Infrastructure/policy guidance for councils

[jamesbradbury]

Do Cycling UK or other cycling positive groups produce a document for informing councils how to get more people cycling?

My county are consulting on this (as like many they have some money to spend) and want opinions and ideas. While I have plenty of ideas (and I'm sure you all do too), I'm interested in seeing if there's any well-researched guidance on what actually makes cycling safer and more popular. I could say "Do what they do in Holland", but that's not very helpful. There is some detailed guidance from the government here, but it's very much about the detail and perhaps not as ambitious as it could be.

[Shreds]

Ermh, Twelve years out of date and probably based on some of the Sustans Cycle design guides of the late twentieth century. Maybe there is more recent guidance, although I don't spend hours trawling such Govt publications. Hopefully the campaigning part of Cycling UK may be able to grasp the nettle?

[thirdcrank]

There are plenty of briefings for campaigners from CyclingUK

https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigns/briefings

[mjr]

More recent government guidance:

Immediate instructions: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... o-covid-19

Local plans: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -and-tools

National strategy: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... t-involved

Main roads: http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/h ... ic-web.pdf

Local areas: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... or-streets

[jamesbradbury]

@thirdcrank, @mjr - thanks for the links, they look helpful.

[mjr]

"Making Space for Cycling" from the Cambridge Cycling Campaign: www.makingspaceforcycling.org

Sustrans Handbooks may also be worth a look and a bit less politically-unacceptable than Cycling UK or Cycling Campaign group materials: www.sustrans.org.uk

Some councils say they're following the London Cycle Design Standards and related documents despite not being London: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publicatio ... ts-toolkit

[atlas_shrugged]

Oxfordshire CC. Oxfordshire Cycling Standard:
http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/sites/def ... ndards.pdf

CROW, (2016) Design Manual for bicycle traffic ISBN 978 90 6628 494 4. Ede, The Netherlands.

[ChrisButch]

In my view this is the key issue if any real progress is to be made towards useful infrastructure. Given that successive governments are adamant that delivery of cycling infrastructure is a matter for local authorities, there are only going to be results if planning legislation is far more specific on the matter, and far more is mandatory rather than optional. Given the current government's proposals for big changes in planning law, now is the time for the cycling lobby to be putting maximum pressure on SPADs, ministers etc. I very much hope this is now the top priority for CUK, BC etc: but I somehow doubt it.
It's not impossible to change these things. Look at the success of the John Muir Trust (a charity broadly similar in size and scope to CUK) in securing the designation of 'wild land' as a statutory material consideration in Scottish planning law.

[Pete Owens]

To get more people cycling (or indeed for central government to achieve anything delivered by remote authorities) they need to focus on outcomes rather than outputs. Up and down the country councils bid for money from central government to fund their favoured projects - and they will dress these up to appear to meet whatever the governments latest priorities are.

If the council wants to build a massive junction on one of the main utility cycle routes into town that is going to be bad news for cycling whatever dedicated infrastructure is tagged on round the periphery. Yet the whole scheme will be presented as a boost to cycling infrastructure due to the large expenditure on multistage signalised crossings each delaying cyclists and pedestrians progress in order to optimise the flow of motors. No doubt these will all meet whatever standards are set out, but the only purpose of all this supposedly cycle infrastructure is to keep the motors moving.

If the government really wants to promote cycling then the only way to have a real effect on local councils is to pay by results; make their entire transport grant entirely proportional to the amount of cycling in their area. That way if the council wants to build a big new road they will have to encourage a lot of people to ride bikes in order to generate the funds to pay for it.

Of course in the short term this might have unusual effects. Cambridge might get an orbital motorway for example. But other towns looking on enviously will now be motivated to actually promote cycling, rather than just appear to be doing so.

[thirdcrank]

The test is not how much steam is generated, but how far they move the train.

IMO the way to ensure minds are concentrated is for municipal highway chiefs to be made aware that the size of this year's Xmas turkey will be directly proportional to the increase in cycling.

(Thoughts of Chairman Thirdcrank.)

[ChrisButch]

And guess what, Government answers a plea in a CUK Forum thread...

"Active Travel England, to be led by a yet-to-be-appointed commissioner for walking and cycling, will refuse to fund paint-only bike lanes – without physical barriers or protection from cars – or routes where cyclists and pedestrians have to share space. It could also cut budgets in other areas for highways departments which fail to deliver on active transport."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/27/residents-to-get-new-decision-making-powers-in-cycling-revolution

[EMLON]

This would be great if it happens. Where I live we have had decades of residents opposing every single measure and the councils just painting a few random lines on the street to fob cyclists off and pretend they are doing something.
We need to make our voice heard as the car driving lot's is very loud !

[mjr]

The new edition of Cycling Infra Design still allows white li(n)e cycle lanes, but I guess this means UK gov won't pay for them so councils will have to pay for them themselves.

In general, it's a big roll forwards!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... gn-ltn-120

[Richard Fairhurst]

The actual infrastructure guidelines are all things that any highways engineer who hasn't been asleep for the last five years should know (...which rules out many of them). But the real step forward is the statement that Government won't fund substandard schemes. Hopefully this will mean an end to nonsense like the Plain "improvements" in Oxford and that bizarre Bedford turbo roundabout.

[mjr]

But the real step forward is the statement that Government won't fund substandard schemes.

Only if they actually fund a decent number of standard schemes instead!