![[PukiWiki]](image/pukiwiki.png "[PukiWiki]")
Chapter 1 Introduction. London Cycling Design Standards. Contents. 1.1 Policy context. 1.2 Responsibilities in relation to cyclists. 1.3 Purpose and use of this document. 1.4 Cycling network - some key concepts. 1.5 LCN+ design principles, standards and checking procedure. 1.6 What sort of cyclist are we designing for?. 1.7 Layout of this document. 1.1 Policy context. National policy. 1.1.1. The Government's White Paper on Transport1 published in July 1998 set out a new approach to transport, with a strong emphasis on sustainability. At the forefront of this policy was the promotion of the two most sustainable modes, walking and cycling. The White Paper endorsed the National Cycling Strategy published in 1996, the Minister's foreword to which stated: "On any examination of the needs of a sustainable transport policy, it is crystal clear that the bicycle has been underrated and underused in the United Kingdom for many years. This is especially true when one looks at those other European countries where cycle use has been increased and maintained by deliberate action at both local and national level. There is enormous potential to increase the use of cycles in Britain, but it will only be realised if we develop a coherent approach setting out how the status quo can be altered in favour of the bicycle." 1.1.2. The extent to which walking and cycling are more sustainable than motorised transport in energy terms is set out at figure 1.1. Cycling is the most energyefficient mode of transport generally available, and is an order of magnitude more efficient than motorised travel. Unlike other transport modes, cycling uses renewable energy. CO2 emissions, which are the main contributor to global warming, are closely linked to energy consumption. 1.1.3. Cycling also has considerable health benefits. There is increasing concern over the rising proportion of people who are obese. At paragraph 2.5 the White Paper states: "The way we travel is making us a less healthy nation. Coronary heart disease is the biggest killer of adults in this country. Part of the blame is that we drive too much when we could walk or cycle." Energy consumption per person kcal/km. Bicycle 4 mph. Bicycle 10 mph. Bicycle 15 mph. Walk 4 mph. Car with two occupants 30mpg 8.4 15.6 24.4 55.3 410 Introduction 1 A new deal for Transport: better for everyone – DETR 1998 Figure 1.1 Energy consumption of cycling, walking and driving Source: "Bicycling Science", Whitt & Wilson, 2nd edition reprinted 1995, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press 1.1.4 Cycling is an inclusive form of transport. Few people cannot afford a cycle. Policy in London 1.1.5 The Mayor's Transport Strategy (GLA 2001) sets out a framework for improvement in the way transport operates in London. A growth in cycling is integral to the Mayor's vision for London. Cycling can make a significant contribution to meeting London's mobility and access needs as well as helping to realise energy, health, and social objectives. 1.1.6 The Mayor's Transport Strategy committed increased resource for cycling, in particular establishing the LCN+, a planned 900km route network covering the whole of London, to be completed by 2009/2010. The Mayor established the Cycling Centre of Excellence (CCE) at Transport for London to lead and co-ordinate development in partnership with the London boroughs and other key stakeholders. The London Cycling Action Plan (LCAP) produced by TfL in 2004 sets out a programme of co-ordinated action to achieve an 80% increase in cycling by 2010. 1.1.7 The development of standards and procedures for designing traffic and environmental schemes that will improve safety, increase accessibility and encourage cycling is one of the specific actions of the London Cycling Action Plan. 1.1.8 The level of cycling in London is low, compared to other cities in northern Europe with a similar geography and climate, and the context challenging. Pedal cycle activity per capita in the 2002/2003 period was somewhat lower in London when compared to the whole of the UK, with the UK averaging 15 cycle trips per person per year in 1999/2001 and London averaging 11 cycle trips per person per year for the same time period2. 1.1.9 The casualty statistics for the 3-year period 2001-2003 show that London had a marginally higher than average proportion of cycle casualties. Pedal cyclists formed 7.7% of fatal or serious injuries in London, compared with the national average figure of 6.4%. 1.1.10 There is considerable scope for change. Londoners own around 1.4 million bicycles. 85% of all trips are less than 5 miles, around 30 minutes by bike. Market research shows that at least 10% of Londoners would cycle in London now, if conditions were improved. Since 2001, automatic counters installed by TfL on the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) and other sites show an encouraging and upward trend against a background trend nationally that shows a slight decline. Between May 2003 and May 2004 a 23% rise in cycling was recorded which, notwithstanding that this was the year during which the congestion charge was introduced in central London, does demonstrate that the LCAP target for cycling increase should be achievable. 1.1.11 Also, recorded injuries of all severities to cyclists in London have declined by a third over the period 1995 to 2003. This is consistent with data from elsewhere in Europe, which indicate lower cycle accident rates per kilometre as cycle use rises3. At a London-wide strategic level TfL is monitoring system performance and trends in relation to traffic including cycling, casualties and user satisfaction4. But other data relevant to cycling on which to base decisions about individual schemes is limited and not easy to access. 1.1.12 London's cycling environment is complex and dynamic. The city's streets and public places have developed over many years and today make-up a patchwork of distinctive places. They service the capital's economy by providing a traffic function and also perform an important socio-cultural function as places where people – residents, workers and visitors – interact. Relatively few streets have been designed specifically to facilitate or encourage cycling. Nevertheless London has streets and parks that offer the cyclist a travelling experience that is as good as the best in the world. It also has cycle facilities of variable quality, resulting occasionally in situations where those who cycle lack confidence in schemes designed to help them. 1.1.13 There is a division of responsibility for London's networks between TfL as the strategic authority, the boroughs as highway authorities on their own roads, and the boroughs and other agencies managing parks. This represents a further challenge to be overcome in terms of applying consistent policies, standards and levels of service for cyclists and other road users throughout London. 1.1.14 The tool-kit for creating good conditions for cycling is very extensive. It draws on a wide range of best practice - measures to regulate, manage and guide the movement and positioning of general traffic, measures that permit or restrict use for specific purposes or for road users groups as well as urban design treatments that have an environmental and social focus. 1.1.15 Schemes are likely to be successful if they help cyclists to cycle to best advantage i.e. to maintain a steady speed and a direct course without interruption or obstruction from a position where they have a good view of other people, and can be seen by drivers and pedestrians. 1.1.16 TfL recognises that the vitality of London's streets is also a function of their role as a place, neighbourhood or destination, where the presence and activity of people is more related to the surrounding land uses than to the arterial or traffic function of the street. The London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) seek to reinforce the distinctive character of places and neighbourhoods and wherever practical improve environmental quality by lessening the predominance of motor traffic and traffic related street furniture. There are different pressures on the highway network during peak hours, at night-time, weekends, and school holidays. This will affect the options available to design teams for keeping all classes of traffic moving safely. 1.1.17 TfL's own research5 into the impact of different cycling schemes suggests that people respond to and take up cycling where it is advantageous to cycle rather than go by car e.g. where pleasant direct routes are introduced in parks, or where there is easy cycle access through vehicle restricted areas. 1.1.18 Measures to manage the volume and speed of motor traffic combined with specific well planned cycle schemes will support a growth in cycling. There is also a linkage between measures that provide fast, safe, comfortable cycle priority routes, direct and easy access, and fewer road casualties and higher cycle flows. Such facilities also offer user benefits in terms of journey time, journey experience and satisfaction. 1.1.19 Guidance given by TfL to boroughs preparing Local Implementation Plans (LIPs) to secure funding requires them to detail proposals for additional cycle access. In addition to green cycle corridors and access through pedestrianised areas this might include exemption from one-way restrictions or banned turns. LIPs Guidance also requires boroughs to show how proposals will contribute to the London Cycling Action Plan target for an 80% increase in levels of cycling and in particular contribution to LCN+, and improve design standards and cycle audit procedures for non-cycling schemes. 1.1.20 Under normal circumstances shared-use cycling on the footway remains the provision of last resort. But for areas where general motor traffic is restricted, including areas that are currently, or proposed to be, fully pedestrianised, TfL endorses the Department for Transport view that there should be a presumption that cycling will be allowed unless an assessment of the overall risks dictates otherwise. In conducting this assessment, the risk to cyclists using alternative on-road routes should be taken into account. This is particularly important if the alternative routes are not safe or direct and cannot be made so. Community safety is also a significant factor. 1.1.21 London cyclists themselves highlight three key requirements: • uninterrupted routes i.e. no loss of priority, no obstruction, no additional stops or turn offs. • improved maintenance i.e. a good riding surface. • more dedicated cycle facilities e.g. cycle lanes offering priority and protection from high volume, high speed or queuing motor traffic. 1.1.22 There are some common situations that are inherently problematic for cyclists. These include: • Large roundabouts (two or more circulating lanes). • Uncontrolled fast moving left filter lanes. • Banned movements without cyclists exemption. • Road closures without cycling gaps. • Interrupted or obstructed lanes. • "Cyclists Dismount" signs. • Counter intuitive loss of priority (at side roads). • One-way streets without cyclists' exemption. 1.1.23 Schemes will make a positive contribution to cycling objectives if these specific highly visible barriers to cycling are addressed. 1.1.24 TfL's aim is to stimulate and apply and maintain consistently high standards to all new schemes so that everyone, regardless of age, ability, experience or journey purpose, can use them with confidence. Schemes should reduce barriers to cycling and offer benefits to cyclists whether they are making a short trip to the shops or commuting to work every day. 1.1.25 In order to achieve these conditions, improved co-ordination between the many agencies responsible for planning, design, building and maintenance of schemes is required. To assist in achieving this aim, this document covers the design for cycling in the public realm.
