Home | Press | Publications | What We Do | Who We Are | Search | Site Map | Contacts | Links
Publications

Publications A to Z

< Previous | Contents | Next >

Cycling by Design

5.58 Contra-flow Bus/Cycle Lanes:

5.59 Although contra-flow bus/cycle lanes can improve safety and convenience for cyclists, care should be used in their development. For example:

(i) Where the contra-flow lane is narrow, buses may not be capable of passing cyclists within the designated lane and this will either delay the bus or potentially reduce road safety.

(ii) For safety reasons passing outwith the designated lane may be excluded by a demarcation barrier. If the lane is only over a short length (< 100m) the bus may be required to remain behind the cyclist.

(iii) When entering or leaving the contra-flow system the cyclist is likely to be making manoeuvres at variance to the majority of traffic. Consideration should be given towards assisting cyclists to rejoin the traffic perhaps with signals or protected waiting areas.

5.60 In order to address road safety concerns about passing manoeuvres the width hierarchy employed for the with-flow bus/cycle lane should be employed. Refer to Table 5.2 and Paragraph 5.45 for details.

5.61 Entry to the bus lane should be signed to Diagram Nos. 953 and 953.2, used in conjunction with Diagram Nos. 1048.1 and 1049. The lane itself should be signed to Diagram Nos. 960 and 1049.

5.62 Contra-flow Cycle Lane with Adjacent Parking/loading:

5.63 The layout for a typical contra-flow cycle lane adjacent to a parking/loading area is shown on Figure 5.6. The treatment should be in accordance with the guidelines for a with-flow cycle lane given in Tables 5.1 and 5.3. Although an advisory contra-flow lane adjacent to on street parking does not require a TRO it will be necessary for the ‘one-way’ traffic regulation order to contain an exemption for cyclists.

Figure 5.6: Contra-flow Cycle Lane with Adjacent Parking/loading Area

Cycle Track Links

5.64 Function: To guarantee cyclists and other permitted users their own segregated space.

5.65 Recommended Use:

(i) For the speed and volume combinations identified in Figure 5.1.

(ii) For cycle flows identified in Paragraph 5.6.

(iii) For routes where HGV content > 15%.

5.66 Design:

5.67 Physical separation from the carriageway by use of raised construction, verge or remote cycle route. Refer to Paragraphs 5.70 to 5.78.

5.68 Advantages:

(i) Cyclists using cycle tracks are better protected compared to those using cycle lanes or shared road facilities.

(ii) Minimum of interaction between non-motorised and motorised users (conflicts at junctions only).

(iii) Cyclists may avoid traffic congestion.

(iv) More attractive to novice cyclists and family groups.

5.69 Disadvantages:

(i) Freedom of movement may be restricted.

(ii) Driving speeds of adjacent motorised vehicles may increase.

(iii) Driver awareness of cyclists may be reduced which can result in potential safety problems.

(iv) Land acquisition may be required.

(v) Additional maintenance may be required.

5.70 Figure 5.7 shows a typical cycle track arrangement with the track separated from the carriageway by a margin/verge. The size and form of the margin will be dependent on boundary conditions, tree planting, street furniture, drainage details etc. However a width of 0.5m should be the absolute minimum provision.

5.71 The following paragraphs present the layout of cycle tracks in relation to the road corridor. Refer to Chapter 8 for details of specific cycle track and footway/footpath widths.

Figure 5.7: Cycle Track

5.72 Contra-Flow Cycle Track Adjacent to Parking/Loading Area:

5.73 Figure 5.8 shows the specific case of providing a contra-flow cycle track adjacent to a parking/loading area.

5.74 The segregation island widths should be in accordance with Table 5.4.

5.75 Refer to Chapter 8 for cycle track and footway widths.

Figure 5.8: Contra-flow Cycle Track Adjacent to Parking/Loading Area

Table 5.4: Contra-Flow Cycle Tracks Adjacent to Parking/Loading - Dividing Widths

5.76 Treatment of Changeover Between Cycle Lane, Cycle Track and Similar Carriageway Transitions:

5.77 A cycle track should not feed cyclists back into the main carriageway at or close to main road junctions as this could introduce additional unnecessary conflicts at the junction.

5.78 If it is unavoidable, consideration should be given either to terminating the cycle track at a preceding side road or providing a transition point clear of the main junction. Refer to Figure 5.9. The final details are likely to be dependent on available space.

Figure 5.9: Cycle Track Joining and Leaving Carriageway

COMMENTS : CHAPTER 5

Cycling by Design’s prime objective is to draw together and rationalise existing cycling design guidelines into a single comprehensive, coherent reference document that may be used as a source of sound technical advice. In order to achieve this objective it is imperative that Cycling by Design is developed through consultation. Please provide any comments or suggested amendments you may wish to put forward with respect to the preceding chapter.

Comments/Proposed Amendments:

Please send your comments to:

The Scottish Executive Development Department,

Standards Traffic & Environment,

Area 2-E,

Victoria Quay,

Edinburgh EH6 6QQ.

On or before 31^st December 2000.

< Previous | Contents | Next >

The information contained on this WWW site is Crown Copyright but may be reproduced without formal permission or charge for personal or in-house use. Privacy and Content Disclaimer.

For general enquiries about this web site email ceu@scotland.gov.uk or fill out our online questionnaire.