Cycle network and route planning guide

The principles of cycle network planning

Print version: Chapter 6: Possible cycle route components (PDF, 390 KB, 13 pages)

Possible cycle route components

6.1 Introduction

Planning cycle routes involves considering the most appropriate facility for any particular situation. This chapter identifies the available facility types and their advantages and disadvantages.

6.2 Provision requirements

The New Zealand supplement to Austroads Guide to traffic engineering practice: Part 14: Bicycles (Transit New Zealand, 2004) (CDS) is the main design guidance tool for cyclist facilities on roads and paths.

Figure 6.1 is a guide to the desirable facilities in the road corridor for cyclists in relation to traffic volume and speed and is most useful when planning for new situations. In practice, constraints on space, presence of side roads and driveways, type of users and costs will also dictate the choice of facilities to retrofit to existing situations. These and other considerations are discussed below.

The flow chart in Figure 6-15 of the Cycle design supplement is a guide to choosing the desirable path facilities for cyclists in different circumstances.

6.3 Mid-block facilities

Cycle facilities that can be provided between intersections include:

• kerbside cycle lanes
• cycle lanes next to parking
• contra-flow cycle lanes
• wide kerbside lanes
• sealed shoulders
• bus-bike lanes
• transit lanes
• mixed traffic
• paths.

Cyclists do not always need special or dedicated facilities. They do need provisions appropriate to their needs. For instance, wide kerbside lanes on arterial roads have similar benefits for cyclists as bicycle lanes (Hunter, 1998). However, cyclists prefer marked cycle lanes wherever possible.

Depending on the circumstances, cyclists may find the following provision quite adequate, without dedicated facilities:

• wide kerbside lanes
• sealed shoulders
• bus-cycle lanes
• shared paths
• slow, mixed traffic
• lightly trafficked streets of adequate width
• unsealed roads and paths
• one-way streets where signs and markings permit two-way use by cyclists.

However, it may be necessary to use special guide or route signs to ensure a cycle route that includes such provision forms part of a coherent network.

Figure 6.1: Notes

1. In general, roads with higher traffic speed and traffic volumes are more difficult for cyclists to negotiate than roads with lower speeds and volumes. The threshold for comfort and safety for cyclists is a function of both traffic speed and volume, and varies by cyclist experience and trip purpose. Facilities based on this chart will have the broadest appeal.

2. When school cyclists are numerous or the route is primarily used for recreation then path treatments may be preferable to road treatments.

3. Provision of a cycle path does not necessarily imply that an on-road solution would not also be useful, and vice-versa. Different kinds of cyclists have different needs. Family groups may prefer off-road cycle paths while racing or training cyclists, or commuters, tend to prefer cycle lanes or wide sealed shoulders.

6.4 Kerbside cycle lane

Description

This is a cycle lane marked beside a kerb, exclusively for cyclist use. The markings comprise an edge line and cycle symbols at regular intervals.

Advantages

All road users are likely to recognise the cycle lane and expect to find cyclists there.

It provides a degree of separation between motor traffic and cyclists.

It highlights cyclists’ rights to the road.

Disadvantages

This facility restricts car parking.

Unless swept regularly, debris from the adjacent traffic lanes will accumulate in the cycle lane.

It may not provide enough protection for inexperienced cyclists.

Recommendations

As long as car parking issues can be resolved, kerbside cycle lanes are the favoured facility for roads.

Cycle lanes are preferred at the kerbside rather than adjacent to parked cars, so that cyclists can avoid opening car doors and pedestrians darting out from between parked cars.

Kerbside cycle lanes should apply permanently. Temporary applications, such as during daily traffic peaks, do not offer enough provision for cyclists outside those periods.

6.5 Cycle lane next to parking

Description

Cycle lanes comprising an edge line and regularly spaced cycle symbols can be provided next to marked parallel parking.

Advantages

This facility eliminates the need for parking restrictions and benefits other road users as it:

• increases drivers’ ease of parking and entering and leaving parked vehicles
• effectively reduces the road-crossing distance for pedestrians
• improves the channelling of traffic, encouraging a more orderly and predictable traffic flow.

Disadvantages

A significant carriageway width is required.

When parking demand is low, motor vehicles will occasionally travel in the lane.

Some cyclists could still ride into an opening car door.

Car parking manoeuvres could inconvenience cyclists, and potentially cause conflicts.

Angle parking is not suitable next to a cycle lane unless there is extra clearance for parking manoeuvres.

Debris swept from the adjacent traffic lanes accumulates in the cycle lane and requires sweeping. Traditional gutter sweeping misses this, so it needs special attention.

Recommendations

If the road is wide and parking restrictions are unlikely to be acceptable, a cycle lane next to parking is likely to be an appropriate choice.

Kerbs protruding the width of the parking bay should be constructed at intervals to discourage vehicles travelling over unoccupied parking spaces.

6.6 Contra-flow cycle lane

Description

Contra-flow lanes allow cycling against the legal direction of travel in a one-way street. They have the same features as traditional cycle lanes and are located so that cyclists ride in the normal position on the left. (Cyclists pass motorists right shoulder to right shoulder.)

Advantages

Contra-flow lanes contribute to the network’s directness and coherence by allowing cyclists to avoid diversions along indirect or less safe routes.

See section 6.4 Kerbside cycle lane.

Disadvantages

Other road users, including pedestrians, may not expect cyclists to travel in the opposite direction to other traffic. Contra-flow lanes generally preclude parking on the cyclist’s side of the road, though exceptions may be possible in traffic-calmed situations.

Recommendations

Contra-flow cycle lanes should be used in one-way streets where cyclists might otherwise be forced to divert along indirect or less safe routes.

Any new proposal for a contra-flow cycle lane should be well publicised.

Intersection layouts must support this facility, particularly at start and end points and at side road intersections.

Contra-flow lanes should have a:

• contrasting surface
• road markings or islands separating the opposing directions of flow.

6.7 Wide kerbside lane

Description

A wide kerbside lane is wide enough to allow cyclists and motor traffic to travel beside each other with a reasonable degree of comfort. It can be used where there is not enough road width for cycle lanes or as prescribed by CDS Figure 4-1. It is the preferred on-road facility where part-time parking is required, such as in clearways.

Advantages

This facility requires less space than the combined width of a travel lane and a cycle lane.

It is easily implemented by re-marking the position of a kerb lane line, subject to width requirements.

Disadvantages

Wide kerbside lanes do not highlight cyclists’ legitimate presence on the road.

Car parking restrictions are required.

Motor traffic in the wider left lane may travel faster.

Recommendation

Wide kerbside lanes should be considered where no other facility is possible. The road surface next to the kerb side of the road must be of a high quality.

6.8 Sealed shoulder

Description

A sealed shoulder comprises space and an appropriate surface for cycling outside the main carriageway, along the edge of an un-kerbed road. It is generally used in rural areas.

Advantages

Widened shoulders benefit all road users.

See section 6.4 Kerbside cycle lane.

Disadvantages

Sealed shoulders usually narrow at bridges, at passing lanes, and at intersections with turn lanes. Generally, motorists travel at high speeds along roads with sealed shoulders, so cyclists are at significant risk in these situations.

Sealed shoulders are sometimes made of lower-quality pavements, contrary to cyclists’ requirements.

See section 6.4 Kerbside cycle lane.

Recommendations

Sealed shoulders contribute to all road users’ safety. They are beneficial to cyclists, particularly along high-speed rural roads. They should be smooth, continuous and debris-free to encourage cyclists to use them.

6.9 Bus lanes

Description

A bus lane is a lane reserved for buses in which cyclists are allowed to travel. By law, bus lanes may be used by cyclists unless specifically excluded by a sign.

Advantages

Bus lanes may be more easily justified than either bus-only lanes or cycle lanes alone, as they benefit both buses and cyclists.

Buses often use these lanes infrequently during off-peak times, offering cyclists unobstructed access for the most part.

Cyclists also benefit from any bus priority measures along a bus lane route.

Disadvantages

The LOS is limited, as buses obstruct cyclists by stopping regularly — and in narrow lanes cyclists can prevent buses passing.

Lane widths where drivers are unsure whether there is sufficient room to pass, create the greatest cyclist stress.

Recommendations

Wide lanes should be used wherever possible so that buses can pass cyclists within
the lane.

Narrow lanes may be acceptable where there are no bus stops, bus speeds are low or buses can pass cyclists by temporarily moving out of the lane.

Avoid ambiguous lane widths that are neither wide nor narrow.

6.10 Transit lane

Description

A transit lane can only be used by public passenger vehicles, motor cycles, cycles and motor vehicles carrying a specified minimum number of passengers. From a cycling perspective, it is similar to a bus lane.

Recommendation

Transit lanes must be wide so that cyclists and motor traffic can travel in parallel within them.

6.11 Mixed traffic

Description

Most roads are mixed traffic roads, where no formal cycle facilities are provided and cyclists share the roads with other road users.

There are two types of urban mixed traffic situations. These occur where:

• traffic volumes are low, traffic conditions are straightforward, and there is enough space for motor vehicles to overtake cyclists
• traffic is slowed to near cycle speeds, the road is narrow and cyclists and motor vehicles share the same space travelling in single file.

Situations where drivers are unsure whether there is enough space to overtake appear to create the greatest stress.

Advantage

There are few costs apart from traffic calming, which is also done for other reasons.

Disadvantage

Continuity of route standards may be compromised where there are mixed traffic conditions on a route that is part of the primary cycle network.

Recommendations

Cycle facilities may not be required if the roads are in an appropriate condition.

Ensure the continuity and integrity of cycle routes by using signage and continuing cycle lanes where mixed conditions are otherwise appropriate.

Ensure the environment makes it clear where cyclists have room to travel beside motor traffic or need to travel single file. Avoid ambiguous widths and layouts.

6.12 Paths - general

There are three main path types for cyclists:

• exclusive cycle path
• shared path
• separated path.

Each may be isolated from roads or right next to them. A ‘cycle path next to road’ is also discussed on this page.

6.13 Exclusive cycle path

Description

An exclusive cycle path can only be used legally by cyclists.

Advantages

On exclusive cycle paths cyclists can generally proceed without delays caused by, or in conflict with, other path users. This facility can offer cyclists a higher LOS.

Disadvantage

Walkers sometimes use exclusive cycle paths when their own facilities are comparatively poor.

Recommendations

Exclusive cycle paths are preferred where they are likely to be used by a significant volume of commuter cyclists.

Care is required to ensure pedestrians can be well accommodated elsewhere.

6.14 Shared path

Description

A shared path is shared with pedestrians and possibly others (for example horse riders).

Advantages

This facility is useful to cyclists as well as pedestrians, and therefore maximises the benefit of the path to
the general community. It is beneficial to vulnerable cyclists where an existing footpath can be adapted or widened.

Disadvantages

Conflict between cyclists and pedestrians is common where, for instance, there is a significant volume of cyclists and pedestrians or a mix of recreational walkers and commuting cyclists.

The LOS for cyclists can be poor where interference by other path users results in slower speeds.

See also 6.16 Cycle path next to road.

Recommendations

Shared paths are beneficial to a range of path users but need to be managed effectively. They are appropriate where both cyclists and pedestrians need a path, but their numbers are modest.

It is important that:

• the path’s design is suitable for its use and demand
• authorities adequately monitor users’ behaviour on the path.
• the connections between path, road and driveways are carefully considered.

6.15 Separated path

Description

This is a path with separate sections for cyclists and pedestrians.

Advantages

Separated paths may help to avoid the conflict between pedestrians and cyclists that is common on shared paths.

Cyclists can ride without the delays possible on paths shared with walkers.

Disadvantages

Higher cyclist speeds are possible, but having a cycle path close to pedestrians means they can stray into the cycling space.

Separated paths are wider than other paths, so they cost more.

Recommendations

Separated paths are appropriate if large numbers of cyclists and pedestrians will use them.

There should be adequate separation (such as different path levels) between cyclists and pedestrians.

6.16 Cycle path next to road

Description

This is a common facility in Europe, usually for one-way cycle traffic. Thepaths are generally paved in a different colour and texture from adjoining sections of the berm, and may also be separated by a low kerb.

Advantages

Cycle paths next to roads can offer a low-stress environment that can be attractive to many cyclists.

They can be particularly helpful for short lengths, such as at squeeze points in the road carriageway.

Disadvantages

Under New Zealand traffic law, cyclists on paths are required to give way to other traffic when crossing side roads. This results in delay for cyclists.

Intersections are where cyclists are at the highest risk. In Europe, paths on berms have been shown to be less safe at junctions than if the cyclist was on the roadway. For this reason best European practice requires cycle tracks to return to the roadway before intersections. At signals, special cycle phases can be introduced for cycle paths, at the expense of complexity and delay to all road users.

The benefits of cycle paths alongside a road between junctions can be negated by:

• inadequate clearance for visibility at driveways
• frequent or busy driveways
• inadequate clearance from opening doors of parked vehicles
• bus passengers boarding and alighting from the cycle path
• pedestrians encroaching on the cycle path when the footpath is congested, or while waiting to cross
• garbage awaiting collection obstructing the path.

Where cyclists ride in both directions along paths, drivers using driveways and side roads may not expect cycle traffic from both directions. Best European practice outlaws two-way cycle paths alongside roads with access from driveways and side roads.

It is less convenient to turn right from a cycle path next to a road. Cyclists have to cross the whole traffic stream in one manoeuvre, whereas from a cycle lane they can first merge across to the centre. However, a right turn from a separate path may be safer.

It is generally expensive to establish this facility, due to relocating kerblines.

Recommendations

Between intersections, cycle paths next to roads can provide attractive and safe facilities for a wide range of cyclists, provided there is adequate space and interference from other users is minimal.

Carefully consider safety and delay at intersections, where it is usually preferable for the path to rejoin the roadway.

6.17 Unpaved roads and paths

Description

Unpaved roads or paths can be acceptable to cyclists in some circumstances.

Advantages

The initial cost of establishing an unsealed facility is relatively low.

Unsealed facilities help in integrated cycling with environmentally sensitive locations.

Disadvantages

Unsealed facilities can be hazardous, depending on gradient, crossfall and surface media.

They also require regular maintenance.

Recommendations

In general, the surface must be well compacted and drained. The surface medium should be capable of self-repair.

In steep terrain, erosion can be minimised and user safety maximised by using devices such as hairpin switchbacks for turns (International Mountain Bicycling Association, 2000).

6.18 Suitability for cyclist types

Most facilities are likely to benefit cyclists, but how much will depend on the cycling environment. Table 6.1 shows the relative benefits of the different facilities for cyclists with different skills. It is necessarily broad and subjective, and individual cyclists will vary. Interpret the table with caution, and use your own judgement.

Table 6.1: Suitability of cycle facility option for different cyclist categories

Cycle facility option	Child/novice	Basic competence	Experienced
Kerbside cycle lane
Cycle lane next to parking
Contra-flow cycle lane
Wide kerb side lane
Sealed shoulder
Bus lane
Transit lane
Slow mixed traffic
Paths

Legend: minimal benefit, moderate benefit, most benefit

6.19 Intersections

6.19.1 General

When planning intersections for cyclist use, the goal is to accommodate cyclists safely with a reasonable LOS, and at a reasonable cost, within the available constraints.

6.19.2 Key principles

The key planning principles relate to the type of intersection control and the provision of adequate space.

The design should ensure that:

• the intersection performs efficiently for cyclists under the traffic conditions expected throughout the planning period
• it is as far as possible suitable for cyclists of basic competence
• all normal manoeuvres are possible, particularly right turns (including the option of hook turns)
• the conflict area between throughcyclists and left-turning traffic (especially heavy vehicles) is managed. Left-turn slip lanes can simplify this by moving left-turning traffic conflict points away from the intersection and providing space for hook turns
• conflict points are easily identified
• cyclists and drivers know where cyclists are expected to be on the road
• the intersection is consistent in alignment and standards with mid-block facilities on approach and departure.

Helpful design information can be found in the CDS, Vicroads (2001), Austroads (1999) and Transfund New Zealand (2003).

6.19.3 Roundabouts

A higher proportion of cyclist injuries happens at roundabouts than at any other intersection type. Multi-lane roundabouts are the main culprits and should be avoided on cycle routes where possible.

Small, single-lane roundabouts, that are designed to tame traffic speeds, have been proven to reduce cycling injuries. These roundabouts slow traffic by using the shape of the islands to deflect traffic onto a curved path, and by ensuring visibility to other traffic is not excessive. They require no special provision for cyclists (Austroads, 1999; Bach and Diepens, 2000).

External perimeter paths should be considered for large multi-lane roundabouts (Austroads, 1999; Bach and Diepens, 2000), but will generally result in a poor LOS for cyclists owing to crossing delays. Grade separation or conversion to traffic signals is strongly preferred over multi-lane roundabouts.

6.20 Structures

A number of structures are used in association with cycle provision, such as bridges, underpasses and overpasses.

This section outlines a number of grade separation options that aim to help cyclists cross railways and high-volume, high-speed roads that have significant risks and potential for delays.

Bridges need to be much higher to clear trucks using a road, than underpasses carrying cyclists need to be down below a road. Cyclists also prefer to speed up going down a ramp to an underpass, and use their momentum to travel up the ramp on the other side. Bridge ramps are generally higher requiring more effort to negotiate.

However, bridges are generally less expensive, have no drainage requirements, have fewer lighting requirements and offer advantages in personal security and vandalism.

Site topography may favour either a bridge or an underpass.

Personal security is important. CROW (1993) provides numerous suggestions to enhance personal security at tunnels.

Because structures are expensive, the needs of cyclists and others must be properly identified, particularly in relation to:

• constructing a motorway
• planning new residential areas
• designing a structure.

6.21 Traffic calming

Traffic calming devices can improve cycling conditions in local streets with mixed traffic conditions. A wide variety of devices are used, so accommodating cyclists will depend on the individual characteristics of the devices.

For example, cyclist bypasses are generally appropriate where there are:

• single-lane devices
• road narrowings
• devices with abrupt changes in vertical alignment.

Bypass facilities can often be constructed using the original carriageway surface.

Other measures that may be appropriate are:

• path links at road closures
• contra-flow lanes or path links at one-way devices.

6.22 Restricted traffic areas

Pedestrian needs and comfort are paramount in pedestrian zones and public places where traffic is restricted. In these areas, the desirability of cycling (and any associated provisions) needs to be determined — bearing in mind that it is important to accommodate cyclists whose desire lines pass through a pedestrian area.

The common options are:

• allowing cyclists and pedestrians to mix freely
• providing designated paths for cyclists through the area
• allowing a combined use with selected motor vehicles (for example, buses, taxis and service vehicles)
• restricting cycling during certain periods
• prohibiting cycling in certain places.

The most appropriate approach will depend on the situation and the nature and behaviour of both pedestrians and cyclists.

Permitted cyclists are guests, and are expected to travel at a speed and in a way that is consistent with a walking space and to yield to pedestrians unless they have their own defined space.

Priority should go to information signs and public relations campaigns for the peaceful coexistence of pedestrians and cyclists, with minimal use of signs and line markings.

6.23 Complementary facilities

End-of-trip facilities (such as secure parking, lockers and showers) and trip facilities such as shelter, water and toilets are important infrastructure for cyclists. These are covered in section 3.6.

< previous | next >

Page created: 29 September 2004