Backgrtound briefing

Thanks go to Andrea Pellegram Ltd. for most of the content of this page

​

1. The Government publishes guidance and standards for cycle infrastructure design, set out in LTN1/20 Cycle Infrastructure Design. This provides a framework for the local assessment of existing cycle infrastructure and the identification of priorities for future provision to address deficiencies and enhance infrastructure networks.

2. Local Authorities are required to publish a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan. These are prepared with engagement and input from local communities to identify aspirations and priorities in a plan for local walking and cycling infrastructure.

3. Separate LCWIPs are normally put in place for different parts of an area. If an area has not been covered, the neighbourhood plan can make its own assessment of infrastructure quality and requirements.

4. In making a local attempt to establish credible assessment of quality of cycling infrastructure, reference should be made to the Core Principles of design set out in LTN1/20.

5. Judgements about the suitability of cycle routes is not straightforward and are affected by a number of factors. LTN1/20 sets out guidance on the suitability of different types of cycle infrastructure according to road speeds and traffic volumes (see fig 4.1 below). It is likely that local traffic flows will not be known unless an application is submitted supported by a transport assessment. Traffic speed limits will be known, actual speeds will again be reliant on transport assessment information. Local traffic counts and speed surveys can be used to establish robust local information.

 

Local Assessment of Cycle Routes

1. The table below demonstrates how the core design principles of LTN1/20 can be applied to the cycling infrastructure of the Parish to consider the need for further cycling infrastructure to improve the coherence, directness, safety, comfort and attractiveness of the network.

2. The priorities identified can be actioned through a variety of mechanisms. This will include direct contributions from new development, application of Community Infrastructure Levy, securing commitments from the highways authority and other means as may be identified.

3. Criteria from the table are explained as follows and a fuller description of them is included at the end of this document:

   • Coherent? – Does the route make sense, literally, can you see your way through on a bike? Coherence is often most important at complicated junctions. Is it clear?

   • Direct? – Is the route convenient for the user

   • Safe? – This can include safety from other road users and safety from crime.

   • Comfortable? Obstacles, breaks in the route, potential conflict etc, covers some of the points above.

   • Attractive? Is the route attractive, this will be about all of the above and also whether the environmental setting for the route is attractive

The table is populated with EXAMPLE routes assessed for another Neighbourhood Plan to illustrate how it can be completed. The intention is that if comments are provided in this framework, it will be recognised by the highway authority as valid within a framework they would use. 

 

When are different types of cycling provision suitable or not suitable?

1. See figure 4.1 from the LTN1/20 guidance  From the table, you can see that national guidance can deem a cycle route from ‘suitable’ through to ‘not suitable’ depending on the level of motor traffic flows and speed limits in combination. Won’t apply well on rural lanes. This may guide how highways officers respond to any issues you raise about cycling provision.

   • A ‘fully-kerbed cycle track’ is suitable for all users (for cycling) in all road conditions (all traffic volumes and at all speed limits).

   • A ‘stepped cycle track’ is suitable for all users in all flows of motor traffic on roads with up to 30mph speed limits. On roads with 40mph speed limits, they may be unsuitable for some road users, and at 50mph and above, they will be unsuitable for most road users

   • ‘Light segregation’ of cycling space from traffic is suitable on roads with motor traffic flows of up to 6,000+ passenger car units (PCU) per 24-hour period (an HGV equals 2 pcu) and at speed limits of up to 30mph.  At higher volumes and higher speed limits, this starts to become unsuitable for some users.

   • ‘Mandatory or advisory cycle lanes’ are suitable for all users on roads where motor traffic volumes are up to around 5,000pcu (my estimate from the graphic) per 24-hour period and speed limits are 20mph. On roads with 30mph (regardless of motor traffic flows) they may be unsuitable for some users and at higher speeds unsuitable for most users.

   • ‘Mixed Traffic’ Cycling is suitable on roads with low motor traffic flows (up to around 2,500pcu per 24-hour period)and 20mph speed limts. This will be unsuitable for some users at this speed if flows are higher and for most users at the higher flows. Mixed Traffic cycling is likely to be unsuitable for some road users at 30mph at all flows and for most road users with flows above 2,000 pcu per 24-hour period on roads with speed limits of 30mph and above.

This is complicated and so it is provided to demonstrate the complexity of interpretation as employed by highways officers. On top of that, they may also comment on the practicality of including cycling infrastructure on certain types of road (not wide enough for example).

​