Cycle Design Manual

September 2023
Cycle Design Manual

The Cycle Design Manual has been prepared by the National Transport Authority (NTA) and overseen
by the Department of Transport. This manual replaces the previous National Cycle Manual, published
by the NTA in 2011, which is now withdrawn.

Copyright
The National Transport Authority invites you to make use of the material in this manual as published,
including the images and graphics. All material, unless otherwise acknowledged, is the property of the
National Transport Authority, and any re-use should acknowledge the National Transport Authority.
The material must not be edited or amended without the permission of the National Transport Authority.

Version Description Publication Date

1.0 First publication of Cycle Design Manual replacing previous National Cycle Manual (2011) September 2023
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Table of Contents
1. Introduction 3 4.1.5 Vertical Alignment 35

1.1 General 4 4.1.6 Surface Crossfall 36

1.2 Use of Guidance 4 4.1.7 Clearances 36
1.3 Relationship with Other Design Standards and Guidelines 4 4.1.8 Headroom 37
1.4 Relaxations and Departures 5 4.2 Cycle Links 39
1.5 Updates and Revisions 5 4.2.1 Introduction 39
1.6 Policy Context 5 4.2.2 Segregated Cycle Facilities 39
2. Main Requirements & Design Principles 7 4.2.3 Standard Cycle Tracks 43
2.1 Five Main Requirements for Cycle-friendly Infrastructure 8 4.2.4 Stepped Cycle Tracks 47
2.2 Key Design Principles 12 4.2.5 Protected Cycle Lanes 48
2.3 Types of Cycle Vehicles 14 4.2.6 Two-way Cycle Tracks 53
2.4 Types of Cycle Links 16 4.2.7 Greenways and Shared Active Travel Facilities 56
2.5 Choosing Appropriate Facilities 20 4.2.8 Cycle Lanes 62
2.6 Width Calculator 22 4.2.9 Cycling in Mixed Traffic 64
4.2.10 Contraflow Cycling 73
3. Planning for cycling 25
4.2.11 Parking and Loading on Links 78
3.1 Cycle Network Planning 26
4.2.12 Bus Stops 82
3.2 Planning for Cycling in Private Developments
and Other Public Infrastructure Projects 29 4.2.13 Transitions 87

4. Designing for cycling 31 4.2.14 Pedestrian Crossings of Cycle Tracks 90

4.1 Geometric Requirements 32 4.3 Priority Junctions 93

4.1.1 Design Speed 32 4.3.1 Introduction 93
4.1.2 Sight Distance 32 4.3.2 Key design considerations 93
4.1.3 Visibility Splays 33 4.3.3 Cycle tracks at priority junctions 93
4.1.4 Hortizontal Alignment 35 4.3.4 Cycle lanes at priority junctions 101

1
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.3.5 Mixed Traffic Priority Junctions 101 5. Implementation & maintenance 151
4.3.6 Entrances & Driveways 102 5.1 Introduction 152
4.4 Signal-controlled Junctions 105 5.2 Construction Elements 152
4.4.1 Introduction 105 5.3 Maintenance 159
4.4.2 Main requirements for signal-controlled junctions 105 5.4 Public Lighting 162
4.4.3 Protected Junctions 106 5.5 Signage & Wayfinding 165
4.4.4 Other signal-controlled junction arrangements 114 6. Cycle parking 171
4.4.5 Traffic Signal Operations and Components 120 6.1 Introduction 172
4.5 Crossings 128 6.2 Design Principles 172
4.5.1 Introduction 128 6.3 Universal Access 173
4.5.2 Crossing selection 129 6.4 Locating On-Street Short Stay Parking 174
4.5.3 Uncontrolled crossing 131 6.5 Types of Equipment and Layout 175
4.5.4 Cycle priority crossing 131 6.6 Additional Security Considerations 182
4.5.5 Zebra crossings 132 6.7 Cycle Hubs 182
4.5.6 Signal-controlled crossings 134 6.8 Changing Rooms, Showers and Storage Lockers 184
4.5.7 Provision for right-turning cyclists 136 6.9 Larger cycles and E-bike parking 184
4.5.8 Grade separated crossings 138 6.10 Quantity 184
4.6 Roundabouts 144 6.11 Managing Abandoned Cycles 185
4.6.1 Introduction 144 6.12 Temporary Cycle Parking 185
4.6.2 Roundabout Types 144 Appendix: Typical layouts for cycle infrastructure 188
4.6.3 Design Principles 144
4.6.4 Improving Existing Roundabouts 145
4.6.5 Roundabouts with Protected Space for Cycling 146
4.6.6 Signal-controlled roundabouts 149
4.6.7 Roundabouts for cycling in mixed traffic 150

2
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

1
Introduction
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 1.1 General Typical layout drawings are provided in the

appendix to assist designers. The layouts are
every aspect of cycle infrastructure design
and is followed, in the Appendix, by Typical
numbered TL 101, TL 102 etc. and have been Layouts (TL) for most types of cycling
The National Cycle Manual, published by cross referenced and hyperlinked throughout infrastructure.
the National Transport Authority in 2011, has the manual in the relevant sections.
guided the design of cycle infrastructure in
Ireland over the last decade and helped set
the foundations for normalising cycling as a It is noted that some newer features will ¨ 1.3 Relationship
regular mode of transport in Ireland. require amendments to legislation which
is underway. Designers should check with
with Other Design
Design standards change over time to take
account of emerging best practice and
the NTA prior to installing any of the new
features as it is expected to take 18 to
Standards and
changing user needs. The changes required
can be influenced by many factors including
24 months from release date to have all Guidelines
legislative changes in place.
changes to the volume and diversity of
people cycling and by the use of different Cycle facilities are frequently implemented
types of cycles such as e-bikes, cargo bikes, within new or existing road and street
tricycles etc.
Increasing the number of people cycling as
¨ 1.2 Use of Guidance
corridors that typically need to cater for a
variety of transport modes and other uses.
As such, the design of cycle facilities on
a regular mode of transport is embedded multi-modal corridors will need to comply
This manual provides guidance on the
in national policy including in our National with a number of other relevant standards
design of both on-road and off-road cycle
Planning Framework, National Sustainable and guidance documents.
facilities for both urban and rural locations.
Mobility Policy and the Climate Action Plan.
The manual should be used for the design In this regard, designers should refer to
Providing safe, connected, high-quality cycle
of all new or improved cycle facilities in the Department of Transport National
facilities are key to achieving this aim. In
Ireland unless otherwise agreed with the (Infrastructure) Guidelines and Standards
particular, research has shown that safety,
relevant oversight body (e.g. NTA, TII, DoT, Group circular “NGS Circular 2 of 2022”
including road safety and personal safety, is
Local Authority). Please note that Transport for a comprehensive list of the approved
the single largest barrier to cycling for many
Infrastructure Ireland (TII) may apply standards and guidelines for works on public
people.
alternative requirements for the design roads in Ireland.
This new Cycle Design Manual supercedes of cycle facilities on the National Roads
the National Cycle Manual. The new manual Network or works funded by TII. It is particularly important to note that the
draws on the experience of delivering cycling design of cycle facilities on urban roads
infrastructure across Ireland over the last This guide outlines the context of designing and streets (i.e. those , with speed limits up
decade, as well as learning from international cycle facilities in Ireland and the increased to 60 km/h) will need to comply with the
best practice, and has been guided by the emphasis on segregation of facilities from requirements of the Design Manual for Urban
need to deliver safe cycle facilities for people motor traffic, provides information on what Roads and Streets (DMURS), the overarching
of all ages and abilities. designers need to be aware of in regard to

4
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

design manual for urban road and street than 300 cycles per hour is 2 metres, with an Feedback from practitioners is welcome,
design in Ireland. absolute minimum width of 1.5 metres. and should be sent to
If the 2m desirable minimum width cannot cyclemanual@nationaltransport.ie.
Designers should also be aware of the
be achieved on part of a given cycle scheme,
requirements to conduct Quality Audits and
then designers should look to provide the
Road Safety Audits during the various stages
of a project lifecycle. The exact requirements
widest facility possible between 1.5m and 2m
rather than simply reducing the width to 1.5m.
¨ 1.6 Policy Context
for which are set out in the Department of
Transport circular “NGS Circular 3 of 2022”. Where a proposed scheme or part thereof The delivery of safe cycling infrastructure to
does not meet the requirements of this encourage more people to cycle as a regular
Tactile paving shall be provided as part of all
manual, a departure or derogation from mode of transport is strongly supported
Active Travel corridors to facilitate people
standard should be sought and approved by a number of national policies and plans.
who are blind or vision impaired. The layout
in accordance with the requirements stated Promoters and designers of cycle facilities
of the tactile paving should be in accordance
in the Department of Transport circular should be aware of the contents of all
with the UK Department of Transport
“NGS Circular 2 of 2022” mentioned above, relevant documents. The following is a non-
Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving
prior to the relevant design element being exhaustive list of some of the key national
Surfaces.
incorporated into the works. policies and plans to be considered.

¨ 1.4 Relaxations
¨ 1.5 Updates
» National Investment Framework
for Transport in Ireland (NIFTI);
and Departures » National Sustainable Mobility Policy;
and Revisions » Climate Action Plan 2023;
Designers should always aim to design cycle
facilities in accordance with the guidance in The Cycle Design Manual and any associated » National Planning Framework
this manual. In some situations the manual guidance documents will be available – Project Ireland 2040;
provides a degree of flexibility for designs for download from the NTA website.
» National Development Plan 2021-2030
by stating desirable minimum and absolute It is intended that manual will be a live
Road Safety Strategy 2021-2030;
minimum values. Designers should aim to document which will be updated and
achieve at least desirable minimum values expanded as required to reflect emerging » National Physical Activity Plan;
in all cases. best practice and feedback from user » CycleConnects: Ireland’s Cycle Network
Where desirable minimum values cannot experience of the manual. (under development by NTA); and
be achieved, incremental reductions For this reason, the latest version of the » National Cycle Network (under
towards absolute minimum values should guidance should always be accessed development by TII).
be considered. For example, the manual through the NTA website.
states that the desirable minimum width for
a one-way cycle track with peak flows less

5
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

At a regional and local level, the delivery of safe cycle infrastructure

and increasing the mode share of cycling for transport purposes
is likewise supported by many regional and local policies and
plans which designers and promoters should be aware of. These
documents are location specific so it is not possible to list exact
titles, however the following is a non-exhaustive list of the types
of documents that should be consider.
» Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies (RSESs);
» Metropolitan Area Transport Strategies e.g. Greater Dublin
Area (GDA) Transport Strategy 2022-2042, Limerick Shannon
Metropolitan Area Transport Strategy (LSMATS) etc.;
» County Development Plans;
» County Cycle Network Plans;
» Local Area Plans and Strategic Development Zones; and
» Local Transport Plans (developed using the
Area Based Transport Assessment approach).

6
 Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

2
Main Requirements
&
Design Principles
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 2.1 Five Main An appropriate type of facility should be

chosen in accordance with Table 2.1. For
Perceived Safety
Requirements for on-line cycle facilities (i.e. facilities within
road boundaries), the type of provision will
As well as being actually safe to use, facilities
should be perceived to be safe i.e. people
Cycle-friendly primarily depend upon vehicular traffic
speeds and volumes. On roads and streets
must feel safe using them. Perceptions of
personal safety can vary from one individual
Infrastructure with very low traffic speeds and volumes, to another, so facilities should generally
it will generally be safe to cycle on the be designed so that less confident users
For cycle infrastructure to cater for the carriageway therefore no specific cycle would feel safe using them. To assess the
needs of people who currently cycle and to infrastructure may be required, although perception of safety, it could be useful for
also attract new cycle users to the network, traffic calming may be necessary to ensure designers to consider the following:
there are five main requirements which low vehicular speeds. Such streets might
include residential or access streets. As » Is there sufficient passive surveillance?
designs should fulfil under the headings of:
traffic speeds and volumes increase, cycle » Is there sufficient lighting?
i. Safety facilities will generally need to be segregated
from vehicular traffic to provide safe facilities » Can cyclists travel freely without
ii. Coherence
for all users. unnecessary interruptions/ stoppages?
iii. Directness
Getting the design and construction details » Are there enough access/egress points?
iv. Comfort right is also important to ensure facilities » Are there any known issues of anti-social
v. Attractiveness are safe to use. Some key considerations in behavior/crime in the area that should be
this regard include the removal of potential considered?
hazards, providing high-quality smooth
i. Safety surfacing, ensuring smooth horizontal
ii. Coherence
and vertical transitions and providing
There are two aspects to this requirement; appropriate gradients. At a network level, cycle routes should be
actual safety and perceived safety.
From a safe approach perspective (See connected and easy to navigate. Cycle routes
Section 2.2), designs should also be forgiving should not have gaps or be interrupted at
Actual Safety so that if/when mistakes or accidents occur, difficult locations. Any weak links in the
outcomes are as benign as possible. network will reduce the overall level of
Cycle facilities should be designed so that For example, the use of bevelled kerbs service, could deter new or less confident
they are safe for people of all ages and adjacent to cycle tracks can assist with users to cycle and render a whole journey
abilities to use. To ensure facilities are safe, evasive manoeuvres and the use of inaccessible for some people.
there are a number of factors that need to horizontal buffers can provide additional
be considered. recovery space between cycle facilities
and carriageways should accidents occur.

8
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Clear signing and wayfinding can be particularly important where Coherence is also important at an individual scheme level,
cycle routes use minor roads and off-line facilities that are not signed particularly where a number of different link types are connected.
for other traffic. See example in Figure 2.1. Wayfinding can be very For example where the cycle provision changes from quiet street to
useful for new users and visitors to navigate their way around the a cycle track (Figure 2.2) the transition must be logical and intuitive.
cycle network. Refer to Section 5 for further guidance on signing and
wayfinding.

Figure 2.2: Example of a seemless transition from a quiet street to a cycle

track, Eden Park, Dublin.

Similarly, at large or complex junctions the route for cyclists through

the junction should be clearly defined and easily understood by all
users. The use of red surfacing and road markings (see Figure 2.3)
will be key design tools in this regard.

Figure 2.1 Example of wayfinding on the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County

Council Active School Travel Scheme.

9
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

longer but more convenient and easier

to use.
iv. Comfort
Cycle facilities should be designed and
To make cycling an attractive alternative
maintained so that they are comfortable
to driving short distances, cycle routes
to use. Anything that causes unnecessary
should be at least as direct – and preferably
discomfort or delay is likely to reduce
more direct – than those available for
the comfortableness and therefore the
private motor vehicles. Permitting cyclists
attractiveness of the facility. There are
to make movements prohibited to motor
a number of factors that influence the
traffic, allowing contraflow cycling on one-
comfortableness of a facility including:
way streets, and creating links between
cul‑de‑sacs to enable cyclists to take
» Width – ensure the width is sufficient
the shortest route, should be the default
for the number and type of users;
approach in traffic management schemes
Figure 2.3 Example of red surfacing and road » Gradients – ensure gradients are not
and new road networks. Area-wide
markings used to delineate the cycle route excessive;
schemes and new developments can enable
through a large junction.
filtered permeability, allowing cyclists and » Stoppages and Delays – minimise the
pedestrians to take more direct routes than number of obstructions or detours that
iii. Directness motorised traffic. See example in Figure 2.4. impact on the cycling momentum;
» Surfacing – ensure surface is smooth
Directness is measured in both distance and and well drained;
time. Ideally cycle routes should connect
origins and destinations using the shortest » Shelter – minimise exposure to inclement
route with as little delay as possible. This weather; and
includes providing facilities at junctions » Maintenance – ensure facility is regularly
that minimise delay and the need to stop. cleaned and maintained in good
Minimising the effort required to cycle, by condition.
enabling cyclists to maintain momentum,
is an important aspect of directness. An
indirect designated route involving extra v. Attractiveness
distance or more stopping and starting will
result in some cyclists choosing the most Cycling is a sensory experience as people
direct, faster option, even if it is less safe. Figure 2.4: Example of filtered permeability are directly exposed to the environment they
However, it is sometimes advantageous to scheme in Bishopstown, Cork where access for are moving through therefore the cycling
avoid steep gradients or major junctions motor traffic is restricted but pedestrians and environment along a route should ideally
by using an alternative route that is slightly cyclists have a direct route. be as pleasant and interesting as possible.

10
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Cycle routes through high-quality urban environments, parks and Regular maintenance is very important to maintain the attractiveness
waterfront locations are typically some of the most attractive of cycle facilities. Cycle links should be cleaned regularly to maintain
cycling environments. a ride surface that is free of litter, debris, broken glass, fallen leaves
etc. The maintenance of other facilities such as cycle parking or light
The use of horizontal buffers between cycle facilities and
segregation devices is also important to ensure they remain fit for
carriageways (Figure 2.5) can also significantly improve the
purpose, clean, visible etc.
attractiveness of a route. Setting back cycle facilities behind a
buffer can reduce the negative impacts of noise and air pollution
from vehicles on people cycling. Additionally, buffers can also
provide opportunities for planting and/or sustainable drainage
systems (SuDS) which can further enhance a route’s attractiveness.

Figure 2.5: Example of green buffer between a cycle track and carriageway.

Cycle infrastructure should help to deliver public spaces that are

well designed and finished in attractive materials and be places that
people want to spend time using. The surfaces, landscaping and
street furniture should be well maintained and in keeping with the
surrounding area. Planting in parks and rural areas should consider
the aesthetic and sensory qualities that create attractive vistas and
fragrances as well as practical considerations about maintenance.

11
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 2.2 Key Design » Cycling requires more physical effort

than walking – particularly on steep
is rolled out across the country. As many of
the new design elements in the manual stem
Principles gradients and taking off from a stationary
position.
from international best practice, particularly
from The Netherlands, Denmark and the
UK, designers are also encouraged where
The principles below should be adhered » Cyclists often have to share the road
possible to gain user experience of such
to when designing cycle facilities. with motor traffic – the only way to
facilities abroad.
appreciate what it feels like to cycle on
1. Safe system approach road with motor traffic is to experience it
first-hand. It is worth remembering that 3. Network approach
The safe system approach, which is a key
component of Ireland’s Road Safety Strategy mixed traffic environments can provide
Focus on the delivery of coherent and
2021-2030, should be adopted in the design a suitable provision for cycling but
connected cycle networks i.e. a series
of cycle infrastructure. The Safe System only when vehicular traffic speeds and
of interconnected routes joining all main
approach recognises that human bodies volumes are at an appropriate level
origins and destinations without gaps or
are fragile and that human error cannot be (see Table 2.1)
interruptions in provision.
eliminated. The approach aims to reduce the To have a greater understanding and
likelihood of a collision occurring and, if one appreciation of the main needs of cyclists, 4. Segregation
does occur, to ensure that those involved it is strongly recommended that everyone
will not be killed or seriously injured. A key involved in the promotion and delivery of Pedestrian and cycle facilities on roads and
consideration of the safe system approach cycle infrastructure should have recent streets, other than quiet streets (i.e. those
for cycle infrastructure will be to ensure experience of utility cycling, i.e. cycling with low vehicular speeds and volumes),
designs are as forgiving as possible. for transport purposes, on various types should be segregated from traffic and from
of infrastructure in Ireland. This includes each other. There is a growing body of
2. Promoters of cycle facilities should engineers, technicians, planners, senior evidence which shows that the provision
cycle management in Local Authorities and elected of segregated, safe cycle infrastructure is
representatives. crucial to attract people to switch to cycling
Designing cycling infrastructure is quite as a regular mode of transport.
different to designing infrastructure for Designers of cycle facilities should also cycle
motorists or pedestrians. Cyclists have a each route they are designing to experience
the cycling environment first-hand and gain 5. Everyday mobility
particular set of requirements as outlined
above, which are similar to those for an appreciation for how the route fits in to
Focus on delivering cycle infrastructure
pedestrians in some respects, but differ the overall cycle network.
that caters for everyday cycle trips to
in a number of key ways: It is also recommended that designers gain schools, shops, services etc. as well as
» Cyclists travel at greater speeds first-hand experience of the new types of commuting trips. Some rural cycle facilities
than pedestrians. cycle infrastructure promoted in this manual e.g. greenways, may be more focused on
e.g. protected junctions, as the infrastructure recreational cycling, however such facilities

12
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

can also provide important transport corridors so it is important that

this is factored into such scheme designs.

6. Universal Design and Inclusive Mobility

Cycle facilities should be designed to be useable by people of

all ages and abilities using a variety of different types of cycles
and wheeling equipment. It is worth noting that there has been a
noticeable increase in recent years in the use of non-standard
cycle equipment such as cargo bikes, tricycles, electric bicycles
etc. and it is anticipated that their popularity will continue to
increase as our cycle networks become more developed.
The use of motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters is also
permitted on cycle tracks and it would be similarly anticipated
that as our cycle networks are developed further, more people
using wheelchairs and mobility devices will be encouraged and
enabled to use the networks as is commonly seen in other
countries with more mature cycle networks (see Figure 2.6).
It is also worth noting that legislation to allow the use of
Powered Personal Transporters e.g. E-Scooters, on Irish Roads
including cycle facilities, was enacted in June 2023. It is anticipated
that further guidance in relation to the accommodation of these
devices on cycle infrastructure will be issued in due course.

Figure 2.6: Person using a mobility scooter on cycle track in the Netherlands.

13
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 2.3 Types of Cycle Vehicles

Nowadays there are a wide variety of vehicles used for cycling.
Figure 2.8 shows the typical types and dimensions of cycles vehicles
in use which include a range of non-standard cycles including
cycles with trailers for children or deliveries, cargo bikes (Figure
2.7), tricycles, tandems, and a range of inclusive cycles designed for
people with mobility impairements including hand cycles.

2.3.1 Universal Design Vehicle

To ensure cycle facilities are accessible to all users, it follows that
cycle facilities must be designed to cater for all the different types
of cycle vehicles in use.
As these vehicles come in different shapes and sizes, the concept
of a “Universal Design Cycle” should be used for design purposes.
The universal design vehicle represents a composite of all the cycles
that may reasonably use the cycle network.
The dimensions of the Universal Design Cycle are 2.8m long and
1.2m wide. Designing the cycle network based on these vehicle
dimensions will ensure that facilities are accessible to all.

Figure 2.7: Front Loading Cargo Bike.

14
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Standard
StandardBicycle
Bicyle Wheelchair Bicycle
Wheelchair Bicycle Child
Child Trailer Bicycle
Trailer Bicycle

· 1.8m length · 2.65m length · Additional turning circle requirements

· 0.65m width · 0.66m width up to 3.2m
· 1.65m turning circle · Additional turning circle requirements · Trailer attached (up to 1.3m long)
up to 3.2m

Cargo
Cargo Bicycle
Bicycle Front
Front Loading Cargo Bicycle
Loading Cargo Bicycle Tricycle // Handcycle
Tricycle Handcycle

Euro pallet
1.2m 0.8m
dimensions

· Trailer can be attached · 2.0m - 2.5m · Additional turning circle requirements

(extra 1.6m long) · Up to 0.85m wide up to 2.65m
· Additional turning circle requirements · Lower eye height for visibility
up to 2.65m · Lower clearance to kerbs and other
objects
Figure 2.8: Typical types and dimensions of cycle vehicles.

15
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 2.4 Types of Cycle Links

This section provides a high-level overview of various types of cycle
links that may be used. Further details on each type of facility are
provided in Section 4.2.

16
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Standard Cycle Track

Segregated cycle facilities that are
separated from vehicular traffic by a full
height kerb. A buffer may be located
between the carriageway and cycle track.
Suitable for most roads in urban areas
with speeds limits of up to 60 km/h.
Can be either one-way or two-way cycle
facilities.

Stepped Cycle Track

Segregated cycle facilities that are raised
by 60-75mm above the carriageway
surface and typically 60mm below the
adjacent footpath. Generally no buffer
between cycle track and carriageway
Suitable for roads with speed limits
up to 50 km/h.
Only suitable as one-way cycle facilities.
Two-way stepped cycle tracks should not
be used.

17
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Protected Cycle Lane

At-grade (carriageway level) cycle facilities
that are physically separated from vehicular
traffic. Separation is typically achieved
via light segregation devices e.g. bollards,
planters or modular units, or achieved by
locating cycle lanes behind parking bays.
Effective for protecting existing cycle lanes
and for quickly reallocating road space.
Suitable on urban roads with speed limits
up to 50km/h (depending on traffic
volumes). Can be either one-way or
two-way cycle facilities.

Mandatory Cycle Lane

Mandatory Cycle lanes are marked on
carriageways by a continuous white line
and not physically separated from motor
traffic. Motor traffic is legally prohibited
from entering mandatory cycle lanes,
except for access purposes.
Only suitable on roads with low motor
traffic volumes and speeds.
Only suitable as one-way cycle facilities.
Also suitable to provide contra-flow cycle
lanes on one-way streets.

18
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Mixed Traffic
Cyclists share the carriageway with vehicular
traffic. Only suitable for roads with low traffic
speeds and volumes such as quiet residential
or access streets. Traffic management or
calming measures are likely required to
ensure low traffic speeds and/or volumes.
Cycle streets can be considered on
residential access streets where the volume
of cyclists is typically greater than the
volume of motorists.

Shared Active Travel Facility

/ Greenway
Two way cycle route, typically shared
with pedestrians, but segregation is also
possible. Typically located off-line (away
from vehicular carriageway) or sometimes
adjacent to a rural roads.
Greenways, particularly those in rural
locations, may be primarily intended for
recreational use, however they can generally
still perform an important transport function.

19
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 2.5 Choosing speed and volume conditions are met?

» Does the presence of kerbside activity
How to use Table 2.1
Appropriate such as loading, parking and bus stops Table 2.1 can be used in two ways as follows:
increase the risk to cyclists?
Facilities » Are there any other site specific issues i. Determine the existing or
that could increase the risk to cyclists and intended vehicular traffic speeds
Table 2.1 shall be used to guide designers in and flows and select a suitable cycle
the selection of suitable cycle facilities based warrant greater protection from motor
traffic? provision.
on the traffic regime and intended cycle
users. The table is colour-coded as shown This manual advocates for cycle facilities For example, if the existing speed limit
below to indicate the suitability of each that are inclusive and suitable for users of is 50 km/h and traffic volumes are >600
provision for users based on traffic regimes. differing ages and abilities therefore the pcu/peak hour and these are likely to
default position should be that facilities that remain the same, a stepped cycle track
Provision suitable for most are suitable for most users (green category) or a standard cycle track would be
users. should be provided. considered suitable provision.
Provision may not be suitable
for all users and may exclude ii. Choose the type of cycle facility that is
some potential users.
The provision of facilities that may not
be, or are not, suitable for a range of desirable and adapt the vehicular traffic
Provision not suitable users, i.e. amber or pink categories, speeds and volumes to suit.
for a range of users. shall be a departure from standard
and should only be implemented with For example, if a mixed traffic street is
Provision not suitable. the written approval of the relevant desirable but current traffic speeds are
approving authority. too high (e.g. 50 km/h) for this to be a
suitable provision for most users, for a
In addition to motor traffic speeds and mixed street to be suitable, the scheme
volumes, designers should also consider The dark grey category is used to indicate must be designed so that traffic speeds
the following when selecting the most where facilities are not suitable based on the and volumes are reduced to a level that
appropriate type of cycle facility: traffic regime and shall not be used. complies with the relevant thresholds in
the table.
» What is the classification of the cycle
route and will the facility provide the
quality expected for the route type?
» Does the composition of motor traffic
(e.g. high volumes of HGV’s) increase the
risk to cyclists even where motor traffic

20
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Table 2.1 - Cycle facilities selection guide

Two-way Standard cycle

Remote Cycleway/ Stepped cycle Protected Cycle Mandatory Cycle
Speed Limit1 traffic flow track (incl. Mixed Traffic
Greenway track Lane Lane
(peak hour pcus) two-way tracks)

< 200

20 km/h 200-400

> 400

< 200

30 km/h 200-400

> 400

< 200

40 km/h 200-400

> 400

< 200

50 km/h 200-400

> 400

60 km/h Any

≥ 80 km/h Any

Provision should be suitable for most users.

Provision may not be suitable for all and may exclude some potential users (Departure required).
Provision not recommended as it’s unlikely to be suitable for a range of users (Departure required).
Provision not suitable.
Notes:
1. If the 85th percentile motor traffic speed is more than 10% above the speed limit, the next highest speed limit should be applied.

21
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 2.6 Width Calculator Calculating the width of a cycle facility

The required width of a cycle facility is calculated using the
The width of cycle facilities should be calculated in accordance with following equation: Total width = A + B + C. When calculating
Table 2.2. The width required is made up of the four basic elements widths, the following should be taken into account:
(A, B, C, D) shown below. Additional width may also be required to
» Desirable minimum widths from the table should be used.
cater for steeper gradients and drainage systems (refer to width
Where desirable values cannot be achieved, incremental
calculator notes).
reductions towards absolute minimum values should be
A = Inside Clearance; the space to the left of cyclists which is considered.
determined by the inside edge/boundary of the cycle facility.
» The use of widths below absolute minimum values is not
B = Central Width; the space required for cycling which depends recommended. However, in exceptionally constrained
on the type of facility, direction of flow and anticipated volume of circumstances, where continuity of the cycle network is
cyclists. paramount, the use of non-standard widths may be acceptable
C = Outside Clearance; the space required to the right of cyclists subject to a departure being approved by the relevant
which is determined by outside edge/boundary of the cycle facility. Approving Authority.

D = Buffer; the horizontal separation required between the cycle » The absolute minimum width of a cycle track at pinch points,
facility and traffic, which is determined by the speed limit of the preferably over short lengths only, is 1.25m.
road. » Where a cycle track has an outside kerb flush with the cycling
surface, the kerb is considered to be included within the width
of the cycle facility.
» Longitudinal road markings that form part of cycle facilities
are considered to be included within the width of cycle facilities.
» The maximum width of a cycle lane should be 2.5m, to avoid
confusion with a traffic lane.

22
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Determining Cycle Flows Determining Buffer Width

To determine the value for ‘B’ it will be necessary to estimate future The required buffer width (D) is also determined from the Table 2.2
cycle flows along the route under consideration. To estimate future and is based on the speed of adjacent traffic. Wide buffers can help
flows it is recommended that a ‘Decide and Provide’ approach (see to improve the cycling experience, e.g. by reducing cyclists exposure
Section 3.1.3) is adopted. In this approach it should be decided, on to air and noise pollution from traffic, so values wider than the
a policy basis, what the most desirable future might be and then the desirable minimum below are to be encouraged wherever possible.
infrastructure to try deliver that scenario should be provided. Buffers may also provide ideal locations for introducing landscaping
In some cases, the desirable future scenario (e.g. future cycling mode or nature based drainage solutions (note - verges less than 0.5m
share targets) may already be identified in a Local Transport Plan may not be suitable for landscaping as they may be difficult to
or Development Plan and these can be used to develop future cycle maintain so a hard/paved verge may be necessary). Where desirable
flows. values cannot be achieved, incremental reductions towards absolute
minimum values should be considered. Where buffer widths cannot
Where future cycling mode share targets are not readily available,
comply with this guidance, a departure must be approved by the
the NTA Cycle Propensity Scenarios (available here), which provide
relevant Approving Authority.
a set of possible future cycling scenarios for the entire country, can
be used to determine cycling mode share targets to develop future
flows.
It should be noted that a buffer is always required adjacent
It should be noted that the use of existing cycle flows to determine to a two-way cycle facility to provide separation between
the value for ‘B’ is not recommended. The measurement of existing cyclists and on-coming motor traffic and prevent cyclists
flows can be helpful to gain an understanding of current volumes, from veering out onto the carriageway. Refer to section
however, in most cases these numbers are unlikely to reflect the full 4.2.6 for further details.
potential for cycling due to inadequacies of the existing route and/or
surrounding network. Similarly, the use of local transport models to
estimate future cycle flows is not generally recommended as some
factors that encourage cycling are not typically captured in standard
transport models so future cycle flows may be underestimated.

23
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Table 2.2 - Width Calculator

A. Inside Clearance
Feature Additional width required (m) Notes:
Flush or near-flush surface including low and splayed kerbs up to 60mm high 0.00 i. Desirable minimum widths
should be used when calculating
Kerbs 61mm to 150mm high 0.20
required widths of facilities.
Vertical feature from 151mm to 600mm high 0.25
Where desirable values cannot
Vertical feature above 600mm high 0.50 be achieved, incremental
reductions towards absolute
B. Central Width minimum values may be
Type of Facility Flow (cycles per peak Desirable minimum width Absolute minimum width considered.
hour) (m) (m)
<300 2.00 1.50* ii. The use of widths less than
One-way cycle track the above guidance should
>300 2.50 2.00
be avoided. In exceptional
<300 3.00 2.00
Two-way cycle track circumstances where widths
>300 4.00 3.00 cannot comply with the
Cycle lane All 2.00 1.50 guidance, the designer should
Shared Active Travel Facility <300 4.00 3.00 seek a departure from standard
>300 5.00 4.00 and this should be approved
*May not cater for comfortable overtaking or cycling two abreast by the relevant Sanctioning
Authority prior to incorporation
C. Outside Clearance into the design.
Feature Additional width required (m)
Flush or near-flush surface including low and splayed kerbs up to 60mm high 0.00 iii. On gradients greater than
3%, cycle track width should be
Kerbs 61mm to 150mm high 0.20
increased by 0.25 m to allow for
Vertical feature from 151mm to 600mm high 0.25
greater lateral movement.
Vertical feature above 600mm high 0.50
iv. Where gullies are present
D. Buffer Width One-way cycle track Two-way cycle track on a cycle track that do not
Speed limit (kph) Desirable min Absolute min Desirable min Absolute min allow cycles to easily overrun,
buffer (m) buffer (m) buffer (m) buffer (m) the cycle track width should be
≤30 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.30 increased by the widths of the
gully.
40/50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.30
60 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50
80 2.00** 1.50** 2.00** 1.50**
100 3.50*** 1.50*** 3.50*** 1.50***
**Including any hard strip *** Excluding any hard shoulder

24
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

3
Planning
for Cycling
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 3.1 Cycle Network Planning network of routes connecting towns, cities and destinations across
Ireland. This network will complement the 22 network plans in
CycleConnects and is anticipated that the final plan will be published
3.1.1 Introduction during 2023 also.
Developing cycle network plans is an important initial step to
delivering connected and coherent cycle infrastructure. As with
developing networks for other transport modes e.g. road or rail
networks, a cycle network should identify the key routes that are
required to enable people to make their everyday journeys to work,
schools, shops etc. by cycling and should not contain gaps.
Cycle network plans are important as they provide a basis for
prioritising cycle investment programmes. They are also important for
the purposes of guiding development outside of cycling investment
programmes e.g. ensuring cycle provision is integrated within
other public investment programmes and private developments as
necessary.
A number of Cycle Network Plans have been developed in recent
years and more are currently being developed. The NTA developed
the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) Cycle Network Plan, originally
published in 2013 and updated in 2023, in conjunction with the GDA
Local Authorities. This plan outlines the cycle network for counties
Dublin, Meath, Kildare and Wicklow. Cycle network plans have also
been developed for a number of regional cities including Cork,
Galway, Limerick and Waterford.
Figure 3.1: Extract of Draft Laois Cycle Network from CycleConnects.
In 2022, the NTA published a draft National Cycle Network Plan,
CycleConnects: Irelands Cycle Network, comprised of 22 networks
for the 22 counties outside of the GDA (see extract in Figure 3.1). 3.1.2 Hierarchy of routes
These regional networks, which were developed in collaboration with
the respective local authorities, are a combination of urban networks In order to make cycling an attractive and feasible mode of transport
for larger towns and interurban routes connecting settlements and for as many people as possible, at a basic level the aim should be
key destinations at a county and intercountry level. It is anticipated to make as many roads, streets and paths as possible suitable for
that the final CycleConnects Network will be published during 2023. cycling.

Separately, Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) are currently However, it is useful for cycle network plans to classify individual
developing a National Cycle Network to act as the national cycle routes depending on their strategic importance within

26
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

the network, similar to how our roads

are classified. In Ireland the following
3.1.3 Developing the 2. Network density
A cycle network should be sufficiently
classifications for cycle routes are typically network dense so that all potential origins and
used: destinations are within a reasonable
As mentioned above, a significant number distance of cycle routes. In urban areas,
» Primary routes: Main cycle arteries of cycle networks plans have been, or are a grid size of between 300-500m will
connecting main origins and destinations. currently being, developed in Ireland at the typically be suitable however in very
Typically the highest quality routes that time of publication of this manual, including dense location e.g. city/town centres,
carry the highest volume of cyclists; cycle network plans for all towns with a the grid size may need to be smaller
population of 5,000 or more under the NTA’s to ensure good cycle provision to all
» Secondary routes: Cycle links providing CycleConnects Plan. Once these network destinations.
connections between primary cycle route plans are completed, it is not envisaged
and connecting local zones to primary that many other cycle network plans will 3. Determine origins and destinations
routes; be required in the short-medium term in A detailed analysis should be undertaken
Ireland. However, should the need arise to to identify all the key origins and
» Feeder routes: Cycle routes within local destinations where people will need
develop a cycle network plan e.g. for a large
zones, and/or connections from zones to to cycle to/from. Key origins and
development scheme, it is recommended
the network levels above; destinations will likely include where
that the following approach is taken.
people live, work, shop, educational
» Greenways: Off-line routes typically facilities, access healthcare, recreational
through green spaces or adjacent to 1. Decide and provide
Traditionally, transport planning in Ireland, facilities, public transport hubs and a
watercourses. Typically developed for
including cycle network planning, was variety of local/community services.
leisure purposes however they can also
based on analysing historic trends and The use of digital mapping systems
provide key transport links, particularly
using those to forecast what is likely to and tools can assist in this regard.
in urban areas;
happen in the future – a business as usual Engagement with local communities and
» Interurban routes: Rural routes or “predict and provide” methodology. interested stakeholders will also assist
connecting settlements to each other and in identifying both existing and future
to other key destinations such as schools A more recently developed approach sets origins and destinations.
and services; and out an alternative process of deciding, on 4. Route selection
a policy basis, what the most desirable Once all origins and destinations have
» Basic network: All other roads and future might be, and then providing the been established, key desire lines linking
streets that are suitable for cycling. infrastructure and services to deliver that the origins and destinations can be
These are not generally identified on scenario i.e. “Decide and Provide”. It is developed. The most optimum routes
cycle network plans because of the recommended that this approach should that best cater for the desire lines must
volume of them, however they play a be applied to the development of any then be identified through a suitable
crucial role in enabling local cycling trips future cycle networks. assessment process. These routes should
and connecting local areas to the cycle
be categorised using the classification
network.

27
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

system above, depending on their reduced air and noise pollution, improved a number of interventions that could be
strategic importance within the network. road safety, more social interaction and considered in this regard.
stronger and healthier communities.
Table 3.1: Typical measures to reduce the volume
3.1.4 Low traffic and speed of motor traffic.

neighbourhoods Measures to reduce

the volume of motor
Measures to reduce
speed of motor traffic
traffic
Low traffic neighbourhoods are area-
wide schemes which control motor traffic Modal filters Narrow carriageways
movements and speeds and make travelling Horizontal deflections
Bus gates
through the neighbourhood by sustainable e.g chicanes, buid-outs
modes safer, more convenient and more Turning bans
direct than car based travel. They generally Vertical deflections e.g
(with exemptions
comprise of groups of residential streets, raised tables, ramps
for cyclists)
bordered by distributor roads, where One-way streets (with
residents can still drive to their house and Refuge islands
exemptions of cyclists)
deliveries can still be made etc. but through
Surface treatments e.g
traffic (“rat-running”) is restricted.
Pedestrianised areas textured or coloured
Figure 3.2 illustrates a simple low traffic
surfacing
neighbourhood layout.
Time-based traffic
Low traffic neighbourhoods can be an restrictions e.g. school Raised median strips
effective way of delivering a dense network of streets
quiet streets in urban areas without the need
for protected cycle infrastructure. These Further guidance on measures to reduce
quiet streets can provide the basic level of a the speed and volume of motor traffic is
cycle network referred to above, to enable contained in section 4.2.9 of this manual.
local cycling trips and provide connections to DMURS also contains further guidance on
the surrounding cycle network. They can also traffic calming and area-wide permeability
form important parts of higher level routes in measures.
the cycle network e.g. a secondary route may
traverse through a low traffic neighbourhood Figure 3.2: Example Low Traffic Neighbourhood The NTA Permeability Best Practice
to provide a connection to cycle tracks on layout. Guide also contains detailed guidance on
the boundary roads. implementing permeability measures such
For a low traffic neighbourhood to be as modal filters and should be consulted
By removing through traffic, low traffic when Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are being
successful it is important that measures are
neighbourhoods can also provide a number considered.
implemented to control both the volume
of other benefits to local residents such as
and speed of motor traffic. Table 3.1 lists

28
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 3.2 Planning for Cycling in 3.2.1 Large scale developments

Private Developments and Other Where new large scale developments (residential/commercial/
industrial) are being planned that are not governed by existing
Public Infrastructure Projects cycle network plans, it will be necessary to plan a network of cycle
routes that connect all parts of the development to each other and
Cycle facilities are often provided through projects that are not also routes that connect the overall development into existing and
specifically cycling, or active travel, related and this can be very planned cycle networks.
beneficial in developing cycle networks. Such projects might include:
Where new developments are being delivered in greenfield sites,
» Residential developments. which are generally less constrained environments, the expectation
» Commercial/Industrial developments. should be that high-quality cycle facilities are provided as standard
(see Figure 3.3). In this regard, when designing such cycle facilities,
» Urban regeneration/Public Realm schemes. the desirable minimum values given in this manual should be
» New/improved transport infrastructure. achieved as a minimum.

Where such developments are located on routes identified in cycle Larger residential developments may provide a new main street
network plans, high-quality cycle infrastructure should be provided or spine road serving facilities at the centre of the new community
as part of the development proposals where appropriate. Planning such as shops, schools and employment. The speed and volume of
Authorities play a key role in this regard and should ensure that motor traffic on these routes will often mean that segregated cycling
facilities are provided in accordance with relevant cycle network infrastructure is required.
plans and as per guidance in this manual.
If the provision of cycle facilities is not deemed appropriate by the
planning authority for valid reasons, as a minimum developments
should be future-proofed to ensure that they do not obstruct or
hinder the provision of future cycle facilities. For example, if a
development is being proposed on lands adjacent to an identified
cycle route but cycle infrastructure is not being provided as part
of the development, the lands should be developed in such a way
that the appropriate space to provide cycle facilities in future along
the route is secured as part of the development e.g. by setting back
boundaries or building lines sufficiently.

Figure 3.3: High-quality segregated cycle tracks delivered as part of a large

residential development in Maynooth, Co. Kildare.

29
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Many larger developments also provide significant areas of new open

space for the benefit of residents. These areas provide opportunities
3.2.2 Urban regeneration/public
to create new cycling and walking routes between different parts realm schemes
of the development and to the areas beyond the site, unbundling
walking and cycling from motor traffic (see example in Figure 3.4). Urban regeneration and public realm schemes are typically located
Traffic free routes should be reasonably direct and form a connected in city/town centre environments with many key destinations
part of the overall network, with a cross-section that meets the level therefore appropriate cycle facilities should be provided for within
of use that is expected. Designers should consider the personal such schemes.
security issues that may be associated with cycle routes away from It is recognised that in town centre environments in particular there
buildings, and routes should be designed with lighting, surfacing and are likely to be many competing demands on the space available.
drainage that ensures they are useable at all times and in all seasons. The street cross-section will typically incorporate many requirements
appropriate to the context, such as street trees, verges and car
parking, but the need for these features should not lead to the
omission of an appropriate provision for cycling that could create a
gap in the overall cycle network.

3.2.3 New/improved capital transport

projects
The provision of active travel facilities including cycle facilities should
be considered for all new/improved capital transport projects e.g.
road and public transport projects.
The relevant Approving Authority should determine if the provision
of cycle routes as part of specific projects is necessary based
Figure 3.4: Cruagh Greenway, Stepaside, Dublin delivered as part of a large on a number of factors including the location of the project, the
residential development. intended cycle network in the area, key desire lines, opportunities for
interchange and multimodal travel etc.
In industrial and commercial developments, the high percentage of
HGV traffic, results in geometry (wide roads and sweeping corners) The provision of ancillary cycle facilities such as cycle parking, repair
to accommodate larger vehicles, enables higher speeds by other stations etc. should also be considered for new/improved capital
vehicles. The combination of high speeds and HGV traffic means that transport projects. This will be particularly important for rail and bus
segregation is required for cyclists even though the flows of traffic projects to facilitate multi-modal trips in accordance with national
may be low. policy.

30
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4
Designing
for Cycling
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 4.1 Geometric Requirements Dynamic Sight Distance should be measured from an eye height
range of 0.8 m to 2.2 m, to a target height range of 0.8 m to 2.2 m,
as illustrated in Figure 4.1
This section sets out the basic geometric requirements which should
be used when designing cycle facilities. The requirements are based Table 4.2: Desirable Minimum Dynamic Sight Distances.
on the need to cater for the Cycle Design Vehicle discussed in
Dynamic Sight
Section 2. Design Speed
Distance
4.1.1 Design Speed 10 km/h
20 km/h
15 m
40m
Cycle speeds can vary significantly depending on location and type 30 km/h 65 m
of cycle facility/user/vehicle. Designing for appropriate cycle speeds 40 km/h 90 m
is important so that facilities are safe, comfortable and attractive for 50 km/h 110 m
all anticipated users. The design speed determines the horizontal and
vertical geometric requirements for cycle facilities.
It is recommended that the design speeds in Table 4.1 are used
when designing cycle facilities.
Table 4.1: Recommended Design Speeds.
Circumstance Design Speed
Standard design speed for all cycle facilities 30 km/h
On approaches to junctions and obstacles 10 km/h
Downhill gradients >3% 40 km/h
Downhill gradients >5% and longer than 150m 50 km/h

4.1.2 Sight Distance

4.1.2.1 Dynamic Sight Distance Figure 4.1: Dynamic Sight Distance Envelope.

The Dynamic Sight Distance is the advance distance a person cycling 4.1.2.2 Stopping Sight Distance
requires to see ahead so that they can make safe and comfortable
Stopping Sight Distance is the distance required to perceive, react
progress on their journey. The desirable minimum values for Dynamic
and stop safely i.e. the distance covered in the perception/ reaction
Sight Distance in Table 4.2 are based on the approximate distances
time (two seconds) plus the actual braking distance (deceleration
covered by a cyclist in eight seconds when travelling at the speeds
rate of 0.15g). Desirable minimum stopping sight distances are
shown.
shown in Table 4.3.

32
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Stopping Sight Distance should be measured from an eye height or TII Standards as appropriate.
range of 0.8 m to 2.2 m, to cater for the various eye heights of
It is important to note that the visibility splay requirements in this
people cycling including children, to an object height range of
section do not apply to signal-controlled junctions.
0 to 2.2 m, as illustrated in Figure 4.2.
Visibility splays requirements are composed of two elements; the
Table 4.3: Desirable minimum Stopping Sight Distances.
X (setback) distance and the Y distance, as illustrated in Figure 4.3.
Stopping Sight
Design Speed
Distance
10 km/h 15 m
20 km/h 17 m
30 km/h 35 m
40 km/h 47 m
50 km/h 60 m

Figure 4.3: Visibility Splays.

The X distance is the setback distance along the cycle facility from
which visibility is measured. It is measured along the centre of
the facility from the nearside edge of the intersecting route. If the
Figure 4.2: Stopping Sight Distance Envelope intersected route is a road, the X distance is measured from the
nearside edge of the paved surface (including hard strip or hard
4.1.3 Visibility Splays shoulder).
The Y distance is the distance a cyclist exiting the facility can see
Ensuring adequate visibility splays where cycle facilities intersect
to the left and right along the route and depends on the design
with roads and other active travel infrastructure is an important
speed (or posted speed limit for an existing road) of the route being
safety aspect. Where two roads intersect, including roads with cycle
intersected.
facilities along their length, the visibility splay requirements relate
to those for motor vehicles which exceed those of cyclists. In such
cases designers should refer to the visibility requirements in DMURS

33
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.1.3.1 Visibility requirements at crossings first facility encountered, using appropriate X and Y dimensions.
Subsequently, appropriate visibility also has to be provided where
Where a cycle facility intersects a road at an uncontrolled or the second facility is encountered. This is illustrated in Figure 4.4.
controlled crossing, the recommended X distances are given in This situation may arise on entry to shared use waiting areas and
Table 4.4. The visibility should be measured from an eye height at continuous cycle tracks and footways.Where a cycle facility
range of 0.8 m to 2.2 m from this setback ‘X’ distance. intersects with another cycle facility that has priority, the
recommended ‘X’ distances are those stated in Table 4.4 and the
Table 4.4: Recommended ‘X’ Distances at crossings. desirable ‘Y’ distances are shown in Table 4.6.
Parameter ‘X’ Distance
Desirable Minimun 4.0 m
Absolute Minimun 2.0 m

The desirable minimum ‘Y’ distances at uncontrolled and

controlled crossings are given in Table 4.5. These correspond
to stopping sight distances for motor traffic on the main road
based on requirements in DMURS, for design speeds up to
60 km/h, and TII Standards, for design speeds greater than
60 km/h.
Table 4.5: Desirable minimum ‘Y’ Distances at crossings
Design Speed (km/h) ‘Y’ Distance
10 7m
20 14 m
30 23 m
40 33 m
50 45 m
60 59 m
85 160 m
Figure 4.4: Visibility Splays at adjacent intersected routes.
100 215 m
Table 4.6: Desirable minimum ‘Y’ Distances where two cycle facilities
intersect.
4.1.3.2 Visibility requirements where Design Speed of Cycle
‘Y’ Distance
two cycle facilities intersect Facility with priority (km/h)
10 15 m
Where a cycle facility is required to cross two adjacent facilities, the 20 17 m
visibility splay may have to be measured at both interaction points. 30 35 m
In such situations, visibility has to be provided from the edge of the 40 47 m
50 60 m

34
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.1.4 Hortizontal Alignment 4.1.5 Vertical Alignment

Sufficient horizontal radii are required on cycle facilities to ensure
4.1.5.1 Vertical Curves
facilities are safe and comfortable to use. Horizontal radii below the Vertical curves shall be provided at all changes in longitudinal
values recommended may mean users have difficulty keeping their gradient. Crest curves represents a negative change in gradient (e.g.
balance or lose momentum. Changes in horizontal alignment should over the top of a hill) and a sag curve represents a positive change
be via simple curves, typically circular. in gradient (e.g. through the low point of a valley) as illustrated in
Figure 4.5.
Table 4.7 provides minimum horizontal radii which should be used on
cycle facilities. These radii are based on being able to accommodate
the turning space required by the cycle design vehicle (i.e. the actual
turning radius of the vehicle) and to provide adequate stopping sight
distance at typical cycling speeds. Objects such as walls, fences and
trees should not be sited close to the cycle track on the inside of
bends as this will potentially affect the visibility.
Table 4.7: Desirable Minimum Horizontal Radii.
Desirable Minimum Figure 4.5: Vertical curvature on cycle facilities.
Design speed (km/h)
Horizontal Radius
10 4m Crest curves affect forward visibility and their values are therefore
20 15 m determined on that basis. Sag values generally do not affect visibility
30 25 m and are therefore based on comfort.
40 40 m Vertical curvature is calculated using the minimum ‘K’ values in Table
50 94 m 4.9. The minimum curve lengths can be determined by multiplying the
K values shown by the algebraic change of gradient expressed as a
It may be desirable in some situations to employ tight horizontal radii percentage, e.g. +3% grade to -2% grade indicates a grade change
as a speed-reducing safety measure e.g. on approach to junctions, of 5%. Thus for a Design Speed of 30 km/h, the desirable minimum
obstacles or conflict points. In such situations the recommended length of a crest curve would be 8 (K Value) x 5 (algebraic change
radii in Table 4.8 should be used. Appropriate signage and line in gradient) = 40m.
markings may also be required at speed reducing curves.

Table 4.8: Recommended radii for speed reducing back-to-back

curves.
Circumstances Radius
On approach to crossings 6-8 m
Absolute minimum radius 4m

35
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Table 4.9: Minimum ‘K’ Values. reduce gradients through appropriate design water to clear.
measures where sufficient space is available.
Design Desirable Excessive crossfall can cause wheels to slide
Desirable Minimum Where steep gradients cannot be avoided
speed Minimum in icy conditions and make steering more
Crest K Value due to existing topography, mitigation
(km/h) Sag K Value difficult, particularly those using three, or
10 6 5 measures e.g. resting places, increased
four-wheel cycles or trailers.
20 6 5 widths to mitigate conflicts, or alternative
30 8 5 routes should be considered. The recommended crossfalls for cycle
40 12 5 facilities are given in Table 4.11.
The recommended gradients for cycle
50 15 5 facilities are given in Table 4.10. Superelevation is not typically required on
cycle facilities, however negative camber
The Stopping Sight Distance should always Designers should also have regard to
that falls to the outside of a bend should
be checked because it is affected by the the Irish Wheelchair Association’s Great
be avoided.
interaction of vertical alignment with the Outdoors Access Guidelines for Trails,
horizontal alignment of the cycle route, the Greenways, and Public Parks when Table 4.11: Recommended crossfalls.
presence of crossfall, superelevation or verge developing the vertical alignments. Parameter Crossfall
treatment and features such as signs and For effective drainage, a resultant gradient Recommended crossfall 1.0 - 2.0%
structures adjacent to the route. (combined effect of longitudinal and Desirable maximum 2.5%
transverse gradients) below 0.5% should be
4.1.5.2 Gradient avoided. For further information, refer to TII
Standard DN-GEO-03031. 4.1.7 Clearances
The longitudinal gradient along a cycle
Table 4.10: Recommended gradients for cycle The required clearances to be used for
route is an important design consideration
facilities. calculating the width of cycle facilities, based
as it affects the comfort and attractiveness
of a cycle facility. Gradient impacts on two Parameter Gradient on the different types of edges/boundary
issues; the physical limitations of a cyclist to Desirable minimum 0.5% treatments, are given in the Width Calculator
climb steep inclines and maintain speed, and Desirable maximum 3% in Section 2.
their safety when descending steep inclines. Absolute maximum 5%
In addition, a desirable minimum clearance
Steep gradients are not welcomed by people of 500mm is recommended from the edge
cycling and have the potential to make routes 4.1.6 Surface Crossfall of a cycle track/ lane to any vertical poles,
unusable for some users. Steep inclines columns, handrails, bins etc., with an absolute
generate high downhill speeds increasing the Cycling surfaces need to be adequately minimum clearance of 250mm. This does not
potential for conflict with other users. drained to avoid the difficulties that standing apply in respect of low height bollards and
water and ice can create for cyclists. Cycle separators used as part of the cycle track
On existing roads and paths, gradients will
facilities can be constructed with either a edge.
generally have to follow existing topography
crossfall across the whole width (to either
although there may be opportunities to
side) or a central camber, to help surface

36
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.1.8 Headroom
General recommendations on headroom clearances are given
in Table 4.12. The recommendations for headroom at grade
separated structures is given in Section 4.5.8.
Table 4.12: Recommended headroom clearances.
Parameter Headroom clearance
Desirable minimum 2.7 m
Absolute minimum 2.4 m
Absolute minimum
(existing structures) 2.2 m

At existing structures, lowering the minimum headroom to

2.2m may be acceptable but decisions will need to be taken
on a case by case basis, based on relevant factors such as the
forward visibility. Where the minimum headroom cannot
be achieved (e.g. at a low railway bridge), appropriate hazard
warning signage should be erected.

37
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 4.2 Cycle Links Links on residential streets with low traffic

flows and speeds may be suitable for cycling
» Providing a coherent facility approaching
and exiting junctions.
with the general traffic (with or without
4.2.1 Introduction marked cycle lanes) due to the low speed
differential and low number of potential
Links are the physical cycling infrastructure
conflicts between cycles and motor vehicles;
that join origins to destinations. They can
whereas on roads with higher traffic flows
take a variety of forms depending on the
and/or traffic speeds, dedicated cycle tracks
road conditions. They fall into two broad
or other facilities that are separated from
categories:
general traffic by a physical barrier will be
more safe and attractive to cyclists.
» Segregated cycle facilities – cycling on
dedicated facilities that are separated As well as separation from motor traffic,
from the general traffic by a physical the space for cycling along links should
barrier or located away from the road be separate from pedestrian space, where
corridor. Options include Cycle Tracks, possible, (such as the cycle track layout
Protected Cycle Lanes, Greenways and shown in Figure 4.6). Designers need to
Shared Active Travel Facilities. consider how to define the space for each
mode and how to manage conflict where Figure 4.6: Cycle Track, Hanover Street, Carlow.
» Integrated cycle facilities – cycling
pedestrians need to cross or where there is
with the general traffic, with or without
delineated lanes. Options include Cycle
kerbside activity.
4.2.2 Segregated Cycle
Lanes and cycling in mixed traffic. In summary, the key objectives when
designing cycle links include:
Facilities
The optimum link design at a given location
Segregated cycle facilities adjacent to the
will depend on, inter alia, the traffic regime » Providing for side-by-side cycling
carriageway are dedicated cycle tracks or
(refer to the cycle facilities selection guide in where possible – this makes cycling
cycle lanes that are physically separated
Section 2.5), the space required for cycling more enjoyable, but the wider cycle
from adjacent traffic lanes.
(refer to the width calculator in Section facility also makes it safer, more visible,
2.6), the frequency of side road junctions, and more attractive; The benefits provided by segregated cycle
kerbside activities (such as parking, loading facilities include enhanced safety and
» Providing consistently for cyclists – along
and bus stops), pedestrian crossings, comfort due to the physical protection
a cycle route, there may be different
and driveway crossovers. from motor traffic and the ability to bypass
options chosen for different links;
queuing vehicles thus improving journey time
Designers should aim for cycling provision however, designers should minimise the
reliability and overall quality of service.
that is suitable for most people exclude need for cyclists to make transitions from
potential users. one type of link to another and make the The segregation can be continuous or
overall facility predictable and legible; and intermittent (light segregation), with varying

39
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

degrees of protection provided depending » Legibility – segregated cycle facilities in accordance with the requirements
on the material and the horizontal (buffer should be legible to all road users. stated in the Department of Transport
width) and vertical separation. Access and egress arrangements, circular “NGS Circular 2 of 2022” (See
crossing locations, user priority, and Section 1.3 regarding relaxations and
This section provides guidance on the key
interfaces/thresholds should be clearly departues). In the case of retrofit
design considerations for the different types
identified and self-evident; schemes, the existing surface should be
of segregated cycle facilities adjacent to the
milled down and inlayed with a new red
carriageway set out in Section 2.4, namely: » Pedestrian interactions – interactions
asphalt surface course;
protected cycle lanes, stepped cycle tracks, between pedestrians and cyclists should
and standard cycle tracks. be minimised with each having their own » Drainage – The drainage of a cycle
space, to the greatest extent practicable, facility must aim to remove surface water
4.2.2.1 General Design ideally separated by a change in level. quickly and efficiently to avoid ponding.
Designers should examine pedestrian The cycle track should have a sufficient
Considerations desire lines and behaviours and, where crossfall to allow for adequate drainage;
segregation is provided between the » Parking and loading – where there is a
The following should be considered when
cycle lane/track and the traffic lanes, risk of persistent loading or parking on
designing segregated cycle facilities:
incorporate appropriately located gaps in the cycle facility, the use of full-height
» Type of segregation – the design of the the segregation and accessible crossings kerb upstands or bollards should be
segregation between the cycle track/lane into the design. Designers should consider considered. Where carriageway space
and the vehicular traffic lane influences increasing legibility by having a strong is available, parking protected cycle
the level of comfort experienced by colour contrast at interfaces/thresholds; facilities could be used;
cyclists. For example, a kerbed buffer » Two-way cycling – facilities for two- » Visual impact – appropriate materials
with infill paving or landscaping provides way cycling should be protected with should be chosen to fit in with the
higher levels of comfort than bollards; a verge, raised kerb or other suitable aesthetics of the surrounding streetscape;
» Widths – the width requirements for vertical elements. Two-way cycle facilities and
segregated cycle facilities are covered are likely to place cyclists adjacent to
oncoming traffic lanes and therefore a » Maintenance – the width of the cycle
in Section 2.6. On retrofit schemes,
physical buffer is required. Stepped Cycle facility and the type of segregation
where practicable, the space required
Tracks (i.e. segregation with low-height used will impact on the maintenance
for the cycle facility should generally be
operations. Usually access to the road
reallocated from the carriageway and not 60mm kerbs) are not suitable for two-way
edge/kerb will be required for road
taken from the footpath; cycling;
sweeping, gully cleaning, lighting repairs,
» Movement and place – the context of » Cycling surface – all new segregated etc. The need for ongoing maintenance
the road should inform the design of the cycle facilities should have a red coloured can be minimised at design stage by
appropriate type of cycle facility and type surface. Where an alternative colour is careful consideration of the type of
of segregation to be used (see DMURS, proposed, a departure should be sought segregation, materials and drainage.
Section 3.2);

40
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.2.2 Separation between Pedestrians may be appropriate include:

and Cycle Users » Shared areas at road crossings (for example, Toucan crossings);
Footpaths should be clearly separated from cycle lanes and tracks » Pedestrianised streets; and
wherever practicable. This reduces potential conflicting movements » Shared Active Travel Facilities and Greenways.
between pedestrians and cycle traffic and provides a more
comfortable facility for all users. Tactile paving should be provided as part of all Active. Travel
The preferred and most easily detectable form of separation is a corridors to facilitate the movement of people who are blind or vision
change in level between the footpath and cycle surfaces of impaired. The layout of the tactile paving should be in accordance
minimum 60mm. This allows people who are blind, or vision with the UK Department of Transport Guidance on the Use of Tactile
impaired, to detect the change in level. It is important that designers Paving Surfaces.
consider the legibility of the segregation kerb and change in level;
legibility can be increased by having a strong colour contrast
between the adjacent surfaces.
Where pedestrians need to cross the cycle facility (e.g. to access
bus stops or at pedestrian crossings), there should be suitable gaps
in any vertical segregation elements and dropped kerbs with tactile
paving, should be provided at the interface between the footpath
and the cycle facility. Alternatively, the cycle facility can be raised
to the level of the adjacent footpath, with appropriate tactile paving
provided at the crossing facility. The decision on whether to provide
informal, uncontrolled, or controlled crossings of the cycle facility
should be based on pedestrian and cyclist flows and the width of
the cycle facility (e.g. a two-way cycle tracks will be wider and have
cyclists travelling in both directions and may be more difficult
to cross).
An alternative form of segregation is to use a central delineator strip
between the pedestrian side and cycling side where both surfaces
are at the same level. This form of segregation can be useful in urban
streets where there are frequent movements across the cycle track
for example, by people using wheelchairs, people with prams,
or people using delivery trolleys.
Facilities where pedestrians and cyclists share the same space should
be avoided, if possible. Possible situations where shared facilities

41
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.3 Standard Cycle Tracks (TL101) The separator kerb between the cycle track and adjacent traffic lane
may be:
Standard Cycle Tracks are segregated cycle facilities that are
» Flush with the raised cycle track surface; or
frequently raised above the adjacent carriageway and separated
horizontally from the traffic lanes by a kerb and sometimes a buffer, » Raised 60mm above the track surface with a splayed profile
as shown in Figure 4.7. (full batter) on the cycle track side.
Ideally, the buffer should take the form of a kerbed verge infilled
The kerb on the carriageway side should be a full-height kerb of
with paving, grass, or other soft landscaping. The width of the verge
100mm high or more. The separator kerb options are shown in
should be determined by using the Width Calculator. Where widths
Figure 4.8.
allow, parking bays may be used to form the buffer, as shown in
Figure 4.10. Where a verge cannot be provided, a single separator
kerb may be used.

Figure 4.8: Separator kerb options: kerb flush with cycle track (left);
and raised, splayed profile kerb (right).

Separator kerbs raised above the cycle track may not be suitable
for locations with high levels of pedestrian activity, such as a busy
retail street. In such situations, suitable gaps in the kerb should
be provided at crossing locations. Legibility can be increased by
having a strong colour contrast between the cycle track, kerb, and
carriageway surfaces.
The kerb between the cycle track and adjacent footpath should have
an upstand of minimum 60mm. The kerb may have:
» A vertical/half-batter upstand (i.e. kerb face at 90/75 degrees)
– this profile is the most easily detected by blind and vision-
impaired people; or
» A splayed profile (i.e. kerb face angled at 30 - 45 degrees to the
horizontal) – this profile is more forgiving to cyclists and
Figure 4.7: Standard cycle track typical layout. increases the effective width of the track of the track, as shown
in Figure 4.9. It also allows those using the cycle as a mobility
aid to easily join and leave the cycle track at destinations.

43
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Figure 4.9: Splayed kerb between footpath and cycle track, Delft, Figure 4.10: Standard cycle track with green buffer (left) and buffer
Netherlands. provided by parking bays (right), Maynooth, Co. Kildare.
Cyclists should be able to join and leave a raised track at junctions The cycle track should have a sufficient crossfall to allow for
and transitions between the track and a cycle lane or the adequate drainage. Crossfall away from the carriageway is more
carriageway. Where access to and from side roads to the right is comfortable for cyclists. However, this requires gullies on the inside
required, dropped or shallow bevelled kerbs should be used on the edge of the cycle track in addition to gullies at the carriageway
carriageway side so that cyclists can enter and leave the cycle track edge. In such cases where ‘double drainage’ is required, a side-entry
relatively easily. drainage system on the cycle track is preferred so that the entire
track surface is available for cycling and not interrupted by gullies,
interrupted by gullies, as shown in Figure 4.11. If gullies are used on
the cycle track, they should have a cycle-friendly grates to avoid the
risk of catching cycle wheels. While super-elevation is not typically
required along a cycle route, negative camber that falls to the

44
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

outside of a bend should be avoided. Where cycle tracks at footpath level are provided, they should be
clearly distinguishable from the footpath so that each mode has its
Where the cycle track is proposed to drain towards the carriageway,
own defined space and people who are blind and vision impaired
a kerb flush with the cycling surface will allow for drainage into
can detect and negotiate the track. The photograph shown in Figure
the carriageway drainage system; a raised separator kerb should
4.12 shows a cycle track with a different colour and texture to the
include a sufficient number of gaps to allow surface water to drain.
adjacent footpath and the drainage channel forms the interface
Consideration should be given to the possible need for additional
between the two surfaces.
drainage capacity where new cycle tracks are constructed in existing
grass verges. Where possible, horizontal separation in the form of a paved or
landscaped buffer should be provided between the cycle track and
footpath. Wider buffers may offer the potential to accommodate
planting and sustainable drainage. Where there is high demand for
parking, a buffer may also be required to accommodate measures
such as bollards to prevent parking on the footpath/cycle track.

Figure 4.11: Kerb-drain system, Grand Canal Cycleway, Dublin.

4.2.3.1 Standard Cycle Track at Footpath Level

It is less desirable to have cycle tracks at the same level as the Figure 4.12: Cycle track at footway level, Parnell Place, Cork.
footpath. As noted in Section 4.2.2.2 above, a kerb with an upstand In certain situations, a suitable horizontal buffer between the
of 60mm is the preferred form of separation between cycle track footpath and cycle track may not be achievable (due to physical
and footpath. constraints) or desirable (due to frequent movements across the
cycle track). In this case, a raised delineator strip, in the form of a

45
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

trapezoidal shape kerb, can be used to provide the separation, as

shown in Figure 4.13. The delineator strip should be 12mm to 20mm
high (preferably 20mm), 150mm wide with sloping sides and a flat
top of 50mm see Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces.
It is important that there is a strong colour contrast between
the cycle track, buffer or delineator strip, and footpath surfaces.
Different surface materials, such as asphalt on the cycle track and
concrete flags on the footpath, can help provide colour, texture
and tonal contrast between the footpath and cycle track. White line
markings separating the ‘walking side’ from the ‘cycling side’ are
generally ignored and are not recommended.
Where trapezoidal delineator strips are used, designers should
ensure that gaps are left in the strips as necessary to cater for
access and pedestrian desire lines, particularly where access might
be required by wheelchair users e.g. adjacent to accessible parking
bays.

Figure 4.13: Example of trapezoidal delineator strip between footpath

and cycle track.

46
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.4 Stepped Cycle Tracks (TL102) of bevelled cycle track kerbs at accesses allows for the occasional
turning vehicle movements, as shown in Figure 4.15.
Stepped Cycle Tracks are segregated cycle facilities that are raised
by 60mm to 75mm above the carriageway surface and a minimum
of 60mm below the adjacent footpath. Figure 4.14 shows a typical
layout on a suburban cycle route. The footpath kerb options are
similar to those for cycle tracks, that is, a vertical kerb or a splayed
kerb.

Figure 4.15: Bevelled cycle track kerb at side street access, Templeville
Road, Dublin.
The low height of the cycle track kerb can lead to the cycle track
being used for parking and loading. Bollards, or increased parking
enforcement, may be required in certain locations to deter this
behaviour.
The track should be wide enough to allow for overtaking, otherwise
Figure 4.14: Stepped cycle track, Stillorgan, Dublin. the step down to the carriageway can present a hazard to cyclists
The low height difference between the adjacent surfaces makes exiting and entering the track.
Stepped Cycle Tracks ideal for locations with off-street accesses Stepped Cycle Tracks are generally not suitable for two-way cycling
and driveways. The footpath and cycle track can continue at the and should be one-way only. The degree of protection provided by
same height rather than drop to carriageway level. This provides a the low-height kerb is not suitable for cycling adjacent to oncoming
much smoother ride for cyclists and wheelchair users and helps to traffic on busy roads.
reinforce priority of people travelling along the street. The provision

47
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.5 Protected Cycle Lanes parking protected facilities can be used.

These options can be effective for low-cost
4.2.5.2 Continuous Separator
(TL103) or quick-build schemes; however, kerbed Kerbs
protection is recommended for permanent
Protected Cycle Lanes are at-grade A continuous separator kerb typically
retrofit schemes.
(carriageway level) cycle facilities on existing comprises an extruded, or cast in-situ,
carriageways that are physically separated Protected Cycle Lanes typically make use concrete kerb raised above carriageway,
from adjacent traffic lanes. of the existing drainage gullies on the such as the example shown in Figure 4.16.
carriageway. Light segregation interventions level. Ideally the separator kerb width should
They can be an effective option for typically have the least impact on existing be 250mm or wider but may be reduced
retrofit schemes to provide protection to road drainage. in width on physically constrained routes.
unsegregated cycle lanes or where existing A wider kerb is more visible to cyclists and
carriageway space is to be reallocated for The cycle lane should follow the width
calculator guidance in Section 2.6 with pedestrians. It can also be used as a refuge
cycling. Implementation costs can be lower by pedestrians crossing the road (who tend
than other types of segregated cycle facility a preferred width of 2.0m that allows
for side-by-side cycling and overtaking. to step up, onto, and over the kerb). Wider
by retaining existing footpath kerbs, road separation can be achieved using precast
drainage, and other infrastructure such as Protected cycle lanes typically retain the
existing footpath kerb; therefore, it may not kerbs infilled with concrete, paving setts,
public lighting columns and utilities. or planting.
be possible to provide a low-upstand or
chamfered kerb on the inside edge of the
4.2.5.1 Design Features new cycle facility. Thus, the effective width of
Separator kerb upstand heights are typically
100mm to 125mm above the carriageway
and Considerations the protected cycle lane will be reduced.
surface. It is recommended that the kerb has
The preferred form of physical separation The width of the protected cycle lane and a splayed (full batter) profile on the cycle
for a protected cycle lane is a full-height the type of segregation elements used track side. This increases effective width of
permanent separator kerb. This makes use of will impact on the future maintenance cycle facility (i.e. cyclists will be less likely to
standard construction methods and materials requirements. Access to the carriageway strike their pedals and shadows on the cycle
and provides robust protection of the cycle edge/kerb will be required for road sweeping, lane caused by the kerb face will be reduced)
lane. Wider kerbed buffers, constructed gully cleaning, public lighting repairs, etc. The and this kerb profile is more forgiving if
using kerbs infilled with concrete, setts absolute minimum width to enable access by struck by a cyclist.
or planting, may also be used to enable a mechanical sweeper is 1.3m.
The provision of gaps in the segregation
pedestrians to stand on them alongside At side roads it is important to have tight should be designed to optimise protection
parking and loading areas, or to provide corner radii and to allow a gap for access in for cyclists while also providing adequate
sustainable drainage. the segregation opposite the side road. breaks for drainage, access to side roads, bus
Other segregation options, such as modular stops and parking/loading areas.
islands, rubber separators, planters, flexible
bollards with/without mini-islands, and

48
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

The existing road drainage can be utilised by providing gaps in the

separator kerb to allow surface water to flow from the carriageway.

4.2.5.3 Modular Islands and Separators

Modular separators comprise a single-piece unit of concrete,
reconstituted stone, or rubber material. They are suitable for rapid
deployment or interim schemes. This option has great flexibility in
terms of design layout and can easily be modified during, or after,
construction.

Figure 4.16: Concrete separator kerb, Victoria Quay, Dublin City.

Continuous separator kerbs may not be suitable for locations with
high levels of pedestrian activity, such as a busy retail street, due
to the potential tripping hazard for pedestrians. In such situations,
suitable gaps in the kerb should be provided at existing crossing
locations, or intermittent segregation alternatives should be
considered. Legibility can be increased by having a strong colour
contrast between the cycle lane, kerb, and carriageway surfaces.
Access and egress for cyclists should also be considered and Figure 4.17: Rubber separators, Coastal Mobility Route, Glasthule, Dublin.
appropriately located gaps in the separator kerb should be provided.
Installation of concrete and reconstituted stone units typically
The kerb can be supplemented with bollards at intervals to provide includes milling of the carriageway, laying on mortar bed and fixing
a vertical feature to highlight the presence of the kerb to drivers, with bolts. Rubber units (as shown in Figure 4.17) are typically bolted
cyclists and pedestrians. Bollards can be fixed to the top of the kerb, down onto the existing carriageway surface, with no excavation
if width allows, or installed in drainage gaps. required.

49
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Units come in standard widths ranging from approximately 235mm Bollards are typically 80mm in diameter. They are available in various
up to 600mm. Units typically have a 125mm high vertical face on the heights including low-level bollard (typically 300 – 500mm high) and
traffic side and chamfered edge on the cycle lane side. mini-island units. The recommended bollard height is 800mm as this
Drainage slots are sometimes built into the units; however breaks reduces the risk of handlebar strikes while being high enough to be
can be provided at intervals to suit the drainage requirements easily detectable by all users.
of the road. A minimum longitudinal spacing of 2m is recommended to deter
Similar to permanent separator kerbs, modular units may not be other vehicles from entering the cycle lane. On constrained routes
suitable for routes with high levels of pedestrian activity, such as a where there is a high likelihood of emergency vehicles (for example,
busy retail street. Rubber units are typically black or grey in colour on a main route to a hospital or near fire stations), consideration
and may need to be supplemented with reflective strips and flexible could be given to using a spacing of 8m to enable drivers to pull into
bollards to increase visibility to all users. the cycle lane and allow an emergency vehicle to pass.
As with any vertical element used to segregate cyclists, the height
4.2.5.4 Discrete Vertical Elements of the bollard will impact on the effective width of the cycle facility.
Where bollards are above 600mm high it is desirable to provide
Vertical elements such as flexible bollards (as shown in Figure an additional outside clearance of 500mm (refer to the Width
4.18) and delineators provide intermittent (light) segregation from Calculator in Section 2.6).
traffic. They can be a quick and cost-effective means of providing a The use of bollards placed at intervals can be preferable to
protected cycle lane; however, they do have ongoing costs resulting continuous forms of segregation on routes with high pedestrian
from the need to frequently replace damaged bollards. activity and informal crossings as it provides gaps for crossing the
facility.
They are generally considered to be more visually intrusive and less
aesthetically pleasing than other forms of segregation and may not be
appropriate in conservation areas.

4.2.5.5 Planters and Other Intermittent

Landscaping Features
Planters offer an attractive and sustainable solution for many
situations, where space allows; however, they have an additional
Figure 4.18:Flexible bollards providing light segregation, Green Road, maintenance requirement when compared to other separation
Carlow. options. This option has great flexibility in terms of design layout
and can be easily modified during or after construction.
Bollards are an ideal option for rapid deployment or interim schemes
as they can easily be modified during, or after, construction. Planters are available in a range of unit widths and heights
depending on the supplier. Units can be placed together to form

50
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

continuous segregation (as see Figure 4.19) or can be spaced

apart according to the traffic conditions and pedestrian activity.
Care should be taken when providing gaps to ensure that crossing
pedestrians and cyclists can be seen by approaching traffic.

Figure 4.20: Parking protected cycle lane, Merrion Square, Dublin.

This type of segregation can be provided on wide carriageways with

existing on-street parking bays that are required to be retained (see
Figure 4.20). It is suitable for rapid deployment, or interim schemes,
Figure 4.19: Planters forming continuous segregation from motor traffic, as it comprises relatively minor works (mostly road markings) and
Inns Quay, Dublin.
can easily be modified during, or after, construction.
Planters are typically raised above the carriageway on feet to allow A buffer (0.75m recommended width) should be provided between
for drainage; however, additional breaks can be provided at intervals the cycle lane and parking bays to allow for passenger access/
to suit the drainage requirements of the road and allow access for egress, loading, and to prevent ‘dooring’ of cyclists. The buffer can
maintenance. be a hatched road marking or wide kerbed island. A wider buffer of
at least 1.2m should be provided at disabled persons parking bays.
4.2.5.6 Parking Protected Cycle Lanes Parking bays should be sufficiently wide to reduce encroachment of
vehicles into the buffer zone.
Parking protected cycle lanes are a cost-effective means of
separating cyclists from traffic. Existing carriageway space can
be rearranged to make use of existing on-street car parking as an
effective protective barrier.

51
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.5.7 Road markings for Protected Cycle Lanes

Road markings should be provided on the carriageway to
demarcate the cycle lane. The outer edge of the cycle lane
should be indicated by a continuous white line (refer to
Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 7).
Edge line markings may be used on both sides of the segregation
where a widened buffer zone is required or to enhance visilbility
of the segregation. Figure 4.21 shows example road marking
layouts where cycle lanes are protected by bollards or
continuous segregation.

Figure 4.21: Edge line markings on protected cycle lanes.

52
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.6 Two-way Cycle Tracks (TL107) Table 4.13: Opportunities and challenges of two-way cycle tracks
Opportunities Challenges
4.2.6.1 Design Considerations » Require less overall width than one- » Transitions between the cycle track
way tracks; and the carriageway are more difficult
Two-way cycle tracks (as shown in Figure 4.22) can be well suited for cyclists travelling against the flow
» Allows more flexible use of space
to inter-urban routes and other locations where there are few side of traffic;
where cycle flows are tidal;
roads. » The interface between the cycle
» Can provide a higher level of service
track and major junctions along the
Situations where two-way tracks may be more appropriate than when provided on the side of the road
route can be more complex, typically
one-way cycle tracks in urban areas include: with significantly less kerbside activity
resulting in more delay for all users;
and/or junctions; and
» More risks associated with retaining
» Constrained routes – two-way cycle tracks require less overall » Where width allows, providing two-
priority over side roads or busy
width than one-way tracks. For example, a 2.0m wide one-way way track on both sides of a busy
accesses;
road can reduce the need for people
cycle track will be needed on both sides of the road to enable safe to cross. » Access to premises along the route on
overtaking and side-by-side cycling but a 3.0m wide two-way the opposite side of the carriageway
track can cater for a significant flow of cycle traffic with space for is reduced; and
faster cyclists to overtake slower cyclists; » More difficult for pedestrians to cross
a two-way cycle track where they
» Routes with tidal flows – where cycle flows are tidal (with
do not have priority.
significantly larger flows in one direction during the peak periods),
two-way tracks can represent a more flexible use of space than
one-way tracks as cyclists can move out into the ‘opposing lane’
within the cycle track to overtake. Two-way cycle tracks also allow
for side-by-side cycling when flows in the opposite direction are
low;
» Routes with kerbside activity predominately on only one side
– two-way tracks can be useful when there are greater levels of
kerbside activity and side roads on one side than the other (such
as promenades and riversides). The two-way cycle track can be
located on the side with less activity and conflict; and
» Alongside busy roads – providing two-way cycle tracks on
both sides of busy roads with destinations on both sides has the
advantage that it reduces the need for people to cross the road.

The opportunities and design challenges associated with providing Figure 4.22: Two-way cycle track, Wilton Terrace, Dublin.
two-way tracks are summarised in Table 4.13.

53
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.6.2 Design Guidance Directional arrow markings are generally not required on links as
the direction of the cycle logo indicates the direction of flow.
The width requirements for two-way cycle tracks are set out in the
Width Calculator (see Section 2.6). The buffer width on two-way The design of two-way cycle facilities across side roads requires
cycle tracks requires careful consideration, as cyclists on the outside careful consideration. Refer to Section 4.3.3.5 for further details.
lane of the track will be adjacent to oncoming traffic. The preferred
form of buffer on two-way cycle tracks is a raised (see Figure 4.23)
or planted verge, which provides separation between cyclists and
oncoming traffic and prevents cyclists from veering out onto the
carriageway.

Figure 4.24: Two-way parking protected cycle lane, South Mall, Cork.

Figure 4.23: Two-way Cycle Track with raised buffer, Springfield Avenue
Dublin.
Parking or loading bays can provide good protection from moving
traffic, provided a sufficient buffer (0.75m wide) can be provided
between the parked vehicle and cycle track. (see figure 4.24)
Centre line markings and cycle logos should be used on two-way
cycle tracks so that it is readily apparent to all road users that the
track is two-way.

54
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.7 Greenways and Shared Active Travel Designers should also refer to TII Publication DN-GEO-03047 Rural
Cycleway Design (Offline).
Facilities (TL106)
Greenways and Shared Active Travel Facilities offer the greatest
protection for cyclists and pedestrians from motor traffic as they are
typically mostly offline, away from road corridors. Facilities along
waterways, shorelines and disused railway lines, and paths through
parks and other public open spaces can provide important links for
everyday trips away from motorised traffic. These facilities may be
shared between pedestrians and cyclists or have separate space for
each mode.
The surface should be sealed, and machine laid to offer the same
quality and comfort as other urban cycle routes. Lighting will help
users to access the route at all times of day throughout the year.
Frequent access points connecting to adjacent roads can help
improve connectivity and feelings of safety to ensure motor traffic-
free routes provide a high level of service for utility cycling. Routes
that provide direct connections between journey attractors with good
connectivity to other parts of the network will achieve high usage.
The key design considerations for these facilities include: Figure 4.25: Shared Active Travel Facility, Curraheen, Cork.

» Plan and design for all kinds of users – the facility should be 4.2.7.1 Segregation
multi-access;
» The design should incorporate safe systems principles and Shared-use facilities (see Figure 4.25) are often suitable where:
meet the requirements for cyclists;
» The density of users is low meaning less interactions and potential
» Protect users from motor traffic; conflict;
» Separate users (people cycling, walking and wheeling) » There is low speed differential between users
where necessary; (e.g. area with high place function or at road crossings);
» Make it intuitive and clear which space is allocated to different » Where segregation results in facilities that are too narrow
users; for cyclists and pedestrians; and
» Reduce the need to slow down/stop; and » Where segregation may make the layout too confusing and result
» Design with maintenance in mind. in users straying into each other’s space, increasing potential
conflict.

56
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Where significant flows of pedestrians and/or cyclists exist, or

are forecast, consideration should be given to providing separate
facilities for walking and cycling. Types of physical separation include
a landscaped/grass verge (minimum 1 m wide) as shown in Figure
4.26 or raised central delineator strip (with regular gaps for drainage)
between the cycle track and footpath; or a raised adjacent footpath
with a minimum 60mm high kerb (straight edge or splayed), as
shown in Figure 4.27.
Table 4.14 provides recommended arrangements depending on the
density of pedestrians using the facility.
Table 4.14: Pedestrian Densities (Source: TII PE-PMG-02045).
Density of Pedestrians (users/hr/m) Recommended Arrangement
< 100 Shared-use usually appropriate
101 – 199 Segregation may be considered
> 200 Segregation should be considered Figure 4.27 Castletroy Urban Greenway, Limerick.

4.2.7.2 Width
Greenways in urban areas will generally be busier than in rural areas.
All routes should meet the absolute minimum widths set out in Table
4.15 to be able to comfortably accommodate larger cycles and
mobility scooters and designers should also consider the current,
forecast and any target increase in users. A width greater than the
minimum will increase the level of service, enable sociable (side by
side) cycling and walking, and help minimise conflicts between users.
Table 4.15: Shared Active Travel Facility and Greenway Widths
Location Desirable minimum width Absolute minimum width
Urban areas 4.0m 3.0m
Rural areas 3.0m 2.5m
Figure 4.26: Baldoyle Greenway, Dublin.

57
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.7.3 Speed Control Measures

Speed control measures can be uncomfortable and difficult to
navigate for disabled cyclists and people using non-standard cycles.
They should only be proposed where excessive speeds have been
shown to be an issue, where gradients or bends prevent minimum
stopping sight distances being provided or where there is the
potential for conflict such as junctions where these issues cannot
be addressed in another way.
Staggered barriers should not be used to reduce cyclist speeds.
Speed humps are preferable and should have a sinusoidal profile
covering the full width of the cycle track. Rumble strips can be
painful for cyclists who are unable to stand out of the saddle and
should be avoided.
Deliberately restricting space, introducing staggered barriers
or blind bends to slow cyclists is likely to increase the potential for
user conflict, creates a hazard (particularly at night) and may prevent
access for disabled people and nonstandard cycles, and so should
not be used.
Figure 4.28 Signage on the used to remind users to keep left to minimise
Signage reminding users to keep left and pass on the right can also
conflict, Cork to Passage West Greenway.
help minimise conflict (see Figure 4.28)
4.2.7.4 Access Controls
Access controls to shared active travel facilities and Greenways
should only be provided where necessary to prevent inappropriate
vehicular access. Where they are required, the controls should be
suitable to achieve consistent universal access to all such active
travel facilities.
Designers need to consider the design access controls with the
following in mind:
» Shared active travel facilities and Greenways are to be welcoming
and fully inclusive facilities;

58
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

» Access points should be designed to provide Universal Access

with particular emphasis on usability by a wide range of mobility
equipment;
» Access points should be attractive and inviting for users of the
facility; and
» There is a presumption against restrictive access control of any
type on active travel facilities.
Reference should be made to NTA Advice Note ATAN-2022-01:
Access Controls of Active Travel Facilities.
Access controls can reduce the usability of a route by all cyclists and
may exclude some disabled people and others riding non-standard
cycles. Access controls in the form of barriers, kissing gates and
chicane features that require the cyclist to dismount, or cannot
accommodate the cycle design vehicle, are not inclusive and should
not be used unless there is a persistent problem that cannot be
addressed by any other design feature (such as bollards), or periodic
enforcement.
Bollards to prevent entry by motor traffic should be placed at a
minimum of 1.5m spacing and oriented in a way that allows users to Figure 4.29 Bollards providing an accessible entrance to shared active
approach in a straight line to permit all types of cycle and mobility travel facility, Rathfarnham, Dublin.
scooter to gain access (see Figure 4.29). If access is required by
maintenance vehicles, a lockable removable bollard can be used. Where it is necessary to control the movement of livestock, a cattle
grid should be used, in preference to a gate which will cause delay
Bollards and barriers should contrast with the background colours and be inaccessible to some cyclists and wheelchair users. A cattle
and may be fitted with retroreflective material to ensure they can grid with closely spaced (100mm) threaded rod bars can be crossed
easily be seen in all conditions. by cycles without undue difficulty (see Figure 4.30).

59
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

The use of white line markings to separate pedestrians and cyclists

are not recommended. Even when accompanied with good signage,
white lines are not well observed, cannot be detected by vision
impaired people and can even lead to greater conflict due to
increased cycling speeds.

Figure 4.30: Cattle grid at Greenway access, Cambridge, UK.

4.2.7.5 Shared-use Paths Adjacent to Carriageway

Shared facilities between pedestrians and cyclists generally result in
a reduced offer for both modes and should not be considered as a Figure 4.31: A 4m wide shared facility, Dunkettle to Carrigtwohill Cycleway,
first option. Cork.
Shared facilities may be appropriate in certain contexts, such as Shared facilities should be avoided in busy urban areas with
along busy inter-urban and National Roads where pedestrian flows high flows of pedestrians and/or cyclists because they result in a
are low (see Figure 4.31). They must be designed to meet the reduced quality of service for both modes. Although instances of
needs of cycle traffic with appropriate separation from fast moving actual conflict may be rare, interactions between people moving at
vehicles, width, alignment and treatment at side roads and other different speeds can be perceived to be unsafe and inaccessible,
junctions. The design approach should be to provide a cycle track
particularly by pedestrians. This adversely affects the comfort of
that may be used by pedestrians, not a typical footpath that may be
both pedestrians and cyclists.
used by cyclists.

60
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

However, shared facilities may be acceptable in the following

situations if well-designed and implemented:

» At heavily constrained junctions where the space does not

exist to maintain segregation between pedestrians and cyclists;
» Where a length of shared use may be the only practical way
of achieving a continuous cycle route; and
» Where high cycle and high pedestrian flows occur at different
times.

Designers should be realistic about cyclists wanting to make

adequate progress and shared facilities should ideally provide
enough space for cyclists to overtake groups of pedestrians and
slower cyclists.
Recommended minimum widths for shared facilities carrying
up to 300 pedestrians per hour are given in Table 4.16.
Wherever possible, and where pedestrian flows are higher,
greater widths should be used to reduce conflict.
Table 4.16: Recommended minimum widths for shared-use path.
Desirable Absolute minimum
Flow
minimum width width at pinch points
≤ 300 pedestrians and 4.0m 3.0m
≤ 300 cyclists per hour
≤ 300 pedestrians and 4.5m 4.0m
> 300 cyclists per hour

61
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.8 Cycle Lanes (TL104) The design of cycle lanes requires consideration of the following:

Cycle lanes are marked lanes on the carriageway that are reserved » Traffic Conditions - cyclists are not physically protected, so it
either exclusively or primarily for the passage of cyclists. is important that traffic speed and volume is appropriate for all
Motor vehicles are prohibited from driving along or across a cycle potential cyclists to use the carriageway. Designers should refer
lane, except for access to or egress from a place adjacent to the to Section 2.5 to determine the suitability of cycle lanes on a
cycle lane. particular link;

They are normally located on the left or kerb side of the road (see » Turning movements - the design of cycle lanes needs to consider
Figure 4.32) and benefit from utilising the existing road drainage the turning movements of both cyclists and other traffic;
system and being included within the normal road maintenance » Kerbside activity - cycle lanes may conflict with other kerbside
programme. activities such as parking, loading, taxi ranks and bus stops.
Cycle lanes do not provide any physical protection from motor Careful attention to this design issue is required particularly
vehicles so many people do not perceive them as being safe enough. on busy retail streets and around school entrances;
They are generally suitable for roads where the speed does not » Hours of operation - cycle lanes should operate 24 hours a day
exceed 30km/h. so that the facility is available to cyclists at all times during peak
Mandatory cycle lanes are marked by a continuous white edge line traffic periods, cyclists can use cycle lanes to filter past queuing
which prohibits motorised traffic from entering the lane except for traffic (see Figure 4.33); and
access. The use of narrow advisory cycle lanes with dashed edge » Lane width - the carriageway needs to be sufficiently wide to
lines are no longer recommended. accommodate the cycle lane/s and vehicle running lane/s.
The recommended width of 2.0m allows space for overtaking
within the lane. The minimum width of 1.5m enables the use
of the facility by larger cycles and trailers. Widths below 1.5m
are therefore not inclusive and can encourage ‘close-passing’
of cyclists by motorists, who tend to drive close to the lane
edge marking.

Figure 4.32: Mandatory cycle lanes, Grove Road, Dublin.

62
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Figure 4.33: Mandatory cycle lanes can help cycle traffic to filter past
other slow-moving traffic, Grand Canal, Dublin.

63
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.9 Cycling in Mixed Traffic (TL105)

On local roads, residential streets and rural lanes, where traffic
volumes and speeds are generally lower, many people are likely to
be willing to cycle on-carriageway in mixed traffic or in unprotected
cycle lanes as the perceived risk of injury is low. Designers may
still choose to provide dedicated cycle facilities to address other
requirements for cycle-friendly infrastructure, such as attractiveness
or coherence. In some locations, a shared street may represent the
best way to reconcile the conflicting needs of different users and
different activities taking place within the street.
Figure 4.34: Primary and secondary cycling positions.
Traffic management or calming techniques may be used to reduce
traffic speed and/or volume to the point where cycling conditions are “Defensive riding” in the primary position can be safe, but children
inclusive and suitable for most people. This may also be associated and more risk-averse, less experienced people are likely to feel
with the removal of non-local, through-traffic to reinforce the primary vulnerable in the primary position and some drivers can react
function of local access. Possible measures can range from a bypass aggressively if they misinterpret the actions of the cyclist. Mixed
for through-traffic at town or village level, to simple measures such as traffic streets should therefore aim to offer conditions where most
turning bans at a neighbourhood level. people would feel confident and comfortable enough to use the
primary position when necessary.

4.2.9.1 Cycling Positions

4.2.9.2 Reducing the Speed of Motor Traffic
People adopt two main positions when cycling in mixed traffic -
the primary and secondary positions as shown in Figure 4.34. Cycle traffic can integrate with general traffic at speeds of up to
Designers need to be aware of these riding positions and design 30km/h but whether or not this ‘feels’ safe will depend on the
on-carriageway cycle routes with the following in mind: width of the carriageway and the proximity of overtaking vehicles
» Primary position – Cyclists will move into a primary position (particularly buses and HGVs); the volume of traffic (frequency of
(i.e. “take the lane”) on narrow roads, at pinch points such as overtaking); and the frequency of side roads, parking and loading
pedestrian refuges, and when passing side roads on their left. activities that can introduce other conflicts. Cyclists will usually
The intention of this position is to make overtaking drivers aware benefit from measures that reduce the speed differential between
that they will either need to move out of the traffic lane them and the motor traffic, such as the following:
to overtake or wait until there is space to overtake safely; and
» Secondary position – In the secondary position, cyclists are » Lower speed limits
between 0.5m-1.0m from the kerb, a position that ensures they are
far enough out to be able to avoid drains or debris but can also Reducing the actual speed of traffic to 30km/h or less can provide
move in either direction to avoid surface hazards. benefits in terms of safety, comfort and attractiveness, and reduce
the difference in travel time between driving and cycling. This is
64
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

not just a matter of applying lower speed limits. When considering

how to effectively implement reduced speed limits, designers
should consider the context and function of the street and the
associated speed reduction measures. A combination of place-based
psychological measures and more traditional physical measures
(described further below) can be used to create a self-regulating
street environment. Guidance on self-regulating streets
is provided in DMURS Section 4.1.

All Local Authorities are required to use and adhere to The Guidelines
for Setting and Managing Speed Limits in Ireland (Department of
Transport) when setting Speed Limits in their Administrative areas.

» Carriageway widths
Narrow carriageways are one of the most effective design measures
that calm traffic. Reallocation of carriageway space can be used
to reduce carriageway and traffic lane widths, helping to reduce
traffic speeds and freeing up additional space for cycle tracks and/ Figure 4.35: Chicanes, Charleville Mall, Dublin.
or widened footpaths. Designers should minimise the width of the
carriageway. Cycle bypasses may be provided alongside horizontal measures such
as chicanes or narrowing; the gap should be at least 1.5m wide to
Arterial and link streets should have traffic lane widths in the range accommodate all types of cycles and to allow access by sweeping
of 2.75m to 3.5, with preferred values of 3.0m and 3.25m. machinery. Where debris is likely to collect in the bypass
The standard carriageway width on local streets should be between at carriageway level, an alternative is to ramp up the cycle lane
5.0m and 5.5m. (Refer to DMURS Section 4.4.1) across the top of the buildout. The bypass should be arranged so
that cyclists re-entering the carriageway are protected and not
» Horizontal deflections
placed in conflict with passing vehicles (see Figure 4.36).
Kerb build outs, parking bays and bus stops can be used to create
chicanes and deflections in straight sections of carriageway to
help reduce speed (see Figure 4.35). They should have a tapered
approach to reduce the risk of cyclists moving suddenly into the
path of following vehicles. Build outs can also create space for cycle
parking, street trees and rain gardens that can increase the sense of
place and help lower vehicle speeds.

65
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

» Side road entrances

Tight kerb radii and entry treatments such as raised tables and
continuous footpaths across the mouth of the side road will
help reduce turning vehicle speeds, making it safer for cyclists
passing through the junction and pedestrians crossing the side
road and should be the default on cycle routes. Further details on
recommended layouts at priority junctions are given in Section 4.3.

» Surface treatments
Textured surfaces such as block paving can be used on low traffic
streets to provide a visual and audible reminder that the section of
carriageway is a low-speed environment. They need to be laid and
maintained to a high standard to ensure they are comfortable for all
users. In heritage areas, stone setts have a similar effect but can be
more uneven and uncomfortable for cycling on.
An alternative approach is to use distinctive coloured surfacing (for
Figure 4.36: Cycle Bypass at road narrowing, Kilmacud, Dublin. example, red coloured asphalt) to convey to drivers that they are
entering a street environment in which cyclists have priority.
» Vertical deflections On asphalt carriageways, applying a median strip with contrasting
colour and/or texture that is flush with the carriageway can provide
Raised tables and platforms may be used to reduce traffic speeds, cost-effective visual narrowing of the carriageway and still allow for
slow turning vehicles at junctions and enable pedestrians to cross larger vehicles to overrun if required.
at carriageway level. Raised tables are recommended at zebra
crossings, and on minor side roads and property accesses in » Centre line removal
conjunction with a continuous footpath.
Where speed ramps are required, a sinusoidal shaped ramp should On quiet, narrower streets where the carriageway width is less
be used. These are more comfortable for cyclists to ride over due than 5.5m in width, there should be no centre line marking, thereby
to the smooth transition profile on both sides of the hump. Speed ensuring all road users in either direction yield to each other.
cushions should be avoided because the cyclist may not be able to Removing the centre line acts as a speed reduction measure by
choose their preferred riding position in the carriageway. visually narrowing the carriageway to a single undivided traffic lane.
Large cycle logos can be marked on the carriageway to emphasise
the correct cyclist position.

66
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

This arrangement is only suitable on residential streets or local roads

with low traffic volumes (400 pcus per hour or less) and vehicle
speeds less than 30 km/h. With higher volumes of traffic there is a
higher risk of conflict with cyclists.

4.2.9.3 Reducing the Volume of Motor Traffic

Reducing motor traffic volumes enable cycling in mixed traffic
streets can be achieved through a range of measures involving area-
wide treatments across a neighbourhood, village or town centre.
Motor traffic is directed onto main roads, reducing traffic volumes
(and often speeds) on local and residential streets. It also gives an
advantage to cycling and walking over driving through the creation
of short connections only available to cyclists and pedestrians.
Traffic management measures that can reduce traffic volumes
include:

• Point closures which physically prevent access by motor vehicles;

• Bus gates or other modal filters;
• Turning bans (with exemptions for cyclists);
• One-way streets (with two-way cycle access);
Figure 4.37: Modal filter, Convent Road, Navan, County Meath.
• Parking controls; and
• Car-free streets (pedestrianised areas). » Bus gates

» Modal filters Where traffic volumes are an issue on bus routes, bus gates can be
used to prevent access by general traffic (see Figure 4.38).
Bollards and planters can be used to quickly and cost effectively Bus gates can improve the reliability and journey times of bus
introduce point closures which prevent access for motor vehicles services by exclusion of other vehicles which also improves
while retaining access for pedestrians and cyclists (see Figure 4.37). conditions for cycling. If bus traffic signals are used, they must also
They are often introduced across an entire neighbourhood to provide be able to detect cyclists, or a cycle bypass should be provided.
a dense network of cyclable streets to connect to secondary and
primary routes along busier corridors.

67
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

for cycling (including cycle parking) and other sustainable transport

modes. Parking control can also be used to support workplace travel
plans or to protect residential areas from excessive traffic by removing
long-stay commuter parking.

» Traffic-free streets (pedestrianised areas)

Streets and places where motor vehicles are excluded for some
or all of the time, often referred to as ‘pedestrianised’ streets, can
create high quality environments for pedestrians and cyclists (see
Figure 4.39). The main purpose of traffic-free streets is to provide an
environment where pedestrians can move around freely without fear
and intimidation from motor vehicles. Pedestrian Zones are indicated
by appropriate traffic signs.
Traffic-free streets are often important destinations for access to
shops and services by cyclists, and for through cycle traffic so it is
important that cyclists are exempted from the restrictions unless
Figure 4.38: Bus Gate, Main Street, Tallaght, Dublin. there is good evidence that this would cause significant safety
problems. Pedestrian and cyclist flows, street widths, the availability
» Turning bans and one-way streets and safety of alternative cycle routes and the demand for cycling
through the area should be considered when deciding whether
There should be a presumption to exempt cyclists from any including cyclists in the restrictions is justified.
restrictions including turning bans and one-way restrictions unless
there are overriding safety reasons for not doing so. Permitting
contraflow cycling in one-way streets and using point closures
to remove motor vehicle through traffic from certain streets will
generally provide a more direct route for cyclists and should always
be considered. On quiet, low speed streets, contraflow cycling
without a dedicated cycle lane has been found to be successful
even on narrow streets with on-street parking.

» Parking controls
Controlling car parking through charges, limiting capacity and/or
duration of stay can be an important element in reducing private
car traffic in town centres and other urban areas to free up space

68
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Figure 4.39: Car-free street, Capel Street, Dublin. Figure 4.40: Shared Street, Templeogue, Dublin.
Cycle streets are access-only streets for motor vehicles which also
4.2.9.4 Shared Streets and Cycle Streets serve as a primary route within the cycle network. A cycle street
should have a two-way traffic flow of less than 400 pcus in the peak
Shared streets are suitable in low traffic single lane environments hour and, ideally, volumes of cycling should exceed motor traffic
where cyclists take precedence over vehicular traffic. The key feature levels, to provide cyclists with a level of comfort comparable to that
from a cycling perspective is that cyclists “take the lane” in line with provided by a traffic-free route.
vehicles.
The design of cycle streets should ensure they are attractive to both
Where such streets are less than 5.5m in width, there should be experienced cyclists and less confident cyclists. Priority for cyclists
no central lane marking, thereby ensuring all road users in either should be provided using self-enforcing design. Coloured pavement
direction yield to each other. For widths between 5.5m and 6.5m, a surfacing and a mountable (at-grade) textured central strip can be
centre line marking should be provided to separate opposing traffic. used to emphasise that such streets are low speed environments
Large format cycle logos may be marked on the carriageway to where motor vehicles should not attempt to overtake cyclists (see
increase driver awareness (see Figure 4.40). Figure 4.41).

69
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

sufficient room. Cycle lanes or protected space for cycling may be

provided within bus lanes where the overall width available is 4.5m
or more. Bus lanes widths in the range of 3.25 m and 3.9m wide
should not be used as shared facilities. In this case, the bus lane
should be reduced to 3.0m to 3.25m wide and the remaining space
hatched out using road markings. Large format cycle logos should
be marked in the shared bus lane to increase driver awareness (see
Figure 4.42).

Figure 4.41: Cycle Street, Delft, Netherlands.

4.2.9.5 Shared Bus Lanes

Cyclists are usually permitted to use with-flow and contraflow bus
lanes. Whilst not specifically a cycle facility, bus lanes can offer
some degree of protection for cyclists as they significantly reduce
the amount of interaction with motor traffic. However, not all users
will feel comfortable sharing space with bus traffic. Bus lanes also
allow taxis to use them, which can significantly increase traffic flows, Figure 4.42: Shared bus lane, Merrion Road, Dublin.
increasing the risk of conflict.
Where cyclists are sharing bus lanes with buses, the lane should,
preferably, be 4.5m wide, to enable buses to pass cyclists with

70
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.9.6 On-street Tramways (Shared Running)

Where tram routes have on-street sections, cyclists often have to
cross the tram lines or share the carriageway with trams and general
traffic (see Figure 4.43).

Some of the potential hazard for cyclists can include:

» Cycle wheels dropping into rail grooves causing the cycle

to come to a sudden stop;
» Tyres skidding on the metal surface of the rail, especially
in wet conditions; and
» At tram stops, the lateral clearance between the rail and kerb
typically reduces to bring the platform closer to the tram doors.
Also, higher kerbs are required at tram stop platforms, further
reducing the space for cyclists.

These hazards can lead to sudden falls at speed and serious injury.
It is therefore important that routes that run along or traverse
tramways are carefully considered to minimise the risk to cyclists.
At locations where this is a potential issue, consideration should be
given to marking the correct path for cyclists to take or highlighting
the presence of the tram rails. Good street lighting is important as
tram rails can be difficult to see at night. The provision of alternative
route options for cyclists should also be considered.

Figure 4.43: Cyclist sharing carriageway with tram, Nassau Street, Dublin.

71
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Where cycle lanes or tracks cannot be provided adjacent to the

tramway, the clearance between rail and footpath kerb should be a
minimum of 1.0m, and consideration should be given to maximising
the effective width (e.g. by removing gullies, channels and traffic
sign poles). This clearance is not intended to allow cyclists to travel
alongside the tram. Cyclists should travel in front of or behind a
moving tram.
Where cycle routes cross the tracks, they should ideally have a
crossing angle of 90 degrees, or at least 60 degrees to the rails.
Road markings should be provided to direct cyclists across the
track as shown in Figure 4.44.

Figure 4.44: Road marking directing cyclists across tram tracks, Nassau
Street, Dublin.

72
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.10 Contraflow Cycling All contraflow cycle facilities should have regulatory traffic signs
facing oncoming traffic at the entry points to the one-way street,
Contraflow cycling allows cyclists on a one-way street to travel in the in accordance with the Traffic Signs Manual. The road markings
opposite direction to all other traffic, effectively allowing cyclists to required vary according to the type of contraflow facility
use a one-way street in both directions. (see Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 7).

One-way streets can present a significant barrier to cyclists by Contraflow cycle facilities should be legible to all road users.
reducing permeability and making journeys longer. Cyclists may risk There may be conflicts if other road users are not aware that
cycling against oncoming traffic or use footpaths to avoid detouring cycling is permitted in both directions. This could include crossing
around a one-way street. Therefore, one-way streets can encourage pedestrians, particularly on busy retail streets, and drivers turning
risky behaviour, negatively impact the quality of service, and may into and out of side streets across the cycle track. Road markings,
discourage cycling. traffic signs and coloured surfacing can be used to highlight the
presence of cyclists travelling in a contraflow direction (see Figure
The introduction of contraflow cycle facilities within an urban one- 4.45).
way system can significantly improve the directness of a route and
make the journey safer and more attractive for cyclists. Contraflow
cycling can create a dense network by ensuring as many streets are
usable for two-way cycling as possible.
Therefore there should be a general presumption in favour of
facilitating contraflow cycling on one-way streets.
The level of segregation required between contraflow cyclists and
oncoming traffic can vary depending on the intended traffic regime.
Generally, contraflow cycling on a Shared Street (without cycle lanes
or tracks) is suitable only on low-speed, low-traffic streets, such as
access and residential streets. Table 4.17 provides guidance on the
appropriate cycling facility for different traffic conditions.
Table 4.17: Appropriate contraflow cycling facilities.
Contraflow Cycling Speed One-way Traffic Flow
Facility Limit (peak hour pcus)
Contraflow cycling
≤ 30km/h ≤ 100
on Shared Street
Contraflow Cycle Lane ≤ 30km/h ≤ 200
Contraflow Cycle Track ≤ 60km/h Any

Figure 4.45: Contraflow protected cycle lane using bolt-down rubber kerbs
and flexible bollards, Blackrock, Dublin.

73
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.10.1 Contraflow Cycle Tracks (TL108) The key issues to be considered when designing Contraflow Cycle
Tracks include:
Fully kerbed contraflow (or two-way) cycle tracks offer cyclists a
high level of comfort and protection from oncoming traffic on one- » The facility should be legible to all road users. The contraflow
way streets. The design of the physical protection should be based arrangements should be clearly identified and self-evident.
on the intended traffic conditions. Similar segregation options to Consideration should be given to the entry and exit treatments at
those provided for Standard Cycle Tracks and Protected Cycle Lanes the start and end of the contraflow cycle facility;
can be used. An example layout is shown in Figure 4.46.
» At side roads and accesses, the contraflow cycle track should have
priority over traffic turning in and out. The design of the facility
across a side road junction should include warning signs and road
markings to increase driver awareness of cyclists travelling in a
contraflow direction;
» The Width Calculator (Section 2.6) should be consulted when
designing a contraflow cycle track as the design requirements
are similar to with-flow cycle facilities. The track should be wide
enough to provide space for overtaking and separation from
oncoming traffic. On higher speed streets, the buffer width may
need to be wider to increase safety and comfort for cycling
adjacent to oncoming traffic;
» Designers should assess the demand for loading and parking on
the contraflow side of the street. Physical barriers may be needed
to prevent parking/loading on the cycle track or, if space allows, a
parking protected contraflow facility could be provided; and

The type of segregation used needs to take account of pedestrian

crossing demands. Appropriately located gaps in the segregation
and accessible crossings should be incorporated into the design.
Where low-height segregation is used, designers should consider
increasing legibility by having a strong colour contrast at interfaces
Figure 4.46: Contraflow cycle track typical layout. between the carriageway, segregation, and footpath.

74
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.10.2 Contraflow Cycle Lanes (TL109) 4.2.10.3 Contraflow Cycling on Shared Streets
Contraflow cycle lanes should be mandatory cycle lanes, marked
(TL110)
with a continuous white line. Advisory cycle lanes with dashed edge Where traffic conditions are suitable, it may be possible to introduce
lines are not recommended. contraflow cycling without the need for marked cycle lanes or
segregated tracks. This can be an effective way to provide two-way
A 2.0m lane width provides space for overtaking and separation
cycling on narrow residential streets with on-street parking. Where
from oncoming traffic. The desirable traffic lane width is 3.0m –
there is good visibility, cyclists and on-coming drivers should be
3.25m to discourage drivers from overtaking with-flow cyclists and
able to negotiate passage safely. Regulatory traffic signs are still
to allow enough space to prevent vehicle encroachment onto the
required (see Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 5) but cycle lane edge
contraflow cycle lane (see Figure 4.47).
line markings can be replaced by cycle logos placed at intervals on
Contraflow cycle lanes may not be suitable where there is a risk of the carriageway to highlight the presence of cyclists travelling
vehicles parking or loading on the contra-flow side of the street, or in the contraflow direction.
generally encroaching onto the cycle lane. In this case, a contraflow
Designers should consider the possible interactions with pedestrians
cycle track may be more appropriate.
crossing the street. Additional traffic signs may be needed at
crossing locations to increase awareness of cyclists travelling in both
directions.
The following minimum carriageway widths are recommended for
two-way cycling on one-way shared streets:

» 2.6m with no car parking;

» 3.9m based on car passing cycle, no car parking;
» 4.6m with car parking on one side of the road; and
» 6.6m with car parking on both sides of the road.

On narrow one-way streets where parking is allowed on both sides

of the carriageway, regularly placed gaps in the parking bays can be
provided to allow contraflow cyclists to pull over to the kerb and let
larger oncoming vehicles pass (see Figure 4.48).

Figure 4.47: Contraflow cycle lane typical layout.

75
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

encroachment by turning vehicles.

Where traffic conditions allow, the gate can be provided by
light segregation, such as a flexible bollard. On shared streets, an
unsegregated entry/exit treatment comprising a cycle logo marking
and a short length of dashed edge markings may be sufficient
(see Figure 4.49).

Figure 4.48: Contraflow cycle facility on shared street – typical cross

section and plan layout.

4.2.10.4 Contraflow Entry and Exit Treatments Figure 4.49: Contraflow entry treatment on a shared street, Leinster Street
North, Dublin.
A traffic island, refuge or other kerbed feature should be used at the
start and end of the contraflow cycle facility to provide an entry/ Where a contraflow cycle facility enters a signal-controlled junction,
exit cycle gate. The cycle gate assists drivers and cyclists to observe cyclists should be provided with a dedicated signal phase to allow
the rules of the road (i.e. cyclists keep to the left and oncoming them to safely exit the one-way street (see Figure 4.50).
traffic passes to their right) and gives protection to cyclists against

76
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.10.5 Contraflow Bus Lanes

Shared bus and cycle lanes can be used in the contraflow direction.
The desirable width is 4.5m wide or greater to allow buses to
comfortably overtake cyclists. A cycle lane may be marked within
this space.
Where this width is not achievable, the shared bus and cycle lane
should be 3.0m to 3.25m wide to discourage unsafe overtaking of
cyclists. Bollards may need to be placed along the outside edge of
narrow bus lanes to ensure that buses do not leave the bus lane to
pass cyclists, increasing the risk of collision with oncoming traffic
(see Figure 4.51).

Figure 4.50 Contraflow exit treatment at signal-controlled junction,

Bull Alley Street, Dublin.

Figure 4.51: Contraflow shared bus and cycle lane, Winetavern Street,
Dublin.

77
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.11 Parking and Loading on Links of spaces). Where bollards or other vertical elements are placed
in the buffer, they should be positioned so that they do not block
The nature of parking and loading on streets means that drivers and vehicle doors (see Figure 4.52).
passengers will interact with a cycle track or cycle lane, whether that
is driving into/out of the space or when trying to get to/from the
footpath.
On-street parking and loading directly alongside a cycle facility
can be hazardous for cyclists especially in a street with high parking
turnover rates where there is a higher risk of vehicle doors being
opened into the path of cyclists.

4.2.11.1 Protected Cycle Tracks and Lanes (TL111)

On road and streets where on-street parking is justified, the
preferred layout for on-street parking is to have the cycle track or
cycle lane between the parked vehicles and the footpath. Where
loading bays are required, the cycle track should also be placed
behind the loading bay. This offers a higher level of service in terms
of safety and comfort compared to cycling adjacent to the moving
traffic.
Cyclists, drivers and passengers should have sufficient visibility to
be aware of each other’s presence. This includes a contrasting cycle
track colour and cycle markings, and high-visibility crossings of the
cycle track (e.g. zebra markings).
A buffer should be provided between the cycle facility and Figure 4.52: Protected (contraflow) cycle lane, Hume Street, Dublin.
parked vehicles to allow for car doors to be opened safely without
compromising the safety of cyclists. A cycle track of 2m wide will At side roads, it is essential to provide clear inter-visibility between
provide additional evasion room. The buffer should provide enough cyclists and turning vehicles. Parking/loading bays should be
space for drivers and passengers to comfortably get in and out of terminated at least 10m in advance of the junction and commence
a vehicle, including people using wheelchairs or people unloading at least 5m following the junction.
prams, etc. The buffer may be used as a path to access a dropped
kerb on the footpath, provided that the buffer is suitably wide and Designers will also need to ensure that any parking/loading bays
free of obstacles. The desirable minimum buffer width is 0.75m (and do not impact on sight visibility requirements at junctions (refer to
an absolute minimum width of 0.5m in locations with lower turnover Section 4.1.3).

78
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

The commencement of the parking or loading bay should include footpath. If a raised buffer is used, the cycle facility should be raised
physical delineation, to orient moving traffic to the right of parking, to provide a level crossing to the footpath.
and cyclists to the left. This can be a series of reflective bollards
or a commencing traffic island. Street lighting is important at the
commencement, conclusion and any interim junctions or accesses
along the facility.
Parking protected cycle tracks/lanes are not typically suitable in
conjunction with taxi bays, due to the higher frequency of taxi doors
opening and people crossing the cycle facility. Where parking bays
are intended as late night, or part time, taxi ranks, a permanent
buffer (minimum of 1.3m wide) should be provided between the
cycle track and taxi rank.
Electric vehicle charge points should not be placed where parking
protected cycle facilities are provided, as the cable connecting the
car to the charge point on the footpath extend across the cycle lane.
The problem could be overcome by installing the charge point on a
traffic island within parking area. TfL have standard details for such
an installation.

4.2.11.2 Disabled Person’s Parking Bays

Disabled person’s parking bays can be accommodated within a
parking protected arrangement as shown in Typical Layouts TL111
and TL114.
A clear, level width of 2.0m is required alongside disabled person’s Figure 4.53: Disabled person’s parking bay with widened buffer (note
parking bays to allow people to unload a wheelchair and turn within dished footpath opposite rear of bay), Fitzwilliam Street Lower, Dublin.
the space. Users should have a clear route and level access to the
footpath. 4.2.11.3 Loading in Constrained Spaces
The buffer between the parking bay and cycle track should be made
wide enough to facilitate comfortable movement for wheelchair On narrow streets where a cycle track behind a standard loading bay
users to travel along the buffer to a suitable crossing location to cannot be accommodated, the options below may be considered.
access the footpath. Localised narrowing of the cycle track/lane may
» Loading Island (TL112) – A loading island may be considered in
be required to provide a widened buffer (see Figure 4.53). Dropped
urban centres where daytime deliveries are required but space
kerbs should be provided at crossing locations to allow access to the
is restricted. The island allows delivery vehicles to park off the

79
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

carriageway and allows cyclist to retain the right of way. The 4.2.11.4 Cycle Lanes on the Traffic Side of Parking
loading bays hours of operation should be off-peak to avoid
conflict with cyclists during the busiest traffic periods.
» Partial Loading Island (TL112) – In some circumstances, where In exceptional circumstances, a cycle lane may be positioned
a full-width loading island cannot be accommodated and traffic on the traffic side of parking bays however in such
volumes are low, a reduced-width partial loading island may be circumstances, a departure from standards should be sought
considered. It requires delivery vehicles to park partially on the and approved prior to implementation.
carriageway. The loading bay should be clearly marked to allow
drivers to correctly position the vehicle. The cycle track should be Situations where this layout may be preferable include where the
raised to the same level as the footpath and the partial loading parking bays have numerous buildouts making construction of a
island to allow cyclists to get around parked delivery vehicles parking protected facility impractical or too costly; where electric
that may encroach onto the cycle track. The cycle track, footpath car charging points are located; or if there are particular
and loading island should have strong colour contrast and use requirements for disabled persons parking.
different materials to minimise conflict between the different users
of the space. The kerb between the partial loading island and the Where a cycle lane is transitioned to the right to the offside of
carriageway should have a splayed profile to facilitate rolling of parking bays, protection should be provided. A buffer with a
hand trucks onto the footpath. desirable minimum buffer width of 0.75m (and an absolute minimum
width of 0.5m) should be provided between the parked vehicles
» On-Road Loading Bay (TL113) – The loading bay must be and the cycle lane, and the cycle lane should be 2.0m wide to allow
clearly marked on the carriageway adjacent to the cycle track. evasion room from opening doors.
Good intervisibility between cyclists and people undertaking
loading activity is required. Dropped or splayed kerbs should
be provided on both sides of the cycle track to facilitate rolling
of hand trucks onto the footpath and to allow potential evasion
routes for cyclists. Stepped cycle tracks are more suitable for on
road loading bays due to the lower level difference between the
carriageway and track compared to standard cycle tracks. Motor
traffic must pass the loading vehicle in the opposing traffic lane;
therefore, this layout is suitable only on streets with low speeds
and traffic volumes.

80
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.12 Bus Stops » Pedestrians on an adjacent crossing point, especially if these are
obscured by other traffic, including a stationary bus; and
4.2.12.1 Introduction » General traffic movements in the adjacent carriageway.
Where cyclists and bus services use the same route, an integrated
While it is recognised that it will not always be possible to provide
design for the users of both modes is required and should address
conflict-free access for all users to and from bus stops, designers will
safety, comfort, directness, and avoid unnecessary delays.
need to balance the need to provide safer conditions for cyclists with
Some of the key components of high-quality bus stop infrastructure the resulting interactions between pedestrians and cyclists caused
includes: by providing the protected cycle facility.
» Being fully accessible for all bus passengers;
» Having a bus shelter for waiting passengers;
4.2.12.2 Design Considerations
» Having both timetable and real time passenger information (RTPI) The number of passengers waiting/alighting, frequency of bus
available to passengers; service, cyclist flows, traffic conditions and available road space
will determine the best design solution, but key issues to take into
» Having sufficient footpath space to allow the free movement of
consideration include:
pedestrians past the bus stop;
» Continuous cycle facilities past the bus stop; and » Ensuring there is available space for cyclists to pass a stationary
bus (either in the carriageway or on the footpath side of the bus
» Provision of cycle parking at, or close to, the bus stop.
stop) so that momentum is maintained;
A significant amount of road space is required to accommodate » Making it clear that cyclists must adjust their behaviour and speed
all, or most, of these elements. Therefore, the space requirements to avoid conflict with pedestrians around bus stops;
should be carefully considered when providing, or retro-fitting, bus
» Providing adequate, conflict-free space for people to wait for the
stops on cycle routes.
bus;
The ideal bus stop spacing is 400m in suburban locations, and 250m
» Providing sufficient safe space within a bus stop, including on the
in urban centres – this means that on most bus routes interactions
island, if a bypass is provided, for a person using a wheelchair to
between road users at a bus stop is generally unavoidable.
board or alight and turn;
From the cyclist’s perspective, possible interactions include:
» Providing good intervisibility between pedestrians (those waiting
» Passengers waiting at the bus stop; for a bus as well as those passing) and cyclists, to minimise
potential for conflict; and
» Passengers alighting from or entering the bus;
» Providing clear routes to and across the cycle track crossing
» Buses pulling into or away from the bus stop; for vision impaired people.
» Interaction between waiting passengers and other pedestrians;

82
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

The main design solutions for bus stops on cycle routes are detailed
in the following sections.

4.2.12.3 Island Bus Stop (Bus Stop Bypass)

(TL201, TL203)
At an Island Bus Stop, the cycle track is taken around the rear of the
stop adjacent to the footpath, bypassing the stop and thus removing
conflict between cyclists and stopping buses (see Figure 4.54).
This is the preferred bus stop type for multi-modal corridors, and
appropriate for bus stops on downhill sections, new developments,
or outside central areas where space permits. However, the island
arrangement increases the potential for conflict between pedestrians
and cyclists, particularly vision impaired people who find it difficult
to know when cyclists are approaching the crossing points.
The island between the cycle track and the carriageway needs to
be wide enough for people to stand and wait for a bus and to site a
shelter if one is to be provided. The island should ideally be at least
3m wide, which will accommodate parents and buggies, people with
a guide dog or a person using a wheelchair to allow a bus wheelchair
ramp to be deployed and sufficient space to turn the wheelchair.
Figure 4.54: Island Bus Stop, Tallaght.
All bus-related passenger activity (waiting, boarding, alighting) takes
place on the island, and does not generally create any interference Cyclists’ speeds can be reduced through a combination of narrowing
with the cycle bypass. the track to single file, and vertical and horizontal transitions so that
cyclists approach the bus stop at an appropriate speed to allow them
There should be good inter-visibility between passengers (those
to yield to crossing pedestrians.
waiting for a bus), pedestrians (those walking past) and passing
cyclists, to improve avoidance of collision. The island is connected to the footpath by a raised crossing, over
which cyclists must yield to crossing pedestrians. Priority can be
given to pedestrians by means of a raised zebra crossing. In some
circumstances where the designer wishes to further strengthen the
crossing facilities, consideration can be given to using an alternative
low level cycle signal, which provides a dedicated red signal stage,
with audible warning, for the blind and partially sighted pedestrians

83
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

wishing to cross the cycle track, more details are available in Section 4.2.12.4 Shared Bus Stop Landing Zone (TL202)
4.4.5.2.1.
A width of approximately 6.5m to 7m is required from the back of Where space constraints do not allow for the provision of an island
the footpath to the edge of carriageway to create a bus stop bypass. bus stop, a shared bus stop landing zone may be considered (see
Removing an existing bus layby can help provide space for these Figure 4.56).
arrangements and provides benefits to bus services by reducing Conflicts between cyclists, stopping buses and other motor traffic are
delay. removed by ramping cyclists up onto a footpath-level cycle track
Where road space is available, landscaping elements such as rain which passes through the bus stop.
gardens can be incorporated into the bus stop island (see Figure This creates potential pedestrian-cyclist conflict at the landing
4.55). area where people board and alight the bus. To mitigate the risk of
conflict, the cycle track should be narrowed through the bus stop
(to an absolute minimum of 1.3m) to encourage single file cycling
and the track should be bent out from the kerb to create a boarding/
alighting zone (maximum 1.0m) wide for bus passengers.
The landing zone is connected to the footpath (and bus shelter if
one is provided) by a raised crossing, over which cyclists must yield
to crossing pedestrians. Bus passengers wait on the footpath and
move to the boarding area when a bus arrives. Cyclists must yield to
passengers, and this should be reinforced with road markings and
signs where necessary.
The use of contrasting materials for the boarding area and cycle
track, both in colour and texture, is useful to highlight the difference
between the two, to both pedestrians and cyclists. The boarding/
alighting zone should be flush with the cycle track to avoid creating a
tripping hazard and to enable wider cycles to straddle the zone.
This layout should only be considered in constrained locations with
low pedestrian and cycle flows and low frequency bus routes where
other bus stop options are less suitable, and bus stop relocation is
not feasible.
Good intervisibility is required between pedestrians (those waiting
for a service as well as those passing) and cyclists. This minimises
the potential for conflict and the stop should be apparent to cyclists,
Figure 4.55: Planting in bus stop island, Manchester. who will need to be able to adjust their behaviour and speed,

84
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

particularly when a bus is at the stop. Sufficient lighting should be 4.2.12.5 In-Line Bus Stop (TL204)
provided at these locations to ensure that all road users can maintain
intervisibility during the hours of darkness. In-line bus stops can be a suitable option at locations with space
constraints where other layouts which maintain segregation between
buses and cyclists are not possible, and/or where conflict-free
bus passenger movement is necessary. At an in-line bus stop the
cycle lane is stopped at the bus cage. Any physical protection (e.g.
bollards) provided along the cycle lane must also be stopped in
advance of the bus cage to allow buses to access the kerb
(see Figure 4.57).
This layout does not remove the conflict between cyclists, buses, and
motor traffic. When a bus is stopped, cyclists yield priority and wait
behind the bus or, if sufficient space is available, cyclists may be able
to overtake the stopped bus.
This layout is only suitable on mixed traffic streets and in the most
constrained locations on very low frequency bus routes (e.g. 2 to 4
buses per hour) and where the duration the bus stopped is short (i.e.
predominantly a bus passenger drop-off location).
Figure 4.56: Shared Bus Stop Landing Zone, Cork.

The minimum off-carriageway width to accommodate this type

of bus stop arrangement is 4m. More space may be required to
accommodate wider footpath in areas with moderate to high
pedestrian activity or where a bus shelter is required. Designers
should avoid using hard street furniture (poles, bins, bicycle stands)
in vicinity of bicycle narrowing area and the landing zone.
In determining the widths of the constituent parts (footpath, cycle
track and landing zone) in the vicinity of the bus stop, the designer
should take into account existing and projected demand for each and
ensure that:
» the footpath width complies with DMURS requirements;
» the cycle track is not narrower than 1.3m; and
» the landing zone is minimum 1.0m wide. Figure 4.57: In-Line Bus Stop, Dublin.

85
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Cyclist and bus drivers should be made aware of the conflict

by use of red surfacing on the approach to the cage and cyclists
discouraged from overtaking by use of road markings such as
a yield marking.
To deter vehicles overtaking buses at the stop, consideration
could be given to including some “centreline hardening”
measures (e.g. using a raised median strip or installing a row
of reflective bollards with a double solid centreline).

86
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.13 Transitions
The points at which a cycling facility alternates between the
carriageway and a separated cycle track can introduce potential
for conflict.
The cycle route may move on or off-carriageway at constrained
sections, junctions and crossings or where traffic conditions or the
balance of the street functions changes (e.g. at parking bays, loading
areas, bus stops). The transition usually involves a change in level
and/or direction and needs to be anticipated and understood by the
other road users, as well as the cyclist.
Combination transitions – where vertical and horizontal transitions
occur in the one location – should be avoided. Historically, they have
been difficult to construct correctly, and equally difficult for cyclists
to use them. These movements should be dealt with sequentially, but
not at the same time.

4.2.13.1 Cycle track to carriageway transitions

(TL301, TL302)
Cyclists leaving an off-carriageway facility to re-join the carriageway Figure 4.58: Transition to carriageway, Main Road, Tallaght.
can be at risk of conflict with motor traffic. Where a cycle track
Where a cycle track or cycle lane transitions into a narrow, shared
merges back to the carriageway, the merge should be designed
street (mixed traffic) environment, cyclists should be protected
so that cyclists do not need to give way to general traffic and are
as they merge from their own space into the mixed traffic lane.
physically protected until safely established on their new alignment.
Consideration should be given to providing a physical shuttle to make
This will reduce the risk of cyclists being struck by motor traffic from
drivers approach the transition area at an appropriately low speed.
behind.
The feasibility of providing the shuttle will depend on the space
Where the cycle facility is being shifted to the right, a physical available, motor traffic flows and the balance of those flows. If the
barrier such as a kerb or traffic island should be used to protect shuttle is to operate on a priority basis (i.e. not signal controlled) then
cyclists from motor traffic behind them. For legibility, the island it is important that opposing drivers can see each other on approach.
should have a vertical element (e.g. reflective bollard or planter) to The shuttle can also act as a gateway which reinforces to drivers that
make it obvious to approaching motor traffic. Reverse curves should they are entering a street environment with a different context and
be used so that the cyclist is tangential/parallel to traffic flow before function (see Figure 4.59).
and after the transition to the right (see Figure 4.58).

87
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Figure 4.59: Shuttle transition to mixed traffic street.

4.2.13.2 Carriageway to cycle track transitions

Transitions from a carriageway to a cycle track usually present fewer
safety problems for cyclists but need to be designed to avoid the
need for any sharp turns, steep ramps or kerb upstands. This may
be achieved with a kerb build out that is preceded by a section of
mandatory cycle lane or taper markings. The build-out may need a
bollard to ensure that it is visible to road users (see Figure 4.60).
Where the cycle track is immediately adjacent to the carriageway,
the kerb build out may precede the diverge point. Alternatively, Figure 4.60: Transition from carriageway to cycle track.
protection may be offered simply by the kerb line of the existing
verge/footway, with a gentle diverge away from the carriageway. 4.2.13.3 Transitions between pedestrian priority
areas and cycling infrastructure
There are various situations where separate cycle tracks and
footpaths merge into a single shared surface. The most common
situations are where width is restricted such as near bus stops or
at toucan crossings. The transition may also occur at the interface
of a built-up area and an interurban shared footpath where low
pedestrian and cyclist use is anticipated (see Figure 4.61).

88
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Figure 4.61: Typical vertical transitions to and from pedestrian priority

areas.
If the transition introduces cyclists into a shared (pedestrian-priority)
facility, it is important that the correct tactile paving type (ladder
and tramline, as shown in Figure 4.62) and layout is used so that Figure 4.62: Typical tactile paving layout at transition to a Toucan crossing,
visually impaired people are aware that they are sharing the space Scholarstown, Dublin.
with cyclists, and that this is also clear to the cyclist. Refer to
Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces.

89
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.14 Pedestrian Crossings of Cycle FLUSH

DROPPED KERB

Tracks TAPER/DROPPED KERB

This section provides design guidance on the crossing of cycle

tracks by pedestrians away from junctions. Guidance on crossings
at junctions are provided in Section 4.3 and 4.4 There are a number
of situations where pedestrians will need to cross over a cycle track,
including at a parking protected cycle facility, loading island, bus
stop island, or bus stop landing zone. The following items should be
considered when designing crossings.
» The location of the crossing should meet existing or anticipated
pedestrian desire lines;
BUFF COLOUR
» Priority should be clear to all users; TACTILE PAVING

FOOTPATH DISHED DOWN

» The crossing should be fully accessible (e.g. flush kerbs, tactile TO CYCLE TRACK LEVEL

paving); and
Figure 4.63: Layout at uncontrolled (cyclist priority) crossing of cycle track.
» There should be good intervisibility between cyclists and crossing
pedestrians (See Section 4.1 for sight distance and visibility
requirements).
In addition, it is recommended that designers also consult with local
community/interest groups to identify any particular issues at a
scheme level that should be considered.

4.2.14.1 Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings

At uncontrolled crossings, the footpath is dished to the cycle track
level and dropped kerbs and appropriate tactile paving are provided
(see Figure 4.63). Uncontrolled crossings operate in a similar way to
uncontrolled crossings of road carriageways. People using the cycle
track have priority to proceed and pedestrians wait for a suitable gap
to cross.

90
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.2.14.2 Raised Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings 4.2.14.2 Controlled Pedestrian Crossings

At uncontrolled crossings the cycle track can be raised to footpath Priority can be given to pedestrians by means of a raised zebra
level at the crossing in locations where cycling speeds may need crossing. The crossing should include red-colour tactile paving
to be reduced and/or in areas with higher pedestrian activity to forming the standard L-shape pattern. The zebra markings can be
increase awareness of potential conflict (see Figure 4.64). Triangular supplemented with a triangular yield marking (see Figure 4.65).
road markings (“sharks’ teeth”) should be provided on the approach
In situations where road markings alone may not provide the
ramp to warn cyclists of the vertical transition.
required level of priority for pedestrians, zebra crossing traffic signs
or belisha beacons can be provided. In this case the preferred option
FLUSH
is to provide zebra crossing traffic signs. Ducting and pole sockets
DROPPED KERB
can be included in the works requirements so that belisha beacons
TAPER/DROPPED KERB can be retrofitted.
FLUSH
DROPPED KERB

OPTIONAL POLE SOCKET FOR

ZEBRA CROSSING SIGN OR BEACON

TAPER/DROPPED KERB

BUFF COLOUR
TACTILE PAVING
CYCLE TRACK RAMPS UP TO
FOOTPATH DISHED DOWN FOOTPATH LEVEL AT CROSSING
TO CYCLE TRACK LEVEL
FOOTPATH DISHED DOWN
Figure 4.64: Layout at raised uncontrolled crossing of cycle track. TO CYCLE TRACK LEVEL

RED COLOUR OPTIONAL POLE SOCKET FOR

TACTILE PAVING ZEBRA CROSSING SIGN OR BEACON

Figure 4.65: Layout at controlled pedestrian crossing of cycle track.

In some circumstances where additional control, or assistance, is

warranted, consideration can be given to using an alternative low
level cycle signal, which provides a dedicated red signal stage, with
audible warning, for the blind and partially sighted pedestrians
wishing to cross the cycle track, more details are available in Section
4.4.5.2.1.

91
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 4.3 Priority Junctions number of stops will also enhance the comfort and attractiveness
of cycle facilities.

4.3.1 Introduction 4.3.3 Cycle tracks at priority junctions

Priority junctions are the most common type of junction on our The following sections provide guidance on the design of priority
road network and cyclists are therefore likely to encounter multiple junctions where cycle tracks are present on the approach roads
priority junctions on most journeys so it is crucial that cycle traffic (main road and/or side road).
is appropriately catered for in priority junction layouts. This manual
provides updated guidance in relation to priority junction design,
based on international best practice and recent experience of cycle
4.3.3.1 Crossing set back
infrastructure design in Ireland. Where cycle tracks cross the mouth of side roads at priority
junctions, there are a number of different layouts which can be
adopted. The choice of layout will likely depend on a number of
4.3.2 Key design considerations factors including the available space and the road function and
Safety context.
Safety is one of the most critical consideration for priority junction The recommended layouts are divided into three categories based
design. Different modes will need to interact at priority junctions on the crossing set back distance from the main road as shown in
and, utilising a safe system approach, the key will be to manage Table 4.18:
these interactions as safely as possible so that: Table 4.18: Types of crossing set backs.
» the potential for conflict is minimised, and Crossing Type Description
» if collisions do occur, outcomes are as benign as possible. Crossing is set back 5 meters
Full Set Back (TL401)
from the road edge
Importantly, junction layouts should also feel safe to use for cyclists Crossing is set back 1-5 meters
of all ages and abilities. If junctions are not perceived to be safe, this Partial Set Back (TL402)
from the road edge
will likely be a barrier to new and less confident cyclists. Minimising Crossing is located within 1m
No Set Back (TL403 and TL405)
the exposure to vehicular traffic will be a key aspect in this regard. of the road edge

Directness Figures 4.66 to 4.68 illustrate the different types of crossing set
back.
Directness for cyclists is another important consideration for priority
junction design. Cycling requires physical effort, particularly starting
from a stationary position, therefore the number of stops along cycle
routes should be minimised to reduce the physical effort and delays
and provide the most direct cycling experience. Minimising the

93
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Figure 4.66: Full set back cycle track across a side road. Figure 4.68: No set back across a side road.

The preferred arrangement is that cycle facilities are fully set back
5m from the main road wherever possible. A full set back crossing
located 5m from the road edge has a number of key advantages
including:
» improving the conflict angle so motorists have better visibility
of crossing cyclists and cyclists are kept out of blind spots
(see Figure 4.69),
» provides additional deceleration space and reaction time
for motorists,
» provides waiting space for cars to yield without blocking
the cycle track or main road, and
» provides space to incorporate additional yield markings
if required between the crossing and main road.

To achieve the 5m set back distance, it may be necessary to

Figure 4.67: Partial set back across a side road . bend out the cycle track on the approach to the junction.
In such situations, reverse curves using radii given in Table 4.7
should be used.

94
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Cycle tracks can be raised to the footpath level at the crossing point,
as shown in Figure 4.70, or remain at an intermediate level between
the footpath and road with ramps/beveled kerbs provided either side
of the cycle track to facilitate access/egress from the side road, as
shown in Figure 4.71.

Figure 4.69: At a full set back crossing, drivers have a better view of
crossing cyclists (left) compared to a no set back crossing (right). (Source
image: NACTO.)
Figure 4.70: Cycle Track raised to footpath level at a side road crossing in
Where a full set back of 5m cannot be achieved e.g. due to existing Amsterdam.
constraints, designers should aim to provide the largest possible
set back between 0-5m and utilise a partial set back or no set back
layout as appropriate.

4.3.3.2 Cycle Priority

In terms of priority, the preferred arrangement is that cycle tracks
continue with priority across side road junctions in urban areas on
a raised crossing. The adjacent pedestrian crossing should also be
raised to enhance the comfort and priority of pedestrians.

95
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

through the junction;

» Providing clear visual contrast between the carriageway and
footpath/cycle track surfaces;
» Ensuring slow vehicle speeds through the junction; and
» Ensuring good visibility for all users.
Whilst the preferred arrangement is for cycle tracks to be given
priority across side roads, it is recognised that in some situations
it may be considered desirable/necessary (e.g. from a road safety
perspective) to retain priority for vehicles entering/exiting the side
road. Such situations may include rural locations or minor roads with
high HGV volumes in urban areas e.g. in industrial areas.
Table 4.19 provides a guide to assist designers in selecting whether
or not cyclists should be given priority across side roads based
on the movement function of the main road and place context of
the location under consideration (refer to DMURS Section 3.2 for
guidance on movement and place).
Where cycle tracks lose priority at side road crossings, this should
be clearly indicated using appropriate markings and signage, and an
uncontrolled crossing will typically be provided (TL404). The use
of refuge islands at uncontrolled crossings of side roads should be
Figure 4.71: Cycle track at an intermediate level at a side road crossing with considered where possible to reduce the number of lanes to be
bevelled kerbs either side of the cycle track for vehicular access.
crossed in a single movement and encourage slower vehicular traffic
Cycle priority can be achieved in all three set back scenarios (full/ speeds at the crossing point.
partial/no set back) by utilising the design solutions and layouts
presented in the Appendix. The use of road markings and signage
should be used to indicate priority where possible; however it is
important that junctions are designed so that priority for cyclists is
reinforced by the junction layout itself, regardless of whether signage
and markings are used to indicate priority. Key design elements in
this regard may include:
» Using continuous footpath and cycle track designs;
» Omitting corner radii and continuing road kerbs straight

96
 Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Table 4.19: Sugested Cycle Priroity at Side Roads

Arterial
Movement Function
Main Road

Link

Local

Neighbourhood/
Centre Business Parks/ Rural fringe
suburban Rural
(≤ 50 km/h Industrial Estate (≤ 60 km/h
(≤ 50 km/h (> 60 km/h)
typically) (≤ 50 km/h) typically)
typically)

Place Context

Cycle priority recommended

Note: Designers should refer to DMURS Section 3.2 for guidance
Cycle priroity should be considered and definitions on movement function and place context.
Vehicle priority recommended

97
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.3.3.3 Side Road Access/Egress less than 25m, from the side road then it may be possible to omit the
access point directly opposite the side road, however designers must
At priority junctions, designs will need to include a provision for ensure that all cycle movements are adequately catered for in such
cyclists to easily manoeuvre to/from the side road and the cycle track circumstances e.g. cycling in both directions.
on the opposite side of the carriageway. The appropriate provision will
depend upon whether the cycle track opposite is at- grade or raised.
If the cycle track opposite is at-grade and segregated from traffic,
then a sufficient gap in the segregation should be provided opposite
the side road, see example in Figure 4.72.

Figure 4.73: Ramp provides access to raised cycle track opposite a side road.

4.3.3.4 Protected Priority Junctions (TL406)

Where two roads with cycle tracks intersect at a priority junction,
the preferred arrangement is for a Protected Priority Junction as
Figure 4.72: Gap in separator kerb provides access to at grade cycle track illustrated in Figure 4.74 to be implemented.
opposite the side road. The layout is very similar to a signalised protected junction with
If the cycle track opposite is raised above the carriageway then a protected corner islands and crossings set back 5m from the junction
ramp or bevelled kerb with a maximum gradient of 5% (1:20) should etc. The use of a protected priority junction layout has a number of
be provided to facilitate access for people cycling to/from the side key advantages including:
road, see example in Figure 4.73.
» Provides a dedicated space for cycling which caters for all
If a cycle crossing on the main road is located in close proximity, e.g. cycle movements;

99
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

» Maintains segregation between all modes; 4.3.3.5 Two-way cycle tracks

» Reduces crossing distances which minimises the potential (TL407, TL408, TL409, TL410)
for conflict with motorists; and
» Creates stacking space for cyclists waiting to cross. The guidance in the preceding sections also pertains to two-way
cycle tracks crossing side roads at priority junctions. As such, the
The layout is similar to a signalised protected junction layout and so preferred arrangement is for two-way cycle tracks to cross the
will be familiar to road users, thereby enhancing the consistency of side road with priority on a raised entry treatment. A full set back
the cycle network. crossing is also the preferred arrangement as shown in figure 4.75.

LOOK LEFT

LOOK LEFT

Figure 4.75: Two-way cycle track with full set back at side road junction.
Figure 4.74: Example Protected Priority Junction Layout.
As mentioned in section 4.2, two-way cycle tracks can present
A protected priority junction layout should also be considered on additional challenges and risks which need to be considered. At side
schemes where cycle tracks are only being provided on the main road crossings, the critical issue is that motorists entering/exiting the
road but the side road forms part of the overall cycle network. minor road may not anticipate cyclists travelling in the unexpected
The provision of a protected junction layout would future-proof the direction i.e. against the flow of the directly adjacent traffic.
junction for cycle infrastructure on the side road at a later stage.
The typical layouts for two-way cycle tracks at priority junctions

100
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

in the Appendix include additional measures to manage these

interactions and ensure they as safe as possible. The additional
4.3.4 Cycle lanes at priority junctions
measures may include: (TL411)
» Additional signage to alert motorists that cyclists may approach Mandatory cycle lanes will typically continue across the mouth of
from either direction, see Figure 4.70; side road junctions at carriageway level and be delineated using red
» Hazard markings on the cycle track to alert cyclists of the crossing surfacing and elephant’s footprints markings. Consideration should
point and potential interactions with motorists; be given to protecting the cycle lanes via bollards or similar on the
approach to the junction to prevent vehicle encroachment.
» Additional traffic calming measures to control motor traffic speeds
approaching the junction, particularly for partial set back and no Appropriate lane widths and corner radii in accordance with DMURS
set back crossing layouts; and requirements should be adopted to manage traffic speeds through
the junction.
» The use of one-way traffic systems in combination with no set
back layouts to reduce traffic volumes and simplify turning Where cycle lanes cross side roads, the adjacent pedestrian crossing
movements at junctions. will typically be an at grade (dished) crossing however cycle lanes
can also be used in combination with raised pedestrian crossings and
zebra crossings as required.
Cycle lanes may also be transitioned to cycle tracks at side roads and
a set back crossing provided in accordance with section 4.3.3 above,
if it is consider appropriate/desirable.

4.3.5 Mixed Traffic Priority Junctions

Where traffic conditions are suitable to mix people cycling with
motor traffic (see Table 2.1), such as on residential or access streets,
priority junctions should be designed as per DMURS requirements.
It is recommended that the following features are considered for
inclusion in mixed traffic priority junction layouts to ensure good
conditions for cycling:
Figure 4.76 Sign W 143 with supplementary plate P005 may be used to
» Tight corner radii, including the use of overrun areas to
warn motorists that cyclists may approach in either direction.
accommodate the turning movements of larger vehicles if
necessary (see example in Figure 4.77);
» Narrow lane widths on all approaches;
» Single lane exits from side road;

101
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

» Traffic calming measures on the approach to the junction and/or not be dropped/dipped across entrances or driveways as shown in
use of raised table junctions; and Figure 4.78.
» Large Cycle Symbols markings (M 116) placed on the approach
roads.

Figure 4.78: Cycle tracks dipped across private entrances is uncomfortable

and potentially dangerous for cyclists and should not be used.
Figure 4.77: Example of overrun area at a priority junction used to manage
vehicle turning speeds and facilitate turning movements of larger vehicles
(Source: André Pettinga).
4.3.6.1 Cycle tracks passing entrances
and driveways
4.3.6 Entrances & Driveways Where standard or stepped cycle tracks cross entrances and
driveways, continuous footpaths should be used for pedestrians,
Cyclists and pedestrians passing by private entrances have priority
the level of the cycle track should remain constant and bevelled
over traffic entering and exiting the property. Therefore it is essential
kerbs or short ramps should be provided for vehicles to cross over
that entrances are designed in a manner that provides for and
the footpath and cycle track. Corner radii should not be used, rather
reinforces this priority. As such, footpaths and cycle tracks should

102
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

the kerb line should continue straight across the entrance. Where a cycle track with a buffer passes a private entrance
(Figure 4.80) a similar treatment should be used. The cycle track
Figure 4.79 illustrates how a cycle track with no buffer (i.e. cycle
will typically be 60mm below footpath level and 60mm to 125mm
track is directly adjacent to carriageway) should be brought
above carriageway level. The road kerb line should continue straight
across a private entrance. The cycle track will typically be 60mm
across the entrance, without corner radii, and a ramp (1:10 gradient
below footpath level and 60mm to 125mm above carriageway
recommended) should be provided within the buffer zone.
level. Bevelled kerbs (1:5 to 1:10 gradient recommended) should
be provided at front and rear of cycle track for vehicular access. The ramp surface should have a different colour to that of the
The cycle track may need to be narrowed slightly at an entrance carriageway and cycle track. Ideally the ramp will match the material
to accommodate bevelled kerbs, depending on the kerb width and and tone of the footpath. A bevelled kerb (1:5 to 1:10 gradient) should
height difference. In such circumstances a minimum 1.5m cycle track be provided between the cycle track and footpath for vehicle access
should be maintained. over the footpath.

Figure 4.79 Cycle track with no buffer passing private entrance

Figure 4.80: Cycle track with buffer passing a private entrance.

103
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 4.4 Signal-controlled circumstances. Also in certain circumstances,

different approaches may need to be
Directness
Minimising delay is also an important aspect
Junctions considered for different arms of a junction
e.g. providing protected facilities on the main
to ensure cycle routes through junctions are
as direct as possible. Measures that can help
4.4.1 Introduction road but a lesser provision on the side road
with low traffic volumes and no dedicated
reduce diversion and delay to cycle traffic
should be integrated into the design where
Signal-controlled junctions can be used to cycle facilities. Designers should be guided
appropriate, such as:
control traffic flows between intersecting by the main requirements below when
routes with higher traffic volumes. Traffic tailoring junction layout. » Detection of cycles on the approach and
signals are primarily used to control at the junction;
conflicting movements between road users 4.4.2 Main requirements » Avoiding multi-stage and staggered
and to make efficient use of the available
road space.
for signal-controlled crossings;
» Minimising the number of stages and
Signal-controlled junction design is a junctions overall junction cycle time; and
complex task, often influenced by many
Safety » Maximising green times for cyclists.
site specific factors particularly in a retrofit
scenario e.g. existing geometry and land Junctions represent a particular risk for
constraints. cyclists as almost half of serious collisions
Coherence
The typical layouts presented in this manual involving cyclists occur at junctions. Cycle facilities on the approaches to and
are generally of four-arm signal controlled Designers should adopt a safe system through signal controlled junctions should be
junctions. The development of the layouts approach so that the potential for conflict continuous, legible and easy to understand.
has been guided by the need to adopt a is minimised and that if collisions do occur, Coloured surfacing and road markings as
safe system approach, by the experience that outcomes are as benign as possible. Key recommended in this manual should be used
gained in the provision of cycle facilities at aspects in this regard will include: to assist cycle traffic to navigate through
signal-controlled junctions in Ireland since junctions.
» separating cyclists from motor traffic
the National Cycle Manual was first published Where a number of signal controlled
and pedestrians to the greatest extent
in 2011 and influenced by best international junctions are present on a cycle route, similar
possible;
practice. junction arrangements should be adopted at
» ensuring layouts are legible and forgiving; all junctions wherever possible to provide a
The full junction arrangements presented
in the manual should typically be achievable » ensuring motor vehicles speeds are slow consistent approach along the route.
in new ‘greenfield’ developments however through junctions; and
in retrofit situations, designers will Comfort
» providing short crossing distances to
typically need to tailor the junction layouts minimise the potential for conflict. Cycle facilities through junctions should
appropriately to cater for site specific be comfortable to use. They should

105
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

have smooth surfaces and be of adequate width to cater for the

anticipated cycle flows. Vertical and horizontal transitions should
be smooth and cater for all types of cycles including larger and
non-standard cycles. Additional facilities to improve the comfort of
cyclists may also be considered such as footrests and balancing aids.

4.4.3 Protected Junctions

4.4.3.1 General
Protected signal controlled junctions are signalised junctions with
segregated cycle tracks around the perimeter, typically located
between the footway and carriageway. The inclusion of cycle tracks
creates a dedicated space for cycling that is segregated from
both pedestrians and motor traffic and that caters for all cycle
movements. Importantly, a protected junction layout allows cyclists
to make right turn movements protected from motor traffic.
Protected junction arrangements have been extensively used in
The Netherlands, where the concept was originated, for many years
and are being adopted by a growing number of countries globally
including the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
To date a small number of protected junction layouts have been
implemented in Ireland including in Dundrum (Figure 4.81) and
Ballymun in Dublin, and in Carlow Town (Figure 4.82). Many more
protected junction layouts are currently being planned under Active
Travel schemes around the country and on BusConnects corridors
in Dublin and the Regional Cities. It is anticipated that the continued
rollout of protected junctions will improve junction consistency and
coherence on the cycle network.
Figure 4.81 Protected Junction at Drummartin Road/Lower Kilmacud Road,
Dundrum.

106
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Table 4.20: Key features of protected junctions.

Orbital Cycle Track
An orbital cycle track around the
junction provides a dedicated space
for cyclists, segregated from both
pedestrians and motor traffic. The orbital
track is typically level with the adjoining
carriageway so if the cycle track is raised
on the approach road it will be ramped
down to carriageway level in advance of
the junction.
Protected Corner Islands
Raised islands, typically elliptical in
shape, located at junction corners that
provide cyclists protection from turning
vehicles and a safe space whilst waiting
to cross. The islands also help to control
motor vehicle turning speeds.

Figure 4.82: Protected junction layout on Hanover Street, Carlow.

Set Back Crossings
In order to provide junction layouts that can safely cater for The crossing is set back from the edge
of the main road. This can improve vis-
all cycle movements and are suitable for use by cyclists of all ibility between straight-ahead cyclists
ages and abilities, protected junction layouts are the preferred and turning motorists at the conflict
arrangements for signal-controlled junctions on cycle routes. point, helping to reduce blind spots.
Set back crossings can also help create
stacking space for cyclists waiting to
cross the junction.

4.4.3.2 Key features of protected junctions Parallel Crossings

Cyclists and pedestrians cross the
There are a number of variations of protected junction layouts junction in their own dedicated space,
presented in this manual to suit different circumstances and avoiding the use of shared space. In
some protected junction arrangements,
conditions. These are described in the following sections with typical cyclists and pedestrians can run in the
layouts presented in the Appendix. However, there are a number same signal stage which can increase
of key features applicable to all the protected junction layouts as junction efficiency and reduce delays for
detailed in Table 4.20 below. all users.

107
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.4.3.3 Protected Junction (TL501) Both pedestrians and cyclists then cross the junction under signal
control, either in separate stages or in one combined ‘wrap around’
In a protected junction layout (see Figure 4.83), the cycle track is set stage, depending on the volume of turning traffic (refer to section
back on the approach to the junction which creates space to manage 4.4.4 for guidance on signal staging).
the interaction between pedestrians and cyclists outside of the signal Left turning cyclist are not governed by signal controls so can
control. proceed to make the left turn whilst yielding to any pedestrians
at the zebra crossings. Right turning cyclists make a two stage
movement and cross the two arms of the junction under signal
control.

Figure 4.83: Typical layout of protected junction with zebra crossings of the
cycle track.
Pedestrians cross the cycle track with priority on a mini zebra
crossing and proceed to a landing area adjacent to the carriageway
(see Figure 4.84). The landing area should be a minimum of 2.7m
between kerbs to allow for tactile paving at each crossing point
and an appropriate space between the tactiles. Cyclists yield to Figure 4.84: Example of mini zebra crossing of cycle track and pedestrian
pedestrians at the zebra crossing and proceed up to a forward stop landing area (image: Google Street View).
line adjacent to the carriageway if they are continuing straight-ahead In addition to the common features of protected junctions discussed
or turning right. in section 4.4.2.1, a protected junction with zebra crossings of the
cycle track includes the following features:

108
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

» Shorter crossing distances for pedestrians and cyclists compared

to other signal controlled layouts;
» Forward stop line for cyclists to increase their visibility;
» Free left turn for cyclists (not under signal control);
» Mini zebra crossings of the cycle track for pedestrians;
» Landing areas for pedestrians (2.7m minimum between kerbs);
and
» Additional stacking space for cyclists adjacent to the pedestrian
landing area.

Protected junctions with zebra crossings of the cycle track can

provide an optimum solution for all road users by reducing delays,
maintaining full segregation between all modes and minimising the
potential for serious conflict between the different modes.
A potential disadvantage of the arrangement is that it can require
more space to implement compared to other signal controlled
layouts. In constrained locations, designers could consider an
alternative solution to manage the pedestrian/cycle interaction
whereby the red tactile stem of the pedestrian crossing is extended
across the cycle track to the rear of the footpath and yield markings Figure 4.85: Alternative pedestrian crossing detail at a protected junction.
are placed on the cycle track to indicate pedestrian priority, as
shown in Figure 4.85. The tactile area should be raised above the 4.4.3.4 Protected Junction - CYCLOPS layout
cycle track level and a clear colour contrast between the cycle
track and pedestrian crossing should be maintained to highlight the
(TL502)
changed environment to people cycling and that pedestrians have A protected CYCLOPS (Cycle Optimised Protected Signals) layout,
priority. recently developed in the UK, is a variation of the protected junction
In such layouts it is recommended that a minimum width of 2 metres layout where the cyclist and pedestrian positions are switched at
be maintained between the cycle track and carriageway to provide a the junction. The signalised pedestrian crossings are located inside
refuge for pedestrians waiting to cross the carriageway. the cycle crossings and the cycle track loops around the outside of
the junction creating pedestrian refuge islands at the corners of the
junction as shown in Figure 4.86.

109
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Figure 4.86: Typical layout of a protected junction with zebra crossings of

the cycle track and inner pedestrian crossings (draw up ‘clean’ version Figure 4.87: Corner refuge island at CYCLOPS junction in Cambridge, UK.
without dims/labels).
Left turning cyclist are not governed by signal controls so can
Similar to the previous layout, the pedestrian and cyclist interaction proceed to make the left turn freely whilst yielding to any cyclists
is managed outside of the signal control operations. Pedestrians already on the orbital cycle track and any pedestrians at the zebra
cross the cycle track with priority on a mini zebra crossing and crossing. Right turning cyclists make a two stage movement and
proceed to the corner refuge islands (see Figure 4.87) where they cross the two arms of the junction under signal control.
cross the junction under signal control. Cyclists yield to pedestrians
This type of junction arrangement has been implemented in a
at the zebra crossing and proceed up to a forward stop line adjacent
number of locations in the UK in recent years including in Greater
to the carriageway if they are continuing straight-ahead or wishing
Manchester Area and Cambridge.
to turn right. Pedestrians and cyclists can then cross the road
typically in one combined ‘wrap around’ stage however they may The layout shares similar advantages to the previous layout. A further
be separately staged depending on local traffic conditions (refer to advantage of this junction layout is that it creates the opportunity to
section 4.4.4 for guidance on signal staging). include diagonal pedestrian crossings within the junction if desired.
Also the orbital cycle track is typically more circular in shape with

110
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

larger radii which may provide a more comfortable route for cyclists.
The layout also potentially reduces the number of zebra crossings of
the cycle track.
Conversely, the CYCLOPS layout may present some potential
disadvantages including: the potential for increased interaction
between pedestrians and cyclists due to consolidation of zebra
crossings; potential for pedestrians to feel less comfortable/
more isolated on corner refuge islands; and a slightly longer, more
circuitous route for cyclists.

4.4.3.5 Protected Junction with full signal control

(TL503)
In a protected junction under full signal control layout, see Figure
4.88, all movements are governed by the traffic signals including the
interaction between pedestrians and cyclists. Pedestrians cross the
road and the associated cycle track in a single movement.
For cyclists there are two stop lines. The first is located on the
approach to the pedestrian crossing. Typically cyclists will only
be required to stop here during the pedestrian stage which will
generally result in a free left turn for cyclists, similar to other
protected junction layouts.
The second stop line is located adjacent to the carriageway to be
crossed where people cycling straight ahead will wait and cross the Figure 4.88: Protected junction with full signal control.
junction under signal control. The second stop line is also used for
The main advantage of a full signal control layout compared to
controlling right turning cyclists who typically cross the junction in a
protected junctions with zebra crossings of the cycle track is
two stage movement.
that it requires less space. Another potential advantage is that
pedestrians have more controlled priority over the cycle track as the
interaction is signal controlled. A full signal control layout also has
some disadvantages compared to other protected junction layouts
including:

111
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

» Longer pedestrian crossing distancess;

» Longer pedestrian signal phase which may increase delays and
reduce junction capacity;
» Full set back cycle crossings may be more difficult to achieve;
» Sharper turns potentially less comfortable for cyclists;
» Smaller protected corner islands may feel less safe for some
cyclists;
» Less stacking space for cyclists due to smaller corner islands; and
» At busy junctions, pedestrians waiting to cross may block the
footpath for other users.
In terms of signal staging, generally the layout should enable
pedestrians and cyclists to cross the road in a single combined
‘wrap around’ stage. Crossing cyclists will need to stop at the
pedestrian crossing on the far side if the pedestrian phase is still
active. Depending on local traffic conditions, it may be possible to
run cyclists with straight ahead and left turning traffic at quieter Figure 4.89: Protected Signal Controlled T-Junction.
junctions (refer to section 4.4.4 for further guidance on signal
This layout can provide an optimum solution at signalised
staging) which would increase the amount of time for the cycle
T-Junctions for all road users by reducing delays, maintaining full
phase in the junction cycle. segregation between all modes and minimising the potential for
serious conflict between motorists and pedestrians and cyclists.
4.4.3.6 Protected T-Junction (TL504) However a potential disadvantage is that it can require more space
to implement compared to other signal controlled T-Junction layouts
Where two roads with cycle tracks intersect at a signal controlled owing primarily to the use of pedestrian landing areas. In constrained
T-junction, the preferred arrangement is for a protected signal locations, designers could consider the alternative pedestrian
controlled T-Junction, as illustrated in Figure 4.89, to be crossing solution discussed in section 4.4.2.2.
implemented. This layout contains the same features and uses the
same principles as the protected junction, with zebra crossings of the
cycle track layout in section 4.4.2.2, e.g. mini zebra crossings of the
cycle track and landing areas for pedestrians, only in this instance
applied to a three arm T-Junction Layout.

112
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.4.3.7 Protected T-Junction with full signal

control (TL505)
At more constrained signalised T-Junctions or where full signal
control is desirable, a protected T-Junction with full signal control
arrangement as shown in Figure 4.90 below could be considered.
This layout contains the same features as the protected junction
with full signal control layout in section 4.4.2.4, only applied to
a three arm T-Junction Layout. It also generally has the same
advantages and disadvantages as said layout.

Figure 4.90: Typical layout of a Protected T-Junction in a constrained

location.

113
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.4.4 Other signal-controlled not being implemented. In this arrangement, cyclists are provided
with a dedicated cycle only phase, which can be demand dependent
junction arrangements called by automatic detection or a push-button. Cyclists proceed
through the junction in a separate phase whilst conflicting traffic
4.4.4.1 General streams or pedestrians are held on red. This maximises safety by
reducing the potential for conflict, providing cyclists with protection
Whilst a protected junction should be the preferred solution for under traffic control. Separate cycle phases may be useful in a
signal-controlled junctions in most circumstances, it is acknowledged number of situations including where:
that a protected junction layout may not be implementable or » two-way cycle tracks intersect with signalised junctions;
necessary in all locations. In such circumstances the options
presented in the following sections may be considered. » to remove conflict between straight-ahead cyclists and turning
motor vehicles (Figure 4.91);
It should be noted however that some of the options may be
perceived as less attractive or safe by some cyclists, particularly » diagonal cycle crossings are required (Figure 4.92);
those less experienced or confident. Some of the layouts may » contraflow cycle facilities enter signalised junctions; and
also not include a provision for all cycle movements at a junction. » remote cycle facilities enter signalised junctions.
As such, the layouts should generally only be considered in the
following circumstances:
» as part of interim/temporary schemes; and
» where new junction layouts are being implemented in
exceptionally constrained environments.

If any layouts in this section are being proposed for use in

circumstances outside of the above two scenarios, e.g. new
developments or locations that are not heavily constrained,
a departure from standards should be sought and approved
prior to implementation.

4.4.4.2 Dedicated cycle phase

Separate cycle phases can be used to provide protection for cyclists Figure 4.91: Example of dedicated cycle phase where left-turning and
through a signal controlled junction where a full protected layout is straight-ahead cyclists get their own phase in the signal cycle to provide
protection.

114
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.4.4.3 Signal-controlled junctions

with toucan crossings (TL506)
Toucan crossings can be implemented at junctions under signal
control to provide a shared facility for pedestrians and cyclists to
cross the junction.
In this arrangement, pedestrians and cyclists may be segregated or
in a shared space on the approach roads. If cyclists are segregated,
they are transitioned to a shared space with pedestrians at the
junction and both modes cross using the toucan crossing, see Figure
4.93. Appropriate tactile paving will be required to warn visually
impaired users they are entering a shared space.

Figure 4.92: A diagonal cycle crossing with separate cycle phase near
Heuston Station, Dublin.

Separate cycle phases are generally bespoke arrangements, tailored

to suit site specific circumstances therefore typical layouts are not
presented in this manual. Designers should follow guidance in other
sections of the manual including section 4.1 Geometric Requirements
and section 4.4.6 Traffic Signal Operations and Components when
developing bespoke solutions.
It is important to note that separate cycle phases can increase the
complexity of the signal arrangement and therefore the junction Figure 4.93: Example of signal controlled junction with Toucan crossings.
signal cycle time and associated delay. The arrangement may also
not provide protection from motor traffic for all cycle movements at As shared facilities are generally disliked by both pedestrians and
a junction. cyclists, signal controlled junctions with toucan crossings should

115
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

only be used in exceptionally constrained environments or as part of

an interim cycle scheme where a full junction redesign is not being
undertaken. They may also be an acceptable arrangement where a
shared pedestrian and cycle facility exists on the approach roads.
Shared use crossings should be a minimum of 4.0m wide to provide
adequate width for both pedestrians and cyclists. Three-aspect
pedestrian and cycle heads, RPC 004 and RTS 007, shall be used
and no flashing amber traffic aspect is permitted where toucan
crossings are included in a signal-controlled junction.

4.4.4.4 Two-stage right-turns (TL507)

A two-stage right turn layout, see Figure 4.94, can be used to
facilitate right-turning cyclists at signalised junctions where a
protected layout is not being implemented. The layout incorporates
a marked waiting area for right-turning cyclists on the side road
which is located between the pedestrian crossing and the main road
alignment. The pedestrian crossing may need to be set back slightly
to accommodate the waiting area. The vehicular stop line is also set
back to improve visibility of waiting cyclists and to allow cyclists to
advance ahead of motorists.
Figure 4.94: Typical layout of a Two-stage right-turn (box turn) junction.
In this arrangement, cyclists share the road with motorists and move
in the same signal stage, preferably with an early start for cyclists. Cyclists wishing to turn right can do so in a two-stage manoeuvre.
The waiting areas provide an alternative facility for cyclists to turn They first enter the junction when their approach arm is given the
right without having to wait in the centre of the carriageway for a green signal and proceed to pull into the waiting area in the mouth of
gap in the traffic. the side road (see Figure 4.95). When the side road receives a green
signal, cyclists can proceed to cross to the opposite side to complete
their right turn manoeuvre.
A cycle loop detector should be installed in the waiting area to ensure
that the cyclist can complete their two stage movement. This is
particularly important on quieter side roads as if there is no vehicle
waiting on the side road, a demand may not request the relevant
phase and the cyclists may not get the green signal.

116
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Where an early start is being provided for cyclists, a secondary cycle movement ahead of motor traffic in a mixed traffic environment.
signal may be useful, depending on the geometry and signal head They can assist right-turning cyclists to establish their position in the
placements at the junction. centre of the carriageway and also help increase the visibility of
cyclists when stopped at a junction. Cycle loop detectors need to be
considered in the design in order for the relevant phase to be
requested to support cyclist movements.

Figure 4.95: Example of waiting area for cyclists in a two-stage right-turn

layout in Amsterdam.

4.4.4.5 Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) (TL508)

Advanced stop lines (ASLs) can be used at signal-controlled
junctions to provide a reservoir for cyclists to wait ahead of motor
traffic when stopped at a red light. See typical layout in Figure 4.96.
Figure 4.96: Typical layout of Advanced Stop Lines.
ASLs are primarily intended to allow cyclists to commence their

117
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

ASLs have previously been used extensively in Ireland and abroad Where streaming lanes currently exist, interim measures may be
and can be of benefit to experienced cyclists – although the benefits considered to improve the safety of cyclists pending a permanent
only accrue to cyclists who arrive at the junction when the traffic solution, such as installing bollards along the streaming lane as
signals are on red. However, ASLs alone do not remove conflict shown in Figure 4.97, leaving a 10m gap for turning traffic.
with motor vehicles and are therefore unlikely to be an attractive
An alternative option could be to remove the streaming lane and
proposition for a range of cycle users.
rearrange the lanes markings so that all cyclists are brought up
to the junction on the inside of the traffic lanes. To provide an
In line with the principles of this manual to provide safe, appropriate provision for right-turning cyclists, a two-stage right-turn
high-quality cycle facilities for people of all ages and abilities, layout or a separate cycle phase could be implemented.
new ASLs should therefore only be considered in exceptional
circumstances and only on junction approaches where the
traffic conditions are suitable for a mixed cycling environment
as per the criteria specified in Table 2.1. They should also only
be provided on single lane approaches. ASLs over multi-lane
approaches are not recommended.

Where ASLs are being used, a cycle lane should be provided to

enable cyclists to enter the reservoir in accordance with Chapter 7
of the Traffic Signs Manual.
It is also recommended that cyclists are given an early start in the
signal stage. Refer to Section 4.4.5 for further information.

4.4.4.6 Streaming lanes (legacy junctions only)

(TL509)
Streaming lanes are cycle lanes located between two traffic lanes,
typically between a left turning lane and a straight-ahead lane. They
have been used previously to reinforce priority for straight ahead
cyclists over traffic entering the turning lane. However streaming
lanes can place cyclists in a precarious position between two live Figure 4.97: Flexible bollards installed as an interim measure at a streaming
traffic streams which may give rise to actual or perceived safety risks lane on Newtownpark Avenue, Dublin.
therefore:

Streaming lanes are no longer recommended for use in new

scheme designs.

118
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.4.5 Traffic Signal Operations At signal-controlled junctions where cyclists are mixed with general
traffic and share the same phases, cyclists are controlled by the
and Components signal heads controlling general traffic e.g. RTS 001, RTS 002 etc.

4.4.5.1 General
Chapter 9 of the Traffic Signs Manual (TSM), provides details of
the requirements for traffic signals for use both at new installations
or when replacing equipment at existing locations. The layout,
symbols and the circumstances in which each signal may be used
are specified. Chapter 9 should be read in conjunction with other
relevant chapters of the Traffic Signs Manual.
The following sections presents some guidance on cycle provisions
at signal-controlled junctions based on TSM requirements however
designers should always refer to TSM for the most up-to-date
guidance.

4.4.5.2 Signal heads

Cycle-only phases at signal-controlled junctions are controlled by
three-aspect cycle signals RTS 007, which have red, amber and
green cycle symbols. Two sizes of signals to RTS 007 are permitted
as detailed in Table 4.21 below.
Table 4.21: Permitted types of three-aspect cycle signals RTS 007.
Nominal Aspect Distance from ground
Signal Type Figure 4.98: Examples of low level cycle signals attached to full height
Diameter to lowest aspect
signal pole (left) and as standalone signal arrangement (right).
High Level Cycle Signals 200mm 2.1m to 3.05m

Low Level Cycle Signals 80 - 110mm 1.5m to 1.7m 4.4.5.2.1 Alternative low level cycle signal for
optional use at zebra crossings of cycle tracks
Low level cycle signals can be attached to full height traffic signal
poles or may be installed as standalone signals on shorter poles, like Zebra crossings of cycle tracks, such as at island bus stops or
the examples shown in Figure 4.98. protected junctions with zebra crossings, will typically be controlled
via the use of road markings and signage or belisha beacons where
necessary. In some circumstances where it is considered necessary

120
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

to provide additional control measures at zebra crossings of cycle (inductive loops) detection may be employed.
tracks, the use of cycle signals may be considered.
Above ground detector configuration needs to be carefully
A new single aspect low level cycle signal, see Figure 4.99, has considered in the design of the signalised junction. For example, the
been developed as an alternative cycle signal for optional use at pole used to hold the above ground detector units must be installed
zebra crossings of cycle tracks. The signal will be called on demand at the optimum location so that it functions correctly – typically it will
by pedestrians that need assistance via a push button unit. In the need to be setback at a specific distance from the stop line and have
default setting, a flashing amber signal will be given to cyclists to sufficient forward visibility to capture oncoming cyclists (forward
warn them to proceed with caution if no pedestrians are present. visibility should not be obstructed by trees or high sided vehicles
When the signal is activated, cyclists will be given a red signal and in the adjacent lane of traffic). The above ground detection should
pedestrians will get an audible signal to cross the cycle track. be linked to a Fault Management System or routinely inspected and
maintained.
Loop detectors need accurate positioning and calibrating to ensure
they reliably detect cycle traffic. In a mixed traffic junction, loops for
general traffic may not pick up cyclists, who tend to ride across the
extremity of the loop, therefore the position of the loop in the lane
relative to the path of the cycle traffic should be considered. Similar
considerations will be needed for loop detectors within cycle lanes
and Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs). The maintenance of loop detectors
is important in order to ensure that the cycle provision through
the junction is supported and that the relevant phase is demanded
when a cyclists rolls over the detector. Faults should be reported,
inspected and repaired by the relevant persons.
The use of on crossing detection should be considered where
necessary to automatically extending crossing times at signal-
controlled junctions and signalised crossings when needed.

Figure 4.99: New single aspect low level cycle signal for optional use at Push Button Units
zebra crossings of cycle tracks.
Push button units (PBUs) may also be used as a means of detecting
cyclists at junctions. Were PBUs are used they must be located in
4.4.5.3 Cycle detection such a way that they are accessible to all people cycling, including
Detection for cyclists needs careful consideration. Well positioned those using non-standard cycles such as cargo bikes or handcycles.
detector equipment with suitable sensitivity settings should Where cyclists approach a signalised crossing perpendicular to the
generally be included at signal-controlled junctions to enable cyclists carriageway, they should be able to safely access the PBU without
to be detected. Above ground (infra-red or radar) or below ground their cycle vehicle encroaching onto the carriageway.

121
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

It is therefore recommended that PBUs should be located a minimum 4.4.5.4 Signal timings
of 1.5m from the edge of the carriageway. This may mean that the
PBU is located on a standalone pole in advance of the cycle signal Cycle phases at junctions and crossings should have a minimum
head as shown in Figure 4.100. green duration of 7 seconds, but longer green times may be
necessary where cycle flows are high. The use of on‑crossing
In some instances, e.g. Toucan crossings, this manual recommends detection can also help by automatically extending crossing times
that PBUs face the carriageway so that they are accessible to cyclists when needed. The minimum duration of a cycle stage, green
remaining on carriageway at the crossing point. In such cases, time plus intergreen time, should be sufficient to enable a cyclist
designers must ensure that the PBU is located in such a way that it is to clear the junction when setting off from a stationary position.
accessible to all cyclists. Local Authorities/Designers should specify these conditions in
In terms of mounting height, PBUs should be located not more than the Controller Operation Sheet for a signalised junction to ensure
1.2m above ground level to ensure they are accessible to all including that early starts, extended crossing times such as special red
wheelchair users. substitutions, and longer minimum greens are catered for as required
in the operation of a signal-controlled junction.
At junctions where no specific facilities for cyclists are provided,
adjustments to signal timings for cyclists may nevertheless be
beneficial, particularly at larger junctions, or where a junction arm has
an uphill gradient. Timings should be validated on site and adjusted
where necessary to ensure the available clearance time for cyclists is
correct.
Cyclists’ speeds and their ability to move off are greatly affected by
gradients. Design parameters for cycles at traffic signals are shown
in Table 4.22. These have been used to calculate the intergreen times
in Table 4.23 taking into account cyclists’ slower speed and allowing
for gradients.
The path distance referred to in Table 4.23 is the difference in
distance to the conflict point (B) from the phase losing right of way
(A), and the traffic phase gaining right of way (C) as shown in Figure
4.101.

Figure 4.100: Push button unit for cyclists set back from carriageway and
cycle signal

122
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Table 4.22: Design parameters for cycles at traffic signals.

Parameter Value Notes
0.5m/s2 <3% uphill gradient
Acceleration
0.4m/s2 ≥3% uphill gradient

20 kph <3% uphill gradient

Design Speed
15 kph ≥3% uphill gradient

Length of cycle 2.8m cycle design vehicle

Table 4.23: Minimum intergreen times to accommodate cycle traffic.

Path Fiat, downhill or less ≥3% uphill
Figure 4.101: Path distance to conflict point.
Distance then 3% uphill gradient gradient
Where cycle and pedestrian phases run together in a combined
1-3m 5 seconds 5 seconds stage e.g. at parallel or toucan crossings, the minimum stage
duration should be dictated by the pedestrian phase requirements as
4m 5 seconds 6 seconds
pedestrians typically travel at slower speeds. A minimum green time
5-9m 6 seconds 6 seconds of 6 seconds should be provided in accordance with TSM.
The time required for the amber phase (which indicates that
10-14m 7 seconds 8 seconds
pedestrians should not start to cross) is dictated by pedestrian
15m 8 seconds 8 seconds walking speeds. A walking speed of 1.2 m/s is conventionally used
to calculate timings for pedestrian crossings. However some local
16-18 8 seconds 9 seconds authorities, for example Dublin City Council, have recently started to
calculate timings based on a lower walking speed of 1.0 m/s to suit
19-21m 9 seconds 10 seconds
slower moving pedestrians. The move to reduce the walking speed
22-23m 9 seconds 11 seconds calculation is based on research undertaken by The Irish Longitudinal
Study on Ageing (TILDA 2015).
24-27m 10 seconds 11 seconds
An all-red period before and after the pedestrian crossing phase
28-33m 11 seconds 13 seconds shall be a minimum of 1 second but may be increased depending on
traffic speed and crossing width.
34-36m 12 seconds 14 seconds

123
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.4.5.5 Staging and Phasing accordingly. After the flashing amber stage, cyclists get a short
separate green stage to ensure they can safely cross if pedestrian
In line with the principles of a safe system approach, signal- flows are high. The typical sequence is illustrated in Figure 4.102.
controlled junctions should be staged appropriately to minimise the
risk of conflict between cyclists and other road users. The optimum
Walk Flash Walk Don’t Walk
staging for each junction will be determined by the required junction
operational parameters and local site conditions. Notwithstanding
this, the following staging arrangements are recommended to
minimise the risk of conflict between cyclists and other road users.

Minimising conflict with pedestrians

Generally, cycle phases should not run in conflict across pedestrian Flash Amber Cycle Cycle Green Amber Red

crossings i.e. cyclists should not cross pedestrian crossings during

the pedestrian phase in a signal-controlled junction.
In exceptional circumstances, where specific conditions exist, a
nested pelican arrangement like that used on the Grand Canal Traffic Red Traffic Green
Cycle Route in Dublin may be considered. The specific conditions
result from taking into consideration the cumulative impact of
Figure 4.102: Typical sequence for a nested pelican arrangement.
the competing interests and space constraints in the surrounding
environment as presented below. Where the following conditions
exist a nested pelican may be considered:
Minimising conflict with turning motor traffic
» Very constrained space i.e. old street network and a pinch point
like a bridge. One of the key considerations in the design of signalised junctions
» On a Public Tansport Corridor with a bus priority system in from a cycling perspective is the conflict between turning
effiect where there is a key focus to maintain bus time reliability. motor traffic and straight-ahead cyclists. The following are the
recommended arrangements for dealing with this conflict for right-
» Competing demands for different movements/modes. turning and left-turning motor traffic.
» The need to keep cycle lengths to a minimum to maintain linkages
to other junctions on the Urban Traffic Control system.
Right-turning motor traffic
In this type of arrangement, pedestrians get a short green stage
Right-turning motor traffic and straight-ahead cyclists should, where
first, followed by a longer stage where pedestrians and cyclists
practicable, always be separately staged in a junction under signal
simultaneously receive a flashing amber signal. In the flashing
control to eliminate the conflict risk.
amber stage pedestrians have legal priority and cyclists must yield

124
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Left-turning motor traffic » An early start (see section 4.4.5.6) for cyclist shall
be provided;
Preferably, left-turning motor traffic and straight-ahead cyclists will
also be separately staged to eliminate the conflict risk. » A flashing amber arrow signal (RTS 004) should be used
in place of a full green aspect to warn left-turning motorists;
However, at signal-controlled junctions with lower volumes of left-
turning motor traffic, to achieve optimum operational effectiveness » Flashing amber LED studs may be included on the inside
including the efficient movement of cyclists, consideration can be of the cycle crossing (see Figure 4.103);
given to permitting straight-ahead cyclists and left-turning motor » Set back stop lines for general traffic; and
traffic to proceed at the same time in a partial conflict arrangement.
Partial conflicts are strongly discouraged if: » Supplementary yield markings and signage may be considered.
» The volume of left-turning traffic exceeds 150 PCU/Hour.
» A two-way cycle track crosses the junction.
» In rural locations with higher traffic speeds.
» There is a large volume of HGV’s turning left e.g. at a business
park or industrial estate.
Table 4.24 provides suggested thresholds where partial conflicts
may be permitted based on the volume of left-turning motor traffic,
if other conditions are suitable to consider the arrangement.

Table 4.24: Thresholds for partial conflict based on volume

of left-turning motor traffic.
Volume of left-turning motor Partial conflict
traffic (PCU/Hour) permitted
0-100 Yes

101-150 Departure required

>150 No

Where partial conflicts between left-turning motor traffic and

straight-ahead cyclists are being implemented, the following
additional features are recommended: Figure 4.103: Example of flashing amber LED studs at a protected junction.

125
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.4.5.6 Early start

In an early start arrangement, a low level cycle signal can be used
to give cyclists a green signal in advance of the main traffic phase
where cycle traffic and motor traffic are not separately staged. This
enables cyclists to establish themselves within the junction ahead of
the release of general traffic, in order to reduce the risk of potential
conflicts between cyclists and turning motor traffic.
The early start phase should be long enough to allow cyclists to
travel beyond the left-turn conflict point before other vehicles
reach that point. A duration of 4-5 seconds is recommended, with 3
seconds as absolute minimum. Designers may confirm the suitability
of the early start duration through on site observations once
installed, and adjust if necessary.
Early starts are recommend for use in conjunction with the following
arrangements:
» Partial conflict arrangements;
» Two-stage right-turns; and
» Advanced stop lines (ASLs).

126
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 4.5 Crossings Where crossings cater for both modes, options for segregated or
shared facilities are presented. As shared facilities are generally
disliked by both modes, the preference is to provide segregated
4.5.1 Introduction crossing facilities wherever possible. However, shared crossing
This section provides guidance on the provision of mid-block road facilities can be appropriate in some situations including:
crossing facilities for cyclists i.e. crossings that are at a remove from
» where a shared pedestrian and cycle facility, e.g. greenway,
a road junction. For guidance on crossings facilities at junctions, refer
intersects with a road;
to the relevant junction section in the manual.
» at some grade separated facilities; and
Cycle crossings are important parts of a cycle network and should
enable cycle users to safely, and efficiently, cross a carriageway » in exceptionally constrained circumstances (departure required).
where required, for example:
Designers should refer to Section 4.1 for guidance on geometric
» to access key destinations e.g. schools, shops, transport requirements e.g. sight visibility requirements, when designing
interchanges and local services; crossing facilities.
» at intersections between off-road cycle facilities (e.g. greenways)
and carriageways; and
» at mid-block locations on routes with few other crossing
opportunities.

There are five different types of cycle crossings as follows and the
choice of crossing will depend upon a number of factors:
» Uncontrolled crossing;
» Cycle priority crossing;
» Zebra crossing (controlled);
» Signal-controlled crossing; and
» Grade separated crossing.

In general, crossing facilities will include provision for both

pedestrians and cyclists to cross the road at the same location
(either segregated or in a shared environment) however there may
be circumstances where cycle-only crossings are required such as
where cycle tracks diagonally cross a carriageway.

128
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.5.2 Crossing selection traffic speeds exceed 60 km/h.

v) The provision of refuge islands is recommended for uncontrolled
The choice of crossing to be provided will depend on a number and zebra crossings in certain situations. Refuge islands can greatly
of factors including: improve the comfort and safety of cyclists by reducing the number
of lanes to be crossed in a single movement and by encouraging
» Speed and volume of motor traffic on the road to be crossed; slower traffic speeds at the crossing point. It is recommended that
» Type of cycle link approaching the crossing; refuge islands should be 3m wide to cater for larger cycles. Refuge
islands less than 2m in width should not be used.
» Anticipated volumes of crossing pedestrians and cyclists; and
vi) The provision of raised crossings is recommended for all crossing
» Spatial constraints.
types. Raised crossings can improve the comfort of both pedestrians
and cyclists, particularly where cycle links are raised on the approach
The Crossing suitability guide in Table 4.25 provides an indication of
to the crossing. They can also assist with managing traffic speeds
the suitability of each type of crossing depending on the speed and
at conflict points, and at uncontrolled crossings they can be used to
volume of motor traffic. It is recommended that designers use this as
implement a courtesy crossing type arrangement to afford greater
a starting point to see what types of crossings may be suitable for a
priority to active travel modes.
given location depending on the traffic regime and then consider any
additional factors as appropriate. vii) For guidance on rural crossings refer to TII Publication Rural
Cycleway Design (Offline & Greenway), DN-GEO-03047.
The following points should be noted when using the table:
i) In general, as traffic speeds and volumes increase, more complex/
expensive solutions will be required. However, it should be noted
that traffic speeds and volumes are not fixed and if they were to
be reduced, e.g. through traffic management/calming measures, a
simpler crossing may be an option.
ii) More complex crossings are not solely reserved for roads with
higher traffic speeds/volumes and may be considered on quieter
roads.
iii) Uncontrolled and zebra crossings are not recommended where
there is more than one traffic lane per direction to be crossed. In
such circumstances, designers should consider if the number of
lanes per direction can be reduced and if not, a signalised or grade
separated solution would be recommended.
iv) Zebra crossings are not suitable if traffic speeds are greater than
50 km/h and signal controlled crossings are not recommended if

129
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Table 4.25 : Crossing Suitability Guide

Traffic Flow Cycle Priority Uncontrolled Signal-controlled Grade seperated

Speed Limit Zebra Crossing*
(PCU/day) Crossing Crossing* crossing crossing
<2000 **
≤30 km/h
Any **

40 km/h Any **

<2000 **

50 km/h 2,000-4000 ***

>4000 ***

60 km/h Any

80 km/h Any

>80 km/h Any

* Provision not recommended where more than one traffic

Provision should be suitable for most users lane per direction is to be crossed.
Provision may not be suitable for all users
** Consider providing a refuge island
Provision not recommended
Provision not suitable *** Refuge island recommended

130
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.5.3 Uncontrolled crossing 4.5.4 Cycle priority crossing (TL603)

(TL601, TL602) In situations where a busy cycle route intersects with a lightly-
trafficked, low speed carriageway, the cycle route may be given
Where the speed and volume of motor traffic is low, cyclists
legal priority over motor traffic by the use of yield signage and
and pedestrians can usually safely cross a two-way road via an
markings. Cycle priority crossings are common features in some
uncontrolled crossing by waiting for a suitable gap in traffic. Refer to
other jurisdictions with more developed cycle networks. See example
section 4.5.5 for guidance on thresholds.
in Figure 4.105 from the Netherlands.
The crossing can be segregated (generally preferred) or shared
with pedestrians. It may be at-grade or placed on a raised table to
provide a level grade crossings and help control motor traffic speeds.
Refuge islands can also be considered to improve the comfort and
safety of cyclists by reducing the number of lanes to be crossed in
a single movement and by encouraging slower traffic speeds at the
crossing point. An example refuge is shown in Figure 4.104 below. It
is recommended that refuge islands should be 3m wide to cater for
larger cycles, with a 2m absolute minimum width requirement.
Traffic lane widths at refuge islands should be 3.25m maximum to
minimise the risk of close overtaking of cyclists by motor traffic.

Figure 4.105: Cycle priority crossing, Netherlands (Source: André Pettinga).

At a cycle priority crossing it is vital that drivers are clearly aware of

the facility, and that motor traffic speeds approaching the crossing
Figure 4.104: Segregated uncontrolled crossing with refuge island, Wicklow. are not excessive. The visibility of the cycle track from the road is

131
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

defined by a conventional visibility splay using X and Y dimensions

(see figure 4.1.4).

The cycle track should have a red surface and the crossing should be
raised above the carriageway level to assist cyclist comfort and for
traffic calming purposes.

4.5.5 Zebra crossings

Zebra crossings are controlled crossings of the carriageway where
motorists are required to yield to persons on the crossing. They are
typically best suited to carriageways with lower volumes and speeds
of motor traffic. See Table 4.24 for guidance on thresholds.
The Traffic Sign Manual prescribes the feature of a zebra crossing
(RPC 001) which typically consists of flashing amber (belisha)
beacons, alternate black and white stripes across the road, and other
road markings as shown in Figure 4.106.
Designers should note that the NTA are currently (at time of
publication) conducting a zebra crossing trial to use signage instead
of belisha beacons at zebra crossings, similar to the approach used in Figure 4.106: Zebra crossing layout (RPC 001), Chapter 7 of the Traffic
many other countries. Any potential changes to zebra requirements Signs Manual.
will be communicated after the trial is completed.
As with other crossings, pedestrians and cyclists can be segregated 4.5.5.1 Parallel zebra crossing (TL604)
or shared at a zebra crossing however for a zebra crossing there are
some key differences between segregated and shared layouts. In a parallel zebra crossing layout, pedestrians and cyclists have
A segregated arrangement is called as a parallel zebra crossing their own dedicated space to cross the carriageway. The pedestrian
and a shared layout is referred to as a combined zebra crossing. crossing space is delineated by the standard black and white stripes,
These are discussed in the following sections. and a separate cycle crossing is delineated parallel to this using red
surfacing and elephant’s footprint, as shown in Figure 4.107, with a
1m gap between the two crossings.

132
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Figure 4.107: Typical layout of parallel cycle zebra crossing.

In this layout the belisha beacons, or zebra crossing signage, are

located on the extremity of the crossing to encompass both the Figure 4.108: Parallel cycle zebra crossing with four belisha beacons,
pedestrian and cycle crossings. Four belisha beacons are required, London (image: Google Street View).
two either side of the crossing as shown in Figure 4.108.
The main advantage of a parallel zebra crossing, compared to a 4.5.5.2 Combined zebra crossing (TL605)
combined zebra crossing, is that segregation between pedestrians A combined zebra crossing is similar to a conventional zebra crossing
and cyclists can be maintained thus avoiding the need for shared layout, however in a combined zebra, elephant’s footprints are
space. The main disadvantage of the layout is that it typically placed either side of the zebra stripes and pedestrians and cyclists
requires more space to implement, although this may be less of an share the crossing. The crossing is typically wider (4m minimum)
issue at mid-block locations. It also may be slightly more expensive than a standard zebra crossing to accommodate both modes. Only
to implement than a combined zebra crossing. two belisha beacons (or zebra crossing signs) are necessary as per
standard TSM layout (Figure 4.109).

133
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.5.6 Signal-controlled crossings

On urban roads with higher speed limits (up to 60 km/h), higher
traffic volumes and multi-lane carriageways, greater control is likely
required to regulate road user movements and signal-controlled
crossings may be necessary.
There are three main types of signal-controlled mid-block crossings
which may be used as listed below and described in the following
sections:
» Signalised Parallel crossing;
» Toucan crossing; and
» Cycle only crossing.

When designing signal-controlled crossings, designers should refer

to the relevant guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual. Some guidance
on traffic signal components and operations is also given in section
4.4.5 of this manual.

4.5.6.1 Signalised parallel crossing (TL606)

Figure 4.109: Combined zebra crossing, Carlow Town. (note - elephant’s Signalised parallel crossings provide signal-controlled protection
footprint markings not shown) for pedestrians and cyclists whilst maintaining segregation between
both modes. Like a parallel zebra crossing, pedestrians and cyclist
The main advantages of a combined zebra crossing, in comparison have their own demarcated space on the crossing (See Figure 4.110).
to a parallel zebra crossing, are that it requires a smaller footprint They are recommended for situations where the crossing links cycle
and is cheaper slightly to implement. However as the layout requires tracks on each side of the road so that separation from pedestrians is
pedestrians and cyclists to share the same space which is generally maintained, and at crossings where demand by both pedestrians and
less preferable, careful consideration should be given to where the cyclists is high.
layout is appropriate to use.
Signalised parallel crossings are preferred to Toucan crossings
to reduce conflict between pedestrians and cyclists. Where
pedestrians need to cross cycle tracks before or after the parallel
crossing, the crossing point should be designed in line with the
guidance on pedestrian crossings of cycle tracks in Section 4.2.14.

134
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.5.6.2 Toucan crossing (TL607)

Toucan crossings are signal-controlled crossings where pedestrians
and cyclists share the crossing with no separation between the two
(Figure 4.111). In general, the preference is for segregation to be
maintained between pedestrians and cyclists at signal-controlled
crossings, e.g. a signalised parallel crossing, however there may be
circumstances where a shared toucan crossing may be appropriate
for example:

» where a shared active travel facility leads to the crossing;

» where on-road cycle lanes lead to the crossing;
» in exceptionally constrained locations where a segregated crossing
is not feasible; and
» where volumes of pedestrians and/or cyclists using the crossing
are low.
The crossing should be a minimum width of 4.0m to cater for both
modes however this can be extended to 10m to accommodate larger
numbers of pedestrians and/or cyclists.
Figure 4.110: Signalised parallel crossing on Frascatti Road, Blackrock Separate signal heads are required for pedestrians and cyclists. The
showing cycle crossing in foreground and adjacent pedestrian crossing. required red signal time to vehicles is determined by the pedestrian
phase requirements, which is typically longer than for cyclists.
Separate detection for cyclists may reduce delay time to vehicles,
as cyclists will be able to cross more quickly than pedestrians.

Staggered toucan crossings should be avoided as they can be

difficult for some cyclists, particularly those using non-standard
cycles, to use and they can give rise to additional conflict with
pedestrians in a confined space.

135
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.5.7 Provision for right-turning cyclists

At all mid-block crossing facilities, the provision for right-turning
cyclists needs to be carefully considered. Right-turning cyclists must
be able to safely access the crossing, call the crossing (if required)
and wait in a safe location that doesn’t block cyclists travelling
straight ahead.
Typical provisions for right-turning cyclists are indicated in the
typical crossing layouts in the appendix.
However, at crossings on busier cycle routes and/or where a
significant volume of right-turning cyclists is anticipated, the
provision of enhanced turning facilities, including sufficient stacking
space, should be considered. (Note - stacking space is generally not
required for zebra crossing layouts as motorists are expected to yield
promptly to cyclists wishing to cross).
Each crossing will need to be assessed on an individual basis to
determine how best to cater for right turning cyclists depending
on anticipated volumes and site geometry.
One of the simplest ways of creating additional waiting/stacking
Figure 4.111: Toucan crossing on Firhouse Road, Dublin 14. space for right-turning cyclists is to use a wide buffer between the
cycle track and carriageway. The buffer automatically creates space
4.5.6.3 Cycle-only crossings (TL608) for right-turning cyclists to wait to cross as shown in Figure 4.112.
The waiting area should be sufficiently wide and deep to cater for
Signal-controlled crossings that cater for cyclists only may be the anticipated volumes of turning cyclists.
required in certain situations for example where a cycle track
diagonally crosses a carriageway at a mid-block location. In such
circumstances, designers should follow the relevant requirements in
this manual and the Traffic Signs Manual when developing solutions.

136
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

cantilevered signals may need to be considered.

Figures 4.113 and 4.114 illustrate this types of arrangement for a
signalised parallel crossing and toucan crossing respectively.

C 3m (2.5m Minimum)
Figure 4.113: Example of cycle lane widening at a parallel crossing to create
space waiting/stacking space for right-turning cyclists.

Figure 4.112: Example of wide buffer between a cycle track and carriageway
that creates waiting/stacking space for right-turning cyclists (circled blue).

Where sufficient buffer cannot be provided, the two options below

can be consider.

Option 1 – Widen the cycle track

Widen the cycle track at the crossing to create space for a dedicated
waiting area adjacent to the footway kerb for right-turning cyclists. A
push button unit facing the waiting cyclists will be required to allow
3m (2.5m Minimum)
cyclists to call the crossing. The unit should be positioned so that it is
easily reachable by people using all types of cycles. Figure 4.114: Example of cycle lane widening at toucan crossing to create
The waiting area should be located within the extents of the crossing space waiting/stacking space for right-turning cyclists.
e.g. within the relevant road markings.
The location of the traffic signals will need careful consideration
to ensure visibility as per TSM requirements is achieved. Locating
signals in an island adjacent to the carriageway or the use of

137
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Option 2 – Transition to shared space 4.5.8 Grade separated crossings

In this arrangement, the cycle track/lane for straight ahead cyclists Providing appropriate crossing facilities can be challenging across
continues as normal and a ramped transition is provided to bring high speed roads, railways and watercourses, and a grade separated
turning cyclists up to a shared area at the crossing (see Figure 4.115). crossing via an overbridge or underbridge (underpass/tunnel) may
need to be considered.
As shared spaces are disliked by both pedestrians and cyclists,
transitioning to shared space should only be consider in constrained Grade separation is safe because it completely removes the conflict
locations and where a shared crossing, e.g. toucan crossing, is being between cycle and motor traffic. While there may be slight diversion
implemented. or additional gradient at some sites, cycle traffic also benefits from a
continuous route with no delay due to having to yield to other traffic.
The ramp should have a maximum gradient of 5% (1:20) and should
be a minimum of 1.5m wide. Appropriate signage and tactile paving The main disadvantage of grade separated crossings are they tend
to warn users of the shared space will be required. to be more expensive and have a higher visual and environmental
impact on the surrounding area due to the additional infrastructure
and space requirements.

4.5.8.1 Width
The required width for grade separated facilities will be primarily
influenced by whether pedestrians and cyclists have their own
designated space or whether the facility is shared.

Segregated facilities
On busier urban routes with higher volumes of pedestrians and
cyclists, the preference should be to maintain segregation between
pedestrians and cyclists, similar to example shown in Figure 4.116.
The required width of the cycle track should be determined using
the width calculator, including adjustments as required for vertical
wall/parapets/kerbs etc. and designers should refer to DMURS to
establish the required width for pedestrians.
5.5 m will typically be the minimum width required for segregated
facilities (2m footway, 3m cycle track, 0.5m clearance on one side)
Figure 4.115: Example of a transition to shared space at a toucan crossing. although additional width may be required on busier routes and
to provide the desired separation between pedestrian and cycle
facilities on overbridges.

138
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Figure 4.116: Segregated pedestrian and cycle bridge at Cambridge Figure 4.117: Shared pedestrian and cycle bridge on the Dodder Greenway,
Railway Station, UK. Templeogue.

Shared facilities Width of underpasses

As grade separated structures are costly to implement, it may be At underpasses, widths greater than desirable minimums should
more practical to provide a shared facility (see Figure 4.117) in some be considered to increase the attractiveness of the facility and the
situations, for example on routes with lower volumes of pedestrians amount of natural light in the structure.
and cyclists, routes outside of urban centres or where space is
particularly constrained. Designers should refer to the guidance
on the width of shared facilities in Section 4.2.7. In all cases the 4.5.8.2 Access ramps
recommended minimum width of a shared grade separated facility
Access ramps to bridges or underpasses will normally be used by
is 4 m.
both cyclists and pedestrians and gradients should be suitable for
wheelchair users. Ramp gradients should comply with the guidance
in section 4.1.6.2. Designers should also refer to the guidance in
‘Building for Everyone: A Universal Design Approach’ published by

139
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

the National Disability Authority (NDA). Sharp corners on access When deciding whether a headroom below desirable minimum is
ramps should be avoided to enable users to maintain momentum acceptable, designers should consider the visibility and consequent
on the gradients and to maximise personal security and passive risk of collisions on the approaches and exits. Reflective hazard
surveillance. Meandering horizontal alignments like the example in warning signs should be fitted above the entrances if there is a risk
Figure 4.118 are preferable for cycling. Where meandering ramps are that taller riders may catch their head.
used, consideration should be given to providing alternative stepped
At existing structures, lowering the minimum headroom to 2.2m may
access to cater for strong pedestrian desire lines.
be acceptable but decisions will need to be taken on a case by case
basis, based on relevant factors such as the forward visibility.
Table 4.26: Headroom clearances for underbridges and enclosed
footbridges.
Underbridge < 23 m
Underbridge ≥ 23 m
Facility or enclosed footbridge
Desirable min. Absolute min. Desirable min. Absolute min.
Cycle-only
or shared 2.4m 2.2m 2.7m 2.4m
facility

Pedestrian-
2.3m 2.2m 2.6m 2.2m
only facility

4.5.8.4 Parapet Heights

Minimum parapet heights for new overbridges in various
Figure 4.118: Meandering access ramp to Dafne Schippers Bridge, Utrecht, circumstances are given in Table 4.27. A parapet height of 1.4m is
Netherlands (Image: www.consultancy.uk). recommended on new overbridges, and elsewhere with a vertical
drop, where the cycling surface is immediately adjacent to it. The
4.5.8.3 Headroom parapet height should be increased to 1.8m if equestrians also use
the bridge.
The desirable and absolute minimum headroom clearances
For structures over railways, designers must liaise with Iarnród
for underbridges and enclosed footbridges are given in Table
Éireann to determine specific requirements and gain requisite
4.26. Cyclists ideally require a minimum headroom of 2.4 m at
approvals.
underbridges however this should be increased to at least 2.7 m
where an underbridge is longer than 23 m to allow more natural light
and improve visibility.

140
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Table 4.27: Minimum parapet heights for overbridges. At underbridges, particular consideration should be given to
drainage requirements to ensure no surface water ponding on the
Minimum Parapet Height cycle route.
Facility
(excluding plinth)

Cycle-only or shared use overbridge,

4.5.8.6 Wheeling ramps
1.4m
except over railways
Wheeling ramps should not generally be necessary on new bridges
Footpath directly adjacent to the parapet 1.2m and underpasses however they can be retrofitted to older stepped
infrastructure as a low cost measure to enable cycles to be rolled up
All pedestrian and cycle bridges over or down a flight of steps that would otherwise interrupt a cycle route.
1.8m
railways See Figure 4.119.
Bridges serving equestrian users 1.8m It should be noted that wheeling ramps will be of limited use to
those with non-standard cycles and are inaccessible to many people,
therefore an alternative accessible route should also be provided.
Where an existing footbridge or vehicular overbridge is being
proposed for inclusion on a cycle route and the existing parapet The design of the wheeling ramps should be such that pedestrians
height is less than 1.4 m, an absolute minimum parapet height of can still easily access a handrail on one side of the steps, and that
1.2m may be acceptable subject to a satisfactory risk assessment and the ramp section is placed far enough from the edge that cycles and
suitable mitigation measures being implemented. Such mitigation panniers do not catch on any hand rails or railings.
measure may include (but are not limited to): The suggested profiles for steel and concrete wheeling ramps are
illustrated in Figure 4.120.
» Providing a 0.5 m minimum buffer adjacent to the parapet to
deter cyclists riding adjacent to the parapet;
» Tonal contrast or surface texture with pedestrians placed next to
the parapet; and
» Separation of pedestrians and cycle users by means of a
delineator strip.

4.5.8.5 Drainage
Appropriate gradients and crossfalls in accordance with section 4.1
Geometric Requirements, should be provided at all grade separated
structures to ensure adequate drainage of surface water.

141
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Figure 4.120: Suggested profiles of wheeling ramps (Source: Sustrans).

Figure 4.119: Wheeling ramps retrofitted to concrete steps.

142
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

143
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 4.6 Roundabouts 4.6.3 Design Principles

4.6.1 Introduction Roundabouts can work well for cyclists and pedestrians but only if
designed to specifically address their needs and expectations. Safety,
Traditionally, roundabouts in Ireland have been designed to prioritise and not capacity, is the over-riding principle for good roundabout
motor traffic and maximise capacity, featuring flared entries and design. The following design principles should be considered when
exits with two or more traffic lanes, wide circulatory carriageways, designing a cycle-friendly roundabout.
and acute angles between approaching and circulating traffic. » Approaching traffic should be slowed (to near stopping speed)
The relatively smooth path for motor vehicles helps to increase traffic by narrowing the entry lane. This provides better gap acceptance,
capacity but can result in high traffic speeds through the junction, greater legibility for drivers and a safer cycling environment;
particularly on large diameter roundabouts. As a result, many » Traffic speed on the roundabout should be controlled by means of
existing urban roundabouts are not conducive to safe pedestrian and a single narrow circulatory lane. Overrun areas can be utilised to
cycling movements. provide a narrow lane while allowing larger vehicles to manoeuvre
through the junction;
» Approach arms should be aligned towards the centre point of the
4.6.2 Roundabout Types central island and not deflected to the left;
Normal single-lane roundabouts typically have an inscribed circle » Traffic lanes should approach roundabouts at right angles rather
diameter (ICD) of between 28m and 40m. The central island is than obliquely, and without any flares. This makes it easier for
kerbed with a minimum diameter of at least 4m and the circulatory drivers to see cyclists and traffic on the roundabout, and it is
carriageway is up to 6m wide (between 1.0 and 1.2 times the easier for pedestrians to cross the mouth of the side road;
maximum entry width). Multi-lane roundabouts have an ICD of up to » The location and visibility of any pedestrian and cyclist crossing
100m. Compact (also known as ‘continental’) roundabouts, provide facilities must be carefully considered;
tighter geometry with an ICD of typically 17m to 30m.
» Excessive visibility over the central island can result in high entry
Mini-roundabouts have a flush or slightly raised central disc between speeds, potentially leading to collisions. To mitigate this, suitably
1m and 4m in diameter depending on the road space available. The positioned landscaping or artwork within the central island can
central disc marking should be capable of withstanding overrunning improve the conspicuity of the roundabout and encourage slower
by large vehicles. See Chapter 7 of the Traffic Signs Manual for the vehicular speeds. Typically, the height of proposed landscaping
requirements and guidance for installing mini-roundabouts. should be at or above the eye level of a driver (approximately
1.05m) and be passively safe; and
» Where multi-lane approaches or double or multiple gyratory lanes
are necessary for capacity, the cycle traffic should be taken off the
carriageway into a separate cycle facility.

144
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

crossings can be at-grade priority, signal-controlled, or fully grade-

separated.

4.6.4 Improving Existing Roundabouts

Where traditionally designed normal roundabouts are located on
cycle routes, designers can either look for an alternative route to
avoid the roundabout using a more cycle-friendly parallel route or try
to improve conditions for cycling at the roundabout which may entail
any of the following options:
» If motor traffic flows and speeds are suitable (i.e., speeds >30km/h
or traffic entering the roundabout is above 4,000 pcu/day),
remodel the junction as a compact shared roundabout. Designers
should include rapid build options that utilise cost-effective
methods of construction as part of the Option Selection process;
Figure 4.121: Compact Roundabout, Railway Street, Navan, Co. Meath. » Provide protected space for cycling around the junction, with
suitable crossings of each arm (as shown in Figure 4.122);
Cyclists can integrate with traffic at smaller diameter (compact) » Introduce signal control to the roundabout, with protected space
roundabouts and mini-roundabouts, where traffic volumes and or other suitable facilities for cycling;
speeds are (or can be made) low, and the traffic lane widths are
narrow enough for cyclists to safely share the single lane entries, » Replace the roundabout with a signal controlled or other form
exits and circulatory carriageway in the ‘primary position’ (see of junction, with appropriate cycle facilities; or
Section 4.2.9). » Provide grade-separated cycle tracks around and/or across the
Compact roundabouts (such as the example shown in Figure 4.121) junction.
will tend to have a lower traffic capacity than normal roundabouts.
Depending on the traffic balance between arms, single lane
roundabouts can accommodate up to 25,000 vehicles per day.
Capacity can be assessed using traffic modelling software as traffic
queue lengths may increase in the peak periods when this design is
retrofitted at an existing site.
Off-carriageway cycle tracks are required at roundabouts where
traffic volumes and/or speeds are higher. This necessitates the
crossing of each arm of the roundabout by cyclists and pedestrians;

145
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

tracks around the roundabout. While two-way tracks have the

benefit of reducing the distance cyclists need to travel when making
right turns, it can be more difficult, in safety terms, to provide
priority for cyclists at entries and exits. At large roundabouts and
gyratory systems, it is more likely that cyclists will look to take the
shortest route to avoid the additional effort. One-way cycle tracks
have the advantage that cycle traffic is moving in the same direction
as other traffic on the roundabout, meaning that drivers are more
likely to be aware of them.

4.6.5.1 Protected roundabout with cycle priority

(TL 701)
A protected roundabout with cycle priority features a circular orbital
cycle track, which maintains full segregation between all modes, and
parallel zebra crossings to enable pedestrians and cyclists to cross
the carriageway with priority. This roundabout design originated
in the Netherlands and is being implemented in a growing number
of countries worldwide. The first protected roundabout with cycle
priority in Ireland was recently constructed in Fingal (see Figure
4.123).

Figure 4.122: Retro-fit scheme on Main Road, Tallaght which provided This type of layout is suitable in urban areas only i.e. on roads/streets
a compact, cycle-friendly roundabout with shared pedestrian-cyclist with speed limits up to 60 km/h, and is suitable for traffic capacities
facilities. of up to 25,000 vehicles per day, based on experience from the
Netherlands.
4.6.5 Roundabouts with Protected Ensuring slow motor vehicle speeds through the junction and on
Space for Cycling approach roads is critically important with this design to enable a
safe system approach. As the majority of motor vehicles using the
Segregated cycling facilities are necessary where traffic volumes and
roundabout are likely to be private cars, the design must ensure that
speeds are too high for cycling with general traffic in the carriageway
car speeds are kept particularly slow through the junction. Narrow
(see thresholds in Table 2.1). These roundabouts, which typically have
approach roads and circulatory carriageways, overrun areas and
an ICD of up to 40m, have tight geometry which reduces vehicle
raised crossings will be key elements in this regard.
entry and exit speeds and provides safer crossings for cyclists.

Slow vehicle speeds also improve gap acceptance which enables

Consideration should be given to providing one or two-way cycle

146
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

traffic capacity to be maintained at levels comparable to traditional 4.6.5.2 Protected roundabout without cycle
roundabout designs of similar scale.
priority (TL 702)
Parallel zebra crossings have the advantage that they give immediate
priority to cyclists and pedestrians with minimal delays to motor Outside urban areas, i.e. greater than 60 km/h speed limits, it is not
traffic unless the numbers crossing are high. The crossings must recommended that cyclists be given priority over motor traffic at
be raised and set back 5.0m (to base of ramp) from the circulatory roundabouts. In such situations a protected roundabout without
carriageway to minimise deviation in the path of pedestrians and cycle priority is recommended. A protected roundabout without
cyclists while also providing adequate stopping and stacking space cycle priority may also be suitable in urban locations where priority
for motor traffic entering and exiting the roundabout. for motor vehicles at a roundabout is necessary or desirable.
It is important that there is intervisibility between the carriageway, The design features an orbital cycle track that closely follows the
the cycle track, and the crossing location so that drivers, cyclists, road kerb alignment around the corner, i.e. not a circular track, (see
and pedestrians are aware of each other’s presence. The alignment Figure 4.124) and turns through 90 degrees at the crossing point.
of the cycle track on the approach to the crossing should be as This alignment helps to keep cycle speeds slow approaching the
close to perpendicular to the carriageway as possible to maximise crossing as cyclists must yield to motor traffic. An advantage of this
the visibility envelope for drivers and cyclists. Channelising islands alignment is that it requires less space to implement compared to a
should be provided at the crossings to physically reduce entry and protected roundabout with cycle priority.
exit lanes and provide refuges for pedestrian and cyclist crossings.
Pedestrians and cyclists cross the carriageway at uncontrolled
crossings with refuge islands. The crossings must be situated a
minimum of 10m from the circulatory carriageway so that people
waiting to cross can differentiate between vehicles exiting and
continuing to circulate the roundabout. It is important in this
situation that the cycle track alignment changes on the approach to
the crossing to position cyclists perpendicular to the carriageway.
This will slow cyclists on approach to the carriageway edge and
ensure that they have good visibility of approaching traffic while
waiting to cross.
As with other cycle friendly roundabout layouts, ensuring slow motor
vehicle speeds, particularly the speed of private cars through the
junction and on the approach roads is critically important.

Figure 4.123: Protected roundabout with cycle priority, Fingal, Dublin

147
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

segregated cycle infrastructure. In such schemes, space should be

made available for a protected roundabout layout also.
The layout can be an acceptable solution in circumstances where:
» space is limited;
» both pedestrian and cycle numbers are low (e.g. suburban areas);
» where shared active travel facilities are present on the approach
road(s); or
» where there is a lot of wheeling activity on the footpath
(e.g. around primary schools).
The design accommodates cycling both clockwise and anti-
clockwise, using combined zebra crossings. This roundabout can
be more space efficient than protected roundabout layouts with
segregated pedestrian and cycle facilities.

Figure 4.124 Protected roundabout without cycle priority.

4.6.5.3 Segregated roundabout with shared

active travel facilities (TL703)
This type of layout is suitable in urban areas only i.e. on roads/streets
with speed limits up to 60 km/h, and is suitable for traffic capacities
of up to 25,000 vehicles per day.
The design includes shared areas (with pedestrian priority
throughout) around the roundabout for pedestrians and cyclists and
combined zebra crossings of the carriageway (see Figure 4.125).
As shared facilities are disliked by both pedestrians and cyclists,
other protected roundabout layouts (TL701, TL702) that maintain
segregation between pedestrians and cyclists are preferred. This
layout is also not appropriate for new development schemes with Figure 4.125: Segregated roundabout with shared active travel facilities

148
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.6.6 Signal-controlled roundabouts Crossing to central island

In some locations, particularly at large diameter roundabouts, the
Large, multi-lane, signal-controlled roundabouts are dangerous provision of cycle facilities across or around the central island may
environments for cycling so where these roundabouts exist on provide a more direct route, as shown in Figure 4.126. Cyclists will
cycle networks, suitable segregated crossings must be provided often be able to travel to and from central islands without reducing
to enable safe passage of cyclists. The preferred solution in most junction capacity by crossing the roundabout entry while circulating
cases will be to provide grade separated crossing facilities i.e. traffic has a green signal and crossing the circulatory carriageway
overbridge or underpass, particularly for new junctions. However, in while entry traffic has a green signal.
retrofit situations, the provision of grade separated solutions may be
prohibitively expensive and at-grade crossing solutions may need to
be explored.
There are three options for providing at-grade crossings within
signal-controlled roundabouts as follows:

Signal-controlled crossings (TL705)

The points at which cyclists and pedestrians cross roundabout
entries and exits can be signal controlled to separate the conflicting
movements, as shown in Figure 4.6.5. Signal-controlled crossings
must be located a minimum of 20 metres from the circulatory
carriageway across exit lanes and less than 20 metres from the
circulatory carriageway across entry lanes.
Crossings of the roundabout arms can be integrated with the
junction signal phases so that cyclists and pedestrians can cross
while circulatory traffic is receiving a green signal. Detection
equipment should be provided to enable cyclists to call a green
signal as they approach the crossing.

Hold the left (TL706)

Cycle-only stages can be provided on signalised roundabouts using
a ‘hold the left’ arrangement where left turning general traffic is held
on a separate red signal while all circulating traffic (cycles and motor
vehicles) and pedestrians are given a green signal. Motor traffic Figure 4.126: Cycle track crossing to central island, M50 Junction 14, Dublin
turning left to leave the roundabout is given a green aspect at the (image: Google earth)
same time as traffic entering the roundabout.

149
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

4.6.7 Roundabouts for cycling Cyclists can typically mix with general traffic at shared roundabouts
with a throughput of up to 2,000 pcu/day and where the vehicular
in mixed traffic (TL704) speeds on the approach roads is 30 km/h or less. At higher motor
traffic flows and, protected space for cycling is required.
Shared Roundabouts (sometimes known as compact or Continental
style roundabouts) are characterised by a physical central island As the geometry of compact roundabouts encourages lower speeds,
clearly defined by a solid kerb. The diameter of the central island is cyclists can use the carriageway to pass through the roundabout in
4m or larger. The arms are aligned in a radial pattern, with unflared the primary position. Motorists are unable to overtake cyclists on
single lane entries and exits, and a single lane circulatory carriageway the entry and exit lanes and circulatory carriageway because of their
that is no wider than 4m. Deflection is greater than with normal reduced width.
roundabouts with the design used to reduce speeds. An overrun Cycle symbols should be placed on the entries, exits and circulatory
area can be provided (on the central island or on the exit radius), carriageway to alert motorists that they are in a shared street
if required, to increase lateral deflection and reduce the width of environment. Unsegregated cycle lanes should not be marked
the circulatory lane while facilitating occasional larger vehicles. around the outside of the circulatory carriageway, even on compact
Figure 4.127 shows a typical layouts at shared roundabouts. and mini roundabouts since cycle lanes offer no physical protection
and cyclists using them are in the ‘secondary position’ (see Section
4.2.9) where they are vulnerable to side-swipe (‘left hook’) collisions
when motor vehicles are exiting the junction.
At compact roundabouts where pedestrian priority is to be provided,
raised zebra crossings should be provided on all arms of the junction.
This reduces vehicle speeds approaching the crossing and provides
pedestrians with a raised crossing surface at footpath level.

Figure 4.127 Shared roundabout, Stillorgan Road, Dublin

(Image: Google Street view)

150
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

5
Implementation
&
Maintenance
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 5.1 Introduction 5.2.1 Sub-grade (formation)

The appropriate design and selection of construction materials and The sub-grade is the existing ground or native material below a
proper maintenance of cycle facilities should ensure that they will be constructed pavement. The top of the subgrade is termed the
used and fulfil the purpose for which they have been provided, and formation. Sub-grade is usually present within the carriageway
can help reduce ongoing maintenance costs. already and should be designed to provide stable conditions on
which the track can be formed.
Cyclists are more directly affected by hazardous surfaces so routine
and winter maintenance of cycle tracks requires a different approach Off-carriageway this can be created by compacting the natural
to that used on-carriageways. Under the 1993 Roads Act (Section 13, ground. Where the ground is contaminated or unstable, a capping
Part 2), Local Authorities have an obligation to maintain public roads. material may be required. The stability can be increased by using
The maintenance of cycle ways and cycle tracks falls within this geotextiles such as felt, polypropylenes or plastic grid systems.
remit. This chapter considers maintenance of cycle facilities from the Cyclists and pedestrians do not create a high loading requirement,
perspective of design and construction. but where vehicles and machinery will be used for construction
and maintenance, the sub grade must be able to support these. All

¨ 5.2 Construction Elements vegetation must be removed with the topsoil. Voids and subsidence
can be caused by decomposing matter. In places of ecological or
archaeological significance ‘no-dig’ construction may be required
Cycle tracks are composite structures that typically comprise of four (Figure 5.2).
layers. The principal components are illustrated in Figure 5.1, but
other features to consider are transitions, edges and verges, ecology,
drainage and ancillary works such as lighting, fencing, access
controls and landscape features. There are many options for their
general form of construction and constituent materials. The optimum
choice will depend on the environment in which the track is being
provided.
Surface course Paving layer

Base / Binder course Laying course

Subbase

Subgrade

Figure 5.1: Typical constituent parts of an urban cycle track. Figure 5.2: No dig construction technique around trees in Blackrock Park,
Dun Laoghaire.

152
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

The minimum subgrade condition requirement is defined as a A number of pavement material types are available for consideration
design California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 2.5%. The determination and inclusion within a cycleway pavement structure. These material
of the design CBR for a particular subgrade material is detailed in types, relevant National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI),
Analytic Pavement and Foundation Design (DN-PAV-03021). Where NTA Interim Technical Advice and TII Specification for Road Works
subgrade design CBRs determined are less than 2.5%, subgrade publications and mixtures allowed for use within cycleway pavement
treatment through cement stabilisation, geotextiles, or material structures are shown in Table 5.1.
replacement will be required. A capping layer may also be required
The typical make-up of a cycle track is shown in Figure 5.3.
where subgrade conditions are insufficient to carry construction
traffic.
Table 5.1: Cycleway Pavement Materials and Mixtures.

5.2.2 Traffic Loading Material Type Publication Mixtures

The estimated traffic loading to the pavement structure needs NSAI Standard Recommendation S.R.
to be assessed within the pavement design process. Vehicles 28 (2018) “Recommendation for the use
with a gross vehicle mass greater than or equal to 3.5 tonnes are and implementation of the I.S. EN 13108
considered to structurally degrade a pavement structure under series bituminous mixtures – material
repeated load repetitions. Vehicles with a gross mass less than this specifications”
SMA 6 surf 65/100 (Red,
are not considered to structurally deteriorate a pavement structure IS EN 13108-5 “Bituminous Mixtures –
Off-Road)
and environmental impacts on pavement long term performance Material Specifications – Part 5: Stone
Bituminous Mastic Asphalt”. AC 6 close surf 70/100
take precedence. For off-line and fully segregated cycleways it is Materials
estimated that the pavement will carry less than 0.2 million standard NTA Specification of Red Surface SMA 10 surf 70/100
Course for Use on Off-Road Urban
axles (msa). Where the expected traffic is higher designers should AC 20 dense bin 70/100
Cycleways – Interim Technical Advice,
undertake a full pavement design according to DN-PAV-03021. April 2023.
Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII)
Publications DN-PAV-03024 and DN-
5.2.3 Pavement Type PAV-03074
CC-SPW-00800 Specification for Road
Unbound UGM A
Works Series 800 - Road Pavements -
Smooth surfaces improve accessibility and safety for a wider range Granular UGM B
Unbound and Cement Bound Mixtures
of users, such as wheelchair users, mobility scooters and those using
non-standard bicycles. Good quality machine laid surfaces will appeal Earthworks CC-SPW-00600 Earthworks Capping 6F1 Capping 6F2
to this wider group, and provide a comfortable and attractive surface
for all to cycle on.
Designers are encouraged to consider using recycled materials in the
The selection of the most suitable pavement type is at the discretion
makeup of pavements in line with that permitted in the guidelines.
of the designer based on the particular requirements and conditions
at the location of the cycleway.

153
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

FOOTPATH CYCLE TRACK

» Comfort and attractiveness – clear and visually distinguishable
FOOTPATH DESIGN TO
BE IN ACCORDANCE
SMA 6 SURF PMB 65/100-60 DES
SURFACE COURSE, DEPTH 25mm
cycle facilities will provide greater confidence to new and less
WITH TII DN-PAV-03026-02
AC20 DENSE BIN 70/100 DES
BINDER COURSE, DEPTH 50mm
confident cycle users that the network is fully joined-up and
MIN. 150mm UGM A OR 175mm UGM B
PAVEMENT
AS SPECIFIED
encourage them to use these facilities more.
SUBBASE, (DEPTH VARIES)

» Safety priorities – where cost is a constraint, Local Authorities,

CONCRETE
KERB
with the agreement of the Approving Authority, may choose to
focus the application of coloured surfacing to locations where the
greatest safety risks lie, such as at junctions and on approach to
SUBBASE MATERIAL CONCRETE KERB
crossings and areas of kerbside activity (parking, loading and bus
Figure 5.3: Typical make-up of off-road cycle track. stops).
» Visual Impact – in locations with cultural heritage value or
5.2.4 Coloured Surfacing high visual amenity characteristics the use of a red coloured
surfacing may not be appropriate. Subject to Approving Authority
The use of coloured surfacing on cycle facilities can enhance the agreement, alternative surface colour can be considered in such
legibility and attractiveness of the facilities and help to increase locations.
driver awareness of the potential presence of cycle users. It will also
increase pedestrian awareness of the cycle facility, which will be » Maintenance – like-for-like repairs to cycle link surfaces will be
important at all points of pedestrian interaction, including junctions, important for user comfort for the reasons set out above. The
crossings, bus stops and parking areas. Tonal contrast between areas ability to repair and maintain coloured surfacing without creating
allocated to pedestrians and cycle users will assist partially sighted gaps in the coloured surface will be important.
pedestrians in navigating these spaces.
The NTA has developed an interim guidance note “Specification of
For this reason it is recommended that all dedicated cycle facilities, Red Surface Course for Use on Off-Road Urban Cycleways” for a red
with the exception of remote greenways and shared active travel SMA surface which will provide a high quality, long lasting, surface
facilities, in urban areas in Ireland should be red in colour. Outside for cyclists. At time of publication, this specification is only permitted
of urban centres or where the facilities are shared with pedestrians, for use on off-road, segregated cycle facilities.
the use of red surfacing is generally not recommended and if red
surfacing is being proposed on such facilities, a departure must be For cycle lanes at carriageway level through junctions, the red colour
sought and approved by the relevant approving authority. When should be provided using High Friction Surfacing with approved
deciding how to apply this recommendation, designers should PrTrait in Accordance with Road Pavements – Bituminous Materials
carefully consider the following factors: (CC-SPW-00900). In high traffic flow locations this may need
replacing every 5 years to maintain impact.
» Legibility – the more that a consistent surface colour is applied,
the greater the level of understanding and appreciation will be for
its purposes from all user groups.

154
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

5.2.5 Laying Materials 5.2.6 Edges and Verges 5.2.7 Drainage

Concrete kerbs or timber/concrete edgings
To ensure a smooth ride quality, bituminous The standard of drainage associated with
often form a part of road construction
layers of cycle tracks/lanes must be cycle routes must be effective given that
standards. Edging reduces the frequency
machine laid. Narrow paving machines cycle braking systems and tyres are not as
of the edges breaking away which in
(see example in Figure 5.4) are available to effective in the wet and that standing water
turn reduces maintenance requirements
lay the surface course although there are can conceal serious surface defects, amongst
and provides a useful marker for where
limitations on the width of available machines other risks.
vegetation clearing should start. For this
in the Irish market at present. It is therefore
reason it is recommended that edging is Drainage gullies, channels and inspection
recommended that a minimum machine
included on urban cycle schemes. covers can present hazards to cyclists and
width of 1.1m is assumed.
should be located away from travelling
The verges adjacent to off-road paths act as
The use of hand work should be limited to surface used by cyclists. This is particularly
natural drainage, absorbing the run-off from
localised restricted areas only and must be important on bends and sharp curves as wet
the sealed surface. Vertical features such as
subject to the agreement of the Approving ironmongery is may to cause cyclists to skid,
hedges and walls reduce the useable width,
Authority. slip or fall off.
so ideally a mown grass verge or low, slow
growing plants should be provided for 1.0m Cycle friendly design solutions include:
immediately next to the path.
» Offline positioning for inspection covers etc.;
While fencing should be avoided if
possible as it can negatively impact on the » Side-entry gullies; and
attractiveness of a cycle route, fencing may » Continuous kerb drainage (Figure 5.6).
be required for stock control or to protect
path users from steep drops, water or high- Ironmongery should be placed offline.
speed traffic immediately alongside the cycle Where this is not possible, it should be flush
path. Fences should generally be a maximum (typically +/-5mm) and recessed covers
of 1.5m high which is sufficient for stock should be considered to avoid slippery metal
control while enabling most adult cyclists to surfaces. Gullies with slots running in the
see over the top. direction of travel wheels are also a serious
hazard to cyclists (Figure 5.5). Gully slots
must be at right angles to the direction of
cycling or replaced with a different pattern.
Cycle friendly drainage gullies are detailed
in TII CC-SCD-05144 Cycle Friendly Gully
Figure 5.4: Narrow Paver for cycleways (source: Details.
Arkil).

155
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Paths should be constructed with crossfall considered on bends.

or camber, with drainage falling to the inside
Paths through wetlands, adjacent to rivers
on bends. The path itself should not be lower
or in cuttings prone to flooding, can be
than the adjacent natural ground so that
made more resilient by building them on
water has an escape route.
a causeway. This approach requires an
Cross falls and long falls are used to drain understanding of the potential impact on
road and cycling surfaces. Drainage usually drainage and ecology. In some cases, a
works adequately within the following boardwalk may offer the better ecological
gradient ranges: solution. Simple ditches or swales alongside
the path will help avoid surface water run-
1.0% to 2.5%
Cross Fall: off from flooding into adjacent areas. UPVC
(Max 5% over a 100m section)
0.5% to 3.0%
filter drains set in a stone bed can help water
Long Fall: to percolate more slowly but will require
(Max. 5% over a 150m section)
Figure 5.5: Incorrect Gulley grate for cycle maintenance as they can become blocked
facilities. (Source: London Cycling Design Depending on the type of cycle link, the by roots from vegetation. Regular inspection
Standards). surface can either: pits can help to isolate the location of
blockages to ease maintenance. Pipe
» Drain to both sides. This might be used gradients should be between 1:15 and 1:50.
on cycleways and on certain segregated Soakaways can be used to divert collected
cycle tracks. water back into the natural water table.
» Drain to one side only. This is applicable Culverts can offer a more cost effective
to on-road cycle facilities and certain and less visually intrusive option to bridges
cycle tracks. where a cycle track crosses a small stream or
drainage feature.
On adjacent cycle tracks, cross-fall away
from the main carriageway is more
comfortable for cyclists. However, this
requires an independent gully or channel
system. In such instances, the cycle track
gully spacing’s should match the main road
gully locations to reduce pipework. A cross-
fall towards the main carriageway may also
be implemented if required however in such
situations the cross-fall should not exceed
2.5% and superelevation may need to be
Figure 5.6: Continuous kerb drainage.

156
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

5.2.8 Sustainable Urban

Drainage Systems
The provision of footpaths and cycle facilities
can generate as much run-off as a standard
carriageway. This must be taken into account
in the design of the overall drainage network.
Rather than increasing the capacity of the
existing drainage network, designers should
consider how Nature Based Solutions could
accommodate the additional runoff. The
Department of Housing, Local Government
and Heritage have published an interim Figure 5.8: Rock Road Active Travel Scheme
Figure 5.7: Sheffield Grey to Green Scheme
guidance note “Nature-based Solutions to rain garden, Dun Laogahire Rathdown County
(source: Nigel Dunnett.)
the Management of Rainwater and Surface Council.
Water Runoff in Urban Areas” which
SuDS consist of a range of measures that
should be referenced. Designers should
emulate a natural drainage process to reduce
also seek out individual Local Authorities
the concentration of pollutants and reduce
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDs)
the rate and volume of urban run-off into
Guides as requirements may differ between
natural water systems. Where possible,
administrative areas.
designs should seek to incorporate SuDS,
Planting not only improves the attractiveness particularly in areas where ponding is a
of a cycle route, but can also do much more current or potential issue.
in practical terms, particularly if incorporated
Incorporating nature based solutions into
into Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS),
retrofit cycle schemes is challenging as the
providing separation from traffic, shade
space available within existing streets is
and shelter, biodiversity, urban cooling,
limited, however there are usually pockets
water collection and flooding reduction, and
of space that are not being fully utilized that
filtration of pollutants (Figure 5.7).
could be repurposed. An example in Figure
5.8 is from Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County
Council where an existing median island was
removed and a rain garden created in the
space that was made available.

157
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 5.3 Maintenance » Implementation of Circular Economy

Principles: It is important to minimise
» Planting: Sympathetic and appropriate
planning should be designed to
resource consumption during all stages incorporate slow-growing vegetation
Potholes, debris, fallen leaves, overhanging of cycle scheme development. where overgrowth can be addressed at
branches, poor drainage or snow and ice frequent intervals that are not excessive.
can all increase the likelihood of a collision » Improved Aesthetics or Environmental
or fall and put people off cycling altogether. Impact: To design and promote » Trees: The design and construction of a
Maintenance is important to keep cycling schemes that balance aesthetics and the new route should address trees that are
infrastructure safe and in good condition. visual amenity of a place and that are likely to cause problems in the future.
sympathetic to the receiving environment This could include removal or where
Considering the following principles will appropriate, the installation of root
ensure the functionality and safety of and furthermore seek to enhance the
existing heritage. barriers.
cycling facilities and help minimise ongoing
maintenance costs: » Ancillary features such as signage and
artwork: Consideration should be given
» Minimisation of Whole Life Cost (WLC): 5.3.1 Design for Maintenance to how they will be maintained and
It is important to promote and incorporate whether it is appropriate to provide them
Design decisions have a large impact on the at all where there are concerns of potential
the WLC philosophy at the early stages
level of maintenance required through the for anti-social behaviour, which could lead
of the design of new cycle schemes, that
life of an Active Travel project or network. to reoccurring damage of such features.
considers the expected remediation and
Maintenance considerations should be an
maintenance costs, particularly in relation » Maintenance Access: The requirements
integral part of the design process. For
to pavements and surfaces; for maintenance access should be
example:
» Provision of a Safe and Comfortable considered during the planning and design
Facility for all Users: Promoting the » Surface and Road Marking Type: When stage. It is important at the design stage
design and construction of schemes that evaluating the selection of surface to evaluate road and footpath loading/
are as safe as is reasonably practicable, materials and road markings, the design end use and to design robust paving. The
utilising the Best Available Technology team should place a strong emphasis on design of any access points should take
(BAT), where possible; specification, quality control, the quality this, as well as the turning requirements of
of workmanship, the design life and the maintenance vehicles into consideration.
» Enhanced Durability and Service Life: maintenance burden imposed by the Or alternatively, restrict vehicle access
The design team’s focus should be to selection; to paved areas via control measures (for
minimise construction waste, by means of example removable bollards, complete
» Drainage: The application of positive
Resource and Waste Management Plans with lockable integrated sockets, imposing
drainage will significantly reduce the
and to design a scheme that is robust and weight restrictions, imposing bye-laws,
damage caused by surface water run-off if
durable using materials with low carbon etc.).
designed and maintained correctly;
footprints and that are easily sourced and
preferably from local suppliers;

159
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

5.3.2 Maintenance Type Table 5.2: Typical Maintenance Delivery Plan for cycle routes.

There are four different types of maintenance Item Activity Notes Frequency Time of Year
as follows: Consider importance as utility As Necessary
Winter maintenance Winter
route.
» Routine Maintenance: this can include Early spring, mid
Staff undertaking maintenance Every time site visited.
regular scheduled actions such as routine Inspection works can also carry out site Minimum of 4 visits summer, early and
late autumn (before
maintenance inspection checks to log inspections. per year. and after leaf fall).
baseline conditions, street cleaning, traffic Reactive maintenance in
Repairs to potholes
sign cleaning, grass cutting and landscape etc. response to calls from public, As Necessary N/A
maintenance; plus programmed inspections.
Cycle Track
Surface Sweeping to clear leaf Combine with other activities Site Specific
» Reactive Maintenance: this can include N/A
litter and debris. if possible.
responding to inspections (e.g. end of November, and
Cut back encroaching
life treatment requirements following vegetation on verges. Once a year when sweeping
takes place.
reports of poor performance indicators),
The need for remedial work
complaints or emergencies; Programmed will depend on the condition
» Regulatory Maintenance: this can include maintenance, such as of the cycle track. Unbound As Necessary N/A
resurfacing. surfaces may require more
inspecting and regulating the activities of frequent maintenance.
others; and Clear gullies and
Drainage Twice a year April, November
drainage channels etc.
» Seasonal Maintenance: spring, summer,
Verges – mow, flail or To include forward and
autumn, winter. strim. junction visibility splays. N/A July and September

Grassed amenity areas. Include with verge

It is recommended that Local Authorities N/A
maintenance.
develop a Maintenance Delivery Plan (MDP), Vegetation
Between 1
If necessary, allow for annual
see example in Table 5.2, for their active September and 28
Cut back trees and inspection of trees depending As Necessary February as per
travel networks which outlines how the herbaceous shrubs. on number, type and Section 40 or the
condition.
network will maintain its functionality and Wildlife Act 1976.
safety for cyclists. An effective maintenance Repair/replace/clean Maintenance will largely
Signs depend on levels of local N/A N/A
programme will identify faults in advance as necessary. vandalism.
of their becoming a safety hazard and more Visual inspection every
costly to repair. The MDP should include a Structures,
including Carried out by suitably 2 years and detailed
Inspections. N/A
definitive inspection schedule. Consideration culverts. qualified staff. structural inspection
every 6 years
should be given to having the inspections Street
Maintain or repair. N/A N/A
carried out by cycle as this will more Furniture
accurately identify the maintenance issues Lighting Repair faulty lights. Monitor on a regular basis to As Necessary N/A
identify faults.
from a cycling perspective.

160
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

5.3.3 Winter Maintenance » Width reductions – encroaching

vegetation, poorly placed signage
Defects such as potholes, uneven surfaces
and defects pose a much greater risk to
Snow and ice are a serious problem for many and road works; cyclists than they do to other road users.
cyclists and if cyclists are to continue cycling The same is true of broken glass, debris, wet
» Signs and Lines – signs are damage
during the winter months, it is crucial that leaves, standing water or ponding. These
or removed, or line markings have
they can expect cleared cycle tracks when should be urgently attended to within the
deteriorated and become less visible;
they go back and forth for their everyday maintenance programme.
» Ironmongery – gullies are sunken or
trips. In addition, cyclists should never be The nature and potential hazard of the
proud, or lids have become loose; and
tempted to use busy carriageways instead of reported defects from inspections and users
cycle tracks during poor weather conditions. » Drainage – evidence of ponding on the should be prioritised by the degree of risk
Consequently keeping cycle lanes clear of cycle facility or blocked drains causing and the potential cost of non-feasance.
snow and ice should form part of regular and flooding and splashing on the carriageway.
ongoing winter maintenance programmes.
Local Authorities must therefore consider Local Authorities should consider joint
how key cycle routes, especially primary inspections with cyclists who are familiar
and secondary routes in urban areas, can be with the routes and who can point out
integrated into the existing Winter Service flaws that may not be immediately obvious,
Planning programmes. relevant or urgent to the inspector.

5.3.4 Inspections 5.3.5 Fault Reporting

The scheduled inspections noted in Table 5.2 Faults and defects can also be detected
should record the following: by road users, especially cyclists and bus
drivers, in advance of a scheduled inspection.
» Design flaws – lips, poor transitions and A reporting mechanism should be put in
poor quality reinstatements; place in each Local Authority to enable
cyclists to report defects as soon as they
» Surface defects – longitudinal and
arise. All defects (location, when reported,
transverse cracks, holes or general surface
when it will be fixed) should be logged
break-up;
centrally. Ideally logging systems should be
» Debris – grit, glass and leaves; geo-referenced (map based) to help users
» Height restrictions – where trees or accurately locate the defect when making a
signage reduce the clear height below report. The results of all examinations and
2.4m; reports should be logged and prioritised as
appropriate.

161
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 5.4 Public Lighting broken glass etc., but also to see other road
users.
to locate the lighting column, the column
should be located to the back of the footpath
and adjusted if necessary to deliver the
5.4.1 Introduction Street lighting should meet the following
basic requirements:
lighting levels attributed to the carriageway.
Public lighting improves the safety, comfort Public lighting columns should be relocated
» illuminate the route ahead;
and security of all road users, including at an early stage in a retrofit project to allow
cyclists. Unlike motorised vehicles, cycle » illuminate the road surfaces; for a smooth finish of pavements around the
headlamps may not illuminate the route. lighting column.
» illuminate junctions, access points and
Their design purpose is primarily to alert Care should be taken not to locate lighting
conflict points; and
other road users to the presence of the columns close to trees that may obstruct the
cyclist. Cyclists are usually dependent on » illuminate obstacles and other users along light.
ambient or public lighting to see where they the route.
are going.
Street lighting needs to be maintained in
5.4.3.2 Additional Cycleway
Unlit commuter cycle routes, away from
road corridors, are particularly off putting order to ensure these objectives are met. Lighting
for many existing or potential cyclists and Regular inspections during hours of darkness In addition to normal street lighting, specific
can result in cyclists not using the route should be carried out to identify and replace cycleway lighting may be required:
during hours of darkness. It is therefore an faulty lanterns, and a fault management
essential requirement for urban commuting system should be available to the public. » where a cycle track is located more than
during winter months that cycle routes are lit. 2.0m from the carriageway;
Outside of built-up areas, recreational routes 5.4.3 Key Issues to be » where there are sudden bends or corners
will not normally require lighting unless there on an unlit cycle track; or
are specific road safety concerns, e.g. at Considered » where a cycle track diverges from the
junctions or crossings, or if the route has a carriageway and follows an independent
strong commuter or transport function. 5.4.3.1 Location of Lighting route.
Columns Crossings must be well-lit to highlight
5.4.2 Design Objectives pedestrians and cyclists both approaching
Care should be taken to avoid creating an and using the crossing if the general
Well-designed public lighting increases the obstruction for cyclists or pedestrians when carriageway lighting is insufficient. Additional
attractiveness of the route and gives the positioning lighting columns at the edge lighting at both sides of the crossing may
cyclist a greater sense of security. It can also of the roadway. A minimum clearance of be required to achieve this. The cycle
increase the accessibility and utility of the 0.5m (desirable minimum 1.0m) between approach and waiting area (at least the area
route. the lighting column and cycle track is covered by the tactile paving surface) and
Street lighting helps cyclists to see potential recommended. the carriageway crossing area should be
hazards such as street furniture, gullies, If there is no verge outside the footpath illuminated to a uniform level.

162
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

5.4.3 3 Environmental Impacts On the Dodder Greenway, South Dublin County Council undertook
a needs based assessment in line with EUROBATS Publication,
The introduction of lighting along cycleways has the potential to Guidelines for Consideration of Bats in Lighting Projects, to design
impact on the habitat that it passes through, for example it has the a system that minimised impact on bats while still maintaining
potential of impacting on bats feeding behaviour. It is therefore lighting for the public when needed.
imperative that the lighting design is considered early in the project The solution was the use of Smart Lighting system (Figure 5.10)
development so that its environmental impact can be properly that controls when the lights are on. The lights are on constantly
assessed and considered in any screening process being undertaken. until a set time (7pm in Winter) after which the system switches to
Where normal lighting is not appropriate, designers should motion sensors which turns on a bank of up to 5 lights as someone is
consider alternatives such as low level lighting or smart lighting that detected approaching a sector.
controls when an area is lit. Removing lighting completely from a Designers should consult with lighting and appropriate
primary commuter route is not desirable and will necessitate the environmental specialists in the development of lighting plans for
identification, and provision, of an alternative safe cycle route. environmentally sensitive locations.
On the Portmarnock to Baldoyle Greenway, Fingal County Council
used low level directional lighting to light the cycleway and adjacent
footway primarily to reduce the environmental impact of the scheme,
as shown in Figure 5.9. Where low level lighting is used, designers
must give particular attention to making the lighting vandal proof as
it will be easily accessible.

Figure 5.10: Lighting on the Dodder Greenway, Dublin, with detector visible
at end of bridge.

Figure 5.9: Lighting on the Portmarnock to Baldoyle Greenway, Dublin.

163
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

5.4.4 Design Guidelines

Public lighting should always be considered as part of the Road
Design and Road Safety Audit processes. The design, installation
and maintenance of public lighting measures should be carried
outin accordance with the Codes of Practice and guidelines listed
below. Any proposed deviations should be subject to consultation
with, and agreement by, the relevant Local Authority Public
Lighting Department.
» I.S. EN 13201-2:2015; Road Lighting Performance requirements.
» BS 5489-1:2020; Design of Road Lighting, Part 1 Lighting of
roads and public amenity areas – Code of Practice.
» PLG23; Lighting for Cycle Infrastructure; Institute of Lighting
Professionals.
» DN-LHT-03038; Design of Road Lighting for the National Road
Network; TII.
» Design Manual for Urban Roads and Street.

164
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 5.5 Signage & from the prescribed information in the TSM

will impact the ability to enforce restrictions.
5.5.4 Warning Signs
Wayfinding The regulatory signs (and accompanying Warning signs are described in Chapter 6 of
road markings) form part of the cycle the Traffic Signs Manual. Where cycle routes
5.5.1 Introduction route network infrastructure, helping to cross or pass along busy roads, Cyclist
create the conditions in which safe cycling warning signs, Sign W 143, may be erected
Legible and coherent design can help can take place. Where it is safe to do so, to warn drivers of the presence of cyclists.
minimise the need for signs. However, some consideration can be given to making The sign should not simply be used in lieu of
signs are required to help enforce traffic cyclists exempt from prohibited movements designing safe cycle routes and crossings.
laws, and directional signs are needed to by adding a supplementary plate with the
ensure people can understand and follow wording “EXCEPT BICYCLES” (TSM P050).
the route. Signs must be designed and 5.5.5 Direction signs
positioned carefully to ensure the signs
themselves do not create confusion or 5.5.3 Road markings Direction signs provide users with
undue street clutter. information about direction and distances
Advice on the use of road markings is given to key destinations along networks of cycle
5.5.2 Regulatory signs in Chapter 7 of the Traffic Signs Manual. They routes, either local routes or longer distance
are used to indicate prohibitions, delineate routes. Signs for cycle traffic are more
Designers should always refer to the carriageway space or crossing points, and necessary in quiet streets and traffic free
latest version of the Traffic Signs Manual provide information to assist with wayfinding routes than where the cycle route follows a
(TSM) which provides design advice and such as direction arrows. Half-size versions of main road, where direction signs for general
information for the use of regulatory give way markings and centre line markings traffic are already provided. Designers
signs. The Regulations, which are made are prescribed for use along cycle tracks. should look to provide signage only where
under Section 95 of the Road Traffic Act necessary and they should be located at
Markings such as direction arrows can assist
1961, define the regulatory signs and road the back of footways, or in verges, where
with providing a coherent route for cyclists,
markings to be used and the significance to they are clearly visible to cyclists but are
particularly at transition points and to mark
be attached to them. not causing an obstruction to pedestrians
the route through complex junctions, and
(Figure 5.11).
Regulatory signs and markings inform are less obtrusive than upright signs. Road
road users about on-road restrictions such markings should always be well-laid, clear Direction signs can have the added benefit
as speed limits, turning bans, car parking and regularly maintained to ensure they of promoting cycle routes and raising
regulations and prohibition of access for remain legible. awareness of their location. A consistent
certain classes of vehicle. The on-street signs approach to design and branding can assist
are also important because they enable the with legibility of cycle networks. Poor design
authorities to enforce the desired behaviors. or missing signs will affect users trust in the
Designers must be aware that deviations cycle network.

165
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Cycle direction signs can be placed at the

junction itself, usually opposite the minor
5.5.6 Sign Positioning Locations that require additional information
to allow users to make the right decisions
arm at a T-junction. Where cycle tracks pass Signs should be mounted using as few posts are called decision points. Extra wayfinding
through complex signal controlled, or grade as practicable to avoid signage clutter, and information at these key decision points and
separated junctions, direction signs may be preferably on a single post. Where possible the surrounding environment will enable
needed to guide people through the junction signs should be placed on existing street users to travel more effectively.
at every point where there is a choice of furniture (where it is suitably located) to
reduce the need for additional posts. Cycle Visual clues from the urban environment,
routes available.
signs may be incorporated into general road surrounding architecture, landmarks, public
Repeater and confirmatory signs should only traffic signs to help reduce street clutter. spaces, parks and geographical features
be used where they are essential. In general, play an important role in enabling users to
if it adds to the clarity of the route without Every effort should be made to ensure that navigate and influence the decisions made
adding clutter, it should be considered. sign poles do not impede the free movement on journeys.
or vision of mobility impaired people,
Details on the design of Cycle Network Signs the elderly, people with pushchairs, small The decision points can be categorised into
can be found in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Signs children, or wheelchair users. Signs poles 3 subcategories:
Manual. should ideally be located at the back of the
footpath (with a cranked pole if necessary) » Primary Decision Point - principally
or within verges with an offset of 0.5m from located at large crossings, multiple
the edge of the cycle track. footway systems, and often where
there are multiple route options;
» Secondary Decision Point - The
5.5.7 Wayfinding strategies secondary decision point is principally
located along a defined routes where
An effective wayfinding strategy will result in there is often more than one option to
users feeling like they are being guided along continue along the route; and
a route and removes the need for cyclists to
stop to consult maps or phones. The provision » Tertiary Decision Point - The tertiary
of useful wayfinding can have a positive decision point is principally located along
impact on pedestrian or cyclist experiences. a route where users need minor guidance.
An effective wayfinding system will:
The level of wayfinding provision should be
» Keep pedestrians/cyclists informed; in line with the decision point category, with
» Connect users to key locations; the most information provided at the primary
locations reducing to basic information, or
» Be consistent; and
Figure 5.11: Active Travel Directional Signing sign, at Tertiary Locations.
in Dun Laoghaire. » Capture information simply.

166
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council created a bespoke

wayfinding scheme for their Active School Travel Routes projects,
which incorporates 3 distinct corridors and requires cyclists to
meander through different streets which could be complex if
wayfinding was not provided. The 3 corridors with their associated
logo are as follows:

Sea to Mountains

Mountains to Metals

Park to Park

These logos are used as road marking and on wooden bollards

along the 3 routes to guide pedestrians and cyclists as is shown
in Figure 5.12. The wooden bollards also include braille and QR Code.

Figure 5.12: Active School Travel Route Guidance in Dun Laoghaire.

167
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

5.5.8 Signing roadworks Table 5.3: Cyclists warning signs for use on
Roadworks.
from the works area by a suitable barrier.
Where cyclists are to be accommodated on
and temporary the road, lane widths should be adequate to
diversions Sign No. Sign Face Description accommodate cyclists as well as vehicular
traffic. Detailed guidance on providing for
Roadworks can introduce hazards for cyclists Cyclists Keep Left: this
vulnerable road users including pedestrians
including uneven surfaces, slippery metal WK084 sign should be used to and cyclists is provided in Chapter 8 of the
plates, narrow traffic lanes and conflicts with direct cyclists to the left. Traffic Signs Manual, the Temporary Traffic
construction vehicles. Markings and traffic Management Design Guidance and the
cones or wands can be used to create Temporary Traffic Management Operations
protected space for cycling through Cyclists Keep Right: this Guidance. Guidance on appropriate
roadworks whilst temporary signs can be
WK085 sign should be used to lane widths from the Temporary Traffic
direct cyclists to the right. Management Design Guidance is provided
used to highlight the issues. Warning signs
for use at roadworks should be used in in Table 5.4.
Cyclists: is available for
accordance with Table 8.3.1.1 of the Traffic use where it is considered Table 5.4: Construction Lane Widths when
Signs Manual. A summary of the key signs necessary to warn traffic Cyclists Present.
relating to cyclists are provided in Table 5.3. of the likely presence of
Lane width (m) Comment and recommendation
a significant number of
WK086 cyclists. A supplementary Can be used but should be
plate P 002 Length supplemented with a WK 086
may be used where the cyclists present sign. If existing lane
<3.3
length of the lane width width is less than 3.3m, then no
restriction is greater than signage is required. Signage is only
250m. required if lane is being reduced.
Slippery for Cyclists: 3.3 to 3.5 Can be used.
may be provided where 3.5 to 4.0 To be avoided.
WK087 roadworks may, due to
a slippery surface, cause >4.0 Can be used.
problems for cyclists.
If practical a 4m lane will facilitate vehicles
to overtake a cyclist and therefore reduce
Roadworks often result in narrower traffic driver frustration. Lane widths of 3.5m to
lanes which can be located directly adjacent 4.0m should not be used as drivers of larger
to physical vertical features such as fencing/ vehicles may attempt to overtake without
barriers. Where possible, a safe route should adequate clearance.
be provided through the creation of a
temporary off-road cycle track, separated

168
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

5.5.9 Information totems In addition to maps it is also beneficial to place awareness signs
along routes which may be shared with other road users so as
Information totems provide a platform to display on-street maps (see behaviours can be influenced, such as the “Ring your Bell” sign on
example in Figure 5.13). They can be provided alongside cycle hire the urban greenway in Figure 5.14. Other variations include signage
docking stations, cycle parking stands or located at strategic points advising users to “Keep Left, Pass on the Right”.
where a route choice must be made.
Maps are beneficial in telling the reader where they are in relation
to their destination and isochrones can be used to provide an
estimate of cycling times. The orientation of the map should be the
same direction as the viewer is facing and street names should be
included on the map. Sketches and photos of significant buildings or
landmarks can be useful to assist with orientation.

Figure 5.14: Information bollard on the Passage Greenway, Cork.

Figure 5.13: Cycling network map of Houten, The Netherlands. (Source:

Bicycle Dutch).

169
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

5.5.10 Irish Language Signage

Requirements
The Official Languages Act sets out the statutory requirements
regarding the use of the Irish language by public bodies. These
requirements apply to signage and information panels located on
routes in Ireland which are developed or funded by public bodies.
These statutory requirements must be considered as part of the
sign planning process. The following is an excerpt of the main
requirements:

» Place names on information signs must be in both Irish and English

except in Gaeltacht areas, where the names of places should be
in Irish only.
» Where the spelling of a place name is similar in both languages,
only the Irish form of the name should be shown.
» All Irish text should be in italic print, in lower case lettering,
with initial letters in capitals.
» Irish script should be inclined to the right at an angle of 15 degrees
to the vertical. All English text should be in upper case roman
letters.

Note that the content of information panels must be presented

in Irish and English, including in Gaeltacht areas. To identify the
correct spelling of a place-name in Irish, consult logainm.ie.
The use of icons as an alternative to text is recommended as this
facilitates understanding across multiple languages.

170
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

6
Cycle Parking
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 6.1 Introduction The following factors should be considered when locating cycle
parking:
The availability of cycle parking facilities at either end of a trip will » Safe access away from adjacent live traffic lanes;
heavily influence the decision to travel by bicycle. The absence of
secure parking will deter some people, or make cycling impossible. » Lighting for personal security and convenience after dark;
Cyclists that experience repeated cycle theft will sometimes stop » Weather protection for commuters and overnight parking;
cycling altogether.
» Away from main pedestrian thoroughfares and emergency access
Cycle parking is integral to the cycle network and can be introduced points so as not to cause an obstruction;
relatively quickly. Cycle parking is also important for integration
» Potential to integrate with existing street furniture and place-
with public transport for multi-modal journeys. As with other cycle
making;
infrastructure, cycle parking and access to it should be safe, direct,
comfortable, coherent, and attractive. A proportion of cycle parking » Level access, or if this cannot be achieved, perpendicular to the
should be accessible to all with some provision for larger cycles as slope to avoid cycles rolling down the slope; and
well as standard bicycles. » Located in obvious, clean, maintained and overlooked areas to
deter vandalism/theft, and to make users feel safe and welcome.
¨ 6.2 Design Principles Parking duration will also have an influence on which of the five
criteria is of uppermost importance to users. For short stays, users
The five core principles of designing cycling infrastructure also apply will be most concerned with convenience of access while having a
to cycle parking: safe place to secure their cycle. Cycle parking located close to shop
1. Safe – cycle parking should be secure for the cycle and users fronts or overlooked by offices will provide some passive surveillance.
should feel safe from the risk of personal crime; Small clusters of stands close to main attractors are preferable to one
central hub, although in shopping centres, a central facility on the
2. Direct – cycle parking should be near to the cycle route and/or as
ground floor of a car park or near the main pedestrian entrance may
close as possible to the final destination;
be the optimum location. Proximity is essential for disabled cyclists
3. Coherent – cycle parking should be well-connected to routes and who may be unable to walk far.
buildings, well-signed and easy to find;
For long stay parking, either overnight or where bikes are regularly
4. Attractive – cycle parking areas should be of good quality design parked for much of the day, some users will be willing to trade a
and well-maintained; and degree of convenience for additional protection or services such as
5. Comfortable – cycle parking should be easy to use and accessible CCTV coverage, shelter from weather and secure access (i.e. not
to all. open to the passing public).
Residential parking is mainly occupied overnight and therefore
restricted access (locked compounds, individual lockers) is usually
the primary theft deterrent. This is also the case for some town and

172
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

city centre railway stations where cycles are used by commuters for should be easy to operate when the cyclist is holding a bicycle with
onward travel from the station and then left overnight on the return one hand. Space is required in front and alongside parking stands to
trip. enable cycles to be steered into the cycle parking and then securely
locked in place.
There is a limit to how far people will be prepared, or able, to walk
to their final destination, so even in longer stay locations the secure The cycle parking should not inconvenience others. A tapping rail
parking should still be close to the main entrances and local cycle (Figure 6.2) across the bottom half of the stand (end stand in a row
route network. of stands), retro-reflective material and colour contrast will help blind
and partially sighted users to detect stands that are in areas that

¨ 6.3 Universal Access

people walk through. The rail may also be helpful for securing larger
cycles to the end racks.
A proportion of the cycle parking (typically 1 space per 20 spaces or
5%) should be provided for larger non-standard cycles so that they
can be used by disabled people with adapted cycles (Figure 6.1) and
other people using tandems, child trailers, cargo bikes and tricycles.
Spaces for larger cycles should be provided in the most accessible
locations, for example near to the accessible car parking spaces.

Figure 6.1: Dedicated cycle parking for persons with a disability, Trinity
College Dublin.

All public cycle parking equipment should be easy to use, without Figure 6.2: Tapping rail on Sheffield stand
the need to lift cycles other than to guide the wheels into parking
equipment. Doors and locking mechanisms within secure compounds

173
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 6.4 Locating On-Street

Short Stay Parking
The following should be taken into consideration when determining
the location of on-street cycle parking.
Convenience: Short stay parking for shopping and access to other
services should be primarily located on-street close to the attractions
as the duration of stay will be short and people will usually move
their cycle around the centre with them.

Security: A good location will help to deter thieves. Public cycle

parking should be placed where there is good natural surveillance
from passers-by, or where the cycle parking is overlooked by
windows of adjacent buildings (Figure 6.3). The view of the cycle
parking should not be obscured by trees or street furniture that
would enable thieves to work undisturbed. On-street cycle parking
should be in areas with street-lighting. Additional lighting may
be required within shelters. Where the cycle parking is within a
building the areas should be evenly lit with no dark shadow areas.
Light coloured walls, ceilings and floors can help to improve the Figure 6.3: Parklet created in public car park to accommodate cycle
effectiveness of the lighting. parking.

Safety: The cycle parking must not block key pedestrian desire lines It is important that there is sufficient space around the stands
including access to other street furniture such as bus shelters and for users to be able to stop safely away from other traffic and
benches. Stands should not be placed where they might reduce manoeuvre the cycles into position. Care should be taken to minimise
available footway width for pedestrians beyond the recommended the risk of vehicles striking cycle stands or parked cycles. The stands
minimum for pedestrian flows at the busiest times. will usually need to be protected through the construction of build-
out extensions into existing carriageway space (Figure 6.4), although
Cycle parking stands may be placed on the carriageway, or on build- some designs include a protective feature as in Figure 6.5.
outs between parking bays (Figures 6.4 & 6.5). Around eight parked The cycle parking may also be integrated into the design of Parklets
cycles can be fitted in the same space taken up by one car parking (see Figure 6.3) such as those introduced to provide outdoor seating
space. as part of Covid measures.

174
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 6.5 Types of Equipment

and Layout
The most common types of equipment used for cycle parking are:

» Stands or hoops – where the cycle is leaned against a metal

structure and locked (this may include hi/low arrangements where
alternate sides are ramped to avoid handlebars clashing);
» Two-tier racks – where the cycle is locked in a tray and supported
either at ground level or shoulder height;
» Cycle Lockers – where individual cycles are secured in a metal box;
» Cycle hangers – where several cycles are secured in a metal box;
and
» Semi-vertical or vertical racks - where cycles are lifted into a
Figure 6.4: Cycle parking in the carriageway, Meath Street, Dublin.
vertical position (note - these are not recommended as public
cycle parking stands).

All of these may be placed within a secure building or compound.

The design of hoops may include longer, lower stands designed to
accommodate the various larger cycles as shown in Figures 6.6 and
6.7.

Figure 6.5: Temporary cycle parking in car parking bay.

175
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Figure 6.6: Cycle hoops for cargo bicycles, St Stephens Green, Dublin. Figure 6.7: Space for non-standard cycles at the Drury Street Cycle Parking
Facility, Dublin.

176
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

6.5.1 Sheffield stand or hoop users to park bicycles fitted with panniers, or child seats, that may be
slightly wider than an unladen bicycle. Where the site is sloping, it is
The most common form of cycle parking is a tubular metal hoop that better to place the stands across the slope so that the parked bicycle
must be securely anchored into the ground at two points, commonly is horizontal.
referred to as a “Sheffield Stand”. In addition to the basic rectangular Where space permits, the end stand in a row might also be suitable
hoop, many other shapes are available in particular: for larger cycles and could be signed as ‘disabled parking’. Where
provision is required for three-wheeled cycles, lateral spaces
» An ‘M’ shape stand that makes theft more between stands should be increased to at least 2.0m.
difficult by reducing the ability for the locked
bike to be moved. The ‘M’ shaped stand also Table 6.1 gives recommended and minimum dimensions (for parking
offers better support to small-wheeled bikes bicycles) where Sheffield stands are placed in a parallel or “toast
and children’s bikes. rack” arrangement, and aisle widths where there are large numbers
of stands within a cycle park or compound.
Table 6.1 Layout dimensions for simple cycle stands.
Recommended Minimum
» An ‘A’ shape where the cross-piece offers
Bay length (length of cycle parked on a stand) 2.0m 2.0m
additional resistance to ‘twisting’ that is
sometimes used to release cycles when the Bay length (tandems, trailers and accessible cycles) 3.0m 2.5m
stand has been cut by thieves and can also be Access aisle width (for bicycles only, pushed into 2.0m 1.5m
helpful to secure smaller and non-standard position by user on foot)
cycles. Access aisle width (bicycles ridden to stand, larger 3.0m 1.8m
cycles use the end bay only)
The advantages of a tubular stand are security, relative cost- Access aisle width (all cycles ridden to stand, large 4.0m 3.0m
cycles use internal bays)
effectiveness, and stability for locked bikes. Two-point locking
enables both wheels and the frame to be secured to the stand, Spacing between stands 1.0m 0.8m
increasing the amount of time required to steal a bike and thus Gap between stand and wall (part of bay width) 600mm 600mm
decreasing the chances of a quick, opportunistic theft. Two-point
locking also reduces the risk of single components being stolen, e.g.
a wheel, as both wheels, and the frame, can be secured more easily.
Common Use

Layout of Sheffield stands All types of location from individual on-street parking stands through
Sheffield stands require at least 0.6m clearance to walls/kerbs to larger external and internal cycle parking areas.
because the bicycle protrudes beyond the stand. A clear space of
1.0m in front of the stand enable the bicycle to be wheeled into
position. A distance of at least 1.0m between parallel stands enables

177
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

6.5.2 Two-tier stands

Two-tier racks as shown in Figure 6.8 offer
around a third more cycle parking capacity
within the same footprint. Two-tier cycle
racks are suitable only for two-wheeled
bicycles so alternatives for larger bicycles
should also be provided. Some users will
find it difficult to lift their bike from the floor
onto the tray of the upper tier, although the
mechanisms to lift and slide the stands into
position are spring loaded or gas-assisted.
The stands can be noisy in operation, which
may be of concern in residential areas.

Layout of two-tier stands Figure 6.8: Two-tier cycle stands at University Figure 6.9: Bike lockers, Newbridge Train Station.
College Dublin.
A clear space of about 2.0m - 2.5m (varies
with design of the stand pivot) is needed Layout of lockers
in front of the stand to enable the cycle to
be lined up and placed in the stand. Most
6.5.3 Cycle Lockers A clear space of 2.0m in front of the locker is
designs allow for stands to be placed either Cycle lockers are a secure metal box into needed for the bicycle to be turned and lined
at 90 degrees or 45 degrees to the aisle, so which an individual bicycle is placed and up to be placed inside.
a minimum aisle width of 2.0m to 2.5m is locked (Figure 6.9). The lock may be integral
acceptable. Two-tier stands require a ceiling to the design or provided by the user. Some Common use
height of at least 2.7m, so may not fit in all lockers are vertical, where the front wheel is Railway stations, public buildings, hospitals,
older buildings or basement parking. lifted onto a hook within the locker to save workplace parking.
space. Some users will find it difficult to lift
Common use the front of the cycle. Lockers are usually
Railway stations, commercial developments, only designed to accommodate standard
workplace, educational establishments and bicycles.
larger residential blocks.

178
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

6.5.4 Cycle Hangars or Layout of hangars

Bunkers A cycle hangar that can accommodate 6-10

cycles will have an approximate footprint of
Cycle hangars are usually provided on-street 2.5m x 5.0m similar to a single car parking
space. Users will need safe access either
within residential areas to provide parking for
from the footway (or carriageway on very
local residents where there is no space within
quiet streets). Where the hangar is located
older dwellings. Space within the hangar is
within the carriageway it is important to
leased by the Local Authority and access to
assess the risks to users associated with
the hangar is limited to the registered key
passing vehicles when using the locker and
holders. In addition to the locked door of the
potential damage to the hangar from vehicle
hangar, residents also lock their bicycle to
strikes.
the stands within.
A hangar is broadly similar in size to a Common Use
standard parking space (dimensions vary by
Streets with terraced housing or houses in
manufacturer) but the footprint is larger than
multiple occupation in older high-density
a vehicle and may overhang the adjacent
residential areas.
footway or carriageway, see Figure 6.10.

Figure 6.10: Bike Bunker, Portobello, Dublin.

179
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

6.5.5 Summary of Parking

Layout Dimensions
The critical dimensions for the layout of cycle
parking are as follows (see Figure 6.11 also for
illustration):

» 3.0m width for two-way cycle track access

outside and inside cycle parking facility.
» 2.0m minimum aisle width for access on
foot within parking area.
» 2.5m aisle width for two-tier racks
arranged perpendicular to the aisle.
» 1.0m between sheffield stand centres.
» 0.6m from end of a Sheffield stand to any
wall.
» 0.75 x 2.0m footprint for individual
horizontal cycle lockers.
» 2.0m clear space in front of stands,
lockers etc. to enable cycle to be Figure 6.11: Cycle parking dimensions.
positioned.
» 2.7m ceiling height for two-tier racks.
» Max. gradient 5% on access tracks/paths
(excluding ramps within a cycle parking
facility)

180
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨6.6 Additional Security fob/code/smartcard. In residential settings the compound is often

located in a basement car park. The facility is normally managed by
Considerations the building owner/operator.

The following additional security measures for cycle parking should

be considered.
Equipment Specification
The design and installation of the bicycle parking equipment should
not feature fixings that could easily be removed with simple hand
tools. Tamper proof nuts and bolts should be fitted. The depth of
construction and security of fittings should be sufficient to prevent
stands being loosened and lifted out of the ground. Security features
such as locking bars and hasps should offer resistance to cutting and
twisting.

Lighting
On-street and outdoor cycle parking should be illuminated to
the same standard as the surrounding highway. This may require
additional lighting to remove any shadows cast by the cycle shelter
itself. Where the cycle parking is inside a building the use of light
coloured walls and floor can help to enhance the effectiveness of the
lighting.

CCTV Figure 6.12: Secure access compound at St James Hospital, Dublin.

CCTV monitoring can help to deter thieves and recordings may help
with recovery of stolen bicycles and prosecution. It is unlikely to
stop theft unless it is being actively monitored and security staff can
immediately intervene.
¨ 6.7 Cycle Hubs
Many journeys are short, particularly in urban areas, and can be
Shelters and Compounds made by walking or cycling alone. For longer journeys, combining
cycling with public transport provides important links to more
The cycle parking equipment can be placed within a locked shelter distant destinations.
or compound (Figure 6.12) that adds an extra layer of security. This
is commonly used within railway stations, school, residential and Compared with walking, cycling increases the 20-minute travel time
workplace situations where users must register for a key or access catchment area to public transport stops by a factor of around 16,

182
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

thereby greatly extending the reach of public transport. Improving

cycle access to interchanges therefore creates a major opportunity
to generate new non-car trips or shift trips from car to sustainable
modes. Cycling provides reliable journey times between the home
and destination, little affected by peak time traffic congestion, and
free or low cost parking.
Various types of combined trips might occur:

» Park (car) and Cycle to destination

» Cycle and Ride (on train/tram/bus)
» Ride and Cycle to destination

Cycle hubs are common in other countries at railway stations but

may also be provided within town centres or co-located within large
car parking facilities. The hubs offer a range of services to users
which may include:

» Tools available for public use (Figure 6.13).

» Air pumps for public use.
» Cycle repairs.
» Cycle sales. Figure 6.13: Cycle repair stand and pump at Drury Street Cycle Parking
Facility, Dublin.
» Cycle hire.
» Cycle freight business. Cycle parking has potential to fulfil a role as an intermodal option at
rural and suburban bus stops where, in less densely settled locations,
» Changing rooms and showers.
the bus routes may be further from people’s homes or places of
» Maps and Travel information. work. High-quality interurban bus routes, or limited stop express
» Live departure boards. routes, may draw users from a further catchment than the traditional
5 or 10-minute walking distance hinterland normally assumed for bus
» Ticket sales. services.
» Another business such as a newsagents, gymnasium or cycle
themed café.
» Parcel collection point.

183
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

¨ 6.8 Changing Rooms, Showers demand or spare capacity. Spare capacity is required so that users
can be confident of finding a space. If a location is regularly almost
and Storage Lockers full (circa 95% occupancy of capacity) the provision should be
increased.
While people who commute short distances to a workplace are Counts should be undertaken in good weather at a range of times
usually able to do so without wearing cycling clothing, those riding during the day. Where cycles are parked in locations that are not
longer distances will appreciate changing rooms and lockers, within the designated parking areas (railings, other street furniture)
preferably with facilities to dry clothing. These facilities are also used this may indicate that the existing parking provision is:
by people who run to work or for exercise.
» Insufficient to meet demand;
These facilities may be provided at a workplace or form part of the
services at a dedicated cycle parking hub. » Not secure enough to provide confidence to users; or
» Not as convenient for the intended destination as the area of fly
¨6.9 Larger cycles and E-bike parking.

parking Ways to help plan the quantity and location of cycle parking
investments may include:
E-bikes and adapted cycles are significantly more expensive than » Data about existing travel patterns and planned new development
most bicycles and may be targeted by thieves. The batteries on can help to identify areas of potential demand for cycle parking as
some cycles can be easily removed. Providing parking areas in part of the overall network planning process;
lockers or secure compounds will minimise the risk of theft. Because
of the weight of e-bikes, horizontal lockers are preferable to vertical » Engagement with businesses and organisations to understand
lockers. how customer and visitor patterns vary across the day, week or
year;
Cycle parking facilities may include provision of electrical points for
charging the cycles. The typical range for a fully charged bicycle is » Engagement with local cycling representative groups to
60 – 80km so for most journeys the cycle does not need charging understand existing problem locations – either where absence of
and provision for charging is a low priority. Operators should also parking is an issue, or where there are ongoing security concerns.
consider potential fire risks and mitigation if charging facilities are Liaison with An Garda Síochána may also be helpful regarding the
provided. latter;
» Engagement with local pedestrian and accessibility groups to

¨ 6.10 Quantity understand where informal parking presents an obstruction or

hazard;
Regular counts of parked cycles at on-street locations and at » Reviewing existing trip generators and the ability to access them
public facilities such as stations will give an indication of any excess easily by cycle – locations more easily accessible by cycle may

184
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

justify an increased level of provision of cycle parking; and Once a bicycle is identified as potentially abandoned, the Local
Authority, or parking operator, can secure a notice to the bike and
» Introducing temporary cycle parking stands as a trial measure
warn that if the bicycle is not removed within 14 days it will be
and monitoring use.
removed as abandoned.

¨ 6.11 Managing Abandoned Cycles

If there is anything about the bicycle that identifies the owner, an
attempt to contact the owner should be made, and advise them that
their bicycle is to be removed as abandoned.
Cycles that have been vandalised, subject to attempted theft or
Bicycle that are removed should be stored for a short period, after
simply abandoned may be left locked to cycle parking or other street
which it will be recycled as scrap metal or donated to a bicycle
furniture for many months. This reduces the available capacity and
recycling scheme.
can give the impression that a location is unsafe.
A bicycle may be identified as abandoned if it meets one or more
of the following criteria:

» It is secured in a dangerous way (i.e. blocking access);

¨ 6.12 Temporary Cycle Parking
Temporary cycle parking, sometimes referred to as pop-up cycle
» It is secured to a cycle rack and considered unroadworthy;
parking, can be a cost-effective solution when cycle parking
» When it is reported by a member of the public and assessed as is required on a temporary, short term, or medium-term basis.
unroadworthy or in a dangerous position; and Applications for temporary provision can include festivals (Figure
» When it is noted as not having moved for a reasonable period of 6.14), markets, concerts, fairs, exhibitions and sports events. Short
time – several weeks. term applications could include catering for an increase in cycle
parking demand or simply where permanent cycle parking provision
A bicycle that is defined as unroadworthy will have sustained one or is either yet to be decided.
more of the following: For longer periods, such as the loss of existing cycle parking due to
construction or refurbishment works, a medium-term solution would
» Flat front/rear/both tyres:
be required. Each of these different scenarios require a solution
» Missing wheel(s); that will accommodate both the quantity and duration for which the
» Missing seat; temporary cycle parking is required.
» Buckled front/rear/both wheels;
» Bent forks;
» Seized/damaged brakes;
» Rusted chain/gears;and
» Missing chain.

185
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Figure 6.14: Event Parking at Bloom Festival, Dublin. Figure 6.15: Event Parking using Scaffold Pole Structure (Bloom Festival, Dublin).

There are essentially three different types of temporary cycle parking Key Considerations for Temporary Cycle Parking are as follows:
which can be categorised as follows:
» Make it clear that the cycle parking is temporary and not
» Cycle Stands and Racks; permanent;
» Linked Pedestrian Barriers; and » If the parking is only available at certain times (to match an event)
make this clear to prevent cyclists from leaving their bikes parked
» Scaffold Pole Structure (Figure 6.15).
outside these times;
If bicycles can only be locked securely at one point, it is advised » Always promote the cycling parking where appropriate for
this system is only used where security staff can observe the cycle example provide the information to the event organiser to
parking, or a secure compound can be created. promote as a recommended travel option;
» Inform cyclists that they must use their own locks; and
» The location of the cycle parking is key and should be agreed
with key stakeholders including the event organisers, local
authorities and police agencies.

186
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

Appendix

Typical layouts for cycle infrastructure LEGEND:

Footpath
This appendix contains the typical layouts for cycle infrastructure referred to throughout the
manual. The layouts should be read in conjunction with the relevant text within the manual. Each Cycletrack
layout also contains important notes which need to be considered when designing the relevant
Cycle Lane
infrastructure.
Shared Greenway
At the bottom of the typical layout drawings, a ‘back’ button is provided. Clicking this button will
bring you back to where the layout is discussed in the manual. Carriageway
The legend opposite indicates the colours used for recurring elements throughout the layouts. Verge
Legends for key features, road markings etc. are shown on individual layouts as necessary.

TL101 Standard Cycle Track 191

TL102 Stepped Cycle Track 192
TL103 Protected Cycle Lane 193
TL104 Mandatory Cycle Lane 194
TL105 Mixed Traffic 195
TL106 Shared Active Travel Facility/Greenway 196
TL107 Two-way Cycle Track 197
TL108 Contraflow Cycle Track 198
TL109 Contraflow Cycle Lane 199
TL110 Contraflow cycling on shared streets 200
TL111 Cycle Track Behind Parking Loading Bay 201
TL112 Cycle Track behind Loading Island 202
TL113 Cycle Track behind in-line Loading Bay 203
TL114 Cycle Lane behind Parking/Loading Bay 205
TL201 Island Bus Stop 208

188
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL202 Shared Bus Stop Landing Zone 211

TL203 Cycle Track Behind Bus Layby with Passing Bus Lane 214
TL204 Cycle Lane & In-Line Bus Stop 215
TL301 Shifting Bicycles to Right 216
TL302 Transition to Mixed Traffic 219
TL401 Standard Cycle Track Crossing Side Road with Priority - Full Set Back 220
TL402 Standard Cycle Track Crossing Side Road with Priority - Partial Set Back 222
TL403 Standard Cycle Track Crossing Side Road with Priority - No Set Back 223
TL404 Standard Cycle Track Crossing Side Road without Priority 224
TL405 Stepped Cycle Track Crossing Side Road with Priority 225
TL406 Protected Priority Junction 227
TL407 Two-Way Cycle Track Crossing Side Road with Priority - Full Set Back 228
TL408 Two-Way Cycle Track Crossing Side Road with Priority - Partial Set Back 229
TL409 Two-Way Cycle Track Crossing Side Road with Priority - No Set Back 230
TL410 Two-Way Cycle Track Crossing Side Road without Priority 231
TL411 Cycle Lane Crossing Side Road 232
TL501 Protected Junction 234
TL502 Protected Junction - CYCLOPS Layout 237
TL503 Protected Junction - Full Signal Control 240
TL504 Protected T-Junction 243
TL505 Protected T-Junction - Full Signal Control 246
TL506 Signal-Controlled Junction incorporating Toucan Crossings 248
TL507 Two-Stage Right - Turn 249
TL508 Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) 250
TL509 Cycle Streaming Lanes (legacy junctions only) 251
TL601 Segregated Uncontrolled Crossing 253
TL602 Shared Uncontrolled Crossing 254
TL603 Cycle Priority Crossing 257

189
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL604 Parallel Zebra Crossing 258

TL605 Combined Zebra Crossing 259
TL606 Signalised Parallel Crossing 260
TL607 Toucan Crossing 263
TL608 Signalised Cycle Crossing 266
TL701 Protected Roundabout with Cycle Priority 267
TL702 Protected Roundabout without Cycle Priority 270
TL703 Segregated Roundabout with Shared Active Travel Facilities 273
TL704 Compact Roundabout with Mixed Traffic 274
TL705 Signal-Controlled Roundabout with Integrated Crossings 277
TL706 Signal-Controlled Roundabout with Hold the Left Arrangement 278

190
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL101 Standard Cycle Track

Typical Layout 3D Visualisation

Notes:
1. Suitable for carriageways with up to 60 km/h speed limits and all traffic volumes.
2. Refer to width calculator (section 2.6) to determine required cycle track and buffer width.
3. Suitable for both one-way and two-way cycle track (see TL 107 for two-way cycle track layout).
4. Physically separated from carriageway by full height kerb (100mm min).
5. Cycle track may be at carriageway level or raised.
6. Min. 60mm height difference between cycle track and footpath (unless cycle track is at footway level).
7. Buffer always preferable; required at speed limits greater than 50 km/h (see width calculator).
8. Where cycle track is behind parking/loading bays, provide 0.75m buffer (0.5m min.) level with cycle track.
9. Ensure cycle track is appropriately drained. Cross fall away from traffic is more comfortable but requires additional drainage.
10. Level of cycle track should be as consistent as possible; avoid dishing at entrances and side roads.
11. Ensure provision of sufficient pedestrian crossing points (refer to section 4.2.14).
12. Trees, street furniture etc. should not obstruct clear passage. Back

191
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL102 Stepped Cycle Track

Typical Layout 3D Visualisation

Notes:

1. Suitable for carriageways with up to 50 km/h speed limits and all traffic volumes.
2. Refer to width calculator (section 2.6) to determine required width.
3. Suitable for one-way cycle tracks only. Two-way stepped cycle tracks are not recommended.
4. Physically separated from carriageway by reduced height kerb, 60-75 mm above adjacent road surface.
5. Min. 60mm height difference between cycle track and footpath.
6. Buffer generally not required.
7. Cycle track should remain level across driveways & entrances (no dishing) and bevelled kerbs provided for vehicular access.
8. Ensure cycle track is appropriately drained. Cross fall away from traffic is more comfortable but requires additional drainage.
9. Ensure provision of sufficient pedestrian crossing points catering for desire lines.
10. Trees, street furniture etc. should not obstruct clear passage.
Back

192
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL103 Protected Cycle Lane

Typical Layout 3D Visualisation

Notes:
1. Suitable for carriageways with up to 50 km/h speed limits depending on traffic volumes (see section 2.5).
2. Refer to width calculator (section 2.6) to determine required width.
3. Suitable as both one-way and two-way cycle facilities.
4. Useful method for reallocating road space or adding protection to existing cycle lanes e.g. interim measures.
5. Cycle lane at carriageway level and physically segregated from adjacent motor traffic.
6. Segregation possible by various means e.g. separator kerbs, planters, bollards, parking bays (see section 4.2.5).
7. Where intermittent segregation device are used, ensure spacing's are appropriate to deter vehicle entry.
8. Typically utilises existing road drainage system, may need to leave small gaps in segregation for run-off.
9. Should be used in conjunction with mandatory cycle lane markings (RRM 022).
10. Consider access for maintenance and cleaning regime.
11. Ensure provision of sufficient pedestrian crossing points catering for desire lines. Back
12. Trees, street furniture etc. should not obstruct clear passage.

193
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL104 Mandatory Cycle Lane

Typical Layout 3D Visualisation

Notes:
1. Only suitable in low speed, low traffic environments (see thresholds in section 2.5).
2. Refer to width calculator (section 2.6) to determine required width.
3. Only suitable for one-way cycle lanes.
4. Continuous solid white line (RRM 022) to be used, including at private entrances. Use elephant's footprints at side road junctions.
5. Cycle symbol (M 166) should be marked at start of cycle lane, after every break and at regular intervals on long uninterrupted lengths.
6. Directional arrows not typically necessary on straight lengths.
7. Red surfacing to be used throughout.
8. Preferably use drainage/side entry kerbs or cycle friendly gullies for surface water drainage.
9. Cycle lanes should operate at all times.
10. Parking and loading not permitted in cycle lane and should be provided elsewhere if required.
Back

194
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL105 Mixed Traffic

Typical Layout 3D Visualisation

Notes:
1. Only suitable in low speed, low traffic environments such as residential streets, streets with no through traffic and low traffic neighbourhoods
(see relevant thresholds in section 2.5).
2. Single lane carriageways only.
3. Use narrow lane widths, 3.25m recommended maximum.
4. Centre line marking not recommended for carriageways up to 5.5m in width.
5. Large cycle symbols (M 116) placed in centre of traffic lane at beginning of mixed street, after every junction and at regular intervals.
6. Consider additional traffic calming measures to ensure slow motor vehicle speeds.
7. Consider using wayfinding signage if street forms part of a designated cycle network.

Back

195
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL106 Shared Active Travel Facility / Greenway

Typical Layout 3D Visualisation

Notes:
1. Shared pedestrian and cycle facility, however segregation between pedestrians and cyclists may be recommended if volumes
of pedestrians are high (see section 4.2.7.).
2. Most suited as off-line facility away from road corridors e.g. through parks and alongside watercourses however may be
suitable adjacent to carriageways where pedestrian flows are low e.g. along inter-urban corridors (see section 4.2.7.5).
3. Desirable minimum width is 4m, use wider facility if higher flows of pedestrians and cyclists are anticipated (see section 4.2.7).
Absolute minimum width is 3m.
4. Design speed, horizontal and vertical alignment and sight visibility are key requirements to be considered (see section 4.1).
5. Lighting should be provided to facilitate use for active travel trips all year round.
6. Surface should be smooth and bound. Unbound surfaces are not recommended for active travel routes.
7. Red surfacing not required for off-line routes however other colours may be considered if desirable e.g. buff surfacing.
Back
8. Where access control is required, bollards at 1.5m centres are the preferred solution (for further guidance see advice note on
“Access Control
Control of
ofActive
ActiveTravel
Travelfacilities”)
facilities”

196
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL107 Two-way Cycle Track

Typical Layout 3D Visualisation

Notes:
1. Suitable for carriageways with up to 60 km/h speed limits and all traffic volumes.
2. Refer to width calculator (section 2.6) to determine required cycle track and buffer width.
3. Most suited on corridors with constrained widths / limited side road junctions / tidal cycle flows / high traffic flows (see section 4.2.6
4. Can provide space efficient solution on constrained corridors and provide greater overtaking opportunities.
5. Physically separated from carriageway by full height kerb (100mm min).
6. Physical buffer must be provided between two-way track and carriageway. Where buffer is at same level as cycle track surface, ensure cyclists
cannot cycle in the buffer zone e.g. use raised or landscaped verge.
7. Physical separation from footpath by height difference (60mm min.) or verge.
8. Cyclists ride on the left-hand side of the cycle track.
9. Centre line marking (RRM 023) recommended.
10. Cycle symbols (M 166) should be marked in each direction at the start of cycle track, after every break and at regular intervals (50-100m).
Directional arrows not generally necessary. Back
11. Careful consideration of design at side roads, transitions, crossings and signal-controlled junctions is required.
12. Ensure adequate provision of pedestrian crossings that cater for desire lines.

197
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL108 Contraflow Cycle Track

Typical Layout 3D Visualisation

Notes:
1. Suitable for one-way streets up to 60 km/h and all traffic volumes.
2. Standard cycle track (full height kerb) preferable however stepped cycle track (60-75mm kerb) possible up to 50 km/h.
3. Refer to width calculator (section 2.6) to determine required cycle track and buffer width.
4. Preferably no kerbside loading/parking on the contraflow side of street.
5. Desirable traffic lane width 3.0-3.25 metres to discourage motorists overtaking with-flow cyclists on carriageway.
6. Large cycle symbols (M 116) placed in centre of one-way traffic lane at beginning of street, after every junction and at regular intervals where
required.
7. A traffic island, refuge or other kerbed feature should be used at the entry and exit points. May be repeated at intervals and after junctions.
8. Signage as per TSM Chapter 5 requirements to include no straight ahead sign (RUS 011) with supplementary plate (P 050) exempting cycles
and contraflow cycle track sign (RUS 059)
9. Protected cycle lane (TL 103) may be suitable alternative on one-way streets up to 50 km/h, depending on traffic volumes (see thresholds in Back
section 2.5).

198
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL109 Contraflow Cycle Lane

Typical Layout 3D Visualisation

Notes:
1. Suitable for one-way streets up to 30 km/h with up to 200 PCU peak hour traffic flows.
2. Mandatory cycle lane only demarcated with continuous solid white line (RRM 022), red surfacing and cycle symbols (M 116).
3. Contraflow cycle lane should operate at all times.
4. Preferably no kerbside loading/parking on the contraflow side of street.
5. Desirable traffic lane width 3.0-3.25 metres to discourage motorists overtaking with-flow cyclists on carriageway.
6. Large cycle symbols (M 116) should be placed in centre of one-way traffic lane at beginning of street, after every junction and at regular
intervals where required.
7. A traffic island, refuge or other kerbed feature should be used at the entry and exit points. May be repeated at intervals and after junctions.
8. Preferably use drainage/side entry kerbs or cycle friendly gullies for surface water drainage.
9. Signage as per TSM Chapter 5 requirements to include no straight ahead sign (RUS 011) with supplementary plate (P 050) exempting cycles Back
and contraflow cycle track sign (RUS 059)

199
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL110 Contraflow cycling on shared streets

Typical Layout 3D Visualisation

Notes:
1. Suitable for one-way streets up to 30 km/h with low traffic volumes (≤ 100 PCU/peak hour).
2. Cyclists permitted to cycle contraflow sharing the carriageway with traffic travelling in opposite direction.
3. Small cycle symbols (M 116) should be placed on left-hand side of carriageway to encourage contraflow cyclists to use that side.
4. Large cycle symbol (M 116) should be placed in centre of one-way traffic lane at beginning of street, after every junction and at regular
intervals where required.
5. Slow traffic speeds essential - traffic calming measures should be implemented.
6. See section 4.2.10.3 for minimum carriageway widths.
7. Unsegregated entry treatment may be used comprising of a small cycle symbol (M 116) and short length of broken edge line (RRM 023).
8. On streets with parking bays, consider providing gaps in parking at regular intervals to function as pull-in bays for motorists/cyclists.
9. Signage as per TSM Chapter 5 requirements to include no straight ahead sign (RUS 011) with supplementary plate (P 050) exempting cycles
Back

200
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL111 Cycle Track Behind Parking/Loading Bay

Chamfered kerb
NOTES:
1. Applies to standard or stepped cycle tracks.
2. Cycle track width as per width calculator.
3. Cycle track typically 60mm below footpath.
a 4. Paved buffer between parking and cycle
B
track should be level with cycle track
surface.
b c 5. Provide bevelled kerbs at loading bays for
C D
access.
6. Traffic poles, trees, street furniture etc. to
be. located at least 500mm from cycle track
A
7. Visibility splays at junctions should be kept
free of on-street parking/loading (see
DMURS Section 4.4.5).
8. Raised zebra crossing of cycle track to
LOADING BAY accessible parking bays recommended.
9. Refer also to TL 101/102 for typical layouts
Dished kerb
and details for standard/stepped cycle
X

tracks as appropriate.

a
B

d c
C
b
e
A
X

PARKING BAY
KEY DIMENSIONS Accessible parking width KEY FEATURES
3.6m (NOTE: Accessible
d 2m typically
a (refer to width calculator) parking is better located
Red blister tactile
d away from moving traffic ROAD MARKINGS
a b c 750mm (minimum 500mm, streams, e.g. on a side (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)
Parking b where parking for longer street, nearest the main
duration eg. destinations)
A Varies
1 hour or more) M 115C
(RRM 002B
7m Minimum. Accessible
shown) M 116
c Parking width 2.1m - 2.5m parking plans may include for
Loading width 2.1m - 2.7m tailgate clearance at selected B RRM 022
e locations. This will require a
C RRM 012 Back
Section X-X parking length of 5.8m
(Not to Scale) (vehicle) plus tailgate D RRM 009
clearance (2m minimum)

201
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL112 Cycle Track behind Loading Island

Loading island Chamfered kerb / 50mm kerbface

X
e a f Loading
e f2 f2
b
a b c
C c
B f1
D

Section X-X

X
(Not to Scale)
LOADING ISLAND
Roughened surface / appropriate for heavy load Chamfered kerb / 30mm kerbface
Partial loading island
Y
e a f Loading
e f2 f2
d b a b d c
f1
B
C c
D

Section Y-Y
(Not to Scale)
Y

PARTIAL LOADING ISLAND

KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS NOTES:
(Refer to TSM Chapter 7) 1. Part-time (off-peak) loading island provided adjacent to
Typically 2m, may reduce
a f1 Bollard with sign RUS 001 cycle track - for constrained locations only.
to 1.5m for short sections
on side f1 A Varies 2. Cycle track, footpath and loading island to be at same
M 106
2m typically (RRM 002B shown) level for extent of loading island.
b (refer to width calculator) f2 Pole with sign P 051 on side f2
(Locate 500mm from edge of M 116 3. Cycle track in contrasting material and colour tone to
B RRM 022
cycle track) footpath and loading island.
c Loading width 2.1m - 2.7m C RRM 012 4. Loading cage to be clearly marked, together with times
D RRM 009 of operation.
d 0.5m minimum f1 (RUS 001) 5. Provide bevelled kerb for extents of loading island for
vehicular access and loading activities.
8m to 10m 6. Refer also to TL 101/102 for typical layouts and details
e (5m minimum radius) Back
f2 (P 051) for standard/stepped cycle tracks as appropriate.
Distance determined
f by 5% max. gradient of ramp
202
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL113 Cycle Track behind in-line Loading Bay

Bevelled kerb

X
Loading
a
f1 f1 a b c
B
b
C c
D
A

Section X-X

X
(Not to Scale)

NOTES:
1. Part-time (off-peak) on-road loading facility
KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS adjacent to cycle track - for constrained
f1 Pole with sign P 051 on side f1 (Refer to TSM Chapter 7) locations only.
a Typically 2m or more (Locate 500mm from edge of cycle track) 2. Preferably stepped cycle track, 60mm below
A
Varies
(RRM 002B shown) M 106 footpath level and 60mm above carriageway.
b 2m typically (refer to width calculator) Láthair Lastála
3. Bevelled kerbs provided (2m length
LOADING BAY
B RRM 022 M 116
Luan - Sath
f1 (P 051) recommended) at rear of loading bay to
c Loading bay width 2.1m - 2.7m 16.00 - 19.00
C facilitate loading activities.
MON - SAT
RRM 012
D
4. Cycle track in contrasting material and colour
RRM 009 tone to footpath and carriageway.
5. Loading cage to be clearly marked, together
with times of operation.
6. Refer also to TL 102 for typical layout and
details for stepped cycle track.

Back

203
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL113 Cycle Track behind in-line Loading Bay

Cyclist perspective view approaching on road loading facility

Key Features:
1 Clearly marked loading cage
with times of operation.

2 Good intervisibility between

cyclist and loading activity.

3 Chamfered/ dropped kerb

to facilitate hand trucks and
potential evasion.

4 Cyclists retain right of way, but

5 due care and attention required.

5 Traffic passing loading vehicle in

opposing lane.

4 1
3
2
3

204
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL114 Cycle Lane behind Parking/Loading Bay

X Dished kerb

d
f a
00

a b c TFI
TRANSPORT
FOR
IRELAND

f1 B
D C
f1
d c
f1 b
f1 C

e
21 D 123

A
Reflective Reflective bollards
bollards Section X-X
(Not to Scale)
X

PROTECTED BY BOLLARDS

Dished kerb
Y

d
00

f a a b c TFI
TRANSPORT
FOR
IRELAND

B
D f1 C
d c
b
C 21 D 123

e
A Traffic island Reflective or LED bollard
Section Y-Y
(Not to Scale)
Y

Traffic island PROTECTED BY TRAFFIC ISLAND NOTES:

Reflective bollard 1. Mandatory cycle lane at road level passing behind
KEY DIMENSIONS parking/loading bays.
7m Minimum. Accessible parking ROAD MARKINGS 2. Cycle lane marked with continuous solid white line
a 2m typically (refer to width calculator) plans may include for tailgate (Refer to TSM Chapter 7) (RRM 022) and surfaced red.
e clearance at selected locations. This 3. Cycle lane narrowed to 1.5m minimum past accessible
750mm (minimum 500mm, where will require a parking length of 5.8m Varies parking bays.
A
b parking for longer duration eg. (vehicle) plus tailgate clearance (2m (RRM 002B shown) 4. Hatched buffer marked between parking/loading bays
1 hour or more) minimum) and cycle lane.
B RRM 022 5. Buffer should be kept clear of objects.
c Parking width 2.1m - 2.5m f 1.5m minimum C RRM 012 6. Provide traffic island or bollards at commencement of
Loading width 2.1m - 2.7m
bays to shift motor vehicles to right.
KEY FEATURES D RRM 021
Accessible parking width 3.6m 7. Dished footpath and zebra crossing to be provided at
(NOTE: Accessible parking is better Reflective bollard with accessible parking spaces.
f1 M 115C
d located away from moving traffic sign RUS 002 on side f1 8. Refer also to TL 104 for typical layout and details for Back
streams, e.g. on a side street, mandatory cycle lane.
M 116
nearest the main destinations) f1 (RUS 002)

205
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL114 Cycle Lane behind Parking/Loading Bay

Perspective view of cyclist approaching parking

Key Features:
1 Cycle lane at road level.

2 Series of reflective bollards

commencing parking to orient
moving traffic to the right of
parking and cyclists to the left.

3 Wheelchair accessible parking

space at commencement of
facility.

5 4 Dished kerb crossing to access

wheelchair accessible parking.

5 750mm (500mm min) buffer

4 3 between cycle lane and parking
2 hatch marked on the ground.

206
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL114 Cycle Lane behind Parking/Loading Bay

Perspective view of cyclist approaching parking

Key Features:
1 Cycle lane at road level.

2 Commencing parking traffic

island with reflective bollard
to orient moving traffic to the
right of parking and cyclists to
the left.

3 Wheelchair accessible parking

space at commencement of
facility.
5
4 Dished kerb crossing to access
wheelchair accessible parking.
3 5 750mm (500mm min) buffer
4
between cycle lane and parking
hatch marked on the ground.
2

207
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL201 Island Bus Stop

Kassel kerb Bus shelter No end panel for visibility NOTES:
1. Preferred bus stop arrangement where
h h space permits.
f c i 2. Suitable for use with in-line bus stops
j either in bus lanes or traffic lanes. See
TL 203 for arrangement where bus
F C g laybys exist.
3. Suitable for one-way & two-way cycle
e g f d tracks.
B f1 4. Pedestrian priority over cycle track
provided by raised zebra crossing
m k
a A typically (refer to Section 4.2.14 for
E alternative options in exceptional
circumstances).
b 5. Ensure cycle speeds are slowed
D appropriately at the crossing point.
Reverse curves recommended on
approach (where space allows) followed
E by minimum 3m straight approaching the
pedestrian crossing.
6. Cycle track narrowed to 1.5m (absolute
B minimum) behind bus stop to encourage
single file cycling at crossing point.
7. Ensure good tonal contrast between the
cycle track and footpath/island. Cycle
track surfaced red with footpath and
island constructed in contrasting colour
KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS
to cycle track.
6m-8m radii (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)
a 10m h f1 Reflective bollard with 8. Ensure good visibility between all users
(4m absolute minimum) sign RUS 001 on side f1 e.g. avoid end panels on bus shelters,
A RRM 030
b Variable (typically 18m) M 115C avoid unnecessary street clutter and
Distance determined f1 (RUS 001)
i by 5% max. gradient B RRM 022 ensure any planting (if used) is low-level.
4m recommended M 116
c
(2.4m minimum) of ramp C RPC 001
Red blister tactile M 106
d 0.5m minimum j 1 - 2m D
Varies
(RRM 002B shown)
2m typically
e (refer to width calculator) k 0.5m minimum E RRM 024
F RRM 018C at top of ramp
f 3m minimum m 2m

g 1.5m minimum
Back

208
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL201 Island Bus Stop

Perspective view of cyclist approaching Island Bus Stop

Key Features:
1 Physical feature at leading end
of bus island, with reflective
material, to guide bicycles to the
left behind the island.

2 Narrowed cycle track to

encourage ‘single file’ cycling
and to improve visibility.

6 3 Cycle track rises to the same

level as the at-grade crossing.

4 The pedestrian crossing area

4 5 is flush, on a flat top hump,
3 across the cycle track, with
tactile paving as appropriate.
Cyclists must yield to crossing
pedestrians.
2
5 All bus-related passenger
activity takes place on
“island”, generally not posing
1 interference to the cycle bypass.
2
6 Bus shelter to be located
downstream of crossing with
gap between the bus shelter and
the crossing for intervisibility
between crossing pedestrians
and approaching cyclists.

209
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL201 Island Bus Stop

Perspective view of cyclist at the Island Bus Stop

Key Features:
1 Narrowed cycle track to encourage
‘single file’ cycling and to improve
visibility.
2 Cycle track rises to the same level
as the at-grade crossing.
3 The pedestrian crossing area is
flush, on a flat top hump, across
5 the cycle track, with tactile paving
as appropriate. Cyclists must yield
to crossing pedestrians.
4 All bus-related passenger activity
takes place on “island”, generally
4 not posing interference to the cycle
6
bypass.
3 5 Bus shelter to be located
downstream of crossing with
6 gap between the bus shelter and
2
the crossing for intervisibility
between crossing pedestrians and
approaching cyclists.
6 Push button single head signal with
1 in ground led lights at the cyclists
approach side to guide visually
impaired pedestrians safely across
the cycle track.

210
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL202 Shared Bus Stop Landing Zone

NOTES:
Bus shelter 1. For use in constrained locations only
(truncated / no side panels) where island bus stop/bus stop
a h f relocation is not feasible and where
no. of bus passengers
g d boarding/alighting and cycle flows are
also low.
F C
f e 2. 1.0m (max.) buffer zone provided for
B f1
bus passengers to board/alight. Wider
buffer not recommended as may
c A
encourage passengers to wait in the
E
buffer area.
b 3. Ensure raised kerb and reflective
D bollard at start of buffer to deflect
cyclists away from buffer zone.
4. Pedestrian priority over cycle track
E
provided by raised zebra crossing.
5. Cycle track narrowed to 1.5m (1.3m
absolute min.) throughout extents of
B
bus stop.
6. Minimum footpath width as per
DMURS.
7. Cycle track, footpath and buffer zone
to be flush with one another at
KEY FEATURES KEY DIMENSIONS ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7) crossing point.
Reflective bollard with 2m typically 8. Ensure good tonal contrast between
f1 a 5m radius minimum e
sign RUS 001 on side f1 (refer to width calculator) A RRM 030 M 115C the cycle track and footpath/buffer.
b Variable (typically 18m) B RRM 022
Cycle track should be surfaced red
f 1.5m (1.3 minimum) M 116
f1 (RUS 001) c 8m minimum C RPC 001 and buffer should be constructed
g 2m typically M 106 using similar palette to the footway.
1m maximum D Varies (RRM 002B shown)
d 9. Ensure good inter-visibility between
(see notes) h 1 - 2m
E RRM 024
bus passengers and cyclists, to
F RRM 018C at top of ramp minimise potential for conflict.

Back

211
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL202 Shared Bus Stop Landing Zone

Perspective view of cyclist at the Bus Boarder when a bus is present

Key Features:
1 Physical feature at leading end
of bus island, with reflective
material, to guide bicycles to
the left behind the bus boarder.

2 Narrowed cycle track to

encourage ‘single file’ cycling
and to improve visibility.

6 3 Cycle track rises to the same

level as the at-grade crossing.

4 The pedestrian crossing area

is flush, on a flat top hump,
across the cycle track, with
4 tactile paving as appropriate.
5
Should only be used by
3 pedestrians when bus is
present at the bus stop.
1
5 Bus boarding area. Bus
passengers disembarking
and alighting bus.

6 Potential bus shelter with

2 no side panels to be located
downstream of bus boarder on
the footpath side to maximise
utility for passing and waiting
pedestrians.

212
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL202 Shared Bus Stop Landing Zone

Perspective view of cyclist approaching Bus Boarder when there is no bus at the Bus Stop

Key Features:
1 Physical feature at leading end
of bus island, with reflective
material, to guide bicycles to
the left behind the bus boarder.

2 Narrowed cycle track to

encourage ‘single file’ cycling
and to improve visibility.

7 3 Cycle track rises to the same

level as the at-grade crossing.

4 The pedestrian crossing area

6 is flush, on a flat top hump,
across the cycle track, with
4 5 tactile paving as appropriate.
Should only be used by
3
pedestrians when bus is
1
present at the bus stop.

5 Clear bus boarding area.

Bus passengers only move to
the boarding area when bus
is present at the bus stop.

6 Bus passengers wait on the

footpath.
2
7 Potential bus shelter with
no side panels to be located
downstream of bus boarder on
the footpath side to maximise
utility for passing and waiting
pedestrians.
213
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL203 Cycle Track

a
Behind Bus Layby with Passing Bus Lane
b NOTES:
Optional cycle
x parking No end panel for visibility
f e 1. Recommend provision of cycle
facility past a bus layby. Note -
on-road cycle lanes should not be
g F C d used past bus laybys due to risk of
cyclist entrapment.
c 2. Bus laybys should generally only be
g used in urban areas where there is
Bus shelter a compelling safety issue (e.g. high
A
speed roads) or capacity issue (e.g.
y where buses have long dwell
z a
time/layover).
3. Pedestrian priority over cycle track
x provided by raised zebra crossing
typically (refer to Section 4.2.14 for
alternative options in exceptional
circumstances).
4. Ensure good tonal contrast
between the cycle track and
footpath/island. Cycle track
surfaced red with footpath and
island in contrasting colour to cycle
track.
5. Ensure good visibility between all
KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS users e.g. avoid end panels on bus
Distance determined by 5% (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)
a Variable (typically 18m) e Red blister tactile
shelters, avoid unnecessary street
max. gradient of ramp
4m recommended A RRM 030 clutter and ensure any planting (if
f 1 - 2m M 115C
b
(2.4m minimum) used) is low-level.
B RRM 022
c 0.5m minimum
g 6m-8m radii M 116 6. Cycle parking should be
C RPC 001
M 106 considered.
d 2m typically (refer to width calculator) D Varies
(RRM 002B shown)

E RRM 024
F RRM 018C
at top of ramp

X Y Z
Bus Type Total length of bus bay from start of entry taper to end of exit taper Exit Taper Entry Taper
10.7m double decker 33 12 13
Midi Bus 10.2 43 12 13
Single Deck City Bus 11.5m 53 15 20 Back
Single Deck Regional Commuter Buses 13.5m 53 15 20
Double Decker Regional Bus 14.14m 53 15 20
214
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL204 Cycle Lane & In-Line Bus Stop

Bus shelter NOTES:

1. Layout only suitable in constrained
locations on very low frequency bus
routes (e.g. 1-2 buses per hour)
where other segregated bus stop
c layouts are not possible and where
bus stop cannot be relocated.
d e 2. Only suitable where bus dwell times
B C
are generally low (e.g. 1 minute max.).
A
3. Layout not suitable for new land
a b a developments - space for island bus
D
stop should be provided.
4. Protected cycle lane recommend on
B approach however mandatory cycle
lane may also be suitable (see Table
2.1 for motor traffic speed/volume
thresholds).
5. Cyclists yield to buses at bus stop.
KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7) 6. Ensure good visibility between all
road users.
a 10m Bollard @ 3m spacing or kerb 7. Optional measures to deter vehicles
A RRM 030
M 115C overtaking buses at the bus stop may
b Variable (typically 18m) B RRM 022 be considered e.g. “centreline
c 1.8m minimum C RRM 023 hardening” using a raised median or
M 116 row of reflective bollards with keep left
D Varies (RRM 002B shown)
d 2m typically (refer to width calculator) delineators at beginning/end.

e 1.75m

Back

215
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL301 Shifting Bicycles to Right

Alternative lateral transition using chevrons

NOTES:
b b 1. Protected layout for shifting cyclists to
f1 f1 the right at transitions where required.
f1 c 2. Concrete traffic island or row of
E f1 reflective bollards with keep right signs
f1
(RUS 002) provides physical protection
a to cyclists during transition.
3. Include hatched road markings and
OPTION B deflection arrows on carriageway as
required in advance of transition.
4. Speed reducing back-to-back curves
Concrete Island shown however if there is no
requirement to reduce cycle speeds
b choose radii based on design speed
(see section 4.1.5).
A
f1 5. Cycle lane should be minimum 2m
c width through curves.
f1
D b
C f1

a
B

OPTION A

KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)

f1 Reflective bollard with sign

a Lateral transition typically 10m - 12m for 3m lateral shift RUS 002 on side f1 A RRM 022
M 116
b 6m - 8m Radius (see notes) B Varies (RRM 002B Shown)
f1 (RUS 002)
C Varies (RRM 003B Shown)
c 2m minimum (see notes) Back
D M 101
E RRM 021

216
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL301 Shifting Bicycles to Right

Perspective view of lateral transition

Key Features:
1 Cycle lane at road level.

2 Protective build out traffic

island.

3 Reflective bollards to orient

moving traffic to the right.

4 Lateral transition with reverse

curves. Cycle facility should be
min. 2m wide through curves.

5 Hatch road marking along

lateral transition.

4
3

2
1

217
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL301 Shifting Bicycles to Right

Perspective view of lateral transition

Key Features:
1 Cycle lane at road level.

2 Hatch road marking along lateral

transition.

3 Series of reflective bollards to

orient moving traffic to the right.

4 Lateral transition with reverse

curves. Cycle facility should be
min. 2m wide through curves.

2
4

218
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL302 Transition to Mixed Traffic

1:5 – 1:10 Taper recommended

NOTES:
d f3 1. For transitioning cyclists from dedicated
cycle facility to a mixed traffic/shared
a street environment.
B
f2 f1 C 2. Recommended that shuttle traffic
b E D b system is implemented in adjacent to
A c the transition point to control motor
F
traffic flows/speeds.
f1 f2
B
3. Shuttle can act as a gateway to alert
motorists that they are entering a
different environment.
4. Cycle bypass of shuttle for cyclists.
5. Cycle lane transitions at taper between
1:5 and 1:10.
KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7) 6. Traffic lane surfaced red over the
f1 Reflective bollard with sign RUS 001 length of the entry taper where cyclists
a 2m typically (refer to width calculator)
on side f1 A RRM 001 D RRM 018 M 116 join the carriageway.
b Refer to DMURS f2 Reflective bollard with sign RUS 002 B RRM 022 E M 115 7. Provide cyclists warning sign (W 143)
on side f2 M 115C to alert motor traffic that cyclists are
c 3.25m to 3.5m C RRM 023 F M 116
f3 Reflective bollard with sign W 143 joining the road/to be expected.
d Transition typically 15 - 20m on side f3 8. Ensure good visibility between all road
users.
f1 (RUS 001) f3 (W 143)

f2 (RUS 002)

Back

219
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL401 Standard Cycle Track Crossing Side Road with Priority - Full Set Back
G
C NOTES:
D 1. Full set back is preferred arrangement for
cycle tracks crossing side roads with priority.
2. Pedestrian and cyclist priority across side
road achieved using a raised parallel zebra
crossing as shown or by implementing a
b f1 f1 continuous footpath and cycle track
arrangement (similar to layout TL 402 but
F d c with full set back)
E
3. Use zebra crossing signs or belisha
f beacons.
4. Crossing set back 5m to improve visibility/
reduce blind spots and provide waiting
f g f1 f1
space for turning cars.
a K
B 5. Reverse curves typically required to achieve
e
required set back. Radii depends on cycle
H
design speed or use 6-8m radii if reducing
cycle speeds is desirable.
6. Cycle track and footway flush with each
A other at crossing. Raise cycle track to
footway level in advance (3m min.) of
crossing.
B J
7. Single lane approach on side road.
8. Ensure good visibility between all road
users.
Potential areas for Access to cycle track opposite via short 9. See TL 407 for two-way cycle track
nature based SuDS ramp/bevelled kerb/gap in kerb as appropriate arrangement.

Tight corner radii (refer to DMURS)

KEY FEATURES KEY DIMENSIONS ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)
Radii depends on
a 2m typically f cyclist speed, 6m - 8m A Varies (RRM 002B shown) H RRM 017
Pole with parallel cycle zebra (refer to width calculator)
f1
crossing traffic sign on side f1 (4m minimum) B RRM 022 J RRM 023
b Distance determined by M 114
Red blister tactile
5% max. gradient of ramp g 3m C M 115 K

c 2.4m D M 116 M 112

E Elephant Feet Markings
d 1m (400mm wide, 400mm gap,
M 119
Parallel cycle zebra crossing traffic sign 5m (waiting area for 400mm mark) M 118
e one vehicle)
F RPC 001 M 116 Back
G RRM 001
M 106

220
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL401 Standard Cycle Track Crossing Side Road with Priority - Full Set Back
Perspective view of set back side road crossing

Key Features:
1 Setback cycle track (5m from
main road). Cycle track ramped
up to footpath level for 5m
before crossing.

2 Raised to footpath level

parallel crossing. Pedestrians
and cyclists cross at he same
location but on separate
4 crossing areas.

3 5m setback from the main road

to provide space for normal
vehicle to stop in. Vehicles yield
to cyclists/pedestrians at the
crossing. Vehicles need to ramp
5 up to crossing level.
2 4 Crossing governed by zebra
2 Crossing Signs or Belisha
Beacons.
3
1 5 Side road traffic must yield
to pedestrians/cyclists at the
crossing. Vehicles need to ramp
up to crossing level. A driver
approaching the crossing needs
to be able to see upstream along
the cycle track for a distance of
17m-20m, to safely negotiate the
crossing.

221
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL402 Standard Cycle Track Crossing Side Road with Priority - Partial Set Back
a NOTES:
1. Crossing partially set back 1-5m from
main road.
G 2. Pedestrian and cyclist priority across side
Ensure use of build out
(e.g. planting scheme) D road achieved by implementing a
continuous footpath and cycle track
does not interfere with C Section X-X arrangement as shown or using a raised
intervisibility between (Not to Scale) parallel zebra crossing (similar to layout
cyclists and drivers f1 TL 401 but with partial set back).
H Short ramps/entrance kerb
c (see notes) 3. Kerb line on main road should continue

X
straight across the junction (no corner
radii) to provide important visual cue for
E motorists that they are crossing over
B
a footpath/cycle track and to give way to
pedestrians/cyclists crossing.
b 4. To determine length of vehicular ramp
adjacent to main road, use virtual radius
d of 3m (4.5m maximum) to find tangent
X

See notes points on kerb line.

A
5. Apron geometry is determined by
connecting tangent points determined
above to points where front edge of side
road and main road footpaths intersect.
B F
6. Cycle track raised to footway level at
crossing (or 60mm below footpath level
with bevelled kerb in between).
7. Tactile paving recommended to alert
Access to cycle track opposite via short visually impaired persons of the crossing
ramp/bevelled kerb/gap in kerb as appropriate point. May be omitted on quieter side
streets but consultation with local
KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)
groups/stakeholders recommended.
2m typically Pole with Stop sign 8. Short ramps/entrance kerbs (typically 1:5
a f1 A Varies (RRM 002B shown) F RRM 023 M 116
(refer to width calculator) RUS 027 on side f1 to 1:10 gradient) provided at either side of
B RRM 022 G RRM 001 M 119 crossing for vehicular access.
Distance determined by
b 5% max. gradient of ramp f1 (RUS 027) C M 114 H RRM 017 9. Single lane approach on side road.
M 118
D M 116 10. Consider traffic calming measures to
c 3m M 112 achieve slow motor vehicle speeds
Buff blister tactile
Elephant Feet Markings through junction.
d 0.75m minimum E (400mm wide, 400mm gap, 11. Ensure good visibility for all road users. Back
400mm mark)

222
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL403 Standard Cycle Track Crossing Side Road with Priority - No Set Back

a NOTES:
1. Crossing adjacent to main road, set back between
0-1m.
G 2. Pedestrian and cyclist priority across side road
D achieved by implementing a continuous footpath
and cycle track arrangement (as shown) or using
C
Section X-X raised parallel zebra crossing (similar to layout TL
(Not to Scale) 401 but with no set back).
f1 Short ramps/entrance kerbs 3. Kerb line on main road should continue straight
H
c (see notes)
across the junction (no corner radii) to provide
X
important visual cue for motorists that they are
crossing over footpath/cycle track and to give way
E to pedestrians/cyclists crossing.
B
a 4. Short ramps/entrance kerbs (typically 1:5 to 1:10
gradient) provided at either side of crossing for
b vehicular access.
X

See notes 5. To determine length of vehicular ramp adjacent to

A main road, use virtual radius of 3m (4.5m
maximum) to find tangent points on kerb line.
6. Cycle track raised to footway level at crossing (or
B F 60mm below footpath level with bevelled kerb in
between).
7. Single lane approach on side road.
8. Consider traffic calming measures to achieve slow
motor vehicle speeds through junction.
Refer to width calculator for Access to cycle track opposite via short
9. Ensure good visibility for all road users.
buffer requirements ramp/bevelled kerb/gap in kerb as appropriate
KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)
2m typically Pole with Stop sign
a f1 A Varies (RRM 002B shown) F RRM 023 M 116
(refer to width calculator) RUS 027 on side f1
B RRM 022 G RRM 001 M 119
Distance determined
b by 5% max. gradient of ramp f1 (RUS 027) C M 114 H RRM 017
M 118
D M 116
M 112
c 3m Buff blister tactile
Elephant Feet Markings
E (400mm wide, 400mm gap,
400mm mark) Back

223
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL404 Standard Cycle Track Crossing Side Road without Priority

f1
E E NOTES:
G 1. For side road junctions where it is
b
f2
e H considered necessary for cyclists and
pedestrians to lose priority e.g. side
D
roads with high volumes of turning
a f1 HGV's or rural locations.
c f1 2. Not recommended in general for
d f C G urban areas where pedestrian and
b
f2
e cycle priority is more desirable.
3. Uncontrolled crossing of side road for
d FD
pedestrians and cyclists, with
a segregation between the modes
c f1 maintained.
B
d f C 4. Preferable for crossing to be set back
5m minimum from main road.
G 5. Refuge island recommend, 3m width
F
(2m min.).
6. Cycle track ramped down to road
A level in advance of crossing.
Chamfered kerb 7. Cyclists should be slowed on
approach to stop line. Reverse curves
recommend on approach.
KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS
8. Path for cyclists should be smooth.
Radii depends on cyclist (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)
a 2m typically d speed, 6m - 8m f1
Reflective bollard with sign Kerbs not recommended in path of
(refer to width calculator) RUS 001 on side f1 cyclists at edge of side road or in
(4m minimum) A Varies (RRM 002B shown)
refuge island.
Distance determined Pole with sign RUS 026 B RRM 022
e 3m (2m minimum) f2 9. Single lane approach on side road.
b by 5% max. gradient on side f2
of ramp
C M 114 10. Ensure good visibility for all road
M 119
D RRM 018C users.
5m minimum to f1 (RUS 001)
c 10m (5m minimum) f 10m maximum E RRM 001 M 118

YIELD F RRM 017 M 116

f2 (RUS 026) SLOW M 106
G RRM 003C
H RRM 021 M 115C
Buff blister tactile
Back

224
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL405 Stepped Cycle Track Crossing Side Road with Priority

NOTES:
a b 1. For situations where a stepped
cycle track (60-75mm above road
level) crosses a side road with
priority.
D E 2. Cycle track typically 60mm below
Section X-X footpath level on approach and
STOP (Not to Scale) level remains constant through the
junction (no dipping).
Short ramps/bevelled 3. Short ramps/bevelled kerbs
C f1
kerbs (see notes) (typically 1:5 to 1:10 gradient) for

X
vehicle access.
4. To determine length of vehicular
a ramp adjacent to main road, use
virtual radius of 3m (4.5m
B
b maximum) to find tangent points on
F
kerb line.
X 5. Single lane approach on side road.
A 6. Tactile paving recommend to alert
visually impaired persons of the
crossing point. May be omitted on
B G quieter side streets but consultation
with local groups/stakeholders
recommended.
7. Consider traffic calming measures
Access to cycle track opposite via short to achieve slow motor vehicle
speeds through junction.
ramp/bevelled kerb/gap in kerb as appropriate
8. Stop line on side road located at
KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7) rear of footpath. Motorists exit in
2m typically Pole with Stop sign two stages.
a f1 A Varies (RRM 002B shown) F Elephant Feet Markings M 116
(refer to DMURS) RUS 027 on side f1 9. Ensure good visibility for all road
B RRM 022 (400mm wide, 400mm gap, users.
M 119
b 2m typically 400mm mark)
(refer to width calculator) f1 (RUS 027) C RRM 117
G RRM 023 M 118
D M 116
Buff blister tactile E RRM 001 M 112

Back

225
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL405 Stepped Cycle Track Crossing Side Road with Priority

Perspective view of side road crossing

Key Features:
1 Stepped cycle track.

2 Continuous cycle track

across mouth of junction with
Elephant’s Footprints and
chamfered kerbs for vehicles
to ramp over.

3 Continuous footpath, all traffic

and cyclists yield to pedestrians
here.

4 Side road traffic stopped at

first point of conflict with
pedestrians.

5 Dropped / chamfered kerb

4 opposite side road.
3
2 6
5 6 Marked right turn for cyclists
1 turning into the side road.

226
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL406 Protected Priority Junction

NOTES:
1. Protected layout for priority junction with
cycle facilities on both approach roads.
2. Also suitable if side road does not have
A E dedicated cycle infrastructure but there is a
desire to provide protected cycle
movements in all directions at the junction
or to future-proof the junction for future
f
cycle scheme on the side road.
3. Similar to protected junction layout with
G protected corner islands, zebra crossings
of the cycle track and crossings set back
5m from the junction.
C
4. Pedestrian and cycle priority across side
b d road can be achieved using a raised
A H
e parallel zebra crossing (as shown) or by
implementing a continuous footpath and
f1
D cycle track.
a
A
LOOK LEFT
5. Segregated uncontrolled crossings of the
f2 f2 g f2 f2 F
main road may be sufficient for a priority
junction, depending on traffic volumes
(refer to Table 4.24).
LOOK LEFT

f1 6. Provision of refuge islands is

recommended where space permits.
B

c ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)

A RRM 001 M 118
B RRM 022 M 116
C Elephant Feet Markings M 106
KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES (400mm wide, 400mm gap,
400mm mark) M 112
a 3m - 3.25m e 5m f1 Sign RUS 009 on side f1 Buff blister tactile
D RRM 017
Reflective bollard with sign Red blister tactile
f2
b 2m typically f 2m minimum RUS 001 on side f2
E M 114
(refer to width calculator) Belisha Beacon F RRM 021

c 2m minimum g 3m (2m minimum) f1 (RUS 009) G RPC 001

(with 500mm Stripes)
f2 (RUS 001) H M 114
d 4m minimum
K Varies - RRM 003B shown Back

227
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL407 Two-way Cycle Track Crossing Side Road with Priority - Full Set Back
f1

!
f1 H
f2
D
F E NOTES:

!
Red surfacing M 1. Full set back is preferred arrangement for
f1
at crossing point P
two-way cycle tracks crossing side roads
f2 with priority.
Hazard warning
d f Reverse curves 2. Pedestrian and cyclist priority across side
K
O f1 minimum 6m road achieved using a raised parallel
zebra crossing as shown or by
e implementing a continuous footpath and
b N
cycle track arrangement (similar to layout
c TL 402)
G 3. Crossing set back 5m to improve visibility/
f1
!
f1 reduce blind spots and provide waiting
B space for turning cars.
F

!
4. Reverse curves (6-8m radii) recommend
C a f1 on approach.
P
B 5. Cycle track and footway generally flush
f2
d with roughened surface
Overrun area with each other at crossing. Raise cycle
track to footway level in advance of
O
crossing.
e 6. Single lane approach on side road.
A 7. Consider provision of refuge island on the
side road.
8. Ensure good visibility between all road
users.

Overrun area with roughened surface

KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)
f1 Bollard with sign RUS 009 on side f1
a 3m typically A Varies (RRM 002B shown) H RRM 001
(refer to width calculator) f1 Reflective bollard with sign RUS 009 on side f1
f2 Pole with warning signs W 143 & P 005 on side f2
B RRM 022 K RRM 018
b 2.4m minimum
f3 Pole with crossroads sign W 081 on side f3
C RRM 023 M RRM 021
c 1m D M 115 N RPC 001
f2 (W 143
d 5m minimum with P 005) E M 116 O RRM 017
f1 (RUS 001) Elephant Feet Markings P M 114 M 118
e 3m typically F (400mm wide, 400mm gap,
M 112 M 116
Belisha Beacon Red blister tactile 400mm mark)
f 3m desirable (2m minimum) Back
G Hazard warning road marking

228
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL408 Two-Way Cycle Track Crossing Side Road with Priority - Partial Set Back
f1
NOTES:
1. Where two-way cycle track crosses a
side road and full set back cannot be
achieved, partial set back 1-5m can be
E
provided.
2. Kerb line on main road should continue
D
straight across the junction (no corner
radii).
f2 Hazard warning
K
3. Short ramps/entrance kerbs (typically 1:5
to 1:10 gradient) provided at either side
of crossing for vehicular access.
4. To determine length of vehicular ramp
B adjacent to main road, use virtual radius
G of 3m (4.5m maximum) to find tangent

!
C a points on kerb line.

!
5. Apron geometry is determined by
B
F connecting tangent points determined
b f1 f1 above to points where front edge of side
road and main road footpaths intersect.
6. Cycle track raised to footway level at
A
crossing (or 60mm below footpath level
with bevelled kerb in between).
7. Additional cycle warning signs (W 143)
with supplementary plate (P005) to warn
motorists of two-way cycle traffic.
8. Cycle symbols (M 116) and directional
arrows (M 118) on the crossing and use
of hazard road markings recommend on
Traffic calming on approach See notes cycle track approaching the crossing to
to junction recommended warn cyclists of potential interaction with
Traffic calming on approach other vehicles.
Short ramps/entrance kerb (see notes) to junction recommended 9. Tactile paving recommend to alert
visually impaired persons of the crossing
KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7) point. May be omitted on quieter side
streets but consultation with local
3m typically f1 Pole with warning sign W 143 Hazard warning groups/stakeholders recommended.
a (refer to width & P 005 on side f1 A Varies (RRM 002B shown) G
calculator) road marking M 118 10. Single lane approach on side road.
f2 Pole with Stop sign RRM 022
B
b 1m to 5m RUS 027 on side f2 M 106 11. Traffic calming measures on main road
C RRM 023 H RRM 001
recommended.
D M 114 K RRM 017 M 116 12. Ensure good visibility for all road users.
f1 (W 143
with P 005) E M 116 M 112
Elephant Feet Markings
F (400mm wide, 400mm gap,
400mm mark) Back

f2 (RUS 027)

229
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL409 Two-Way Cycle Track Crossing Side Road with Priority - No Set Back
H NOTES:
1. Two-way cycle track crossing adjacent to
f1 main road, set back between 0-1m.
2. Recommended that the main road should
have low traffic flows and be a traffic
calmed environment. A one-way traffic
calmed street is preferable.
3. Pedestrian and cyclist priority across side
E
road achieved by implementing a
continuous footpath and cycle track
A arrangement.
4. Kerb line on main road should continue
f2 Hazard warning straight across the junction (no corner
D
radii).
5. Short ramps/entrance kerbs (typically 1:5
to 1:10 gradient) provided at either side of
B
crossing for vehicular access.
G 6. To determine length of vehicular ramp
!
C a adjacent to main road, use virtual radius
of 3m (4.5m maximum) to find tangent

!
B points on kerb line.
F
7. Additional cycle warning signs (W 143)
with supplementary plate (P005) to warn
motorists of two-way cycle traffic.
8. Cycle symbols (M 116) and directional
arrows (M 118) on the crossing and use of
hazard road markings recommend on
One-way traffic calmed cycle track approaching the crossing.
Short ramps/entrance kerbs (see notes) 9. Tactile paving recommend to alert visually
on street is preferable
impaired persons of the crossing point.
May be omitted on quieter side streets but
KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7) consultation with local
groups/stakeholders is recommended.
a 3m typically f1 Pole with warning sign W 143 A M 114 Hazard warning
(refer to width calculator) & P 005 on side f1 G 10. Single lane approach on side road.
road marking
B RRM 022 11. Ensure good visibility for all road users.
f2 Pole with Stop sign H RRM 001
RUS 027 on side f2 C RRM 023
D RRM 017 M 112
f1 (W 143 E M 116
with P 005)
Elephant Feet Markings M 118
F (400mm wide, 400mm gap,
400mm mark) M 106 Back
f2 (RUS 027) M 116

230
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL410 Two-Way Cycle Track Crossing Side Road without Priority

NOTES:
1. For side road junctions where it is
F
considered necessary for cyclists to
f3 lose priority e.g. side roads with high
b volumes of turning HGV's or in rural
locations.
f4 f1 2. Not recommended in general for urban
B areas where pedestrian and cycle
d f2 f2 G
f2 f2 priority is more desirable.
C a d
H
3. Uncontrolled crossing of side road.
f1 f4 4. Preferable for crossing to be set back
B
c D e 5-10m from main road.
f 5. Refuge island should be considered on
f3 side road.
E 6. If cycle track is raised on approach,
ramp down to road level 5m in advance
of crossing.
A 7. Additional cycle warning signs (W 143)
with supplementary plate (P005) to
warn motorists of two-way cycle traffic.
8. Single lane approach on side road.
9. Ensure good visibility for all road users.

KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)

a 3m typically (refer to width calculator) f1 Bollard with sign RUS 009 on side f1 f1 (RUS 009) A Varies (RRM 002B shown)
f2 M 116
Bollard with sign RUS 001 on side f2
b Distance determined Pole with double crossroads sign
B RRM 022
by 5% max. gradient of ramp f3 f2 (RUS 001) M 106
& W 143 on side f3 C RRM 023
c 5m M 115C
f4 D M 114
Pole with sign RUS 026 on side f4
f3 (W 143 with P 005)
d Radii 6m - 8m (4m minimum) E RRM 017
M 118
F RRM 001
e 1.5m spacing between bollards
G RRM 020 Back
f 10m recommended (5m minimum) f4 (RUS 026) H RRM 018C

231
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL411 Cycle Lane Crossing Side Road

Stop line at first point of conflict

G
with pedestrians NOTES:
1. Cycle lane passing side road junction. Only
Tactile paving located at the end suitable for roads with low traffic
of junction splay beyond the radius speeds/volumes (refer to Table 2.1).
D of the kerb 2. Cycle lane protected (via bollards or similar)
on approach to the junction to deter motor
vehicles from entering the cycle lane and to
F slow the speed of turning traffic.
a 3. Cyclists retain main road priority.
4. Pedestrian crossing may be uncontrolled as
B shown however raised/zebra crossings may
E
also be considered.
5. Cycle lane surfaced red and marked with
A b elephant's footprints at the crossing.
6. Stop line on side road located behind the
B C pedestrian crossing point.

Gap in segregation for cyclists access to/from side road

KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)

2m typically Optional protection
a wands/bollards Elephant Feet Markings
(refer to width calculator) A Varies (RRM 002B shown) M 116
E (400mm wide, 400mm gap,
Buff blister tactile
B RRM 022 400mm mark) M 119
Maximum 6.5m C RRM 023
b F RRM 017
Refer to DMURS M 118
D M 114 G RRM 001

Back

232
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL411 Cycle Lane Crossing Side Road

Perspective view of side road crossing

Key Features:
1 Semi-protected cycle lane on
the approach and immediately
after side road junction.

2 Cycle crossing with Elephant’s

Footprints.

3 Dropped kerb uncontrolled

pedestrian crossing.

4 Side road traffic stopped at

first point of conflict with
pedestrians.

5 Protected cycle lane on the

approach and immediately
4
after cyclists turning area into/
3 5 from the side road.
2
6 7 6 Clear gap for cyclists turning
1
into/from the side road.

7 Marked right turn pocket for

cyclists turning into the side
road.
5

233
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL501 Protected Junction

NOTES:
1. Layout generally suitable, where
space permits, in all circumstances
where a signal-controlled junction
Roughened surface is required.
2. Pedestrians and cyclists typically
run in same stage (all-red to
d traffic) but managed conflict may
be permitted under certain traffic
c h G conditions (refer to section 4.4.5).
B
3. Pedestrian and cycle crossings of
b the carriageway typically at grade.
4. Mini zebra crossings of cycle
a g j tracks should be raised.
A
5. Protected corner islands should be
C E D
e i constructed of hard material or
F k
may be landscaped with suitable
f low level planting.
6. Overrun areas on corners
recommended to reduce speed of
B
turning vehicles.
7. Inner corner radii can be up to 9m
in urban areas where frequent
larger vehicles are expected.
60mm kerbface
KEY DIMENSIONS ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)

a 3m - 3.25m maximum A RRM 001

D RRM 017 M 116
B RRM 022
Preferably 2.7m j 1m - 5m E M 131 M 106
b C Elephant Feet Markings
(2m minimum) F Varies (RRM 003B shown)
k 1m (400mm wide, 400mm gap, M 115C
2m typically 400mm mark) G RPC 001 (with 500mm stripes)
c
(refer to width calculator)
d 2m minimum

e 2.4m minimum KEY FEATURES TRAFFIC SIGNAL HEADS

f 2m RPC 004 Pedestrian

Overrun area RTS 003 with Head
g 6m maximum RTS002 Primary
Red blister tactile RTS 007 Primary
h 4m minimum RTS 003 with
Back
RTS002 Secondary Push Button
i 5m typically Unit (facing cyclist) Push Button Unit

234
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL501 Protected Junction

Cyclist perspective view crossing the road

Key Features:
1 Dedicated cycle crossing
with Elephant’s Footprints.

2 Gentle ramp from road level to

protected waiting and passing
cyclists area.

3 Protected waiting and passing

area for cyclists 60mm below
footpath level.

4 Cycle track rises to the same

level as the at-grade crossing.

4 6 5 Protected kerb island / build-

out with potential SUDS
3 5
feature.
7
6 Ramp down to road level
2
and cyclist stop line.

7 Overrun area with roughened

1 surface and 60mm kerbface.

235
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL501 Protected Junction

Cyclist perspective view approaching the junction

Key Features:
1 Approaching cycle track
set back from junction to
accommodate one waiting
vehicle’s length.

2 Cycle track rises to the same

level as the at-grade crossing.

3 The pedestrian crossing area

is flush, on a flat top hump,
across the cycle track, with
tactile paving as appropriate.
Cyclists must yield to crossing
4 6 pedestrians.

3 5 4 Protected waiting and passing

cyclists area.
2
5 Pedestrian refuge area.
6
6 SUDS / public realm greening
opportunities.

236
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL502 Protected Junction - CYCLOPS Layout

NOTES
1. Variation of protected junction layout
Dropped kerb Raised corner islands (see notes) (TL 501) where the position of
pedestrians and cyclists is switched
with cyclists circulating in an external
orbital cycle track.
2. Pedestrians cross cycle track with
G
priority on raised zebra crossings and
proceed to corner refuge islands to
d signal-controlled crossings.
h 3. Corner refuge islands should be raised
B
c
above road level and dished as
a E C required at crossing points.
A
4. Ensure corner refuge island is large
e D
enough to accommodate anticipated
F j
f peak hour volumes of pedestrians.
g
B
5. Pedestrians and cyclists run in same
H stage (all-red to traffic). Cyclists may
j be given additional green time if a
managed conflict arrangement is
appropriate (see section 4.4.5).
6. Pedestrian/cycle stage should ideally
allow enough time for right-turning
cyclists to negotiate the junction in one
movement.
7. Ensure appropriate corner radii used
on all cycle tracks (4m absolute
minimum).

KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7) TRAFFIC SIGNAL HEADS

a 3m - 3.25m Red blister tactile A RRM 001 M 116 RTS 001 Primary
B RRM 022 M 115C RTS 001 Secondary
c 2m typically (refer to width calculator)
C Elephant Feet Markings
d 2m minimum
(400mm wide, 400mm gap, RPC 004 Pedestrian
e 2.4m minimum 400mm mark) Head
f 1m D RRM 017
E M 131 RTS 007 Primary
g 2m to 3m
h Typically 4m - 6m F Varies (RRM 003B Shown)
Push Button
Back
G RPC 001 (with 500mm Stripes) Unit (facing cyclist) Push Button Unit
j Typically 7.5 - 9m

237
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL502 Protected Junction - CYCLOPS Layout

Cyclist perspective view at the junction

Key Features:
1 Cyclists protected from
vehicular traffic.

2 Cycle track rises to the same

level as the at-grade crossing.

3 The pedestrian crossing area

is flush, on a flat top hump,
across the cycle track, with
tactile paving as appropriate.
Cyclists must yield to crossing
pedestrians.

4 Pedestrian refuge island.

6 5 5 Cyclist waiting at stop line for

cycle signal.
3
4
6 Cyclists can turn left without
2 vehicular/pedestrian conflict.

238
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL502 Protected Junction - CYCLOPS Layout

Cyclist perspective view crossing the road

Key Features:
1 Dedicated cycle crossing with
Elephant’s Footprints.

2 Cyclists entering the junction

must yield to circulating
cyclists.

3 The pedestrian crossing area

is flush, on a flat top hump,
across the cycle track, with
tactile paving as appropriate.
Cyclists must yield to crossing
5
pedestrians.
3
4
4 Pedestrian refuge island.
2 5 Cyclists circulate clockwise
around the pedestrian refuges
5 during the all-pedestrian stage.

239
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL503 Protected Junction - Full Signal Control

A
NOTES:

FA
1. Protected junction layout where all
movements take place under signal
control.
2. Bus lanes shown for illustration
however layout possible with other
lane arrangements.
d
3. Cycle crossing typically set back
<5m from junction, although full set
back preferable where possible.
4. Two stop lines required for cyclists
a c as shown - in advance of the
FA pedestrian crossing and at edge of
carriageway.
B F 5. Pedestrians and cyclists may cross
E
in same stage (all red to traffic)
C
however cyclists who cross will need
to stop at pedestrian crossing
opposite if the pedestrian phase is
still active.
D 6. Longer pedestrian crossings,
B compared to other protected layouts,
may reduce junction capacity.
b FA
7. Directional cycle signals likely
required as shown.
8. Ensure enough stacking space is
provided to cater for anticipated
peak hour volumes of cyclists.
9. Ensure push buttons are accessible
to all cyclists (see section 4.4.5).
KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES TRAFFIC SIGNAL HEADS
2m typically RPC 004 Pedestrian
Red blister tactile RTS 001 Primary
a (refer to width Head
RTS 001 Secondary
calculator)
RTS 003 Primary RTS 007 Primary
b 6m Radii
RTS 003 Secondary
FA

c 3m typically ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)

RTS 001 Primary RTS 007 S Primary
A RRM 001 D RRM 017 RTS 004 Primary
M 118 FA

d 2m - 3m B M 129 E M 131 Push Button Unit Back

M 116
Elephant Feet Markings F RRM 0024 Push Button RTS 007 R Primary
C
(400mm wide, 400mm gap, 400mm mark) Unit (facing cyclist)
240
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL503 Protected Junction - Full Signal Control

Cyclist perspective view approaching the junction

Key Features:
1 Protected cycle lane / track
parallel to Bus Lane.

2 Set back Bus Lane.

3 Left hand traffic turns from bus

lane.

4 Protected waiting and passing

cyclists area. Cycle track
deflection through the junction
is less then 5m.(only where
5 straight through bus lane exists)
4 5 Turning traffic must yield to
3 straight ahead cyclists in or
approaching the junction.
Flashing amber filter represents
the legal signal.
2

241
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL503 Protected Junction - Full Signal Control

Cyclist perspective view at the junction

Key Features:
1 Protected waiting and passing
cyclists area.

2 Cycle track deflection through

the junction is less then 5m.
(only where straight through bus
lane exists)

3 Dedicated cycle crossing with

Elephant’s Footprints.

4 Cyclists stop here and wait for

green signal.

3
4 2
4

1 3

242
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL504 Protected T-Junction

Bollards with keep left sign (RUS 001) NOTES:
1. Preferred arrangement for a
c signal-controlled T-Junction with
protected cycle facilities on all
b approach roads. Similar to full
protected junction layout (TL 501)
but with 3 arm junction.
B
2. Pedestrians cross cycle track with
a C H
priority on raised zebra crossings
A
and proceed to pedestrian landing
E
area.
A
D 3. Pedestrians and cyclists typically run
d
B
in same stage (all-red to traffic) but
managed conflict may be permitted
f
under certain traffic conditions (refer
G to section 4.4.5).
e 4. Pedestrian and cycle crossings of
the carriageway typically at grade.
5. Protected corner islands should be
Overrun area with Typically 6m virtual radius, constructed of hard material or may
roughened surface subject to vehicle tracking analysis be landscaped with suitable low level
planting.
50mm kerbface
6. Overrun areas on corners
recommended to reduce speed of
turning vehicles.
7. Inner corner radii can be up to 9m in
urban areas where frequent larger
vehicles are expected.

KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7) TRAFFIC SIGNAL HEADS
a 3m - 3.25m
Overrun area A RRM 001 RPC 001 RTS 001 Primary
2m typically G
b B RRM 022 (with 500mm Stripes) RTS 001 Secondary
(refer to width calculator)
Red blister tactile Elephant Feet Markings
H M 131
c 2m minimum C (400mm wide, 400mm gap, M 116 RPC 004 Pedestrian
d 6m maximum f1 (RUS 001) 400mm mark)
M 106 Head
D RRM 017
e 4m minimum M 115C
E RRM 021 RTS 007 Primary
F Varies (RRM 003B Shown) Back
Preferably 2.7m Push Button
f
(2m minimum) Unit (facing cyclist) Push Button Unit

243
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL504 Protected T-Junction

Cyclist perspective view approaching the junction

Key Features:
1 Approaching cycle track
set back from junction to
accommodate one waiting
vehicle’s length.

2 Cycle track rises to the same

level as the at-grade crossing.

3 The pedestrian crossing area

is flush, on a flat top hump,
across the cycle track, with
tactile paving as appropriate.
Cyclists must yield to crossing
6 pedestrians.
4
4 Protected waiting and passing
3 area for cyclists.
5
2 5 Pedestrian refuge area.

6 SUDS / public realm greening

opportunities.
6

244
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL504 Protected T-Junction

Perspective view at the junction

Key Features:
1 Protected cycle track.

2 Cycle track rises to the same

level as the at-grade crossing.

3 The pedestrian crossing area

is flush, on a flat top hump,
across the cycle track, with
tactile paving as appropriate.
Cyclists must yield to crossing
pedestrians.
1 4 Pedestrian refuge area.
5
7 5 Right turn cycle pocket marked
6
out in the cycle track.
4 2
6 Right turning cyclists stop
3
here and wait for green signal.
Cyclists have separate push
button unit here to call signal.

7 Dedicated cycle crossing with

1 Elephant’s Footprints.

245
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL505 Protected T-Junction - Full Signal Control

NOTES:
1. Signal-controlled T-Junction with
protected cycle facilities for
constrained locations. Similar to
a protected junction - full signal-control
layout (TL 503) but with 3 arms.
2. All movements take place under
A signal control.
B D 3. Cycle crossing typically set back <5m
from junction.
b FA

4. Two stop lines required for cyclists as

c shown - in advance of the pedestrian
crossing and at edge of carriageway.
5. Pedestrians and cyclists may cross in
same stage (all red to traffic)
however cyclists who cross will need
d to stop at pedestrian crossing
opposite if the pedestrian phase is
still active.
6. Longer pedestrian crossings,
compared to other protected layouts,
C may reduce junction capacity.
7. Directional cycle signals likely
required as shown.
FA

8. Ensure enough stacking space is

provided to cater for anticipated peak
hour volumes of cyclists.
9. Ensure push buttons are accessible
to all cyclists (see section 4.4.5).

KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7) TRAFFIC SIGNAL HEADS
Red blister tactile
a 2m typically A RRM 001 RTS 001 Primary
(refer to width calculator) RTS 001 Secondary RTS 007 Primary
B Elephant Feet Markings
(400mm wide, 400mm gap,
b 6m Radii RTS 001 Primary
400mm mark)
RTS 004 Primary RTS 007 S Primary
c 3m typically C RRM 017 FA

D M 131
d 2m - 3m RPC 004 Pedestrian
Head RTS 007 R Primary
M 118 M 119
Back
Push Button Unit Push Button Unit (facing cyclist)
M 116

246
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL505 Protected T-Junction - Full Signal Control

Perspective view at the junction

Key Features:
1 Protected cycle track.

2 The pedestrian crossing is at the

cycle track level. Pedestrians
wait for green signal on the
footpath.
3 Right turn cycle pocket marked
out in the cycle track.

4 Traffic island with push button

unit and seperate signlas for
right turn cyclists.
5
1 Dedicated cycle crossing with
5 Elephant’s Footprints.

3
4

247
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL506 Signal-Controlled Junction incorporating Toucan Crossings

Dimensions in mm (Not to Scale) NOTES:
1. Signal-controlled junction with
shared Toucan crossings. Should
only be used in exceptional
"Ladder" tactile surface (flat-topped bars) circumstances where a protected or
on footpath segregated layout is not possible.
400 400
f1 f1 2. Not appropriate for new
35 5 70 30 f3 f2 development schemes with
segregated cycle infrastructure;
"Tramline" tactile surface (flat-topped bars) space should be made available for
Plan and Profile of segregated shared on cycle track protected junction layouts.
cycle track/footpath tactile surface (flat-topped bars)
3. Cycle facilities may be segregated
f1 f2 f3 f1
or shared on the approach roads. If
segregated, cycle tracks
transitioned up to shared space at
A toucan crossings.
4. Ensure correct ladder and tramline
C
(flat-topped bars) tactiles are used
B a at transitions between segregated
D and shared facilities.
5. Locate signs for cycle/shared
facilities at rear of footpath.
6. Minimum width of crossing is 4m.
7. Ensure push buttons are accessible
f1 f3 f2 f1
to all cyclists (see section 4.4.5).

f2 f3
f1 f1
KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS TRAFFIC SIGNAL HEADS
(Refer to TSM Chapter 7)
RTS 001 Primary
f1 Sign Pole with sign RUS 058 on side f1
RTS 001 Secondary
f2 A RRM 022 M 115C
Sign Pole with sign RUS 058CL on side f2
B RRM 001 RPC 004 Pedestrian
f3
Sign Pole with sign RUS 058CR on side f3 C RRM 017 M 116
Head
KEY DIMENSIONS
f1 (RUS 058) f3 (RUS 058CR) a 4m minimum D M 131
RTS 007 Primary

f2 (RUS 058CL) Shared area

Push Button Unit Back

Red blister tactile

248
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL507 Two-Stage Right-Turn

NOTES:
1. Layout can be used to provide a
dedicated right-turn facility for
cyclists at signal-controlled junctions
where a protected layout is not being
implemented.
2. Should only be used where mixed
traffic is suitable (see Table 2.1) or
a as an interim/temporary measure to
F improve turning facilities at existing
junctions.
B E 3. Cyclists and traffic move in same
D
stage, with an early start for cyclists
C
recommended. Pedestrians cross in
A separate stage(s).
4. Provide dedicated waiting area
(1.5m wide) for right turning cyclists
B within the extents of the elephant's
footprint markings as shown.
5. Directional cycle signals provided
adjacent to waiting area for
right-turning cyclists.

KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7) TRAFFIC SIGNAL HEADS

a 1.5m minimum Red blister tactile RTS 001 Primary

A RRM 001 M 118
RTS 001 Secondary RTS 007 Primary
B RRM 022 M 116
C RRM 017
M 119 RPC 004 Pedestrian Head
D M 131
M 116
RTS 007 R Primary
Elephant Feet Markings Push Button Unit
E (400mm wide, 400mm gap,
400mm mark) Back
F RRM 023

249
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL508 Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs)

NOTES:
1. ASLs are primarily intended to allow cyclists
to commence their movement ahead of
traffic.
2. Should only be used where mixed traffic is a
suitable provision (see Table 2.1) or as an
interim/temporary measure to improve cycle
provision at existing junctions.
3. For use with single lane approaches only.
ASLs not recommended on multi-lane
D C
approaches.
B
4. Reservoir provided for cyclists in front of
general traffic lane. Depth of reservoir
A E should be 4m minimum.
5. Reservoir should be surface red.
a 6. Mandatory cycle lane recommended on
B approach to ASLs to enable cyclists to enter
the reservoir.
7. Early start recommended for cyclists.

KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7) TRAFFIC SIGNAL HEADS
a 5m maximum Red blister tactile RTS 001 Primary
A RRM 001
M 116 RTS 001 Secondary
B RRM 022
RPC 004 Pedestrian
Elephant Feet Markings
Head
C (400mm wide, 400mm gap,
400mm mark)
RTS 007 Primary
D RRM 017
Back
E M 131 Push Button Unit

250
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL509 Cycle Streaming Lanes (legacy junctions only)

NOTES:
1. For temporary/interim improvement of existing
streaming lanes only. Streaming lanes no longer
recommended for new infrastructure.
2. Bollards can be added to existing streaming lanes
where appropriate to improve the separation
C between cyclists and motor traffic.
3. Cycle lane should be protected on approach also.
B
4. Provide 10m gap in bollards for vehicles to access
D E
turning lane.
A 5. ASLs not recommended in conjunction with
a streaming lanes.
B 6. Where an improved right-turn facility for cyclists is
desirable, two-stage right-turn layout (TL 507) can
be implemented in conjunction with streaming
lanes as an interim/temporary measure.

KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7) TRAFFIC SIGNAL HEADS
a 10m maximum Bollard @ 1.75m to 2m spacing RTS 001 Primary
A RRM 001
Red blister tactile M 119 RTS 001 Secondary
B RRM 022

Elephant Feet Markings M 118

C (400mm wide, 400mm gap, RPC 004 Pedestrian
M 116 Head
400mm mark)
D RRM 017
RTS 007 Primary
E M 131
Push Button Unit

Mast Arm (variable length)

Back

251
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL509 Cycle Streaming Lanes (legacy junctions only)

Cyclist perspective view approaching the junction

Key Features:
1 Protected cycle lane.

2 Crossover Elephant’s Footprints,

10m max length, to reduce
cyclist exposure and slow
turning traffic.
3 Turning traffic must yield to
straight ahead cyclists.

4 Cycle lanes protected at the

approach to the junction.
5 5 Separate short left hand traffic
4
lane (max 5 cars, 25m).
3

4
2

252
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL601 Segregated Uncontrolled Crossing

B

Continuous footpath with

bevelled kerbs / short NOTES:
ramps on both sides 1. Uncontrolled crossing of carriageways with low traffic
a f1 f2
speeds/volumes (see thresholds in Table 4.24).
f2 f1 2. Preferred uncontrolled crossing layout as segregation
between pedestrians and cyclists is maintained.
b 3. Refuge island recommended; 3m preferable (2m
c minimum).
4. Crossing may be at grade (as shown) or raised
(courtesy) crossing may be considered.
A 5. Pedestrians cross cycle track with priority on raised
C f1 d f1 zebra crossings and proceed to pedestrian landing area.
A
6. Where an adjoining cycle facility exists (as shown), the
footpath adjacent to main road should be set back (bent
e out) to create a waiting area for cyclists, with bevelled
kerbs provided to facilitate cyclist's crossing over.
c Cyclists yield to pedestrians at crossover.
D 7. Public lighting should be provided at the crossing.
8. Bollards may be considered where access control is
E F
required.

KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)

Minimum 1.5m spacing between Reflective bollard with sign
f1 f1 (RUS 001) A RRM 001
a bollards. Preferably, edge bollards RUS 001 on side f1 M 115C
are just off paved area B RRM 022
f1 Optional bollard with sign f2 (RUS 009) C RRM 021 M 116
5m minimum level approach to RUS 001 on side f1
b road (maximum longitudinal D RRM 018C
gradient of 2.5%) f2 Optional bollard with sign Lighting column E RRM 023
RUS 009 on side f2
F RPC 001
c 3m (2m minimum) Buff blister tactile

d 3m (2m minimum) Back

e 3.25m maximum

253
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL602 Shared Uncontrolled Crossing

f2 f1
d
f1 f2
NOTES:
b 1. Uncontrolled crossing of carriageways with low traffic
f1 f1 speeds/volumes (see thresholds in Table 4.24).
2. Pedestrians and cyclists cross in a shared crossing.
3. Not preferred where pedestrians and cyclists are
segregated on approach to crossing - use TL 601
A
instead.
B f2 a f2
4. Suitable where shared facilities (e.g. greenways) cross
A quieter roads/streets.
c 5. Refuge island recommended; 3m preferable (2m
minimum).
6. Crossing may be at grade (as shown) or raised
f1 f1
(courtesy) crossing may be considered.
Corduroy on footpath 7. Corduroy tactiles to be provided on footpaths
when approaching C f2 f1
approaching shared spaces.
shared area f1 f2
8. Public lighting should be provided at the crossing.
9. Bollards may be considered where access control is
D required.

KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS

(Refer to TSM Chapter 7)
a 3m (2m minimum) f1 Optional bollard with sign RUS 058 on side f1
5m minimum level approach to road f2 Optional bollard with sign RUS 001 on side f2 A RRM 001 M 115C
b
(maximum longitudinal gradient of 2.5%) B RRM 021
f1 Sign Pole with sign RUS 058 on side f1
c 3.25m maximum C RRM 018C
f2 Reflective bollard with sign
RUS 001 on side f2
D RRM 022
Minimum 1.5m spacing between bollards.
d Preferably, edge bollards are just off
paved area f1 (RUS 058) f2 (RUS 001)

Lighting column

Buff blister tactile Back

Shared area

254
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL602 Shared Uncontrolled Crossing

Perspective view approaching road crossing

Key Features:
1 Shared cycleway / greenway.

2 Cyclist approaching shared

space must yield to pedestrians.

3 Reflective bollards to discourage

high bicycle speeds approaching
the road crossing (min 1.5m
7 clearance between bollards).

4 Shared area between the end of

the cycleway and the road edge
(min 5m).

5 Central island to reduce traffic

speed at the crossing point.
5
6 Clear inter-visibility between
4 6 traffic and cyclist.
6
3 3 3 7 Crossing lit by over-head or
nearby lighting.
2

255
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL602 Shared Uncontrolled Crossing

Crossing approach from driver perspective

Key Features:
1 Shared area between the end of
the cycleway and the road edge
(min 5m).
5
2 Crossing is at road level.

3 Clear inter-visibility between

traffic and cyclist.

4 Central island to reduce traffic

speed at the crossing point.

5 Crossing lit by over-head

or nearby lighting.

6 Keep left reflective bollard and

1 4 appropriate guidance hatching.
2

6
3

256
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL603 Cycle Priority Crossing

NOTES:
1. Arrangement where busy cycle route
crosses a quiet road/street and cyclists
are given priority over motor traffic e.g.
where a primary cycle route crosses a
quiet access street.
2. Only suitable for low speed (≤50 km/h)
and low trafficked (≤ 2000 PCU/peak
f1 f2
hour) carriageways.
b 3. Cycle crossing should be raised.
B D
4. Motorist yield to cyclists at the
A
crossing.
a C
5. Additional cycle warning signs (W 143)
with supplementary plate (P005) to
f2 f1
warn motorists of two-way cycle traffic.
6. Ensure good visibility for all road users.

KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)

a 1 - 2m f1 Sign Pole with sign W 143 A RRM 001

with P 005 on side f1
b 3 - 4m B M 115
RPC 001
f1 (W 143 with P 005) C
with Elephant Feet Marking (D)
Elephant Feet Markings
D
(400mm wide, 400mm gap, 400mm mark)
f2 (RUS 026) M 112
M 116 Back
Buff blister tactile
M 106

257
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL604 Parallel Zebra Crossing

B NOTES:
1. Suitable in speed limits up to 50 km/h,
depending on traffic volumes (see Table
4.24).
f
f1 f2 2. Provides segregated controlled crossing of
Continuous footpath for
f2 f1 E carriageway for pedestrians and cyclists.
pedestrian priority
3. Pedestrians cross on the zebra crossing
(striped) and cyclists use the parallel space
delineated by elephant's footprints. 1m gap
a g typically provided between the two.
B d
4. Minimum width of zebra crossing is 2.4m.
F
D 5. Minimum width of cycle crossing is 3m.
A 6. Belisha beacons recommended both sides
e
b C of the road on each approach as shown.
B 7. Recommend that crossing is placed on a
c raised table.
8. Where an adjoining cycle facility is present
(as shown) use continuous footpath on
main road and cyclists yield to pedestrians
at the crossover.

KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)

a 2m typically (refer to width calculator) f1 Optional bollard with sign RUS 001 A RRM 001
on side f1 M 115C
b 1m - 2m B RRM 022
f2 Optional bollard with sign RUS 009 M 119
Distance determined by 5% C RPC 001
c on side f2
max. gradient of ramp D RRM 018 M 116
Bollards may be considered E RRM 018C
d 3m - 4m M 112
where access control is required F Elephant Feet Markings
e 1m (400mm wide, 400mm gap,
Belisha beacon Red blister tactile 400mm mark)
Minimum 1.5m spacing between
f bollards. Preferably, edge bollards
are just off paved area f1 (RUS 001) f2 (RUS 009)
Back
g 2.4m minimum

258
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL605 Combined Zebra Crossing

NOTES:
B
1. Suitable in speed limits up to 50 km/h,
a depending on traffic volumes (see Table 4.24)
f2 f1
Corduroy on footpath when 2. Provides shared controlled crossing of
f1 f2 E approaching shared area carriageway.
b 3. Similar features to standard zebra crossing
f1 f3 f4 f1 however elephant's footprints are marked
outside the zebra stripes.
c e 4. Minimum recommended width of crossing is
B 4m (similar to toucan crossing).
g
D 5. Belisha beacons placed as per standard zebra
A
F C crossing layout (RPC 001). Alternatively zebra
d crossing signs may be used.
f 6. Recommend that crossing is placed on a
B raised table.
7. Where an adjoining cycle facility is present (as
shown) and area of shared space will be
required adjacent to the crossing.
KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES 8. Corduroy tactile paving should be provided on
footpaths approaching shared space.
Minimum 1.5m spacing between bollards. f1
a Optional bollard with sign RUS 058 on side f1 9. Bollards may be considered where access
Preferably, edge bollards are just off paved area f2 control is required.
Optional bollard with sign RUS 001 on side f2
5m minimum level approach to road
b f1 Sign Pole with sign RUS 058 on side f1
(maximum longitudinal gradient of 2.5%) ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)
f3
c 2m typically (refer to width calculator) Sign Pole with sign RUS 058CL on side f3 A RRM 001
f4
d 1m - 2m Sign Pole with sign RUS 058CR on side f4 B RRM 022
Distance determined by 5% Shared area RPC 001
e C
max. gradient of ramp with Elephant Feet Marking (F)
Belisha beacon
D RRM 018
f 0.5m
Red blister tactile E RRM 018C
g 4m minimum Elephant Feet Markings
f1 (RUS 058) f2 (RUS 001) F (400mm wide, 400mm gap,
400mm mark)
f3 (RUS 058CL) f4 (RUS 058CR)
M 112

M 115C Back
M 116

259
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL606 Signalised Parallel Crossing

B

NOTES:
1. Suitable in speed limits up to 60 km/h in all traffic flows.
Continuous footpath with bevelled 2. Provides segregated signal-controlled crossing of
kerbs / short ramps on both sides carriageway for pedestrians and cyclists.
g 3. Typically provided where cycle tracks exist on the main
f2 f1
f3
road and possibly an adjoining segregated cycle facility
intersecting as shown.
4. Pedestrians and cyclists have separate spaces to cross,
a b with a 1m gap between the two.
5. Minimum width of pedestrian crossing is 2.4m.
6. Minimum width of cycle crossing is 3m.
7. Pedestrians cross cycle track with priority on raised
c f zebra crossings and proceed to pedestrian landing area.
C
A F Landing area should be 3m (2m minimum) deep.
d e D 8. Where an adjoining cycle facility is present (as shown)
use continuous footpath with bevelled kerbs and cyclists
h yield to pedestrians at the crossover.
9. Consider presence detection for cyclists and/or
E
pedestrians
10. Bollards may be considered where access control is
required.

KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS TRAFFIC SIGNAL HEADS

f1 (Refer to TSM Chapter 7) RTS 001 Primary
2m typically Optional bollard with sign RUS 058 on side f1
a (refer to width calculator) RTS 001 Secondary
f2 A RRM 001
Distance determined by Optional bollard with sign RUS 001 on side f2 M 115C
b B RRM 022 RPC 004 Pedestrian Head
5% max. gradient of ramp
f3 C M 131 M 116
Optional bollard with sign RUS 009 on side f3
c 3m - 4m D RRM 017 RTS 007 Primary
Red blister tactile E RRM 018C
d 1m - 2m
Elephant Feet Markings Push Button Unit
e 1m F (400mm wide, 400mm gap,
f1 (RUS 058) f2 (RUS 001) Push Button Unit
400mm mark) (facing cyclist)
f 2.4m minimum

g Minimum 1.5m spacing f3 (RUS 009)

between bollards Back

h 3m (2m minimum)

260
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL606 Signalised Parallel Crossing

Cyclist perspective view approaching road crossing

Key Features:
1 2-way cycleway.

2 Cyclist approaching shared

space must yield to pedestrians.

3 Reflective bollards to discourage

high bicycle speeds approaching
the road crossing (min 1.5m
clearance between bollards).

4 Shared area between the end of

the cycleway and the main road
cycle track.

6 5 5 Cycle track rises to the same

4 level as the at-grade crossing.
3 3
3 6 The pedestrian crossing area
2 is flush, on a flat top hump,
across the cycle track, with
tactile paving as appropriate.
Cyclists must yield to crossing
1 pedestrians.

261
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL606 Signalised Parallel Crossing

Crossing approach from driver perspective

Key Features:
1 Shared area between the end
of the cycleway and the main
road cycle track.

2 Main road cycle track.

3 Cyclist exiting cycle crossing

must yield to the cyclist
coming from the left and
pedestrians in the shared area.

4 Pedestrian refuge island.

1 4 6 5 Controlled 2-way cycle

2 3 7 5 crossing with Elephant’s
7 Footprints.

6 Controlled pedestrian crossing.

7 Cycle track ramps down to

road level signal controlled
crossing. Cyclists wait at stop
line for the green signal.

262
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL607 Toucan Crossing

B NOTES:
Corduroy on footpath
1. Shared crossing facility - refer to section
when approaching
4.5 for guidance on suitable locations for
shared area
f2 f1
c use.
f1 f2 E 2. Suitable for carriageways with speed
b Reflective commencement bollard limits up to 60 km/h.
3. Can be used in connection with cycle
tracks, cycle lanes and shared facilities.
f1 f1
4. Raised crossing should be considered.
a 5. Push button units facing cyclists provided
B f2
to enable cyclists to call the crossing
d e f h without leaving the cycle facility.
A 6. Where an adjacent cycle facility
g C D intersects with a crossing (as shown)
ensure push button units are easily
B f2
reachable by cycle users leaving the
f1 f1
adjacent facility.
7. Consider additional stacking provision if
high volumes of crossing cyclists
Reflective commencement bollard expected (refer to section 4.5).
8. Presence detection for pedestrians and
cyclists is recommended.
9. Bollards may be considered where
KEY DIMENSIONS access control is required.

a 2m typically (refer to width calculator) KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)

f2 Reflective commencement bollard A RRM 001 D RRM 017

5m minimum level approach to road M 115C
b with sign RUS 001 on side f2
(maximum longitudinal gradient of 2.5%) B RRM 022 E RRM 018C
f1 Optional bollard with sign RUS 058 on side f1 C M 131 M 116
Minimum 1.5m spacing between bollards.
c f2 Optional bollard with sign RUS 001 on side f2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL HEADS
Preferably, edge bollards are just off paved area
f1 Sign pole with sign RUS 058 on RTS 001 Primary
Distance determined by 5% max. side f1 RTS 001 Secondary
d
gradient of ramp
f1 (RUS 058) RPC 004 Pedestrian Head
e 10m

f 4m minimum f2 (RUS 001) RTS 007 Primary

g 1m - 2m Shared area Push Button Unit

Back
Push Button Unit
h 5m minimum Red blister tactile (facing cyclist)

263
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL607 Toucan Crossing

Perspective view approaching road crossing

Key Features:
1 Shared cycleway / greenway.

2 Cyclist approaching shared

space must yield to pedestrians.

3 Reflective bollards to discourage

high bicycle speeds approaching
the road crossing (min 1.5m
clearance between bollards).

4 Shared area between the end of

the cycleway and the road edge
(min 5m).

5 Controlled crossing. Pedestrians

5 and cyclists cross at the same
time.
4
6 6 Clear inter-visibility between
6 3 traffic and cyclist.
3 3
2

Perspective view approaching road crossing.

264
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL607 Toucan Crossing

Crossing approach from driver perspective

Key Features:
1 Cycle lane approaching crossing.

2 Shared area between the end of

the cycleway and the road edge
(min 5m).

3 Controlled crossing.
Pedestrians and cyclists cross
at the same time.

4 Reflective bollard to emphasise

commencement of kerb for
cyclists.

4 5 Road facing push button unit

5 to allow cyclists call toucan.
2
3

265
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL608 Signalised Cycle Crossing

NOTES:
1. Dedicated signal-controlled crossing for cyclists only.
B
2. Suitable in speed limits up to 60 km/h in all traffic flows.
3. Primarily intended for situations where a two-way cycle
B E track on one side transitions to one-way cycle tracks on
A either side (as shown), or where a two-way cycle track
is required to switch from one side of the carriageway
to the other.
C 4. Where a pedestrian crossing is also desirable, use a
signalised parallel crossing layout (TL 606).
f1 5. Radii will depend on cycle design speed (see section
4.1.2).
D 6. Ensure push buttons are accessible to all cyclists (see
section 4.4.5).
a

KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES ROAD MARKINGS TRAFFIC SIGNAL HEADS

(Refer to TSM Chapter 7)
25m typically f1 Bollard with sign RUS 001 on side f1 RTS 001 Primary
a
(depends on design speed) RTS 001 Secondary
A RRM 001 M 116
f1 (RUS 001) B RRM 017
C RRM 022 RTS 007 Primary
D RRM 023
Push Button Unit
Elephant Feet Markings
E (400mm wide, 400mm gap,
400mm mark)

Back

266
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL701 Protected Roundabout with Cycle Priority

NOTES:
1. Suitable for junctions in urban
areas only.
2. Suitable for traffic capacities up
to 25,000 vehicles per day.
3. Ensuring slow motor traffic
50mm kerbface speeds through the junction is
50mm kerbface e f critical.
4. ICD typically 25-40m.
Overrun area with 5. Single lane approaches only.
roughened surface 6. Approach arms perpendicular to
Overrun area with desirable central island with no flaring.
roughened surface Consider overrun areas at exit
desirable kerbs if required for larger
vehicles.
7. Narrow circulatory carriageway
with overrun area around central
island for larger vehicles.
8. Pedestrian and cycle crossings
of carriageway must be raised.
e 9. Cycle crossing must be set back
5m min. from yield line.
D f F 10. Consider including refuge
h islands in crossings where
A c d g E space permits.
11. Low level planting only in
D b B C f islands/verges around the
roundabout or consider hard
e landscaping.
a

ROAD MARKINGS KEY DIMENSIONS

(Refer to TSM Chapter 7)
a 4m - 6m Typically 1-2m but may be larger if required
h to ensure narrow circulatory carriageway is
A RRM 001 achieved. 50mm kerbface to traffic
b 3m - 3.25m
B RRM 018 & 019
c 5m Minimum
Elephant Feet Markings
C (400mm wide, 400mm gap, M 115C Inscribed circle diameter
400mm mark) f e d (ICD) Typically up to 40m
KEY FEATURES
M 116
D RRM 022 e 5m Minimum Belisha Beacon
M 112
E RRM 021 Red blister tactile
M 115
f 2m Minimum Back
F RPC 001

g 10-27m typically

267
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL701 Protected Roundabout with Cycle Priority

Cyclist perspective view approaching roudabout

Key Features:
1 Protected cycle track.

2 Cycle track rises to the same

level as the at-grade crossing.

3 The pedestrian crossing area

is flush, on a flat top hump,
across the cycle track, with
tactile paving as appropriate.
Cyclists must yield to crossing
pedestrians.

4 Pedestrian refuge area.

7
5 Cyclists entering the roundabout
must yield to the circulating
5
4 6 cyclists.
3
6 Raised pedestrian zebra
crossing followed by parallel
2
cycle zebra crossing with single
7 narrow traffic lane entry/exit.

7 SUDS / public realm greening

1 opportunities.

268
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL701 Protected Roundabout with Cycle Priority

Cyclist perspective view approaching roundabout crossing

Key Features:
1 Protected cycle track. Cyclists
must slow down here.

2 Cycle track rises to the same

level as the at-grade crossing.

3 The pedestrian crossing area

is flush, on a flat top hump,
across the cycle track, with
tactile paving as appropriate.
Cyclists must yield to crossing
pedestrians.
4 7 6
4 Pedestrian refuge area.
3 5
2 5 Raised pedestrian zebra
crossing with single traffic lane
entry/exit.

6 Single lane entry, traffic yields

8 to cyclists and pedestrians.
1 Minimun 5m long narrow traffic
lane approach to cycle zebra
crossing.

7 Realigned cycle track further

from roudabout, to extend sight
triangle.

8 SUDS / public realm greening

opportunities.

269
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL702 Protected Roundabout without Cycle Priority

NOTES:
1. Suitable for junctions in urban and
rural locations with traffic capacities up
to 25,000 vehicles per day.
2. Requires less space than layout TL
701 Protected roundabout with priority.
3. Cyclists and pedestrians lose priority
at the crossing and take gaps in traffic.
50mm kerbface Ensuring slow vehicle speeds through
the junction is critical to achieve
Overrun area with sufficient gap acceptance.
roughened surface 4. Suitable for two-way (shown) and
desirable one-way cycle tracks.
5. ICD typically 25-40m.
6. Single lane approaches only.
C
7. Approach arms perpendicular to
central island with no flaring. Consider
overrun areas at exit kerbs if required
for larger vehicles.
A e 8. Narrow circulatory carriageway with
overrun area around central island for
B larger vehicles.
h
9. At grade cycle crossing set back 10m
d g
b f minimum from yield line.
10. Refuge islands should be provided on
a all arms.

ROAD MARKINGS KEY FEATURES KEY DIMENSIONS

(Refer to TSM Chapter 7)
Buff blister tactile a 10m minimum f 10-27m typically
A RRM 022 b 3m (2m minimum) g 4m - 6m
B RRM 018 & 019
c 10m - 12m radii
C RRM 023 h 3 - 3.5m
Inscribed circle diameter (ICD)
M 115C d typically up to 40m

M 116
Typically 1-2m but may be larger if required to Back
e ensure narrow circulatory carriageway is achieved.
50mm kerbface to traffic

270
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL702 Protected Roundabout without Cycle Priority

Cyclist perspective view approaching roundabout

Key Features:
1 Protected cycle track rises to the
same level as the footpath.

2 Continuous footpath leading to

uncontrolled crossing. Cyclists
must yield to pedestrians and
circulating cyclists.

3 2-way protected cycle track.

4 Cyclist yield to approaching

traffic from the right.
8
8 5 Reflective ‘keep left’ bollard
3 5 to direct cyclists through the
6
4 crossing.
5 7
6 Cyclists refuge island. Cyclists
must yield to traffic approaching
2 crossing.

7 Pedestrian refuge island.

1
8 Single traffic lane entry / exit.
Minimum 10m long departure to
uncontrolled crossing to allow
all road users (drivers, cyclists
and pedestrians) negotiate the
crossing as an isolated location.

271
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL702 Protected Roundabout without Cycle Priority

Cyclist perspective view at uncontrolled crossing

Key Features:
1 2-way protected cycle track.

2 Protected cycle track rises to the

same level as the footpath.

3 Continuous footpath leading to

uncontrolled crossing. Cyclists
must yield to pedestrians.

4 Cyclist yield to approaching

traffic from the right.

5 Reflective ‘keep left’ bollard

to direct cyclists through the
7 crossing.
6
8 6 Cyclists refuge island. Cyclists
5 must yield to traffic approaching
3 4 crossing.

2 7 Pedestrian refuge island.

1
8 Single traffic lane entry / exit.
Minimum 10m long departure to
uncontrolled crossing to allow
all road users (drivers, cyclists
and pedestrians) negotiate the
crossing as an isolated location.

272
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL703 Segregated Roundabout with Shared Active Travel Facilities

KEY DIMENSIONS
NOTES:
a 4m - 6m Typically 1-2m but may be larger 1. Suitable in urban areas only and for traffic
if required to ensure narrow capacities up to 25,000 vehicles per day.
i circulatory carriageway is "Tramline" tactile surface
b 3m - 3.5m 2. Other protected roundabout layouts (TL 701
achieved. 50mm kerbface to (flat-topped bars)
or TL 702) are preferred, where space
traffic on cycle track
c 5m minimum f1 f1 permits, to maintain segregation between
modes.
f3 f4 f2 "Ladder" tactile surface
d 1m minimum, 3m maximum 3. Not appropriate for new development
(flat-topped bars) on
schemes with segregated cycle
footpath
e 4m minimum infrastructure; space should be made
Overrun area with available for protected roundabout layouts
f 0.5m roughened surface (TL 701 or TL 702).
desirable 4. ICD typically 25-40m.
g Inscribed circle diameter (ICD) f4
5. Single lane approaches only.
25-40m
f e 6. Approach arms perpendicular to central
h 10-27m typically island with no flaring. Consider overrun
areas at exit kerbs if required for larger
f1 f2 f3 f1 vehicles.
c 7. Narrow circulatory carriageway with overrun
D area around central island for larger
b i C vehicles.
A f4 f4
g h f4 B f4 E
8. Combined zebra crossings (TL 605) to be
provide on all arms. Crossing should be
d b F raised and set back 5m minimum from yield
D
line.
9. Provision of refuge islands in zebra
f1 f3 a f2 f1 crossings recommended where space
permits.
50mm kerbface 10. Belisha beacons or zebra crossing signs
may be considered.
ROAD MARKINGS f4 KEY FEATURES
(Refer to TSM Chapter 7)
f1 (RUS 058)
A RRM 001 M 115C
B RPC 001 With Elephant Feet M 118
f2 (RUS 058CL) Shared Area
Elephant Feet Markings M 116 f2 f4 f3
C (400mm wide, 400mm gap,
f1 f1 Belisha Beacon
400mm mark) M 112 f3 (RUS 058CR) Pole with sign RUS 058 on side f1
f1
D RRM 022
f2 Pole with sign RUS 058CL on side f2
E RRM 021 f4 (RUS 001)
F RRM 018 & 019 f3 Pole with sign RUS 058CR on side f3
Back
Red blister tactile f4 Reflective bollard with sign RUS 001 on side f4

273
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL704 Compact Roundabout with Mixed Traffic

A NOTES: NOTES:
1. Only suitable where motor1.trafficOnly suitable where motor traffic
speeds and volumes are appropriatespeeds and volumes are appropr
for mixed traffic (see Table 2.1).for mixed traffic (see Table 2.1).
2. Intersection of local street 2. Intersection of local street and cy
and cycle
street shown. street shown.
3. ICD typically 15-30m. 3. ICD typically 15-30m.
4. Single lane approaches, perpend
4. Single lane approaches, perpendicular
to central island with no flaring.to central island with no flaring.
Overrun area with Consider overrun areas at exit Consider
kerbs if overrun areas at exit ke
roughened surface required for larger vehicles. required for larger vehicles.
desirable 5. Narrow
5. Narrow circulatory carriageway with circulatory carriageway w
overrun area around central islandoverrun
for area around central islan
occasional larger vehicles. occasional larger vehicles.
50mm kerbface 6. Large cycle symbols (M 116) 6. should
Large cycle symbols (M 116) sho
c be placed on circulatory carriagew
be placed on circulatory carriageway.
7. Pedestrian crossings should 7. bePedestrian crossings should be
provided on all arms. Raised zebraprovided on all arms. Raised zeb
e crossings preferred (as shown)crossings preferred (as shown)
f although other options may be although other options may be
g consider e.g. raised courtesy orconsider e.g. raised courtesy or
f1 f1 b d f1 B f1 uncontrolled crossing. uncontrolled crossing.
8. Provision of refuge islands8.in Provision of refuge islands in
crossings recommended wherecrossingsspace recommended where s
e permits. permits.

KEY DIMENSIONS
a ROAD MARKINGS
KEY FEATURES a 4m - 6m
(Refer to TSM Chapter 7)
Pedestrian crossing sign Typically 1-2m but may be larger if required to
(or belisha beacon) b ensure narrow circulatory carriageway is A RRM 001
achieved. 50mm kerbface to traffic
Red blister tactile B RPC 001
c 2.4m - 4m wide typically C RRM 021
Flexible reflective bollard with sign
f1 RUS 001 on side f1 Inscribed circle diameter (ICD)
d M 112
Typically 17m to 30m

f1 (RUS 001) e 4m - 6m Radius M 115

f 3m (3.25m maximum) M 116 Back

g 10-27m typically

274
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL704 Compact Roundabout with Mixed Traffic

Cyclist perspective view approaching roudabout

Key Features:
1 Shared street rises to the same
level as the at-grade crossing.

2 The pedestrian crossing area is

flush, on a flat top hump, across
the street, with tactile paving as
appropriate. All traffic including
cyclists must yield to crossing
pedestrians.

3 Zebra crossing sign (or belisha

beacon).

4 Set of ‘double-D’ islands with

reflective bollards. Leading
6 ‘D’ island is set back from the
4 roundabout to allow larger
vehicles to make a turn.
2
4 5 Red surface and roughened
3 centre (1m) to the shared street
median.
5
1
6 Central Island overrun area with
roughened surface and 50mm
kerbface.

275
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL704 Compact Roundabout with Mixed Traffic

Perspective view at the roudabout

Key Features:
1 Tight circulating lane 4m (5m
max). Cyclists uses the centre of
the lane, to ensure traffic does
not attempt to overtake.

2 Road level rises to the same

level as the at-grade crossing.

3 The pedestrian crossing area is

flush, on a flat top hump, across
the street, with tactile paving as
appropriate. All traffic including
4 cyclists must yield to crossing
4
pedestrians.

3 5 2 4 Zebra crossing sign

(or belisha beacon).
2 3
5
5 Set of ‘double-D’ islands with
reflective bollards. Leading
‘D’ island is set back from the
roundabout to allow larger
6 vehicles to make a turn.
1
6 Central Island overrun area with
roughened surface and 50mm
kerbface.

276
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL705 Signal-Controlled Roundabout with Integrated Crossings

NOTES:
1. For use on large multi-lane roundabouts, typically
located in peri-urban or rural locations, where
volumes and speed of motor traffic necessitate a
A signal-controlled crossing.
2. Primarily intended for use on existing signal controlled
roundabouts.
F 3. For existing non-signalised multi-lane roundabouts
G where cycle crossings are required, consider
retrofitting as a single lane roundabout with protected
b B cycle facilities (TL 701/TL 702) or converting to a
signal-controlled junction e.g TL 501.
4. Where segregated pedestrian/cycle facilities exist on
E D the approach, parallel crossing (as shown) should be
used to maintain segregation.
5. Toucan crossing may be appropriate where shared
active travel facilities exist on the approach.
C 6. Crossings on exit arms should be located 20m
(minimum) from the circulatory carriageway.
7. Crossings on entry arms should be located within
20m of the circulatory carriageway.

ROAD MARKINGS (Refer to TSM Chapter 7)

A RRM 023
B Varies (RRM 003B Shown)
M 115C
C RRM 017 M 118
B Elephant Feet Markings
D (400mm wide, 400mm gap, M 116
400mm mark)

a E M 131

B F RRM 022

G RPC 001
TRAFFIC SIGNAL HEADS
KEY DIMENSIONS KEY FEATURES
RTS 001 Primary
A a 20m Minimum Red blister tactile
RPC 004 RTS 007 Primary
Pedestrian Head b ≤20m
Push Button Unit Back
Push Button Unit (facing cyclist)

277
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

TL706 Signal-Controlled Roundabout with Hold the Left Arrangement

NOTES:
1. For retrofitting crossings on existing
signal-controlled roundabouts only.
2. Where new signal-controlled roundabouts are
being proposed, grade separated crossings
should be provided (see section 4.5.7).
3. Ensure cycle signals give a clear and
unambiguous direction to cyclists travelling
straight-ahead and turning left. Directional
cycle signals (not shown) may be required
depending on site geometry.
4. Traffic exiting the roundabout is held during
H cycle green stage and crossing cyclists may
proceed with circulating traffic.
5. Cyclists exiting/entering the roundabout
should have default green stage, only
G D C changing to red when pedestrian stage is
activated.
E

A F
KEY FEATURES
Red blister tactile
G

TRAFFIC SIGNAL HEADS

RTS 001 Primary

ROAD MARKINGS RTS 001 Secondary
B
(Refer to TSM Chapter 7)
A RPC 004 Pedestrian
A RRM 001 Head
F RRM 021
B Varies (RRM 003B Shown) G RRM 022
RTS 007 Primary
C RRM 017 H RRM 023

Elephant Feet Markings M 117

D (400mm wide, 400mm gap, Push Button Unit (facing cyclist)
400mm mark) M 118 Push Button Unit
E M 131 Back
M 116

278
Cycle Design Manual Version 1.0

National Transport Authority,

Dún Scéine, Harcourt Lane,
Dublin 2, D02 WT20.

279