Table of contents chapter 1 Introduction 3

3.2 Design principles for cycle paths

International guidelines for auditing from numerous governmental sources (Transport Scotland, 2011a; the EU Directorate-General for Transport and Energy available from Safetynet, 2009; the Irish National Transport Authority, 2011; Queensland Department for Transport and Main Roads, undated) and authors (Barton et al, 2010; Sustrans, 1999; Interface for Cycling Expertise 2009) list the same design principles for cycle paths, they are: coherence, directness, attractiveness, safety and comfort. These are listed as the desired requirements for cycling infrastructure and they have been adopted from the Dutch Guidelines `Sign up for the Bike' that were made available in 1993 (McClintock, 2000; Yeates, 2002; Ryley et al 2007, Parkin et al 2007).

These five design principles have been widely adopted (Figure 3.2.2) and accepted as what they stood for when they were originally published by the Centre for Research and Contract Standardization in Civil Engineering (CROW): the conditions for the bicycle to be able to compete with other modes of transport over short distances (CROW, 1993). Each main criteria was divided into a number of criteria that judge how cycle-friendly an infrastructure is (Figure 3.2.1).

Figure 3.2.1 - Main requirements of cycling (CROW, 1993)

Figure 3.2.2 - Cycling Infrastructure core Design Principles (Transport Scotland, 2011a)

So, design guidelines, government sources and academic literature concur on these design principles, regardless of whether the facility is on or off road and weather the cycle infrastructure is being retroffited or not. The five principles must be given emphasis during the design and construction phases, and should remain an aim in the maintenance of routes. Furthermore, quality and quantity of facilities for cyclists are important in achieving positive outcomes (McClintock, 2002).

Designing for retrofit will have a lead role in the pursuit of sustainable cities and regions, as Birkeland (2008, p.26 and p.39) very bluntly puts it “we can neither abandon our cities, nor leave them the way they are” and so, “sustainable settlements will eventually require retrofitting on a whole region scale”. Throughout her reflection, Birkeland really emphasizes the importance of working with what we have at present, and of being proactive through design, about the health of the urban environment.

In their aim to assess design implications to cater for the need of the cyclist, Forsyth & Krizek (2011) reviewed over 300 articles that examine ways to increase safety and cycling levels, one of their comments in regards to retrofitting city areas to provide more sustainable travel is that cycling should play a key role, so as to make it and experience that is "delightful" and safe.

The Government of New Zealand uses the same principles, however it classifies their importance according to “cyclist type”, according to them (Land Transport NZ, 2005), the requirements that most benefit commuters are: direct routes and minimal delays, high quality riding surfaces, and continuity, as well as complimentary facilities (the full chart can be seen in Annex A). Furthermore, SEStran (2008) classifies the priority of design principles according to user group categories. For those likely to use main commuter routes, especially within urban areas, they believe directness overrides all other priorities (Figure 3.2.3), for the full table please see Annex B.

Figure 3.2.3 - Priority of design principles for utility cyclists (adapted from SEStran, 2007)

In order to measure the criteria, the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (undated) have compiled a design checklist that has reviewed the most up to date guidance and practice. This has been assigned to one of the main categories in Figure 3.2.4 in order to facilitate the analysis of the selected route for this study.

Figure 3.2.4 - CROW guidelines for design criteria: CILT design checklist assigned to each criteria