GMPTE Walking and Cycling Design Guide

Transportation
GMPTE
November 2010
Walking and Cycling Design Guidance
Prepared by:
............................................................. Paul Davison Consultant
Checked by:
........................................................................ Tom Marsden Senior Consultant
Approved by:
............................................................. Sarah Farmer Associate Director
Walking and Cycling Rev No 1 Comments Revised after feedback from Client Checked by TCM Approved by SEJF Date 12.11.10
1 New York Street, Manchester, M1 4HD Telephone: 0161 601 1700 Website: http://www.aecom.com Job No: 60038082 Reference M001.010 Date Created: August 2010
This document is confidential and the copyright of AECOM Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited.
f:\projects\traffic - mcc superframework - project delivery group 4\gmpte walking & cycling design guidance\report\walking and cycling design guide v2.docx
Table of Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Overall Aim of the Guidance ................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Report Structure .................................................................................................................................... 4 Walking Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Access to the Station ............................................................................................................................ 6 2.3 Movement and Facilities within the Station ........................................................................................... 7 Cycle Infrastructure....................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Cycle Access to and Movement within Transport Hubs ..................................................................... 11 3.2 Type of Parking/Storage ..................................................................................................................... 11 3.3 Cycle Parking Location and Design Considerations ........................................................................... 14 3.4 Maintenance Issues ............................................................................................................................ 18 3.5 Bike Lockers User Club (BLUC).......................................................................................................... 19 3.6 Marketing............................................................................................................................................. 20 3.7 Cycle Centres ...................................................................................................................................... 20 3.8 Bike n Ride and Cycle Hire Scheme ................................................................................................. 21 3.9 Potential Highway Measures............................................................................................................... 21 Cycle Parking Provision Matrix .................................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Criteria for Provision ............................................................................................................................ 25 Good Practice Quick Reference Guide ....................................................................................................... 29 5.1 Good Practice Quick Reference Guide ............................................................................................... 29 5.2 Movement and Comfort....................................................................................................................... 29 5.3 Accessibility ......................................................................................................................................... 31 5.4 Legibility .............................................................................................................................................. 33 5.5 Security ............................................................................................................................................... 34 5.6 Cycle Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................. 36
4 5
Appendix A: GMPTE Stakeholder Consultation ..................................................................................................... 40 Appendix B: Existing Policy & Guidance ................................................................................................................ 46 National Policy ................................................................................................................................................. 46 National Guidance on Cycle Provision ............................................................................................................ 47 Local Guidance on Cycle Provision ................................................................................................................. 50 Existing Cycle Parking Guidance .................................................................................................................... 50 Appendix C: GMP Guidance on Spacing of Cycle Stands .................................................................................... 61
Introduction
AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation
Introduction
1.1 Background The majority of journeys to public transport infrastructure are on foot, with cycling a more infrequent, but still strategic means, by which integration between sustainable modes and public transport can be achieved. The Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) seeks to encourage people to use public transport and making it more convenient and safer will help achieve this aspiration. Cycling in particular can have the effect of widening the catchment area for public transport use. GMPTE is producing a single walking and cycling design guidance and standards document covering Metrolink stops, bus stations and rail stations within its remit. In its draft Walking and Cycling Strategy, GMPTE outlines the aim of this strategy as being to: Maximise the potential of walking and cycling to contribute to making public transport the preferred mode choice. Walking and cycling, which can also be referred to as active travel, provides essential means by which people access public transport and is a low emission alternative to motorised vehicles. Encouraging people to travel on foot or by bike is seen as a vital component of local authority aspirations to tackle congestion, improve air quality, promote physical activity and improve accessibility. This can also help to deliver a broad range of positive transport outcomes and wider environment and health goals. Integration between sustainable modes and public transport is a vital component of providing the necessary transport choices to encourage travel by these modes. Planning and designing high-quality infrastructure, although bespoke to the location that it is in, requires a common set of standards and guidance to guide the provision of facilities and infrastructure. Table 1.1 highlights the wide variety of positive impacts that can be achieved as a result of greater integration between walking and cycling and public transport. Table 1.1: Benefits of Integration (GMPTE Draft Walking and Cycling Strategy) Benefit Type Modal Shift and Increased Patronage Benefits through Integration
-
Economic
Health
Air Quality and Carbon Reduction Social Inclusion
Making it easier to access public transport, and widening the reach of the public transport network to future and current users, may lead to increased patronage. Through the provision of cycling and walking improvements, the catchment area for access to public transport can be expanded, particularly for those without access to a car. For example, it is considered that there is an opportunity to encourage modal shift amongst individuals who live within close proximity to fixed rail stations who currently park and ride, as there are a high proportion of rail and Metrolink users who drive relatively short distances to their chosen station. Encouraging and facilitating walking and cycling assists modal shift, thereby reducing personal carbon emissions, offering health benefits and reducing air pollution. Widening the catchment area, through encouraging walking and cycling to access the public transport network, may lead to inceased patronage on public transport, thereby countering the economic disbenefit associated with a trend of rising levels of traffic congestion on roads. The Government has a policy focus on reducing obesity and improving public health; the encouragement and facilitation of active travel fits positively with these agendas. Any reduction in personal car use will lead to improvements in air quality, which directly affect respiratory illnesses. Reduced dependence on personal car travel will assist in achieving stringent carbon reduction targets and help to improve local air quality. Individuals may also reduce the carbon emissions related to their travel through the incorporation of cycling and walking into their overall journey. Improvements to cycling and pedestrian access to stations and stops should seek to address existing mobility (ensuring compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)), safety and security concerns. Implementation of the strategy is therefore likely to enable more people from socially excluded groups to travel by public transport. Integrating the needs of all through design can assist the avoidance of legal challenges in relation to DDA compliance.
Stakeholder liaison is integral to the work of GMPTE and there are many stakeholders with an interest in walking and cycling. Achieving the strategy aims and objectives will require positive stakeholder liaison. Key stakeholders include local authority officers, councillors and user groups, customers, Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and pressure groups, regional and national policy makers and funding agencies. Working with these stakeholders will be essential to the delivery of this strategy. Active Travel forms a key component of Local Transport Plans (LTP3) and has been identified as a means by which shared priorities of accessibility, congestion, air quality and road safety can be addressed. Opportunities for greater integration between modes have also been identified by local authority officers whilst stakeholder engagement and customer correspondence has shown to the GMPTE that there is a greater awareness of this issue amongst customers. Although there have been improvements made to cycle infrastructure on highways and at transport hubs, the level of provision across Greater Manchester does not reach levels of best practice across the UK and in parts of northern Europe, such as the Netherlands. 1.2 Overall Aim of the Guidance Project Managers at GMPTE have identified that for pedestrian and cycling facilities at stations and stops, there is need for a single source of information setting out the design requirements. In response to this, the following guidance has been produced to bring together the various tools and guidance documents that are available into one summary document to be used across Greater Manchester in design and provision for both new projects and existing stations and stops. Adopting a standardised approach to design principles will allow for improvements in quality and greater consistency across the conurbation, which will ultimately benefit users. Cycling can provide practical and convenient access to stations. This document provides guidance on standards for cycle infrastructure for users accessing public transport by bike. In particular, addressing issues relating to cycle parking is essential to the development of standards for integrating cycling and public transport. Insufficient or inappropriate facilities for cycle parking can have the effect of discouraging cyclists from using their bikes to access public transport. Therefore, good quality cycle parking is a key element of developing an integrated transport network. The level of provision varies depending upon the type of location within which the facilities are set, the level of activity and security in the station/stop and the location of the facilities. The guidance has made recommendations in acknowledgement of these different requirements. At the same time, the guidance highlights the generic standards and conditions to develop a cycle-friendly environment. Most journeys to stations and stops will be undertaken on foot. For walking infrastructure, it is acknowledged that existing legislation, building regulations and accessibility guidance is in place for construction project managers. However, there is a need for an accessible summary of the requirements for pedestrians, including for disabled people. Signage is an area where additional clarification on appropriate locations and the types of information to be included on signs has been sought, therefore more detailed guidance has been provided on this aspect. A key element of the document is the inclusion of a checklist to be adopted in design facilities/provision at new stations/stops. Although an existing cycle and pedestrian audit exists (Concise Cycle and Pedestrian Audit (COPECAT), 2003), it is not specific to stations and stops. In addition, design and standards have evolved and therefore an updated document is required. When used for reviewing existing provision, the audit provides a standardised methodology for reviewing conditions, thus reducing the time it takes to assess provision and requirements.
1.3 Report Structure The Design Guide is structured around the following sections: -
Section 2 - Walking Infrastructure: Provision of summary guidance on standards and good practice for pedestrians in and around stops and stations. Section 3 - Cycling Infrastructure: Statutory requirements for cycle provision along with design considerations in and around stations and stops including for cycle parking. Section 4 Cycle Parking Prioritisation Matrix: Details the methodology behind the calculation of the minimum recommended parking provision at existing and new stations or stops. Section 5 Good Practice Quick Reference Guide: Pictorial best practice relating to key themes including movement and comfort, accessibility, legibility, security and cycle infrastructure. Appendix A Stakeholder Consultation: Details the key findings of the consultation with local highway officers and cycle user groups. Appendix B - Existing Policy and Guidance: A review of existing guidance and standards has been carried out and this provides the strategic setting and policy framework within which the guidance is set at the national and local level.
Walking Infrastructure
Walking Infrastructure
2.1 Introduction This section aims to provide a summary of the facilities that all new (and ideally existing) Metrolink, rail and bus stations should provide to ensure all station users are able to easily access and move within transport hubs. It is recognised that there is a large amount of existing legislation, building regulations and accessibility guidance for construction project managers and this guidance does not seek to duplicate existing documentation. It should be noted that relevant legislation and guidance with regard to accessibility is subject to change. The latest DfT guidance can be found at the following web links: http://www.dft.gov.uk/transportforyou/access/peti/inclusivemobility http://www.dft.gov.uk/transportforyou/access/rail/railstations/access/ 2.2 Access to the Station Before any consideration is given to passenger provision at bus, rail and Metrolink stations, it is important to consider how passengers are expected to access the station. Poor quality routes can discourage walking and lead to the exclusion of certain groups of people. In some cases, this is due to topography, however more commonly the problems are due to poor maintenance or poor design. Absence of controlled crossing provision, dropped kerbs, signage, lighting or sufficient footway width can all affect the accessibility of a station. This can make it difficult for passengers to get to a station and may even affect patronage levels. In general, pedestrian routes to, from and within stations should offer the following environment for passengers:
-
Safety and security; A convenient route; Well lit; Accessible for all users; and Prioritise pedestrian movement where feasible.
2.2.1 Controlled Crossing Provision It is important that any crossing provision serves key pedestrian desire lines where possible. The most appropriate type of crossing will be dependent on its location, however on busy roads Puffin or Toucan crossings should be considered in the first instance. The DfTs Local Transport Note 02/95 recommends the practices to be followed when planning, designing and installing at-grade pedestrian crossings. It describes all types of crossings, including shared facilities with cyclists, other than those at signalled junctions.
2.2.2 Dropped Kerbs Dropped kerbs and buff-coloured tactile paving should be introduced at junctions to aid less mobile and visually impaired users. Dropped kerbs and tactile surfacing should be located on key desire lines on well-used pedestrian routes, such as side road junctions. 2.2.3 Footbridges, Tunnels and Underpasses Inclusive Mobility - A Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure (DfT) states that, while it is preferable to have at-grade crossings wherever it is safe and feasible, there are instances where a bridge or underpass has to be provided. The design of road and rail-related footbridges, tunnels and underpasses is largely governed by the good practice standards on stairs, ramps and handrails. It is worth remembering that the headroom to be accommodated on an underpass is usually less than that required for a footbridge, so the length of ramp and stairway will also be less.
2.2.4 Lighting There is a significant difference between perceptions of safety and security for pedestrians during the day and after dark. People generally feel safer in daylight or well lit areas where they can see and be seen. Whilst it is expected that the general highway will be sufficiently lit, footpaths which would expect to see an increase in footfall as a result of the introduction of a new Metrolink or bus station may not currently provide lighting. All key approaches to stations/stops should be well lit as it represents an effective security measure that will reduce the potential for anti-social behaviour and encourage walking to the station/stop. In general, all new street lighting provided on the highway should be designed and installed to the current British Standard European Norm (BSEN) appropriate for the road in question. 2.2.5 Signage Each station should be appropriately signed from the surrounding highway network, especially where they represent a new facility that potential users may not be aware of. Signage should be clear and simple and incorporate appropriate symbols such as the Metrolink logo or bus symbol. It may be appropriate to make use of repeater signage, which can be more easily fixed to street furniture such as lighting columns. To avoid street clutter, signs should be fixed to existing street furniture where appropriate, and incorporated into existing pedestrian and heritage signing strategies. Bus and Metrolink stations should be signed to and from nearby Town and District Centres, key trip generators such as stadia and retail centres, and other transport hubs. All key approaches should also provide signage to the station. The positioning of each sign will depend on the nature of the highway around each station, however it is important to consider the following: -
The need for a continuous signing strategy (signage at key decision points, consistent destinations); Avoidance of street clutter where feasible; Ensure signage is legible (use of symbols, sufficient text size); Ensure signage is prominent and visible; and Ensure sign posts are located so as not to present an obstacle to pedestrian or traffic flows.
2.2.6 Footways Footways should be of sufficient width to accommodate an increase in footfall as a result of the introduction of a new transport facility; however Design Manual for Streets states that footways should be generally 2.0m (2.0m as a minimum). Additional footway width should be considered in areas of high pedestrian flow. A smooth surface should be provided that does not present trip hazards or discomfort to pedestrians. 2.3 Movement and Facilities within the Station It is expected that all future Metrolink station design will be informed by GMPTE Design and Construction Specifications set out in February 2010. This section looks to provide a summary of key principles that are important when considering pedestrian movement and facilities within bus, and rail stations and Metrolink stations.
2.3.1 Entrances and Doors All entrances to stations should be of sufficient width to accommodate expected passenger numbers and wheelchair users. Bottlenecks should be avoided. A minimum width of 800mm is essential for all entrances to enable a wheelchair to use it. However, this should be considered an absolute minimum.
2.3.2 Obstacles Pedestrians should be made to feel as if they belong on a route. A good quality route should allow pedestrians to walk with confidence and have priority wherever possible. A route on which pedestrians are marginalised and confined, perhaps by physical barriers, will seem unwelcoming. A minimum width of 2.0m should be adhered to throughout the station. Station furniture such as ticket machines, information boards and seating should be located so as not to obstruct pedestrians, particularly those less mobile. Where a station is likely to be required to accommodate high volumes of passengers (e.g. City Centre or Town Centres), platform, stands and passageway widths should reflect the demand for extra capacity. 2.3.3 Seating Use of public transport usually involves waiting, so provision of seating is important. The number of seats provided will be dependent of a number of factors including available space and expected passenger numbers. Where possible, seating should be located in a sheltered area of the station/stop. Although conventional seating will meet the needs of most disabled people, there are some who find perch-type seating, against which people half lean and half sit, easier to use. Space should be left for wheelchair users to sit with their companions.
2.3.4 Shelter Shelter is an integral part of the passenger waiting environment, greatly enhancing passenger comfort. As much of the platform area should be sheltered as possible. 2.3.5 Changes in Level It is particularly important to refer to the latest Building Regulations and DDA compliance when considering changes in level. 2.3.5.1 Stairs Wherever there is a change in level, stairs may be required. There should be tactile warning surfaces at the foot and head of any stairway. Stairs should be well lit, of sufficient width to accommodate footfall and provide a handrail. Gradients should not be precipitous.
2.3.5.2 Ramps Stairs are not accessible for all users and ramps should be provided where excessive length is not required. The gradient should not exceed 1:20. 2.3.5.3 Lifts Lifts are essential for wheelchair users and for some people who have walking difficulties, when there is a substantial change in levels. They should be provided in preference to very long ramps. Lift locations should be clearly signposted from the main pedestrian route. Ideally the internal dimensions of a lift should be big enough to enable a wheelchair user to turnaround and come out facing forwards.
2.3.6
Way-Finding and Orientation
2.3.6.1 Information and Signage People may not consider walking as an option if there is no, or inadequate, information and signage. The arrival point is a vital location for the provision of information, usually in the form of a display board or leaflets. Once beyond the arrival point, a lack of signage can lead to pedestrians taking unnecessarily arduous or inappropriate routes. The provision of comprehensive internal station signage is vital in ensuring passengers are able to find their way around (and out) of the station. Facilities for those less able, such as ramps, lifts and mobility boarding points, should be clearly signed with appropriate symbols. The location of ticket machines should also be clearly indicated upon arrival at the station as purchase of a ticket will be the first task for many passengers. Where the station operates as an interchange with other modes of transport, access between the two modes should be clearly signed, again utilising appropriate symbols. Where the station provides two or more exits, guidance should be given as to the best exit to use for outlying destinations. Examples of outlying destinations that may be signed from bus, rail and Metrolink stations include:
-
Shopping Centres; Market; Bus Services; Town Centre; Local Centre; Named cycle routes; and Key local attractions (e.g. stadia, museums).
Information boards perform a vital role in informing passengers of service and timetable information, details of station facilities, maps and information relating to the surrounding area and interchange potential. Information boards should be located in a prominent location and signed accordingly. Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) adds to the passenger experience by providing precise service information, as well as informing of any service disruption that may occur. Where provided, RTPI information boards should also be located in a prominent location.
Cycle Infrastructure
11
3.1 Cycle Access to and Movement within Transport Hubs As with pedestrian routes, it is important to consider cycle access to new rail, bus and Metrolink stations prior to proposing measures at the stations themselves. If cyclists feel unable to access stations safely and easily, then they are less likely to cycle to them and utilise parking provision located there. Where stations are located close to key cycle routes they should be linked in, with a combination of on-road cycle facilities and signage. The DfTs guidance on Bike and Rail Policy states several main areas important in facilitating bike-rail journeys:
-
Access to and within stations; Cycle parking at stations; and Provision of information on facilities for cyclists.
The following chapter considers potential measures for improving cycling access and facilities at new and existing transport hubs including the type, design, location and number of cycle parking facilities. 3.1.1 Signage/Markings (Internal) As discussed, cyclists will generally be leaving their bicycles at station or stops to continue their onward journey. Cycle parking facilities should not only be signed on the approaches, but also as part of internal station signage, particularly at locations which may be hard to spot. Signage at bus stations and Metrolink stops should prohibit cycling, request that cyclists dismount and direct them to the nearest cycle parking facilities. At cycle lockers, signage should indicate how to use the lockers and the consequences of failing to use them properly. 3.1.2 Wheeling Ramps Where access ramps are not provided to stations or platforms (where cycle parking facilities are present) or do not offer a direct route, wheeling ramps on stairs should be provided in order for cyclists to access parking facilities wherever they are located in and around the station. The success of a wheeling ramp will depend on the gradient and length of the associated stairs. In general, short and shallow steps are more appropriate than long and steep steps, as they require less strength to push bicycles up them. Gradients should be less than 50%. Metal ramps can be retrofitted to existing stairs, however are not as durable as concrete ramps (pictured). The use of strong, durable metal is recommended to prevent against damage and vandalism. 3.1.3 Lifts Where it is difficult to introduce ramps or wheeling ramps at a station, any lifts provided at the station should be accessible for those with bicycles, particularly where a lift provides direct access to a platform which provides cycle parking. The dimensions of the lift should be sufficient to easily wheel a bike into and travel in the lift without requiring it to be angled in any way (see dimensions for horizontal lockers plus requisite headroom for lift users). There should also be 3.0m clearance at the front of the lift. 3.2 Type of Parking/Storage At present it is possible to take cycles on trains (subject to the operator in question - refer to http://www.atob.org.uk/Bike_Rail.html). Conversely, owing in the main to commercial issues, none of the major bus companies in Greater Manchester offer cycle carriage on public bus services and bicycle carriage on Metrolink trams is prohibited. Therefore, cyclists are currently unable to continue their onward journey by bus or tram with their bicycles and are obliged to secure them in and around Metrolink and bus stations. Consequently, cycle
12
parking provision at stations represents the end of journey by bicycle for commuters; and it is therefore important that secure, appropriate cycle parking, is provided in the right locations. One of the primary reasons cyclists are reluctant to use their bicycle is the risk of theft or damage once they are parked. The type of cycle parking provision is an important factor in providing cyclists with a sense of comfort that their bicycles will be safe from damage or theft. Transport for London (TfL) cycle parking guidance states that national research indicates that of those who suffer the theft of a bicycle, 24% no longer cycle and 66% cycle less often. There is also anecdotal evidence that theft or vandalism of parts has a similar effect on use. Table 3.1 provides a summary of the different types of cycle parking available and also details recommendations as to the types of cycle parking provision most appropriate at transport hubs. Table 3.1: Cycle Parking Types Cycle Parking Type Butterfly Stands Advantages/Disadvantages Advantages
-
Recommendation Whilst there are inherent cost and space savings associated with this type of cycle parking, cyclists are unable to secure the frame of their bicycle. With bicycles increasingly featuring quick-release wheels, this would appear to be a significant disadvantage over other types of cycle parking. Suitability: Not recommended
Can be fixed to adjacent wall as opposed to being secured into ground; Space saving design means that higher numbers of stands can be accommodated; and Low cost due to reduced materials requirement.
Disadvantages Inability to secure frame to parking stand inappropriate for bicycles with quick release wheels. Advantages
-
Sheffield Loop type
Relatively low cost (approximately 250 per stand including installation); Easy to install mounted into the ground or bolted onto surface; Secure (two connections in ground) - can secure frame and wheels onto stand; and Convenient to use simply lock bike frame to stand.
Sheffield Loops provide good support to all types of bicycle and allow the cyclist to secure both the frame and two wheels without risk of damage. Correctly spaced, each stand can accommodate two bikes and supports the use of all types of common lock. Associated shelter can also be provided where cycle parking facilities are open to the elements. Suitability: Recommended as essential element of cycle parking provision at stations.
Disadvantages
-
Does not protect from damage or elements if not covered.
13
Cycle Parking Type Cycle Lockers
Advantages/Disadvantages Advantages
-
Recommendation Lockers provide security against the elements, theft and damage and therefore offer an advantage over other types of cycle parking provision. Whist lockers can be open to misuse, represent a higher cost than other types of cycle parking and require more space (particularly horizontal type); the benefits are such that they should be considered as an essential element of cycle parking provision at stations. Horizontal (or dog kennel) type cycle lockers enable cyclists to place their bicycles into the locker more easily than the vertical type (pictured) and reduce instances of damage to rear mudguards. They should be considered in the first instance, where space allows. Suitability: Cycle lockers are recommended as a key element of cycle parking provision at stations, particularly in areas of low visual surveillance. Space permitting, horizontal facilities should be provided.
Enhanced security as bicycles are locked out of sight within containers; Provide shelter; Can also store equipment; and Ability to monitor usage.
Disadvantages
-
Space requirements dimensions mean that lockers can be difficult to locate; Can be open to misuse e.g. used to store things other than bicycles; Higher cost per unit (approximately 500-700 including installation); Scheme requires management; and Not always open to all requirement membership of BLUC in Greater Manchester.
Cycle Compound
Advantages
-
Provides secure, lockable facility; Provides shelter; and Provides parking for a number of bicycles.
Cycle compounds are effectively comprised of a number of Sheffield Loop type parking stands (usually more than ten) housed within a lockable shelter. Where there are requirements for a large number of cycle lockers, a compound would provide a costeffective alternative. Merseyrail have recently installed a number of cycle compounds between Southport and Crosby stations. Suitability: Recommended in preference to introducing over 10 lockers at one station (space permitting).
Disadvantages
-
Space requirements dimensions mean that compounds are difficult to install; Can be open to misuse e.g. used to store things other than bicycles; Cost approximately 4,000 for ten bicycles); and Require management.
14
Cycle Parking Type Space Saving Systems
Advantages/Disadvantages Advantages
-
Recommendation Do not offer the same level of security as compounds as bicycles can still be vandalised. Suitability: Compounds prioritised where a large number of parking stands are recommended, but could be installed within compounds where demand requires.
Can store higher number of bicycles within smaller footprint; Convenient to use simply lock bike frame to stand; Relatively low cost (approximately 275 per space at Euston station).
Disadvantages
-
May require users to lift bicycles onto stacked stands A Copenhagen stand acts in much the same way as a Sheffield Loop cycle parking stand. The difference in this instance is that each stand can be locked into the ground when they are not being used, reducing street clutter. Suitability: Should be considered as a possible alternative to Sheffield Loop parking provision.
Copenhagen Stand
Advantages
-
Relatively low cost (approximately 250 per stand including installation); Easy to install mounted into the ground or bolt on onto surface; Secure (two connections in ground) - can secure frame and wheels onto stand; and Convenient to use simply lock bike frame to stand.
Disadvantages
-
Does not protect from damage or elements; and As bike stands can be locked into ground, may not be immediately visible to cyclists.
In summary, it is recommended that the following three types of cycle parking provision are considered at stations and stops:
-
Sheffield Loop type; Cycle Lockers; and Cycle compounds.
A mix of cycle parking types should be provided at each station, as lockers are not accessible for occasional users, whilst those with expensive bicycles may not feel comfortable parking their bicycle at Sheffield stands where there is potential that they could be vandalised. Shelters should be considered where five or more Sheffield Loop parking stands are recommended and proposed locations do not provide shelter. 3.3 Cycle Parking Location and Design Considerations
3.3.1 Location Sustrans information sheet, FF37, states that the location of cycle parking is absolutely critical to success. Cycle parking should be prominent, clearly signed and advertised to alert potential cyclists to the availability of cycle parking facilities. As discussed, cycle parking should be subject to natural surveillance and be convenient for cyclists to use. Where possible, cycle parking should be located at the main pedestrian entrance to the facility, at locations where conflict with other passengers and pedestrians will be avoided and where possible, under cover. There may be space
15
limitations at open access stations due to the requirement to maintain sufficient widths on platforms, and as such consultation should take place with the relevant highway authority to introduce appropriate parking provision on highway adjacent to the station. Cycling England states that the accepted desirable maximum distance for station cycle parking is within 20m of a station. Where cycle parking can be accommodated on platforms this should be considered, however as discussed it should be visible and secure not located at the far end of a platform with little footfall and cycle parking should not represent an obstacle to pedestrians, unduly affect platform capacity or present a potential safety risk. The area planned for parking should be level. If not, stands should be orientated at right angles to the slope to prevent bicycles from rolling away. Car parks can offer the requisite space to accommodate a large number of cycle parking facilities, and are often lit and subject to CCTV surveillance. However, careful consideration should be given when locating cycle parking provision in station car parks to ensure they are located close to stations and offer natural surveillance from passengers or passing pedestrians. A sequential approach should be undertaken when considering where cycle parking facilities should be located. Figure 3.1: Sequential Approach to the Positioning of Cycle Parking at Stations/Stops Can the required cycle parking facilities physically be accommodated?
Space
Is the station or stop accessible from proposed cycle parking facilities?

Accessiblity
Is the area well lit, with natural surveillanceor covered by CCTV?

Security
Existing cycle provision
Does the location of the proposed cycle parking facilities link in with existing cycle parking provision or routes suitable for cyclists?
Locations where cycle parking provision could be located include: -
Station entrances; Wide station platforms; Within 20 metres of station; Adjacent highway (liaise with local highway authority); and Station car parks located close to station entrances which offer natural surveillance.
Locations where cycle parking provision should be avoided include: -
Far end of station car parks; Little used areas of platforms; Cramped, dark station concourses; Any sites which require crossing busy roads to access station; and Any sites not visible from the station.
3.3.2 Dimensions Table 3.2 demonstrates the recommended dimensions for each type of preferred cycle stand. It is important that cycle parking provision is adequately spaced and built to specifications, which enables cycles to be adequately and easily secured. Cycle parking specifications have been informed by Design for Security standards as advocated by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and consultation with cycle users groups:
16
Table 3.2: Recommended Cycle Parking Dimensions Type Sheffield Loop Cycle Locker (Horizontal type where possible) Compound Height 70-80cm 114cm Width/Tube Diameter 5-9cm 66cm Length 70-100cm 190cm Spacing 100cm (minimum) n/a can be located flush with other lockers.
Dependent on number of spaces but dimension of stands within compound should be consistent with Sheffield Loop type. Where demand is greater, consideration should be given to introducing stacked parking stands such as those found at Southport station. There should be sufficient clearance for cyclists to stand up within the compound and entrances should be sufficiently wide so a dismounted cyclist and bicycle can easily enter and exit the compound.
Sheffield Loop stands should be located a minimum of 0.6m from kerb edges to ensure that cyclists can lock their bicycles safely and that parked bicycles do not encroach onto the highway. Appendix C demonstrates the GMP guidance for spacing of Sheffield Loop stands. Cycle lockers should be located at least 3.0m from platform edges to ensure that bicycles can be easily and safely entered and removed. In some locations, it may be appropriate to site lockers either parallel to the platform edge or at 45. A pitched roof and perforated side will prevent roof access and help ventilation. Branding should be consistent with those at existing Metrolink Stations. It is acknowledged that at stations where space is particularly limited, or where agreement to locate cycle parking with the relevant highway authority cannot be reached, a flexible approach should be taken to the introduction of cycle parking types with larger dimensions. However in the first instance, every effort should be made to provide a mix of parking types at each station as per the recommendations in this guidance. Greater Manchester Police has produced a Cycle Parking Design Guidance (Revision A/October 2009) which details a series of standards to Design for Security. 3.3.3 Shelter Those who are looking to park their bicycles for an extended period of time may be more inclined to use covered cycle parking provision. Covered cycle parking provision provides protection to bicycles from the elements and reduces the likelihood of bicycles becoming wet and ultimately rusting. The introduction of a shelter requires careful consideration so as not to cause an obstruction to pedestrians or potentially serve as a shelter for people seeking to avoid the elements. Shelter dimensions can be large, so it may not be feasible to provide shelters at every station or stop. Lockers and cycle compounds provide natural shelter and could be provided primarily as sheltered parking provision where there are difficulties in accommodating sheltered Sheffield loop stands. Shelter associated with the station (station canopy, concourse etc) removes the requirement for the introduction of a bespoke shelter. Covered cycle parking provision within rail stations such as Manchester Victoria has proved popular, offering shelter, natural surveillance and proximity to rail services.
17
Where covered cycle parking can be accommodated, consideration should be given to introducing Falco Sail type shelters or similar, which are being introduced by Northern Rail at a number of their stations. 3.3.4 Lighting and CCTV Security is one of the most important considerations when considering the location and design of cycle parking facilities. It is essential that cycle parking facilities, and indeed the approaches to cycle parking, are well lit to encourage perceptions of personal safety security and encourage long-stay parking where a cyclist may wish to leave or return to their bicycle when it is dark. The introduction of CCTV can assist in providing additional security and encourage cyclists to utilise cycle parking provision. CCTV is generally associated with bus, rail and Metrolink stations and cycle parking should be located within the scope of CCTV coverage where possible. 3.3.5 Natural Surveillance Natural surveillance refers to the presence of passers-by and/or the overlooking of spaces and buildings. In order to determine the mix of cycle parking provision required at each station, it is important to consider the degree of natural surveillance, particularly where there is no CCTV installations. Even where Sheffield Loop type cycle parking has been provided, cyclists may be reluctant to leave their bicycle in a secluded area or one that experiences low footfall. Staffed stations can also greatly increase the natural surveillance experienced. Generally, Metrolink stations are not staffed; however bus stations and rail stations are more likely to provide staff. Where feasible, cycle parking facilities should be located within sight of station staff. A bicycle kept in a locker is more secure than one out in the open, is protected from the elements and also allows 1 secure storage of panniers, helmet and clothing. Where security concerns are greater, lockers should be considered an essential element of cycle parking offer. There are disadvantages to cycle lockers; they are relatively expensive, take up more space than Sheffield loop type stands and are open to misuse. Therefore, a mix of both Sheffield loop type cycle parking stands and cycle lockers would provide cyclists with a choice of parking provision. The proportion of cycle parking provision that is made up of lockers is dependent on the station environment. Site audits should be undertaken to provide an indication of the level of natural surveillance experienced at each station or stop. Less natural surveillance may mean that cyclists would be less likely to use standard cycle stands and look to utilise lockers, which are seen as more secure. 3.3.6 Bikeability of Highway Network The bikeability of the surrounding highway network is important in determining whether people can be encouraged to cycle. Less confident cyclists are unlikely to want to utilise busy roads without appropriate cycling facilities. Similarly, steep inclines or a lack of cycle signage may discourage would-be cyclists. Naturally, this will have an impact on the number of cyclists likely to use cycle parking provision. In contrast, if a station is located adjacent to a National or Regional Cycle Network route, it is reasonable to assume there is an increased number of cyclists in the vicinity of the station, which may look to utilise associated parking provision. It is therefore recommended to increase the minimum recommended cycle parking standard where there is good provision for cyclists and topography is conducive to cyclists. 3.3.7 Patronage Whilst this guidance details a minimum provision at stations and stops, the level of patronage experienced at each station is a good indicator as to how many cyclists (or would-be cyclists) are likely to utilise cycle parking provision. Surveys undertaken by TfL demonstrate that the more cycle parking is provided, the higher the take-up of that cycle parking, which is partly a reflection of the higher cycle demand. In the circumstances, it is considered better to provide a smaller number of well-located stands, which can be added to as demand grows. Areas with high cycle usage should be provided for at a higher initial provision level. In these locations, increased provision should result
1
http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/cdg-chapter11.pdf
18
in attracting new users who will add to existing users, as long at the benefits of good site location are not compromised. It is recognised that new stations will not have usage data associated with them prior to construction. Modelled data or surveys will provide an indication of likely usage and can be used to calculate minimum cycle parking standards. 3.3.8 Evidence of Demand Site audits undertaken as part of the development of this guidance provided a clear indication of the level of demand for existing cycle parking facilities at stations and stops. Under-utilised good quality cycle provision located close to a Metrolink or Bus Station entrance suggests that demand for cycle parking at that location is low, and there is unlikely to be significant benefit to the introduction of further cycle parking facilities. In contrast, fly parking can be indicative of inadequate supply or that existing parking is not deemed to be in the optimum location. As such, it is recommended that following implementation, the level of parking stock should be subject to regular review (suggested annually) to ensure that any increases in demand are addressed. 3.4 Maintenance Issues It is expected that Sheffield Loop type cycle parking provision will require minimal maintenance other than regular inspections to ensure that facilities have not been damaged or bicycles have not been secured against them and abandoned. Abandoned bikes should be removed after four weeks as they can encourage vandalism and reduce the quality of the public realm. Lockers and compounds need to be regularly cleaned and inspected to ensure that cyclists will want to continue to use them. Regular maintenance should also be undertaken to ensure that cycle facilities remain secure. Named individuals should be responsible for the upkeep of all facilities. 3.4.1 Whole Life Costs When developing proposals, it is important to take into consideration the likely ongoing costs involved with the operation and maintenance of the facility as well as the capital costs associated with purchase and installation. Materials, security, aesthetics and cost are critical factors in choosing bicycle parking provision. Whilst bicycle racks (e.g. Sheffield stands) are clearly more vulnerable to theft or vandalism, as demonstrated in this document, it is important to provide a mix of facilities. The costs of Sheffield stands vary from 50 + installation for stands which are often made of thin steel and liable to rusting and will need to be replaced approximately every 10 years, to 100 + installation for stainless steel stands with base plates, which generally require little of no maintenance. While purchase costs for stainless steel stands are higher, the longer-term quality and finish give them better value for a 20-year operating period. There is a wide range of manufacturers who offer locker facilities (for example Bikey, Sigma and Dero) and it is important to ensure that the selected specification is made of good quality materials which are rust-proof and robust and have been proven in an urban environment. Again, there is a great range in the cost of locker units and whilst it is advocated that there is a consistent provision, certainly in terms of access, there may be some merit in considering higher specification units at locations that may be deemed more exposed or vulnerable to vandalism. It is possible that there would be discounts for bulk orders. Problems which have been identified with current BLUC lockers should be designed out, for example the gap at the base of the lockers allows debris to accumulate, which can contribute to the disintegration of the unit. In addition, it is understood that the padlocks used to secure the locks are also subject to rusting, particularly at less well-used lockers, and any new system should ensure that these are more durable. Consultation with GMPTE and Manchester City Council suggests that both lockers and Sheffield loop stands are robust and a life-span of 15-20 years would seem reasonable. An effective maintenance and management regime through BLUC should reduce misuse and improve effective operation life.
19
3.5 Bike Lockers User Club (BLUC) BLUC is a cycle parking scheme operated by GMPTE to encourage people to use their cycles to travel to train, Metrolink and bus stations and town centre locations across Greater Manchester. The scheme was initially set up to stop locker blocking, whereby a cyclist would utilise a locker for their own personal use and prevent others from using it even when it may have been empty. 3.5.1 How do People Join? Once enrolled on the scheme, a user can make use of any designated BLUC locker. Membership of BLUC costs 10 (an application is available online) and initial membership is for two years. Once the application form has been processed, each user is issued with a key and a membership card. The process for using a cycle locker is as follows: -
Use BLUC key to open any empty locker; Attach membership card to bike; Place bike in the locker and lock the door using personal padlock; Retain the BLUC padlock found within the locker; and Upon return to the locker, the user is required to replace their own padlock with the BLUC padlock to allow other people to use the system.
3.5.2 Issues and Suggestions for Improvement It is expected that any increase in the number of cycle lockers will also result in an increase in the number of users associated with the scheme. BLUC currently provides 150 lockers, which it is understood are used by approximately 350 individuals. At present, all lockers comprise of the vertical type, primarily due to difficulties in accommodating horizontal cycle lockers due to their increased footprint. However, it is understood that vertical lockers are not popular with some users as it can cause damage to rear mudguards and reflectors as bicycles are locked way or upon removal. There is currently a maintenance budget of approximately 5,000 per year associated with BLUC. Whilst existing use of lockers is monitored through annual surveys and are often transferred to more popular locations, this is restricted by the fact that this currently has to be undertaken by the manufacturer (BikeAway) based in Plymouth. Any significant expansion in the number of cycle lockers associated with BLUC presents an opportunity to review the current operation, however it should be noted that GMP retain the right to access lockers on demand, which presents a further restraint on the type of operating system adopted. One of the key advantages of BLUC is the ability of users to utilise any locker on the system. The membership and key based system also enables GMPTE to retain a degree of control over who uses the lockers, which is important in reducing crime and ensuring the safety of all users. However potential ad-hoc users may be discouraged by the requirement to apply in advance to become involved in the scheme. An alternative system to the key system is the use of swipe cards or a PIN system, which again would provide useful monitoring data, however these have greater cost implications. Consideration could also be given to the use of fingerprint technology, which removes the need for swipe cards and their re-issue. Whilst costs may prove prohibitive in the short-term, it is possible that bulk purchase discounts and future reduction of the cost of the technology may enhance the feasibility of this option. In order to encourage greater use of the locker system, it is suggested that there is merit in trialling a coin based system, or one that enables users to use their own padlocks, at suitable locations (e.g. in areas of high or natural surveillance), which would offer casual users the opportunity to utilise cycle lockers. However, there is a risk that lockers may be used for other purposes, such as storing luggage or other items, which at some locations may present a security threat. Given that cycle compounds require shared use, a coin operated system would be less appropriate. It is recommended that a swipe card system which restricts access and enables an audit of who has used the facility is considered in this instance. This system has recently been installed by Merseyrail on the Southport line. The effective maintenance of lockers is very important in encouraging use, and lockers should be subject to regular inspection and cleaning. Individuals should be identified to assume responsibility for cleaning and inspection of each set of lockers should be clearly identified. A marketing campaign promoting the additional cycle locker offer should also be developed to detail availability, and publicised to local schools/colleges, organisations and via on-line targeted marketing (for example free membership of BLUC with an annual season ticket purchase). A reduced membership renewal period would also eliminate those
20
who no longer use the system and provide a better indication of actual take-up of the lockers. For those who have renewed their membership a number of times and have demonstrated commitment to BLUC, a longer membership period could then be introduced. In summary, the following initiatives are recommended as part of any expansion to cycle locker provision in Greater Manchester: -
Ensure that lockers can be maintained locally; Trial coin-operated lockers, or one that enable users to use their own padlocks, at suitable locations with a view to increasing casual use; Consider utilisation of smart cards as a way of improving monitoring and integration (particularly if they can be linked to future public transport payment systems) of the system and consideration as to how compounds and cycle centres should be incorporated into the system; Allocate staff with responsibility for monitoring and maintenance; Increased promotion of locker provision and BLUC (e.g. advertising of BLUC on buses/trams to encourage more use of bike/public transport combined journeys); and Increased annual budget for management and maintenance.
3.6 Marketing The marketing of the benefits of cycling and walking and the location of facilities is an important element of promoting sustainable transport trips. When considering the potential for modal change for cycle/public transport trips, cyclists are unlikely to cycle distances of 1km or less, as walking becomes more attractive. Equally, distances of over 4km become unattractive given the requirement to use public transport afterwards. Therefore, the marketing of cycle facilities (leaflets, flyers) should be concentrated on a distance of 1-4km from a station or stop. In addition to considering the potential target market, cycle parking facility type, numbers and locations should be included on GMPTEs website, www.gmpte.gov.uk. 3.7 Cycle Centres In addition to the proposed expansion of cycle parking facilities at Metrolink stops and bus stations, funding has been allocated to create a number of cycle centres providing a range of services across the Regional Centre. A cycle centre, often staffed, is a facility which provides a range of services including services such as secure cycle parking, cycle information, cycle hire, sales and repairs and showers and changing facilities. Cycling England Professional Support Service produced a study on behalf of Manchester City Council and Salford City Council to assess the available options and provide advice on suitable locations for proposed cycle centres in both authorities. It states that growth in cycling in Manchester and Salford is constrained by a lack of secure parking. The study prioritised a site on Station Approach at Piccadilly Station, which demonstrated current demand, available space and the likely co-operation of the landowner. The introduction of a cycle centre in the City Centre could have the impact of significantly increasing the number of cyclists who travel into Manchester. A cycle centre may require a fee to use the facilities. If so, the additional cycle parking facilities recommended in this report should still be provided, as not all users may wish to pay to park their bicycle. Negotiations are currently underway with Network Rail to secure funding for a cycle centre at Piccadilly Rail Station. Finsbury Park Interchange (taken from Cycling England) An example of a covered, staffed, cycle park can be found at Finsbury Park Interchange in London. Opened in 2006, the facilities are comprised of 125 automated lockable cycle racks which are operated by a smart card system. The facilities were created through a partnership between TfL, the rail operator, London boroughs and other agencies as part of a wider London wide interchange improvement programme. The facilities are open 2 hours for smart card holders. The smart card system enables greater capacity as not every cyclist wishes to park concurrently, therefore no rack is assigned on an individual basis. There is a 50 pence charge for parking over a 24 hour period.
21
3.8 Bike n Ride and Cycle Hire Scheme Virgin Trains is to become one of the first flagship Bike n Ride train companies in the country following a 1m joint funding venture from the DfT and Cycling England. A total of 540 additional cycle storage spaces at stations are to be shared between Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent, Macclesfield, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly. Plans are also being drawn up for a cycle hire scheme at Manchester Piccadilly allowing commuters working in the city to complete their journeys by bike. It is expected that this scheme will address demand for secure cycle parking facilities from rail passengers in the City Centre. 3.9 Potential Highway Measures
It is acknowledged that it is ultimately the responsibility of the highway authority to ensure that passengers can easily access each station. As such, this section has been included to inform of some of the measures which the GMPTE could discuss with the Highway Authority to improve access to the station by bike. This initial section details the necessary support infrastructure that is required to facilitate cycle trips to and from the station or stop. It is recommended that the Project Management team work in partnership with the relevant highway authority to plan and deliver appropriate infrastructure (note this is likely to be required as part of the planning process). 3.9.1 Cycle Lanes On-road cycle lanes allocate a section of carriageway to cyclists and assist in providing the clear space and degree of protection required by cyclists. For cycle lanes provided on bus routes, the preferred width is a 3.25m (or greater) running lane with a 1.5m wide cycle lane. Cycle lanes are not recommended on bus routes with half-carriageway widths less than 4.75m (GMPTE Preferred Standards). Local Transport Note 2/08 states the following benefits associated with cycle lanes:
-
Create a comfort zone for less experienced cyclists; Assist cyclists in difficult or congested situations; Allow cyclists to bypass features intended to slow or exclude motorised traffic; Help guide cyclists through complex junctions; Controls the speed of traffic by narrowing the width of carriageway allocated to general traffic; and Raises driver awareness of cyclists.
Where cyclists travelling to a station or stop may be required to utilise busier roads, with a limited number of side junctions, or undertake a significant gradient, an on-road cycle lane may help to encourage cycling. Cycle lanes may be mandatory or advisory. Where feasible, mandatory cycle lanes should be introduced as other traffic is excluded from them during their times of operation. Vehicles are able to enter advisory cycle lanes if it is safe to do so and advisory cycle lanes can be blocked by parked vehicles, thereby limiting their effectiveness. Cycle lanes should provide a minimum width of 1.5m on roads with a 30mph limit. Bus lanes can also accommodate cyclists and provide an important facility on busy radial routes. Where bus lanes are provided as part of any new facility, it is recommended that it is made clear that cyclists can utilise them by the introduction of appropriate signage and road markings. For cycle lanes provided within bus lanes, the preferred situation is a 1.5m wide cycle lane marked within a 4.5m wide (or greater) bus lane. Cycle lanes should not be marked within bus lanes less than 4.5m wide (GMPTE Preferred standards).
22
3.9.2 Off-Road Facilities Cycle access should be facilitated right up to the entrance of the transport hub (and within the facility where cycle parking is located on platforms). Stations or stops may be located off-highway and accessible only by access paths/ramps. Consideration should therefore be given to providing off-road cycle facilities that provide direct access to stations or stops, segregated where possible. The minimum recommended width for a segregated two-way cycle track is 3.0m. 3.9.3 Traffic Calming Traffic calming, often in conjunction with a 20mph zone, can have a material impact on traffic speeds and enhance road safety for cyclists. Speed cushions offer space for cyclists to pass through without vertical deflection and therefore do not cause discomfort. Sufficient width should be maintained between cushions and the kerb to ensure that cyclists can safely pass through. Traffic calming which involves horizontal deflection (e.g. build-outs, narrowing) should be carefully considered to prevent conflict between cyclists and general traffic. Cycle bypass lanes should be introduced where feasible. DfTs Local Transport Note 02/08 identifies best practice in relation to traffic calming and cycling. 3.9.4 Advance Stop Lines Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) enable cyclists to wait ahead of queuing traffic at signalised junctions. In addition to providing priority to cyclists they also assist those turning right by enabling cyclists to take up a proper turning position. A lead in cycle lane is required to enable cyclists to access the ASL. ASLs are relatively cheap and have little or no negative impact on junction capacity. Signalised junctions in the vicinity of the station or stop should, where feasible, include ASLs. ASLs are generally popular with cyclists and may therefore encourage more cycling (Scottish Government, 2001). Cycle reservoirs should be at least 4 metres deep to allow cyclists to wait a safe distance ahead of other traffic. 3.9.5 Crossings Where there are existing pedestrian crossings that serve a clear desire line to the station, or additional pedestrian controlled crossing facilities are proposed, then consideration should be given to upgrading them to a Toucan crossing. Where cycle routes cross the carriageway, the introduction of Toucan crossings should be considered in the first instance. Toucan crossings are signal controlled crossings for pedestrians and cyclists and offer additional width, which enable users to cycle across the road without being obliged to dismount. Where refuges are required then they should be a least 2.0 metres wide. On bus routes, the running lane widths either side of any refuge should be 3.25m wide (or greater). Where cycle lanes are proposed on the same route as refuges, the widths either side of the refuge should be widened to 4.75m wide (or greater) to safely accommodate buses and cyclists (GMPTE Preferred Standards).
23
3.9.6 Signage/Markings (On Highway) There is a need for clear cycle signage both on the approach to and at stations/stops so that cyclists can easily locate the station and associated cycle parking provision. Where existing cycle signage is in place, the station should be incorporated as a destination. In addition, key attractions and locations in the surrounding area should be signed from the station. Signage should be prioritised on routes which offer existing cycle facilities or quieter, lightly-trafficked routes suitable for less confident cyclists. National and Regional Cycle Route numbers should be incorporated where possible, and used as repeater signs to reduce street clutter. Consideration should also be given to providing carriageway markings to support signage and also reduce street clutter. As with pedestrian signage, care should be taken to ensure signage is legible, continuous and appropriate. Key considerations are as follows: -
All signage should comply with TSRGD 2002. Signage should not be installed in locations which may cause conflict to the movement of pedestrians and cyclists. Signs should be fixed to posts with anti-rotational clips to ensure that they cannot be turned. Signs should be mounted at a height of no less than 2.4m from the ground.
Cycle Parking Provision Matrix
25
Cycle Parking Provision Matrix
4.1 Criteria for Provision This section provides an explanation of the rationale which informed the development of the matrix which calculates a minimum standard for the amount and type of cycle parking facilities recommended for Metrolink stops and bus stations in Greater Manchester. The matrix also calculates an associated cost for this provision. The matrix has been informed by site audits undertaken at each facility during May 2010 and literature detailing best practice examples and standards from organisations such as TfL. The matrix consists of separate criteria, which are used to generate a minimum recommended standard for each station. The criteria are as follows: -
Peak time patronages (or number of bus stands); Evidence of demand; Bikeability of surrounding highway network; and Natural surveillance.
The recommended levels of cycle parking may be subject to variation following discussions with the relevant local authority. 4.1.1 Patronage Data Figures for Metrolink patronage have been sourced from Greater Manchester Transportation Units (GMTU) Public Transport Statistics (2008) data. Metrolink stop arrivals are assumed in this instance to be those boarding and alighting in the AM Peak (07:3009:30). Table 4.1 details the baseline recommended parking provision at each Metrolink stop, prior to any weighting being applied as a result of other factors. This has been banded for ease of purpose, but represents approximately one cycle parking facility (generally Sheffield stand or locker) for every 100-200 users, equivalent to the TfL recommendation for a non-interchange or district interchange rail station. Table 4.1: Baseline Recommended Parking Provision for Metrolink Stops Metrolink Peak-Time Patronage Baseline Recommended Parking Stands 1-499 500-999 Over 1,000 On-Street City Centre stop 5 8 10 0
For rail stations, a weighting of one cycle parking stand per 200 peak-time station entrants has been applied as per TfL guidance. Bus station parking standards have been calculated on the basis of one cycle parking stand per every four bus stands. It is acknowledged that GMP Parking Guidelines stipulate a minimum of 10 spaces per bus station, however following consultation with officers at Manchester City Council and site audits demonstrating lower take up of existing cycle parking provision at bus stations, a minimum provision of 1 cycle parking stand per every 4 bus stands is recommended. 4.1.2 Evidence of Demand Table 4.2 demonstrates the weighting that has been attributed to the baseline recommended cycle parking standards as a result of the evidence of demand identified for each station/stop.
26
Table 4.2: Evidence of Demand Evidence of Demand Effect on Baseline Recommended Cycle Parking Standard Increase minimum recommended standard by 25% No change Reduce minimum recommended standard by 20% Example Existing cycle parking facilities at or near capacity. Existing cycle parking facilities utilised, but not at capacity. Existing parking facilities unused or underutilised (>10%)
High Medium Low
4.1.3 Bikeability of Surrounding Highway Network As it can be argued that there is likely to be reduced levels of cycling in areas with little or no cycling infrastructure, or areas simply not conducive to cycling, a criterion has been included in the matrix that addresses this factor, with weightings shown in Table 4.3. The bikeability of the surrounding highway network is assumed to be for an average cyclist. Table 4.3: Bikeability of Surrounding Highway Network Bikeability of Effect on Baseline surrounding Highway Recommended Cycle Parking Network Standard Increase minimum recommended standard by 25%
Example Station in close proximity to National or Regional Cycle Route (e.g. Radcliffe). Cycle lanes and signage in place to assist cyclists access the station. Provision for cyclists on busier roads. Area around station may not provide cycle infrastructure but experiences low traffic flows (e.g. residential area). Roads providing access to station experience heavy traffic flows. Lack of cycling facilities in the immediate area.
Good
Moderate
No Change
Poor
Reduce minimum recommended standard by 25%
4.1.4 Natural Surveillance Table 4.4 demonstrates how the level of natural surveillance affects the recommended proportion of cycle parking is comprised of lockers: Table 4.4: Natural Surveillance Natural Surveillance Effect on Recommended Cycle Parking Type Example A staffed station (e.g. Victoria) would represent an example of a station that provides good natural surveillance. In addition, stations located in areas of high footfall also benefit from improved natural surveillance (e.g. Piccadilly). The level of natural surveillance is satisfactory; however there may be room for improvement, such as the introduction of lighting or cutting back vegetation. An unstaffed station, with low footfall and poorly lit.
High
25% of cycle parking provision comprised of lockers
Medium
50% of cycle parking provision comprised of lockers 75% of cycle parking provision comprised of lockers
Low
27
4.1.5 Minimum Recommended Cycle Parking Provision Calculation Using a combination of these criteria, a baseline recommended cycle parking standard for each station can be calculated. Where cycle parking is being provided at rail stations and Metrolink stops, a minimum of 5 spaces should be provided, even if the matrix indicates a reduced level. Table 4.5 demonstrates this calculation using Sale Metrolink Station as an example. Table 4.5: Baseline Recommended Cycle Parking Provision - Example Calculation Element Input Score
Patronage Current Demand Bikeability
Over 1,000 peak time users Low Moderate
10 stands Decrease by 25% No Change
Baseline Recommended Parking Provision: 8 cycle parking facilities Natural Surveillance Moderate 50% of parking facilities comprised of lockers
Recommendation Provision for Sale Metrolink: 4 Sheffield Stands and 4 Lockers (effectively accommodating a maximum of 12 cyclists at any one time) As discussed, where the matrix generates a recommendation of below five parking stands, the minimum should be applied. 4.1.6 Interchanges It is considered that whilst interchanges can offer economies of scale in terms of the provision of shops and services that may not otherwise be viable, there is limited impact on the number of cycle parking facilities required. Patronage remains the primary indicator of the number of passengers who are likely to cycle to a transport hub. Therefore, the matrix combines the totals for Metrolink, rail and bus based on the assumptions set out in Section 4.1.1. However, when considering the location of cycle parking facilities, it may be appropriate to group recommended provision in a central location to ensure cyclists are able to easily find an available space and reduce the amount of signage required. 4.1.7 City Centre Metrolink Stops It is considered that City Centre Metrolink stops are distinct from others on the Metrolink network with regard to potential demand for cycle parking provision. There is a large number of existing cycle parking facilities in the city centre which can be used by cyclists. Also, given that the City Centre represents the destination for many cyclists, it can be expected that workplaces will, in many cases, provide sheltered and secure cycle parking facilities, as well as lockers. It is not considered likely that those who live in the City Centre would cycle a short distance to a City Centre stop, lock their bicycle to adjacent parking facilities and continue their onward journey by tram. In addition, space limitations and the likely abuse of freestanding lockers (particularly during the night) would limit the potential for the installation of cycle lockers. It is recommended that no additional cycle parking provision is installed at City Centre Metrolink stops and instead additional lockers are provided at City Centre terminus stops (e.g. Piccadilly Station).
Good Practice Quick Reference Guide
29
Good Practice Quick Reference Guide
5.1 Good Practice Quick Reference Guide This section has been developed to provide examples of good practice already found at bus and Metrolink stations around Greater Manchester that can be used to inform future developments. These examples have been split into five key themes:
-
Movement and Comfort; Accessibility; Legibility; Security; and Cycle Infrastructure. Movement and Comfort
5.2
Stop infrastructure located away from movement zone
High quality arrival points and gateways
Permeability for internal and external destinations
Rationalisation of furniture and removal of unnecessary clutter
Sufficient infrastructure to accommodate sporting and cultural events
Provision of shelter from the elements and seating
30
Seamless interchange between modes tram/bus/rail
Layout of facilities aids movement
Conspicuous use of infrastructure to ease navigation around stations and interchanges
Key desire lines served improves access to stations/stops
High quality legible internal station signage, detailing facilities within the station and the surrounding area
Well-defined corridor through station aids movement
31
5.3
Accessibility
Ramp with gentle gradient facilitating access for disabled persons
When crossing tramlines clear visibility, level surfacing and correct use of tactile paving
High quality surfacing
Avoidance of obstacles
Consistent use of design and materials within stations and interchanges
Surfaces and materials designed to provide visual and physical contrast
32
Accessible entrances should be in prominent locations and well signposted
Clear and legible signage throughout transport sites. The use of symbols aids legibility.
Careful consideration of all users
Clearly defined pedestrian route between Town Centre and Metrolink Station included raised crossings aids accessibility to and from the station
Tactile information, prominent handrails and resting points on stairs improve station accessibility
Appropriate pedestrian crossing provision improves access to stations/stops
33
5.4
Legibility
Prominent signage to and from the surrounding area
Use of surface treatments to guide pedestrians
Provision of maps and information about the local area.
Within bus stations provide clear visibility and access between bus stands
Good sightlines to and from entrances and between modes
Provision of operational information at prominent locations
34
Changes in level should be accessible for all users
Clearly displayed service and timetable information
Bus station signed as part of Town Centre signing strategy 5.5 Security
Use of logos to aid legibility of destinations
High levels of surveillance
Visible CCTV coverage deters criminality and enhances the feeling of security
35
Cycle parking located in prominent locations with high levels of surveillance. Provision for long and short stay parking
Use of high quality lighting to supplement natural light
Use of natural light improves sense of security for passengers
High levels of footfall improve natural surveillance
Access management encouraging the use of some spaces whilst discouraging the use of others
Formal human security through patrols, staffing or information points
36
5.6
Good positioning and high quality infrastructure promotes cycling as a transport mode. Natural surveillance enhances safety
Consistency in provision
Safe, secure and accessible cycle parking
Covered provision for longer stay parking
Easy to use facilities used by all members of the community Well spaced and easy to use
Signed connections to and from the surrounding cycle networks
37
Safe and segregated routes connecting cyclists to public transport and cycle parking
Parking should be located as close as possible to the final destination without forming an obstruction to movement or a hazard to safety
Signage of cycle parking facilities informs cyclists of their availability and location
Cycle parking facilities located parallel with the platform to maximise available width
Sheltered cycle parking facilities built into the station fabric in an attractive environment
Cycle direction incorporated into existing signage
38
Cycle parking design consistent with that of surrounding street furniture
Cycle lane in the vicinity of the station
Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) on junctions near station provide a degree of priority for cyclists
Shared pedestrian-cycle route with appropriate signage and markings
Appendix A: GMPTE Stakeholder Consultation
40
Appendix A: GMPTE Stakeholder Consultation

As part of the development of this Walking and Cycling Design Guidance, GMPTE consulted key cycling stakeholder groups, including local authority officers and cycling user groups. In particular, opinions were sought on the type, location and use of cycle parking provision at transport hubs. Tables A.1 to A.8 detail the responses to the research questions and Table A.9 lists the individuals/groups that responded. Table A.1: Where should storage be located for easy access & how can access be improved? Response On the platform where possible. Conveniently placed near station facilities. Not blocked by parked cars. Within the station building. Visible from/close to station entrance. Not up steps, or have narrow 'gulley' on the sides of stairs for bike to be wheeled in while ascending/descending. Should not compromise pedestrian routes. Routes to cycle parking provided and identified. Dropped kerbs. 1 Quantity Individuals Groups 3 3 1 3 7 3 2 3 4 2 2 1 2 1
Table A.2: How can we improve the availability of storage/ make sure there is sufficient storage available for occasional users? Response Overspill facilities provided. Better management of the cycle storage scheme using smart card system. Increasing quantity of stands/allowing room for expansion. Using stands and lockers that are available to all. Monitor existing usage. Pay as you go' lockers. A way of checking availability online. Padlocks for sale on-site or in cafs/shops. As cycle parking grows, remove car parking. 6 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Quantity Individuals Groups 2 1 1 1
41
Table A.3: Should storage be available at all locations (e.g. bearing in mind different levels of security)? Quantity Response Yes. Ask for feedback from station staff. All stations whether staffed or unstaffed should have adequate security to protect the travelling public. No. Individuals 10 1 3 3 1 Groups 2
Table A.4: How can we maximise the usage of lockers? Quantity Response Mix of coin for casual users and swipe card for regular. Better advertising. Not charging for their use. Free for all. Having them maintained by station management. Offer 'free' insurance as part of the cost to use. You shouldn't. Lockers for more than one bike. Ensure all lockers are of sufficient size for all bikes. Individuals 1 7 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 Groups 1 4
Table A.5: Should charging be per use, or a one-off charge? Quantity Response Individuals On demand system could be run for a small charge. Raise finances via other methods; corporate locker rental, leasing programs and advertising. No charging Per use Initial membership of 1-2 months after which users need to renew it. Mixture of subscription lockers and 'Pay as you go' lockers. Rentals for defined periods or tie-in with season tickets. One-off charge. 4 1 1 3 4 1 2 1 2 Groups 1 1 2
42
Table A.6: What signage is needed to encourage take up (e.g. to the stations, within the station)? Quantity Response Individuals Advertising. Sign at stations showing layout of where parking is allocated. As regards to stations with lockers, information should be available specifically about lockers. Where CCTV is located, signs to acknowledge this. GMPTE need to provide information/marketing. Signage to promote BLUC. Accessibility, visibility and ease of use are more important than signage. Map of local cycle routes leading to the stations. GMPTE Automated Journey Planner should include an option for integrating cycling with public transport. Table A.7: Are there any supporting services that are needed to encourage people to cycle to public transport locations? Quantity Response Individuals Showers/changing rooms and space for clothes/gear or specific lockers should accompany cycle parking. Cycle lanes/safer routes around stations. More capacity for bikes on trains. Bikes on Trams. Increasing public awareness of cycle to work schemes. Cycle centres. Store rooms. Rental bikes. Identify and promote safer routes from residential areas to stations. Ensure platforms can be accessed. Long term breakdown recovery. Cycling Infrastructure (networks) need improving. 1 2 1 1 1 5 7 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Groups 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 9 7 1 1 3 1 Groups 3 2 2
43
Table A.8: Anything else, not covered above, that you feel is important? Quantity Response Need to be able to more easily take bikes on public transport. More space on trains and allow for bikes on Trams. Get me home' packs sold in stores. Encourage regular rides amongst cyclists. Some staff and stations seem very anti-cycling. Campaigns to promote the health/financial benefits of cycling. Advertising that you can combine cycling and public transport. Properly integrating cycling and public transport. 20mph speed limits for cars. Funding. Perhaps branded parking. Publish results of this consultation, including on website. Adult Cycle Training. 1 1 1 Individuals 5 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Groups 2
Table A.9: Consultees Name Liz Madge Stockport Cyclists (forwarded by Nikolai Matuszczak, Assistant Cycling Officer, Stockport) Robert Sawyer Steve Bowater Fiona Reynolds Phoebe Spence Richard Moss Richard Alderson Peter Green Andy Shaw (received via Nikolai Matuszczak, Stockport Council) Paul Bruffell Chris Wigley John Brown (via Don Naylor, Stockport Council) Paul Wilson (via Peter Kidd, Salford) rey.dmrk@yahoo.com Levno Plato Tim Blackwell (via Bill Harropp) Dave Stewart Laura Prendergast Aubrey McCreesh Dominic Smith Authority/Organisation (where known) BUG member Stockport Cyclists Group CycleWilmslow GM Cycling Campaign NHS Salford CUG/BUG member Cyclists Touring Club Sustrans
Oldham Council
University Cyclists, Manchester Rochdale Cycle Forum Bolton Council Manchester Cycle forum
44
Name Phil Hardy David Mckelvey (via Peter Kidd, Salford) Andrew Hough Steve Essex Oliver West Don Naylor Roy Bradshaw Pete Abel Mary Brooks
Authority/Organisation (where known) Bike Right Individual Manchester Metropolitan University Transport Initiatives Manchester City Council Stockport cyclists Love Your Bike Stockport Cycle Users Group
Appendix B: Existing Policy & Guidance
46
Appendix B: Existing Policy & Guidance
National Policy Local Transport Plan 3 Since the Local Transport Act 2000, there has been a statutory duty for all local transport authorities to produce a Local Transport Plan (LTP) on a five yearly basis. Recent guidance for local authorities regarding the development of their LTP3 displays a strong alignment with DaSTS, as the five key goals will provide the overarching criteria by which transport measures are prioritised. The guidance also emphasises the need to align transport and spatial planning and as such LTPs should consider and support Local Development Frameworks (LDFs). Walking and cycling remain important to LTP strategies as targets for increasing their use are made and due to their contribution to other components of the strategy. Walking and cycling is seen as a means by which environmental improvements can be made as people are less likely to use the car for short journeys with complementary benefits including contribution to improving air quality, climate change and health agendas. Journeys to stations provide a realistic opportunity by which shifts to walking and cycling can be made for journeys to stations. Since February 2009, the six metropolitan counties located outside of Greater London were given sole responsibility for formulating Local Transport policies and plans for their areas. Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority (GMITA) has the duty to produce this document for the area, and is to be submitted by March 2011. It is to consist of a standalone strategy and supplementary implementation plan for each constituent authority. Greater Manchesters LTP2 target is to increase cycling by 6% between 2005 and 2010 and reduce the recent rate of walking decline to only -5% from 2004 to 2010 (number of individual walk trips / person / year in Greater Manchester). GMPTE has a role in helping to meet these targets as well as those identifed by LTP3. The objectives of GMLTP3 are also to be informed by those of the Greater Manchester Strategy, which has identified a number of key sub regional objectives for the LTP: -
Prioritise cost-effective major transport interventions that will create maximum economic benefit to the city region, subject to positive social and environmental outcomes overall; Improve access from residential areas, particularly housing growth points, to key education and employment areas, particularly the Regional Centre and Town Centres, Trafford Park and other strategic employment sites; Improve the efficiency and reliability of the transport networks; Improve surface access to Manchester Airport; Improve road safety; Enhance personal safety and security; and Address the challenges of climate change through an integrated approach to transport network and demand management across all modes that optimises use of the network, provides users with a full range of affordable low carbon transport options, and reduces their need to travel.
Active Travel Strategy Currently England has particularly low levels of walking and cycling when compared to Europe, where as many as 26% of trips are cycled in the Netherlands (this compares to just 2% in England). The DfT 2010 Active Travel Strategy has identified that walking and cycling have an integral role in local transport and public health strategies. Aligning health and transport strategies through greater co-ordination has the potential to increase the popularity of walking and cycling. Both modes have great potential to be a means by which people incorporate physical activity into their daily lives whilst enhancing accessibility to jobs and services. Poor health and obesity, congestion and accessibility and environmental issues can all be related to a lack of active travel and present particular difficulties when encouraging modal shift. Three key goals have been identified for the strategy which aims to overcome these challenges:
47
Promote better public health and well-being by increasing levels of physical activity, particularly among the most inactive people in our society; Increase accessibility and reduce congestion; and Improve air quality and reduce carbon emissions.
The strategy aims to achieve these goals by improving accessibility to key destinations (such as stations) by active travel modes whilst also promoting the activities themselves. The strategy also emphasises alignments with road safety through reducing injury and fatality risk on roads. Walking and cycling represent cost effective interventions which contribute to tackling the identified challenges. The strategy emphasises that integrated walking and cycling programmes in LTPs can get more people active and deliver significant benefits, thus offering high value for money. National Guidance on Cycle Provision The DfT has published policy guidance which defines the Governments position on providing infrastructure for cyclists and guidance on best practice for cycle infrastructure. As such, these guidelines have provided the minimum standards underpinning the guidance in this document. LTN 2/08 LTN 2/08 is a design guide which brings together and updates previously available guidance available through Local Transport Notes and other documents. The document covers England, Wales and Scotland with a focus on infrastructure for cyclists, although equally some of the guidance has relevance to provisions for pedestrians. It identifies a hierarchy of provision for consideration when designing for cyclists with consideration given in the following order: -
Traffic Volume Reduction; Traffic Speed Reduction; Junction Treatment, hazard site treatment, traffic management; Reallocation of carriageway space; Cycle tracks away from roads; and Conversion of footways/paths to shared use for pedestrians and cyclists.
The guidance refers to The Manual for Streets (DfT/CLG, 2007) and the hierarchy of users which it has established. At the top of this hierarchy, pedestrians are placed alongside provision for those with disabilities followed by cyclists, then public transport with unaccompanied private-car users last. The principle of this ordering is to ensure that the most vulnerable road users are fully considered in all highway schemes (although not necessarily giving priority to pedestrians and cyclists). Five core principles have been identified as desirable design requirements for pedestrians and cyclists: -
Convenience; Accessibility; Safety; Comfort; and Attractiveness.
In terms of cycle parking, it advises that cycle parking standards should include advice on the quality of equipment required.
48
Traffic Advisory Leaflet 05/02 The DfTs Traffic Advisory Leaflet 05/02 provided guidance on best practice for cycle parking provision in July 2002. It identifies the role that good cycling provision has in encouraging travel by this mode. In support of this, research carried out by the Automobile Association entitled Cycling Motorists found that 86% of cyclists interviewed considered that there was insufficient cycle parking in public spaces, and equally high numbers said that they would cycle more if secure cycle parking was available. Wider surveys have also identified that secure cycle parking is the most important factor in deciding to travel by bike. The guidance reflects upon the importance of understanding trip type (be it collection and delivery of items/ shopping type visits/ meetings and appointments/ workplace/ or domiciliary parking) and emphasises the importance of sensible locations for cycle parking. It also provides guidance on design, management and maintenance of infrastructure, whilst reflecting that To be properly used, the range of solutions should reflect the wide range of trip purposes. With proper planning and specification, sites are shown to generate increased cycle use by example. The consideration of a whole life package is, however, a key element if the momentum is to be maintained.
Cycling England Cycling England is an independent, expert body that looks to encourage greater amounts of cycling across the country as well as targeting safer cycling. Formed in 2005 by the DfT, it promotes the growth of cycling in England by championing best practice and channeling funding to partners covering training, engineering and marketing. As well as offering guidance through a professional design team, it provides direction through a Design Checklist and Guidance, policy integration and definition of Design Principles. Through promoting best practice and its definition of design principles, Cycling England provides advice on establishing cycle friendly infrastructure and making conditions safer and more convenient for cyclists. Safety can be enhanced through reductions in traffic volumes and speed and through engineering solutions. The organisation stresses the importance of considering maintenance, scheme prioritisation, route selection and signing and strategy when designing for cyclists.
DfT Bike and Rail Policy (2004) The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) published this document as cycling policy advice and guidance to Train Operating Companies (TOCs) shortly before it was wound up. The DfT now has adopted the policies included in the document. Advice is provided on a range of policies and activities covering a breadth of issues and scenarios to help improve integration between the modes. It provides information on the carriage of bikes on trains, whilst also reviewing cycle parking, access to stations, cycle hire and cycle centres at stations and information to cyclists using the rail network for part of their journey. Following the undertaking of consultation exercises, the SRA has identified a number of features required by cyclists that inform whether people will consider combining bike and rail journeys. These are as follows: -
Access roads road safety, traffic signals, signage, dropped kerbs, cycle lanes;
49
Access within stations facilities to aid the movement of cycles around stations, in particular wheeling channels on steps; Ticketing, reservation and booking systems for cycle carriage (where required); Cycle parking provision availability, location, convenience, weather protection and security. 25% of commuters would say that they would find it advantageous if cycle parking and access were improved to allow them to cycle from home to the station; Restrictions, charges, facilities, and space for carrying cycles on trains; Information to plan journeys with confidence, passengers need to know in advance whether they will be able to carry their cycles on trains, and whether appropriate cycle parking will be available; Signage to stations and to facilities within stations; and Signage on trains indicating the location of cycle storage facilities.
Commuters who wish to combine cycle and rail journeys at times where cycle carriage on trains is not permitted might consider: -
Cycling at one end of their journeys and leaving their cycle parked; Using a folding cycle and carrying this with them on their train journey; Keeping a cycle at either end of their journey (with consequent additional demand for secure overnight parking); and Utilising cycle hire facilities, where available, at one or both ends of their journey.
The SRA identified a number of polices in their guidance to provide assistance for TOCs and also station operators and local authorities. The following key policies have been identified: -
Station operators should actively engage with the local highway authorities to improve access for cyclists to stations and seek their assistance to ensure that access is easy, safe and well sign posted; Station operators should, where they exist and where possible, provide good access for cyclists over private approach roads, including provision of facilities that link with Highway Authority provisions; When carrying out enhancement or refurbishment schemes to station grounds, station operators should consider provision of appropriate facilities for cycle access; and TOCs should actively pursue joint funding to facilitate station enhancement projects.
The SRA specified that for new rolling stock, TOCs should consider whether dedicated space for cycle carriage (including handcycles, tricycles and tandems) and flexible space that can accommodate cyclists, can economically be provided. Ultimately however, it will be up to the operators to decide the level of dedicated and shared space for cyclists. Folding cyclists should generally be accommodated but where it is not in the best interests of passengers to do so in peak periods, it may be considered that there are circumstances where it is not safe to do so. Generally the presumption should be that non-folding cyclists can be carried on off-peak services, although the following conditions may apply: -
Place restrictions on the numbers of non-folding cycles that can be carried where this is in the interest of other passengers; Operate a pre-booking system, though pre-booking should be optional and not mandatory; Where pre-booking is available and a reservation charge is incurred by the passenger for this service, the prebooking should guarantee that passenger designated space for their cycle; Refuse the boarding of cycles (when it has not been pre-booked) where all dedicated spaces are filled and constraints on flexible space make carriage prohibitive; Charge for the carriage of non-folding cycles, though this charge should not exceed the cost of a standard passenger ticket; The carriage of folding cycles that can be safely accommodated as luggage within the passenger saloon should be unrestricted and should not be charged for; and Where appropriate and commercially viable to do so, train operators may use other ways of satisfying the demand for the carriage of cycles and may make a reasonable charge for such a service.
50
Local Guidance on Cycle Provision COPECAT Concise Cycle & Pedestrian Audit The Greater Manchester Concise Pedestrian & Cycle Audit (COPECAT) was produced to provide authorities with a consistent framework for pedestrian and cycle infrastructure across the conurbation. The guidance was put in place to provide an audit checklist on the provision of infrastructure for schemes to ensure that appropriate pedestrian and cycle standards are achieved. Included in the audit is the need to assess public transport schemes including stops and stations. It identifies the need to be fully accessible to all pedestrians, wheelchair users and cyclists where appropriate. In accessing interchanges, the framework ensures that users identify whether routes are safe, secure and convenient (for all users) and whether they are clearly marked. It suggests that pedestrian and cycle routes should cross Metrolink tracks at 90 degrees where feasible, whilst the rail height should be flush or thereabouts with the carriageway and tactile paving should be in place.
Greater Manchester Cycling Strategy The LTP2 Cycling Strategy builds upon the previous plan setting the objectives for this mode in Greater Manchester whilst concurrently supporting the aspirations of the Greater Manchester Strategy. The strategy identifies two objectives: -
Increasing the opportunities for cycling, especially to key centres, employment, education, healthcare and community facilities from deprived areas; and Increasing the number and proportion of trips made by cycle, especially where this involves a modal shift from car use.
Included in its established policies, it suggests that specific journeys and groups should be targeted as they are more appropriate or have greater potential for yielding increases in cycling. Included in the targeted journeys are those involving a rail or Metrolink stage. The following have been identified as being the key target groups: -
School pupils and students; Commuters; Leisure cyclists; and Those who are health or environmentally conscious.
In setting its policy for cycle infrastructure, it suggests that coherent, high quality local cycle networks and facilities should be provided. For maintenance, the LTP Maintenance Strategy and Transport Asset Management Plans are identified as being the mechanisms by which the quality of infrastructure should be upheld. The key indicator to be reported as part of the LTP2 progress reports was identified as being to increase recorded flows by 6% by 2010/11 from a 2003/04 baseline. A subsidiary indicator has been identified for the monitoring of use of cycle parking at key locations, including public transport interchanges, whilst carriage of bicycles on trains is a further indicator. Existing Cycle Parking Guidance Cycle parking is a crucial element of providing a holistic cycle-friendly environment. Integration with public transport is also key to encouraging more people to travel more sustainably and cycle parking at stations and interchanges is essential to providing a whole- journey approach. Provision should be sufficient to meet the level of demand in the area, whilst also ensuring that there is sufficient capacity for future growth. Cycle parking should accommodate the different requirements of users by
51
accommodating both short and longer stay users with consideration given to the design, location and quality of infrastructure. Table B.1 provides a summary of good practice identified by Cycling England, identifying the key issues associated with providing high quality cycle parking. Table B.1: Cycle Parking Good Practice Cycle parking - Good practice Visible Parking facilities should be well signed, easy to find and benefit from good natural surveillance. Good positioning and high quality facilities will help demonstrate the importance of cycling as a transport mode. Parking should be located as close as possible to the final destination (generally within 30m). It should be easy to get to, involving no detours, and should be well laid out with no difficult ramps or awkward stands to deal with. It should give cyclists the confidence that their bike will still be there when they return. Adequate provision should be made for the bicycle to be secured with its owners lock unless other security arrangements make this unnecessary. The facility should help users feel personally secure - those that make users feel at risk will not be used. In places such as shopping areas, small clusters of stands at frequent intervals are usually better than larger concentrations at fewer sites. The level of protection from the weather should be appropriate for the length of stay. Poor protection at long-term parking places will deter cycle use. Parking facilities should be easy to use by all members of the community, accept all types of bicycle, and adequately support the frame. Cycle racks that require a bicycle to be lifted are often ignored in favour of locations requiring less effort, such as railings or street furniture. Bikes parked too close together can cause cables and handlebars to snag. Where provided, locking mechanisms should not be difficult to operate and instructions easily understood. Racks and other support systems which only grip the front wheel should not be used since they provide poor stability and do not allow the frame to be secured. Also if one bike falls, it can damage not only itself but those next to it. Cycle parking should not be sited where it will get in the way of pedestrians, especially those whose vision is impaired. Abandoned bicycles should be promptly removed. Charges (if any) should be set at a level that will encourage use. Coin-operated locks should be properly maintained and not attract thieves. The process of paying charges for renting lockers etc. should be as simple as possible. Automated systems or electronic smart card operation should not create delays at peak periods. The design of facilities should be sensitive to their surroundings. It should also attract in the sense that users do not feel personally at risk because facilities are out of sight. It should relate well to other cycle infrastructure. There should be no road safety hazards, such as dangerous junctions or severance by busy roads likely to create a barrier to its use. Where possible, signed identified routes leading directly to the cycle parking should be provided. Where provided at public transport interchanges or city centres as cycle centres, opportunities to combine with cycle hire, repair and tourism activities should be exploited.
Accessible
Safe and Secure
Consistently available Covered Easy to use
Fit for purpose
Well managed and well maintained Attractive Coherent
Linked to other needs of cyclists
Greater Manchester Cycle Parking Guidelines In the development of the Greater Manchester LTP, guidance on parking was developed including for cycle parking. For stations, a minimum recommended standard of 10 spaces per Railway/Bus station and tram stop has been identified. In the 2002 Greater Manchester Cycle Parking Guidelines document developed by the Greater Manchester LTP Cycling Group, a description of the appropriate infrastructure for short and long-stay parking has also been identified with the criteria summarised in Table B.2.
52
Table B.2: Greater Manchester Cycle Parking Guidelines Element Long Stay (Over 2 hours) Design
-
Short Stay (Up to 2 hours) Sheffield style racks, or wall-mounted bars. Wheel slots and butterfly racks are not suitable. Approx Dimensions
-
Cycle Lockers or Secure Compound.
Specification
Site specific but with greater security and cover than short-stay. Restricted access preferable. Cycles individually locked to fixed items such as Sheffield stands within a fenced compound, or the cycle locker within compound/locker. Cycles should be protected from the weather by a roof over stands. Secure storage for accessories preferable.
Sheffield stands 1m length, 0.8m height. Each stand to have at least 0.5m clear space surrounding it, and 1m between stands. Wall bars to be 0.8m off the ground, and protrude 150mm from wall.
Fixing
-
Either bolted into concrete through fixing plates, or preferably embedded to a depth of at least 25mm into concrete 300mm cube.
Materials
-
Signage Location
Facilities should be signed appropriately. Parking should be close to the building entrance, but security is more important than proximity. Parking should be overlooked by public or staff, or at least by CCTV cameras, to maximise the actual and perceived level of security. The site should be well lit. Parking should be easily reached from access routes. Location of facilities should avoid conflict with pedestrians, particularly partially sighted people.
Steel tube or similar, of at least 40mm diameter. Preferably galvanised and plastic coated. Stands should be signed appropriately. Stands should be close to the building entrance. If there is more than one entrance to the building, consideration should be given to having smaller groups of racks at each entrance. Parking should be overlooked by public or staff, or at least by CCTV cameras, to maximise the actual and perceived level of security. Parking should be easily reached from access routes. Location of racks should avoid conflict with pedestrians, particularly partially sighted people. Parking should be preferably under cover and well lit. Normally on a first come, first served basis
Operation
Additional Facilities
Normally restricted to registered users or key holders, although lockers may be made available on a first come first served basis. Consideration should also be given to the provision of a shower and changing facilities, and a drying room.
N/A
South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) By comparison, in the conurbation of South Yorkshire, cycle parking standards at rail and supertram stops were identified in 2008 as part of the wider strategy for these modes. The following standards were identified by the SYPTE. Minimum requirement Three Sheffield Stands set into concrete footings or bolted to paved or tiled surfaces using security bolts;
53
It suggests that the stands should be made of tubular steel (dia. 50mm) with a length of 700mm and a height of 750mmm; and Stands should be 1000mm apart and appropriately signed.
Ideal Provision Three Sheffield Stands under a shelter with side protection and appropriate signing and CCTV. High Risk Areas The guidance identifies that for areas where there are particular risks relating to cycle theft horizontal Dog Kennel type lockers should be provided with CCTV coverage and appropriate signage. Cycle Parking Design Guidance Standards A comparison of key guidance has been summarised in Table B.3 using national and local standards highlighting the suggested design metrics for cycle parking facilities in terms of dimensions the fixings required, materials, operation and any other issues for consideration which apply to the following types of cycle parking infrastructure: -
Sheffield Stands; Wall Loops/ Anchor Points; Cycle Lockers; Cycle Secure Compounds; and Double Decker Stands and Vertical Hangers.
Please note that wheel slots have not been considered as guidance highlights that as they do not provide any level of security, they should not be introduced for cycle parking.
54
Table B.3: Cycle Parking Design Standards Comparison

Cycle Infrastructure Local Transport Note 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design Length 700 1000mm (700mm recommended) Height 750mm (+/- 50mm) Tube diameter 50-90mm (large diameter is more secure) Corner radii 100-250mm Stands placed 1000 -1200mm Ends of stands should be 600mm clear of walls and kerbs to allow for bicycle wheels A stand parallel to a wall or kerb should be at least 300mm from the wall to allow use on one side only or 900mm to allow use of both sides A bike length of clear space in front of the stand Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/02, DfT (2002
-
Transport for London Design Guidance

-
Dimensions
900mm to 1200mm long 750 800mm (max) height Two vertical supports 37-80mm tubes (larger tube sizes preferable Suitable space between stands to enable locking
Fixing
Either be set in concrete (depth 300mm) or bolted into the surface of paved or tiled areas Toast racks offer ease of installation but can be less user friendly
If toast racks are installed fix to flat hard surfaces such as pavements/ platforms using fixing bolts
Length 7001000mm (700 recommended) Height 750mm, (below ground 250mm (if set in concrete) 50-75mm diameter Thickness of tube wall 2.5mm minimum Corner radii 100-250mm Distance between stands: 1000 1200mm Minimum distance from wall/perimeter line located either to the side of the stand or in front of it: 300mm for single sided use and 900mm double sided use Stands can be angled at 45 to save space Sheffield stands located near a kerb should be at least 0.6m from the edge of the kerb Concrete preferred (although at some locations bolting may be required due to potential structural damage) Bolts: if not set in concrete, at least two high security bolts
Greater Manchester Cycle Parking Guidelines 1m long 0.8m height 1m between stands 0.5m clear space from adjacent wall/ structure
Greater Manchester Police - Design for Security Length 7001000mm Height 750mm (+/-50mm) Tube diameter 50-90mm (larger diameter is more secure) Corner radii 100-250mm Stands should be a clear 1000mm apart Toast rack style facilities should conform to those of Sheffield stands.
Sheffield Stands
Preferably embedded to a depth of at least 25mm (300mm concrete cube) Alternatively can be bolted into concrete through fixing plates
Security bolts for base plates. Otherwise, stands should have 'below ground' fixings, in a concrete foundation (300mmx300m mx300m)
55
Local Transport Note 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design
Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/02, DfT (2002
Transport for London Design Guidance through each base plate 150x150x6mm base plate welded to posts if bolted to surface Preferred coating for stands is nylon (not plastic) on galvanised tubing Located close to the destination (within 25m for short stay) Viewed by CCTV Stands located where potential for damage or accidents is minimised Stands should be covered where possible
Greater Manchester Cycle Parking Guidelines
Greater Manchester Police - Design for Security
Materials
Finishing can include plain galvanised steel, powder coated colours or a durable plastic coating
Steel tube of at least 40mm diameter Preferably galvanised and plastic coated Close to building entrance(s) Overlooked or at least CCTV coverage Accessible Avoid pedestrian conflict Well lit Preferably under cover
If covered by shelters the shelter should be visually permeable
Location
Additional Features
A row of stands should be fitted with a tapping rail Additional crossbar provides additional security and tapping rail for the visually impaired Where required additional provision for motorbikes should be provided otherwise the stands may become attractive for motorcyclists
Use of raised sets or tactile paving surface around installation to give warning of footway obstruction Angling stands can reduce width below 700mm
Tapping plate/rail benefits sight impaired, mid rail provides extra stability and locking positions
56

-
Operation
Whole life maintenance and management should be considered (station management ) 700 -750mm from the ground Project no more than 50mm from the wall Set at a minimum pitch to park a bike every 1800mm or run as a continuous rail
-
Greater Manchester Cycle Parking Guidelines First come first served basis
Dimensions
Designs are typically simple rings and bars Loops or bars 600-750mm from the ground will be close to the tube of a conventional adult bike They should project a maximum of 50mm from the wall Spaced at intervals of at least 1800mm to prevent overlap Agreement is required with the owners of the wall Stands that support bikes by gripping the front wheel are not preferred
Fixing rings of about 150mm diameter (or bars of at least this length) should be fitted between 700800mm high
Protrude 150mm from wall
Inexpensive, but less secure.
Wall Loops/ Anchor Points Materials
Location
Additional Features
Heritage designs or galvanised or stainless steel are suggested Located close to the destination (within 25m for short stay) Viewed by CCTV Longer and larger bars give greater flexibility
57

-
Greater Manchester Cycle Parking Guidelines
Vertical bars allow smallwheeled foldable cycles to be secured

-
Dimensions
Locking options include padlocks, smartcards and number keypads
Ensure ease of cleaning and airing, ventilation and hygiene Consider durability of finish and ease of graffiti/ billposting removal Consider spares and service parts Well lit Level sites required Consideration should be given to the potential for expanding facilities
Site specific
Materials
Location
Cycle Lockers
Not appropriate for all locations as they can be visually intrusive
Additional Features
Management required
Added value incentives can encourage use Opportunities for advertising revenue Should be easy to use
Located close to the destination (within 50m for longer stay). All cycle parking facilities either within the station or on the public highway directly adjoining are viewed by CCTV Where space permits, secure lockers should be provided for a small charge
Close to building entrance Overlooked or at least CCTV coverage Well lit Accessible Avoid conflict with pedestrians
Protected from the weather Restricted access preferable Secure storage for accessories preferable Consideration given to shower/ changing/ drying facilities
58

-
Operation
Requires information and management system with a defined agreement Available late at night Whole life maintenance and management
Greater Manchester Cycle Parking Guidelines Usually restricted to registered users or key holders. Can be first come first served basis
Greater Manchester Police - Design for Security Lockers are highly recommended but should be subject to thorough management and maintenance
Dimensions Fixing
Site specific Locked to fixed items e.g. Sheffield Stands.

-
Materials
Location
Cycle Secure Compound
Located close to the destination (within 50m for longer stay). Should be viewed by CCTV.
Close to building entrance Overlooked or at least CCTV coverage Well lit Accessible Avoid conflict with pedestrians Protected from the weather Restricted access preferable Secure storage for accessories preferable Consideration given to shower/ changing/ drying facilities Usually restricted to registered users or keyholders. Lockers may be made available on
The compound/ shelter should be visually permeable Used in locations where a high number of bikes are anticipated to be stored for long periods
Additional Features
Operation
Use of a key or swipe card to access Whole life maintenance and management should be
Enclosures are highly recommended but may require additional security. Maintenance
59
Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/02, DfT (2002 considered (station management)
Greater Manchester Cycle Parking Guidelines first come first served basis.
Greater Manchester Police - Design for Security and operation are key considerations.
-
Dimensions
Double Decker Stands and Vertical Hangers
For doubledecker stands a ceiling height of 2.7metres is required along with sufficient space in front of the stands to enable loading Fixing stands at 45 degrees can help minimise the aisle width where space is limited
Requires lifting or mechanical operation. Design must allow both wheels and the frame to be secured and provide adequate space per cycle
Fixing Materials Location

-
Located close to the destination (within 50m for longer stay) and viewed by CCTV.
-
Additional Features Operation

-
Consideration should be given to aspects of security, ease of use, maintenance, purchase and installation costs.
Instructions should be provided More suitable for regular users
Appendix C: GMP Guidance on Spacing of Cycle Stands
ECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation
61
Appendix C: GMP Guidance on Spacing of Cycle Stands
Greater Manchester Police, Design for Security, Cycle Parking Design Guidance Revision A; October 2009

GMPTE Walking and Cycling Design Guide

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

GMPTE Walking and Cycling Design Guide

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

............................................................. Paul Davison Consultant

........................................................................ Tom Marsden Senior Consultant

............................................................. Sarah Farmer Associate Director

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

Air Quality and Carbon Reduction Social Inclusion

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

Way-Finding and Orientation

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

Sheffield Loop type

Does not protect from damage or elements if not covered.

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

Cycle Parking Type Cycle Lockers

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

Cycle Parking Type Space Saving Systems

Sheffield Loop type; Cycle Lockers; and Cycle compounds.

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

Is the station or stop accessible from proposed cycle parking facilities?

Is the area well lit, with natural surveillanceor covered by CCTV?

Existing cycle provision

Locations where cycle parking provision could be located include: -

Locations where cycle parking provision should be avoided include: -

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

Cycle Parking Provision Matrix

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

Cycle Parking Provision Matrix

AECOM Capabilities on project: Transportation

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

High Medium Low