Close Menu

6 Off-Carriageway Facilities

6.1 Principles.

6.1.1 Types of Off-Carriageway Facilities.

6.1.2 When to Segregate Pedestrians and Cyclists.

6.1.3 Redetermination of Existing Footways and Footpaths.

6.1.4 Width Requirements.

6.1.5 Additional Clearance Distances to Fixed Objects.

6.2 Cycleways.

6.2.1 Segregated Cycleways.

6.2.1.1 Segregation by Kerb.

6.2.1.2 Segregation by Central Delineator Strip.

6.2.1.3 Segregation by Verge.

6.2.1.4 Tactile Surfacing.

6.2.2 Shared Cycleways.

6.2.3 Bus Stops on Cycleways.

6.2.3.1 Segregated Cycleways.

6.2.3.2 Shared Cycleways.

6.2.4 Adjacent Parking and Loading.

6.2.5 Guardrailing.

6.2.6 Transitions with Carriageways.

6.3 Cyclepaths.

6.3.1 Shared Cyclepaths.

6.3.2 Segregated Cyclepaths.

6.3.3 Cyclepath Situations.

6.3.3.1 Dismantled Railway Lines.

6.3.3.2 Canal and Riverside Paths.

6.3.3.3 Equestrian Routes and Bridleways.

6.3.3.4 British Standards.

6.4 Vehicle Restricted and Pedestrianised Areas.

6.4.1 Design.

6.4.2 Motor Vehicle Access.

6.4.3 Disabled People.

6.5 Access Controls.

6.5.1 Reasons for Use.

6.5.2 Design.

6.1 Principles.

6.1.1 Types of Off-Carriageway Facilities.

6.1.2 When to Segregate Pedestrians and Cyclists.

6.1.3 Redetermination of Existing Footways and Footpaths.

6.1.4 Width Requirements.

6.1.5 Additional Clearance Distances to Fixed Objects.

6.2 Cycleways.

6.2.1 Segregated Cycleways.

6.2.1.1 Segregation by Kerb.

6.2.1.2 Segregation by Central Delineator Strip.

6.2.1.3 Segregation by Verge.

6.2.1.4 Tactile Surfacing.

6.2.2 Shared Cycleways.

6.2.3 Bus Stops on Cycleways.

6.2.3.1 Segregated Cycleways.

6.2.3.2 Shared Cycleways.

6.2.4 Adjacent Parking and Loading.

6.2.5 Guardrailing.

6.2.6 Transitions with Carriageways.

6.3 Cyclepaths.

6.3.1 Shared Cyclepaths.

6.3.2 Segregated Cyclepaths.

6.3.3 Cyclepath Situations.

6.3.3.1 Dismantled Railway Lines.

6.3.3.2 Canal and Riverside Paths.

6.3.3.3 Equestrian Routes and Bridleways.

6.3.3.4 British Standards.

6.4 Vehicle Restricted and Pedestrianised Areas.

6.4.1 Design.

6.4.2 Motor Vehicle Access.

6.4.3 Disabled People.

6.5 Access Controls.

6.5.1 Reasons for Use.

6.5.2 Design.

List of Tables

Table 6.1: Cyclist and pedestrian flow density.

Table 6.2: Off-carriageway facility widths.

Table 6.3: Additional clearance distances to fixed objects.

Table 6.1: Cyclist and pedestrian flow density.

Table 6.2: Off-carriageway facility widths.

Table 6.3: Additional clearance distances to fixed objects.

List of Figures

Figure 6.1: Types of off-carriageway facilities.

Figure 6.2: Indicative pedestrian flow densities.

Figure 6.3: Segregated cycleway.

Figure 6.4: Methods of segregation.

Figure 6.5: Tactile markings for segregated use facilities.

Figure 6.6: Segregated cycleway at bus stop – example.

Figure 6.7: Shared cycleway at bus stop – example.

Figure 6.8: Transitions with carriageways.

Figure 6.9: Segregated cyclepath.

Figure 6.10: Recommended canal path cross-section.

Figure 6.11: Canal paths under bridges.

Figure 6.12: Cyclepath with separate bridleway.

Figure 6.13: Typical bollard layout

Figure 6.14: Typical chicane layout

Figure 6.1: Types of off-carriageway facilities.

Figure 6.2: Indicative pedestrian flow densities.

Figure 6.3: Segregated cycleway.

Figure 6.4: Methods of segregation.

Figure 6.5: Tactile markings for segregated use facilities.

Figure 6.6: Segregated cycleway at bus stop – example.

Figure 6.7: Shared cycleway at bus stop – example.

Figure 6.8: Transitions with carriageways.

Figure 6.9: Segregated cyclepath.

Figure 6.10: Recommended canal path cross-section.

Figure 6.11: Canal paths under bridges.

Figure 6.12: Cyclepath with separate bridleway.

Figure 6.13: Typical bollard layout

Figure 6.14: Typical chicane layout

6 Off-Carriageway Facilities

Off-carriageway facilities should be considered when the carriageway environment is assessed to be unsuitable for cyclists and it is not possible or desirable to improve on-carriageway conditions sufficiently (refer to Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2). There will be many situations where off-carriageway facilities provide positive advantages for cycle trips, and they form an important part of any cycle network.

In practice, most routes consist of a mix of on and off-carriageway sections and require the resolution of conflicts with pedestrians and other users. The most important aspect of route design is to ensure a high and consistent quality of provision, in line with the Core Design Principles. Interpretive signing can also be used to enhance the experience of the cyclist and be designed to complement the surrounding environment.

6.1 Principles

Off-carriageway cycle routes are typically surfaces shared with or adjacent to pedestrians.

6.1.1 Types of Off-Carriageway Facilities

Off-carriageway cycle routes consist of:

  • Cycleways – The right of passage by foot and pedal cycle only where it is associated with, but not on, a road carriageway. Pedestrians and cyclists may share the space or be segregated from each other.
  • Cyclepaths – The right of passage by foot and pedal cycle only where it is not associated with a road carriageway. Pedestrians and cyclists may share the space or be segregated from each other.

This Chapter sets out the design requirements for each of these facilities, which are illustrated in Figure 6.1.


Figure 6.1: Types of off-carriageway facilities

Figure 6.1: Types of off-carriageway facilities

6.1.2 When to Segregate Pedestrians and Cyclists

The potential for cyclist-pedestrian conflict is an important issue to be addressed as most off-carriageway routes for cyclists are used by pedestrians. The factors to be considered in determining whether shared use or segregated facilities are desirable include:

  • Bicycle and pedestrian volumes: If volumes of both categories are high, pedestrians and cyclists are likely to impede each other when mixed. Density rather than just flow is the most useful measure of conflict by volume (see Table 6.1 and Figure 6.2). While density is a useful parameter, it is likely that local conditions, observation of on-site movement patterns and user views/ attitudes will play an important part in the decision-making process.
  • The function of the area to pedestrians and cyclists: In a street with shops and services on both sides, both pedestrians and cyclists have an increased need for freedom of movement. In these situations, in pedestrianised environments for example, cyclists modify their behaviour accordingly (TAL 9/93) and there is limited need for segregation. However, on a radial route where the proportion of crossing and conflicting movements is low, and through movement is dominant, segregation may be more appropriate.
  • Use by disabled people: Many disabled people, particularly those who are visually impaired, find shared facilities intimidating and stress the importance of segregation by levels. Visually impaired people use kerbs as the basis of the concept that ‘up means safe’. This concept also has an important role to play in training guide dogs.
  • Available width: It may be impossible to provide segregated facilities in circumstances where the minimum width criteria cannot be achieved. A shared use or alternative facility therefore may have to be considered. In the case of segregated facilities, width plays a greater part in the success of the facility compared with a combined facility and the minimum recommended widths should not be reduced without careful consideration.

Table 6.1 indicates the type of arrangement that may be suitable on the basis of density of cyclist and pedestrian activity. Figure 6.2 provides a visual indication of different pedestrian flow densities. Designers should consider all relevant factors before arriving at a design solution. It is important to consult with all potential user groups during the design process, including local disabled access groups. The role of an Access Champion is mandatory in relation to Trunk Roads, as detailed in the Disability Discrimination Act: Good Practice Guide for Roads (Transport Scotland (2009)).

Table 6.1: Cyclist and pedestrian flow density

Combined density (users/hr/m)*

Recommended arrangement

< 100

Shared use is usually appropriate (cycles give way).

101 – 199

Segregation may be considered.

> 200

Segregation should be considered.

* Combined density per hour: the number of pedestrians and cyclists per hour per metre width.

 

Figure 6.2: Indicative pedestrian flow densities

Figure 6.2: Indicative pedestrian flow densities

6.1.3 Redetermination of Existing Footways and Footpaths

Footways and footpaths are often suitable for use by cyclists and these facilities may be redetermined by powers available under Section 152 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.

Any proposal requires to be taken forward through the statutory process with full and detailed consultation with public and statutory consultees. This can improve the design and reduce the likelihood of objections to the conversion of pedestrian facilities.

No impression should be given that there is a general permission to cycle locally on footways/ footpaths. This may need to be reinforced by local publicity and signing.

6.1.4 Width Requirements

The widths of off-carriageway cycle facilities are shown in Table 6.2.

Desirable Minimum dimensions are based upon a cycle facility of sufficient width to allow users to pass each other in free-flow conditions and without obstructions or constraints within or adjacent to the facility. Where ‘bunching’ is commonplace, for example at junctions and crossings, localised width increases may be desirable.

Table 6.2: Off-carriageway facility widths

Facility

Width (m)

Comments

Segregated cycleway or cyclepath

One way cycles only

Desirable Minimum

2.0

Operates satisfactorily for one-way flows of up to 150 cycles per hour with minimal overtaking anticipated.

Absolute Minimum

1.5

The running width required that is free from obstructions such as debris, gullies, line markings and street furniture.

Two way cycles only

Desirable Minimum

3.0

Operates satisfactorily for two-way flows up to 300 cycles per hour.

Absolute Minimum

2.0*

Operates satisfactorily for two-way flows of up to 200 cycles per hour free from obstructions such as debris, surface gullies, line markings and street furniture.

Pedestrian only space

Desirable Minimum

2.0

The minimum width in normal circumstances to permit unobstructed passage by opposing wheelchairs.

Absolute Minimum

1.5

Acceptable over short distances in specifically constrained environments, such as at bus stops or where obstacles are unavoidable (Transport Scotland 2009).

Shared cycleway or cyclepath

Pedestrian and cycle space

Desirable Minimum

3.0

Typically regarded as the minimum acceptable for combined flows of up to 300 per hour.

Absolute Minimum

2.0**

Can operate for combined flows of up to 200 per hour but will require cycles and pedestrians to frequently take evasive action to pass each other.

* Widths narrower than 2m can present a hazard to cyclists, however widths as low as 1.5m may be acceptable over short distances where there is no alternative. This width should only be considered where two-way flows of less than 150 cycles per hour are likely.

** In particularly constrained situations or for combined flows of less than 100 per hour, a width of 1.5m may be considered. However this will create conflict between users and should only be used over short distances where no alternative is available.

6.1.5 Additional Clearance Distances to Fixed Objects

Where street furniture and other fixed objects are in place, it is desirable to design additional clearance for the comfort and safety of users. The clearance distances, measured between the edge of the width of the facility and the nearest edge of the fixed objects are shown in Table 6.3. The edge of the object should be considered from ground level to a height of 2.4m.

If barriers or bollards are required, they should be highlighted through the use of reflective material or high visibility paint, especially in areas where there is no street lighting. A Cycle Audit during the hours of darkness as well as in daylight will identify potential hazards. (Refer to Disability Discrimination Act: Good Practice Guide for Roads’ (Transport Scotland (2009)).

Table 6.3: Additional clearance distances to fixed objects

Object

Absolute Minimum clearance (m)

Comments

Low upstand ≤ 50 mm

Nil

 

Kerb height 50 mm to 150mm

0.20

Added to the facility width or a separate buffer strip.

Continuous feature of height <1.2m or an isolated feature of any height (e.g. sign post, cabinet, lamp column)

0.25

Added to the facility width or a separate buffer strip. Ensure that safety fencing z-posts are capped.

Continuous feature of height >1.2m or a bridge parapet of any height

0.50

Added to the facility width or a separate buffer strip.

Carriageway

0.50*

Margin (grass verge or buffer strip) between cycleway and a live carriageway.

* The Desirable Minimum clearance distance between a cycleway and carriageway with a speed limit in excess of 40mph should be 1.5m. A hardstrip can be considered to be part of the separation. Do not use grass < 1.0m width.

If a clearance distance is less than the Absolute Minimum then the effective width is narrowed and the capacity of the facility is reduced. In these situations, the Designer should consider the implications for the effectiveness of the facility (refer to Table 6.1).

The area adjacent to a cycle facility has an impact on both perceived and actual personal security. Landscaping and planting should not impede forward visibility or passive surveillance from surrounding properties, or create hiding places close to the facility. A verge or clear area, ideally not less than 1.0 metre wide, may be provided on each side of a cyclepath, with planting near the track kept below 0.8 metres high. Vegetation that is likely to grow higher should be set further back.

6.2 Cycleways

Cycle facilites adjacent to the carriageway may be either segregated or shared use cycleways.

6.2.1 Segregated Cycleways

Segregated cycleways usually consist of:

  • Part width intended for cyclists only; and
  • Part width intended for pedestrians only.

Guidance on when to segregate is provided in Section 6.1.2. This type of facility is illustrated in Figures 6.3 and 6.4.

Figure 6.3: Segregated cycleway

Figure 6.3: Segregated cycleway

Figure 6.4: Methods of segregation

Figure 6.4: Methods of segregation

Note 1: Refer to Table 6.2 for cycleway widths and Table 6.3 for effective clearance widths to fixed objects.

Note 2: For the design of central delineator strips, refer to the Disability Discrimination Act: Good Practice Guide for Roads (Transport Scotland (2009)). Paving setts, deterrent paving or a flush line marking (Diagram No 1049) may be considered as an alternative to a central delineator strip.

Segregated cycleways should be clearly signed using Diagram No. 957 with the cycle only section marked with Diagram No. 1057. Consideration should be given to the positioning of sign poles, lighting columns and other obstructions. If placement close to the facility is unavoidable, they should be made more conspicuous through the use of reflective banding and white lining for example (refer to Disability Discrimination Act: Good Practice Guide for Roads’ (Transport Scotland (2009))).

The transition from a cycleway to a footway should be clearly marked with Diagrams 1057 and 1058 where there is a risk of cyclists riding onto the pedestrian only area.

6.2.1.1 Segregation by Kerb

A cycleway may be segregated by a raised kerb, with the pedestrian space at the higher level. This is the layout that disabled people prefer.

Segregation should be continuous where the cyclist/ pedestrian positions crossover. This will discourage cyclists from continuing onto the pedestrian facility and also allow white cane users to proceed without confusion.

6.2.1.2 Segregation by Central Delineator Strip

Facilities segregated by a raised white line (Diagram No 1049.1), surface texture or continuous white line (Diagram No 1049) may be provided, for example where two-way crossing movements of prams and wheelchairs are desirable.

Care should be taken to ensure that raised lines do not create ponding by providing suitable gaps in the line, for example. A 20mm profile is more effective than a 12mm at helping visually disabled people keep to the pedestrian side of the dividing line.

Colour contrasts cannot be detected by many visually impaired people. It is therefore important to ensure that the navigation requirements of this group are considered where facilities are segregated by colour contrast.

6.2.1.3 Segregation by Verge

A segregation verge should have a minimum width of 1.0m to discourage cross movements.

6.2.1.4 Tactile Surfacing

Tactile surfaces have been developed to enable visually impaired people to position themselves on the correct side of a segregated facility (DfT (2007)).

Tactile areas should be installed at the start and end points of a segregated cycleway or cyclepath, at any junctions with other pedestrian or cyclist routes and at suitable intermediate locations. This presents visually impaired people with a ‘start’ and ‘end’ message as well as a ‘locational’ message.

Figure 6.5 illustrates a typical layout for the placement of tactile paving on segregated pedestrian and cycling facilities.

Figure 6.5: Tactile markings for segregated use facilities

Figure 6.5: Tactile markings for segregated use facilities

6.2.2 Shared Cycleways

Shared cycleways need to be designed to ensure that the quality of the environment for pedestrians and cyclists is not compromised by sharing the facility. It is important that benefits are balanced against perceived risk and inconvenience. Accessibility for disabled people will require full and detailed consideration.

Shared cycleways should be clearly signed using Diagram No 956, with Diagram No 1057 used where required.

The width of shared use cycle facilities should be in accordance with Tables 6.2 and 6.3.

6.2.3 Bus Stops on Cycleways

6.2.3.1 Segregated Cycleways

The cycling side of a segregated cycleway should generally be located between the pedestrian side and the carriageway. This assists pedestrians' perception of safety, and maximises the visibility of cyclists for drivers emerging from side roads and accesses. However, where passengers are boarding or alighting buses, this arrangement can result in conflict.

Local conditions will determine the most satisfactory arrangement. At bus stops where pedestrians are accustomed to wait at the kerb for example, it is often desirable to divert the cycle space to the rear of the area in which people are waiting. Figure 6.6 shows one way to manage conflicts. Section 5.4 shows other possible bus stop layouts.


Figure 6.6: Segregated cycleway at bus stop – example

Figure 6.6: Segregated cycleway at bus stop – example

6.2.3.2 Shared Cycleways

At bus stops on shared cycleways, there is increased potential for conflict between pedestrians and cyclists, especially where space is limited. Passengers alighting from buses are unlikely to appreciate that cyclists may be passing.

Where space is sufficent, the bus waiting area should be provided adjacent to the carriageway, with cyclists encouraged to use the rear of the area. A short length of marking may be provided to encourage this segregation of movement, as illustrated in Figure 6.7.

Figure 6.7: Shared cycleway at bus stop – example

Figure 6.7: Shared cycleway at bus stop – example

6.2.4 Adjacent Parking and Loading

Where cycleways are provided adjacent to carriageway parking and loading, the additional clearance distance to the carriageway edge applies (refer to Table 6.3).

Over long distances cycleways can take cyclists (and wheelchair users) away from their preferred line of travel and cause problems in right-turning situations. Regular breaks in parking bays should therefore be provided together with dropped kerbs/ crossings etc.

6.2.5 Guardrailing

It is recommended that guardrailing is installed only where it is absolutely necessary to ensure safety or where there are requirements to direct users along a particular route. In particular:

  • Guardrailing should not be located adjacent to a live carriageway where there is potential for cyclists on the carriageway to be ‘trapped’ between guardrailing and road traffic. This is particularly a problem at junctions and bends and where there is a high volume of heavy vehicles;
  • Before proceeding with the installation of new guardrailing, alternative measures should be considered;
  • Guardrails reduce the effective width of cycleways and cyclepaths and should not be used to segregate pedestrians and cyclists.

Full guidance on the use of guardrailing is provided in ‘Pedestrian Guardrailing’ (LTN 02/09).

When it is absolutely necessary to provide a guardrail adjacent to a cycleway, additional clearance will be required (refer to Table 6.3).

Although reduced height railings (<0.6m high) may be less intrusive, they are not recommended for segregation as they are likely to:

  • Introduce the risk of pedals being caught in the railings; or
  • Endanger pedestrians due to handlebars hanging over the railings and encroaching on the pedestrian space; or
  • Create a trip hazard for visually impaired people.

6.2.6 Transitions with Carriageways

Transitions between cycle lanes and cycleways should be safe, comfortable to use and should minimise delay to cyclists. Cyclists should not be required to negotiate tight angles unless there is a safety reason for reduced speed, and dropped kerbs should be designed flush with the carriageway.

A cycleway should not feed cyclists onto the carriageway at, or close to, road junctions, as this introduces additional conflicts at the junction. Consideration should be given to providing a cycleway transition onto the carrigeway clear of the main junction. Figure 6.8 illustrates some transition examples. A jug handle turn transition to a crossing point is illustrated in Figure 7.3.


Figure 6.8: Transitions with carriageways

Figure 6.8: Transitions with carriageways

6.3 Cyclepaths

Cyclepaths may be shared or segregated.

6.3.1 Shared Cyclepaths

Shared cyclepaths are paths along which both cyclists and pedestrians share the full width. They are signed using Diagram No 956, with Diagram No 1057 used where required.

Guidance on appropriate circumstances for shared cyclepaths is provided in Section 6.1.2. The width of a shared cyclepath should be in accordance with Tables 6.2 and 6.3.

6.3.2 Segregated Cyclepaths

Segregated cyclepaths consist of:

  • Part width intended for cyclists only;
  • A method of segregation; and
  • The remaining width intended for pedestrians and wheelchair users only.

An example is illustrated in Figure 6.9.

Guidance on when to segregate is provided in Section 6.1.2. The methods and features of segregation are the same as those used for cycleways (refer to Section 6.2.1).

The width and additional clearance distances required for segregated cyclepaths is provided in Tables 6.2 and 6.3.

Segregated cyclepaths should be clearly signed using Diagram No 957 with the cycle only section marked with Diagram No 1057. To minimse sign clutter and visual intrustion on cyclepaths, consideration should be given to the use of small sign diameters (down to 150mm) and surface markings, signs on bollards and timber signposts as alternatives to metal signposts and metal sign faces.

The transition from a cyclepath to a pedestrian-only facility should be clearly marked with Diagrams 1057 and 1058.

Figure 6.9: Segregated cyclepath

Figure 6.9: Segregated cyclepath

6.3.3 Cyclepath Situations

Paths or other facilities free from motorised traffic will either be new build or existing facilities redetermined to permit cycle use.

Redetermination should not be carried out to the detriment of existing users and can only be undertaken in accordance with statutory processes after consultation with all affected interested parties.

Potential facilities for cycle use include:

  • Dismantled railway lines;
  • Canal and riverside paths; and
  • Bridleways.

The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 enables the provision of a new cyclepath. Section 28 of the same act empowers the erection of barriers, raised paving, pillars, walls or fences for the purposes of safeguarding persons using the facility. The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides similar powers.

6.3.3.1 Dismantled Railway Lines

Dismantled railway lines can support safe and attractive cycling, as these have large horizontal radii and low gradients. The Designer should take account of the:

  • Long term benefits of developing a dismantled railway for cycling to safeguard the permanent way for future generations;
  • Planning consents required to change the use of, and make alterations to, a dismantled railway line;
  • Perceptions of and actual personal security on remote routes;
  • Long term resource implications due to incurred liability for structures, fence maintenance and lighting; and
  • Views of Sustrans given their experience and interest in such facilities.

6.3.3.2 Canal and Riverside Paths

The conversion of canal and riverside paths provide attractive and useful cyclepaths. A number of factors should be considered:

  • The available width may be less than that recommended in Table 6.2, and mitigating measures may be required as a result, including cycle speed limits, cycles give way etc;
  • Sufficient width should be made available to avoid conflict with anglers. A 1.2m minimum exclusion zone adjacent to the water course is recommended (see Figure 6.10);
  • Additional treatment may be required at bridges where existing paths narrow (see Figure 6.11);
  • Existing paths are likely to require resurfacing or maintenance (see Chapter 10);
  • Agreement will be required from British Waterways Scotland for the conversion of a towpath to a cyclepath and possibly from the owners of frontages and adjacent land. Riverside paths will require riparian owner consultation; and
  • Cyclists on canal paths owned by British Waterways Scotland are required to observe the Waterways Code. This official guide to canals and waterways (British Waterways 2010) provides information on towpaths open to cyclists.

Figure 6.10: Recommended canal path cross-section

Figure 6.10: Recommended canal path cross-section

Figure 6.11: Canal paths under bridges

Figure 6.11: Canal paths under bridges

6.3.3.3 Equestrian Routes and Bridleways

Routes currently used as bridleways may provide corridors that can be used by cyclists. Where space permits, it is preferable to separate the bridleway and cyclepath by several metres (minimum 1.0m) and, if possible, by planting (refer to Figure 6.12).

Figure 6.12: Cyclepath with separate bridleway

Figure 6.12: Cyclepath with separate bridleway

A horse and rider occupy a width of around 1.5m, and a surface width of 2.0m should be provided as an Absolute Minimum to accommodate this. The designer should try to limit this to short sections where possible and provide single file signage. Where horses are expected to pass each other, or to provide areas where the horse can turn around, a minimum width of 3.0m should be provided with 4.0m preferable.

6.3.3.4 British Standards

Bridleway gates should have a minimum width of 1.525m as specified in BS5709: 2006. There should also be provision on both sides of the gate for the rider to close it. A paved area of minimum 3.0m width and 5.0m length is recommended.

Where the minimum width of segregation cannot be achieved, adjoining facilities may be provided with no separation. The surface of the cyclepath should be bituminous in order to discourage equestrians from straying off the bridleway.

Consultation with the British Horse Society Scotland is required when developing a joint scheme involving a bridleway.

6.4 Vehicle Restricted and Pedestrianised Areas

Vehicle restricted and pedestrianised areas offer an environment within which pedestrian activity may take place in relative safety. However, the closure of town centre roads can sever routes for cyclists unless they are allowed access, or provided with direct alternative routes.

There should be a presumption in favour of cyclists being permitted to use vehicle restricted and pedestrianised areas.

6.4.1 Design

In most situations, no specific cycle route infrastructure is required to permit safe cycling in pedestrianised areas. Cyclists respond to pedestrian density, modifying their speed, dismounting and taking other avoiding action where necessary. (TAL 9/93).

Local conditions and attitudes are likely to be dominant factors in choosing the most appropriate layout for each area. The following factors should form the basis for assessment:

  • The density of cyclist/ pedestrian volume;
  • The space available;
  • The width and variations in width of the available paved area;
  • The type and nature of land-uses on either side of the street and the consequent likelihood of pedestrians and cyclists crossing from one side to the other;
  • The proportion of children, elderly and disabled people among local pedestrians;
  • The importance of the street to cyclists in terms of the wider network of cross-town routes and links to nearby areas; and
  • Local cycling policies.

Reference should be made to Section 6.1.2 for guidance. However, the density relationship is less relevant here than for linear routes and segregated solutions are unlikely to be appropriate in a pedestrianised area where direct through movements are not dominant. Where pedestrian densities and/ or cycle flows are especially high, cyclists may be advised of a particular path to take in order to assist efficient movement and reduce conflict. This may be implemented with the use of symbols designed into the streetscape, or different coloured setts. In practice, clearly marked cycle routes in a pedestrianised area can encourage high cyclist speed and may in fact be detrimental to the intended use of the area.

Cycle parking at regular intervals is required in pedestrianised areas.

6.4.2 Motor Vehicle Access

In pedestrianised areas where vehicle access is required (such as loading, market or maintenance vehicles), vehicle movements should be limited to one-way only in order to minimise conflicts.

6.4.3 Disabled People

Sharing space with cyclists can cause anxiety for disabled people, particularly those with visual impairments, and the design of pedestrianised areas should be carried out in consultation with all relevant access groups.

It can be desirable to define routes through pedestrianised areas which will always be free from vehicles. This can be achieved by aligning lighting columns, benches and other street furniture to create a linear strip aligned in a similar fashion to the footway in a conventional street.

6.5 Access Controls

Access controls on cycle routes should be avoided wherever possible, and only used where there is a proven requirement.

6.5.1 Reasons for Use

Access controls are commonly provided to prevent entry by motor vehicles, or to slow cyclists’ speed on the approach to a junction. Controls designed to exclude motorcycles are ineffective in practice and impede wheelchair users and cyclists, including users of tricycles, cycle trailers and tandems.

Existing controls should be removed or repositioned from locations where they could prevent access for wheelchair and disabled users. Close liaison with the local police is the most effective manner to deter unauthorised vehicles from cycle routes and access controls should be designed for the needs of all users.

Access control to slow cyclists or encourage young children to stop and wait for parents may be required on:

  • The approach to a junction or crossing; or
  • On steep ramps and gradients.

6.5.2 Design

Where bollards and barriers are necessary, they should be highly visible so they do not cause a hazard to the user. Useful guidance on the tonal contrast of barriers is provided in Transport Scotland (2009) Disability Discrimination Act: Good Practice Guide for Roads. For unlit facilities, they should be at least reflective to bicycle lights.

Bollards are the preferred method of access control (refer to Figure 6.13). Bollards should be placed at least 5 metres from any bend or junction so that riders can approach the bollards in a straight line (ditto cattle grids).

Figure 6.13: Typical bollard layout

Figure 6.13: Typical bollard layout

Where maintenance vehicle access is required, a central lockable removable bollard or a self closing gate for pedestrians and cyclists adjacent to a locked main gate can be used. Self closing gates (refer to Section 4.4.3) can also be used to prevent livestock escaping. If there is a need for several accesses in close succession it may be preferable to fence off the cycle route to minimise the need for cyclists to stop and start.

Measures to slow cyclists down can include rumble surfaces, SLOW markings (Diag 1058.1) or staggered barriers. If staggered (chicane) barriers are used, the arrangement should be designed to slow cyclists rather than force them to dismount (refer to Figure 6.14). Chicane layouts should provide gaps of at least 3.0 metres between barriers and walls to permit access by tandems, tricycles and child trailers. Tonal contrast banding and night-time reflectivity will normally be required.

Chicanes should be placed at least 5.0 metres from any bend or junction, so riders can approach them straight on.


Figure 6.14: Typical chicane layout

Figure 6.14: Typical chicane layout

 

Publication Date: 
Tue 21/Jun/2011
Scroll to top