Población

The midblock environment accounts for by far the greatest proportion of length of any given cycle route. The design aspects of these route components will be discussed in detail in Section 5. Planners and designers should have a general understanding of the potential applications (in terms of who they best cater for and where they can be applied) and limitations of these route components early on in the planning process to ensure the routes proposed are achievable and fit-for-purpose.

Guidance

A summary of existing local, national and international guidance is shown in Table 4.10.

Table 4.9 Gap Table for Assessing Cycle Demand

Our Ref: Issue Date: 29

National Local International

Facility Type Austroads GTM Figure 4.7 (see Figure 4.3 below)

Defines the level of separation of cyclists and motor vehicles (mixed traffic, bicycle lanes / shoulders or separate paths) in terms of volume and speed of motor vehicles. It discusses various midblock facility types.

CNRPG

The CNRPG describes the advantages and disadvantages of nine types of midblock facility:

 Kerbside cycle lanes

 Cycle lanes next to parking

 Contra-flow cycle lanes

 Wide kerbside lanes

 Sealed shoulders  Bus-bike lanes  Transit lanes  Mixed traffic  Paths NZCT Design Guide

Focuses on “trails” but these can be:

 On-road or off-road

 Paved or sealed

For a variety of different user grades (i.e. abilities / comfort levels).

CCC MCR Design Guide

Defines four main link types for the Interested but Concerned target audience:

 Paths (i.e. off carriageway, can be shared with or separated from pedestrians)

 Separated cycle lane (i.e. on carriageway with physical separation)

 Separated 2-way cycle path (i.e. adjacent to carriageway)

 Neighbourhood greenways (i.e. quiet streets).

Ireland’s National Cycle Manual

Gives seven broad categories of link type:

 Mixed / shared street

 Standard cycle lanes

 Cycling and bus lanes

 Standard cycle tracks (i.e. separated bicycle facilities)

 Contra-flow cycle lanes and tracks

 Cycle trails

 Cycle ways

CROW Manual

Gives guidance on similar midblock facility types.

NACTO Guide

Includes buffered and protected bike lanes / tracks and gives the most comprehensive guidance available on “bicycle boulevards” (i.e. quiet streets)

The Abu Dhabi Walking and Cycling Master Plan

Along with the elements mentioned above for the other guides, includes a number of different variations on streets shared by pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles, with the distinctions being in terms of who has right of way and the extent of vehicle access is permitted

National Local International

Appropriateness of facility for certain types of cyclist

CNRPG

The CNRPG builds on from Austroads and rates the suitability of various cycle facility options for three categories of cyclist; “child/novice”, “basic competence” and “experienced” in terms of three degrees of “benefit” – minimal, moderate and most benefit

CCC MCR Design Guide

Defines the appropriate road category, posted speed limit and AADT for the four main link types (above).

Our Ref: Issue Date: 31

Relevant studies and research

On-road facilities (Bicycle Network 2015)

This report identifies a bias in the current Austroads guidance towards providing for adult commuter cyclists. It proposes an adjustment to Figure 4.7 from Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 4 to account for less confident adults, family groups and children. The proposed modification can be seen in Figure 4.3.

Discussion

The various provisions available for catering for cyclists in the midblock environment are generally well- known. However there is little guidance on how to determine what facilities are appropriate for certain types of cyclist in certain traffic environments and how to choose from a range of appropriate facilities. The CNRPG is the best developed guide but further definition is required in this area. The concept of Level of Service, discussed in a previous section, is related to this.

Figure 4.3

Separation of cyclists and motor vehicles by speed and volume (Austroads Guide to Traffic Management part 4, Figure 4.7)

International guidance recognises that quiet streets (otherwise called “bicycle boulevards” or

“neighbourhood greenways”) is an important possible route component. The CNRPG identifies that it may be an option to not provide any formal cycle facility and expect cyclists to mix with motorised traffic when volumes are low and speeds are slow, however it does not quantify what constitutes “low” or “slow”. NACTO and the CCC MCR best practice design guide quantify thresholds for these criteria - this will be examined further in Section 5 under Neighbourhood Greenways.

Similarly, the CNRPG does not include separated bicycle facilities, which are becoming increasingly popular both nationally and internationally, as a facility option.

This section of the CNRPG is perhaps not necessary in the preliminary guidance sections on planning; the design sections will cover the various midblock elements in detail. It is important that planners and designers have an understanding of the types of facilities available construct at network from the beginning of the planning process. The subsequent design sections in the guidance documents should go into more detail, however. This literature review has been useful in identifying additional facility types that should be covered by the design guidance (SBFs and quiet streets) and the importance of considering LOS for the chosen cyclist target audience when selecting facility types.

As mentioned in Section 4.4, the ONRC (which is a work in progress) currently defines customer levels of service outcomes but for ‘active users’ the levels of service are only in terms of whether they are provided separate facilities from motor traffic. By specifying separation, the ONRC is effectively biased towards providing for the interested but concerned target audience; although this is increasingly recommended, it should not be obligatory and planners should be able to choose to provide for more confident cyclists along some routes or specific networks. Therefore, painted facilities may be acceptable on some roads of higher volumes and higher national importance. As well as ‘physical separation’, the ONRC specifies ‘separate space’ in some circumstances - this terminology should be aligned with that used in the National cycle guidance to better reflect the types of facilities it refers to (e.g. painted cycle lanes).

Nga Haerenga, the New Zealand Cycle Trail (NZCT), is a relatively new initiative (compared with the CNRPG) that brings significant national support for cycling infrastructure. The focus of the NZCT is on recreational cycling, with a strong emphasis on tourism in rural environments, and the construction of isolated routes rather than connected networks. NZCT’s vision is to create an expanded network of rides that link the great rides together enabling people to explore New Zealand by bike. In comparison, the Agency (and hence this national cycle network design guidance project) focuses on cycling for utilitarian transport purposes, generally in an urban environment and the development of strategic cycling networks. Despite these different focuses, there may still be scope for integration of parts of certain NZCT routes within a particular RCA’s cycling network; this aligns with the NZCT’s planning principle of connecting with key attractions and local towns / cities and the practicalities of NZCT users needing to be able to access the routes. It is expected that the framework from this project will eventually be used to enhance the NZCT specifications for on-road facilities and some grades of off-road facilities. However, the NZCT also includes many unsealed trails (with either aggregate or natural surfaces) and the appropriateness of these as route components for an RCA’s cycle network may need to be investigated.

Our Ref: Issue Date: 33

Gap Identification

Gaps identified in the possible cycle route components guidance are identified in Table 4.11.

Gap Type Comments

Terminology of cycle

facilities and other terms

Inconsistency Update the CNRPG Glossary

Consideration of separated

(or “protected”) bicycle facilities and

appropriateness for different user types

Minimal NZ guidance exists

CNRPG needs to include separated bicycle facility as a route component type.

Coordination with NZCT

routes

Lack of Clarity Consider the appropriateness of

integrating unsealed NZCT routes with an RCA’s cycle network.

Consistency with ONRC

specifications

Inconsistency The current specifications in the ONRC specifications of when active road users (i.e. including cyclists) must be separated from general traffic do not necessarily align with current cycling guidance and do not give flexibility in the choice of target audience.

4.8 Identifying and evaluating cycle route options