LTN 1/04 - Policy, Planning and Design for Walking and Cycling
3. Planning and Design principles
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 Integrated transport plays an important part in realising the Government's aims of creating well designed sustainable communities. This issue is less constrained by finance than it was in the past and should lead to a greater range of infrastructure solutions to accommodate the conflicting demands of different modes in any given situation. Particular attention is drawn to the role of walking and cycling in supporting these aims.
3.1.2 This chapter describes the key concepts used in designing for pedestrians and cyclists. These include minimum pedestrian and cyclist requirements, the design pedestrian and design cyclist, and the hierarchies of provision. Recommended processes for selecting appropriate infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists are presented at Annex A in Figures 1 and 2 respectively.
3.1.3 With careful design and traffic management, it is sometimes possible to cater for the needs of pedestrians and cyclists without providing obvious measures such as cycle lanes and sub-ways etc. This concept is often referred to as "invisible infrastructure" and its importance should not be underestimated.
3.2 Design requirements
3.2.1 Planning and designing high quality infrastructure involves developing very localised solutions in close consultation with local people, but there are some basic requirements that need to be satisfied, and these are summarised below. The underlying principle is that measures for pedestrians and cyclists should offer positive provision that reduces delay, diversion and danger. The design requirements should be considered in conjunction with the hierarchy of users (Section 3.3), hierarchies of provision (Section 3.6) and take into account the achievable traffic conditions (Section 3.7) to determine the most appropriate design solution.
3.2.2 Five core principles have been established common to both pedestrians and cyclists. They have been derived from the requirements for pedestrians included in Guidelines for providing for journeys on foot, IHT 2000 (Connectivity, Conspicuity, Convenience, Comfort, and Conviviality) and the requirements for cyclists included in Cycle Friendly Infrastructure, IHT 1996 (Coherence, Directness, Comfort, Safety, and Attractiveness). They are:
3.2.3 Convenient: Networks should allow people to go where they want, and new facilities should usually offer an advantage in terms of directness and/or reduced delay compared with existing provision. Routes and key destinations should be properly signed and street names should be clearly visible. On-street route maps can be particularly helpful in certain locations. Published route maps should also be made available. Ideally, routes should be unimpeded by street furniture, pavement parking and other obstructions which can be particularly hazardous to visually impaired pedestrians. There should be the minimum practicable delay for pedestrians and/or cyclists waiting at signalled crossings, and they should not face long detours along their route. Trip-end facilities should be clearly marked, conveniently located, and appropriate for the likely length of stay. Designers should consider the future ease of maintenance, including access to vehicles for sweeping, trimming grass verges and making surface and lighting repairs along off-road routes.
3.2.4 Accessible: Pedestrian and cycling routes should form a network linking trip origins and key destinations including public transport access points. The routes should be continuous and as direct as possible in terms of distance and journey time (type and colour of surfacing can be used to stress route continuity as appropriate). There should be proper provision for crossing busy roads and other barriers in urban and rural areas, and in some areas there should be a positive advantage over private motorised traffic. As far as is practicable, all parts of each route (including crossing points) should be situated on desire lines. Routes should be provided into and through areas normally inaccessible to motor vehicles such as parks and shopping centres, as this may help to encourage modal shift. Safe access for pedestrians and cyclists should be maintained at all times during road works. The needs of people with various types and degrees of disability should be taken into account at the design stage by consulting local groups representing them.
3.2.5 Safe: Not only must infrastructure be safe, but for the well being of users, it must be perceived to be safe. Traffic volumes and speeds should be reduced where possible in order to create the desired conditions. Reducing the impact of motor traffic also facilitates the implementation of other measures beneficial to pedestrians and cyclists which might not otherwise be viable. Opportunities for redistributing space within the highway should be fully explored including moving kerblines and street furniture, providing right-turn refuges for cyclists or separating conflicting movements by using traffic signals. The potential for conflict between pedestrians and cyclists should be minimised. Maintenance plays an important part with regard to safe operation, and surface defects should not be allowed to develop to the extent that they become a hazard. Similarly, vegetation should be regularly cut back to preserve available width and sight lines. The latter is particularly relevant with regard to crime and the fear of crime. Apart from long sight lines, the risk of crime can be reduced through the removal of hiding places along the route, provision of lighting, and the presence of passive surveillance from neighbouring premises or other users. Waiting rooms, cycle parking etc, should be sited where people using the facilities can feel safe. In rural areas, the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians should be considered where their routes cross busy roads, and where a satellite village or district is separated from a town or city by a major ring road or bypass.
3.2.6 Comfortable: Infrastructure should meet design standards for width, gradient, and surface quality etc, and cater for all types of user, including children and disabled people as appropriate. Pedestrians and cyclists benefit from even, well-maintained and regularly swept surfaces with gentle gradients. Dropped kerbs are particularly beneficial to users of wheelchairs, pushchairs and cycles, and tactile paving needs to be provided to assist visually impaired people. Dropped kerbs should be properly flush with the road surface. Even a very small step can be uncomfortable and irritating for some users, especially if there are several to be negotiated along a route. Seating at regular intervals is desirable to enable people to stop and rest. Comfort is enhanced when users are free from the fear of crime.
3.2.7 Attractive: Aesthetics, noise reduction and integration with surrounding areas are important. The walking and cycling environment should be attractive, interesting and free from litter, dog mess and broken glass. If possible, routes should cater for users wishing to stop, chat and rest. The ability for people to window shop, walk or cycle two abreast, converse or stop to look at a view makes for a more pleasant environment. Public spaces need to be well-designed, finished in attractive materials, and be such that people want to stop in them to spend some time there. The surfaces, landscaping and street furniture must be well-maintained and regularly cleaned, and in keeping with the surrounding area. Issues of light pollution should be considered in addition to personal security in rural and semi-rural routes.
3.3 Hierarchy of users
3.3.1 The concept of a hierarchy of users has been established for use in the planning and design processes for new developments and proposed traffic management schemes. This places pedestrians at the top, followed by cyclists then public transport, with unaccompanied private car-users last. The objective of such a hierarchy is to ensure that the needs of the most vulnerable road users are fully considered in all highway schemes, but not necessarily to give priority to pedestrians and cyclists in every location.
3.3.2 Adoption of a hierarchy of users is recommended as one of the elements of good practice in Local Transport Plans, and is one of the recommendations in the Government's Response to the Select Committee on Walking in Towns and Cities, DTLR 2001.
3.4 The design pedestrian and design cyclist
3.4.1 This is a useful concept to distinguish between the differing priorities assigned to various aspects of a route (for example, safety versus directness) for users with different requirements due to their journey purpose, level of experience or physical ability. The design of the most appropriate infrastructure needs to take account of the anticipated type of user.
3.4.2 The design pedestrian types are:
- Commuter - prefers a fast direct route between home and work or when accessing public transport, regardless of quality of environment;
- Shopper/leisure walker - looks for ease of access, attractive retail environments, and attractive routes;
- Disabled person - requires level, clearly defined easy access and careful attention in the design and placement of street furniture, including resting points. Satisfying these requirements will also satisfy the needs of all other users, especially older people, people with heavy shopping/young children, and people with temporary impairments or low levels of fitness; and
- Child - requires a high level of segregation from motorised traffic and/or other measures to reduce the dominance of motor vehicles, such as speed reduction, together with good passive surveillance from other users. These are important factors where children and young people make independent journeys, especially journeys to school.
3.4.3 The design cyclist types are;
- Fast commuter - confident in most on-road situations, and will use a route with significant traffic volumes if it is more direct than a quieter route;
- Other utility cyclist - may seek some segregation at busy junctions and on links carrying high-speed traffic;
- Inexperienced utility, commuter and leisure cyclist - may be willing to sacrifice directness in terms of both distance and time, for a route with less traffic and more places to stop and rest. May travel more slowly than regular cyclists;
- Child - may require segregated, direct routes from residential areas to schools, even where an on-road solution is available. Design needs to take account of personal security issues. Child cyclists should be anticipated in all residential areas and on most leisure cycling routes;
- Users of specialised equipment - includes disabled people using hand-cranked machines and users of trailers, trailer-cycles, tandems and tricycles. This group requires wide facilities free of sharp bends and an absence of pinch-points or any other features which force cyclists to dismount. Cycle tracks and lanes where adult cyclists frequently accompany young children should be sufficiently wide to allow for cycling two abreast. This enables the adult to ride on the offside of the child when necessary.
3.4.4 All types of pedestrian and cyclist will use high quality well maintained traffic-free routes away from the carriageway if they are more direct than the equivalent on-road alternative and there are no personal security issues.
3.5 Route function and journey purpose
3.5.1 For most journeys, convenience (in terms of journey time and distance) and an acceptable degree of traffic safety and personal security are the most important design requirements for pedestrians and cyclists. This is particularly the case for access to public transport interchanges or other time critical journeys. These should be the main factors to take into consideration when planning networks of routes.
3.5.2 The journey purpose is important in defining the value attached to attractiveness. There are situations where walking or cycling for pleasure may be the only reason for the journey. These include rural leisure routes, parks, urban squares and tourist destinations. There are also multi-function environments such as shopping arcades, market places and public transport interchanges where people may wish to meet, relax or trade, but which may also serve as through-routes for pedestrians and cyclists.
3.5.3 Careful urban design can ensure that these areas are attractive and functional - it is important to get the balance right. Guidance on how to deliver a high quality environment is set out in By Design, DETR 2000. Advice on how to accommodate the conflicting requirements of multi-function urban roads and town centres is contained in Transport and the Urban Environment IHT 1998. The design of good quality urban pedestrian space is covered in Going to Town - Improving Town Centre Access - a companion guide to PPG6, DfT 2002, Designing Streets for People, ICE 2000, and Guidelines on Pedestrianised High Streets IHT 2001. Inclusive Mobility - A Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure, DfT 2002 sets out guidance on providing for access by disabled people to footways, footpaths, pedestrian areas, public transport and car parks. Guidelines and principles for good quality design of residential areas are included in Places, Streets and Movement: A Companion Guide to Design Bulletin 32, Residential Roads and Footpaths, DETR 1998, and Better Places to Live, DTLR 2001.
3.5.4 In order to accommodate the differing and sometimes conflicting needs of various user types and functions, it may be necessary to combine measures or to create dual networks offering different levels of provision, with one network offering greater segregation from motor traffic at the expense of directness and/or priority. Such dual networks may be considered analogous to a busy main road carrying through-traffic and a service road catering for access to homes and shops at lower speeds.
3.6 Hierarchies of provision
3.6.1 The majority of pedestrian or cycle routes use the existing road network. The first step in planning pedestrian or cycle infrastructure measures is to assess if any change is needed to existing provision. If so, selecting the appropriate measures should generally follow a preferred hierarchy for each mode (See Table 3.6). The hierarchy does not necessarily apply to schemes where it is intended to construct totally new cycle tracks/footpaths to a high standard which offer a more advantageous route than the equivalent route for motorised traffic. For pedestrians on narrow rural roads where speeds can be difficult to control and sightlines are often restricted, a new footway is often the preferred option.
Table 3.6: Hierarchies of provision
|
Pedestrians |
Cyclists |
|
|
Consider first |
Traffic reduction |
Traffic reduction |
|
Speed reduction |
Speed reduction |
|
|
Reallocation of road space to pedestrians |
Junction treatment, hazard site treatment, traffic management |
|
|
Provision of direct at-grade crossings |
Redistribution of the carriageway (bus lanes, widened nearside lanes etc) |
|
|
Improved pedestrian routes on existing desire lines |
Cycle lanes, segregated cycle tracks constructed by reallocation of carriageway space, cycle tracks away from roads |
|
|
Consider last |
New pedestrian alignment or grade separation |
Conversion of footways/footpaths to unsegregated shared-use cycle tracks alongside the carriageway |
3.6.2 Both hierarchies include traffic reduction and speed reduction as the first and second options because these treatments are likely to offer wider community benefits in terms of road safety, streetscape, community severance and noise reduction, and make effective use of existing road space. Increased walking and cycling and improvements in streetscape, local environment and community safety are entirely compatible and mutually reinforcing.
3.6.3 The options at the bottom of each table should normally be considered last (unless they offer greater overall advantage - see 3.6.1) because they do not address the safety issues that preclude pedestrians or cyclists from using existing highway infrastructure. In some cases, new or grade-separated pedestrian alignments and cycle tracks may be less direct or may be problematic in terms of personal security. Designers must take these issues into account to ensure that a facility is useable. The measures in the hierarchy are not mutually exclusive - for example, reducing traffic speeds or volumes may be a pre-requisite for enabling an at-grade pedestrian crossing, cycle lane or a cycle track to be installed. For cyclists, the design also needs to take account of the traffic conditions discussed in section 3.7.
3.6.4 It is important that each option is considered thoroughly before resorting to any measure further down the hierarchy. Motor traffic reduction may appear quite difficult to achieve because of initial public resistance or resistance from traders or other interest groups, but it should not simply be discarded in favour of what seem to be less onerous measures further down the table. Sometimes it may be appropriate to introduce a trial scheme to gain public acceptance. Full consideration must be given to motor traffic reduction before it is dismissed as it may deliver benefits in terms of pedestrian safety, improved retail environments, and is usually the optimum solution for encouraging cycling. In the event that none of the options brings about any improvement, doing nothing may well be the best course of action. The introduction of sub-standard measures should be discouraged, and authorities should seek opportunities to upgrade existing measures where these have proven to be inadequate. Provision for walking and cycling should always be of good quality, to both attract and retain users.
3.6.5 Unsegregated shared-use by pedestrians and cyclists should normally be at the bottom of the hierarchy. The decision to adopt this option by taking space from pedestrians must not be taken lightly - see LTN 2/04.
3.7 Cycling infrastructure for different traffic speeds and volumes
3.7.1 In most situations cyclists have to be accommodated within the existing highway boundary. The decision to integrate cyclists with motor traffic, or physically separate them from it will depend on the speed and volume of that traffic. Where possible, speed and volume of traffic should be reduced to enable cyclists to use the carriageway in safety, but on roads where this is not possible, some form of segregation is desirable. Sustrans uses a form of the diagram below for the UK National Cycle Network (values have been omitted here because the diagram is only meant to demonstrate the principles involved). Clearly site-specific factors such as visibility and available lane widths need to be considered, but the diagram is a good starting point in design. It is important to consider the effect on pedestrians of any decision to create an off-road route, and this is discussed in LTN 2/04.
Link speed/flow diagram - selection of cycle route type
(Based on Sustrans' National Cycle Network Guidelines and Practical Details 1997 and CROW Sign Up for the Bike 1993)
3.8 Infrastructure planning
3.8.1 When designing infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists, it is important to ensure that it is not simply being provided because an opportunity exists to do so. The demand for walking and cycling routes is influenced by the need to provide permeable development that does not result in long detours to gain access or to cross busy roads, nor undermine personal safety. Good safe links to public transport for multi-modal journeys, and trip-end facilities at destinations are important. Development planning and detailed design should assume that short journeys will be undertaken on foot or by bike through the availability of suitable and direct access routes. Poor planning or design can result in an unattractive scheme which may be technically correct but does not address the needs of users. Conversely, high quality public space can lead to drivers, pedestrians and cyclists modifying their behaviour and as a result, bring about a reduction in the dominance of motorised traffic without the need for special facilities. Some key issues are summarised in Table 3.8 below.
3.8.2 The decision-making process needs to take into account existing and potential users, levels of use, route function and the main journey purpose of users. Early consultation with likely users through transport fora, local user groups (particularly those representing disabled people), Local Authority Access Officers, and residents likely to be affected is important in defining the scope of the scheme. Later consultation is valuable for refining the design. Facilities should also be revisited following a settling down period after implementation to ensure that they are working as intended and to identify the need for any further modification.
Table 3.8: Key planning issues for walking and cycling
|
Permeable Infrastructure |
Transport Connections |
Positive Planning |
|
|
|
3.8.3 The flowcharts in Annex A summarise the pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure design processes, commencing with identification of demand (existing or potential), followed by a review of existing conditions and problem identification. This is followed by scheme selection adopting the hierarchies of provision, and finally by pedestrian/cycle audit to identify any deficiencies in the scheme. This is a simplistic overview of the process, and it may well be that a combination of measures is the most appropriate solution for any one location or route section. The flow charts do not include cycle parking, seating or other trip end facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, the need for which should be considered as a matter of course when planning for walking and cycling.
3.9 Audit and review
3.9.1 An audit is a check on the design of a scheme to ensure that it does not unduly affect people who are not part of the group the scheme is mainly aimed at. For example, if a scheme is designed to improve conditions for cyclists, a pedestrian audit will help ensure that the improvements do not cause difficulties for people on foot. A cycle audit on a cycling scheme should be unnecessary because the design process itself should make such an audit redundant. A review is a process which entails examining the existing infrastructure to explore ways of improving conditions for people who the proposed scheme is meant to serve. A cycle review should therefore precede the design of a scheme of cycling improvements.
3.9.2 Pedestrian audits, cycle audits, vulnerable road user audits together with their equivalent review processes can help to identify opportunities to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. There will inevitably be times when the needs of different users conflict and planners have to make a professional judgement as to what the most appropriate course of action is. In some cases, it may be desirable to involve the local community or user groups in audit and review procedures as part of the consultation process. Events such as 'Planning for Real' and 'Community Street Audits' can yield detailed local information to feed into the design process to ensure an integrated approach that deals with wider local issues.
3.9.3 Audit procedures should be applied to all new transport schemes (including land use developments) to ensure that opportunities to improve conditions for walking and cycling are properly considered and to ensure that, at the very least, conditions are not inadvertently made worse for these modes.
3.9.4 Audits should be applied to all schemes on urban roads. In rural areas the conditions require a different approach. If there is a general desire to facilitate cycling, such as may be the case where a primarily rural route links two villages within, say, 8km of each other, or where routes are likely to be promoted for recreational cycling, a cycle audit should be carried out. Pedestrian audits in rural areas are useful where gaps in the right of way network currently result in people walking along the highway, or where there is a significant or potentially significant amount of walking between residential areas and village schools or other services. On rural roads where cycling and walking is less likely to be significant, established safety audit procedures should pick up any features likely to introduce hazards for non-motorised users.
3.9.5 In rural areas and at the edge of urban areas there is often significant equestrian use of roads and other rights of way and this should be considered as part of the design process.
3.9.6 Audits may be undertaken at up to four stages of the design process:
- Preparation of a design brief.
- Preliminary design.
- Detailed design.
- Substantial completion.
3.9.7 Pedestrian Review and Cycle Review are systematic procedures for looking at existing transport routes or networks to identify shortcomings and potential enhancements. The review procedures are valuable in assisting with identifying a pedestrian or cycle priority network on which the bulk of funds and efforts to improve conditions will be targeted. Pedestrian/Cycle Review can be applied to part or all of a local transport network in order to identify priorities for action. Alternatively, it can be used reactively in response to a programmed land use development or highway scheme (bus priority for example) to identify aspects of the network that should be improved as part of the larger scheme.
3.9.8 The document Guidelines for Cycle Audit and Cycle Review was published by IHT in 1998, and is summarised in TAL 7/98, Cycle Audit and Review. An outline Pedestrian (Mobility) Audit Checklist and a Pedestrian Review Form are included at Appendices C and B respectively in Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot, IHT 2000. Audit and review procedures are evolving as practitioners gain more experience. The Traffic Advisory Leaflet Bibliographies for cycling and walking are a useful source of information.
3.10 Land use planning
3.10.1 The principles of mixed-use planning and high-density urban form are outlined in Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport, DETR 2001. PPG13 states that: "Land use planning has a key role in delivering the Government's integrated transport strategy. By shaping the pattern of development and influencing the location, scale, density, design and mix of land uses, planning can help to reduce the need to travel, reduce the length of journeys and make it safer and easier for people to access jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling."
3.10.2 The importance of high-density, permeable, mixed-use planning to walking and cycling is that it helps to meet the requirements of convenience and accessibility. Because such developments can be easily served by non-car modes (and are consequently much less car dependent), it is generally easier to provide high levels of accessibility and safety. By creating human-scale developments where there is a variety of urban forms and functions within a short distance of each other, comfort and attractiveness can also be addressed.
3.10.3 There are limits to the distances generally considered acceptable for utility walking and cycling. The mean average length for walking journeys is approximately 1 km (0.6 miles) and for cycling, it is 4 km (2.4 miles), although journeys of up to three times these distances are not uncommon for regular commuters. The distances people are prepared to walk or cycle depend on their fitness and physical ability, journey purpose, settlement size, and walking/cycling conditions. Useful guidance on desirable, acceptable and preferred maximum walking distances for different purposes is included in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 of Providing for Journeys on Foot, IHT 2000.
3.10.4 Since most journeys start or end at home, the location of new housing and how it connects to the existing movement framework is particularly important. Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: (Housing), DETR 2000 calls for more sustainable patterns of development and better use of previously developed land. To achieve this, local planning authorities are required to:
- place the needs of people before ease of traffic movement when designing the layout of residential development;
- avoid inflexible planning standards, reduce road widths and traffic speeds, and promote a safer environment for pedestrians;
- seek to reduce car dependence by facilitating more walking and cycling through improved links with public transport between housing, jobs, local services and amenities, and by planning for mixed use; and
- promote good design in new housing development in order to create an attractive high-quality and sustainable living environment where people will choose to live, work and spend their leisure time.
3.10.5 Further sources of guidance on the subject of designing pedestrian and cycle routes through residential areas are Circular 2/93, Public Rights of Way, DoE 1993 and Circular 5/94, Planning out Crime, DoE 1994.
3.11 Consultation and publicity
3.11.1 Planning for pedestrians and cyclists requires a high level of carefully detailed design. Early consultation with local residents, businesses and user groups can save time in the design process and ensure that plans meet the needs of the intended users. It is recommended that organisations representing disabled people are contacted at local and national level, and that consultation materials are available in forms that are accessible to disabled users, including spoken word, Braille and electronic formats. Consultation events should be held at venues accessible to disabled users, and at times when people are likely to be able to attend. In areas where a significant proportion of the population does not usually speak English, it may be appropriate to prepare materials in more than one language and have staff with appropriate language skills available at events.
3.11.2 It is important to publicise the consultation as widely as possible using written media, as well as others such as local radio. Similarly, it can be important to publicise completed schemes to make it clear how they are intended to operate, especially where innovative or unusual infrastructure has been introduced. Other education and training initiatives can be used to publicise new road safety measures and to encourage compliance with speed limits, parking restrictions and advanced stop lines, etc.
3.11.3 When a local authority chooses to reject the outcomes of public consultation, or implements development or design that does not comply with national and local policies or design guidance, it should be able to demonstrate the rationale for such a decision to the groups and individuals who are adversely affected.
For related documents, pages and internet links, see the column on the right.
