Government tells councils it won’t fund painted cycle lanes

do you mean in terms of the funding bid rules, or the study ? though I dont think it does in either case tbf

Professor Rachel Aldred's comment:

Quote:

This research shows a clear difference in cycling safety between high-quality protected infrastructure and advisory lanes, with the former reducing injury risk and the latter raising it.

yes which sounds a compelling case of course, though the research only analysed London commuting cyclists, and Id be hesitant to assert that means it applies as a UK wide phenomena, maybe it does, but without the data we dont know

but IIRC the research also showed roads with speeds less than 10mph were more dangerous for cycling and safety increased as road speed did, so no need for any more 20mph zones then ?

ultimately the conclusion of the research was segregated infra was better, which is frankly self evident and why LTN1/20 advocates it, I dont think the research ever really tackled the data they had uncovered for advisory lanes, so Id be more cautious at stating it represented anything really without understanding why that was the case first.

Haven't looked into the research as it supports my (and others) view of painted infrastructure. Though it only covers London, the DfT are applying the thinking nationwide, so hopefully we'll see an end to wasting public money on useless/dangerous advisory cycle lanes.

What I'd like to see is more joined up thinking with regards to cycle infrastructure. In Bristol we have some reasonable segregated cycle lanes, but they only cover a short distance and are only on one side of the road (though they are supposedly bi-directional).

Here's an example of what I mean along Clarence Rd https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4459342,-2.5856482,3a,75y,84.19h,85.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si_-iufqypzFpFTrBrPjGXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I often cycle along there and to use the cycle lane involves crossing lanes of traffic to get into the lane. Then you get to cycle along it which is all well and good (no side roads to cede priority at), but then it ends at the Temple Meads roundabout, so you then have to cross lanes of traffic to get back onto the road. Or you just use the road instead as that's more convenient.

The best cycling infrastructure that I've seen has uni-directional lanes on both sides of the road.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Haven't looked into the research as it supports my (and others) view of painted infrastructure. Though it only covers London, the DfT are applying the thinking nationwide, so hopefully we'll see an end to wasting public money on useless/dangerous advisory cycle lanes.

the DfT are applying the thinking of segregated infra nationwide, which as I say is fine and shouldnt need research to prove is better/safer anyway, but advisory lanes even in LTN1/20 it says "Advisory lanes should only be used when limitations on the overall space available mean that motor vehicles will sometimes need to enter the cycle lane."

not dont use Advisory lanes at all, or we dont recommend them anymore, or avoid at all costs because some research has suggested they are more dangerous, simply basically only use them in certain circumstances and dont make them too narrow is the guidance. consequently I dont think advisory cycle lanes have suddenly stopped being a tool in the box councils can use, except for the fact the DfT wont fund them via the active travel fund.

I suspect (hope) that councils will lose any enthusiasm for painted infrastructure if they have to pay out of their own budgets.

No, you're misrepresenting what LTN1/20 says about advisory cycle lanes. It does say don't use them, for example:

"DON'T: Space for cycling is important but a narrow advisory cycle lane next to a narrow general traffc lane and guard rail at a busy junction is not an acceptable offer for cyclists" (p8).

"Cycle lanes have been used extensively in the UK, including on major roads with high speeds. However, as they do not provide any physical protection from moving motor vehicles most people will perceive them to be unacceptable for safe cycling on busy or fast roads" (para 6.1.6, p50).

no Id disagree with you on that point specifically, I dont think Im misrepresenting it at all because if the document says dont use advisory lanes, then there is absolutely no need for the section I quoted word for word out of it, it simply wouldnt be in there would it ? because LTN1/20 clearly says "Advisory lanes should only be used..." not "Advisory lanes should NEVER be used..."

the section you are quoting from is specifically saying dont put the combination together of a narrow advisory lane, next to general traffic lane, with a guard rail all at a busy junction, because that combination as a whole is design you want to avoid, it is not saying dont use advisory lanes.

and there are further sections in LTN1/20, just like the part I quoted, where advisory lanes are defined, recommended in certain design cases, given design widths, where protection should be given for them, how they help transitions from other infra.

none of which would need to be in there at all, if the over riding design guidance was simply just dont use them, so how am I misrepresenting it ?

It is quite logical that it would increase risks when you think about it. 

When a driver comes up behind a cyclist sharing the lane, they know they have to perform an overtaking manoeuvre to get past them, and most will at least make the effort to give space. 

The same driver coming up behind a cyclist in a separate lane separated only by a white line puts the driver in the same mindset as when they come up behind another motor vehicle in a separate lane ... they are in their own space so no overtaking manoeuvre required, and they just keep going in a straight line without giving any space whatsoever. 

That is the main reason I generally don't use them. 

She ferried her kids around for 40 years?? Thats quite an achievement.

RoubaixCube wrote:

She ferried her kids around for 40 years?? Thats quite an achievement.

Yes, quite remarkable and worthy of impressment.

Rumours of my sanity are greatly exaggerated.

councils are free to fund their own schemes if they want to whatever standard they wish to align with, this is just the DfT reiterating the guidance from the emergency active travel fund bids of last year where they said the schemes had to be transformative,take space away from motor vehicles and not just be paint on the roads.

so this is basically tranche 3 if you like to frame it that way of that process that kickstarted off last year with pop up lanes and the like appearing.

but would be nice for the DfT to urge councils to finish,or in some cases even start, their tranche 2 stuff before bidding on the next wave of funding had started.

I think in theory all council designs should be to the current guidance notes (LTN 1/20) or they may be deemed liable and challeneged in case of any incidents, a true case of when the horse has bolted. In the same manner as asking a council to show and explain any risk assements or other statutory design tools they or delegated bodies are suppose to enact. With few exceptions though the shire counties still seem focussed on the needs and wishes of motor car users and will try and fit cycle infrastruture as space and circumstances allow. My main hope is that a culture and education change in part seems to be happening but may take a long time to produce real results. 

but its guidance, not a prescribed ways of doing things, so councils are still free to decide & fund schemes (and weirdly still use DfT funds just not active travel funds) where a road gets a shared path instead of a segregated lane and claim they followed the guidance. LTN1/20 says use shared paths as a last resort, but Ive seen councils submit plans for road changes where its clearly the only option they bothered considering as they were only focussed on how cars used those roads and cyclists were an afterthought, and you wonder how it even matches up to the spirit of following LTN1/20, let alone the guidance it offers.

I would say guidance is a prescribed way of doing things.

I agree there are frustrations with developers and local authorities failing to follow LTN1/20. The DfT is organising training for local authorities, which should help.

When Active Travel England is set up, part of its role will be to audit councils, and they can have their transport budgets cut if they don't meet standards.

It's really hard changing practices and cultures at councils.

The letter says, "We expect local authorities and developers to utilise the [LTN1/20] guidance in the design of all schemes regardless of whether they are seeking government funding."

More about the DfT letter to councils here.

Im not saying local authorities and developers can just ignore LTN1/20 and not utilise it, Im saying its not a document that says you must & can only create segregated infra for cycling from.

It says, and Im paraphrasing ok before you say it doesnt exactly quite say this, segregated infra is the best solution, but there are a bunch of other things you can still do, including just paint on the road, including shared paths instead that arent so good,but might fit the space you have, but try and avoid doing those things,try and do segregated infra. Thats why I say its not prescribing a solution, because it still gives councils and developers choices of options.

Councils and developers can then produce schemes or changes to roads, and say hey we followed this LTN1/20 guidance so the DfT get their tickbox, even though they might have produced something that looks like a complete dogs breakfast of a solution for cyclists to use, and that would not have succeeded in getting funding via the active travel fund because that has specific criteria for the kind of schemes it will fund, which LTN1/20 on its own doesnt.

Not really surprising (LTN1/20 and Gear Change) came out last year and the government hasn't been funding painted cycle lanes since Tranche 1 of the ATF which was lauched about the same time, but its a welcome reaffirmation that Farcilities won't be accepted.