gmpte walking and cycling design guide

Transportation

GMPTE November 2010

Walking and Cycling Design Guidance

Prepared by: ............................................................. Checked by: ........................................................................ Paul Davison Tom Marsden Consultant Senior Consultant Approved by: ............................................................. Sarah Farmer Associate Director Walking and Cycling

Rev No Comments Checked by Approved by

Date

1 Revised after feedback from Client TCM SEJF 12.11.10

1 New York Street, Manchester, M1 4HD Telephone: 0161 601 1700 Website: http://www.aecom.com Job No: 60038082 Reference M001.010 Date Created: August 2010 This document is confidential and the copyright of AECOM Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. f:\projects\traffic - mcc superframework - project delivery group 4\gmpte walking & cycling design guidance\report\walking and cycling design guide v2.docx

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Overall Aim of the Guidance ................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Report Structure .................................................................................................................................... 4

2 Walking Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Access to the Station ............................................................................................................................ 6 2.3 Movement and Facilities within the Station ........................................................................................... 7

3 Cycle Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Cycle Access to and Movement within Transport Hubs ..................................................................... 11 3.2 Type of Parking/Storage ..................................................................................................................... 11 3.3 Cycle Parking Location and Design Considerations ........................................................................... 14 3.4 Maintenance Issues ............................................................................................................................ 18 3.5 Bike Lockers User Club (BLUC).......................................................................................................... 19 3.6 Marketing............................................................................................................................................. 20 3.7 Cycle Centres ...................................................................................................................................... 20 3.8 Bike ‘n’ Ride and Cycle Hire Scheme ................................................................................................. 21 3.9 Potential Highway Measures............................................................................................................... 21

4 Cycle Parking Provision Matrix .................................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Criteria for Provision ............................................................................................................................ 25

5 Good Practice Quick Reference Guide ....................................................................................................... 29 5.1 Good Practice Quick Reference Guide ............................................................................................... 29 5.2 Movement and Comfort ....................................................................................................................... 29 5.3 Accessibility ......................................................................................................................................... 31 5.4 Legibility .............................................................................................................................................. 33 5.5 Security ............................................................................................................................................... 34 5.6 Cycle Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................. 36

Appendix A: GMPTE Stakeholder Consultation ..................................................................................................... 40

Appendix B: Existing Policy & Guidance ................................................................................................................ 46 National Policy ................................................................................................................................................. 46 National Guidance on Cycle Provision ............................................................................................................ 47 Local Guidance on Cycle Provision ................................................................................................................. 50 Existing Cycle Parking Guidance .................................................................................................................... 50

Appendix C: GMP Guidance on Spacing of Cycle Stands .................................................................................... 61

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

AECOM Walking and Cycling Design Guidance 2

Capabilities on project:

Transportation

1.1 Background

The majority of journeys to public transport infrastructure are on foot, with cycling a more infrequent, but still

strategic means, by which integration between sustainable modes and public transport can be achieved. The

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) seeks to encourage people to use public transport

and making it more convenient and safer will help achieve this aspiration.

Cycling in particular can have the effect of widening the catchment area for public transport use. GMPTE is

producing a single walking and cycling design guidance and standards document covering Metrolink stops, bus

stations and rail stations within its remit. In its draft Walking and Cycling Strategy, GMPTE outlines the aim of this

strategy as being to: ‘Maximise the potential of walking and cycling to contribute to making public transport the

preferred mode choice’.

Walking and cycling, which can also be referred to as ‘active travel’, provides essential means by which people

access public transport and is a low emission alternative to motorised vehicles. Encouraging people to travel on

foot or by bike is seen as a vital component of local authority aspirations to tackle congestion, improve air quality,

promote physical activity and improve accessibility.

This can also help to deliver a broad range of positive transport outcomes and wider environment and health goals.

Integration between sustainable modes and public transport is a vital component of providing the necessary

transport choices to encourage travel by these modes.

Planning and designing high-quality infrastructure, although bespoke to the location that it is in, requires a common

set of standards and guidance to guide the provision of facilities and infrastructure. Table 1.1 highlights the wide

variety of positive impacts that can be achieved as a result of greater integration between walking and cycling and

public transport.

Table 1.1: Benefits of Integration (GMPTE Draft Walking and Cycling Strategy)

Benefit Type Benefits through Integration

Modal Shift

and

Increased

Patronage

- Making it easier to access public transport, and widening the reach of the public transport network to future and current users, may lead to increased patronage. Through the provision of cycling and walking improvements, the catchment area for access to public transport can be expanded, particularly for those without access to a car. For example, it is considered that there is an opportunity to encourage modal shift amongst individuals who live within close proximity to fixed rail stations who currently park and ride, as there are a high proportion of rail and Metrolink users who drive relatively short distances to their chosen station.

- Encouraging and facilitating walking and cycling assists modal shift, thereby reducing personal carbon emissions, offering health benefits and reducing air pollution.

Economic - Widening the catchment area, through encouraging walking and cycling to access the public transport network, may lead to inceased patronage on public transport, thereby countering the economic disbenefit associated with a trend of rising levels of traffic congestion on roads.

Health

- The Government has a policy focus on reducing obesity and improving public health; the encouragement and facilitation of active travel fits positively with these agendas. Any reduction in personal car use will lead to improvements in air quality, which directly affect respiratory illnesses.

Air Quality

and Carbon

Reduction

- Reduced dependence on personal car travel will assist in achieving stringent carbon reduction targets and help to improve local air quality. Individuals may also reduce the carbon emissions related to their travel through the incorporation of cycling and walking into their overall journey.

Social

Inclusion

- Improvements to cycling and pedestrian access to stations and stops should seek to address existing mobility (ensuring compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)), safety and security concerns. Implementation of the strategy is therefore likely to enable more people from socially excluded groups to travel by public transport. Integrating the needs of all through design can assist the avoidance of legal challenges in relation to DDA compliance.

1 Introduction



Transportation

Stakeholder liaison is integral to the work of GMPTE and there are many stakeholders with an interest in walking

and cycling. Achieving the strategy aims and objectives will require positive stakeholder liaison. Key stakeholders

include local authority officers, councillors and user groups, customers, Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and

pressure groups, regional and national policy makers and funding agencies. Working with these stakeholders will

be essential to the delivery of this strategy.

’Active Travel’ forms a key component of Local Transport Plans (LTP3) and has been identified as a means by

which shared priorities of accessibility, congestion, air quality and road safety can be addressed. Opportunities for

greater integration between modes have also been identified by local authority officers whilst stakeholder

engagement and customer correspondence has shown to the GMPTE that there is a greater awareness of this

issue amongst customers.

Although there have been improvements made to cycle infrastructure on highways and at transport hubs, the level

of provision across Greater Manchester does not reach levels of best practice across the UK and in parts of

northern Europe, such as the Netherlands.

1.2 Overall Aim of the Guidance

Project Managers at GMPTE have identified that for pedestrian and cycling facilities at stations and stops, there is

need for a single source of information setting out the design requirements. In response to this, the following

guidance has been produced to bring together the various tools and guidance documents that are available into one

summary document to be used across Greater Manchester in design and provision for both new projects and

existing stations and stops. Adopting a standardised approach to design principles will allow for improvements in

quality and greater consistency across the conurbation, which will ultimately benefit users.

Cycling can provide practical and convenient access to stations. This document provides guidance on standards for

cycle infrastructure for users accessing public transport by bike. In particular, addressing issues relating to cycle

parking is essential to the development of standards for integrating cycling and public transport. Insufficient or

inappropriate facilities for cycle parking can have the effect of discouraging cyclists from using their bikes to access

public transport. Therefore, good quality cycle parking is a key element of developing an integrated transport

network.

The level of provision varies depending upon the type of location within which the facilities are set, the level of

activity and security in the station/stop and the location of the facilities. The guidance has made recommendations

in acknowledgement of these different requirements. At the same time, the guidance highlights the generic

standards and conditions to develop a cycle-friendly environment.

Most journeys to stations and stops will be undertaken on foot. For walking infrastructure, it is acknowledged that

existing legislation, building regulations and accessibility guidance is in place for construction project managers.

However, there is a need for an accessible summary of the requirements for pedestrians, including for disabled

people.

Signage is an area where additional clarification on appropriate locations and the types of information to be included

on signs has been sought, therefore more detailed guidance has been provided on this aspect.

A key element of the document is the inclusion of a checklist to be adopted in design facilities/provision at new

stations/stops. Although an existing cycle and pedestrian audit exists (Concise Cycle and Pedestrian Audit

(COPECAT), 2003), it is not specific to stations and stops. In addition, design and standards have evolved and

therefore an updated document is required. When used for reviewing existing provision, the audit provides a

standardised methodology for reviewing conditions, thus reducing the time it takes to assess provision and

requirements.



Transportation

1.3 Report Structure

The Design Guide is structured around the following sections: -

- Section 2 - Walking Infrastructure: Provision of summary guidance on standards and good practice for pedestrians in and around stops and stations.

- Section 3 - Cycling Infrastructure: Statutory requirements for cycle provision along with design considerations in and around stations and stops including for cycle parking.

- Section 4 – Cycle Parking Prioritisation Matrix: Details the methodology behind the calculation of the minimum recommended parking provision at existing and new stations or stops.

- Section 5 – Good Practice Quick Reference Guide: Pictorial best practice relating to key themes including ‘movement and comfort’, ‘accessibility’, ‘legibility’, ‘security’ and ‘cycle infrastructure’.

- Appendix A – Stakeholder Consultation: Details the key findings of the consultation with local highway officers and cycle user groups.

- Appendix B - Existing Policy and Guidance: A review of existing guidance and standards has been carried out and this provides the strategic setting and policy framework within which the guidance is set at the national and local level.

2 Walking Infrastructure



Transportation

2.1 Introduction

This section aims to provide a summary of the facilities that all new (and ideally existing) Metrolink, rail and bus

stations should provide to ensure all station users are able to easily access and move within transport hubs. It is

recognised that there is a large amount of existing legislation, building regulations and accessibility guidance for

construction project managers and this guidance does not seek to duplicate existing documentation.

It should be noted that relevant legislation and guidance with regard to accessibility is subject to change. The latest

DfT guidance can be found at the following web links:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/transportforyou/access/peti/inclusivemobility

http://www.dft.gov.uk/transportforyou/access/rail/railstations/access/

2.2 Access to the Station

Before any consideration is given to passenger provision at bus, rail and Metrolink stations, it is important to

consider how passengers are expected to access the station. Poor quality routes can discourage walking and lead

to the exclusion of certain groups of people. In some cases, this is due to topography, however more commonly the

problems are due to poor maintenance or poor design. Absence of controlled crossing provision, dropped kerbs,

signage, lighting or sufficient footway width can all affect the accessibility of a station. This can make it difficult for

passengers to get to a station and may even affect patronage levels.

In general, pedestrian routes to, from and within stations should offer the following environment for passengers:

- Safety and security; - A convenient route; - Well lit; - Accessible for all users; and - Prioritise pedestrian movement where feasible.

2.2.1 Controlled Crossing Provision

It is important that any crossing provision serves key pedestrian desire

lines where possible. The most appropriate type of crossing will be

dependent on its location, however on busy roads Puffin or Toucan

crossings should be considered in the first instance.

The DfT’s Local Transport Note 02/95 recommends the practices to

be followed when planning, designing and installing at-grade

pedestrian crossings. It describes all types of crossings, including

shared facilities with cyclists, other than those at signalled junctions.

2.2.2 Dropped Kerbs

Dropped kerbs and buff-coloured tactile paving should be introduced at junctions to aid less mobile and visually

impaired users. Dropped kerbs and tactile surfacing should be located on key desire lines on well-used pedestrian

routes, such as side road junctions.

2.2.3 Footbridges, Tunnels and Underpasses

‘Inclusive Mobility - A Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian

and Transport Infrastructure’ (DfT) states that, while it is preferable to

have at-grade crossings wherever it is safe and feasible, there are

instances where a bridge or underpass has to be provided. The design

of road and rail-related footbridges, tunnels and underpasses is largely

governed by the good practice standards on stairs, ramps and

handrails. It is worth remembering that the headroom to be

accommodated on an underpass is usually less than that required for a

footbridge, so the length of ramp and stairway will also be less.

2 Walking Infrastructure

http://www.dft.gov.uk/transportforyou/access/peti/inclusivemobility

http://www.dft.gov.uk/transportforyou/access/rail/railstations/access/



Transportation

2.2.4 Lighting

There is a significant difference between perceptions of safety and

security for pedestrians during the day and after dark. People generally

feel safer in daylight or well lit areas where they can see and be seen.

Whilst it is expected that the general highway will be sufficiently lit,

footpaths which would expect to see an increase in footfall as a result of

the introduction of a new Metrolink or bus station may not currently

provide lighting. All key approaches to stations/stops should be well lit

as it represents an effective security measure that will reduce the

potential for anti-social behaviour and encourage walking to the

station/stop.

In general, all new street lighting provided on the highway should be

designed and installed to the current British Standard European Norm (BSEN) appropriate for the road in question.

2.2.5 Signage

Each station should be appropriately signed from the surrounding highway network, especially where they represent

a new facility that potential users may not be aware of. Signage should

be clear and simple and incorporate appropriate symbols such as the

Metrolink logo or bus symbol.

It may be appropriate to make use of repeater signage, which can be

more easily fixed to street furniture such as lighting columns. To avoid

street clutter, signs should be fixed to existing street furniture where

appropriate, and incorporated into existing pedestrian and heritage

signing strategies.

Bus and Metrolink stations should be signed to and from nearby Town

and District Centres, key trip generators such as stadia and retail

centres, and other transport hubs. All key approaches should also

provide signage to the station.

The positioning of each sign will depend on the nature of the highway around each station, however it is important to

consider the following: -

- The need for a continuous signing strategy (signage at key decision points, consistent destinations); - Avoidance of street clutter where feasible; - Ensure signage is legible (use of symbols, sufficient text size); - Ensure signage is prominent and visible; and - Ensure sign posts are located so as not to present an obstacle to pedestrian or traffic flows.

2.2.6 Footways

Footways should be of sufficient width to accommodate an increase in footfall as a result of the introduction of a new

transport facility; however Design Manual for Streets states that footways should be generally 2.0m (2.0m as a

minimum). Additional footway width should be considered in areas of high pedestrian flow. A smooth surface

should be provided that does not present trip hazards or discomfort to pedestrians.

2.3 Movement and Facilities within the Station

It is expected that all future Metrolink station design will be informed by

GMPTE Design and Construction Specifications set out in February

2010. This section looks to provide a summary of key principles that

are important when considering pedestrian movement and facilities

within bus, and rail stations and Metrolink stations.



Transportation

2.3.1 Entrances and Doors

All entrances to stations should be of sufficient width to accommodate

expected passenger numbers and wheelchair users. Bottlenecks

should be avoided. A minimum width of 800mm is essential for all

entrances to enable a wheelchair to use it. However, this should be

considered an absolute minimum.

2.3.2 Obstacles

Pedestrians should be made to feel as if they belong on a route. A good

quality route should allow pedestrians to walk with confidence and have

priority wherever possible. A route on which pedestrians are

marginalised and confined, perhaps by physical barriers, will seem

unwelcoming.

A minimum width of 2.0m should be adhered to throughout the station.

Station furniture such as ticket machines, information boards and

seating should be located so as not to obstruct pedestrians, particularly

those less mobile.

Where a station is likely to be required to accommodate high volumes of

passengers (e.g. City Centre or Town Centres), platform, stands and

passageway widths should reflect the demand for extra capacity.

2.3.3 Seating

Use of public transport usually involves waiting, so provision of seating

is important. The number of seats provided will be dependent of a

number of factors including available space and expected passenger

numbers. Where possible, seating should be located in a sheltered area

of the station/stop.

Although conventional seating will meet the needs of most disabled

people, there are some who find perch-type seating, against which

people half lean and half sit, easier to use. Space should be left for

wheelchair users to sit with their companions.

2.3.4 Shelter

Shelter is an integral part of the passenger waiting environment, greatly enhancing passenger comfort. As much of

the platform area should be sheltered as possible.

2.3.5 Changes in Level

It is particularly important to refer to the latest Building Regulations and

DDA compliance when considering changes in level.

2.3.5.1 Stairs

Wherever there is a change in level, stairs may be required. There

should be tactile warning surfaces at the foot and head of any stairway.

Stairs should be well lit, of sufficient width to accommodate footfall and

provide a handrail. Gradients should not be precipitous.



Transportation

2.3.5.2 Ramps

Stairs are not accessible for all users and ramps should be provided where excessive length is not required. The

gradient should not exceed 1:20.

2.3.5.3 Lifts

Lifts are essential for wheelchair users and for some people who have

walking difficulties, when there is a substantial change in levels. They

should be provided in preference to very long ramps. Lift locations

should be clearly signposted from the main pedestrian route. Ideally

the internal dimensions of a lift should be big enough to enable a

wheelchair user to turnaround and come out facing forwards.

2.3.6 Way-Finding and Orientation

2.3.6.1 Information and Signage

People may not consider walking as an option if there is no, or inadequate, information and signage. The arrival

point is a vital location for the provision of information, usually in the form of a display board or leaflets. Once

beyond the arrival point, a lack of signage can lead to pedestrians taking unnecessarily arduous or inappropriate

routes.

The provision of comprehensive internal station signage is vital in

ensuring passengers are able to find their way around (and out) of the

station. Facilities for those less able, such as ramps, lifts and mobility

boarding points, should be clearly signed with appropriate symbols.

The location of ticket machines should also be clearly indicated upon

arrival at the station as purchase of a ticket will be the first task for many

passengers.

Where the station operates as an interchange with other modes of

transport, access between the two modes should be clearly signed,

again utilising appropriate symbols. Where the station provides two or

more exits, guidance should be given as to the best exit to use for

outlying destinations.

Examples of outlying destinations that may be signed from bus, rail and

Metrolink stations include:

- Shopping Centres; - Market; - Bus Services; - Town Centre; - Local Centre; - Named cycle routes; and - Key local attractions (e.g. stadia, museums).

Information boards perform a vital role in informing passengers of

service and timetable information, details of station facilities, maps and

information relating to the surrounding area and interchange potential.

Information boards should be located in a prominent location and

signed accordingly.

Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) adds to the passenger

experience by providing precise service information, as well as

informing of any service disruption that may occur. Where provided,

RTPI information boards should also be located in a prominent location.

3 Cycle Infrastructure



Transportation

3.1 Cycle Access to and Movement within Transport Hubs

As with pedestrian routes, it is important to consider cycle access to

new rail, bus and Metrolink stations prior to proposing measures at the

stations themselves. If cyclists feel unable to access stations safely and

easily, then they are less likely to cycle to them and utilise parking

provision located there.

Where stations are located close to key cycle routes they should be

linked in, with a combination of on-road cycle facilities and signage.

The DfT’s guidance on Bike and Rail Policy states several main areas

important in facilitating bike-rail journeys:

- Access to and within stations; - Cycle parking at stations; and - Provision of information on facilities for cyclists.

The following chapter considers potential measures for improving cycling access and facilities at new and existing

transport hubs including the type, design, location and number of cycle parking facilities.

3.1.1 Signage/Markings (Internal)

As discussed, cyclists will generally be leaving their bicycles at station or stops to continue their onward journey.

Cycle parking facilities should not only be signed on the approaches, but also as part of internal station signage,

particularly at locations which may be hard to spot. Signage at bus stations and Metrolink stops should prohibit

cycling, request that cyclists dismount and direct them to the nearest cycle parking facilities.

At cycle lockers, signage should indicate how to use the lockers and the consequences of failing to use them

properly.

3.1.2 Wheeling Ramps

Where access ramps are not provided to stations or platforms (where

cycle parking facilities are present) or do not offer a direct route,

wheeling ramps on stairs should be provided in order for cyclists to

access parking facilities wherever they are located in and around the

station.

The success of a wheeling ramp will depend on the gradient and length

of the associated stairs. In general, short and shallow steps are more

appropriate than long and steep steps, as they require less strength to

push bicycles up them. Gradients should be less than 50%.

Metal ramps can be retrofitted to existing stairs, however are not as

durable as concrete ramps (pictured). The use of strong, durable metal

is recommended to prevent against damage and vandalism.

3.1.3 Lifts

Where it is difficult to introduce ramps or wheeling ramps at a station, any lifts provided at the station should be

accessible for those with bicycles, particularly where a lift provides direct access to a platform which provides cycle

parking. The dimensions of the lift should be sufficient to easily wheel a bike into and travel in the lift without

requiring it to be angled in any way (see dimensions for horizontal lockers plus requisite headroom for lift users).

There should also be 3.0m clearance at the front of the lift.

3.2 Type of Parking/Storage

At present it is possible to take cycles on trains (subject to the operator in question - refer to

http://www.atob.org.uk/Bike_Rail.html). Conversely, owing in the main to commercial issues, none of the major bus

companies in Greater Manchester offer cycle carriage on public bus services and bicycle carriage on Metrolink

trams is prohibited. Therefore, cyclists are currently unable to continue their onward journey by bus or tram with

their bicycles and are obliged to secure them in and around Metrolink and bus stations. Consequently, cycle

3 Cycle Infrastructure

http://www.atob.org.uk/Bike_Rail.html



Transportation

parking provision at stations represents the end of journey by bicycle for commuters; and it is therefore important

that secure, appropriate cycle parking, is provided in the right locations.

One of the primary reasons cyclists are reluctant to use their bicycle is the risk of theft or damage once they are

parked. The type of cycle parking provision is an important factor in providing cyclists with a sense of comfort that

their bicycles will be safe from damage or theft.

Transport for London (TfL) cycle parking guidance states that national research indicates that of those who suffer

the theft of a bicycle, 24% no longer cycle and 66% cycle less often. There is also anecdotal evidence that theft or

vandalism of parts has a similar effect on use.

Table 3.1 provides a summary of the different types of cycle parking available and also details recommendations as

to the types of cycle parking provision most appropriate at transport hubs.

Table 3.1: Cycle Parking Types

Cycle Parking Type Advantages/Disadvantages Recommendation

Butterfly Stands

Advantages

- Can be fixed to adjacent wall as opposed to being secured into ground;

- Space saving design means that higher numbers of stands can be accommodated; and

- Low cost due to reduced materials requirement.

Disadvantages

- Inability to secure frame to parking stand – inappropriate for bicycles with quick release wheels.

Whilst there are inherent cost and

space savings associated with this

type of cycle parking, cyclists are

unable to secure the frame of their

bicycle.

With bicycles increasingly

featuring ‘quick-release’ wheels,

this would appear to be a

significant disadvantage over

other types of cycle parking.

Suitability: Not recommended

‘Sheffield Loop’ type

Advantages

- Relatively low cost (approximately £250 per stand including installation);

- Easy to install – mounted into the ground or bolted onto surface;

- Secure (two connections in ground) - can secure frame and wheels onto stand; and

- Convenient to use – simply lock bike frame to stand.

Disadvantages

- Does not protect from damage or elements if not covered.

Sheffield Loops provide good

support to all types of bicycle and

allow the cyclist to secure both the

frame and two wheels without risk

of damage. Correctly spaced,

each stand can accommodate two

bikes and supports the use of all

types of common lock.

Associated shelter can also be

provided where cycle parking

facilities are open to the elements.

Suitability: Recommended as

essential element of cycle

parking provision at stations.



Transportation


Cycle Lockers

Advantages

- Enhanced security as bicycles are locked out of sight within containers;

- Provide shelter; - Can also store equipment; and - Ability to monitor usage.

Disadvantages

- Space requirements – dimensions mean that lockers can be difficult to locate;

- Can be open to misuse – e.g. used to store things other than bicycles;

- Higher cost per unit (approximately £500-700 including installation);

- Scheme requires management; and

- Not always open to all – requirement membership of BLUC in Greater Manchester.

Lockers provide security against

the elements, theft and damage

and therefore offer an advantage

over other types of cycle parking

provision.

Whist lockers can be open to

misuse, represent a higher cost

than other types of cycle parking

and require more space

(particularly horizontal type); the

benefits are such that they should

be considered as an essential

element of cycle parking provision

at stations.

Horizontal (or ‘dog kennel’) type

cycle lockers enable cyclists to

place their bicycles into the locker

more easily than the vertical type

(pictured) and reduce instances of

damage to rear mudguards. They

should be considered in the first

instance, where space allows.

Suitability: Cycle lockers are

recommended as a key element

of cycle parking provision at

stations, particularly in areas of

low visual surveillance. Space

permitting, horizontal facilities

should be provided.

Cycle Compound

Advantages

- Provides secure, lockable facility;

- Provides shelter; and - Provides parking for a number of

bicycles.

Disadvantages

- Space requirements – dimensions mean that compounds are difficult to install;

- Can be open to misuse – e.g. used to store things other than bicycles;

- Cost – approximately £4,000 for ten bicycles); and

- Require management.

Cycle compounds are effectively

comprised of a number of

Sheffield Loop type parking stands

(usually more than ten) housed

within a lockable shelter.

Where there are requirements for

a large number of cycle lockers, a

compound would provide a cost-

effective alternative.

Merseyrail have recently installed

a number of cycle compounds

between Southport and Crosby

stations.

Suitability: Recommended in

preference to introducing over

10 lockers at one station (space

permitting).



Transportation


Space Saving Systems

Advantages

- Can store higher number of bicycles within smaller footprint;

- Convenient to use – simply lock bike frame to stand;

- Relatively low cost (approximately £275 per space at Euston station).

Disadvantages

- May require users to lift bicycles onto stacked stands

Do not offer the same level of

security as compounds as

bicycles can still be vandalised.

Suitability: Compounds

prioritised where a large

number of parking stands are

recommended, but could be

installed within compounds

where demand requires.

Copenhagen Stand

Advantages

- Relatively low cost (approximately £250 per stand including installation);

- Easy to install – mounted into the ground or bolt on onto surface;

- Secure (two connections in ground) - can secure frame and wheels onto stand; and

- Convenient to use – simply lock bike frame to stand.

Disadvantages

- Does not protect from damage or elements; and

- As bike stands can be locked into ground, may not be immediately visible to cyclists.

A Copenhagen stand acts in much

the same way as a Sheffield Loop

cycle parking stand.

The difference in this instance is

that each stand can be locked into

the ground when they are not

being used, reducing street clutter.

Suitability: Should be

considered as a possible

alternative to Sheffield Loop

parking provision.

In summary, it is recommended that the following three types of cycle parking provision are considered at stations

and stops:

- Sheffield Loop type; - Cycle Lockers; and - Cycle compounds.

A mix of cycle parking types should be provided at each station, as lockers are not accessible for occasional users,

whilst those with expensive bicycles may not feel comfortable parking their bicycle at Sheffield stands where there is

potential that they could be vandalised.

Shelters should be considered where five or more Sheffield Loop parking stands are recommended and proposed

locations do not provide shelter.

3.3 Cycle Parking Location and Design Considerations

3.3.1 Location

Sustrans information sheet, FF37, states that the location of cycle parking is absolutely critical to success. Cycle

parking should be prominent, clearly signed and advertised to alert potential cyclists to the availability of cycle

parking facilities.

As discussed, cycle parking should be subject to natural surveillance and be convenient for cyclists to use. Where

possible, cycle parking should be located at the main pedestrian entrance to the facility, at locations where conflict

with other passengers and pedestrians will be avoided and where possible, under cover. There may be space



Transportation

limitations at open access stations due to the requirement to maintain sufficient widths on platforms, and as such

consultation should take place with the relevant highway authority to introduce appropriate parking provision on

highway adjacent to the station. Cycling England states that the accepted desirable maximum distance for station

cycle parking is within 20m of a station.

Where cycle parking can be accommodated on platforms this should be considered, however as discussed it should

be visible and secure – not located at the far end of a platform with little footfall and cycle parking should not

represent an obstacle to pedestrians, unduly affect platform capacity or present a potential safety risk.

The area planned for parking should be level. If not, stands should be orientated at right angles to the slope to

prevent bicycles from rolling away.

Car parks can offer the requisite space to accommodate a large number of cycle parking facilities, and are often lit

and subject to CCTV surveillance. However, careful consideration should be given when locating cycle parking

provision in station car parks to ensure they are located close to stations and offer natural surveillance from

passengers or passing pedestrians.

A sequential approach should be undertaken when considering where cycle parking facilities should be located.

Figure 3.1: Sequential Approach to the Positioning of Cycle Parking at Stations/Stops

Locations where cycle parking provision could be located include: -

- Station entrances; - Wide station platforms; - Within 20 metres of station; - Adjacent highway (liaise with local highway authority); and - Station car parks located close to station entrances which offer natural surveillance.

Locations where cycle parking provision should be avoided include: -

- Far end of station car parks; - Little used areas of platforms; - Cramped, dark station concourses; - Any sites which require crossing busy roads to access station; and - Any sites not visible from the station.

3.3.2 Dimensions

Table 3.2 demonstrates the recommended dimensions for each type of preferred cycle stand. It is important that

cycle parking provision is adequately spaced and built to specifications, which enables cycles to be adequately and

easily secured.

Cycle parking specifications have been informed by Design for Security standards as advocated by Greater

Manchester Police (GMP) and consultation with cycle users groups:

Space•Can the required cycle parking facilities physically be accommodated?

Accessiblity

• Is the station or stop accessible from proposed cycle parking facilities?

Security• Is the area well lit, with natural surveillanceor covered by CCTV?

Existing cycle

provision

•Does the location of the proposed cycle parking facilities link in with existing cycle parking provision or routes suitable for cyclists?



Transportation

Table 3.2: Recommended Cycle Parking Dimensions

Type Height Width/Tube

Diameter

Length Spacing

Sheffield Loop 70-80cm 5-9cm 70-100cm 100cm (minimum)

Cycle Locker

(Horizontal type where

possible)

114cm 66cm 190cm n/a – can be

located flush with

other lockers.

Compound Dependent on number of spaces – but dimension of stands within compound should be

consistent with Sheffield Loop type. Where demand is greater, consideration should be

given to introducing stacked parking stands such as those found at Southport station.

There should be sufficient clearance for cyclists to stand up within the compound and

entrances should be sufficiently wide so a dismounted cyclist and bicycle can easily enter

and exit the compound.

Sheffield Loop stands should be located a minimum of 0.6m from kerb edges to ensure that cyclists can lock their

bicycles safely and that parked bicycles do not encroach onto the highway. Appendix C demonstrates the GMP

guidance for spacing of Sheffield Loop stands.

Cycle lockers should be located at least 3.0m from platform edges to ensure that bicycles can be easily and safely

entered and removed. In some locations, it may be appropriate to site lockers either parallel to the platform edge or at 45°. A pitched roof and perforated side will prevent roof access and help ventilation. Branding should be

consistent with those at existing Metrolink Stations.

It is acknowledged that at stations where space is particularly limited, or where agreement to locate cycle parking

with the relevant highway authority cannot be reached, a flexible approach should be taken to the introduction of

cycle parking types with larger dimensions.

However in the first instance, every effort should be made to provide a mix of parking types at each station as per

the recommendations in this guidance.

Greater Manchester Police has produced a Cycle Parking Design Guidance (Revision A/October 2009) which

details a series of standards to Design for Security.

3.3.3 Shelter

Those who are looking to park their bicycles for an extended period of

time may be more inclined to use covered cycle parking provision.

Covered cycle parking provision provides protection to bicycles from the

elements and reduces the likelihood of bicycles becoming wet and

ultimately rusting.

The introduction of a shelter requires careful consideration so as not to

cause an obstruction to pedestrians or potentially serve as a shelter for

people seeking to avoid the elements. Shelter dimensions can be large,

so it may not be feasible to provide shelters at every station or stop.

Lockers and cycle compounds provide natural shelter and could be

provided primarily as sheltered parking provision where there are

difficulties in accommodating sheltered Sheffield loop stands.

Shelter associated with the station (station canopy, concourse etc)

removes the requirement for the introduction of a bespoke shelter.

Covered cycle parking provision within rail stations such as Manchester

Victoria has proved popular, offering shelter, natural surveillance and

proximity to rail services.



Transportation

Where covered cycle parking can be accommodated, consideration should be given to introducing Falco Sail type

shelters or similar, which are being introduced by Northern Rail at a number of their stations.

3.3.4 Lighting and CCTV

Security is one of the most important considerations when considering the location and design of cycle parking

facilities. It is essential that cycle parking facilities, and indeed the approaches to cycle parking, are well lit to

encourage perceptions of personal safety security and encourage long-stay parking where a cyclist may wish to

leave or return to their bicycle when it is dark.

The introduction of CCTV can assist in providing additional security and encourage cyclists to utilise cycle parking

provision. CCTV is generally associated with bus, rail and Metrolink stations and cycle parking should be located

within the scope of CCTV coverage where possible.

3.3.5 Natural Surveillance

Natural surveillance refers to the presence of passers-by and/or the

overlooking of spaces and buildings. In order to determine the mix of

cycle parking provision required at each station, it is important to

consider the degree of natural surveillance, particularly where there is

no CCTV installations. Even where ‘Sheffield Loop’ type cycle parking

has been provided, cyclists may be reluctant to leave their bicycle in a

secluded area or one that experiences low footfall.

Staffed stations can also greatly increase the natural surveillance

experienced. Generally, Metrolink stations are not staffed; however bus

stations and rail stations are more likely to provide staff. Where

feasible, cycle parking facilities should be located within sight of station

staff.

A bicycle kept in a locker is more secure than one out in the open, is protected from the elements and also allows

secure storage of panniers, helmet and clothing.1 Where security concerns are greater, lockers should be

considered an essential element of cycle parking offer.

There are disadvantages to cycle lockers; they are relatively expensive, take up more space than Sheffield loop type

stands and are open to misuse. Therefore, a mix of both Sheffield loop type cycle parking stands and cycle lockers

would provide cyclists with a choice of parking provision.

The proportion of cycle parking provision that is made up of lockers is dependent on the station environment. Site

audits should be undertaken to provide an indication of the level of natural surveillance experienced at each station

or stop. Less natural surveillance may mean that cyclists would be less likely to use standard cycle stands and look

to utilise lockers, which are seen as more secure.

3.3.6 Bikeability of Highway Network

The ‘bikeability’ of the surrounding highway network is important in determining whether people can be encouraged

to cycle. Less confident cyclists are unlikely to want to utilise busy roads without appropriate cycling facilities.

Similarly, steep inclines or a lack of cycle signage may discourage would-be cyclists. Naturally, this will have an

impact on the number of cyclists likely to use cycle parking provision.

In contrast, if a station is located adjacent to a National or Regional Cycle Network route, it is reasonable to assume

there is an increased number of cyclists in the vicinity of the station, which may look to utilise associated parking

provision. It is therefore recommended to increase the minimum recommended cycle parking standard where there

is good provision for cyclists and topography is conducive to cyclists.

3.3.7 Patronage

Whilst this guidance details a minimum provision at stations and stops, the level of patronage experienced at each

station is a good indicator as to how many cyclists (or would-be cyclists) are likely to utilise cycle parking provision.

Surveys undertaken by TfL demonstrate that the more cycle parking is provided, the higher the take-up of that cycle

parking, which is partly a reflection of the higher cycle demand. In the circumstances, it is considered better to

provide a smaller number of well-located stands, which can be added to as demand grows. Areas with high cycle

usage should be provided for at a higher initial provision level. In these locations, increased provision should result

1 http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/cdg-chapter11.pdf



Transportation

in attracting new users who will add to existing users, as long at the benefits of good site location are not

compromised.

It is recognised that new stations will not have usage data associated with them prior to construction. Modelled data

or surveys will provide an indication of likely usage and can be used to calculate minimum cycle parking standards.

3.3.8 Evidence of Demand

Site audits undertaken as part of the development of this guidance

provided a clear indication of the level of demand for existing cycle

parking facilities at stations and stops. Under-utilised good quality cycle

provision located close to a Metrolink or Bus Station entrance suggests

that demand for cycle parking at that location is low, and there is unlikely

to be significant benefit to the introduction of further cycle parking

facilities. In contrast, fly parking can be indicative of inadequate supply

or that existing parking is not deemed to be in the optimum location.

As such, it is recommended that following implementation, the level of

parking stock should be subject to regular review (suggested annually)

to ensure that any increases in demand are addressed.

3.4 Maintenance Issues

It is expected that Sheffield Loop type cycle parking provision will require minimal maintenance other than regular

inspections to ensure that facilities have not been damaged or bicycles have not been secured against them and

abandoned. Abandoned bikes should be removed after four weeks as they can encourage vandalism and reduce

the quality of the public realm.

Lockers and compounds need to be regularly cleaned and inspected to ensure that cyclists will want to continue to

use them. Regular maintenance should also be undertaken to ensure that cycle facilities remain secure. Named

individuals should be responsible for the upkeep of all facilities.

3.4.1 Whole Life Costs

When developing proposals, it is important to take into consideration the likely ongoing costs involved with the

operation and maintenance of the facility as well as the capital costs associated with purchase and installation.

Materials, security, aesthetics and cost are critical factors in choosing bicycle parking provision. Whilst bicycle racks

(e.g. Sheffield stands) are clearly more vulnerable to theft or vandalism, as demonstrated in this document, it is

important to provide a mix of facilities.

The costs of Sheffield stands vary from £50 + installation for stands which are often made of thin steel and liable to

rusting and will need to be replaced approximately every 10 years, to £100 + installation for stainless steel stands

with base plates, which generally require little of no maintenance. While purchase costs for stainless steel stands

are higher, the longer-term quality and finish give them better value for a 20-year operating period.

There is a wide range of manufacturers who offer locker facilities (for example Bikey, Sigma and Dero) and it is

important to ensure that the selected specification is made of good quality materials which are rust-proof and robust

and have been proven in an urban environment. Again, there is a great range in the cost of locker units and whilst it

is advocated that there is a consistent provision, certainly in terms of access, there may be some merit in

considering higher specification units at locations that may be deemed more exposed or vulnerable to vandalism. It

is possible that there would be discounts for bulk orders.

Problems which have been identified with current BLUC lockers should be designed out, for example the gap at the

base of the lockers allows debris to accumulate, which can contribute to the disintegration of the unit. In addition, it

is understood that the padlocks used to secure the locks are also subject to rusting, particularly at less well-used

lockers, and any new system should ensure that these are more durable.

Consultation with GMPTE and Manchester City Council suggests that both lockers and Sheffield loop stands are

robust and a life-span of 15-20 years would seem reasonable.

An effective maintenance and management regime through BLUC should reduce misuse and improve effective

operation life.



Transportation

3.5 Bike Lockers User Club (BLUC)

BLUC is a cycle parking scheme operated by GMPTE to encourage people to use their cycles to travel to train,

Metrolink and bus stations and town centre locations across Greater Manchester. The scheme was initially set up to

stop ‘locker blocking’, whereby a cyclist would utilise a locker for their own personal use and prevent others from

using it even when it may have been empty.

3.5.1 How do People Join?

Once enrolled on the scheme, a user can make use of any designated BLUC locker. Membership of BLUC costs

£10 (an application is available online) and initial membership is for two years. Once the application form has been

processed, each user is issued with a key and a membership card.

The process for using a cycle locker is as follows: -

- Use BLUC key to open any empty locker; - Attach membership card to bike; - Place bike in the locker and lock the door using personal padlock; - Retain the BLUC padlock found within the locker; and - Upon return to the locker, the user is required to replace their own padlock with the BLUC padlock to allow other

people to use the system.

3.5.2 Issues and Suggestions for Improvement

It is expected that any increase in the number of cycle lockers will also result in an increase in the number of users

associated with the scheme. BLUC currently provides 150 lockers, which it is understood are used by

approximately 350 individuals. At present, all lockers comprise of the vertical type, primarily due to difficulties in

accommodating horizontal cycle lockers due to their increased footprint. However, it is understood that vertical

lockers are not popular with some users as it can cause damage to rear mudguards and reflectors as bicycles are

locked way or upon removal.

There is currently a maintenance budget of approximately £5,000 per year associated with BLUC. Whilst existing

use of lockers is monitored through annual surveys and are often transferred to more popular locations, this is

restricted by the fact that this currently has to be undertaken by the manufacturer (BikeAway) based in Plymouth.

Any significant expansion in the number of cycle lockers associated with BLUC presents an opportunity to review

the current operation, however it should be noted that GMP retain the right to access lockers on demand, which

presents a further restraint on the type of operating system adopted. One of the key advantages of BLUC is the

ability of users to utilise any locker on the system. The membership and key based system also enables GMPTE to

retain a degree of control over who uses the lockers, which is important in reducing crime and ensuring the safety of

all users. However potential ad-hoc users may be discouraged by the requirement to apply in advance to become

involved in the scheme. An alternative system to the key system is the use of swipe cards or a PIN system, which

again would provide useful monitoring data, however these have greater cost implications.

Consideration could also be given to the use of fingerprint technology, which removes the need for swipe cards and

their re-issue. Whilst costs may prove prohibitive in the short-term, it is possible that bulk purchase discounts and

future reduction of the cost of the technology may enhance the feasibility of this option.

In order to encourage greater use of the locker system, it is suggested that there is merit in trialling a coin based

system, or one that enables users to use their own padlocks, at suitable locations (e.g. in areas of high or natural

surveillance), which would offer casual users the opportunity to utilise cycle lockers. However, there is a risk that

lockers may be used for other purposes, such as storing luggage or other items, which at some locations may

present a security threat.

Given that cycle compounds require shared use, a coin operated system would be less appropriate. It is

recommended that a swipe card system which restricts access and enables an audit of who has used the facility is

considered in this instance. This system has recently been installed by Merseyrail on the Southport line.

The effective maintenance of lockers is very important in encouraging use, and lockers should be subject to regular

inspection and cleaning. Individuals should be identified to assume responsibility for cleaning and inspection of

each set of lockers should be clearly identified.

A marketing campaign promoting the additional cycle locker offer should also be developed to detail availability, and

publicised to local schools/colleges, organisations and via on-line targeted marketing (for example free membership

of BLUC with an annual season ticket purchase). A reduced membership renewal period would also eliminate those



Transportation

who no longer use the system and provide a better indication of actual take-up of the lockers. For those who have

renewed their membership a number of times and have demonstrated commitment to BLUC, a longer membership

period could then be introduced.

In summary, the following initiatives are recommended as part of any expansion to cycle locker provision in Greater

Manchester: -

- Ensure that lockers can be maintained locally; - Trial coin-operated lockers, or one that enable users to use their own padlocks, at suitable locations with a view to

increasing casual use; - Consider utilisation of smart cards as a way of improving monitoring and integration (particularly if they can be

linked to future public transport payment systems) of the system and consideration as to how compounds and cycle centres should be incorporated into the system;

- Allocate staff with responsibility for monitoring and maintenance; - Increased promotion of locker provision and BLUC (e.g. advertising of BLUC on buses/trams to encourage more

use of bike/public transport combined journeys); and - Increased annual budget for management and maintenance.

3.6 Marketing

The marketing of the benefits of cycling and walking and the location of facilities is an important element of

promoting sustainable transport trips.

When considering the potential for modal change for cycle/public transport trips, cyclists are unlikely to cycle

distances of 1km or less, as walking becomes more attractive. Equally, distances of over 4km become unattractive

given the requirement to use public transport afterwards. Therefore, the marketing of cycle facilities (leaflets, flyers)

should be concentrated on a distance of 1-4km from a station or stop.

In addition to considering the potential target market, cycle parking facility type, numbers and locations should be

included on GMPTE’s website, www.gmpte.gov.uk.

3.7 Cycle Centres

In addition to the proposed expansion of cycle parking facilities at Metrolink stops and bus stations, funding has

been allocated to create a number of cycle centres providing a range of services across the Regional Centre. A

cycle centre, often staffed, is a facility which provides a range of services including services such as secure cycle

parking, cycle information, cycle hire, sales and repairs and showers and changing facilities.

Cycling England Professional Support Service produced a study on behalf of Manchester City Council and Salford

City Council to assess the available options and provide advice on suitable locations for proposed cycle centres in

both authorities. It states that growth in cycling in Manchester and Salford is constrained by a lack of secure

parking.

The study prioritised a site on Station Approach at Piccadilly Station, which demonstrated current demand, available

space and the likely co-operation of the landowner. The introduction of a cycle centre in the City Centre could have

the impact of significantly increasing the number of cyclists who travel into Manchester.

A cycle centre may require a fee to use the facilities. If so, the additional cycle parking facilities recommended in

this report should still be provided, as not all users may wish to pay to park their bicycle.

Negotiations are currently underway with Network Rail to secure funding for a cycle centre at Piccadilly Rail Station.

Finsbury Park Interchange (taken from Cycling England)

An example of a covered, staffed, cycle park can be found at Finsbury

Park Interchange in London. Opened in 2006, the facilities are

comprised of 125 automated lockable cycle racks which are operated

by a smart card system. The facilities were created through a

partnership between TfL, the rail operator, London boroughs and other

agencies as part of a wider London wide interchange improvement

programme. The facilities are open 2 hours for smart card holders.

The smart card system enables greater capacity as not every cyclist

wishes to park concurrently, therefore no rack is assigned on an

individual basis. There is a 50 pence charge for parking over a 24

hour period.

http://www.gmpte.gov.uk/



Transportation

3.8 Bike ‘n’ Ride and Cycle Hire Scheme

Virgin Trains is to become one of the first flagship Bike ‘n’ Ride train companies in the country following a £1m joint

funding venture from the DfT and Cycling England.

A total of 540 additional cycle storage spaces at stations are to be shared between Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent,

Macclesfield, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly. Plans are also being drawn up for a cycle hire scheme at

Manchester Piccadilly allowing commuters working in the city to complete their journeys by bike.

It is expected that this scheme will address demand for secure cycle parking facilities from rail passengers in the

City Centre.

3.9 Potential Highway Measures

It is acknowledged that it is ultimately the responsibility of the highway authority to ensure that passengers can

easily access each station. As such, this section has been included to inform of some of the measures which the

GMPTE could discuss with the Highway Authority to improve access to the station by bike.

This initial section details the necessary support infrastructure that is required to facilitate cycle trips to and from the

station or stop. It is recommended that the Project Management team work in partnership with the relevant highway

authority to plan and deliver appropriate infrastructure (note – this is likely to be required as part of the planning

process).

3.9.1 Cycle Lanes

On-road cycle lanes allocate a section of carriageway to cyclists and

assist in providing the clear space and degree of protection required by

cyclists. For cycle lanes provided on bus routes, the preferred width is

a 3.25m (or greater) running lane with a 1.5m wide cycle lane. Cycle

lanes are not recommended on bus routes with half-carriageway widths

less than 4.75m (GMPTE Preferred Standards).

Local Transport Note 2/08 states the following benefits associated with

cycle lanes:

- Create a comfort zone for less experienced cyclists; - Assist cyclists in difficult or congested situations; - Allow cyclists to bypass features intended to slow or exclude

motorised traffic; - Help guide cyclists through complex junctions; - Controls the speed of traffic by narrowing the width of carriageway allocated to general traffic; and - Raises driver awareness of cyclists.

Where cyclists travelling to a station or stop may be required to utilise busier roads, with a limited number of side

junctions, or undertake a significant gradient, an on-road cycle lane may help to encourage cycling.

Cycle lanes may be mandatory or advisory. Where feasible, mandatory cycle lanes should be introduced as other

traffic is excluded from them during their times of operation. Vehicles are able to enter advisory cycle lanes if it is

safe to do so and advisory cycle lanes can be blocked by parked vehicles, thereby limiting their effectiveness.

Cycle lanes should provide a minimum width of 1.5m on roads with a 30mph limit.

Bus lanes can also accommodate cyclists and provide an important facility on busy radial routes. Where bus lanes

are provided as part of any new facility, it is recommended that it is made clear that cyclists can utilise them by the

introduction of appropriate signage and road markings. For cycle lanes provided within bus lanes, the preferred

situation is a 1.5m wide cycle lane marked within a 4.5m wide (or greater) bus lane. Cycle lanes should not be

marked within bus lanes less than 4.5m wide (GMPTE Preferred standards).



Transportation

3.9.2 Off-Road Facilities

Cycle access should be facilitated right up to the entrance of the

transport hub (and within the facility where cycle parking is located on

platforms). Stations or stops may be located off-highway and

accessible only by access paths/ramps.

Consideration should therefore be given to providing off-road cycle

facilities that provide direct access to stations or stops, segregated

where possible. The minimum recommended width for a segregated

two-way cycle track is 3.0m.

3.9.3 Traffic Calming

Traffic calming, often in conjunction with a 20mph zone, can have a

material impact on traffic speeds and enhance road safety for cyclists.

Speed cushions offer space for cyclists to pass through without vertical deflection and therefore do not cause

discomfort. Sufficient width should be maintained between cushions and the kerb to ensure that cyclists can safely

pass through.

Traffic calming which involves horizontal deflection (e.g. build-outs, narrowing) should be carefully considered to

prevent conflict between cyclists and general traffic. Cycle bypass lanes should be introduced where feasible.

DfT’s Local Transport Note 02/08 identifies best practice in relation to traffic calming and cycling.

3.9.4 Advance Stop Lines

Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) enable cyclists to wait ahead of queuing

traffic at signalised junctions. In addition to providing priority to cyclists

they also assist those turning right by enabling cyclists to take up a

proper turning position. A lead in cycle lane is required to enable

cyclists to access the ASL.

ASLs are relatively cheap and have little or no negative impact on

junction capacity.

Signalised junctions in the vicinity of the station or stop should, where

feasible, include ASLs. ASLs are generally popular with cyclists and

may therefore encourage more cycling (Scottish Government, 2001).

Cycle reservoirs should be at least 4 metres deep to allow cyclists to

wait a safe distance ahead of other traffic.

3.9.5 Crossings

Where there are existing pedestrian crossings that serve a clear desire line to the station, or additional pedestrian

controlled crossing facilities are proposed, then consideration should be given to upgrading them to a Toucan

crossing. Where cycle routes cross the carriageway, the introduction of Toucan crossings should be considered in

the first instance.

Toucan crossings are signal controlled crossings for pedestrians and cyclists and offer additional width, which

enable users to cycle across the road without being obliged to dismount. Where refuges are required then they

should be a least 2.0 metres wide. On bus routes, the running lane widths either side of any refuge should

be 3.25m wide (or greater). Where cycle lanes are proposed on the same route as refuges, the widths either side of

the refuge should be widened to 4.75m wide (or greater) to safely accommodate buses and cyclists (GMPTE

Preferred Standards).



Transportation

3.9.6 Signage/Markings (On Highway)

There is a need for clear cycle signage both on the approach to and at

stations/stops so that cyclists can easily locate the station and

associated cycle parking provision. Where existing cycle signage is in

place, the station should be incorporated as a destination. In addition,

key attractions and locations in the surrounding area should be signed

from the station.

Signage should be prioritised on routes which offer existing cycle

facilities or quieter, lightly-trafficked routes suitable for less confident

cyclists.

National and Regional Cycle Route numbers should be incorporated

where possible, and used as repeater signs to reduce street clutter.

Consideration should also be given to providing carriageway markings

to support signage and also reduce street clutter.

As with pedestrian signage, care should be taken to ensure signage is

legible, continuous and appropriate.

Key considerations are as follows: -

- All signage should comply with TSRGD 2002. - Signage should not be installed in locations which may cause conflict

to the movement of pedestrians and cyclists. - Signs should be fixed to posts with anti-rotational clips to ensure that they cannot be turned. - Signs should be mounted at a height of no less than 2.4m from the ground.

4 Cycle Parking Provision

Matrix



Transportation

4.1 Criteria for Provision

This section provides an explanation of the rationale which informed the development of the matrix which calculates

a minimum standard for the amount and type of cycle parking facilities recommended for Metrolink stops and bus

stations in Greater Manchester. The matrix also calculates an associated cost for this provision.

The matrix has been informed by site audits undertaken at each facility during May 2010 and literature detailing best

practice examples and standards from organisations such as TfL.

The matrix consists of separate criteria, which are used to generate a minimum recommended standard for each

station. The criteria are as follows: -

- Peak time patronages (or number of bus stands); - Evidence of demand; - Bikeability of surrounding highway network; and - Natural surveillance. The recommended levels of cycle parking may be subject to variation following discussions with the relevant local authority.

4.1.1 Patronage Data

Figures for Metrolink patronage have been sourced from Greater Manchester Transportation Unit’s (GMTU) Public

Transport Statistics (2008) data. Metrolink stop arrivals are assumed in this instance to be those boarding and

alighting in the AM Peak (07:30—09:30).

Table 4.1 details the baseline recommended parking provision at each Metrolink stop, prior to any weighting being

applied as a result of other factors. This has been banded for ease of purpose, but represents approximately one

cycle parking facility (generally Sheffield stand or locker) for every 100-200 users, equivalent to the TfL

recommendation for a non-interchange or district interchange rail station.

Table 4.1: Baseline Recommended Parking Provision for Metrolink Stops

Metrolink Peak-Time Patronage Baseline Recommended Parking Stands

1-499 5

500-999 8

Over 1,000 10

On-Street City Centre stop 0

For rail stations, a weighting of one cycle parking stand per 200 peak-time station entrants has been applied as per

TfL guidance.

Bus station parking standards have been calculated on the basis of one cycle parking stand per every four bus

stands. It is acknowledged that GMP Parking Guidelines stipulate a minimum of 10 spaces per bus station,

however following consultation with officers at Manchester City Council and site audits demonstrating lower take up

of existing cycle parking provision at bus stations, a minimum provision of 1 cycle parking stand per every 4 bus

stands is recommended.

4.1.2 Evidence of Demand

Table 4.2 demonstrates the weighting that has been attributed to the baseline recommended cycle parking

standards as a result of the evidence of demand identified for each station/stop.

4 Cycle Parking Provision Matrix



Transportation

Table 4.2: Evidence of Demand

Evidence of Demand

Effect on Baseline

Recommended Cycle Parking

Standard

Example

High Increase minimum

recommended standard by 25%

Existing cycle parking facilities at or near capacity.

Medium No change Existing cycle parking facilities utilised, but not at

capacity.

Low Reduce minimum recommended

standard by 20%

Existing parking facilities unused or underutilised

(>10%)

4.1.3 Bikeability of Surrounding Highway Network

As it can be argued that there is likely to be reduced levels of cycling in areas with little or no cycling infrastructure,

or areas simply not conducive to cycling, a criterion has been included in the matrix that addresses this factor, with

weightings shown in Table 4.3. The bikeability of the surrounding highway network is assumed to be for an average

cyclist.

Table 4.3: Bikeability of Surrounding Highway Network

Bikeability of

surrounding Highway

Network

Effect on Baseline

Recommended Cycle Parking

Standard

Example

Good Increase minimum

recommended standard by 25%

Station in close proximity to National or Regional

Cycle Route (e.g. Radcliffe). Cycle lanes and

signage in place to assist cyclists access the

station.

Moderate No Change

Provision for cyclists on busier roads. Area

around station may not provide cycle

infrastructure but experiences low traffic flows

(e.g. residential area).

Poor Reduce minimum recommended

standard by 25%

Roads providing access to station experience

heavy traffic flows. Lack of cycling facilities in the

immediate area.

4.1.4 Natural Surveillance

Table 4.4 demonstrates how the level of natural surveillance affects the recommended proportion of cycle parking is

comprised of lockers:

Table 4.4: Natural Surveillance

Natural Surveillance Effect on Recommended

Cycle Parking Type Example

High 25% of cycle parking provision

comprised of lockers

A staffed station (e.g. Victoria) would represent an

example of a station that provides good natural

surveillance. In addition, stations located in areas

of high footfall also benefit from improved natural

surveillance (e.g. Piccadilly).

Medium 50% of cycle parking provision


The level of natural surveillance is satisfactory;

however there may be room for improvement,

such as the introduction of lighting or cutting back

vegetation.

Low 75% of cycle parking provision


An unstaffed station, with low footfall and poorly

lit.



Transportation

4.1.5 Minimum Recommended Cycle Parking Provision Calculation

Using a combination of these criteria, a baseline recommended cycle parking standard for each station can be

calculated. Where cycle parking is being provided at rail stations and Metrolink stops, a minimum of 5 spaces

should be provided, even if the matrix indicates a reduced level. Table 4.5 demonstrates this calculation using Sale

Metrolink Station as an example.

Table 4.5: Baseline Recommended Cycle Parking Provision - Example Calculation

Element Input Score

Patronage Over 1,000 peak time users 10 stands

Current Demand Low Decrease by 25%

Bikeability Moderate No Change

Baseline Recommended Parking Provision: 8 cycle parking facilities

Natural Surveillance Moderate 50% of parking facilities comprised of

lockers

Recommendation Provision for Sale Metrolink: 4 Sheffield Stands and 4 Lockers (effectively accommodating a maximum of 12 cyclists at any one time)

As discussed, where the matrix generates a recommendation of below five parking stands, the minimum should be

applied.

4.1.6 Interchanges

It is considered that whilst interchanges can offer economies of scale in terms of the provision of shops and services

that may not otherwise be viable, there is limited impact on the number of cycle parking facilities required.

Patronage remains the primary indicator of the number of passengers who are likely to cycle to a transport hub.

Therefore, the matrix combines the totals for Metrolink, rail and bus based on the assumptions set out in Section

4.1.1.

However, when considering the location of cycle parking facilities, it may be appropriate to group recommended

provision in a central location to ensure cyclists are able to easily find an available space and reduce the amount of

signage required.

4.1.7 City Centre Metrolink Stops

It is considered that City Centre Metrolink stops are distinct from others on the Metrolink network with regard to

potential demand for cycle parking provision. There is a large number of existing cycle parking facilities in the city

centre which can be used by cyclists. Also, given that the City Centre represents the destination for many cyclists, it

can be expected that workplaces will, in many cases, provide sheltered and secure cycle parking facilities, as well

as lockers. It is not considered likely that those who live in the City Centre would cycle a short distance to a City

Centre stop, lock their bicycle to adjacent parking facilities and continue their onward journey by tram. In addition,

space limitations and the likely abuse of freestanding lockers (particularly during the night) would limit the potential

for the installation of cycle lockers.

It is recommended that no additional cycle parking provision is installed at City Centre Metrolink stops and instead

additional lockers are provided at City Centre terminus stops (e.g. Piccadilly Station).

5 Good Practice Quick

Reference Guide



Transportation

5.1 Good Practice Quick Reference Guide

This section has been developed to provide examples of good practice already found at bus and Metrolink stations

around Greater Manchester that can be used to inform future developments. These examples have been split into

five key themes:

- Movement and Comfort; - Accessibility; - Legibility; - Security; and - Cycle Infrastructure.

5.2 Movement and Comfort

Stop infrastructure located away from movement zone

High quality arrival points and gateways

Permeability for internal and external destinations Rationalisation of furniture and removal of

unnecessary ‘clutter’

Sufficient infrastructure to accommodate sporting and

cultural events Provision of shelter from the elements and seating

5 Good Practice Quick Reference Guide



Transportation

Seamless interchange between modes tram/bus/rail

Layout of facilities aids movement

Conspicuous use of infrastructure to ease navigation

around stations and interchanges Key desire lines served improves access to

stations/stops

High quality legible internal station signage, detailing facilities within the station and the surrounding area

Well-defined corridor through station aids movement



Transportation

5.3 Accessibility

Ramp with gentle gradient facilitating access for

disabled persons

When crossing tramlines clear visibility, level surfacing and correct use of tactile paving

High quality surfacing

Avoidance of obstacles

Consistent use of design and materials within stations

and interchanges

Surfaces and materials designed to provide visual and physical contrast



Transportation

Accessible entrances should be in prominent locations

and well signposted

Clear and legible signage throughout transport sites. The use of symbols aids legibility.

Careful consideration of all users Clearly defined pedestrian route between Town Centre

and Metrolink Station included raised crossings aids accessibility to and from the station

Tactile information, prominent handrails and resting

points on stairs improve station accessibility

Appropriate pedestrian crossing provision improves access to stations/stops



Transportation

5.4 Legibility

Prominent signage to and from the surrounding area

Use of surface treatments to guide pedestrians

Provision of maps and information about the local area.

Within bus stations provide clear visibility and access between bus stands

Good sightlines to and from entrances and between

modes Provision of operational information at prominent

locations



Transportation

Changes in level should be accessible for all users Clearly displayed service and timetable information

Bus station signed as part of Town Centre signing

strategy Use of logos to aid legibility of destinations

5.5 Security

High levels of surveillance Visible CCTV coverage deters criminality and

enhances the feeling of security



Transportation

Cycle parking located in prominent locations with high levels of surveillance. Provision for long and short stay

parking

Use of high quality lighting to supplement natural light

Use of natural light improves sense of security for

passengers

High levels of footfall improve natural surveillance

Access management – encouraging the use of some

spaces whilst discouraging the use of others

Formal human security through patrols, staffing or information points



Transportation

5.6 Cycle Infrastructure

Good positioning and high quality infrastructure promotes cycling as a transport mode. Natural

surveillance enhances safety

Consistency in provision

Safe, secure and accessible cycle parking

Covered provision for longer stay parking

Easy to use facilities used by all members of the

community Well spaced and easy to use

Signed connections to and from the surrounding cycle networks



Transportation

Safe and segregated routes connecting cyclists to

public transport and cycle parking Parking should be located as close as possible to the

final destination without forming an obstruction to movement or a hazard to safety

Signage of cycle parking facilities informs cyclists of

their availability and location

Cycle parking facilities located parallel with the platform to maximise available width

Sheltered cycle parking facilities built into the station

fabric in an attractive environment

Cycle direction incorporated into existing signage



Transportation

Cycle parking design consistent with that of

surrounding street furniture

Cycle lane in the vicinity of the station

Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) on junctions near station

provide a degree of priority for cyclists

Shared pedestrian-cycle route with appropriate signage and markings

Appendix A: GMPTE Stakeholder

Consultation



Transportation

Appendix A: GMPTE Stakeholder Consultation

As part of the development of this Walking and Cycling Design Guidance, GMPTE consulted key cycling

stakeholder groups, including local authority officers and cycling user groups. In particular, opinions were sought on

the type, location and use of cycle parking provision at transport hubs.

Tables A.1 to A.8 detail the responses to the research questions and Table A.9 lists the individuals/groups that

responded.

Table A.1: Where should storage be located for easy access & how can access be improved?

Response Quantity

Individuals Groups

On the platform where possible. 3 1

Conveniently placed near station facilities. 3 2

Not blocked by parked cars. 1 1

Within the station building. 3

Visible from/close to station entrance. 7 3

Not up steps, or have narrow 'gulley' on the sides of stairs for bike to be wheeled in while ascending/descending.

3 4

Should not compromise pedestrian routes. 2 2

Routes to cycle parking provided and identified.

2

Dropped kerbs. 1

Table A.2: How can we improve the availability of storage/ make sure there is sufficient storage available for

occasional users?

Response Quantity

Individuals Groups

Overspill facilities provided. 2 1

Better management of the cycle storage scheme using smart card system. 1

Increasing quantity of stands/allowing room for expansion. 6 1

Using stands and lockers that are available to all. 1

Monitor existing usage. 2 1

‘Pay as you go' lockers. 1

A way of checking availability online. 1

Padlocks for sale on-site or in cafés/shops. 1

As cycle parking grows, remove car parking. 1



Transportation

Table A.3: Should storage be available at all locations (e.g. bearing in mind different levels of security)?

Response Quantity

Individuals Groups

Yes. 10 2

Ask for feedback from station staff. 1

All stations whether staffed or unstaffed should have adequate security to protect the travelling public.

3

No. 3 1

Table A.4: How can we maximise the usage of lockers?

Response Quantity

Individuals Groups

Mix of coin for casual users and swipe card for regular. 1 1

Better advertising. 7 4

Not charging for their use. Free for all. 3

Having them maintained by station management. 2 1

Offer 'free' insurance as part of the cost to use. 1

You shouldn't. 1

Lockers for more than one bike. 1

Ensure all lockers are of sufficient size for all bikes. 1

Table A.5: Should charging be per use, or a one-off charge?

Response Quantity

Individuals Groups

On demand system could be run for a small charge. 1

Raise finances via other methods; corporate locker rental, leasing programs and advertising.

1

No charging 3 2

Per use 4

Initial membership of 1-2 months after which users need to renew it. 1

Mixture of subscription lockers and 'Pay as you go' lockers. 4 2

Rentals for defined periods or tie-in with season tickets. 1 1

One-off charge. 1 2



Transportation

Table A.6: What signage is needed to encourage take up (e.g. to the stations, within the station)?

Response Quantity

Individuals Groups

Advertising. 9 3

Sign at stations showing layout of where parking is allocated. 7 2

As regards to stations with lockers, information should be available specifically about lockers.

1 2

Where CCTV is located, signs to acknowledge this. 1

GMPTE need to provide information/marketing. 3

Signage to promote BLUC. 1

Accessibility, visibility and ease of use are more important than signage. 1

Map of local cycle routes leading to the stations. 1 2

GMPTE Automated Journey Planner should include an option for integrating cycling with public transport.

1

Table A.7: Are there any supporting services that are needed to encourage people to cycle to public

transport locations?

Response Quantity

Individuals Groups

Showers/changing rooms and space for clothes/gear or specific lockers should accompany cycle parking.

5 2

Cycle lanes/safer routes around stations. 7 1

More capacity for bikes on trains. 2 1

Bikes on Trams. 1 1

Increasing public awareness of cycle to work schemes. 1

Cycle centres. 1 2

Store rooms. 1

Rental bikes. 1 2

Identify and promote safer routes from residential areas to stations. 2 1

Ensure platforms can be accessed. 1

Long term breakdown recovery. 1

Cycling Infrastructure (networks) need improving. 1



Transportation

Table A.8: Anything else, not covered above, that you feel is important?

Response Quantity

Individuals Groups

Need to be able to more easily take bikes on public transport. More space on trains and allow for bikes on Trams.

5 2

Get me home' packs sold in stores. 1

Encourage regular rides amongst cyclists. 1

Some staff and stations seem very anti-cycling. 1

Campaigns to promote the health/financial benefits of cycling. 2

Advertising that you can combine cycling and public transport. Properly integrating cycling and public transport.

1

20mph speed limits for cars. 2

Funding. 1

Perhaps branded parking. 1

Publish results of this consultation, including on website. 1

Adult Cycle Training. 1

Table A.9: Consultees

Name Authority/Organisation (where known)

Liz Madge BUG member

Stockport Cyclists (forwarded by Nikolai Matuszczak, Assistant Cycling Officer, Stockport) Stockport Cyclists Group

Robert Sawyer CycleWilmslow

Steve Bowater GM Cycling Campaign

Fiona Reynolds NHS Salford

Phoebe Spence CUG/BUG member

Richard Moss Cyclists Touring Club

Richard Alderson Peter Green Sustrans

Andy Shaw (received via Nikolai Matuszczak, Stockport Council)

Paul Bruffell Oldham Council

Chris Wigley John Brown (via Don Naylor, Stockport Council) Paul Wilson (via Peter Kidd, Salford) [email protected] Levno Plato Tim Blackwell (via Bill Harropp) University Cyclists, Manchester

Dave Stewart Rochdale Cycle Forum

Laura Prendergast Aubrey McCreesh Bolton Council

Dominic Smith Manchester Cycle forum



Transportation

Name Authority/Organisation (where known)

Phil Hardy Bike Right

David Mckelvey (via Peter Kidd, Salford) Individual

Andrew Hough Manchester Metropolitan University

Steve Essex Transport Initiatives

Oliver West Manchester City Council

Don Naylor Stockport cyclists

Roy Bradshaw Pete Abel Love Your Bike

Mary Brooks Stockport Cycle Users Group

Appendix B: Existing Policy &

Guidance



Transportation

National Policy

Local Transport Plan 3

Since the Local Transport Act 2000, there has been a statutory duty for all local transport authorities to produce a

Local Transport Plan (LTP) on a five yearly basis. Recent guidance for local authorities regarding the development

of their LTP3 displays a strong alignment with DaSTS, as the five key goals will provide the overarching criteria by

which transport measures are prioritised. The guidance also emphasises the need to align transport and spatial

planning and as such LTPs should consider and support Local Development Frameworks (LDFs).

Walking and cycling remain important to LTP strategies as targets for increasing their use are made and due to their

contribution to other components of the strategy. Walking and cycling is seen as a means by which environmental

improvements can be made as people are less likely to use the car for short journeys with complementary benefits

including contribution to improving air quality, climate change and health agendas. Journeys to stations provide a

realistic opportunity by which shifts to walking and cycling can be made for journeys to stations.

Since February 2009, the six metropolitan counties located outside of Greater London were given sole responsibility

for formulating Local Transport policies and plans for their areas.

Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority (GMITA) has the duty to produce this document for the area, and

is to be submitted by March 2011. It is to consist of a standalone strategy and supplementary implementation plan

for each constituent authority. Greater Manchester’s LTP2 target is to increase cycling by 6% between 2005 and

2010 and reduce the recent rate of walking decline to only -5% from 2004 to 2010 (number of individual walk trips /

person / year in Greater Manchester). GMPTE has a role in helping to meet these targets as well as those identifed

by LTP3.

The objectives of GMLTP3 are also to be informed by those of the Greater Manchester Strategy, which has

identified a number of key sub regional objectives for the LTP: -

- Prioritise cost-effective major transport interventions that will create maximum economic benefit to the city region, subject to positive social and environmental outcomes overall;

- Improve access from residential areas, particularly housing growth points, to key education and employment areas, particularly the Regional Centre and Town Centres, Trafford Park and other strategic employment sites;

- Improve the efficiency and reliability of the transport networks; - Improve surface access to Manchester Airport; - Improve road safety; - Enhance personal safety and security; and - Address the challenges of climate change through an integrated approach to transport network and demand

management across all modes that optimises use of the network, provides users with a full range of affordable low carbon transport options, and reduces their need to travel.

Active Travel Strategy

Currently England has particularly low levels of walking and cycling when

compared to Europe, where as many as 26% of trips are cycled in the

Netherlands (this compares to just 2% in England). The DfT 2010 Active Travel

Strategy has identified that walking and cycling have an integral role in local

transport and public health strategies. Aligning health and transport strategies

through greater co-ordination has the potential to increase the popularity of

walking and cycling. Both modes have great potential to be a means by which

people incorporate physical activity into their daily lives whilst enhancing

accessibility to jobs and services.

Poor health and obesity, congestion and accessibility and environmental issues

can all be related to a lack of active travel and present particular difficulties when

encouraging modal shift. Three key goals have been identified for the strategy

which aims to overcome these challenges:

Appendix B: Existing Policy & Guidance



Transportation

- Promote better public health and well-being by increasing levels of physical activity, particularly among the most inactive people in our society;

- Increase accessibility and reduce congestion; and - Improve air quality and reduce carbon emissions.

The strategy aims to achieve these goals by improving accessibility to key destinations (such as stations) by active

travel modes whilst also promoting the activities themselves. The strategy also emphasises alignments with road

safety through reducing injury and fatality risk on roads. Walking and cycling represent cost effective interventions

which contribute to tackling the identified challenges. The strategy emphasises that integrated walking and cycling

programmes in LTPs can get more people active and deliver significant benefits, thus offering high value for money.

National Guidance on Cycle Provision

The DfT has published policy guidance which defines the Government’s position on providing infrastructure for

cyclists and guidance on best practice for cycle infrastructure. As such, these guidelines have provided the

minimum standards underpinning the guidance in this document.

LTN 2/08

LTN 2/08 is a design guide which brings together and updates previously

available guidance available through Local Transport Notes and other

documents. The document covers England, Wales and Scotland with a focus

on infrastructure for cyclists, although equally some of the guidance has

relevance to provisions for pedestrians.

It identifies a hierarchy of provision for consideration when designing for cyclists

with consideration given in the following order: -

- Traffic Volume Reduction; - Traffic Speed Reduction; - Junction Treatment, hazard site treatment, traffic management; - Reallocation of carriageway space; - Cycle tracks away from roads; and - Conversion of footways/paths to shared use for pedestrians and cyclists.

The guidance refers to The Manual for Streets (DfT/CLG, 2007) and the

hierarchy of users which it has established. At the top of this hierarchy,

pedestrians are placed alongside provision for those with disabilities followed

by cyclists, then public transport with unaccompanied private-car users last.

The principle of this ordering is to ensure that the most vulnerable road users are fully considered in all highway

schemes (although not necessarily giving priority to pedestrians and cyclists). Five core principles have been

identified as desirable design requirements for pedestrians and cyclists: -

- Convenience; - Accessibility; - Safety; - Comfort; and - Attractiveness.

In terms of cycle parking, it advises that cycle parking standards should include advice on the quality of equipment

required.



Transportation

Traffic Advisory Leaflet 05/02

The DfT’s Traffic Advisory Leaflet 05/02 provided guidance on best practice for

cycle parking provision in July 2002. It identifies the role that good cycling

provision has in encouraging travel by this mode. In support of this, research

carried out by the Automobile Association entitled ‘Cycling Motorists’ found that

86% of cyclists interviewed considered that there was insufficient cycle parking

in public spaces, and equally high numbers said that they would cycle more if

secure cycle parking was available. Wider surveys have also identified that

secure cycle parking is the most important factor in deciding to travel by bike.

The guidance reflects upon the importance of understanding trip type (be it

collection and delivery of items/ shopping type visits/ meetings and

appointments/ workplace/ or domiciliary parking) and emphasises the

importance of sensible locations for cycle parking. It also provides guidance on

design, management and maintenance of infrastructure, whilst reflecting that

‘To be properly used, the range of solutions should reflect the wide range of trip

purposes’. With proper planning and specification, sites are shown to generate

increased cycle use by example. The consideration of a whole life package is,

however, a key element if the momentum is to be maintained.’

Cycling England

Cycling England is an independent, expert body that looks to encourage

greater amounts of cycling across the country as well as targeting safer cycling.

Formed in 2005 by the DfT, it promotes the growth of cycling in England by

championing best practice and channeling funding to partners covering training,

engineering and marketing. As well as offering guidance through a

professional design team, it provides direction through a Design Checklist and

Guidance, policy integration and definition of Design Principles.

Through promoting best practice and its definition of design principles, Cycling

England provides advice on establishing cycle friendly infrastructure and

making conditions safer and more convenient for cyclists. Safety can be

enhanced through reductions in traffic volumes and speed and through

engineering solutions. The organisation stresses the importance of considering

maintenance, scheme prioritisation, route selection and signing and strategy

when designing for cyclists.

DfT Bike and Rail Policy (2004)

The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) published this document as cycling policy

advice and guidance to Train Operating Companies (TOCs) shortly before it

was wound up. The DfT now has adopted the policies included in the

document. Advice is provided on a range of policies and activities covering a

breadth of issues and scenarios to help improve integration between the

modes. It provides information on the carriage of bikes on trains, whilst also

reviewing cycle parking, access to stations, cycle hire and cycle centres at

stations and information to cyclists using the rail network for part of their

journey.

Following the undertaking of consultation exercises, the SRA has identified a

number of features required by cyclists that inform whether people will consider

combining bike and rail journeys. These are as follows: -

- Access roads – road safety, traffic signals, signage, dropped kerbs, cycle lanes;



Transportation

- Access within stations – facilities to aid the movement of cycles around stations, in particular wheeling channels on steps;

- Ticketing, reservation and booking systems for cycle carriage (where required); - Cycle parking provision – availability, location, convenience, weather protection and security. 25% of commuters

would say that they would find it advantageous if cycle parking and access were improved to allow them to cycle from home to the station;

- Restrictions, charges, facilities, and space for carrying cycles on trains; - Information – to plan journeys with confidence, passengers need to know in advance whether they will be able to

carry their cycles on trains, and whether appropriate cycle parking will be available; - Signage to stations and to facilities within stations; and - Signage on trains indicating the location of cycle storage facilities.

Commuters who wish to combine cycle and rail journeys at times where cycle carriage on trains is not permitted

might consider: -

- Cycling at one end of their journeys and leaving their cycle parked; - Using a folding cycle and carrying this with them on their train journey; - Keeping a cycle at either end of their journey (with consequent additional demand for secure overnight parking);

and - Utilising cycle hire facilities, where available, at one or both ends of their journey.

The SRA identified a number of polices in their guidance to provide assistance for TOCs and also station operators

and local authorities. The following key policies have been identified: -

- Station operators should actively engage with the local highway authorities to improve access for cyclists to stations and seek their assistance to ensure that access is easy, safe and well sign posted;

- Station operators should, where they exist and where possible, provide good access for cyclists over private approach roads, including provision of facilities that link with Highway Authority provisions;

- When carrying out enhancement or refurbishment schemes to station grounds, station operators should consider provision of appropriate facilities for cycle access; and

- TOCs should actively pursue joint funding to facilitate station enhancement projects.

The SRA specified that for new rolling stock, TOCs should consider whether dedicated space for cycle carriage

(including handcycles, tricycles and tandems) and flexible space that can accommodate cyclists, can economically

be provided. Ultimately however, it will be up to the operators to decide the level of dedicated and shared space for

cyclists. Folding cyclists should generally be accommodated but where it is not in the best interests of passengers

to do so in peak periods, it may be considered that there are circumstances where it is not safe to do so.

Generally the presumption should be that non-folding cyclists can be carried on off-peak services, although the

following conditions may apply: -

- Place restrictions on the numbers of non-folding cycles that can be carried where this is in the interest of other passengers;

- Operate a pre-booking system, though pre-booking should be optional and not mandatory; - Where pre-booking is available and a reservation charge is incurred by the passenger for this service, the pre-

booking should guarantee that passenger designated space for their cycle; - Refuse the boarding of cycles (when it has not been pre-booked) where all dedicated spaces are filled and

constraints on flexible space make carriage prohibitive; - Charge for the carriage of non-folding cycles, though this charge should not exceed the cost of a standard

passenger ticket; - The carriage of folding cycles that can be safely accommodated as luggage within the passenger saloon should

be unrestricted and should not be charged for; and - Where appropriate and commercially viable to do so, train operators may use other ways of satisfying the

demand for the carriage of cycles and may make a reasonable charge for such a service.



Transportation

Local Guidance on Cycle Provision

COPECAT Concise Cycle & Pedestrian Audit

The Greater Manchester Concise Pedestrian & Cycle Audit (COPECAT) was

produced to provide authorities with a consistent framework for pedestrian and

cycle infrastructure across the conurbation. The guidance was put in place to

provide an audit checklist on the provision of infrastructure for schemes to

ensure that appropriate pedestrian and cycle standards are achieved. Included

in the audit is the need to assess public transport schemes including stops and

stations. It identifies the need to be fully accessible to all pedestrians,

wheelchair users and cyclists where appropriate.

In accessing interchanges, the framework ensures that users identify whether

routes are safe, secure and convenient (for all users) and whether they are

clearly marked.

It suggests that pedestrian and cycle routes should cross Metrolink tracks at 90

degrees where feasible, whilst the rail height should be flush or thereabouts

with the carriageway and tactile paving should be in place.

Greater Manchester Cycling Strategy

The LTP2 Cycling Strategy builds upon the previous plan setting the objectives

for this mode in Greater Manchester whilst concurrently supporting the

aspirations of the Greater Manchester Strategy. The strategy identifies two

objectives: -

- Increasing the opportunities for cycling, especially to key centres, employment, education, healthcare and community facilities from deprived areas; and

- Increasing the number and proportion of trips made by cycle, especially where this involves a modal shift from car use.

Included in its established policies, it suggests that specific journeys and

groups should be targeted as they are more appropriate or have greater

potential for yielding increases in cycling. Included in the targeted journeys are

those involving a rail or Metrolink stage. The following have been identified as

being the key target groups: -

- School pupils and students; - Commuters; - Leisure cyclists; and - Those who are health or environmentally conscious.

In setting its policy for cycle infrastructure, it suggests that coherent, high quality local cycle networks and facilities

should be provided. For maintenance, the LTP Maintenance Strategy and Transport Asset Management Plans are

identified as being the mechanisms by which the quality of infrastructure should be upheld.

The key indicator to be reported as part of the LTP2 progress reports was identified as being to increase recorded

flows by 6% by 2010/11 from a 2003/04 baseline. A subsidiary indicator has been identified for the monitoring of

use of cycle parking at key locations, including public transport interchanges, whilst carriage of bicycles on trains is

a further indicator.

Existing Cycle Parking Guidance

Cycle parking is a crucial element of providing a holistic cycle-friendly environment. Integration with public transport

is also key to encouraging more people to travel more sustainably and cycle parking at stations and interchanges is

essential to providing a ‘whole- journey’ approach.

Provision should be sufficient to meet the level of demand in the area, whilst also ensuring that there is sufficient

capacity for future growth. Cycle parking should accommodate the different requirements of users by



Transportation

accommodating both short and longer stay users with consideration given to the design, location and quality of

infrastructure. Table B.1 provides a summary of good practice identified by Cycling England, identifying the key

issues associated with providing high quality cycle parking.

Table B.1: Cycle Parking Good Practice

Cycle parking - Good practice

Visible Parking facilities should be well signed, easy to find and benefit from good natural

surveillance. Good positioning and high quality facilities will help demonstrate the

importance of cycling as a transport mode.

Accessible Parking should be located as close as possible to the final destination (generally within 30m).

It should be easy to get to, involving no detours, and should be well laid out with no difficult

ramps or awkward stands to deal with.

Safe and Secure It should give cyclists the confidence that their bike will still be there when they return.

Adequate provision should be made for the bicycle to be secured with its owner’s lock unless

other security arrangements make this unnecessary. The facility should help users feel

personally secure - those that make users feel at risk will not be used.

Consistently

available

In places such as shopping areas, small clusters of stands at frequent intervals are usually

better than larger concentrations at fewer sites.

Covered The level of protection from the weather should be appropriate for the length of stay. Poor

protection at long-term parking places will deter cycle use.

Easy to use Parking facilities should be easy to use by all members of the community, accept all types of

bicycle, and adequately support the frame. Cycle racks that require a bicycle to be lifted are

often ignored in favour of locations requiring less effort, such as railings or street furniture.

Bikes parked too close together can cause cables and handlebars to snag. Where provided,

locking mechanisms should not be difficult to operate and instructions easily understood.

Fit for purpose Racks and other support systems which only grip the front wheel should not be used since

they provide poor stability and do not allow the frame to be secured. Also if one bike falls, it

can damage not only itself but those next to it. Cycle parking should not be sited where it will

get in the way of pedestrians, especially those whose vision is impaired. Abandoned

bicycles should be promptly removed.

Well managed

and well

maintained

Charges (if any) should be set at a level that will encourage use. Coin-operated locks should

be properly maintained and not attract thieves. The process of paying charges for renting

lockers etc. should be as simple as possible. Automated systems or electronic smart card

operation should not create delays at peak periods.

Attractive The design of facilities should be sensitive to their surroundings. It should also attract in the

sense that users do not feel personally at risk because facilities are out of sight.

Coherent It should relate well to other cycle infrastructure. There should be no road safety hazards,

such as dangerous junctions or severance by busy roads likely to create a barrier to its use.

Where possible, signed identified routes leading directly to the cycle parking should be

provided.

Linked to other

needs of cyclists

Where provided at public transport interchanges or city centres as cycle centres,

opportunities to combine with cycle hire, repair and tourism activities should be exploited.

Greater Manchester Cycle Parking Guidelines

In the development of the Greater Manchester LTP, guidance on parking was developed including for cycle parking.

For stations, a minimum recommended standard of 10 spaces per Railway/Bus station and tram stop has been

identified. In the 2002 Greater Manchester Cycle Parking Guidelines document developed by the Greater

Manchester LTP Cycling Group, a description of the appropriate infrastructure for short and long-stay parking has

also been identified with the criteria summarised in Table B.2.



Transportation

Table B.2: Greater Manchester Cycle Parking Guidelines

Element Long Stay (Over 2 hours) Short Stay (Up to 2 hours)

Design - Cycle Lockers or Secure Compound. - ‘Sheffield’ style racks, or wall-mounted bars. Wheel slots and butterfly racks are not suitable.

Specification - Site specific but with greater security and cover than short-stay.

- Restricted access preferable. - Cycles individually locked to fixed items

such as Sheffield stands within a fenced compound, or the cycle locker within compound/locker.

- Cycles should be protected from the weather by a roof over stands.

- Secure storage for accessories preferable.

Approx Dimensions

- Sheffield stands 1m length, 0.8m height. Each stand to have at least 0.5m clear space surrounding it, and 1m between stands. Wall bars to be 0.8m off the ground, and protrude 150mm from wall.

Fixing

- Either bolted into concrete through fixing plates, or preferably embedded to a depth of at least 25mm into concrete 300mm cube.

Materials

- Steel tube or similar, of at least 40mm diameter. Preferably galvanised and plastic coated.

Signage - Facilities should be signed appropriately. - Stands should be signed appropriately.

Location - Parking should be close to the building entrance, but security is more important than proximity.

- Parking should be overlooked by public or staff, or at least by CCTV cameras, to maximise the actual and perceived level of security. The site should be well lit.

- Parking should be easily reached from access routes.

- Location of facilities should avoid conflict with pedestrians, particularly partially sighted people.

- Stands should be close to the building entrance. If there is more than one entrance to the building, consideration should be given to having smaller groups of racks at each entrance.

- Parking should be overlooked by public or staff, or at least by CCTV cameras, to maximise the actual and perceived level of security.

- Parking should be easily reached from access routes.

- Location of racks should avoid conflict with pedestrians, particularly partially sighted people.

- Parking should be preferably under cover and well lit.

Operation - Normally restricted to registered users or key holders, although lockers may be made available on a first come first served basis.

- Normally on a first come, first served basis

Additional Facilities - Consideration should also be given to the provision of a shower and changing facilities, and a drying room.

- N/A

South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE)

By comparison, in the conurbation of South Yorkshire, cycle parking standards at rail and supertram stops were

identified in 2008 as part of the wider strategy for these modes. The following standards were identified by the

SYPTE.

Minimum requirement - Three Sheffield Stands set into concrete footings or bolted to paved or tiled surfaces using security bolts;



Transportation

- It suggests that the stands should be made of tubular steel (dia. 50mm) with a length of 700mm and a height of 750mmm; and

- Stands should be 1000mm apart and appropriately signed.

Ideal Provision - Three Sheffield Stands under a shelter with side protection and appropriate signing and CCTV.

High Risk Areas - The guidance identifies that for areas where there are particular risks relating to cycle theft horizontal ‘Dog

Kennel’ type lockers should be provided with CCTV coverage and appropriate signage.

Cycle Parking Design Guidance Standards

A comparison of key guidance has been summarised in Table B.3 using national and local standards highlighting

the suggested design metrics for cycle parking facilities in terms of dimensions the fixings required, materials,

operation and any other issues for consideration which apply to the following types of cycle parking infrastructure: -

- Sheffield Stands; - Wall Loops/ Anchor Points; - Cycle Lockers; - Cycle Secure Compounds; and - Double Decker Stands and Vertical Hangers.

Please note that wheel slots have not been considered as guidance highlights that as they do not provide any level

of security, they should not be introduced for cycle parking.



Transportation

Table B.3: Cycle Parking Design Standards Comparison Cycle Infrastructure

Local Transport Note 2/08 – Cycle Infrastructure Design

Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/02, DfT (2002

Transport for London Design Guidance


Greater Manchester Police - Design for Security

Sh

eff

ield

Sta

nd

s

Dimensions - Length 700 -

1000mm

(700mm

recommended)

- Height 750mm

(+/- 50mm)

- Tube diameter

50-90mm

(large diameter

is more secure)

- Corner radii

100-250mm

- Stands placed

1000 -1200mm

- Ends of stands

should be

600mm clear of

walls and kerbs

to allow for

bicycle wheels

- A stand parallel

to a wall or

kerb should be

at least 300mm

from the wall to

allow use on

one side only

or 900mm to

allow use of

both sides

- A bike length of

clear space in

front of the

stand

- 900mm to

1200mm long

- 750 – 800mm

(max) height

- Two vertical

supports

- 37-80mm tubes

(larger tube

sizes

preferable

- Suitable space

between

stands to

enable locking

- Length 700-

1000mm (700

recommended)

- Height 750mm,

(below ground

250mm (if set

in concrete)

- 50-75mm

diameter

- Thickness of

tube wall

2.5mm

minimum

- Corner radii

100-250mm

- Distance

between

stands: 1000 -

1200mm

- Minimum

distance from

wall/perimeter

line located

either to the

side of the

stand or in front

of it: 300mm for

single sided

use and

900mm double

sided use

- Stands can be

angled at 45º to

save space

- Sheffield

stands located

near a kerb

should be at

least 0.6m from

the edge of the

kerb

- 1m long

- 0.8m height

- 1m between

stands

- 0.5m clear

space from

adjacent wall/

structure

- Length 700-

1000mm

- Height 750mm

(+/-50mm)

- Tube diameter

50-90mm

(larger

diameter is

more secure)

- Corner radii

100-250mm

- Stands should

be a clear

1000mm apart

- Toast rack

style facilities

should conform

to those of

Sheffield

stands.

Fixing - Either be set in

concrete (depth

300mm) or

bolted into the

surface of

paved or tiled

areas

- Toast racks

offer ease of

installation but

can be less

user friendly

- If toast racks

are installed fix

to flat hard

surfaces such

as pavements/

platforms using

fixing bolts

- Concrete

preferred

(although at

some locations

bolting may be

required due to

potential

structural

damage)

- Bolts: if not set

in concrete, at

least two high

security bolts

- Preferably

embedded to a

depth of at

least 25mm

(300mm

concrete cube)

- Alternatively

can be bolted

into concrete

through fixing

plates

- Security bolts

for base plates.

Otherwise,

stands should

have 'below

ground' fixings,

in a concrete

foundation

(300mmx300m

mx300m)



Transportation

Cycle Infrastructure






through each

base plate

- 150x150x6mm

base plate

welded to posts

if bolted to

surface

Materials - Finishing can

include plain

galvanised

steel, powder

coated colours

or a durable

plastic coating

- Preferred

coating for

stands is nylon

(not plastic) on

galvanised

tubing

- Steel tube of at

least 40mm

diameter

- Preferably

galvanised and

plastic coated

- If covered by

shelters the

shelter should

be visually

permeable

Location - Located close

to the

destination

(within 25m for

short stay)

- Viewed by

CCTV

- Stands located

where potential

for damage or

accidents is

minimised

- Close to

building

entrance(s)

- Overlooked or

at least CCTV

coverage

- Accessible

- Avoid

pedestrian

conflict

- Well lit

Additional Features

- A row of stands

should be fitted

with a tapping

rail

- Additional

crossbar

provides

additional

security and

tapping rail for

the visually

impaired

- Where required

additional

provision for

motorbikes

should be

provided

otherwise the

stands may

become

attractive for

motorcyclists

- Use of raised

sets or tactile

paving surface

around

installation to

give warning of

footway

obstruction

- Angling stands

can reduce

width below

700mm

- Stands should

be covered

where possible

- Preferably

under cover

- Tapping

plate/rail

benefits sight

impaired, mid

rail provides

extra stability

and locking

positions



Transportation







Operation - Whole life

maintenance

and

management

should be

considered

(station

management )

- First come first

served basis

Wa

ll L

oo

ps

/ A

nc

ho

r P

oin

ts

Dimensions - Designs are

typically simple

rings and bars

- Loops or bars

600-750mm

from the

ground will be

close to the

tube of a

conventional

adult bike

- They should

project a

maximum of

50mm from the

wall

- Spaced at

intervals of at

least 1800mm

to prevent

overlap

- Agreement is

required with

the owners of

the wall

- Stands that

support bikes

by gripping the

front wheel are

not preferred

- 700 -750mm

from the

ground

- Project no

more than

50mm from the

wall

- Set at a

minimum pitch

to park a bike

every 1800mm

or run as a

continuous rail

- Fixing rings of

about 150mm

diameter (or

bars of at least

this length)

should be fitted

between 700-

800mm high

- Protrude

150mm from

wall

- Inexpensive,

but less

secure.

Materials - Heritage

designs or

galvanised or

stainless steel

are suggested


to the

destination

(within 25m for

short stay)

- Viewed by

CCTV

Additional Features

- Longer and

larger bars give

greater

flexibility



Transportation







- Vertical bars

allow small-

wheeled

foldable cycles

to be secured

Cyc

le L

oc

ke

rs

Dimensions - Locking options

include

padlocks,

smartcards and

number

keypads

- Ensure ease of

cleaning and

airing,

ventilation and

hygiene

- Site specific

Materials - Consider

durability of

finish and ease

of graffiti/ bill-

posting

removal

- Consider

spares and

service parts

Location - Not appropriate

for all locations

as they can be

visually

intrusive

- Well lit

- Level sites

required

- Consideration

should be

given to the

potential for

expanding

facilities

- Located close

to the

destination

(within 50m for

longer stay). All

cycle parking

facilities either

within the

station or on

the public

highway

directly

adjoining are

viewed by

CCTV

- Close to

building

entrance

- Overlooked or

at least CCTV

coverage

- Well lit

- Accessible

- Avoid conflict

with

pedestrians

Additional

Features

- Management

required

- Added value

incentives can

encourage use

- Opportunities

for advertising

revenue

- Should be easy

to use

- Where space

permits, secure

lockers should

be provided for

a small charge

- Protected from

the weather

- Restricted

access

preferable

- Secure storage

for accessories

preferable

- Consideration

given to

shower/

changing/

drying facilities



Transportation







Operation

- Requires

information and

management

system with a

defined

agreement

- Available late

at night

- Whole life

maintenance

and

management

- Usually

restricted to

registered

users or key

holders.

- Can be first

come first

served basis

- Lockers are

highly

recommended

but should be

subject to

thorough

management

and

maintenance

Cyc

le S

ec

ure

Co

mp

ou

nd

Dimensions - Site specific

Fixing - Locked to fixed

items e.g.

Sheffield

Stands.

Materials - The

compound/

shelter should

be visually

permeable


to the

destination

(within 50m for

longer stay).

Should be

viewed by

CCTV.

- Close to

building

entrance

- Overlooked or

at least CCTV

coverage

- Well lit

- Accessible

- Avoid conflict

with

pedestrians

- Used in

locations

where a high

number of

bikes are

anticipated to

be stored for

long periods

Additional Features

- Protected from

the weather

- Restricted

access

preferable

- Secure storage

for accessories

preferable

- Consideration

given to

shower/

changing/

drying facilities

Operation - Use of a key or

swipe card to

access

- Whole life

maintenance

and

management

should be

- Usually

restricted to

registered

users or

keyholders.

- Lockers may

be made

available on

- Enclosures are

highly

recommended

but may

require

additional

security.

Maintenance



Transportation







considered

(station

management)

first come first

served basis.

and operation

are key

considerations.

Do

ub

le D

eck

er

Sta

nd

s a

nd

Ve

rtic

al

Han

ge

rs

Dimensions - For double-

decker stands

a ceiling height

of 2.7metres is

required along

with sufficient

space in front

of the stands to

enable loading

- Fixing stands

at 45 degrees

can help

minimise the

aisle width

where space is

limited

- Requires lifting

or mechanical

operation.

Design must

allow both

wheels and the

frame to be

secured and

provide

adequate

space per

cycle

Fixing

Materials


to the

destination

(within 50m for

longer stay)

and viewed by

CCTV.

Additional Features

- Instructions

should be

provided

Operation - Consideration

should be

given to

aspects of

security, ease

of use,

maintenance,

purchase and

installation

costs.

- More suitable

for regular

users

Appendix C: GMP Guidance on

Spacing of Cycle Stands

ECOM Walking and Cycling Design Guidance 61


Transportation

Greater Manchester Police, Design for Security, Cycle Parking Design Guidance Revision A; October 2009 ©

Appendix C: GMP Guidance on Spacing of Cycle Stands

gmpte walking and cycling design guide

Documents