Abstract Phone: +61 2 8265 3300 The Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling provides [email protected] guidance for designers and other practitioners on the design of paths for safe www.austroads.com.au and efficient walking and cycling, both within the road corridor and outside the road corridor. The guide provides information on considerations that should About Austroads be given in providing a path, describes the types of paths and covers the requirements of path users, e.g. operating spaces, factors that influence path Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian locations, and geometric design criteria for a path and related facilities such road transport and traffic agencies. as intersections between paths, and terminal treatments. Detailed guidance is provided on path location, alignment, width, clearances, crossfall, drainage Austroads’ purpose is to support our member and sight distance requirements. organisations to deliver an improved Australasian road transport network. To succeed in this task, we The location and design of paths may be influenced by a range of aspects undertake leading-edge road and transport that need to be considered and facilities that need to be accommodated within research which underpins our input to policy roadsides. In particular, designers should refer to the Guide to Road Design: development and published guidance on the • Part 6: Roadside Design, Safety and Barriers (Austroads 2010a) design, construction and management of the road • Part 6B: Roadside Environment (Austroads 2015b). network and its associated infrastructure. The design of pedestrian and cyclist paths may also be influenced by design Austroads provides a collective approach that considerations and requirements covered in other parts of the Guide to Road delivers value for money, encourages shared Design. In addition, road designers should also refer to relevant parts of the knowledge and drives consistency for road users. Guide to Traffic Management in relation to traffic management devices and Austroads is governed by a Board consisting of requirements that may need to be accommodated within a roadside or may senior executive representatives from each of its otherwise influence the design. eleven member organisations:
• Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales Keywords • Roads Corporation Victoria Planning, pedestrian paths, bicycle paths, shared paths, separated paths, path user requirements, operating space, location of paths, alignment, • Queensland Department of Transport and Main horizontal curvature, gradient, width, clearance, intersections, fences, terminal Roads treatments, bridges, culverts, bicycle safety audits. • Main Roads Western Australia • Department of Planning, Transport and Published: June 2017 Infrastructure South Australia • Department of State Growth Tasmania ISBN 978-1-925451-75-7 Pages 111 • Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Austroads Project No. TP1848 Logistics Northern Territory Austroads Publication No. AGRD06A-17 • Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate, Australian Capital Territory • Australian Government Department of © Austroads Ltd 2017 Infrastructure and Regional Development This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the • Australian Local Government Association Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without the prior written permission of Austroads. • New Zealand Transport Agency. Second edition published June 2017 First edition published October 2009 The second edition has been restructured and contains editorial and technical changes. The title has been amended to better reflect the information on the functions and types of paths covered in this edition. Updated information and new information have been included with the key changes as follows: • Sections 1 to 4 has been reworded to provide generic information that is relevant for pedestrians and cyclists. • Section 1.1: Universal Access – additional information on providing universal access. • Sections 2.2: Pedestrian Path and 2.3: Bicycle Path – amended to include information on levels of service. • Section 3: Path User Considerations – amended to broaden the range of path user considerations. • Section 3.2.1: Pedestrians – amended to include information on mobility scooters. • Section 5.1: Width of Paths – additional information for path widths based on volumes. • Section 5.7: Sight Distance – additional commentary on pedestrian needs and sight distance and replacement of Figure 7.7 with an equation to determine stopping sight distance. • Section 6.5: Special Treatments for Intersections of Paths with Paths – new section consolidating treatments for special circumstances. • Section 7.3: Treatments for Intersections of Paths with Roads – new information on path terminal treatments. • Section 7.5: Special Treatments for Intersections of Paths with Roads – new section on terminal treatments for special circumstances. • Section 8.3: Culvert Underpasses – new information on principles in providing paths through culverts. • Appendix B: Speed Limiting Treatments – new appendix providing information on speed limiting treatments on paths. • Appendix C.3.1: Bituminous Surface Pavements – additional information on bituminous surfaces. • Appendix C.4: Life Cycle Costing – new section on life cycle costing. • Commentary 1: Planning and Need for a Path – transferred from Section 2 as information relates to network plans and operation.
Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the role and contribution of the Austroads Road Design Task Force in providing guidance and information during the preparation of this Part. The panel comprised the following members: Mr Peter Ellis - Roads and Maritime Services, New South Wales Mr Richard Fanning - Roads Corporation, Victoria Mr Mike Whitehead - Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads Mr Albert Wong - Main Roads Western Australia Mr William Moodie - Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics Northern Territory Mr Ben McHugh - Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate Mr Tony Napoli - Australian Local Government Association Mr James Hughes - NZ Transport Agency Mr Tom Brock - Consult Australia Ms Gemma Kernich - Australian Bicycle Council Mr Michael Tziotis - ARRB Group Ltd The authors would like to acknowledge the support from the City of Sydney and City of Adelaide for providing photographs for this Part.
This Guide is produced by Austroads as a general guide. Its application is discretionary. Road authorities may vary their practice according to local circumstances and policies. Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues. Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
1. Introduction . 1 1.1 Purpose . 1 1.2 Scope of this Part . 2 1.3 Safe System Approach . 3
2. Types of Path . 4 2.1 General . 4 2.2 Pedestrian Path . 4 2.3 Bicycle Path . 5 2.4 Shared Path . 6 2.5 Separated Path . 8
3. Path User Considerations . 12 3.1 General . 12 3.2 Operating Space . 14 3.2.1 Pedestrians . 14 3.2.2 Cyclists . 18
4. Design Considerations . 20 4.1 Location of Paths . 20 4.1.1 General . 20 4.2 Factors of Influence – Path Location . 20 4.2.1 Factors Influencing Roadside Alignment . 21 4.2.2 Paths in Medians . 22 4.3 Path Width . 23 4.4 Bicycle Paths . 24
5. Design Criteria . 25 5.1 Width of Paths . 25 5.1.1 Clear Width . 25 5.1.2 Pedestrian Paths . 25 5.1.3 Bicycle Paths . 27 5.1.4 Shared Paths . 29 5.1.5 Separated Paths . 30 5.2 Bicycle Operating Speeds . 30 5.3 Horizontal Curvature. 31 5.4 Path Gradients . 32 5.4.1 Universal Access . 33 5.4.2 Ease of Uphill Travel . 33 5.4.3 Safety and Downhill Travel on Paths . 34 5.5 Clearances, Batters and Need for Fences . 35 5.5.1 Clearances. 35 5.5.2 Bicycle paths. 35 5.5.3 Batters and Fences . 38 5.6 Crossfall and Drainage . 42 5.6.1 Crossfall . 42 5.6.2 Drainage . 42 5.7 Sight Distance . 44 5.7.1 Bicycle Path Stopping Sight Distance . 45 5.8 Changes in Level . 47 5.9 Surface Treatments . 49 5.10 Surface Tolerances . 50 5.11 Lighting . 51 5.12 Underground Services . 52
Austroads 2017 | page i
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
6. Intersections of Paths with Paths . 53 6.1 General . 53 6.2 Intersection Priority . 53 6.3 Intersection Signs . 53 6.3.1 Control Devices . 53 6.3.2 Wayfinding Signs . 53 6.4 Treatments for Intersections of Paths with Paths . 54 6.5 Special Treatments for Intersections of Paths with Paths . 56
7. Intersections of Paths with Roads. 57 7.1 General . 57 7.2 Intersection Signs . 57 7.2.1 Traffic Control Devices . 57 7.2.2 Wayfinding Signs . 57 7.3 Treatments for Intersections of Paths with Roads . 58 7.3.1 Road Crossings where the Path has Priority over the Road . 58 7.3.2 Road Crossings in a Shared Environment Intersection . 60 7.4 Ancillary Devices for Intersections of Paths with Roads . 60 7.4.1 Push Buttons at Signalised Intersections . 60 7.4.2 Holding Rails. 60 7.5 Special Treatments for Intersections of Paths with Roads . 61 7.5.1 General . 61 7.5.2 Terminal Design Principles . 62 7.5.3 Terminal Treatments for Excluding Vehicles . 64 7.5.4 Terminal Treatments for High-conflict Locations . 68
8. Paths at Structures. 71 8.1 General . 71 8.2 Road Bridges . 71 8.2.1 Use of Pedestrian Paths on Narrow Bridges . 71 8.2.2 Shared Path Structures . 71 8.3 Underpasses . 73 8.3.1 General . 73 8.3.2 Use of Existing Culverts . 74 8.4 Bicycle Wheeling Ramps . 75
9. Construction and Maintenance Considerations for Paths . 77 9.1 General . 77 9.2 Bicycle Safety Audits . 77
References . 78 Appendix A Application of Envelopes and Clearances to Determine the Widths of Paths . 81 Appendix B Speed Limiting Treatments . 85 Appendix C Path Construction and Maintenance . 86 Appendix D Bicycle Safety Audit Checklist . 97
Tables Table 2.1: Zones associated with pedestrian paths . 4 Table 4.1: Factors considered in the choice of path alignment in road related areas . 21 Table 5.1: Width requirements for pedestrian paths . 26 Table 5.2: Bicycle path widths . 27 Table 5.3: Shared path widths . 30 Table 5.4: Separated two-way path widths . 30 Table 5.5: Separated one-way path widths. 30 Table 5.6: Minimum radius of horizontal curves without superelevation . 32
Austroads 2017 | page ii
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Table 5.7: Minimum radius of horizontal curves that have superelevation . 32 Table 5.8: Considerations relating to changes in level . 48 Table 5.9: Suggested surface tolerances – existing surfaces . 50
Figures Figure 1.1: Flow chart of the Guide to Road Design . 2 Figure 2.1: Examples of pedestrian path zones . 5 Figure 2.2: Example of a bicycle path in a road related area . 6 Figure 2.3: Example of a shared path in a road related area . 7 Figure 2.4: Examples of physical devices to separate bicycle paths and pedestrian paths . 9 Figure 2.5: Example of a separated one-way bicycle path in a road related area . 10 Figure 3.1: Plan view of pedestrian body ellipse . 14 Figure 3.2: Reach dimensions for mobility impaired people . 16 Figure 3.3: Wheelchair turning envelope . 16 Figure 3.4: Pedestrian path width requirements for people with mobility impairment. 17 Figure 3.5: Cyclist design envelope . 18 Figure 4.1: Example of a median path at a road crossing . 23 Figure 5.1: Example of clear width . 25 Figure 5.2: Minimum pedestrian path widths . 27 Figure 5.3: Example of passing areas in constrained locations . 27 Figure 5.4: Path widths for a 50/50 directional split . 28 Figure 5.5: Path widths for a 75/25 directional split . 29 Figure 5.6: Desirable uphill gradients for ease of cycling . 34 Figure 5.7: Clearances between cyclist envelope and potential path hazards . 35 Figure 5.8: Location of path in road reserve . 37 Figure 5.9: Envelope of height requirements . 37 Figure 5.10: Requirement for fence barriers at batters and vertical drops . 40 Figure 5.11: Example of a partial barrier fence . 41 Figure 5.12: Example of a full barrier fence . 41 Figure 5.13: Example of flared bicycle rail terminal . 41 Figure 5.14: Drainage and crossfall requirements . 44 Figure 5.15: Lateral clearances on horizontal curves . 46 Figure 6.1: Intersection of shared paths . 54 Figure 6.2: Example of a shared path intersection . 55 Figure 6.3: Intersection of bicycle path and pedestrian path where cyclists have priority . 55 Figure 6.4: Intersection of a shared path and separated path where pedestrians have priority . 56 Figure 6.5: Example of a staggered T-intersection . 56 Figure 7.1: Example of a simple path connection at an on-road path . 58 Figure 7.2: Example of an intersection where a separated pedestrian path crossing and a separated bicycle path crossing has priority across a local street . 59 Figure 7.3: Example of an intersection where a path crossing has priority over a side street . 59 Figure 7.4: Example of holding rail . 61 Figure 7.5: Separate entry and exit terminal . 64 Figure 7.6: Preferred layout for the use of a central bollard . 65 Figure 7.7: Example of a bollard treatment . 66 Figure 7.8: Example of a bollard treatment with lighting . 66 Figure 7.9: Example of U-rail and hazard board treatment . 67 Figure 7.10: Details of a bollard and U-rail . 68 Figure 7.11: Example of a staggered fence treatment . 69 Figure 7.12: Example of an offset path treatment . 70 Figure 8.1: Illustration of a shared path crossing under a bridge abutment . 72 Figure 8.2: Shared path under a bridge abutment . 72 Figure 8.3: Example of a pedestrian/bicycle path underpass . 74 Figure 8.4: Example of a bicycle wheeling ramp. 75 Figure 8.5: Bicycle wheeling ramp key dimensions . 76
Austroads 2017 | page iii
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Austroads Guide to Road Design seeks to capture the contemporary road design practice of member organisations; refer to the Guide to Road Design Part 1: Introduction to Road Design (Austroads 2015a). In doing so, it provides valuable guidance to designers in the production of safe, economical and efficient road designs.
Guidance on the design of roadside features and facilities is contained in three parts of the Guide to Road Design: • Part 6: Roadside Design, Safety and Barriers (AGRD Part 6) (Austroads 2010a) • Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling (AGRD Part 6A) • Part 6B: Roadside Environment (AGRD Part 6B) (Austroads 2015b).
AGRD Part 6 provides an introduction to roadside design and also provides detailed guidance on roadside safety (e.g. hazard identification, mitigation and treatment) and the use and design of safety barriers. AGRD Part 6A covers the geometric design of pedestrian and cycling paths and the design of associated facilities, while AGRD Part 6B provides guidance on other roadside features and facilities (Figure 1.1).
Paths are provided to meet the transportation and recreational needs of pedestrians and cyclists. They may be situated in road reserves, through parkland reserves, or beside rivers or coastal areas to provide safe and convenient routes and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. AGRD Part 6A therefore provides guidelines for the design of paths generally and not only for the integration of paths into road designs.
Figure 1.1 shows that AGRD Part 6A is one of eight guides that comprise the Austroads Guide to Road Design. Collectively these parts provide information on a range of disciplines including geometric design, drainage, roadside design and geotechnical design, all of which may influence the location and design of paths within road related areas.
Austroads 2017 | page 1
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Figure 1.1: Flow chart of the Guide to Road Design
Part 4A Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections
1.2 Scope of this Part
AGRD Part 6A describes the types of paths and their location, provides guidance on alignment, width and other geometric requirements, and information on the design of treatments such as path intersections and terminals.
When used in conjunction with other relevant parts of the Guide to Road Design and the Guide to Traffic Management, this Part provides guidelines for the geometric design of paths (pedestrian, bicycle and shared paths). It does not provide information on planning matters including the development of bicycle and/or pedestrian networks as this relates to network planning. Information on planning for a path is contained in Guide to Traffic Management Part 5: Road Management (Austroads 2014) and the Guide to Traffic Management Part 4: Network Management (Austroads 2016a) with some additional information contained in Commentary 1. [see Commentary 1]
In some situations bicycle paths may also interface with bicycle lanes on the road and reference should be made to the Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design (AGRD Part 3) (Austroads 2016b) and Guide to Road Design Part 4: Intersections and Crossings: General (Austroads 2017a) for further information.
For signing and pavement marking requirements for the purposes of establishing the type of paths described in this guide, designers should refer to AS 1742.9:2000.
Austroads 2017 | page 2
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Designers should understand that the design standard adopted for a particular facility should relate to the transportation role it has in the bicycle or pedestrian network. Some bicycle paths and shared paths are designed to perform an arterial function whilst others have an access function. For example, a veloway is a very high standard bicycle path (in terms of width, alignment, clearances, access etc.) that provides a major arterial link for cyclists and this type of facility should be designed for high operating speeds (e.g. the 7 km long Adelaide Southern veloway alongside the Southern Expressway in South Australia).
1.3 Safe System Approach
Adopting a Safe System approach to road safety recognises that humans, as road users are fallible and will continue to make mistakes, and that the design and operation of road infrastructure, including pedestrian paths and bicycle paths should not penalise people with death or serious injury when they do make mistakes. In a Safe System, therefore, paths should be designed in a manner that ensures that the users of the paths are not killed or seriously injured should a crash occur. This requires the designer to appreciate and understand the interactions between the various elements and in particular the likely crashes that may occur.
Paths outside of the road corridors should be design to be forgiving with minimal hazards. Paths within road corridors may involve conflicts with motor vehicles and preferably any conflicts. A Safe System approach ideally removes conflicts between motor vehicles and vulnerable road users, such as cyclists and pedestrians. For example, an underpass provides an alternative crossing of a busy road. Where conflicts cannot be avoided, the conflict between motor vehicles and vulnerable road users needs to be design or managed to reduce the incidence and severity of crashes, should they occur.
Further information on the Safe System approach can be found in the Guide to Road Design Part 1: Introduction to Road Design (Austroads 2015a).
Austroads 2017 | page 3
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
2. Types of Path
The types of paths are: • pedestrian path • bicycle path or cycle track1 • shared path • separated path.
2.2 Pedestrian Path
A pedestrian path2 is reserved for use by pedestrians, people in wheelchairs, mobility scooters and personal mobility devices, such a walking frame. These paths provide an important part of the transport network either for trips undertaken entirely by walking, or as the first or last link in a trip that utilises other types of transport.
There are distinct zones within the area between the edge of the road and the frontage of adjacent property, and it is important to distinguish between the total width and the width of the zone likely to be used by pedestrians who are walking through this zone (NZ Transport Agency 2009). Table 2.1 describes the zones and Figure 2.1 illustrates them.
The same principles apply in off-road environments, except that one or more of the zones described in Table 2.1 may be absent or duplicated on the opposite side of the path.
Table 2.1: Zones associated with pedestrian paths
Area Purpose • Used for placing features such as signal poles, lighting columns, hatch covers, sandwich boards, seats and parking meters • Can be used for soft landscaping/vegetation Street furniture zone • Creates a psychological buffer between motorised vehicles and pedestrians • Reduces passing vehicles splashing pedestrians • Provides space for driveway gradients Dining zone • The area for the provision of dining facilities • The area where pedestrians normally choose to travel (this should be kept free of Through route obstructions at all times) (or clear width) • In retail precincts, people with vision impairment may utilise the building line to assist their orientation along the path
Note: The zones which are located in the area between the street and boundaries of adjacent properties, and also referred to as urban borders (AGRD Part 3 (Austroads 2016b)). Source: Based on NZ Transport Agency (2009).
1 In some jurisdictions the term cycle track that is a separated bicycle facility in an urban corridor that combines the benefits of a bicycle lane (where bicycles have priority at intersections) and a bicycle path. Refer to Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (2015b). 2 It should be noted that in some jurisdictions, pedestrian paths are able to be used by cyclists.
Austroads 2017 | page 4
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Figure 2.1: Examples of pedestrian path zones
Street Street Through furniture route
Street Street Dining Through furniture/ route landscape Note: In residential areas the pedestrian path may be offset from the property boundary to facilitate the path alignment and safety. Designers should refer to the local road agency for their requirements. Source: Adapted from NZ Transport Agency (2009).
2.3 Bicycle Path
A bicycle path3 or track, which may be one-way or two-way, is for the use of cyclists and is most appropriate where: • there is a significant cycling volume or where an exclusive use path is desirable, and pedestrians are provided with a separate path • there is limited motor vehicle access across the path • it is possible to achieve an alignment that generally allows cyclists uninterrupted and safe travel at a relatively consistent speed.
3 For the purposes of this Part the term bicycle path has been used for a bicycle-only path. Where a path is able to be used by pedestrians the path is indicated to be a shared path.
Austroads 2017 | page 5
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Cyclists generally prefer riding on exclusive off-road bicycle paths, rather than along roads and shared paths that provide a similar level of service (for information on levels of service refer to Level of Service Metrics (for Network Operations Planning) Austroads (2015f)). An off-road bicycle path caters for full range of cyclists including inexperienced cyclists or those wanting to avoid travelling alongside motor vehicles and so there may be a broad range of cyclists using the off-road path.
In some locations the provision of suitable off-road bicycle paths may not be able to be achieved due to physical and financial constraints.
Figure 2.2 shows an example of a bicycle path within a road related area. Special attention must be given to the path design in the vicinity of bus and tram stops, and preventative measures may need to be taken to avoid illegal parking of cars and the placement of garbage bins on the paths. It should be noted that a bicycle path for exclusive use by cyclists requires the establishment of signs that indicate its exclusive use as a bicycle path.
Figure 2.2: Example of a bicycle path in a road related area
Source: City of Sydney (personal communication 2016).
A shared path is where pedestrians and cyclists share the same path space. A shared path may be appropriate where demand exists for both a pedestrian path and a bicycle path but where there is a low number of pedestrians or cyclists and the use is not expected to be sufficiently great enough to provide separate facilities.
Shared paths can be used for a variety of purposes including recreation, local access and providing feeder links between high capacity paths. However, if such a link is provided, it may need to be designed in a manner that moderates cyclist speeds to ensure the safety of pedestrians.
Austroads 2017 | page 6
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Shared paths that use existing pedestrian paths may be satisfactory where they provide a: • convenient and safe option for inexperienced cyclists, recreational cyclists and young cyclists Because pedestrian paths usually have narrow widths and driveway crossings or side streets intersecting at frequent intervals they are only suitable for low cycling speeds. • safer option for cyclists at squeeze points such as narrow, heavily trafficked sections of road, roundabouts, bridges, underpasses or railway level crossings In such cases it may be appropriate that the connections between the pedestrian path and the road be properly designed so that cyclists can leave and enter the general traffic stream safely and conveniently. Special ramps that have a flatter gradient and smooth invert can be provided to cater for bicycles.
Figure 2.3 shows an example of a shared path within a road related area.
Figure 2.3: Example of a shared path in a road related area
Source: Roads and Traffic Authority (2005).
Austroads 2017 | page 7
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
A significant issue associated with shared paths is the variety of users who display various characteristics that can lead to conflict between them, and discomfort for all path users. These characteristics include differences in speed, space requirements, age, user expectation (as some users expect exclusive or priority use) and predictability (e.g. cyclists, pedestrians walking dogs, in-line skaters, and skateboard riders). Austroads (2006) describes the key conflict issues between pedestrians and cyclists on shared paths and pedestrian paths and provides guidance on key conflict minimisation strategies and options.
2.5 Separated Path
A separated path is a path divided into separate sections, one of which is designated for the exclusive use of cyclists and the other for the exclusive use of pedestrians. A separated path may be appropriate where there are safety or conflict issues such as where there are a high number of pedestrians and/or cyclists (Austroads 2006), or the desired level of service on a shared path is not being met (Austroads 2015f).
These situations typically arise in areas that attract high pedestrian and cyclist movements (e.g. foreshore promenades and major inner city bridges). However, separated paths should not be provided in busy shopping centres where large numbers of pedestrians are expected to cross the path and conflict with cyclists.
The use of a separated path may cause some confusion amongst cyclists and pedestrians as to their correct use. To better clarify the use of these paths, visual cues make it intuitive to users which path they should use through the use of an appropriate path surface (e.g. pavement materials, colours and textures), with a clearly defined separation zone supported by signing, linemarking and pavement symbols being used (Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2015a). Should linemarking be used to separate cyclists from pedestrians then raised tactile separation lines are suggested to assist those with vision impairment to differentiate the pedestrian and cyclist areas.
In addition, it may be appropriate to have the pedestrian path and bicycle path at different levels, separated by a semi-mountable kerb or a small grass dividing strip. Examples of treatments to separate the paths are shown in Figure 2.4.
Where high standard bicycle and pedestrian paths are provided, such as on foreshore promenades, path users may be given priority at intersecting side streets (Austroads 2017a). Austroads (2017a) contains guidance on treatments that provide priority for cyclists and pedestrians at side roads (e.g. ‘bent-out’ and ‘bent-in’ treatments).
Austroads 2017 | page 8
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Figure 2.4: Examples of physical devices to separate bicycle paths and pedestrian paths
Bicycle path Pedestrian path
Pedestrian path Bicycle path
Bicycle path Pedestrian path
1 For guidance on clearances refer to Section 5.5. 2 The separation between the pedestrian path and bicycle path may also be a flush or mountable type kerb or a painted separation line.
Notes: The bicycle paths may be one-way or two-way operation. Different materials may also be used to differentiate and delineate the pedestrian and bicycle treatments. Any kerb used may be an upright or mountable kerb. A deflection rail providing 150 mm clearance should be provided where clearances are not able to be achieved, refer to Section 5.5.3.
Where wide nature strips exist, consideration should be given to the construction of separated one-way paths (see Figure 2.5). These paths enable bicycles to travel on the side of the road, in the verge area, in one direction, with bicycle movement in the opposite direction provided on the other side of the road.
The treatment can be advantageous when: • they are used with other traditional bicycle lane treatments located on roads, in order to maintain continuous access for cyclists past squeeze points • other constraints exist for the construction of bicycle lanes in the carriageway • a safety problem exists for cyclists in the road carriageway • there is a high proportion of inexperienced cyclists.
The treatment is appropriate where: • there is a limited number of driveway crossings (preferably less than one per 100 m) • adequate sight lines exist, to significant road and pedestrian path access points • a separation/barrier exists between the path and the road carriageway.
Austroads 2017 | page 9
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Figure 2.5: Example of a separated one-way bicycle path in a road related area
Source: Roads and Traffic Authority (2005).
Austroads 2017 | page 10
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
A separated one-way path treatment should provide for cyclist travel in the same direction as the adjacent traffic lane, other than in a one-way street. However, designers should confirm the suitability of the treatment with respect to local requirements.
The accommodation of any path in a road related area requires consideration of access for maintenance personnel and equipment and the placement of road furniture (signs, signals, barriers, bus/tram stops) and other items, refer to Section 3.2.2, which may adversely affect operation of the path. This can be problematic with separated paths that require considerable space in order to ensure appropriate use.
The clearances to physical (vertical) separation devices shown in Figure 2.4 are essential. The clearances for kerb and fence separated facilities should be sufficient to ensure cyclists do not catch handle bars in fence components or pedals with upright kerbs. Where fence clearances cannot be met cyclist deflection rails should be installed, refer also to Section 5.5.1 and 5.5.3.
Physical, horizontal or vertical separation of the bicycle path and pedestrian path is preferred to linemarking. Should linemarking be used to separate bicycles from pedestrians then tactile pavement markings are recommended. In assessing the need for physical separation between pedestrian and cyclist areas, factors such as operational width and clearance requirements, speed of cyclists, category of use characteristics, volume of use and the likelihood of pedestrian activity in the cycling space should be considered.
When a barrier is used to separate the bicycle and pedestrian path sections, the desirable minimum width of the pedestrian path section should be 1.5 m, to allow passing manoeuvres on that section of the path, amongst other reasons (e.g. pedestrian volumes). Separated paths should be designed to accommodate the passing of pedestrians by personal mobility devices.
Austroads 2017 | page 11
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
3. Path User Considerations
In order to develop appropriate and practical design solutions designers should have a sound understanding of what is required to ensure that pedestrian and cycling networks offer an environment that provides a convenient, safe and pleasant journey with direct routes that minimise the length of travel and travel time to destination.
The characteristics that contribute to a path network, that serve the needs of pedestrians and cyclists, includes paths that are safe, connected, legible, comfortable, convenient, universal and pleasant (based on NZ Transport Agency 2009 and de Groot 2007).
Path networks should: • provide surfaces that provide good surface grip, are free of tripping hazards, smooth, clear of obstructions and are well maintained (e.g. no broken paving) • have well design landscaping that does not encroach sight lines or operating space • have adequate lighting to ensure that pedestrians feel safe when using paths at night • minimise conflicts between path users taking into consideration path widths or the provision of separated paths • have information signs reminding users of appropriate behaviours in using the path.
Well-connected paths should: • have continuous routes and travel paths as short as possible • integrate with public transport • provide crossings that are appropriate for the traffic volume and traffic speed environment • provide crossing opportunities at locations that are difficult to cross (e.g. major roads, railways) with short waiting times at signalised crossings • provide good access to key destinations • where path volumes are high and consistent (e.g. inner-city routes) consideration should be given to prioritising and wherever practicable coordinating traffic signals to improve the level of service for pedestrians and cyclists.
To inform path users, a path network should: • provide clear distance and directional signs to destinations, and/or pavement marking information • have clearly visible street name signs and repeater street names • have clearly visible place names • enable local features to be identified that can assist path users to orientate themselves and be aware of their location • be supported with readily available path network information (e.g. published local maps, information boards, tourist information).
Austroads 2017 | page 12
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
In order to provide an appropriate level of comfort the path or route should: • have path widths that provide the desired level of service (Austroads 2015f) • be set back from carriageways to create a physical separation from motor traffic • provide facilities for path users, such as resting places and drinking fountains • provide adequate and safe storage areas for pedestrians to wait, including at intersections, such that the flow of other path users, including cyclists is not impeded • be well maintained to ensure maintenance intervention levels are met to provide a smooth surface • be substantially free from litter, debris and other deposits • be constructed to prevent ponding of surface water • have places to rest and shelter from inclement weather • be adequately lit to ensure that path users feel safe when using the paths at night.
A convenient walking environment for pedestrians should: • be as continuous as practicable • ensure that streets can be crossed easily and safely (e.g. raise road crossings to path level) • minimise delays at road crossings (e.g. keep crossing distances and waiting times at signals short) • include cyclist and pedestrian signals or phases at signalised intersections.
Paths should cater for all users by: • having gradients that cater for mobility impaired users where practicable • having contrasting coloured pavement surfaces to highlight demarcated areas of path • having tactile treatments and physical features, that may be used to aid wayfinding, including signs to aid in wayfinding by vision impaired persons where required.
A path network can provide a pleasant journey for path users by: • having high quality supporting facilities, such as seating, resign places, drinking water, interpretative information that is located clear of the operating space of the path • being located so that scenic features in the vicinity can be viewed from the path.
The design of a path should also consider the level of service that it is intended to be provided on the path. The level of service includes some of these characteristics. More information on levels of service is contained in Level of Service Metrics (for Network Operations Planning) (Austroads 2015f).
Austroads 2017 | page 13
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
3.2 Operating Space
While it is not possible to identify all design situations in this Part, basic reach and geometric parameters, and operating envelopes may be established that assist in the appropriate design of all components of the street system and facilities provided for or used by pedestrians. This section provides information regarding maximum limits of reach and minimum dimensions necessary to accommodate most people with disabilities. However, designers should not simply design for these maximum limits and minimum dimensions but should ensure the design provides the highest level of service to pedestrians that is practicable.
As it may be necessary to accommodate a variety of uses in pedestrian areas, design envelopes should include the type of pedestrian activity and local considerations that impact on placement of street furniture or capacity. For example: • proximity to shops – additional area/width required for people carrying shopping bags • climate – sub-tropical locations could incorporate umbrellas and similar furniture that requires greater widths and clearances • the design envelope should allow for backpacks, briefcases and other devices used by pedestrians and which would affect storage capacity generally and on traffic islands in particular • proximity to retirement centres – additional width and storage length to accommodate personal mobility devices.
Body depth and shoulder width are the primary human measurements used by designers of pedestrian spaces and facilities, where shoulder breadth is the factor affecting the practical capacity. The plan view of the average adult male human body occupies an area (the body ellipse) of about 0.14 m2. However, a 460 mm by 610 mm body ellipse (Figure 3.1) equivalent to an area of 0.21 m2 is used to determine practical standing capacity, allowing for the fact that many pedestrians carry personal articles, natural psychological preferences to avoid bodily contact with others and body sway.
With respect to normal path operation where pedestrians and cyclists are moving at speed and sharing space it is considered that a one metre width should be used as the basis of the design envelope to allow adequate operating space and clearances for pedestrians.
Figure 3.1: Plan view of pedestrian body ellipse
610 mm Shoulder width
Austroads 2017 | page 14
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
While there is a wide variation in the size of people and their reach, basic limits that should be adopted for the purposes of design are shown in Figure 3.2. It can be seen that the overlap between the heights is easily accessible by wheelchair users and people with mobility difficulties. This means that anything that must be reached, e.g. holding rails, audio tactile push buttons, by both groups should lie between approximately 0.6 m and 1.57 m above the ground. Wheelchair users are also constrained in the limits of their horizontal reach, as shown in Figure 3.2.
Wheelchairs and mobility scooters
There are a wide variety of wheelchairs and mobility scooters available for people to use to aid their mobility. These include manual wheelchairs, motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters. The dimensions of these mobility aids can vary and designers should refer to AS/NZS 3695.1:2011 and AS/NZS 3695.2:2013 for information on manual and powered wheelchairs.
Wheelchair and mobility scooter users generally require more space than other people to move around. An example of the reach limits for an occupant of a wheelchair is shown in Figure 3.2. Designers should consider the size of wheelchair or mobility scooter that should be used in the design of specific facilities or treatments and may have to establish the appropriate design vehicle for particular situations within a jurisdiction. As a guide, the Australian Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport (2002) requires a manoeuvring space of 2.07 m by 1.54 m for a wheelchair or mobility scooter to turn 180º. Reference may also be made to AS 1428.1:2009. Consultation with local community organisations may also provide information on the wheelchairs and mobility scooters.
In considering the minimum width required for wheelchairs and motorised scooters, designers should also refer to AS 1428.1:2009 regarding minimum widths for accessways, walkways, ramps, landings and doorways.
General spatial requirements
Figure 3.5 shows the radius of turn for a wheelchair when wheels are moved in opposite directions and when pivoting about a locked wheel. The radii represent the swept path of the wheelchair and therefore it is essential for designers to allow sufficient clearance from the swept path to fixed objects to allow for variance in the location at which the rider chooses to commence the turn, and to provide comfortable and safe operating conditions. This clearance is necessary to avoid the risk of damage to the wheelchair, damage to street infrastructure and injury to the wheelchair rider.
Figure 3.4 shows the various widths for path users with mobility impairment. While personal mobility scooters are not included in Figure 3.4 it is considered that most scooter models can be accommodated within the widths shown.
Austroads 2017 | page 15
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Figure 3.2: Reach dimensions for mobility impaired people
1 Includes clearance for knuckles of hands.
Figure 3.3: Wheelchair turning envelope
1 Radius is the swept path of the wheelchair; clearance between path and objects (e.g. walls, poles) must be provided.
Austroads 2017 | page 16
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Figure 3.4: Pedestrian path width requirements for people with mobility impairment
(a) A clear width of 1000 mm is adequate for people with ambulant disabilities, just allows passage for 80 per cent of people who use wheelchairs, and is in accordance with AS 1428.1
(b) People who use wheelchairs require a clear width of 1200 mm
(c) A clear width of 1500 mm allows a wheelchair and a pram to pass
(d) To allow two wheelchairs to pass comfortably, a clear width of 1800 mm is required
Source: AS 1428.2:1992.
Austroads 2017 | page 17
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
The cyclist design envelope (Figure 3.5) and clearances to obstructions or hazards (see Section 5.5.1) may be used to construct the appropriate width of facility required for cyclists under various conditions. The envelope is assumed to be consistent over the range of operating conditions and allowance for higher speeds is provided through larger clearances to both other cyclists and fixed objects beside the path. Appendix A provides guidance on how the envelope and clearances are applied to particular situations in order to determine satisfactory operating widths.
Figure 3.5: Cyclist design envelope
2.2 m 0.1 m 0.1 m EssentialEssential manoevring / manoeuvringspace 1.4 m clearancespace
Bicycle length can be taken 1.0 m Bicycle length can be taken as 1.75as 1.80m m
Note: The path width may vary on uphill sections of path, refer to Section 5.4.
The 1.0 m width of the envelope shown in Figure 3.5 allows for the width of a bicycle and for variations in tracking. Not all bicycle riders can steer a straight line and when riding uphill experienced riders work the bicycle from side to side while inexperienced riders may wobble. To allow for this operating characteristic the 1.0 m envelope width should be increased to 1.5 m for uphill travel, refer also to Section 5.1.3 for guidance on path widths. Further guidance on uphill travel is contained in Section 5.4.
Bicycle riders also need adequate clearances to fixed objects and to passing vehicles in addition to the 1.0 m envelope; refer to Section 5.5.1 for guidance on clearances.
Where data is available (e.g. census information and jurisdictional surveys) the space required for new major bicycle paths should be based on an estimation of the likely demand for cycling on the proposed facility.
However, where such information is not available the bicycle design envelope and clearances shown in Figure 5.6 provide the basis for the design of the bicycle facilities described in this part. It is important for designers to understand the basis of the design, including clearance requirements, so that they can make appropriate judgements in constrained situations where knowledge of minimum cyclist space requirements is needed. The envelope is relevant to the design of lanes on roads, off-road paths and bicycle parking facilities (AS 2890.3:2015).
In some situations it may be appropriate to provide for alternative forms of pedal cycles in the design of facilities. For example, it may be appropriate on heavily used recreational paths to allow for the space (e.g. width, length, swept path) required by a bicycle trailer that is commonly used by parents to tow young children.
Austroads 2017 | page 18
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
A smooth, skid resistant, surface is desirable for bicycles to be used effectively, comfortably and safely. Surfaces used for cycling should desirably be smoother than those acceptable for motor vehicles and persons responsible for path construction and maintenance should be made aware of this requirement. Guidance on surface tolerances is provided in Section 5.10.
It is also important that the design restricts debris from accumulating on paths. Surface water should not flow across the path in situations where soil, mulch or other debris could be carried onto the path. It is generally preferable that water is collected and piped under the path. Similarly, a maintenance regime should be in place to enable the removal of any debris that could inconvenience cyclists or create hazardous conditions by placing a solid object in the path of cyclists or causing the surface to become slippery (e.g. broken glass, rocks, mud after inundation, loose leaves or berries etc.).
For bicycles to be most effective as a means of transport, cyclists must be able to maintain speed without having to slow or stop often. While many cyclists typically travel at speeds between 20 km/h and 30 km/h, a significant number of cyclists travel at speeds in excess of 35 km/h to 40 km/h on the flat and may reach speeds in excess of 50 km/h on downhill gradients. Once slowed or stopped it takes considerable time and effort to regain the desired operating speed.
In some locations, such as in commercial precincts or urban residential neighbourhoods, maintaining path speeds may be less important and higher speeds may be counter-productive to encouraging inexperienced cyclists to use the path and may also result in safety concerns involving pedestrians. The higher speeds may also be a deterrent in attracting or encouraging new cyclists. In these areas, the operating speed on the path may need to be moderated to take into consideration the experience levels and the number of the cyclists using the path.
Bicycle routes, especially off-road, should be designed for continuous riding, minimising the need to slow or stop for any reason including steep gradients, rough surfaces, sharp corners, obscured sight lines, intersections, or to give way to other people because the width available is too narrow.
It is important that appropriate sight lines are provided between a cyclist’s eye height and pedestrians to assist in minimising conflict, and between a cyclist’s eye height and the path surface so that cyclists can stop in the event that a hazard exists on the path (e.g. mud deposited during inundation, potholes due to washouts, broken glass, and fallen tree limbs).
Designers should therefore resist the temptation to provide curves that are smaller than necessary (e.g. to create an artificially winding path for aesthetics or urban design reasons). It is much better for the safety of path users if larger curves with greater sight distance are provided. Refer to Section 5.7 for information on sight distance.
Austroads 2017 | page 19
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
4. Design Considerations
4.1 Location of Paths
Paths have a safe functional design requirement to provide a high level of amenity for people, either walking and/or cycling. Paths may be used by the full range of cyclist categories and to achieve this objective a designer should have: • an understanding of the objectives for the proposed path • an understanding of the expected numbers of path users • a recognition of the needs of all pedestrians and cyclists • an appreciation of the need for appropriate path geometry e.g. width and alignment, to cater for the path users • an appreciation of the location, available space and destinations.
Paths may be located: • in road related areas which have direct access to abutting properties • in reservations of major new or existing access-controlled arterial roads or freeways • along river frontages and foreshores • through parkland • along railway reservations • leading to and across bridges.
4.2 Factors of Influence – Path Location
Factors that influence the location of paths include the need to: • recognise the existing desire lines being followed by pedestrians and/or cyclists • achieve the best alignment possible to provide comfortable, convenient and safe travel, within the available resources. It is acknowledged that cost may be a factor in determining the location and elements of a path. • identify locations of local features that may be of interest to path users • avoid sharp horizontal curves, particularly at intersections or at the bottom of steep downgrades, where cyclists use the path • achieve adequate sight distance along the path to observe other path users • optimise the personal security of users of paths located in relatively isolated areas • provide access for emergency service vehicles and maintenance vehicles at path entrances or other strategic points • landscaping and planting considerations including vegetation removal (especially vegetation that has thorns that may puncture tyres), planting sizes at maturity and maintaining adequate sight distances and accumulation of debris • owners of private property abutting the reservation, who may be concerned that provision of a path will adversely affect privacy or the security of their property • the possible advantages that can be derived from incidental lighting from fixed sources or motor vehicles • the choice of aesthetically pleasing locations (to encourage use) • constraints such as geographical features, environmentally sensitive areas, areas of significance for Indigenous Australians etc.
Austroads 2017 | page 20
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
4.2.1 Factors Influencing Roadside Alignment
Where a path is located in a road reserve and abutting development results in driveways at frequent intervals, a choice may exist between locating the path: • adjacent to the kerb • adjacent to the property boundary • at an intermediate point, say 1.0 m behind the kerb.
However, in many cases the road related area will be too narrow to allow a choice in the location of a path.
It may be necessary for a path alignment to shift between the road reserve boundary and the kerb in order to retain vegetation, avoid obstacles, utilise bridges or connect to path crossings of the road. The alignment should be easy to follow, continuous and avoid sharp changes in direction.
Factors that influence the choice of alignment are summarised in Table 4.1.
Where there is an issue of vehicles failing to give way as they enter or leave the abutting properties or blocking the path, it may be necessary to reinforce the priority to the path users. Methods to reinforce the priority include continuing the path surface material across driveways to provide a contrast with the driveway surface, or alternatively through the use of appropriate signs or pavement markings.
Where a path crosses the minor road of a T-intersection or major access point and priority is given to the path users, consideration should be given locating the path at an appropriate distance from the main road. This will ensure vehicles are able to store and give way to path users so to not interrupt traffic flow on the adjoining main road. Where this is not possible consideration should be given to reversing the priority at the crossing, refer also to AGRD Part 4 (Austroads 2017a).
Table 4.1: Factors considered in the choice of path alignment in road related areas
Path location Factors for consideration • In many cases is the only option because of the road reserve width available. • Offers the best visibility of path users to drivers reversing out of their properties, particularly where high screen walls exist at the boundaries. • Will be used in two directions and allows cyclists to run off the path and ride against the flow of motor traffic on the road pavement. Overseas experience has shown wrong-way movements to be a major problem (Cross & Fisher 1977). • May result in parked cars being a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists due to the opening of vehicle doors into the path (refer also to Section 5.5.1). • May result in persons entering and exiting parked cars being put at risk due to the proximity of bicycle movements to the cars (refer also to Section 5.5.1). Adjacent to a • Follows the longitudinal profile of the kerb and is therefore generally cheaper to construct kerb because of reduced earthworks. • May be preferred by abutting landowners in terms of privacy and nature strip disruption. • May result in the effective path width being reduced by kerb returns (however, the use of AS 1428.1:2009 style side ramps would be of some assistance at driveways or the path profile being adversely affected at the cross over. • If wide, may be viewed as detracting from the appearance of the streetscape and may imply a higher speed environment. • Is less pleasant because of traffic noise, fumes and speed, and perhaps the splashing of water from gutters. • May be relatively unaffected by the presence of fences varying in height and type, or having sharp or exposed edges or protrusions.
Austroads 2017 | page 21
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Path location Factors for consideration • Provides a more pleasant environment and is perceived to be safer. • May limit visibility of path users to drivers reversing out of driveways, or to drivers turning left from the abutting carriageway, where path users are beyond the driver’s peripheral vision. • Does not necessarily follow the kerb profile and may result in steeper gradients or be more costly to construct. Adjacent to a • May be viewed as having a lower negative visual impact on the street than a kerbside path. property • May be unacceptable to abutting land owners. boundary • Is more efficient for the mail service, if the nature strip is very wide. • Should preferably be deviated to a location at least one car length back from road intersections, adjacent to which the path crosses, to facilitate passage behind a queued car. • Allows space for garbage bins to be accommodated clear of the path and for pit lids for utilities to be located outside of the path surface. Locating pits within paths should be avoided as the lids can create an uncomfortable ride and constitute a trip hazard for pedestrians.
4.2.2 Paths in Medians
Paths are not usually located in central medians, however, they may be acceptable where: • the median is wide and the outer verges narrow • the spacing of intersections is large • the speed environment of the road is low • motor vehicles are required to give way or stop for path users • safe crossings of the carriageways and intersections can be made (e.g. traffic volumes low to moderate, major intersections controlled by traffic signals).
Similarly, it may also be acceptable to locate a path in an outer separator of a major road, depending on site conditions and traffic conditions. However, this should only be done where there are few entries and exits from the service road, and crossings at these locations can be designed to ensure that they are safe by: • physically controlling vehicle ingress and egress speeds • providing good sight distance • making the priority clear to motorists and path users.
Disadvantages of providing paths in medians include providing access to the path across a carriageway, the median needs to be wide to provide some separation to motor vehicles and motorists do not expect pedestrians or cyclists at median openings and therefore they may be put at risk at these crossings.
Where paths are provided along wide central medians, sufficient distance should be provided between the path crossing points of the road between the carriageways of the main road, to provide adequate storage of vehicles to prevent interruption to traffic flow on the main road.
An example of a path located in a median at a road crossing is shown in Figure 4.1.
Austroads 2017 | page 22
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Figure 4.1: Example of a median path at a road crossing
Source: Google Maps (2016), ‘Victoria’, Map data, Google, California, USA.
The path width required depends on the envelope (i.e. space) occupied by pedestrians and/or cyclists using the path together with appropriate clearances. The clearances are required between path users travelling in the same direction or opposite directions, and also between path users and the edge of the path. Some allowance for the ability of cyclists to ride in a consistent wheel path (i.e. tracking of the bicycle within the envelope) is provided. Pedestrian and cyclist envelopes and examples of their application to determine the widths presented in Section 5.1 are contained in Appendix A.
While path width can be developed from cyclist and pedestrian envelopes and required clearances, the choice of a width in many situations is subjective because data is not usually available on the level and type of use that could be expected. Some jurisdictions systematically collect traffic data on existing path networks and some investigation has been done on the development of models to estimate the traffic flow on proposed paths (Land Transport New Zealand 2008). However, in the absence of a relationship between path width and parameters such as cyclist operating speed, volumes of pedestrians and cyclists, mix of pedestrians and bicycles, practitioners should consider a number of factors, such as the: • level of pedestrian and cyclist use • types of use expected e.g. where pedestrians may travel in large groups • types of cyclists likely to be attracted to the path • objectives of the path (e.g. provide a major link for cyclists including school children) • speed of cyclists • traffic regime • available clearances • user envelopes.
Austroads 2017 | page 23
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
In many cases there will be more than one type of user to be accommodated and their requirements may differ. For example, where a path follows a scenic route but also is intended to attract cyclists from an alternative high speed road environment, it will be necessary to provide a good experience for cyclists and these cyclists wanting to minimise their travel time should be provided with an alignment and other conditions to minimise the travel time.
With many jurisdictions now allowing cycling on pedestrian paths, the increasing use of personal mobility devices and encouragement to increase cycling and walking, there is growing need to ensure path widths are provided that accommodate safe movements of path users, including passing or overtaking movements. This is particularly the case for separated paths where legislation may restrict the use of the path to only the designated use.
4.4 Bicycle Paths
The principles of designing a path for bicycles are similar to those used in designing roads and it is essential that the path has an alignment and cross-section to suit the function of the path and the speed and volume of traffic, drainage that prevents inundation and debris from washing onto the surface, and adjacent areas that are forgiving to cyclists that leave the path.
The vertical and horizontal alignment (and combinations of these), width of path and clearances adopted, are important to the safe operation of a path. Paths attract a variety of users from experienced cyclists to young children and inexperienced cyclists (Table C1 3) and hence it is desirable to consider the characteristics of all likely users and to design the path to suit the needs of the type of user for which it is intended.
The geometric standard adopted for a path will depend on its role within the bicycle network. Paths may perform an arterial function for a specific user group (e.g. veloway), have a mixed-use function for cyclists, pedestrians and other types of use (e.g. in-line skaters) or have a local access function.
A veloway is a high-standard exclusive bicycle path catering for high-volume and/or high-speed arterial movement. There are few veloways in Australia. This Part does not provide guidelines that are specific to the design of veloways. While the information in this section may assist in the design of veloways the values adopted for design elements will depend on local circumstances and should be determined by the responsible agency.
Austroads 2017 | page 24
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
5. Design Criteria
Paths attract a variety of users as (example outlined in Table C1 3) and the needs of all likely users should be considered in the design of a path (see also Commentary 1). [see Commentary 1]
5.1 Width of Paths
5.1.1 Clear Width
The widths provided in this Part are for a clear width on a path (Figure 5.1). Intrusions in or over a path, such as vegetation, signs, poles, fences or seats may become obstacles or hazards to path users, reducing the width of the clear path and should be removed wherever practicable. In locations where the intrusion is unable to be removed, path users need to be alerted to the presence of the intrusion with sufficient time to enable the obstacle or hazard to be avoided.
For guidance on the clearances to obstructions or hazards, refer to Section 5.5.
Figure 5.1: Example of clear width
5.1.2 Pedestrian Paths
The suggested width requirements for pedestrian paths are shown in Table 5.1. The operating space required for mobility impaired pedestrians is illustrated in Figure 3.4 and while personal mobility devices (e.g. scooters) are not included in the figure it is considered that most scooters could be accommodated within the widths shown (refer to product suppliers for further information). As a guide, the desirable minimum width of a pedestrian path that has a very low volume is 1.2 m with an absolute minimum of 1.0 m at constrained locations and with agreement by the relevant road agency. These widths should be increased at locations where: • high pedestrian volumes are anticipated • a pedestrian path is adjacent to a traffic or parking lane • a pedestrian path is combined with bicycle facilities • the pedestrian path is to cater for people with disabilities • overtaking of path users is expected.
The roadside often has to accommodate many features including paths. It is therefore important that enough space is provided to ensure that all features can be accommodated and pedestrians have a clear space in which to operate. In some cases the relevant road agency may desire to implement an urban design solution within the roadside.
Austroads 2017 | page 25
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
The crossfall of a paved pedestrian path may vary from flat (but achieving an adequately drained surface) to 2.5%. Provided that drainage is satisfactory, a lower crossfall is preferred (i.e. 1.0%) as a higher crossfall may cause problems for some people.
Table 5.1: Width requirements for pedestrian paths
Situation Suggested minimum width (m) Comments 1.2(1) • General minimum is 1.2 m for most roads and streets. General low volume • Clear width required for one wheelchair. • Not adequate for commercial or shopping environments. High pedestrian volumes 2.4 (or higher based on volume) • Generally commercial and shopping areas. For wheelchairs to pass 1.8 • Refer also to AS 1428.1:2009. For people with other 1.0 disabilities
1 In constrained locations an absolute minimum of 1.0 m should be provided. In these situations, path users should be able to detect other path users with sufficient time to respond and take appropriate actions.
Notes: While the minimum width may be used where volume is low it is generally desirable to provide a path that will accommodate two pedestrians side by side. Wider than the minimum width (e.g. up to 5 m) may also be necessary at locations where pedestrian flows are high or where pedestrians gather such as in the vicinity of schools and associated road crossings, at recreation facilities and at important bus stops. Where volume is significant it may be necessary to provide adequate congregation areas clear of the path required for through movement of pedestrians. Where a path is 2 * Batter off the surface where fall is within 1 m of path.
B. Batter slope without obstacles
(m) (m) 8 Fence not required 1 to 5 >3 Partial barrier fence required 8 Fence not required 1 to 5 >4 Partial barrier fence required L, L = 2S - 1 2 A �� � � A x S2 For S . Australian Human Rights Commission 2013, Advisory note on streetscape, public outdoor areas, fixtures, fittings and furniture, Australian Human Rights Commission, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2006, Pedestrian-cyclist conflict minimisation on shared paths and footpaths, AP-R287-06, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2009-2012, Guide to bridge technology – set, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2009, Guide to road safety part 6: road safety audit, 3rd edn, AGRS06-09, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2010a, Guide to road design part 6: roadside design, safety and barriers, 2nd edn, AGRD06-10, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2010b, Australian national cycling strategy 2011-2016: gearing up for active and sustainable communities: national cycling strategy: 2011-2016, AP-C85-10, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2013a, Guide to traffic management part 6: intersections, interchanges and crossings, 2nd edn, AGTM06-13, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2013b, Guide to road design part 5B: drainage: open channels, culverts and floodways, AGRD05B-13, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2014, Guide to traffic management part 5: road management, 2nd edn, AGTM05-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2015a, Guide to road design part 1: introduction to road design, 4th edn, AGRD01-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2015b, Guide to road design part 6B: roadside environment, 2nd edn, AGRD06B-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2015c, Bicycle wayfinding, AP-R492-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2015d, Guide to road design part 4B: roundabouts, 3rd edn, AGRD04B-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2015e, Guide to road design part 4C: interchanges, 2nd edn, AGRD04C-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2015f, Level of service metrics (for network operations planning), AP-R475-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2016a, Guide to traffic management part 4: network management, 4th edn, AGTM04-16, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2016b, Guide to road design part 3: geometric design, 3rd edn, AGRD03-16, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2016c, Guide to traffic management part 8: local area traffic management, 2nd edn, AGTM08-16, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2016d, Guide to traffic management part 10: traffic control and communication devices, 2nd edn, AGTM10-16, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2017 | page 78
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Austroads 2017a, Guide to road design part 4: intersections and crossings: general, AGRD04-07, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2017b, Guide to road design part 4A: unsignalised and signalised intersections, 2nd edn, AGRD04A-17, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Austroads 2017c, Cycling aspects of Austroads guides, 3rd edn, AP-G88-17, Austroads, Sydney, NSW. Cairney, P & King, K 2003, Development of a performance based specification for a major bicycle facility, ARR 358, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic. Cement and Concrete Association of Australia 2004, Guide to residential streets and paths, Cement and Concrete Association of Australia, Sydney, NSW. Cross, KD & Fisher, GA 1977, A study of bicycle/motor-vehicle accidents: identification of problem types and countermeasure approaches, DOT-HS-4-00982, National Highway Transport Safety Administration, Washington, DC, USA. de Groot, R 2007, Design manual for bicycle traffic, CROW, Ede, The Netherlands. Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, 2015, Pavement marking manual, DPTI, Adelaide, SA. Engineers Australia 2010, Australian rainfall and runoff: revision project 10: appropriate safety criteria for people: stage 1 report, Engineers Australia, Barton, ACT. Land Transport New Zealand 2005, Land transport rule: traffic control devices 2004, Wellington NZ. Land Transport New Zealand 2008, Estimating demand for new cycling facilities in New Zealand, report 340, Land Transport New Zealand, Wellington, NZ, viewed 30 May 2016, . Ministry of Transport 2005, Getting there: on foot, by cycle: a strategy to advance walking and cycling in New Zealand transport, Ministry of Transport, Wellington, NZ. NZ Transport Agency 2009, Pedestrian planning and design guide, NZTA, Wellington, New Zealand, viewed 12 January 2016, . NZ Transport Agency 2010a, Manual of traffic signs and markings (MOTSAM): part 1: traffic signs, NZTA, Wellington, New Zealand. NZ Transport Agency 2010b, Manual of traffic signs and markings (MOTSAM): part 2: markings, NZTA, Wellington, New Zealand. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2015a, Road planning and design manual: edition 2: volume 3: supplement to Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths, TMR, Brisbane, Qld. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2015b, Technical note 128: selection and design of cycle tracks, TMR, Brisbane, Qld. Queensland Transport 2005, Easy steps: a tool kit for planning, designing and promoting safe walking, Queensland Transport, Brisbane, Qld, viewed 18 January 2016, . Roads and Traffic Authority 2002, How to prepare a pedestrian access and mobility plan: an easy three stage guide, RTA/PUB.02.024, RTA, Sydney, NSW. Roads and Traffic Authority 2005, NSW bicycle guidelines, version 1.2, RTA, Sydney, NSW. Roads and Maritime Services 2013, Continuous footpath treatments, technical direction TDT 2013-05, RMS, Sydney, NSW. Shepherd, R 1994, ‘Road and path quality for cyclists’, Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) conference, 17th, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 133-47. VicRoads 2005, Terminal treatments for off-road paths, cycle note no. 17, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
Austroads 2017 | page 79
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Australian and New Zealand Standards AS/NZS1158 (Set):2010, Lighting for roads and public spaces, set. AS/NZS 1158.1.1:2005, Lighting for roads and public spaces: vehicular traffic (category V) lighting: performance and design requirements. AS/NZS 1158.1.2:2010, Lighting for roads and public spaces: vehicular traffic (category V) lighting: guide to design, installation, operation and maintenance. AS/NZS 1158.3.1:2005, Lighting for roads and public spaces: pedestrian area (category P) lighting: performance and design requirements. AS/NZS 3695.1:2011, Wheelchairs: requirements and test methods for manual wheelchairs. AS/NZS 3695.2:2013, Wheelchairs: requirements and test methods for electrically powered wheelchairs (including mobility scooters). Australian Standards AS 1428.1:2009, Design for access and mobility: part 1: general requirements for access: new building work. AS 1428.2:1992 (R2015), Design for access and mobility: part 2: enhanced and additional requirements: buildings and facilities. AS 1742.2:2009, Manual of uniform traffic control devices: part2: traffic control devices for general use. AS 1742.3:2009, Manual of uniform traffic control devices: part 3: traffic control for works on roads. AS 1742.9:2000, Manual of uniform traffic control devices: part 9: bicycle facilities. AS 1743:2001, Road signs: specifications. AS 2890.3:2015, Parking facilities: part 3: bicycle parking.
Austroads 2017 | page 80
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Appendix A Application of Envelopes and Clearances to Determine the Widths of Paths
Various common path operational scenarios are shown in Figure A 1, Figure A 2 and Figure A 3. These form the basis of the widths provided for paths in Section 5 of the guide. Designers should review the likely operational characteristics of paths during the design process to determine the appropriate path width.
A.1 Bicycle Paths
For a bicycle path (Figure A 1): • 3.0 m is the desirable width for a path where high speeds are possible. • 2.5 m is the acceptable minimum path width for paths with a predominant purpose of commuting, during periods of peak use. • 2.0 m is the absolute minimum path width where paths experience very low use at all times and on all days or where significant constraints exist limiting the construction of a wider path, and may be acceptable for a commuting path where the path user flows are tidal in nature.
Whilst unlikely, it is technically possible that situations exist where wider paths may be justified i.e. where there are high speeds, and where high ‘concurrent’ bicycle volumes exist for both directions, such that passing within the lane in each direction is necessary.
Figure A 1: Bicycle path operation
Scenario Overall width of path Predominant path purpose
Typical• Typical circumstances circumstances of of use use
A 2.0 m Local aaccessccess •Constrained Constrained conditions conditions •‘ Tidal‘T idalflow’’ flow • •Low L useow use
B 2.5 m Commuting and and local local access access •Regular Regular use use •20 km/h20 km/h
C 3.0 m CommutingCommuting •• FrequentFreque andnt andconcurrent concurrent use in bothuse directions in both directions •• 30 km/h+30 km/h+
Austroads 2017 | page 81
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
A.2 Shared Paths
For a shared path (Figure A 2): • Regional paths should be 4.0 m wide to permit the cyclist groups/couples to pass pedestrian couples or other cyclist groups, or to permit cyclists travelling in opposite directions to pass pedestrians with convenience and safety. However, it should be noted that in some jurisdictions cyclists may be prohibited from riding side-by-side on shared paths. • 2.5 m and 3.0 m are the absolute minimum widths for paths having a predominant purpose of commuting and recreation respectively, during periods of peak use. • 2.0 m is an acceptable path width where the path has a very low use at all times and on all days, where significant constraints exist limiting the construction of a wider path. • 3.0 m is the minimum path width for a path where high speeds occur.
A.3 Separated Paths
Figure A 3 illustrates the operation of a one-way separated path.
The width for this path is: • 1.5 m desirable width (overall path width of 3.0 m) and is appropriate for paths used by experienced cyclists, and where there are relatively high cyclist speeds. • 1.2 m absolute minimum width (overall path width ≥ 2.4 m) and should only be used for local access paths (where higher speed cyclists are a small proportion of all users), where cyclist speeds are relatively low, and where the path abuts an adjoining pedestrian path not less than 1.2 m wide. • 2.0 m is the width of the bicycle path (overall width of 3.5 m) required where passing within the cyclists’ path section occurs or where it is desirable that passing manoeuvres by cyclists occur outside of the pedestrian path section of the facility.
A barrier separating the bicycle and pedestrian path sections is not usually required for separated one-way paths. However, physical separation should be considered in situations such as where path conditions are congested or where there are unsafe conditions due to path users.
In the event that a barrier is used to separate the bicycle and pedestrian path sections, then a wider pedestrian path section may be required to allow passing manoeuvres on that section of the path, amongst other reasons (e.g. pedestrian volumes).
Austroads 2017 | page 82
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Figure A 2: Shared path operation
Scenario Overall width of path Predominant path purpose
•TypicalTypical circumstances circumstances ofof use use
A 2.0 m Local accessaccess •Constrained constrained conditions conditions •‘ Tidal‘tidal flow’’ flow •Low l owuse use
B 2.5 m •CommutingCommuting and and local local access access ••Regular Regular use use ••20 km/h20 km/h
C 3.0 m CommutingCommuting •• FrequentFreque andnt andconcurrent concurrent use in bothuse directions in both directions •• 30 km/h+30 km/h+
Recreation D 3.0 m Recreation •Regular Regular use use •20 km/h20 km/h
•Commuting and recreation E 3.5 m Commuting and recreation (concurrent)(concurrent) •Frequent and concurrent use in both Frequentdirections and concurrent use in both directions •30 km/h+ • 30 km/h+
F 4.0 m Major recreational recreation path •20 km/hHigh and concurrent use •Heavyin bothand concurrent directions use in both directions• 20 km/h
MajorMajor recreationalrecreation path G 4.0 m ••Regular Regular group group rides rides ••Heavy High and and concurrent concurrent use usein both directionsin both directions ••Generally Generally low speedlow speed due to due congestionto congestion
Austroads 2017 | page 83
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Figure A 3: Separated one-way path operation
Scenario Overall width of path Predominant path purpose
Typical• Typical circumstances circumstances ofof use
A 2.5 m CCommutingommuting andand local local access access •• ConstrainedConstrained conditions conditions •• ‘20 20km/h km/h’
B 3.0 m CommutingCommuting •Frequent Frequent and concurrent and concurrent use in both usepath in sections both path sections •30 km/h+30 km/h+
Austroads 2017 | page 84
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Appendix B Speed Limiting Treatments
The use of speed limiting treatments on paths, either a bicycle path or a shared path, should follow the same principles as used when speed reducing treatments are placed on roads. The devices must provide a clear unambiguous direction to the path user, must not add a hazard and must be supported by necessary regulatory signage and linemarking.
Table B 1 sets out speed limiting treatments for bicycle path and shared path terminations.
Table B 1: Suggested path speed limiting treatments
Treatment Use Comments Can destabilise riders and increase hazards if poorly sited or inadequately Speed humps Appropriate marked. Warning signs and linemarking similar to road humps. Minimum one-way width of 1.4 m. Warning signage and linemarking Path narrowing Appropriate required. Maximum deflection angle 10° for high-speed path and 20° for low-speed Path deflection Appropriate path. Used to warn of an approaching hazard and to advise of a need to reduce Warning signs Appropriate speed. Used in conjunction with other methods. Alternative paving Appropriate Use different materials and colours. Can destabilise cyclists and increase hazards if used as a speed limiting Path terminal Not appropriate treatment. Used only to prevent unauthorised vehicle entry when other deflection rails methods have not succeeded. Holding rails Not appropriate Only used at intersections to provide a temporary support for a cyclist. Bollards Not appropriate Not considered an appropriate speed control treatment.
Source: Adapted from Roads and Traffic Authority (2005) and Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (2015a).
Austroads 2017 | page 85
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Appendix C Path Construction and Maintenance
C.1 General Requirements
Careful location, design and construction of paths for cycling can reduce future maintenance requirements. Careful attention to drainage, the location of vegetation and the type of vegetation planted can assist in minimising maintenance. A large amount of maintenance can be prevented if debris is not washed onto paths, and if appropriate plant species are selected so they do not cause pavement damage and trimming of overhead branches is not required.
The path alignment and cross-section should be designed to minimise the amount of debris, which can wash onto the path surface. Paths adjacent to watercourses should be located so that the likelihood of inundation and the resulting slippery surface is reduced.
Bushes that will not grow tall enough to obstruct sight distance should be planted on the inside of curves. Trees should be chosen and planted away from the edge of paths so as to minimise the likelihood of roots causing deformation and cracking of the path surface.
Paths for bicycles should be included in asset management programs in a similar manner to roads, to ensure a safe and useable riding surface and also to avoid the increasing cost of maintenance or reconstruction as a result of the asset degradation.
It is essential for effective maintenance operations that all aspects of the design allow for ease of access for all necessary maintenance plant (i.e. truck, backhoe, and mowers), not only to the path but abutting reservations that do not have alternate access. As the construction may not be performed by the agency performing the maintenance, consultation should be undertaken throughout the design process in order to determine maintenance requirements.
C.2 Path Maintenance Requirements
Regular maintenance activities on paths should include: • filling of cracks (Figure C 1) • trimming or removal of grass so that it does not intrude into the path (Figure C 2) • sweeping of paths to remove debris such as broken glass and fine gravel (including that arising from construction and maintenance activities such as crack sealing) • re-painting of pavement markings • cleaning of signs • trimming of trees and shrubs to maintain safe clearances and sight distances.
Austroads 2017 | page 86
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Figure C 1: Maintenance operations on asphalt path
Figure C 2: Asphalt path requiring maintenance
Austroads 2017 | page 87
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
C.3.1 Pavements for Bicycle Paths
The pavement of paths for cycling must be designed and constructed to a standard that ensures a satisfactory level of service for cyclists throughout the life of the facility.
The maintenance activities discussed previously require the use of a truck and other substantial machinery. If paths are not designed to carry the live loads imparted by this equipment then pavements will suffer structural damage, which will affect use of the facility, and be expensive to repair. All paths should therefore be designed to withstand at least a fully laden small truck.
Most paths should have a hard weatherproof surface. Primarily they can be constructed as a flexible pavement of crushed rock surfaced with asphalt or a bituminous seal, or as a rigid concrete pavement.
It is important that the sub-grades of both flexible and rigid pavements are compacted to a satisfactory standard and soft areas are treated. It may be necessary in some cases to assess sub-grade conditions along the line of the proposed path.
Typical cross-sections of flexible and rigid pavements are shown in Figure C 3. Individual road agencies will have a preference for particular types of pavement based on experience using local materials that should result in economical pavements. Appropriate pavement design advice should be sought in every instance.
Figure C 3: Typical pavements for paths
Geofabric used in some instances
Fine crushed rock
Gravel sub-base (CBR .
Due to the high pressure in many bicycle tyres it is desirable that sprayed sealed surfaces have a stone size less than 14 mm in order to provide a comfortable ride for cyclists.
C.3.3 Concrete Pavements
The use of concrete paths can be beneficial on the basis of whole-of-life costs, but only where appropriate construction methods are employed. In general, concrete paths have a longer life and are relatively unaffected by: • inundation and should therefore be preferred for paths close to watercourses • the deleterious effects of vegetation either at cracks or along the path edges • low levels of maintenance • the absence of motor traffic (important to the condition of bituminous pavements) • poor sub-grade conditions in some instances • occasional heavy traffic (in the case of reinforced paths).
Concrete paths should be of sufficient strength to resist cracking and differential vertical movement. A skid- resistant surface finish should be provided by transverse brooming of the wet concrete. Similar attention should be given to the smoothness of path sections both at joints and in between.
The development of concrete path construction techniques and products has resulted in significant improvements in rider comfort. It is critical that such techniques (Cement and Concrete Association of Australia 2004) are employed. They include: • preformed or saw-cut contraction joints As a consequence bull floating, trowelling and broom finishing can be extended right up to the joints resulting in a considerably improved riding surface. In particular, wet formed contraction joints made using a grooving tool, should be avoided. The sealing of contraction joints may be important to minimise the ingress of dirt and to limit weed growth amongst other benefits. • the use of extended bull floats (up to 4 m wide) to avoid long wave corrugations that affect cyclists travelling at speed • narrower and fewer joints.
It is sometimes perceived that the contrast between the colour of lines and concrete surfaces is insufficient. Conversely, concrete paths are thought to offer a higher standard of delineation for cycling in dark conditions. As for other path surface types, it is important that pavement markings are maintained on concrete paths to a high standard.
Austroads 2017 | page 92
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
C.3.4 Unsealed Paths
Consideration may be given to the provision of a stabilised unsealed surface as the first stage of development where: • it is necessary to reduce construction costs • the path is unlikely to flood to the extent that excessive damage to an unsealed path or excessive maintenance costs will result • the volume of cyclists initially using the path is expected to be low • flat gradients exist (e.g. less than 3%) • costs need to be reduced • the environmental amenity of an area will be reduced by a sealed path.
The second stage would be the provision of an asphalt, or bituminous surface, or possibly a concrete surface.
Care should be taken in the selection of the (unsealed) surface material to ensure that the riding surface is smooth and well bound, as cyclists will not be attracted to a path that has a poor surface. Well graded river gravels are most suitable. Materials that result in loose surfacing should not be used under any circumstances. Good drainage is also an important factor in the success of gravel paths.
C.3.5 Timber Surfaces
Gaps between longitudinal planks in timber decks can trap bicycle wheels and cause serious injuries to cyclists. Consideration should therefore be given to remedial treatment of existing timber bridges such as through an asphalt overlay of the outer 1.0 m sections of deck to provide a smooth, safe ride for cyclists. At the very least warning signs should be provided on the approaches to bridges that have longitudinal gaps in the deck.
On new timber bridges the planks should be placed perpendicular to the direction of travel of cyclists. In constructing and maintaining bridges it is important to ensure that the deck joints at abutments and piers provide a smooth and hence safe passage for cyclists.
Drainage should not be a problem when one considers the number of gaps in the decks of timber bridges. However, individual planks have the potential to warp and collect small, localised pools of water. Timber surfaces can be slippery in wet or shady conditions. Where these circumstances are common the application of a non-slip finish is also desirable, regardless of the alignment of planks.
Further information on pavement materials is contained in Commentary 3. [see Commentary 3]
C.4 Life Cycle Costing
When selecting a pavement for a path, consideration should be given to the costs, the initial capital cost, annual maintenance costs and renewal costs so that the constructing agency is able to determine a pavement with the knowledge of the financial, initial and future requirements for the path. An example of a life cycle costing for path surfaces is shown in Table C 1.
Austroads 2017 | page 93
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Table C 1: Example of life cycle costs
Material Construction cost(1) ($) Annual maintenance cost(2) ($) Life cycle cost ($) Decomposed granite 105 000 27 000 391 000 Asphalt 120 000 3000 152 000 Concrete 195 000 1500 210 000 Boardwalk 1 200 000 2000 1 221 000
1 Assumes a 20 year period. 2 Assumes regular rain and flooding, requiring 30% replacement of surface annually. Note: The construction costs and annual maintenance costs are indicative only for the nominated section of path and have been provided to show the development of the life cycle costs. For other paths, these costs should be determined using jurisdiction information. Source: Adapted from Road and Traffic Authority (2005).
C.5 Provision at Works
When construction and maintenance work is carried out involving trenching or other construction work across roads and paths, access for cyclists and pedestrians should be maintained to a satisfactory quality to avoid the use of alternative routes which may be hazardous or inconvenient.
Construction and maintenance works should be undertaken in such a way that these activities do not place cyclists and pedestrians at risk during the works period. This is particularly important, for instance, where a sealed shoulder is closed for maintenance on freeways or other high speed roads where cyclists may be permitted.
C.5.2 Signing and Delineation at Work Sites on or Adjacent to Paths
The signing and delineation of construction and maintenance works on roads and paths should be performed in accordance with AS 1742.3:2009 and any relevant local codes of practice and regulations. In general, provision for works on paths should be made in accordance with the principles of these standards.
A principal objective of providing for cyclists and pedestrians adjacent to works site, the surface should be maintained in a clean and smooth state.
Figure C 5, Figure C 6 and Figure C 7 highlight the desired level of provision required in the vicinity of works, depending on the circumstances. The actual provisions to be made are dependent on the conditions that exist, including: • presence of a traffic controller • existing level of bicycle use, and also of pedestrian use in the case of shared path diversions • available opportunities to provide for cyclists • road or path alignment • traffic speeds and volumes • duration of work • surface material and condition • environmental impacts.
Austroads 2017 | page 94
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Provision for cyclists on roads should be made in the following circumstances: • where bicycle lanes exist • arterial roads • collector roads, with an AADT in excess of 3000 vehicles per day • strategic and other significant bicycle routes.
Safety barriers should be provided where required by AS 1742.3:2009, and are generally appropriate where cyclists or pedestrians are detoured onto roads. Temporary (lower) speed limits may also be appropriate in this circumstance.
Figure C 5 provides guidance where adequate provision for cyclists is not possible on a road, access along a path in the area of the roadside verge may be appropriate. Provided adequate separation from the work area can be maintained, it is generally acceptable to initiate and terminate the roadside verge bicycle access within the road lane transition zones either side of the work area.
For paths, reference should be made to Section 2 and Section 3 for guidance relating to paths located away from road reserves where temporary roadside verge access is required. The controls highlighted in these sections are applicable to temporary paths.
Containment fences should be provided in accordance with the requirements of AS 1742.3:2009, and otherwise as required by the Guide to Road Design Part 6B: Roadside Environment (Austroads 2015b). These may be appropriate to separate pedestrians and cyclists where a pedestrian path is to be used for access by cyclists, and where: • significant pedestrian or bicycle volumes exist • safety issues may arise due to the unexpected use of a pedestrian path by cyclists.
Examples of provisions for paths located adjacent to roads and in reserves are shown in Figure C 6 and Figure C 7.
Temporary paths should be sealed. Whilst dependent on circumstances, such as bicycle volumes, safety and the extent of inconvenience to cyclists, this may be unnecessary where: • the works are carried out over a short period (e.g. less than two or three weeks duration) • the temporary path surface is firm, smooth and free of thorns • the works are carried out during dry weather conditions • path traffic is minimal.
However, it is very desirable that temporary paths are sealed and delineated where works are carried out over longer periods. Separated paths should be suitably delineated regardless of the period of construction.
Where works on paths are carried out for a period exceeding one day, the works should be made sufficiently visible for night-time path travel, so that path users are able to observe conditions under low ambient light conditions including temporary access paths, and take appropriate action. In addition, as a general principle, lighting on temporary access paths should not be less than the existing level on the original path.
Specific consideration may need to be given to the intersections of paths and roads. The measures taken to protect traffic should be balanced with consideration to all of the potential users and movements at such locations.
Where containment fences are used, to avoid catching the pedals of cyclists the fence should be set back from paths by at least 0.3 m and fine weave mesh should be used to prevent bicycle handlebars or pedals from catching on the fence.
Austroads 2017 | page 95
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Surface tolerances for bicycle riding surfaces are provided in Section 5.10. Where steel road plates are used to cover excavated or damaged pavement surfaces, appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that any steps and grooves are within the permissible tolerances.
Figure C 5: Works on roads – exclusive bicycle path diversion
Temporary path access where suitable on ForRefer path widthsection 6.2.1 referfor to width note 1 road provision not possible Suitable kerb ramp Containment fence (at least 2 m long) Kerb
Cyclists’ route Works site
Refer AS 1742.3 for road For lane width signing and delineation provision refer to note 2
1 For path width refer to Section 5.1.3 . 2 For lane width refer to AGRD Part 3 (Austroads 2016b).
Figure C 6: Works on paths adjacent roads – shared path diversion
Path geometry to be suitable for cyclists speeds Works site
Line marking for longer duration works Path Ramp/path extension Kerb
Refer AS 1742.3 for road signing and delineation provisions Safety barrier Containment fence Traffic lane(s) ReferFor path to sectionwidth refer 6.2.1 to for note width 1
1 For path width refer to Section 5.1.4.
Figure C 7: Works on paths – shared path diversion
Works site Containment fence
Width to match connecting path
Temporary path Path geometry to be Line marking for longer duration works suitable for cyclists speeds
Austroads 2017 | page 96
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Appendix D Bicycle Safety Audit Checklist
The implementation of a system of auditing of the infrastructure, which includes cycling facilities, either integrated with a similar process for roads, or otherwise, is recognised as the most appropriate means of undertaking these assessments.
In accordance with the Austroads road safety audit process (Austroads 2009a), it is appropriate that audits of bicycle routes and other facilities are conducted at various stages from planning through to construction, and in relation to existing infrastructure.
The lists of items in the sections below represent the possible contents of a checklist to assist the identification of relevant safety issues or concerns associated with bicycle facilities. It is unlikely that they include all of the issues that are of relevance or concern to cyclists, particularly given the wide variation in construction and design practice, and the conditions that exist.
It is therefore essential that personnel conducting audits of bicycle facilities are experienced in and knowledgeable about the provision of bicycle facilities.
Individual items provided in the lists may be applicable during several audit stages or may only relate to existing infrastructure.
Where existing infrastructure is to be audited, it is important that to some degree the audit is performed on a bicycle and on foot. The type of bicycle used should be representative of the most common type in the region of the audit, but should not have a suspension system or tyres wider than 32 mm.
Similarly, it is important that safety audit personnel ride at speeds typical of most users – which may be in excess of 25 km/h. Riding at slower speeds may not reveal potential problems such as geometric limitations or pavement surface defects.
Section D.2 is generally applicable to roads, paths and intersections. The requirements that relate mainly to either paths or roads are provided in Section D.9 and Section D.10 respectively.
In so far as roads are concerned, it is assumed that general road safety auditing processes exist, and hence the lists below represent additional considerations for bicycles.
D.2 General Requirements for Roads and Paths • Are the designated crossing points and routes appropriate and acceptable to meet the required cyclist volumes? • Are the characteristic bicycle use patterns accommodated (i.e. categories of cyclists, volumes, times of travel)? • Do the proposals account for surrounding bicycle network deficiencies and opportunities? • Do consistent and suitable provisions exist for the respective categories of cyclists anticipated along the route, or can they be achieved; for instance, is a path required for children and inexperienced cyclists? • Are grade separated or controlled crossings required? • Are traffic calming or local area traffic management measures required? (refer to the Guide to Traffic Management Part 8: Local Area Traffic Management) (Austroads 2016c). • Are the requirements of local codes of practice met?
Austroads 2017 | page 97
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
D.3 Alignment and Cross-section • Does the cross-section of the lane/path facility safely accommodate the anticipated cyclists? • Are stopping sight distances adequate for all traffic, accounting for paths, roads, driveways, railways etc.? • Are sight lines applicable to the operation of cyclists obscured by obstacles such as signs, trees, pedestrian fences and parked cars? • Is the horizontal and vertical alignment suitable? If not, are warning signs installed? • Are there any sections of riding surface which may cause confusion for users, e.g. – Is alignment of the riding surface clearly defined, particularly at unexpected bends or for dark conditions? – Have disused pavement sections been removed or treated? • Is sufficient route information or guidance provided? • Does the design avoid or minimise the need for cyclists to slow or stop? • Do hazardous conditions (e.g. concealed intersecting paths, curves) exist at the bottom of steep gradients?
D.4 Signs, Delineation and Lighting • Are all necessary pavement markings provided? • Are there any redundant pavement markings? Have redundant pavement markings been properly removed? • Are all necessary regulatory, warning and direction signs provided and located appropriately? Are they conspicuous and clear in their intent? Are they at a safe distance/height with respect to the riding surface? • Are signs in good condition and of an appropriate standard? • Are there any redundant signs? • Are fixed objects close to or on the path (trees, fences, holding rails, etc.) treated to ensure visibility at night (e.g. painted white and fitted with reflectors or reflective tape)? • Are pavement markings clearly visible and effective for all likely conditions (e.g. day, night, rain, fog, rising or setting sun, oncoming headlights, light coloured pavement surface, poor lighting)? • Are user movements obvious or delineated through intersections? • Is public lighting of facilities required? Is the lighting design satisfactory, particularly at tunnels, underpasses and areas of high pedestrian activity? Is it operating satisfactorily? • Are raised pavement markers recessed flush with the surface or located outside of the paths of travel of cyclists, or outside of bicycle lanes? • Are thermoplastic markings chamfered?
D.5 Riding Surface • Is the riding surface suitable for cycling? • Are the riding surface and edges smooth and free of defects (e.g. grooves, ruts or steps) which could affect the stability of cyclists or cause wheel damage? • Is the pavement design/construction of a satisfactory standard? • Can utility service covers, grates, drainage pits etc. be safely negotiated by cyclists?
Austroads 2017 | page 98
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
• Are smooth and flat gutters/channels provided at stormwater drainage pit inlets? • Is the riding surface free of loose materials (e.g. sand, gravel, broken glass, concrete spills)? • Is there suitable protection to prevent sand or other debris from depositing on the riding surface? • Does the riding surface have adequate skid resistance, particularly at curves, intersections, bridge expansion joints and railway crossings? • Is the riding surface generally free of areas where ponding or flow of water may occur? • Is special protection required to prevent cyclists from running off the riding surface?
D.6 Vegetation, Maintenance and Construction • Is suitable access for cycling available during maintenance and construction activities? (Appendix C). • Are all locations free of construction or maintenance equipment? • In the absence of an appropriate and regular maintenance program – Is there a possibility of the encroachment of grasses into bituminous riding surfaces (e.g. kikuyu) or similar circumstances that could result in poor edge conditions or pavement degradation? – Do thorn-bearing grasses (e.g. caltrop) exist, or are they likely to be introduced adjacent to the riding surface? – Are channels, kerb slots or similar treatments over which cyclists ride, located under deciduous trees etc. or otherwise likely to experience a build-up of debris due to poor drainage conditions? • Will crack sealing processes or the application of spray seals result in the presence of loose/granular material/sand on the riding surface? • Does landscaping allow adequate clearances, sight distance etc. and will these be maintained given mature plant growth? • Could personal security of path users be adversely affected due to the position of bushes and other landscape features? • Is landscaping required as a wind break? • Will the positioning of trees and the species used contribute to the degradation of the pavement (e.g. through undermining or moisture variation)?
D.7 Traffic Signals • Are separate pedestrian and/or bicycle phases provided where necessary? • Do traffic signals operate correctly? Are signal displays located appropriately for all users? • Does the design of the signals prevent conflicting motor vehicle movements during crossing phases for pedestrians and cyclists? • Where a permanent demand for individual phases does not exist, have suitable detection facilities been provided for cyclists? Are these operating satisfactorily? • Are inductive detector loops provided for bicycle users, are they located appropriately, of a suitable design and do they operate correctly for bicycles in the various stopping positions? • If push-button actuators have been provided, are they located to allow convenient and legal operation from the normal stopping position (e.g. on the left of the riding surface or kerb ramp, behind the stop line)? Do they operate correctly? • Are phasing and phase times acceptable? Are suitable warning signs or guidance for cyclists erected where intersection crossing times are insufficient?
Austroads 2017 | page 99
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
D.8 Physical Objects • Are fences, safety barrier or other objects located within 1.0 m of the path(s) of cyclists – free of sharp edges, exposed elements or corners so as to minimise the risk of injury to cyclists in the event of the feature/object being struck by a bicycle? – designed to minimise the potential for bicycle handle bars or pedals to become caught in the feature should an errant bicycle collide with it? • If there are any obstructions located adjacent to the paths of cyclists, are they adequately delineated? • Are clearances to the operating space of cyclists acceptable?
This section should be read in conjunction with Section D.2.
D.9.1 General • Are automatic reticulation systems timed to avoid periods of significant path use? Do sprinklers spray away from the path (rather than across it)? • Do irrigation hoses need to be placed across path surfaces? • Are provisions for car parking in the vicinity of the path satisfactory in relation to the operation and safety of path users? • Are there any potential problems of conflict between the various path users (e.g. pedestrians and cyclists)? • Is the path subject to flooding? If so, are warning signs provided and located appropriately?
D.9.2 Alignment and Cross-section • Where paths are located adjacent to roads, is there sufficient separation and/or protection from the carriageway? • Are adequate overtaking opportunities provided? • Is the path width, at structures or otherwise, adequate for the likely usage levels of pedestrians and cyclists? • Is the geometric alignment and gradient satisfactory? • Is the design speed appropriate? • Is path crossfall suitable for the anticipated path users? • Is the crossfall steep enough to adequately drain the path and prevent ponding on the surface, while being flat enough to be comfortable for pedestrians?
D.9.3 Intersections • If justified, is path priority assigned to path users at road crossings? • At intersections with busy roads, are appropriate facilities provided, e.g. traffic signals, underpass, overpass or median refuge, to allow path users to safely cross? Are the intersection controls satisfactory? • Is the location of road/path or path/path intersections satisfactory and obvious with respect to horizontal and vertical alignment? • Is the presence of intersections obvious to road/path users? • Is a refuge required at road crossings? Would it adversely affect (e.g. squeeze) cyclists travelling along the road?
Austroads 2017 | page 100
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
• In relation to path entry controls – Are terminal devices required? If so, does the device design meet the requirements of this Part? – If central holding rails or bollards exist, is there a legitimate reason why they are needed, and if so is there sufficient pavement width either side? • Are kerb ramps adequate and suitable for all users (width, slope, flush surface)? Are turning radii adequate? • Are holding rails provided? Are they positioned so as to not unduly interfere with access for cyclists and other users (consider tandem bicycles, bicycles with trailers etc.)? • Are the controls associated with path/path intersections satisfactory?
Whilst this Part relates to paths it is often the case that road and path treatments interface therefore this section contains some information relating to roads that may impact on path users.
D.10.1 General • Are bicycle lanes required? • Are bicycle lane widths or the left traffic lane widths adequate to accommodate cyclists? • Can sufficient space be obtained? Are there any squeeze points for cyclists? • Does the construction of the lane facility conform to this Part and other relevant standards? • Are special provisions required along curving roads? • Are road markings for cyclists suitable and adequate, and do they meet relevant standards? • On controlled access roads, is a path for experienced riders required within the reservation? • Are local area traffic management treatments appropriate for bicycles? • Are drainage pit covers flush with the surface or are there level differences that could be hazardous to cyclists and pedestrians? • Is the positioning of bicycle pavement symbols potentially hazardous to motorcyclists? • Are sealed shoulders at least as smooth as traffic lanes?
D.10.2 Intersections • Are the intersection treatments appropriate? • Are there any common cyclist movements (legal or otherwise) that differ from typical traffic movements? Are these likely to be anticipated by other traffic? Can these movements be made safely and if not what remedial measures are required? • Are ‘head start’ storage areas required due to conflicting manoeuvres of bicycles and other traffic, or due to high cyclist volumes? • Are special provisions for cyclists required at roundabouts? • Are there continuity lines marked where appropriate? • Are grated drainage pits that are potentially hazardous to cyclists and pedestrians located within the road/path intersection or within the turning path of cyclists (i.e. radii in the corners of the intersection)? • Are grated pits on paths or in close proximity to paths properly designed so that they cannot trap bicycle wheels?
Austroads 2017 | page 101
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
C1.1 Planning and Need for a Path
Cycling and walking have significant roles in transport systems throughout Australia and New Zealand and are expected to make an important contribution to the well-being and transportation of people in future.
The Australian National Cycling Strategy 2011–2016 (Austroads 2010b) recognises that more and more people are cycling in Australia and whilst there have been many initiatives undertaken there is a need to provide greater progress. To support and encourage this progress the Strategy has the following priorities and objectives, in part: • Cycling promotion: promote cycling both as a viable and safe mode of transport and an enjoyable recreational activity. • Infrastructure and Facilities: create a comprehensive network of safe and attractive routes to cycle and end-of-trip facilities. • Integrated Planning: consider and address cycling needs in all relevant transport and land use planning activities. • Safety: enable people to cycle safely. • Monitoring and Evaluation: improve monitoring and evaluation of cycling programs and develop decision-making processes for investment in cycling. • Guidance and Best Practice: develop nationally consistent technical guidance for stakeholders to use and share best practice across jurisdictions.
The type of on-road bicycle facility should also align with the functional road hierarchy. An example of the alignment of a bicycle facility and road function, for urban roads, has been developed by Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (2015b) and is shown in Table C1 1.
Table C1 1: Example of an urban road bicycle facility selection depending on road function
Vehicle operating Cycle tracks Road function Explanation speed (km/h) appropriate?
Mixed traffic is appropriate. Cycle track with limited No Local access road vehicle access may be appropriate (refer 3.2.1). with or without Up to 30 km/h parking Bicycle lanes/cycle tracks may be appropriate on primary bicycle route. No Maybe Bicycle lanes with no kerbside parking are most kerbside appropriate. Up to 50 parking Collector/distributor km/h With Bicycle lanes not preferred due to door zone conflicts road kerbside Yes (refer 3.3.1). parking
Bicycle lanes not preferred due to high speed More than 50 km/h Yes Arterial road difference. High quality parallel off-road bicycle path with grade Urban motorway More than 70 km/h No separated, signalised or priority crossings at intersections is appropriate.
Source: Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (2015b).
Austroads 2017 | page 102
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
The national strategy in New Zealand is Getting there – on foot, by bicycle: A strategy to advance walking and cycling in New Zealand transport (Ministry of Transport 2005). This strategy aims to ensure that supportive walking and cycling environments are provided in New Zealand communities, that safety is improved for pedestrians and cyclists, and that people walk and cycle more as part of their day-to-day transport mix. The development of walking and cycling is integral to achieving the five key objectives of this strategy: • improving access and mobility • protecting and promoting public health • ensuring environmental sustainability • assisting economic development • assisting safety and personal security.
When planning or designing a path in a road, rail, river or coastal reservation it is important that designers have a broad view of the transport network and identify connections to other paths and facilities that should be provided as part of the design or accommodated in plans for the future.
It is important also to recognise the broad range of performance and skill that exists among pedestrians and cyclists due to factors such as age, experience, physical ability, cognitive skill and vision, and the need to provide paths to satisfy the needs of various users and demands.
Bicycle paths and facilities are generally designed for a normal bicycle. However, it is important to understand that there are other forms of human-powered vehicles that have a broad range of performance characteristics that may have to be considered. For example, tandem bicycles are generally the least manoeuvrable human-powered vehicle, which may have implications for path terminal design.
Planners and designers should establish early in the process whether the path is likely to carry a significant number of human powered vehicles other than bicycles so that paths and facilities are designed to safely accommodate the appropriate design vehicle. Commentary 2 provides operational characteristics for examples of human-powered vehicles and this information may assist designers in providing for them where necessary. [see Commentary 2]
Designers should be aware of local pedestrian or cycling planning and design guides. These guides generally provide the policy and network planning context in which pedestrian facilities are provided within a jurisdiction. With respect to pedestrians examples of these guides include: • How to Prepare a Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan: An easy three stage guide (Roads and Traffic Authority 2002) • Easy Steps: a toolkit for planning, designing and promoting safe walking (Queensland Transport 2005) • Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide (NZ Transport Agency 2009).
Traffic management aspects and road user considerations in relation to pedestrian and cycling paths are provided in Austroads (2013a) and Austroads (2014a).
Austroads 2017 | page 103
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
C1.2 Need for a Path
The provision of coherent networks of pedestrian and bicycle paths is important because they • encourage exercise which improves public health and reduces the strain on health services and hospital systems • can assist in causing a shift from car to other forms of transport (walking, cycling and public transport) thereby reducing air pollution, greenhouse emissions and other forms of environmental pollution, as well as assisting in the management of traffic congestion • benefit businesses through healthier employees who enjoy a better quality of life.
Designers have a role in achieving these important outcomes by ensuring that paths and associated facilities are appropriately located and designed.
Traffic management aspects and road user considerations in relation to pedestrian and cycling paths are provided in Austroads (2017c) and Austroads (2013a).
C1.2.2 Pedestrian Paths
The most common type of pedestrian path is used by pedestrians and young cyclists (depending on local road rules). The general principles relating to provision of pedestrian paths include: • In general, all roads should have some type of walking facility out of the vehicle path. An exception may be categories of road that have a very low volume and low operating speed such as minor access roads. • Pedestrian path installation warrants based solely on pedestrian volumes are not practical, except in the central business districts of cities and at event locations.
The need for pedestrian paths should also be related to the pedestrian network functional requirements. For example, the presence of pedestrians on many rural roads is a rare event and the provision of paths is not economically justified. In this situation the provision of shoulders will provide space for a pedestrian who happens to use the road.
On all roads that have a moderate to high speed and significant pedestrian activity should be provided with pedestrian paths because of the high risk of serious injury should a pedestrian be struck by a vehicle.
A higher road functional classification in urban areas generally means higher traffic speeds and volumes, and hence a need to provide for pedestrian mobility and safety. However, some roads classified as local streets also function as traffic routes and have similar needs.
Collector and arterial roads in the vicinity of schools should be provided with pedestrian paths and desirably off-road cycle paths, shared or segregated pedestrian paths, to increase safety for children travelling to and from school. Safe routes to school can also reduce reliance on car travel for school trips and have health and environmental benefits.
Many people with disabilities undertake much of their travel either on foot, in wheelchairs or on personal mobility devices (e.g. scooters) and so the development of a network of adequate pedestrian paths is important for their mobility. The provision of pedestrian paths that meet recommended dimensions, surface requirements, and which are free of obstructions is important to ensure that they do not represent a hazard for people who have difficulty in detecting or manoeuvring around obstacles.
Austroads 2017 | page 104
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
The use of mobility scooters has emerged as an alternative means of transport for people with mobility impairment or other health issues and is likely to grow as the population ages. It is therefore important that paths and associated facilities can accommodate this type of use. The characteristics of these vehicles can be obtained from specifications on suppliers web sites. Dimensions for width, length and turning radii vary depending on model (e.g. length is often in the range 1.2 m to 1.6 m). Designers should source typical dimensions for products used in Australia and New Zealand and ensure that they can be accommodated within path and facility designs. For example mobility scooters should be able to: • use kerb ramps and cross-channels without the device becoming unstable or the undercarriage impacting the path or road pavement • turn within intersections and pass through chicanes and other devices in a continuous forward motion • store safely within refuges without overhanging into the adjacent traffic lane.
Table C1 2 is an example of when pedestrian paths may be required based on the general abutting land use, and illustrates the way in which the principles are applied in New Zealand.
Table C1 2: New Zealand example of when to provide urban and rural pedestrian paths
Pedestrian path provision Land use New roads Existing roads Preferred Minimum Preferred Minimum Commercial and industrial Residential (on arterial roads) Both sides Both sides Residential (on collector roads) Residential (on local streets) Both sides One side Three to ten dwellings per hectare Both sides One side Shoulders on Fewer than three dwellings per Shoulders on both One side One side both sides hectare sides
Source: NZ Transport Agency (2009).
C1.2.3 Paths for Cycling
The flow chart in Figure C1 1 is a basic guide to assist designers to choose an appropriate type of path treatment. The flow chart only considers the primary factors needed to determine the type of treatment required. Prior to this chart being applied a decision will have been taken as to whether an on-road lane or an off-road path, or both, are required. Also, there may be other issues, constraints and practices that will have a bearing on the decision-making process.
Austroads 2017 | page 105
Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling
Figure C1 1: Guide to the choice of path treatment for cyclists
Strategic bicycle route path Is the bicycle Yes Is the pedestrian Yes or demand low 1, 2? demand low 1, 2? Path to suit local conditions e.g.: No No • for connections to strategic routes • for connectivity in general • as an option for cyclists at ‘squeeze points’ • to achieve a shorter route for Is there an Yes cyclists alternative path or Exclusive • to avoid one or several road route available? bicycle path intersections No • for recreation (e.g. a connection in a reservation • to achieve safe access to schools • as an alternative route for child, recreational or inexperienced cyclists, where no satisfactory on- Is the pedestrian Yes Are bicycle speeds low Yes Shared use path road solution exists demand low 1, 2? (e.g.