Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Chapter B9-Integration and Segregation Guidance PDF

Chapter B9-Integration and Segregation Guidance PDF

Ratings: (0)|Views: 142|Likes:
Published by Cian Ginty

More info:

Published by: Cian Ginty on Dec 14, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





B9.1 Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation Guidance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)
Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation Guidance
B9.1 General
This chapter covers the integration or segregation of cycle traffic andmotorised traffic, and is concerned primarily with cycle links. As a general rule junctions will be designed as integrated facilities irrespective of the link treatments leading to and from the junction.This chapter should be read in conjunctionwith:
Chapter B1: Principles of Sustainably SafeRoadsChapter B3
Principles of Managing ConflictChapter B4: Assessment of Quality of ServiceChapter B8: Link OptionsB9.2
Integration refers to the mixing of cycle traffic with general traffic, withoutphysical separation. Integrated facilities include:
Streets with no markings
Streets with advisory cycle lanes (broken line)
Streets with mandatory cycle lanes (solid line) having no physical barrier 
Streets with time-plated facilities
Streets shared between cyclists and pedestrians only
Streets shared between cyclists and trams only
Bus Lanes that allow cyclingThere are a number of benefits to mixing cycle traffic with general traffic,though these should not be read as providing sufficient rationale inthemselves for integration.
B9.2 Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation Guidance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)
Benefits of Integrated Facilities:
Cost effective, i.e. cheaper to provide andmaintain
Environmentally passive
Require less maintenance
More space efficient
Freedom of movement for cyclists
The guiding principle in deciding whether or not to integrate cycle traffic withother traffic should be “Equality of Action”. To achieve this, the designer should consider the following integration checklist:
What type of facility would be appropriate to the environment?
Has specific provision been made for any other mode?
Can the target
Quality of Service
for the cycle provision be achievedwithout segregation?
Would integrated facilities satisfy the
Principles of Sustainable Safety
?Following on from this, a number of other design criteria arise in decidingwhether or not to integrate facilities along a particular link, including:
Intensity & predictability of events
e.g. vehicle loading, stopping andparking; opportunities for cyclists to anticipate or evade hazard (OTA/OTE)
Queue length
approaching junctions – longer queues may requirededicated solid lane up to the junction
Speed differential (time-related)
 – lower traffic volumes at night canencourage greater vehicular speeds
Speed differential (mode-related)
– potential hazard, especially betweencyclists and pedestrians
of a given street – the desire to strike an appropriate balancebetween modes
Volume of pedestrians – 
target Quality of Service for pedestrians
Crossing activity
on the street – likely patterns and predictabilityNotwithstanding the above, integrated facilities are inappropriate for Distributor or multi-lane roads in any circumstances, and in general should notbe used for roads or streets having speed limit of more than 60km/h or trafficvolumes greater than 15,000 vehicles/day.
B9.3 Chapter B9: Integration and Segregation Guidance (Draft National Cycle Manual – July 2009)
Further guidance on the need for segregation of cycle traffic from other modes can be found in the
Traffic Management Guidelines, Chapter 6:
“Traffic Calming on Existing Road
s” and Table 9.2:
“Typical Lane Widths”
. (Seealso Chapter C8:
“Cyclists and pedestrians
and Chapter C10:
“Cycling in buslanes”
, elsewhere in this Manual.)
B9.3 Segregation
The rationale for segregating cycle traffic from other modes can be derivedfrom a range of factors, including:
a. Sustainable Safety (mass, speed & direction conflicts, ref. Chapter B1,Table B1.3)b. Quality of Service improvements
Stated Preference (survey results)
 Design considerations affecting each of these factors are set out below:
a. Sustainable Safety
considerations affecting sustainable safety include:
Presence of HGVs, buses and trams on a route
Have cyclists guaranteed priority (clear access) to the stop line?
Level of comfort along route
Presence of vehicles that are stopped, parked or loading (either obstructing or as danger)
Exposed nature of route, e.g. does it suffer from crosswinds?
Stability of route (hills, number of stops and starts)
considerations affecting sustainable safety include:
speed (i.e. operating speed),
speed limit or average speed
Speed differential between peak and off-peak hours
Differential acceleration of modes from a stop line
Higher speed differentials between modes on inclines
Whether road is also a bus route, and the number of stops and startsthis imposes on cyclists
Dominant function of road/street (segregation essential if vehicular traffic is dominant)
considerations affecting sustainable safety include:
Number and design of junctions, and how cyclists negotiate them
Traffic merges, left and right turns (in these cases, segregation isrequired well in advance of the point of conflict so that all users aremade aware of, and can prepare for, the potential conflict)
Weaving and multi-lane roads

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->