Walking & Cycling Technical Design Guidance 2016

A quick reference guide to supplement The Royal Parks Walking and Cycling Technical Design Guidance first published in 2016. The main guidance document should be referred to for detailed design advice. This document summarises our recommended approach and tools for planning and designing walking and cycling related infrastructure in busy parkland settings. 2 INTRODUCTION The Royal Parks THE ROYAL PARKS Experience and Challenges 3

The Royal Parks recognise that historic WHY DO WE NEED WALKING CYCLING A DESIGN GUIDE? Over 90% of the 80 million visits to the Infrastructure improvements that are sensitive landscapes and multifunctional parks are The Royal Parks Walking and Cycling Technical Royal Parks are enjoyed on foot and this to the parkland setting can be an effective way important in people’s lives for many varied Design Guidance (2016) was produced after has significantly increased over the past few to enhance the experience and enjoyment of more than 10 years of research and observation, years. Walking activities within the parks the parks for all visitors. The design guide sets reasons, attracting millions of visitors each year. monitoring the changing relationship of walking are undertaken for a multitude of reasons; out how to ensure that a scheme proposal In addition to Richmond Park, Greenwich Park, and cycling in London’s Royal Parks. Existing as an important part of people’s health and is fit for purpose and appropriate for the Hyde Park, St James’s Park, the Green Park, urban design best practice for walking and wellbeing, as well as providing for national and context. For example any proposal to open cycling primarily relates to environments, international tourism. up a shared cycle route must go through a The Regent’s Park and Kensington Gardens, and so this guidance looks to a rigorous process of objective analysis and The Royal Parks manage Brompton Cemetery, knowledge gap by focusing on parkland settings. Increasing visitor numbers over recent consideration. It sets out a robust evidence based planning years is, however, putting pressure on the Primrose Hill, Victoria Tower Gardens and approach to promote a consistency of high fabric of the parks, Providing facilities in The Royal Parks changed park regulations by Grosvenor Square. quality parkland design. different areas of the parks helps spread the an Act of Parliament in 1983 to permit cycling concentration of usage and using high quality in the parks on designated routes. This was There has been a significant increase in the materials and sufficient paths or hard standing devised at a time when there were relatively low Pedestrians comprise the majority of visitors popularity of cycling in the capital, with a areas in popular locations helps reduce the cyclist and visitor numbers. With the recent across the parks, but with many other users growing pressure on parks to accommodate maintenance burden. growth in cycling and renaissance in the use of including cyclists, provision for all visitors needs both more cycling and walking. It is anticipated parks and open spaces in general, there is an to be balanced to maintain a high quality of that there will be further increases in walking It is recognised that there are some challenges ongoing challenge to help visitors get along and experience. Walking is permitted in all areas and cycling in London based on the continuing associated with ensuring inclusive and not impinge on the enjoyment of others. The of the parks except oprational areas, areas trend for Government and Mayoral Strategies accessible parkland environments; many Metropolitan Police and other interest groups licenced to others and nature conservation to support active modes. The Royal Parks has of these issues centre on providing safe report that poor cycling behaviour and high enclosures. Cycling is allowed on all and developed a process to make sure that any access to the parks, particularly for more numbers of cyclists can cause discomfort some specially designated cycle routes within intervention scheme is considered holistically vulnerable visitors looking to cross park roads to other visitors. We therefore encourage the eight parks and Brompton Cemetery. The and maintains a high quality of provision or cycle routes. Studies have shown that considerate cycling to ensure a healthy respect parks provide fantastic ‘green’ routes in London, for visitors, and that interested parties and some visitors consider these as barriers to for fellow park visitors and the wildlife. taking walkers and cyclists away from stakeholders participate in the process. It is enjoying the parks, but that providing access and through some of the most attractive hoped that this sharing of research and points that feel safe, are signed well and Issues associated with cycling and dog walking areas of the capital. There are 28 miles of experience will help other parks professionals convenient can encourage greater use and are the most common concerns raised in various cycle routes and 32 miles of roads to cycle on make informed decisions about walking and inclusivity. The provision of toilets, benches, stakeholder forums and through correspondence in the parks, with many of the routes linking cycling initiatives. refreshment facilities and a good path network with the public and local groups including the in with the wider London Cycle Network. also encourage use as they provide resting Friends of the Parks. Cyclists and cycle lobby opportunities, focal points (for orientation), groups regularly request more cycling facilities gathering areas and service basic needs. within the parks to provide more convenient Partnering with other authorities to provide routing and help makes their journeys quicker. good wayfinding such as Legible London, Sports cyclists enjoy using the parks and ask guided walks, sponsored walks campaigns and for interventions that will enable them to train podcasts also help encourage walking journeys more frequently and in a safer environment. and enjoyment of the parks. The Royal Parks aims to maintain the integrity and quality of the parkland environment and this guidance looks to provide support in managing these challenges. 4 5

OTHER USERS SHARED USE APPROACH SHARED USE PATCH SEGREGATION WITH WHITE LINE There are other regular park users that need The Royal Parks contain areas where routes to be considered within the design of the are ‘shared use’, generally referring to places CYCLISTS ONLY PEDESTRIANS ONLY parks including horse riders; rollerbladers; that visitors using different modes of runners; joggers; scooter users; carers with come together. ‘Shared use’ is the preferred prams/buggies. Projects are informed by approach for enabling cycling on appropriate Equality Impact Assessments and specific park paths. Not all paths are suitable for guidance from user groups through The Royal cycling as some paths may already be heavily Parks Diversity Network to ensure that used by pedestrians and offer insufficient people with disabilities or vulnerable users capacity for safe cycling, paths may link to are considered. Other stakeholder groups are busy or hazardous junctions, or the alignment used to consult on proposals so that views are may be of historic significance that would be Cyclists and pedestrians share the full width No longer appropriate for the Royal Parks taken into consideration and improvements adversely impacted on by cycling. of the path. Appropriate in suitable locations delivered across the parks. across the Royal Parks Across all shared use areas, the path design There are many interventions that have to be and layout needs to maintain pedestrian �+ Contributes towards �+ Pedestrians and � -- Creates low levels � -- Some pedestrians carefully balanced such as the presumption priority and enhance awareness between high levels of pedestrian cyclists have no of pedestrian comfort do not understand or that signage should be kept to a minimum to different users. Shared paths are signposted comfort as people are style markings to as people are forced to notice the white line respect the beauty of the historic significant at the start of the route, as well as where able to use the full conform to and can use a more constrained and walk across the width of the path. enjoy the parkland area of path. full width of the path. landscapes, and selecting surface materials that pedestrian only paths intersect the shared use environment. assist pedestrians with visual impairments, cycle route. Signage is kept to a minimum to while maintaining the visual and historic reduce clutter. �+ Cyclists ride at a � -- Commuter cyclists � -- Cyclists ride at a � -- People feel character of the parks. considerate speed and may become frustrated very high speed and constrained as there give way to pedestrians. that the path does not incorrectly assume are high pedestrian The Royal Parks therefore advocates utilising Pedestrians and cyclists sharing the full width enable high riding priority over pedestrians. flows and knowingly the processes outlined in this design guidance of the path, with no white line delineation, speeds during busy times. choose to walk to take a holistic approach in making a is the preferred approach for providing for across the full width balanced decision on a case by case basis. cycling across paths within the Royal Parks. of the path. It has been shown in several recent studies, that a shared use area with no separation of modes is more conducive to considerate cycling, promoting lower cycling speeds. Interactions between pedestrians and cyclists travelling at lower speeds provide greater safety and comfort benefits for all users.

Shared use cycle routes are already used in many parts of the parks as segregated delineated with a white line are often not recognised by dogs and vulnerable users including young children or those with visual impairments. 6 PLANNING & DESIGN TOOLKIT Pedestrian & Cyclist Design Requirements 7

The following section summarises the approach PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS HIERARCHY OF NEEDS Pedestrians and cyclists have distinctly The Royal Parks utilises an established  Safe access for all visitors recommended by The Royal Parks for making different needs and behaviours to each hierarchy of priority for the management of the  Vulnerable users decisions on planning and design of walking other, which also vary in response to the parks. The ‘Hierarchy of Needs,’ listed in order  Pedestrians/walkers  and . Please refer to context. However specific space and of priority below, reinforces the importance Runners/joggers movement requirements are generally of considering a range of user groups, while  Horse riders Chapter 2 of the main guidance document: consistent across different environments, as prioritising design interventions that support  Leisure cyclists, skaters, scooters The Royal Parks Walking and Cycling Technical detailed in the table of standards above. the most vulnerable users:  Sports and commuter cyclists  Operational vehicles Design Guidance, for additional details. Designs should accommodate the needs  Cars, motorbikes and taxis, Private Hire of wheelchairs and mobility scooter users, Vehicles – with the park as a destination which can require relatively large spaces in  Through traffic This summary document comprises: which to turn. Key Design Principles Pedestrian & Cyclist Design Requirements PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST TYPICAL MINIMUM TURNING CIRCLE Key Design Features PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS DIMENSIONS WIDTH REQUIREMENTS The Seven Stage Delivery Process Length Width Inner radius Outer radius Pedestrian 700mm 1100mm Path Typologies Approach Pedestrian with 1100mm 1500mm Path Design Checklist guide dog or long cane Wheelchair user 1750mm 700mm 1500mm 1200mm (minimum) 1200mm (minimum) Shared Use Routes Criteria for Success guided by pedestrian 1800mm (maximum) 1800mm (maximum) Electric wheelchair 1350mm 700mm 1500mm 1600mm 1625mm Standard bicycle 1800mm 800mm 1200mm 1650mm 850mm

Based on Inclusive Mobility, DfT (2002) and A guide to controlling access to paths (Sustrans, 2012)

Key Design Principles

The design of any path Landscape Character Visitor Safety Pedestrian Prioroty Inclusive Design ‘Tarmac Neutral’ Historic Alignments Fit for Purpose Sustainable should conform to the The Royal Parks Visitor safety is of Infrastructure should Facilities should enable There is a presumption Historic path alignments Paths should be Construction These audits mean following principles that advocates maintaining the highest priority. enable pedestrian all users to have a against any additional are to be preserved continually reviewed Construction should that throughout the set out fundamental the existing character of Designers Risk priority without being safe and enjoyable ‘hard’ paths being where designated as an to ensure that they ensure adequate design, construction and considerations and the parkland landscape Assessments (DRAs) are overly engineered or experience in the constructed unless important part of the are fit for purpose and drainage, with materials ongoing management/ priorities for ensuring as a priority, by using also produced during prescriptive. parks, by considering the proportions park character. These appropriate for the level carefully selected so maintenance process, that designs are materials that are visually the development of vulnerable users between hard and soft alignments are listed in of demand. they do not add safety is considered. appropriate for the sympathetic to the cycling and accessibility including the elderly and landscaping across the the Park Management nutrients or impact Actions are taken context of the parks. setting. projects. children throughout the park remain the same. Plans. on the pH balance of through the process design development the surrounding soil. to mitigate, remove or process, and by Construction processes reduce risk of incidents. protecting disabled are to be managed to peoples’ equitable rights minimise disruption of through inclusive design. ecosystem services. 8 Key Design Features 9

DESIGN SPEEDS PEDESTRIAN COMFORT GUIDANCE Key infrastructure features are detailed Behavioural (speed calming) interventions A number of studies have been conducted Pedestrian Comfort Guidance for London Often in the form of vertical (rumble strips) that look to assess pedestrian average walking (Transport for London, 2010) sets out in the main guidance document which or horizontal deflections (pinch points) to speeds; 1.2 metres per second being the most the assessment criteria for understanding are designed to positively impact on moderate speeds and enhance safety for frequently cited (TRL, 2014: A Review of pedestrian capacity on footways. This process all users. pedestrian walking speeds). However many can also be applied to in the parks. user behaviours. These include: older people are not able to walk at 1.2m/s, and The Guidance sets out criteria for defining Cycle parking it has been observed that people strolling in acceptable comfort standards relating to the Gateways Enabling safe and convenient securing the parks generally walk at a much slower volume of pedestrians and the usable footway Creating a sense of arrival or indication of a of bicycles in appropriate locations that speed. This is important for a number of space. Pedestrian Comfort Levels (PCL) transition in dynamic, promoting an expected can be easily accessed and maintained. design considerations, including: provide a measure of pedestrian congestion, in change in awareness and behaviour. terms of the number of pedestrians per metre Signage  The design of signal timings of per minute (ppmm). Fencing Clear guidance or instructions to visitors at formal pedestrian crossings. Providing an appropriate degree of physical can help encourage considerate behaviour.  The design of shared use areas Calculating the PCL for a footpath during the control or visual delineation, impacting on While signage should generally be minimised, where cyclists are passing pedestrians. peak hour of the week, can help to identify route choice, sense of ownership, safety and it may be introduced at locations where existing constraints and opportunities. The maintenance regimes. unsafe cycling behaviours have been observed  The holding capacity of formal paths, as Royal Parks advocates that footways which but enforcement is limited. slower walking speeds inherently result are being considered for a shared use route Pedestrian crossings in increased dwell time. with cyclists, need to already observe a PCL Supporting pedestrian desire lines and Surface materials Cyclists’ travel speeds are much more variable, B- grade, whereby flows of 15 to 17 ppmm are facilitate safe crossing while being appropriate Acting as an important visual and textural based on trip purpose, bicycle type, path not exceeded during the peak hour. for the character and use of the area. element that designers can use to influence width and design etc. Surface conditions have behaviour by guiding visitors or alerting them a significant impact on cycling speeds and Designers should consider the use of the of a change in priority or use, and/or to assist manoeuvring. Path width and segregation design space immediately bordering a path, as those with visual impairments. can also have a major impact on cycling speeds. adjacent furniture, fencing, hedges and building lines all reduce the usable path width. Where The Royal Parks advocates a design speed for technically feasible and environmentally shared use paths of 8–12mph. For roads, design appropriate, benches, signs and fencing should speeds should be appropriate for the designated be set back 500mm from the path edge to speed limit. This will impact on the choice of avoid impinging on the effective width. surface material and the delineation of shared /segregated routes. 10 The Seven-Stage Delivery Process Path Typologies Approach 11

STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 HIGH LEVEL IDENTIFY DETAILED IDENTIFICATION APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT OF THE The Path Typologies approach helps to identify the various OF ISSUES PROJECT TYPE IDENTIFIED ISSUES functions and forms of paths across The Royal Parks, thereby enabling the document-ation of the existing walking and A. C. A. A. Use the Path Typologies For paths that do not Identify the kind of Utilise appropriate cycling network and its performance. This assessment forms Approach to determine meet the standards, Hardscaping Project that assessment techniques the type of path based assess whether this will likely be needed to provide an in depth the first stage of the ‘Seven-Stage Delivery Process’ and on the users, movement creates a problem for to rectify the issues understanding of the key provides a quick indication of whether the path width and/or and character. users, based on high level identified in Stage 1. issues. observation techniques. surface treatment are appropriate for the context.

B. D. B. B. Assess whether the Supplement the Path Use the Planning Respond to the analysis The categorisation process considers three key criteria which width of the path and Typologies Approach Checklist to determine by identifying a design together illustrate who the path is for, how it operates, its materials meet the with additional a course of action and response which is to be standards outlined in the information from the project programme. developed as part of configuration and its landscape context. Designers should matrix. Park Management Plans Stage 4. to assist in identifying use this three stage process to classify the path type which key issues. can then be used to inform design decisions relating to width and surface material.

STAGE 4 STAGE 5 STAGE 6 STAGE 7 DESIGN DESIGN APPROVAL CONSTRUCTION MONITORING DEVELOPMENT AND PROCESS USERS + MOVEMENT + CHARACTER OPTION APPRAISAL LOW FLOWS HIGH FLOWS

<500 500+ A. A. A. A. PEDESTRIANS PEDESTRIANS / PEAK HOUR / PEAK HOUR Develop design options Confirm that stages 1–4 Review technical details Use the ‘Judging Success’ INFORMAL using the Design have been satisfactorily in line with Construction criteria as a basis for PATH Standards in the main completed with design Guidance and Park structuring a monitoring FOR PEDESTRIANS ONLY guidance and look to auditing and stakeholder Management Plans. regime specific to that satisfy the key issues engagement carried out project. identified in Stage 3. as appropriate. <200 200+ C Y C L I S T S C Y C L I S T S B. B. B. B. + / PEAK HOUR / PEAK HOUR FORMAL Appraise and Review design proposal Oversee construction Identify opportunities SHARED USE PATH review options based using the Path Design process - detailed in for further refinement FOR PEDESTRIANS & CYCLISTS on a location specific Checklist to ensure Park Management Plans. and improvements to multi-criteria assessment. all key design criteria be made on an ongoing are satisfied. basis. <200 200+ MOTOR MOTOR C. C. + + V E H I C L E S V E H I C L E S / PEAK HOUR / PEAK HOUR SPECIAL Select a preferred Confirm design sign-off ROAD design to proceed to with Project Board to FOR PEDESTRIANS, CYCLISTS & MOTORISTS detailed design. proceed to construction. 12 Path Type Standards 13

Type Flows Recommended width Character/Materials Palette

1. PERMITTED USERS 3. PATH CHARACTER TYPE 1: FOOTPATHS 1A Pedestrians LOW Minimum 1.5 metres Informal unbound gravel/black tarmacadam MINOR FOOTPATH Cyclists NONE Formal black tarmacadam/tar spray and chip Pedestrians only Informal Motor vehicles NONE Special tar spray and chip/Yorkstone paving On paths in formal gardens, sensitive areas, Generic or meandering and as a generic treatment across much paths that form a naturalistic part of 1B Pedestrians HIGH Minimum 2.0 metres Informal unbound gravel/tarmacadam MAJOR FOOTPATH Cyclists NONE (recommended minimum Formal black tarmacadam/tar spray and chip of the Parks the parkland landscape. Motor vehicles NONE Pedestrian Comfort B-) Special tar spray and chip/Yorkstone paving / resin bound aggregate + Cyclists Formal On permitted shared use paths Paths that are generally straight and direct, TYPE 2: SHARED USE PATHS responding to the surrounding architectural + Motor vehicles Pedestrians LOW Minimum 1.5 metres Informal unbound gravel/black tarmacadam form and/or supporting key pedestrian desire 2A On roads which may be designed for general MINOR SHARED Cyclists NONE Formal black tarmacadam/tar spray and chip lines. USE PATH Motor vehicles NONE Special tar spray and chip/Yorkstone paving traffic access or authorised vehicles only Special 2B PEDESTRIAN Pedestrians HIGH Minimum 4.0 metres Informal unbound gravel/ black tarmacadam DOMINANT Cyclists LOW Formal black tarmacadam/tar spray and chip Paths relate to a historic or environmental SHARED USE PATH Motor vehicles NONE Special tar spray and chip/Yorkstone paving landmark or form part of an ornamental 2C PEDESTRIAN Pedestrians LOW Minimum 4.0 metres Informal unbound gravel/ black tarmacadam 2. EXISTING USE garden. DOMINANT Cyclists HIGH Formal black tarmacadam/tar spray and chip Classified as ahigh flow link where: SHARED USE PATH Motor vehicles NONE pedestrian flows exceed 500 pedestrians/hour; Every path across the walking network can 2D Pedestrians HIGH Minimum 6.0 metres Informal unbound gravel/ black tarmacadam cyclist flows exceed 200 cyclists/hour; and/or be evaluated and categorised based on these MAJOR SHARED Cyclists HIGH Formal black/red tarmacadam/tar spray and chip USE PATH Motor vehicles NONE Special black/red tarmacadam/tar spray and chip motor vehicle flows exceed 200 vehicles/hour. three criteria – in turn describing the key characteristics of that path and its role in TYPE 3: ROADS Classified as alow flow link where: the Park. pedestrian flows are less than 500 pedestrians/ 3A Pedestrians LOW Footways not required Carriageway MINOR LOCAL Cyclists LOW Informal unbound gravel hour; cyclist flows are less than 200 cyclists/hour; The path standards table overleaf gives the ACCESS ROAD Motor vehicles LOW Formal black tarmacadam and/or motor vehicle flows are less than 200 full list of path types and examples of the 3B Pedestrians HIGH Footways not required Carriageway Footways vehicles / hour. expected appearance of each path type, in a PEDESTRIAN Cyclists LOW (where provided, Informal black tarmacadam black tarmacadam rural and urban setting. DOMINANT ROAD Motor vehicles LOW minimum 1.5 metres) Formal black/red tarmacadam York stone

3C Pedestrians LOW Footways not required Carriageway Note: A road may qualify for two different CYCLE ROUTE Cyclists HIGH Informal black/red tarmacadam/tar spray and chip (ON ROAD) Motor vehicles LOW Formal black tarmacadam typologies depending on the time of day and whether it is closed to through traffic. 3D Pedestrians HIGH Footways not required Carriageway Footways ‘LIVING ’ Cyclists HIGH (Minimum street Formal black tarmacadam/ black tarmacadam/York stone Not all path types will have a corresponding Motor vehicles LOW width 8.0 metre) tar spray & chip tar spray & chip ‘special’ character. 3E Pedestrians LOW Footways Carriageway Footways (MOTOR TRAFFIC Cyclists LOW recommended but not Informal black tarmacadam black tarmacadam DOMINANT) Motor vehicles HIGH required in rural settings Formal black/red tarmacadam black tarmacadam /York stone

3F Pedestrians LOW Footways not required Carriageway ARTERIAL ROAD Cyclists HIGH Standard carriageway Informal black tarmacadam WITH CYCLE ROUTE Motor vehicles HIGH specification Formal black/red tarmacadam

3G Pedestrians HIGH Footways recommended Carriageway Footways PERIMETER ROAD/ Cyclists HIGH (Minimum 2.0 metres) Informal black tarmacadam black tarmacadam SPUR ROAD Motor vehicles HIGH Formal red tarmacadam black tarmacadam /York stone

3H Pedestrians HIGH Footways recommended Carriageway Footways ARTERIAL ROAD Cyclists HIGH (Minimum 2.0 metres) Informal black tarmacadam black tarmacadam (ALL MODES) Motor vehicles HIGH Formal black/red tarmacadam black tarmacadam/ York stone/tar spray & chip SHARED USE ROUTES Stage 1: 14 Path Design Checklist Criteria for Success Feasibility Assessment 15

PART 1. GENERIC PATH DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS PART 2. CYCLE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The Royal Parks regularly receive requests Stage 1 identifies whether a proposed route Mark with an ‘X’ should be progressed to a trial stage of to open up more paths to cycling and/or to monitoring. The Success Criteria are designed A. The effective operational width of the proposed M. Flush dropped kerbs or raised tables are provided to act as a way of filtering route options to hard surfacing area meets the standards set out in at pedestrian crossings. accommodate new cycling routes across the the Path Typology Criteria. parks.The Criteria for Success forms a key part best utilise resources and ensure that only the N. Ensure that drainage channels and gullies are in most potentially viable shared use routes are B. The materials proposed satisfy good condition and do not present a trip hazard of the consultation process for any proposals progressed to a trial stage. The Royal Parks Material Palette. for pedestrians. that look to formally introduce cycling as a The feasibility process comprises several C. The gradient is no more than 5% for lengths up to O. New shared use paths have undergone the 100m. On the approach to shared use junctions this Shared Use Criteria for Success assessment process. permanent feature on an existing pedestrian of the common assessment techniques and should not exceed 3%. only path, or as part of a new path proposal. should generally satisfy the following criteria: P. Ensure that measures introduced for cyclists D. Is there a net increase in hard surfacing across the do not compromise pedestrian access or comfort. Park as a result of the scheme? If so, have appropriate CRITERION 1 considerations been noted and design options Q. Appropriate measures have been put in place CUSTOMER RESEARCH SURVEY (STAGE 1) identified for removing underused paths elsewhere? outside the Park to link with the wider cycling network. The Criteria for Success is a three stage Before implementing any proposed shared use scheme, a customer survey with an agreed E. Signage on the link has been reviewed and rationalised R. The design successfully allows cyclists on permitted process to ensure that the quality of the visitor to minimise and consolidate signs, using the smallest routes to not have to dismount to access the Park. experience is maintained and the design acceptable sample size should be conducted appropriate sign size. to determine the existing satisfaction levels of S. All intersecting path angles on a shared use route approach complies with the Overall Approach visitors on a particular link. F. Adequate visibility on the approach to path are rounded (not squared) with a recommended intersections has been maintained or improved, while minimum 6m radius of curvature. to Hardscape in the Royal Parks. The guiding avoiding the creation of low visibility channels or CRITERION 2 barriers to movement on both sides of the path. T. For schemes which are on Park roads, traffic criteria and process draws on experience and CAPACITY STUDY (STAGE 1) management measures and / or road closures have data collected from a number of pedestrian A pedestrian level of service study should be G. Lighting is considered appropriate and there are no been considered where appropriate. conducted on a proposed shared use route apparent safety issues that suggest otherwise. and cycling studies across the Royal Parks, before cycling is introduced, to determine the U. Ensure that there are good sightlines i.e. absolute existing pedestrian comfort level and capacity H. Unauthorised motor vehicle access has been minimum of 20m on flat sections and on slopes 40m. recommending a pre-implementation stage, a considered and appropriate measures put in place. of the path. Where high pedestrian flows lead V. Ensure that “machine” lay is specified on urban routes trial stage and an ongoing monitoring regime to path capacity issues, it is unlikely that cycling I. Paths that front onto roads have appropriate parking where total length of construction is more than 200m. for all shared use schemes. will be considered appropriate for that path. restrictions to avoid blocking the gateway. Any existing route that currently experiences W. Ensure that general traffic management measures do J. Speed reduction measures and tactile surfaces are not create problems for cyclists e.g. dedicated left turn pedestrian comfort levels of PCL B- or worse designed to consider the needs of mobility impaired approach to junctions. (greater than 15 people per metre per minute, users and roller skaters where appropriate. with 50% restricted movement), will likely not X. Ensure gullies are positioned and oriented so as to not be suitable as a shared use path in its current K. Street furniture and ironwork are specified as per present a hazard for cyclists. configuration. Opportunities to introduce the Technical Guidance and Landscape Design Guide. Y. Ensure that any defects in the shared use surface have cycling on higher capacity paths will be L. Ensure adequate signing height is specified, been identified and rectified. For roads, this should be determined on a site by site basis. usually at 2.4m. a priority within 2.0m of the kerbline.

PATH DESIGN CHECKLIST SIGN-OFF

Checklist completed by: Name Signature Date: Stage 2: 16 Trial Methodology 17

CRITERION 3 network benefit of opening up the route. Having been through a feasibility design VULNERABLE PEDESTRIANS SAFETY IMPLICATIONS (STAGE 1) An exceptionally high level of cycling demand process, all proposed shared use routes will An additional research survey should be Observational studies should be used to may not be deemed appropriate and should undergo a trial period, whereby supporting considered to determine whether pedestrians identify any potential issues which could arise be considered as part of a wider assessment signage and / or longer term infrastructure are ‘satisfied, comfortable or very comfortable’ with the introduction of cyclists, including: of adjacent routes outside the park to provide is to be installed to support the temporary with cycling, including vulnerable users maintaining acceptable access arrangements, the safest, most appropriate design solution. opening of a shared use route. A trial will (classified and registered disabled, elderly and sightlines and visibility; supporting safe be undertaken for a minimum of 18 months people with children under 5 years of age). If a interaction with motor vehicles and CRITERION 5 (including two summer periods) in order to higher proportion of users are ‘uncomfortable’ pedestrians; identifying path intersections of COSTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION collect sufficient data to inform the decision- during implementation of a trial, the cycle ‘high risk’ where high pedestrian flows cross AND VALUE FOR MONEY (STAGE 1) making process for Judging Success (Stage 3). proposal will be deemed to have failed. over the proposed route. Where a critical All design options and interventions for safety issue is identified, a trial will need to walking and cycling have to provide value for Various methods of data are collected by CYCLISTS be carefully considered with appropriate money for the organisation weighed up against consultants, or directly through stakeholders A survey of cyclists may be appropriate mediating factors included as part of the the life-cost of the item. This can be estimated and partner organisations. The Programme where there are high levels of cycling. The temporary design. as part of the feasibility study by considering Manager will determine which of the following Kensington Gardens results for Studio Walk the extent of intervention required to provide assessment processes should be carried out to are considered the benchmark, where 94% CRITERION 4 a new shared use route (surfacing, signage, supplement the feasibility assessment survey. of cyclists thought the cycle path worked POTENTIAL DEMAND access alterations). It should also consider the operationally ‘OK, well or very well’. Should FOR THE ROUTE (STAGE 1) maintenance requirement for any additional CRITERION 1 less than 94% consider a given shared used An assessment of existing cycle flows on facility or by designing out maintenance issues CUSTOMER RESEARCH SURVEY (STAGE 2) path to be acceptable, an additional review of adjacent parallel routes should be used as a such as desire lines or requirements for Upon trialling a new route, responses should cycling facilities will be required. proxy for the demand for a new cycle route painted markings/additional signage. A high be assessed against the existing satisfaction through the park. Understanding the impact level cost-benefit appraisal should be used levels to determine if there is a drop in the CRITERION 2 of local trip attractors on cycling movements at this stage to identify whether a proposed percentage of people that consider the ‘quality CAPACITY STUDY (STAGE 2) through the area should also be estimated. route will be financially viable and maintainable of their visit excellent or good’, with ‘cycling in Any route that now experiences pedestrian in conjunction to identifying the range of in the long term. the park’ as a stated reason. comfort levels of PCL B- or worse, as a result potential users, to identify the overall cycling of introducing cyclists, should be reviewed as < 2% reduction in satisfaction part of a Safety Implications assessment. = acceptable and passes criterion 2–7% reduction in satisfaction = requires a review of responses > 7% reduction in satisfaction = unacceptable and does not pass the criterion. Stage 3: 18 Judging Success 19

CRITERION 3 The Royal Parks and the surrounding urban  Annual review of the strategy and arrangements. Additional issues relating to SAFETY IMPLICATIONS (STAGE 2) context are dynamic places, and judging programme to summarise observations user satisfaction and park management would A study involving at least six days of CCTV whether a shared use route is successful will and key survey results. prompt a design response offering a solution footage, including weekdays and weekends, change from year to year. Wider implications to resolve the performance issue.  Utilise annual visitor surveys to understand should be conducted where trialling the of changing park access arrangements, new the changing dynamics of visitor movements introduction of cycling. For cycling to be trip attractors in the local area, residential The Royal Parks will look at opportunities across the parks and to identify where considered permanently on a given path, developments and so on, will continually shape to upgrade the shared use facility while ongoing studies are required. more than 95% of cycle journeys should how the parks are used by pedestrians and maintaining a tarmac neutral approach, and involve neither major nor minor conflict cyclists. Stage 3 should therefore be used  Ensure customer satisfaction levels maintaining pedestrian priority. with pedestrians or other cyclists. A minor as an ongoing monitoring process for not are maintained. conflict is defined as that which involves only recently introduced shared use routes, Where conditions on a shared use path  Benchmark projects against international a cyclist needing to brake or a pedestrian but also historic routes to ensure that the cannot be improved without significantly park and city design standards and consider change direction; a major conflict is defined network remains fit for purpose. impacting on the wider operation and opportunities to trial new design approaches as a cyclist or pedestrian needing to take configuration of the park landscape, the where appropriate. emergency action, which could be considered A permanent shared use scheme, informed following measures may be necessary: a ‘near miss’. by the consultation process and evidence  Maintain an ongoing review programme  Closure of an existing shared use path collected as part of Stages 1 and 2, will have for new schemes that look at pedestrian which does not operate safely, reverting CRITERION 4 to balance the needs of all visitors. Proposals and cyclist interactions throughout the year. to pedestrian only. ACTUAL DEMAND FOR will not be implemented permanently if there  Utilise Road Safety Audit and Bike Week THE ROUTE (STAGE 2) is evidence that it:  Strategise alternative routing options for event feedback to understand wider Pedestrian and cycle flow counts across a cyclists. It may be that the optimal design  insufficiently resolves or creates a safety issue opinions on schemes and help to inform weekend and week day should be conducted solution for cyclists is to provide better design and maintenance schedules. every month during the trail period, to  has a significant detrimental effect on cycle routes outside the park boundary on ascertain how the route is performing and to visitor experience  Update The Royal Parks website regularly parallel links, or segregated facilities on assess whether safety is being compromised. to encourage feedback on new schemes. park roads.  fails to pass all critical success criteria assessments as part of both Stages 1 and 2. CRITERION 5 ONGOING EVALUATION OF CONCLUSION COSTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND SHARED USE PROVISION Interventions and improvements need to be Across all the parks attaining success involves VALUE FOR MONEY (STAGE 2) The ever growing number of visitors that are carefully balanced to provide benefits for all meeting the desirable strategic objectives over A more detailed cost-benefit appraisal should attracted to the Royal Parks creates immense park visitors. Routes should provide a high both the short and long term. It is vital to be used at this stage, including pedestrian pressure on the path network to continue to quality experience and ‘level of service’. the continue to monitor stakeholder satisfaction and cycle flow count data and other actual perform at a high level. As part of the long presumption that signage should be kept to a and to act on issues raised. implementation cost details to determine term maintenance strategy for shared use minimum to respect the beauty of the historic whether longer term infrastructure measures facilities, path performance will be reviewed significant landscapes, and surface materials Long term success will be measured by should be installed. regularly to ensure that the criteria that were selected that assist pedestrians with visual the following: satisfied during the initial approval process, impairments, while maintaining the visual and BORDERLINE REVIEW  Gather feedback from stakeholders and continue to be operationally sound. historic character of the parks. Where a scheme has issues identified by visitors on the operational performance the public and / or Royal Parks staff, a safety of the shared use path with regular Continued reive and monitoring should indicate The Royal Parks therefore advocates utilising review should be conducted which focuses on surveys conducted on-site for pedestrians where a shared use path no longer functions the processes outlined in this design guidance to the identified issue. and cyclists. satisfactorily, be it through an increase in take a holistic approach in making a balanced pedestrian and cycle flows, changes in access decision on a case by case basis. The Royal Parks Old Police House Hyde Park London W2 2UH [email protected] royalparks.org.uk/cycling

The Royal Parks

1. Bushy Park 3. Brompton Cemetery 6. The Regent’s Park London Borough of Royal Borough of with Primrose Hill Richmond Upon Thames Kensington and Chelsea 6. Westminster City Council and Camden Council 2. Richmond Park London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames 4. 5. 7. 8.

9. 3. 10.

2. 4. Kensington Gardens 7. The Green Park 10. Greenwich Park Westminster City Council London Borough 8. St James’s Park and Royal Borough of of Greenwich Kensington and Chelsea 9. Victoria Tower Gardens 5. Hyde Park Westminster City Council 1. Westminster City Council