the footpath crosses agricultural land, the authority will need to obtain consent from the
land owner(s). If there are no objections or objections are withdrawn, the order can be confirmed
by the local highway authority. If there are un-withdrawn objections, the order can be confirmed
by the Secretary of State, who may decide that a local public inquiry is first required.

In practice, the Cycle Tracks Act is often not used, even though it was intended to help local
authorities to rationalise existing rights of way to permit cycling more widely. Walking advocates,
such as The Ramblers, oppose many applications due to the loss of the footpath from the
definitive map (and subsequently from published O.S. maps).

Dealing with objections to the Orders can be costly to the local authority, and any unresolved
objections result in a Public Inquiry. The option to create a new cycle track alongside an existing
footpath is therefore often preferred by local authorities as a pragmatic method.

The CTA 84 s3(10) (as amended) states that the local authority has the power to carry out any
physical works necessary. Any change of use, that would have constituted development within
the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, is deemed to be granted under Part III
of that Act. Any existing byelaw prohibiting cycling would need to be reversed.

Creating a cycle route using permissive rights:

A landowner may give permission for cyclists to use land occupied by a definitive footpath to
avoid the use of the Cycle Tracks Act or because they wish to retain control of the land. The path
then becomes a ‘permissive path’ for cycling.

Permissive rights are useful where a landowner is willing to allow public use but does not want a
permanent right of way to be created. Where the landowner is willing to allow a permanent right
of way, he or she can dedicate the land as public highway, and this is a useful alternative in
some cases.

A commonly used permissive agreement is where the local authority (or another party) purchases
an interest in the land, constructs a path and then allows the public to use it. The land interest
can be:

a freehold, which gives a permanent interest; or

a leasehold, which gives an interest for the period of the lease, e.g. 125 years; or

a licence, which comprises permission to construct and permission for the public to use.

189
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

The Department does not encourage the use of permissive rights by licence, because licences
can be withdrawn at short notice and at any time. Where a local authority owns a footpath, or
where the footpath is maintained at public expense, the preferred option would be to introduce
higher-level rights for users by upgrading it to a Cycle Track, Restricted Byway or Bridleway.
Otherwise, permissive rights based on a leasehold or freehold interest might be appropriate.

Sustrans has created numerous permissive rights routes that have worked satisfactorily.
The interests are largely freehold or leasehold – licences are generally avoided, because of their
poor security of tenure. Sustrans can advise on the implementation of permissive agreements.

Creating a new cycle track parallel to an existing footpath

Local authorities can create new cycle tracks under s65(1) Highways Act 1980. New footpaths,
bridleways or restricted byways can be created under sections 25 or 26 of the Highways Act
1980, either through agreement or by using compulsory powers. A route might also be
dedicated for use as a cycle track if there is a precedent of sustained use by cyclists. Creating
a cycle track on a new alignment might require planning approval if it is outside the highway
boundary.

In this case, the footpath is not converted but the surface is widened, such that a cycle track is
created alongside and separate from the existing footpath. The use of the Cycle Tracks Act does
not therefore apply.

In these circumstances, segregation by some form of physical delineation (kerb, surfacing) is

appropriate because cyclists have no legal right to cycle on the original section of footpath.
This practice is sometime used to avoid objections that the cycle track will result in the removal
of a footpath from the definitive map (see note on CTA above).

Any byelaw or order prohibiting cycling on the adjacent footpath should be removed prior to
(or in parallel with other procedures) for the creation of a cycle track. This may not be strictly
necessary as the cycle track is alongside the footpath, but the presence of any form of
prohibition, supported by signs to give it effect, will appear illogical and lead to confusion over
user rights.

If the Highway Authority does not own the land, they will need to purchase it (compulsorily if
required) or achieve a dedication as highway from the owner. The wording of any dedication is
usually along the lines of (the landowner) ‘hereby freely dedicates the land shown coloured pink
on the attached plan to the highway maintainable at public expense’. It is up to the local
Highway Authority to determine what modes are permitted. The plans used for the transaction/
dedication agreement could be extracts from the scheme plans. No further action is required to
formally create the footway/additional carriageway to give the police the power to enforce
relevant offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Cycle track which terminates at the rear of a footway and conversion of the footway
crossing (to enable cyclists to reach the carriageway) Procedure – Highways Act 1980

If the cycle track order ends at the back of the footway, it is necessary to create a short section
of cycle track in the highway to join the carriageway. The footway should be converted by using
the powers available under the Highways Act 1980. There are no requirements in legislation for
a cycle track to be of a minimum length or travel in any direction relative to the carriageway.
This may be interpreted as permitting the conversion of the short length of footway necessary
to achieve a crossing of the carriageway. This may be either straight across, or may link two
routes in a staggered arrangement or to reach a point where there is good visibility to ensure a
safer crossing.

190
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure: Example of off-road cycle track along line of a footpath, that crosses the footway to join the
road. This type of route can also cross minor roads with priority for the cycle track, using a flat top road
hump. (Photograph by Adrian Lord)

Footways, footpaths and cycle tracks on private land that are not part of the public
highway. Procedure – varies

A ‘footway’ outside the highway boundary has, by definition, no highway status and cannot,
therefore, be treated as a footway as defined by the Highways Act 1980. This situation could
arise where the footway (and accompanying carriageway) was originally created by a housing
authority but not subsequently adopted as public highway. Similarly, it might occur in the case of
a development that allows public access, but the means of access are not adopted as highway
e.g. on a business or retail park.

Such routes should be dealt with as a permissive route, or through an agreement with the owner
for the route to be adopted as highway, to enable creation of a route using one of the methods
above. Such cases are complex and should be dealt with locally on a case by case basis.
Chapter 14 of the Sustrans Design Manual outlines common forms of permissive agreements.

Footbridges and underpasses. Procedure – Cycle Tracks Act 1984 or Highways

Act 1980

The procedures employed will be based upon the circumstances under which these features
were created. Where these are not clear, local and professional judgement will be required as to
whether the footbridge or subway acts as a footpath or a footway.

Path (Bridleway) Creation. Procedure – Highways Act 1980 s26

Section 30(1) of the Countryside Act 1968 gives the public the right to ride a bicycle on any
bridleway, but cyclists must give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback. The act places
no obligation on the Highway Authority to improve the surface to better accommodate cycle use.
The Highways Act provides powers to create bridleways by means of a public path creation order.

191
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Creating a new cycle track adjacent to a bridleway. Procedure – TCPA and GPDO

This process is similar to widening a footpath as described above, but the highway is adjacent to
a bridleway and not a footpath.

Conversion of a footpath alongside a watercourse/river/canal. Procedure – varies

Cycle tracks created alongside a watercourse by the conversion of a public footpath will
inevitably require engineering works, if only in the form of signs. In addition to the use of the
Cycle Tracks Act or planning approval (if access is based on permissive rights), it may be
necessary to obtain consent under the Water Resources Act 1991 – contact the Environment
Agency for more information. In some regions and in most circumstances, the agreement of the
Internal Drainage Board will be required where any work impacts upon its operations.

Cycling is permitted on most towpaths owned and maintained by the Canal & River Trust, and
they frequently work closely with local authorities to improve routes for cyclists and pedestrians.
In the case of footpaths alongside canals, the Canal & River Trust’s powers to introduce a byelaw
prohibiting cycling take precedence over any highway rights. It is therefore recommended that
contact be made with their local office to agree the best means of achieving and maintaining
cycle access.

192
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Appendix D: Image list and credits

Figure number Credit/source Figure number Credit/source

Chapter 1 Cover Bikeability Trust Fig 6.5 WSP (Wheels for

Fig 1.1 TfL Wellbeing)
Fig 1.2 Wheels for Wellbeing Fig 6.6 PJA
Fig 1.3 PJA Fig 6.7 PJA
Fig 1.4 PJA Fig 6.8 PJA
Fig 1.5 PJA Fig 6.9 PJA
Fig 1.6 PJA Fig 6.10 Wheels for Wellbeing
Fig 1.7 PJA Fig 6.11 PJA
Fig 1.8 PJA Fig 6.12 WSP (Wheels for
Wellbeing)
Fig 1.9 PJA
Fig 6.13 PJA
Fig 1.10 PJA
Fig 6.14 PJA
Chapter 2 Cover Wheels for Wellbeing
Fig 6.15 PJA
Fig 2.1 DfT
Fig 6.16 PJA
Fig 2.2 DfT
Fig 6.17 PJA
Fig 2.3 DfT
Fig 6.18 PJA
Fig 2.4 Wheels for Wellbeing
Fig 6.19 PJA
Chapter 3 Cover TfGM
Fig 6.20 PJA
Fig 3.1 DfT
Fig 6.21 PJA
Fig 3.2 PJA
Fig 6.22 PJA
Fig 3.3 DfT
Fig 6.23 PJA
Fig 3.4 PJA
Fig 6.24 PJA
Fig 3.5 PJA
Fig 6.25 PJA
Fig 3.6 PJA
Fig 6.26 PJA
Chapter 4 Cover PJA
Fig 6.27 PJA
Fig 4.1 PJA
Fig 6.28 Mark Strong
Fig 4.2 DfT
Fig 6.29 PJA
Fig 4.3 PJA
Fig 6.30 PJA
Fig 4.4 PJA
Fig 6.31 PJA
Chapter 5 Cover DfT
Fig 6.32 PJA
Fig 5.1 DfT
Fig 6.33 PJA
Fig 5.2 PJA
Chapter 7 Title PJA
Fig 5.3 PJA
Fig 7.1 PJA
Fig 5.4 PJA
Fig 7.2 PJA
Chapter 6 Title PJA
Fig 7.3 PJA
Fig 6.1 DfT – Manual for Streets
Fig 7.4 PJA
Fig 6.2 PJA
Fig 7.5 DfT
Fig 6.3 PJA
Fig 7.6 PJA
Fig 6.4 WSP (Wheels for
Wellbeing) Fig 7.7 PJA

193
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure number Credit/source Figure number Credit/source

Fig 7.8 Welsh Government Fig 10.25 PJA

Fig 7.9 PJA Fig 10.26 WSP
Fig 7.10 PJA Fig 10.27 PJA
Fig 7.11 PJA Fig 10.28 PJA
Chapter 8 Title Page Bikeability Trust Fig 10.29 PJA
Fig 8.1 PJA Fig 10.30 PJA
Fig 8.2 PJA Fig 10.31 WSP
Fig 8.3 PJA Fig 10.32 WSP
Fig 8.4 PJA Fig 10.33 PJA
Fig 8.5 PJA Fig 10.34 PJA
Chapter 9 Title Page PJA Fig 10.35 PJA
Fig 9.1 PJA Fig 10.36 PJA
Fig 9.2 PJA Fig 10.37 Cambridgeshire CC
Fig 9.3 PJA Fig 10.38 Lucy Marstrand
Fig 9.4 PJA Fig 10.39 PJA
Fig 9.5 PJA Fig 10.40 WSP
Fig 9.6 PJA Fig 10.41 PJA
Fig 9.7 PJA Fig 10.42 PJA
Fig 9.8 PJA Fig 10.43 PJA
Chapter 10 Title WSP Fig 10.44 Cambridgeshire CC
Fig 10.1 Nottingham CC Fig 10.45 PJA
Fig 10.2 PJA Fig 10.46 PJA
Fig 10.3 PJA Fig 10.47 PJA
Fig 10.4 Cambridge Cycle Fig 10.48 PJA
Campaign Fig 10.49 Sustrans
Fig 10.5 Lucy Marstrand Fig 10.50 PJA
Fig 10.6 PJA Fig 10.51 PJA
Fig 10.7 PJA Fig 10.52 PJA
Fig 10.8 Lucy Marstrand Fig 10.53 Paul Hogarth Company
Fig 10.9 PJA Fig 10.54 PJA
Fig 10.10 PJA Fig 10.55 Wheels for Wellbeing
Fig 10.11 PJA Chapter 11 Title DfT
Fig 10.12 PJA Fig 11.1 PJA
Fig 10.13 PJA Fig 11.2 PJA
Fig 10.14 PJA Fig 11.3 PJA
Fig 10.15 PJA Fig 11.4 PJA
Fig 10.16 PJA Fig 11.5 PJA
Fig 10.17 Lucy Marstrand Fig 11.6 PJA
Fig 10.18 PJA Fig 11.7 PJA
Fig 10.19 PJA Fig 11.8 PJA
Fig 10.20 PJA Fig 11.9 PJA
Fig 10.21 WSP Fig 11.10 PJA
Fig 10.22 DfT TSRGD Fig 11.11 PJA
Fig 10.23 PJA Fig 11.12 PJA
Fig 10.24 WSP Fig 11.13 PJA

194
 Cycle Infrastructure Design

Figure number Credit/source

Fig 11.14 PJA

Fig 11.15 PJA
Fig 11.16 PJA
Chapter 12 Title DfT
Fig 12.1 WSP/Element Energy
Fig 12.2 WSP/Element Energy
Chapter 13 Title PJA
Fig 13.1 PJA
Fig 13.2 Transport Initiatives/
Nottingham City Council
Fig 13.3 PJA
Fig 13.4 PJA
Fig 13.5 PJA
Fig 13.6 PJA
Fig 13.7 PJA
Chapter 14 Title Cambridgeshire CC
Fig 14.1 PJA/Leicestershire CC
Fig 14.2 Cambridgeshire CC
Fig 14.3 PJA
Fig 14.4 Cambridgeshire CC
Fig 14.5 PlaceOnEarth
Fig 14.6 PJA
Fig 14.7 Cambridgeshire CC
Fig 14.8 Sandwell BC
Fig 14.9 DfT – Manual for Streets
Ch 15 Title Andy Pickett

195