4.1 Tips for A Good Design

Advisory cycle lane should be mandatory

It is difficult to design for cycling without an experience of the mode. This website will include (in the future) some video footage taken of cycling, both from the cyclist’s perspective and from the point of view of other road users.

However, this should not be considered a replacement for actual personal experience of cycling in urban areas. It is strongly recommended that designers cycle (and walk) along the routes that are to be designed / upgraded, and observe the conflicts and deficiencies at first hand.

The Principles of Sustainable Safety remain central to all road and street design. At their core, they provide an excellent platform for conducting a “sense check” on designs of any type, but of cycling in particular.

The common-sense questions include:

• Is the design fit for purpose, i.e. does it work for the bicycle; does it deliver the target QOS?
• Is it legible, i.e. is the position and behaviour of all modes clear, logical and understood? Are all conflicts obvious, and is the resolution of those conflicts understood by all?
• Is it as homogenous as possible? Does the design place like-with-like, or are there significant differences in mass, speed and direction between the bike and other traffic?
• Is it forgiving? What are the main risks and what does the design do to lessen the severity of the outcome of those risks?
• How self-aware are the users? Is the design only for certain categories of road user / cyclist? How are the others to manage to get through the design?

An efficient design is one that achieves its objectives within the constraints imposed from the start. It is therefore essential that the brief for the design is clear regarding constraints and objectives.

Design Constraints will typically include:

• Budget
• Timeframe
• Kerbside activity (loading, parking) and the degree to which it can be changed or removed
• Requirements of other traffic / modes (e.g. vehicular capacity, bus priority, pedestrian requirements etc.)
• Road envelope, and the likelihood (or otherwise) of land acquisition
• Prior statutory planning context – SDZ or LAP specificity, conditions attaching to developments etc.
• Human resources and competencies
• Public / political support (or otherwise)
• Fixed / protected infrastructure (trees, services, heritage etc.)

Design Objectives can be broken into Performance and Method based objectives:

Photo courtesy Sustrans

Performance Based Objectives presume that there are fewer constraints, and that a suite of design options is possible, within which there are optimal designs.

• Typical Performance (or Outcome) Objectives
• Increase the numbers of cyclists by x%
• Improve the bicycle QOS for the route from (say) QOS D to QOS B
• Improve the cycle journey time reliability by y%
• Provide a route that is attractive to certain target groups (elderly, children, tourists etc.)
• Provide a Cycle Parking Scheme to cater for the next 5 years, with a maximum of (say) z% reported bicycle theft during that period

Method Based Objectives are usually appropriate to schemes where the network planning is complete, where the constraints are fully understood and quite limiting in their nature, and where the design scope for alternatives is therefore curtailed.

Traffic lane is much too wide

Typical Method (or Output) Objectives

• Provide an off-road two-way cycle route between points A and B
• Design a traffic calming scheme for Area “F” that will deliver QOS C or higher for marked routes within the area
• Design a Signal Plan to reduce average cycle and bus journey times by (say) 20% along routes A and B

Design Objectives and constraints need to be as clear as possible from the start. Otherwise, the degree to which the design contract has been satisfied will not be understood.

Performance and Method Objectives should not be mixed. For instance, the planned QOS must be clearly stated and achieved in the Performance design, whereas the Method approach will have already satisfied the client as to delivering the required QOS.

Recent Irish experience points to the provision of dedicated cycling facilities “where there was space” (e.g. hard shoulders) at the farther extents of a route, with a cessation of provision for the bike (either in reductions in traffic intensity or through provision of space) approaching key destinations.

It is essential that the bicycle mode be planned in conjunction with the other traffic modes in an overall traffic management plan. Otherwise, the cycle network will be disjointed and located where there is space, not necessarily where it is needed or can contribute to a significant mode shift.

At a detailed design level, the bicycle needs to be integrated into the overall traffic management for a route.

In other words, the bicycle should influence and have a bearing on current traffic management practice. If it does not relate to car parking, turning, signalling, etc…, there is a strong risk that the cycle design is isolated, may not deal properly with conflicts, and will not be successful.

In most Irish towns and cities, there are other modes choices for urban trips besides the bike (e.g. car, bus, taxi etc.). In the case of the private car, it is important to remember that:

• it is normally convenient to the trip maker (outside the front door)
• it is warm and dry and comfortable
• it is connected (radio, satnav, hands-free phone)
• it is relatively safe from collision
• it can offer reliable journey times (e.g. outside peak hours)
• It is essential that cycle design not only meets the 5 Needs of the Cyclists, but also actively confers an advantage on the bicycle mode, in the context of the reality of private car ownership and usage.

Key advantages that can be conferred include:

A cycle route with a high QOS (e.g. B or above) will inherently confer these advantages. It is unlikely that a significant increase in cycling will be achieved, if the Quality of Service offered to the bicycle is low.

Advisory cycle lane should be mandatory

Irish roads and streets tend not be uniform in terms of width, appearance, traffic layout etc. Therefore it would be exceptional that the cycle facility would remain constant along the entire length of a road.

The key challenge for the detailed design of a cycle route is to offer a consistent QOS, despite the fact that the link layouts, traffic regime, roadside activity etc. will change along the route. The best designs will select, assemble and combine the various components to deliver an overall cycle facility that:

• is embedded within the traffic and transport plan for the area,
• recognises the interaction between the road users, and
• provides the target QOS for cyclists consistently along the route.