Transport Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Volume 167 Issue TR6 Transport 167 December 2014 Issue TR6
Pages 377–383 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/tran.12.00006
A review of design and maintenance Paper 1200006
guidelines for greenways Received 31/12/2011 Accepted 06/11/2012
Published online 13/05/2013
Manton and Clifford Keywords: pavement design/recreational facilities/transport planning

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

A review of design and

maintenance guidelines for
greenways
j
1 Richard Manton BE, MIEI j
2 Eoghan Clifford BE, PhD, CEng, MIEI (Chartered Engineer)
PhD candidate, Civil Engineering, College of Engineering & Lecturer, Civil Engineering, College of Engineering & Informatics,
Informatics, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland

j
1 j
2

Ireland’s reliance on the private car for transport is having a negative impact on the environment and public health; a
modal shift from driving to cycling has the potential to reduce Ireland’s carbon dioxide emissions and improve public
health. Irish government policy commits to an increase in the modal share of cycling from 2% to 10% and the
establishment of a National Cycle Network. In this network, the length of greenways (off-road cycle trails) will be
maximised, however, no guidance exists for the design, maintenance or route selection of greenways in Ireland.
Furthermore, internationally, while there is diverse literature with guidelines on cycle-route design, to date this has
not been collated and reviewed. This paper reviews literature on the route selection, geometric design, pavement
structure and maintenance of greenways from Ireland, UK, France, Denmark, USA and Australia. The review is of
interest to designers, planners and other stakeholders, and can inform the development of guidelines for the design
and maintenance of new greenways such as those proposed as part of the Nation Cycle Network in Ireland.

1. Introduction
Ireland’s transport, particularly commuting, is overly reliant on
the car – 65% of the commuting population (1.1 million people)
drive to work (CSO, 2012). Between 2000 and 2008, the total
mileage by all private cars increased by 38% (Farrell et al.,
2010). This may be partially due to the increase in distance of the
average commute by 60% to 15.8 km between 1986 and 2006
(CSO, 2007). This unsustainable situation can have a significant
and negative environmental impact. Between 1990 (Kyoto base-
line year) and 2010, greenhouse-gas emissions from transport
increased from 5.2 MtCO2 e (million tonnes carbon dioxide
equivalents) to 11.77 MtCO2 e (EPA, 2011). Some 30% of
commutes are shorter than 5 km long and 50% are shorter than
10 km (CSO, 2007). A modal shift from driving to cycling
therefore has the potential to reduce Ireland’s greenhouse-gas
emissions.
Commuting by car, rather than by active modes such as walking
and cycling, adversely affects health if commuters do not
otherwise achieve the recommended levels of physical activity.
Currently, 62% of Irish people are overweight or obese and one
of the causes of this is a lack of physical activity – 86% of
children and 75% of adults do not get the recommended amount
of physical activity (OECD, 2010). Physical activity, such as
cycling, has been shown to improve physical and mental health
and modal shifts to active modes of transport therefore result in
health benefits for the population. These health benefits in turn
bring economic benefits, which can be quantified using tools
such as the Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) for
walking and cycling (Cavill et al., 2008; Kahlmeier et al.,
2011).
Ireland’s new transport policy to 2020 (DoT, 2009a) and cycle
policy (DoT, 2009b) commit to a fivefold increase in the modal
share of cycling to 10%. The main barrier to the development of
such a cycling culture in Ireland is the lack of appropriate cycling
infrastructure (Browne et al., 2011; Fáilte Ireland, 2007). The
establishment of a 2000-km National Cycle Network has been
proposed by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport
with the intention of connecting urban centres and opening
extensive rural routes in order to correct this infrastructural
deficit. The network will involve an array of route-layout options,
namely, on-road cycle routes, on-road cycle lanes and greenways.
Greenways are off-road routes which cater for non-motorised
traffic alone, designed to enhance the environment and quality of
life of the surrounding area (EGWA, 2000). Greenways are the
preferred form of cycling infrastructure, regardless of cycling
skill level. In Dublin, 74% of people surveyed indicated that

377
Transport A review of design and maintenance
Volume 167 Issue TR6 guidelines for greenways
Manton and Clifford

more greenways would encourage them to begin to cycle to work
(Caulfield et al., 2012). The length of the NCN comprising
greenway routes should be maximised with a view to minimising
interaction with traffic (NRA, 2010).
Detailed guidance exists for the design and construction of on-
road cycle routes and on-road lanes in Ireland (NTA, 2010) and
internationally (CROW, 2007). However, in Ireland, limited
guidance exists for the design of greenways. Indeed, international
design guidelines generally focus on on-road facilities or urban
cycle networks. Furthermore, as greenways often do not follow
roads, a route-selection process is required. Identifying the main
user group(s) and their requirements is therefore crucial for
greenway design. For example, three key user groups have been
identified for the NCN: (a) commuters, (b) cycle tourists and
(c) leisure cyclists. Each of these groups has different require-
ments for the layout and design of cycling routes.
This paper reviews international guidelines and literature from
Europe (Ireland, UK, France and Denmark), the USA and
Australia on the design and maintenance of greenways. The
characteristics and requirements of each of the user groups are
presented enabling designers to maximise route usage and design
appropriate facilities for target user groups. The resulting guide-
lines for the design, route selection and maintenance of green-
ways can be used by stakeholders (such as for the design of the
NCN in Ireland) as a reference to international best practice.
2. User profiles and route selection
Similarly to the National Cycle Network in Scotland (Scottish
Government, 2010), the NCN in Ireland is intended to cater for
unaccompanied cyclists of a minimum of 12 years of age
(cyclists under 12 years are assumed to be accompanied).
Although the NCN is designed to cater for a wide variation of
cycling levels and abilities, this is not proposed to include racing
or mountain cyclists. The three target groups of interest are
outlined below. A background of each group is included as this
informs their requirements in terms of route selection and design
but also the nature of cycling and related policies (Table 1).
2.1 Commuters
In Ireland, 1.1 million people drive to work on a daily basis –
65% of the commuting population. About half of these journeys
are less than 10 km and 30% are less than 5 km – distances that
can be considered reasonable for cycling (CSO, 2012). To
compound this problem, car-occupancy levels are low. Although
65% drive a car to work, only 4.2% travel as a passenger in a car
(CSO, 2012). Cycling to work has fallen from 7.1% in 1986 to
2.1% in 2006 and has seen a small increase to 2.4% in 2011.
Furthermore, the numbers of primary and secondary students
cycling to school have dropped by 80% and 85% respectively
since 1986. This decrease is almost mirrored in an increase in
travel to school by car as a passenger (CSO, 2007; CSO, 2012).
Increasing the numbers commuting daily by cycle to 160 000 is
an objective of the transport policy to 2020 (DoT, 2009a).

Commuter cyclists Cycle tourists Leisure cyclists

Characteristics Vary in age, skill and fitness
Main locations Within 10 km of urban and
industrial areas, educational
institutions
Route-layout Most direct or speediest route
requirements (minimal delays and detours,
optimal speed maintenance)
Route-selection Link as many settlements as
requirements possible
High-quality surface for speed
maintenance
May compromise safety and
interaction with traffic in favour
of directness
Tend to be older, large skill variation, Vary greatly in age, skill and
often heavily equipped and may fitness, may include families
travel in groups
Between urban areas, near tourist Rural areas close to urban
attractions settlements
Long-distance routes, generally Off-road routes, low traffic
off-road, although more experienced volume and speed, smooth
cyclists may prefer on-road surface, minimal gradient,
sheltered
Scenic and interesting routes Scenic and interesting routes
connecting tourist attractions, connecting tourist attractions
cycle loops and urban areas
Food and drink and accommodation Regular resting areas,
facilities, other opportunities to opportunities to buy food and
spend drink
Integration with public transport Integration with public transport
and car parking

Table 1. Route requirements for each user group

(DfT, 2008; Jensen et al., 2000; Lumsdon et al., 2009; Transport
Scotland, 2011; Veith and Eady, 2011)

378
Transport
Volume 167 Issue TR6
Commuting makes up a significant amount of overall journeys
and a large increase in cycle commuting will result in extensive
health benefits and reduction of congestion.
2.2 Cycle tourists
Cycle tourism is an established industry internationally, with an
approximate annual value of A54 billion in Europe (Lumsdon et
al., 2009); however, cycle tourism in Ireland has remained low
over the past ten years. In 2011, of the 4.5 million tourists who
came to Ireland, just 173 000 cycled during their stay (Fáilte
Ireland, 2012). In 2009, these 173 000 cycle tourists spent A97
million (Fáilte Ireland, 2011a).
There are three core factors necessary to attract cycle tourists:
(a) a safe and continuous route, (b) pleasant countryside and
cyclist-friendly villages and cities en route, and (c) clear and
reliable signage and interpretation (Lumsdon et al., 2009).
Traffic-free or traffic-calmed routes and networks linking paths,
towns and attractions are also important requirements for cycle
tourists (Faulks et al., 2006; Lumsdon, 2000). However, in
Ireland, cycling on-road is thought of as being unsafe. This is
primarily due to traffic configuration, available carriageway
width, the speed characteristics of traffic (especially HGVs) and
road surface quality (Fáilte Ireland, 2007). There is little or no
dedicated cycling infrastructure in rural Ireland to attract cycle
tourists.
Ireland has great potential to tap into the European cycle-tourism
market. EuroVelo, a Europe-wide cycling network managed by
the European Cyclists Federation (ECF), comprises twelve long-
distance routes covering 66 000 km. Two of these EuroVelo routes
pass through Ireland: EV 1 ‘The Atlantic Route’ from northern
Norway to southern Portugal covers Ireland’s western coast; and
EV 2, ‘The Capitals Route’ from Moscow to Galway covers
Dublin to Galway (Lumsdon et al., 2009).
Cycle tourists have, on average, been found to spend A353 per
6.6-day trip (Lumsdon et al., 2009). This spend typically breaks
down as 48% on accommodation, 40% on food and drink, 12%
on other (cycle hire, shopping etc.) (ITT et al., 2007). Capital
investment in high-quality cycle infrastructure can thus be
returned through the economic benefits brought by an increase in
cycle tourism. The Great Western Greenway (Figure 1) in County
Mayo in Ireland cost A5.6 million to build in 2009, however, the
route returned a total economic impact of A7.2 million in 2011
alone, the vast majority of which was a result of international and
domestic visitors (Fáilte Ireland, 2011b).
2.3 Leisure cyclists
Recreational sport has increased in Ireland in recent years: Lunn
and Layte (2011) found that 33.5% of people in Ireland actively
participated in sport. Cycling is the sixth-most-popular sport for
adults (behind swimming, exercise, soccer, golf and jogging) with
2.8% of adults cycling for sport. Leisure cyclists are a diverse
group that includes occasional cyclists, experienced cyclists and
A review of design and maintenance
guidelines for greenways
Manton and Clifford
Figure 1. Great Western Greenway, Mayo, Ireland
families, and can complete cycle trips ranging from short cycles
to longer day trips. Many of the requirements of leisure cyclists
are similar to those of cycle tourists. Day cyclists typically spend
A16 per day (Lumsdon et al., 2009), 72% of which is on food and
drink, 8% on public transport, 7% on car costs, 13% on other
(cycle hire, shopping etc.) (ITT et al., 2007).
3. Design
There are a number of examples of greenways and cycle networks
internationally including the Landelijke Fietsroutes (Netherlands),
D-Netz (Germany), Veloland Schweiz (Switzerland), Vias Verdes
(Spain), C2C (UK) as well as the Great Western Greenway in
Ireland. International guidelines to inform the geometric design
and pavement structure of greenways are reviewed and sum-
marised below.
3.1 Width
The width of a greenway must cater for the width of the cyclist
(or other user), manoeuvring space, clearance from fixed objects
and clearance from other users. It may be necessary to increase
width to accommodate large maintenance vehicles or other users.
Additional width is required for edge constraints, such as fences
(DfT, 2008). Table 2 summarises the absolute minimum and
preferred minimum widths for various greenway types. Green-
ways in Ireland’s NCN will generally be two-way unsegregated
shared-use paths for cyclists and pedestrians, and therefore the
recommended width is 2–3 m.
3.2 Speed
The design speed of a greenway depends on: (a) function of the
greenway, (b) user profile, (c) topography, (d) estimated user
speed and (e) direction of prevailing winds (AASHTO, 1999).
Generally, the greenway should accommodate a design speed of
30 km/h (AASHTO, 1999; Highways Agency, 2005a; McRobert
et al., 2008; Minnesota DoT, 2007; UK Roads Board, 2003;
Wisconsin DoT, 2009).
379
Transport A review of design and maintenance
Volume 167 Issue TR6 guidelines for greenways
Manton and Clifford

Facility Absolute minimum Preferred minimum

width: m width: m

One-way cycleway 1.5b,d 2.0b

Two-way cycleway 2.0c,e 3.0c,d,e
Segregated shared use 3.0c 5.0c
.
(1 5 m each) (3 m cyclist, 2 m pedestrian)
Unsegregated shared use 2.0a 3.0a

a ¼ ARUP and Sustrans (1997); b ¼ UK Roads Board (2003); c ¼ Highways Agency (2005a);
d ¼ DfT (2008); e ¼ Sustrans (2009)

Table 2. Preferred minimum and absolute minimum widths of

cycling facilities

3.3 Gradient 3.5 Crossfall

Greenway gradients should be kept to a minimum. Steep inclines
are difficult for many cyclists to climb, particularly less-skilled
cyclists and those with poorly maintained cycles. Steep descents
cause some cyclists to exceed the speeds at which they are
competent or comfortable. Steep gradients also exclude wheel-
chair users from using the facility. In general, the lower the
longitudinal gradient, the more attractive a cycle route will be. A
maximum gradient of 3% is preferred where possible (AASHTO,
1999; ARUP and Sustrans, 1997; Highways Agency, 2005a;
Sustrans, 2009; Transport Scotland, 2011; UK Roads Board,
2003; Veith and Eady, 2011). There should be a gradient of at
least 0.5% to facilitate drainage (i.e. long fall to prevent water
ponding) (NTA, 2010).
3.4 Horizontal and vertical alignment
Design of the horizontal alignment is required to ensure that the
radii of horizontal bends are large enough to provide adequate
visibility at bends – that is, lateral clearance is adequate. The
horizontal radius depends on the super-elevation of the path,
design speed and coefficient of friction. In general, a minimum
horizontal radius of 25 m is recommended (AASHTO, 1999;
Highways Agency, 2005a; DfT, 2008; Transport Scotland, 2011).
A crossfall of around 2% is generally recommended as necessary
to provide adequate drainage. A crossfall of much greater than
2% would cause difficulty for wheelchair users and may be
hazardous for cyclists and other users in icy and wet weather
(AASHTO, 1999; Minnesota DoT, 2007; NTA, 2010; Wisconsin
DoT, 2009).
Table 3 summarises the recommended values for various geo-
metric-design parameters as advised by the literature.
3.6 Materials
The choice of pavement surface for greenways will depend on
four key factors: (a) smoothness, (b) skid resistance, (c) aesthetics
and (d ) available resources. A smooth riding surface is the most
important quality in attracting cyclists to the route. Surface types
include: asphalt, concrete laid in-situ, unbound (e.g. limestone
dust), concrete blocks and clay pavers. For cyclists, asphalt is the
preferred form of greenway pavement surface except in special
cases (AASHTO, 1999; Sustrans, 2009; UK Roads Board, 2003)
and is therefore the only surface presented in this paper. Table 4
shows various flexible pavement structures recommended by the
literature.

Stopping-sight distance (SSD) is the distance required to per- 4. Maintenance – main issues
ceive, react and stop safely in adverse conditions. For the average Cyclists are affected by poor surface quality to a much greater
cyclist the reaction time for braking suddenly is generally 2.5 s, degree than are motorists. Cycles can have thin, highly inflated
therefore SSD is the distance covered in this time plus the
distance covered while braking (Transport Scotland, 2011). The
minimum SSD is generally between 25–35 m (Highways Agency, Parameter Recommended value
2005a; DfT, 2008; Transport Scotland, 2011).
Width 2–3 m (see Table 2)
Design speed 30 km/h
Good vertical-alignment design should ensure that vertical curves
Gradient 0.5–5%
(sag and crest) are not too severe to cause discomfort and that
Crossfall 2%
adequate visibility is provided in the vertical direction. However,
Min. radius of curvature 25 m
sharp sag and crest curves are unlikely to occur on greenways
Min. stopping-sight distance 30 m
given the recommendations for soft gradients. Visibility is
calculated based on cyclists’ height and minimum vertical curves Table 3. Geometric-design summary (references in text)
can then be calculated (AASHTO, 1999).

380
Transport
Volume 167 Issue TR6
Source ARUP and Sustrans Highways UK Roads Board Highways
(1997) Agency (2001) (2003)
Surface 20 mm 20 mm 25 mm
HRA or Dense AC (10 mm nominal aggregate size)1
Base 40 mm 40 mm 40 mm
Dense AC (20 mm nominal aggregate size)2
Sub-base 150 mm 150 mm 200 mm
Type A granular material3
Subgrade CBR . 2.5% Any Any
Notes:
HRA ¼ hot rolled asphalt
AC ¼ asphalt concrete (formerly known as bitumen Macadam)
1 – See NRA MCDRW Series 900, Clause 910 and 912 for specification. Defined in BS EN 13108 (BSI, 2006).
2 – See NRA MCDRW Series 900, Clause 906 for specification. Defined in BS EN 13108 (BSI, 2006).
3 – Known as Type 1 in UK. See NRA MCDRW Series 800, Clause 804 for specification. Defined in BS EN 13285 (BSI, 2010).
Table 4. Flexible pavement structure
tyres (up to 800 kPa) and many do not have shock absorbers.
Furthermore, cyclists must keep themselves balanced as they
pedal and steer. Poor maintenance resulting in surface defects
(cracks or potholes) or the accumulation of debris (glass, sand,
leaves etc.) can easily result in cyclists falling off. Even if the
cyclist manages to stay upright and wobbles, they risk hitting the
kerb, pedestrians or other cyclists, or swerving in front of a car
(DoT, 2009a; Jensen et al., 2000; Minnesota DoT, 2007; NTA,
2010; Veith and Eady, 2011). Debris causes 10–18% of accidents
involving cyclists, and a further 3–7% of accidents are due to
surface defects (Jensen et al., 2000; Schepers and Wolt, 2012).
Poor maintenance also affects cyclists’ comfort and the general
attractiveness of the route. The more uneven the pavement, the
less pleasant it is to cycle, and the more energy is required to
cycle (Jensen et al., 2000; NTA, 2010). If a greenway deterio-
rates, usage will decline and cyclists may use the road as an
alternative or may stop cycling altogether (DfT, 2008). Main-
tenance should be considered as an investment in the greenway
and insurance against larger, more expensive repairs or eventual
replacement (Minnesota DoT, 2007).
Maintenance can be planned or reactive. Planned maintenance is
carried out to a regular maintenance programme including
inspections. The need for reactive maintenance is informed by
these inspections and by the public through reporting systems
such as a website or a telephone hotline (McRobert et al., 2008;
NTA, 2010).
Regular sweeping: this is the most important regular maintenance
activity as cyclists can be destabilised by, or suffer punctures
from, broken glass, sand, litter, leaves and grit. Sweeping should
be carried out by a mechanical sweeper at least every two months
and more frequently in autumn and winter and after storms
(CERTU, 2008; Jensen et al., 2000; NTA, 2010).
A review of design and maintenance
guidelines for greenways
Manton and Clifford
Sustrans (2009) Transport Scotland
Agency (2005b) (2011)
25 mm 20 mm 30 mm
60 mm 40 mm 40 mm
150 mm 150 mm 150 mm
Any Any Any
Surface quality: the main surface defects are cracks, projections
and potholes. Cracks can be longitudinal or transverse to the
direction of travel and are caused by overloading, relative
settlement of the subgrade or by roots. Starting out narrow, cracks
allow water into the pavement structure resulting in further
damage and widening of the crack. Cracks should be sealed as
soon as possible, larger cracking may require an overlay (High-
ways Agency, 2001). Projections can be caused by the sinking of
part of the pavement, the lifting of a slab by roots or settlement
or large potholes (Minnesota DoT, 2007).
Vegetation: cutting or removal of vegetation from the verges of
the path is required to maintain the effective width and visibility
of the greenway. Mowing, flailing or strimming may be used.
Cutting should be carried out once or twice a year, ideally during
the growing season and outside the nesting season. Relevant
habitat-management plans should be consulted (NTA, 2010;
Sustrans, 2009).
Ponding: standing water (more than 10 mm) can make the green-
way impassable, conceal surface defects, increase braking dis-
tance and compromise the structural integrity of the pavement.
Ponding is a result of drainage failure – drainage channels should
be cleared and crossfall and longfall should be also examined
(AASHTO, 1999; CERTU, 2008; DfT, 2008; Minnesota DoT,
2007; NTA, 2010; Sustrans, 2009; UK Roads Board, 2003).
Ironmongery: gullies and covers can sink or break, or the surface
can deteriorate around them, resulting in a hazard for cyclists.
Gullies and gratings should be laid out perpendicular to the
direction of travel and should have gaps of less than 20 mm.
Hazardous ironmongery should be replaced and reset flush with
the surface (NTA, 2010). Ideally, there should be little or no
ironmongery on a greenway.
381
Transport
Volume 167 Issue TR6
Lighting: Standards governing the lighting of roads and footpaths
are available in BS 5489 (BSI, 2013) and guidance for urban
cycle lanes is provided in NTA (2010); however, the issue of
lighting on greenways (which are often built in low-density or
rural areas) requires further investigation. In general, leisure and
tourist cyclists will travel during daylight hours but commuters
will require lighting. User statistics and preferences can inform
designers and costs can be estimated with the benefit of
additional usage potentially offsetting costs.
Other issues which should form part of a maintenance plan
include repainting lines, replacing signs, and repairing furniture
and fences.
5. Conclusion
An increase in cycling can play a significant role in reducing
transport emissions, improving the environment and helping to
tackle the obesity epidemic. Attracting increasing numbers of cycle
tourists can significantly benefit the local economy, and greenways
can entice day cyclists to local towns and villages. The construction
of a National Cycling Network (NCN) aims to rectify Ireland’s
cycling infrastructural deficit, promoting cycling for commuters,
tourists and leisure cyclists. However, in order to maximise usage
and user satisfaction, cycling routes such as greenways require
careful design and consideration. This review of international best
practice presents the main considerations necessary for effective
greenway design. While greenway design and construction can be
relatively cost-intensive, the health, environmental and social
benefits can include increased tourism, reduced traffic congestion
and emissions, and a healthier, more active society.
This paper, using an initial analysis of the requirements of each
user group, presents a compilation of international guidelines for
design and maintenance of greenways. This review will inform
the development of guidelines for the design and maintenance of
new greenways as part of the NCN in Ireland and provides an
overview of best practice for international stakeholders.
Acknowledgements
This research is funded by the National Sustainable Transport
Office at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and the
National University of Ireland, Galway.
REFERENCES
AASHTO (American Association of State Highways and
Transportation Officials) (1999) Guide For the Development
of Bicycle Facilities. AASHTO, Washington, DC, USA.
ARUP and Sustrans (1997) NCN Guidelines and Practical Details
– Issue 2. Sustrans, Bristol, UK.
Browne D, Caulfield B and O’Mahoney M (2011) Assessing the
Barriers to Sustainable Transport in Ireland. Environmental
Protection Agency, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford, Ireland.
BSI (2006) BS EN 13108-1:2006: Bituminous mixtures. Material
specifications. Asphalt Concrete. BSI, Milton Keynes, UK.
382
A review of design and maintenance
guidelines for greenways
Manton and Clifford
BSI (2010) BS EN 13285:2010: Unbound mixtures.
Specifications. BSI, Milton Keynes, UK.
BSI (2013) BS 5489-1:2013: Code of practice for the design of
road lighting. Lighting of roads and public amenity areas.
BSI, Milton Keynes, UK.
Caulfield B, Brick E and McCarthy OT (2012) Determining bicycle
infrastructure preferences – a case study of Dublin.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
17(5): 413–417.
Cavill N, Kahlmeier S, Rutter H, Racioppi F and Oja P (2008)
Economic analyses of transport infrastructure and policies
including health effect related to cycling and walking: A
systematic review. Transport Policy 15(5): 291–304.
CERTU (Centre for Studies on Networks, Transport, Urban
Planning and Public Construction) (2008) Guidelines for
Cycle Facilities. Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable
Development and Spatial Planning, Lyon, France.
CROW (2007) Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic. CROW, Ede,
the Netherlands.
CSO (Central Statistics Office) (2007) Census 2006 – Volume 12
– Travel to Work, School and College – Entire Volume.
Stationery Office, Dublin, Ireland.
CSO (2012) This is Ireland. Highlights from Census 2011, Part 2.
Stationery Office, Dublin, Ireland.
DfT (Department for Transport) (2008) Cycle Infrastructure
Design – Local Transport Note 2/08. The Stationery Office,
Norwich, UK.
DoT (Department of Transport) (2009a) Smarter Travel – A
Sustainable Transport Future. A New Transport Policy for
Ireland 2009–2020. DoT, Dublin, Ireland.
DoT (2009b) Ireland’s First National Cycle Policy Framework.
DoT, Dublin, Ireland.
EGWA (European Greenways Association) (2000) Declaration of
Lille. EGWA, Madrid, Spain.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2011) Ireland’s
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projections. EPA, Johnstown
Castle, Co. Wexford, Ireland.
Fáilte Ireland (2007) A Strategy for the Development of Irish
Cycle Tourism: Conclusions Report. Fáilte Ireland, Dublin,
Ireland.
Fáilte Ireland (2011a) Cycling Reports. Fáilte Ireland, Dublin,
Ireland.
Fáilte Ireland (2011b) Great Western Greenway – Economic
Impact Case Study. Fáilte Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Fáilte Ireland (2012) Activity Product Usage Among Overseas
Visitors in 2011. Fáilte Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Farrell S, McNamara D and Caulfield B (2010) Estimating the
potential success of sustainable transport measures for a
small town. Proceedings of ITRN 2010 (Ghosh B (ed.)). Irish
Transportation Research Network, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 248–
257.
Faulks P, Ritchie B and Fluker M (2006) Cycle Tourism in
Australia: An Investigation Into its Size and Scope.
Cooperative Research Centre, Brisbane, Australia.
Highways Agency (2001) DMRB (Design Manual for Roads and
Transport
Volume 167 Issue TR6
Bridges) Volume 7 – Pavement Design and Maintenance,
Section 2 – Pavement Design and Construction, Part 5 –
Footway Design, HD 39/01. The Stationery Office,
Norwich, UK.
Highways Agency (2005a) DMRB Volume 6 – Road Geometry,
Section 3 – Highway Features, Part 5 – The Geometric
Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian Routes, TA 90/
05. The Stationery Office, Norwich, UK.
Highways Agency (2005b) DMRB Volume 5 – Assessment
and Preparation of Road Schemes, Section 2 –
Preparation and Information, Part 4 – Provision for
Non-Motorised Users, TA 91/05. The Stationery Office,
Norwich, UK.
ITT (Institute of Transport and Tourism), Downward P and
Sustrans (2007) The Economic Impact of Cycle Tourism in
North East England. ITT, University of Central Lancashire,
Preston, UK.
Jensen SU, Andersen T, Hansen W et al. (2000) Collection of
Cycle Concepts. Danish Road Directorate, Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Kahlmeier S, Cavill N, Dinsdale H et al. (2011) Health Economic
Assessment Tools (HEAT) for Walking and for Cycling,
Methodology and User Guide. World Health Organization,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lumsdon L (2000) Transport and Tourism: cycle tourism – a
model for sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 8(5): 361–377.
Lumsdon L, Weston R, McGrath P et al. (2009) The European
Cycle Route Network EuroVelo – Challenges and
Opportunities for Sustainable Tourism. European Parliament,
Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department
B: Structural and Cohesion Policies, Transport and Tourism,
Brussels, Belgium.
A review of design and maintenance
guidelines for greenways
Manton and Clifford
Lunn P and Layte R (2011) The Irish Sports Monitor. Third
Annual Report, 2009. The Economic and Social Research
Institute (ESRI) and Irish Sports Council, Dublin, Ireland.
McRobert J, Martin T, Salvador F and Ker I (2008) User Guide to
Bicycle and Shared Path Selection – Using Whole-of-life
Costing. Australian Bicycle Council, Sydney, Australia.
Minnesota DoT (Minnesota State Department of Transport)
(2007) Bikeway Facility Design Manual. Minnesota DoT, St
Paul, MN, USA.
NRA (National Roads Authority) (2010) National Cycle Network,
Scoping Study. NRA, Dublin, Ireland.
NTA (National Transport Authority) (2010) National Cycle
Manual. NTA, Dublin, Ireland.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development) (2010) Health at a Glance: Europe 2010.
OECD Publishing, Paris, France.
Schepers P and Wolt KK (2012) Single-bicycle crash types and
characteristics. Cycling Research International 2(1): 119–135.
Scottish Government (2010) Cycling Action Plan for Scotland:
More People Cycling More Often. Scottish Government,
Edinburgh, Scotland.
Sustrans (2009) Connect2 Greenway Design Guide. Sutrans,
Bristol, UK.
Transport Scotland (2011) Cycling by Design 2010. Transport
Scotland, Glasgow, UK.
UK Roads Board (2003) Application Guide AG26 (Version 2)
Footway and Cycle Route Design, Construction and
Maintenance Guide. TRL Limited, Wokingham, UK.
Veith G and Eady P (2011) Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides.
Austroads, Sydney, Australia.
Wisconsin DoT (Wisconsin State Department of Transport)
(2009) Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Manual. Wisconsin
DoT, Madison, WI, USA.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students.
Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing papers
should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate illustra-
tions and references. You can submit your paper online via
www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you
will also find detailed author guidelines.
383