THE CITY OF LIVERPOOL
A CYCLING STRATEGY FOR LIVERPOOL
MAIN REPORT
(FOR CONSULTATION)
DECEMBER 1996
Allott Transportation
Fairbairn House
Ashton Lane
Sale
Manchester M33 6WP
Tel 0161 962 1214
Fax 0161 962 0144
LIVERPOOL CYCLING STRATEGY
STAGE 2 REPORT, MAIN REPORT
CONTENTS
1.0 SUMMARY
1
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2
3.0
CYCLING IN LIVERPOOL – WHY ENCOURAGE IT?
3
4.0
OBJECTIVES OF A CYCLING STRATEGY FOR
13
LIVERPOOL
5.0 TARGETS
14
6.0 TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
16
7.0 CYCLE
NETWORKS
20
8.0 CYCLE
PARKING
27
9.0 ENCOURAGEMENT
32
10.0 EDUCATION
35
11.0 ENFORCEMENT
37
12.0
MONITORING & REVIEW OF POLICIES AND
38
ACTION
13.0 STAFFING
REQUIREMENTS
39
14.0 FUNDING
40
15.0
CYCLING ACTION PLAN FOR LIVERPOOL
47
16.0 CYCLING
SAFETY
PLAN
50
17.0
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF USEFUL PUBLICATIONS
53
18.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
55
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 In our report on the first stage of our development of a cycling strategy for Liverpool, we identified
the key issues that need to be addressed to raise levels of cycling as a mode of transport.
1.2 In this report of the second stage of the project, we outline the targets for cycle use and cyclist
satisfaction which Liverpool City Council should set, and the strategy which we think should be
followed in order to achieve the objectives. In a separate report, we also provide an assessment of
the prospects for the Liverpool Cycle Centre and suggest ways in which its contribution to the
strategy can be maximised.
1.3 In July 1996 the Transport Minister launched the National Cycling Strategy to coordinate the work
of all the main players in raising the level of cycling. We have ensured that the strategy we have
recommended for Liverpool follows the principles of the National cycling Strategy, so that
opportunities for government financial support are made full use of.
1.4 Our proposals provide the basis for a workplan for the remainder of this financial year in some
detail, in outline spending terms for the next five years, and in strategic outline for 15 years
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 This report is the result of a detailed study by Allott Transportation over several months of the
potential for increasing cycling levels in Liverpool. The study is aimed to identify measures which
the City Council could adopt to encourage cycling, covering education & publicity as well as
physical planning & engineering.
2.2 The study coincided with two major events, one national, one local. The national event was the
launch in July 1996 of the National Cycling strategy, the result of an unprecedented co-operative
effort by government departments, local authority representatives & cycling & other user groups.
The Strategy which resulted from the series of working parties & drafting sessions has been a great
stimulus to this study, particularly the specific recommendations for local authorities. Allott
Transportation were fortunate in being given the opportunity to produce the “Model Policy
Framework” for local authorities which forms a significant part of the published National cycling
Strategy.
2.3 The National cycling Strategy sets out a plan to achieve a nationwide doubling of levels of cycling
by 2002 & a quadrupling by 2007. This ambitious target links to Liverpools’ own aim to raise
cycling to 10% of trips by 2005.
2.4 The local event may prove to be just as important in the longer term for the encouragement of
cycling in Liverpool. This was the success in the Department of Transport “Cycle Challenge”
funding initiative, at the very end of 1995, of a scheme to set up a Liverpool Cycle Centre. This was
to be centrally-located secure cycle park, repair centre, information service & meeting place. As the
allot Transportation study has been progressing, the premises in Berry Street have been transformed
form a long derelict car showroom into a bright & attractive resource for launching cycling
encouragement programmes.
(closed in 2000)
2.5 With this rapidly-gathering momentum for change, the report should be an important part of the
process by which the people of Liverpool can be persuaded to make more use of a very practical,
healthy & economic form of travel. However it is only a first step. Community groups & residents
will need to be involved in supporting the plans for a City-wide cycle network, and health agencies,
schools, higher education establishments, employers, the media, & many other people &
organisations within Liverpool will also need to become involved if the ambitious targets set out in
the report are to be met.
3.0
CYCLING IN LIVERPOOL – WHY ENCOURAGE IT?
3.1 Liverpool has one of the lowest proportion of journeys made by bicycle of any major city in Britain
– less than 1%.Yet cycling is cheap, quick, healthy and enjoyable form of travel, well suited to the
compact nature of Liverpools central area, the closeness of many residential suburbs, its low car
ownership level & high student population.
3.2 In addition to cycling’s many obvious advantages to individual mobility & health, there are sound
economic reasons why Liverpool would benefit from an investment programme to encourage cycling.
These benefits include helping to meet the regions’ transport objectives in limiting the growth in private
car use, reducing air & noise pollution, improving individual health & fitness & helping to stimulate the
leisure & tourism sector.
Policies on cycling in Liverpool
3.3 A number of recent studies & policy documents on transport, health & the economy in Liverpool
have provided valuable background to identifying the particular needs of cycling in Liverpool.
3.4 The Liverpool City Council Draft Cycling Strategy (1995) provides an excellent starting point for
considering how to cater for cyclists needs in Liverpool. It continues the theme of the Merseyside
Integrated Transport study (MERITS 1995) which identified the need for an integrated transport strategy
that includes cycling. Its key objectives are defined as:
-increasing cycle use within the city to 10% of all urban journeys by 2005, in line with Royal
Commission on Environmental Pollution recommendations (1994)
-reducing accidents to cyclists in line with overall accident reduction targets
-developing an ongoing programme of measures, setting out priorities for implementation against a
financial expenditure plan.
3.5 The Draft Cycling Strategy also identifies specific issues to be addressed:
• improvement of existing cycle routes/links/paths
• catering for cyclists at the design stage of highway improvements
• forming a network of cycle routes.
• providing secure cycle parking at key locations
• improving junctions
• introducing traffic calming / speed reduction measures
• providing information on road safety & other cycling publicity
• educating employers about the benefits of cycling
• establishing a cycling forum
• appointing a cycling officer
1996-1997 TPP
3.6 The Citys annual bid for DoT funding, the Transport Policies & Programme document provides an
opportunity for the city to develop its strategic thinking, as well as setting out its immediate investment
plans.
3.7 In the July 1996 TPP covering the financial year 1997-98 & beyond, one of the key transport issues
identified is : “improving facilities for the pedestrian & cyclist through a developing programme of
measures, including segregated cycle routes in appropriate locations.” (para 2.1.13)
Merseyside 1997-98 Package Bid
3.8 The TPPis complemented by the MPB, jointly produced by all 5 districts & Merseytravel.
3.9 One of the 4 core policy themes for the MPB is - to increase the relative attractiveness of public transport
& non-motorised forms of transport as a means of moderating the upward trend incar use & securing a
shift of mode away from the private car (Policy Theme 2)
3.10 A cycling strategy has been adopted by the 6 authorities with 5 policy aims:
3.10.1 To define & seek to provide cycle networks linking centres of employment, population, shopping &
leisure
3.10.2 To provide & to encourage the provision of adequate facilities at appropriate locations, including secure
parking, changing & showering facilities.
3.10.3 To uintegrate cycling with other modes of transport.
3.10.4 To improve safety for cyclists through appropriate traffic management & highway improvements
3.10.5 To coordinate cycling awareness programmes & promote safety issues relating to cycling (Para3.36)
1996 -97 Road Safety Plan
3.11 The RSP describes the programme of remedial works to reduce accidents & improve safety on the city’s
roads, & the Education, Training & Publicity (ETP) activities which the city proposes to complement
these infrastructure works. A number of the accident cluster sites on which work is planned are recognised
problem sites for cyclists & work there should benefit cyclists too.
3.12 Because of the traditional popularity of cyclist training courses in the top classes of primary schools,
cycling safety is a significant concern of the ETP programme. The National Cycling Proficiency Scheme
presents a unique opportunity to reach a large proportion of 10 yr olds with a road safety awareness course
which may be the only sustained input for many young people as they become independent vehicle users.
3.13 The RSP also raises cycling issues indirectly related to the child training programme: helmet wearing &
standards of bicycle maintenance.
Draft UDP
3.14 Policy T6 of the Draft UDP states “The city council will promote & support initiatives to make cycling a
more convenient & safe method of transport by:
• Adopting a Cycling strategy for Liverpool which will include the formulation of a Strategic Cycle Route
Network
• Improving the condition of designated cycle routes in the city.
• Catering for cyclists need in the design of all new highway improvement schemes, traffic management
schemes & the road maintenance programmes, & giving consideration to the provision of safe cycling
routes through all major development & redevelopment sites.
• Improving road signage, road conditions, junction priorities & carriageway crossings where cycle routes
join highways
• Introducing traffic calming & speed reduction measures on designated cycle routes & areas of high cycle
usage
• Ensuring that secure cycle parking facilities are provided at locations regularly visited by the public, &
requiring new developments to provide secure cycle parking facilities as set out in SPG Note 8.
3.15 In addition Policy T9 on road safety includes the commitment:
Particular attention will be given to reducing the risk of accident & injury to the more vulnerable road
users, including children, the elderly & cyclists.
Transport Objectives
3.15 (duplicated paragraph number) The MERITS study set a series of objectives for reducing car-dependency
& encouraging public transport, walking & cycling on Merseyside. Other boroughs have committed
themselves to a programme of investment in cycling infrastructure & promotion & Merseytravel has
recognised the part that cycling can play as a feeder mode. Throughout Merseyside cycling can provide a
useful choice for many people for short journeys without contributing to traffic problems.
Transport efficiency
3.16 There is now a consensus of opinion that unrestrained car use cannot be accommodated. Much of the
growth in private car traffic in recent years comprises new journeys that were not formerly made by public
transport. Cycling , by offering convenient, rapid door to door transport when & where it is needed,
provides the most likely, sustainable means to replace these shorter car journeys.
3.17 72% of all personal journeys are less than 5 miles & 47% are less than 2 miles (National Travel Survey
1993) – well within the range of comfortable cycling. Cycling can replace car use for short journeys to &
from work, school & social activities, & for light shopping trips. In urban areas the bicycle can compete
with the private car in door to door journeys times. Suitably built bicycles or cycle trailers could be used for
some goods transport & delivery.
3.18 Travel by bicycle produces less noise, air pollution & traffic congestion & is extremely efficient in its use
of non renewable resources. Cycling also needs the least investment in infrastructure (including vehicle
parking) of any means of transport except walking. In short, it is the most sustainable transport mode.
Parking demands
3.19Up to 10 bicycles can be parked in the space required to park one car. A shift from car use to bicycle uses
would release existing road space currently occupied by parked cars, allowing more efficient use of the
roads for movement. Large areas of valuable off street land, particularly in Liverpool City Centre, would
become available for development or landscaping. This increase in urban density would itself make cycle
use & walking more attractive modes.
Accessibility
3.20Because cycles are almost silent, non polluting & pose very little accident danger, cycling can provide
direct access to & through areas where motorised modes would not be appropriate for environmental or
safety reasons. For journeys between 1 & 5 miles cycling offers journey time & social safety benefits
compared to walking, advantages in terms of cost, journey time, flexibility & 24 hour access compared to
public transport, & cost, environmental & at peak hours, journey time advantages compared to cars.
3.21 Car ownership is still low in several parts of Liverpool. Encouragement of cycling at this stage will im-
prove accessibility for those currently without access to a car & will help to prevent car dependency
increasing in future years.
Air & Noise pollution
3.22Emissions from transport provide a significant proportion of urban air pollution. While Liverpool seems to
be less affected by ground level air pollution than other cities this is more because of the prevailing winds
than the efforts of its citizens. CO2 emissions which contribute to the greenhouse effect are nevertheless
still being produced by all motor vehicles, even if the effects are felt globally rather than locally.
3.23 Noise pollution is a major source of irritation to residents in many parts of the city, & particularly along
the main roads used for through traffic & for goods vehicles serving industrial areas & the docks. While
increased cycle use would make little difference to these situations, in the city centre & in quieter
residential areas & local centres, there is scope for using traffic management to reduce vehicle speeds &
volumes both to benefit cyclists safety & improve the quality of life.
Safety
3.24Fear of motor traffic is probably the most significant deterrent to cycling & walking in Liverpool. Yet
cycles pose very little danger to other road users, & a significant modal shift to cycling could possibly
reduce road danger , particularly to other VRUs. The measures needed to tackle these fears & increase
cycling(vehicle speed reduction & redistribution of road space from private cars to more sustainable
modes) will have safety benefits for all road users.
3.25 A particular target could be a reduction of trips to school made by car. Delivery by car of school children
is a significant contributor to morning peak congestion around Liverpool schools. This increases the traffic
threat to pupils who continue to walk or cycle, whilst at the same time the poor levels of fitness of British
schoolchildren is an area of growing concern to health professionals & the government. Safe routes for
pupils to cycle & walk to school, which allay parental fears of traffic danger, would be an important step in
tackling these problems.
Health & fitness
3.26It is in the area of health the Liverpool stands to gain most from the encouragement of cycling. Liverpool
has among the highest levels in Europe of most preventable diseases, in some cases (such as lung cancer)
among the highest in the world. While cycling cannot claim to cure all diseases, lack of exercise is a well
established factor increasing ill health. The poor health of its residents imposes high costs on Liverpool &
its employers, through absenteeism & poor productivity, social services & other health care costs.
3.27 There is surprisingly little UK research on quantifying the benefits of regular cycling on obesity, heart
disease & overall life expectancy, although studies in Finland & Holland have shown positive results.
Cycling offers a cheap & practical way to keep fit & healthy. Indeed cycling has been identified by the
BMA in its report “Cycling - Towards Health & Safety”, as a significant means, if not the only practical
means, to raise the level of physical activity & reduce coronary heart disease in the whole population. The
U Surgeon General’s recent report on physical activity & health also provide a wealth of evidence to link
regular exercise with improvements in fitness & health.
3.28 The DoT has recently commissioned a research study to identify the particular contribution that cycling
can make in encouraging a more active daily routine, & a significant part of this work involves tests on
people in Liverpool who can be encouraged to start taking regular exercise through cycling. It has been
suggested that health benefits from cycling far outweigh any extra risks of suffering road accidents.
3.29 So far efforts in the Health of the Nation initiative to increase exercise have had little effect nationally.
Regular cycling can be incorporated into the daily routines of both men & women of all ages much more
easily than other valuable activities like swimming.
Liverpool Healthy City 2000 (Joint European Accident Initiative, Final Report) 1995
3.30The City is part of the WHO “Healthy City 2000” network & has received EU funding towards a joint
accident Initiative with 3 other associated Healthy Cities.
Amongst the 5 recommendations of this report are 2 which particularly concern cycling:
• “in cities where not already applicable, cycle training should be available to all pupils in senior
national schools”
• “advocate healthy alternatives to the use of the private car, including cycling & walking with
corresponding campaigns which necessitate the greater use of cycle helmets & other safety
measures.
Liverpool City Health Plan (Liverpool Healthy City 2000) 1996
3.31As the plan states “Health in Liverpool is poor. The death rate is 20% worse for the city than for England &
Wales as a whole.
3.32 The City Health plan is a 5 year strategy aimed at improving the quality of life & health in Liverpool,
through various long & short term targets. It follows a consultation period form the draft plan, during
which the most common concern (by 60% of respondents) was that of “the environment, in general, &
specifically related to air pollution, & the desire for a green, clean city”.
3.33 In a section on Environment & Health, key themes are air pollution & transportation. These are continued
in the section on Transport &Health which incorporates the aim “to provide a balanced, integrated
transport network which….addresses the health & quality of life of all of Liverpool’s residents”. In terms
of actions , the city Health Plan proposes various measures including reducing the dangers faced by all road
users (“by….. redesigning roads to reduce traffic speeds, providing cycle lanes & pedestrian facilities, & by
changing driver attitudes”).
Leisure & tourism
3.34 Liverpool is justly proud of its position as a great attractor of tourism. The riverside attractions & the
central area attract millions of visitors each year. The Sustrans National cycle Network Millenium
proposals will quite literally put Liverpool on the map for leisure & tourism – there will be a Millenium
Route from Pier Head along the Mersey riverside to join the existing Loop Line linear recreational route &
the planned NCN long distance recreational links to Southport, Manchester, Holyhead & beyond.
3.35 The centre of the city itself could be more attractive to visitors hiring bicycles if some of the proposals are
adopted. Bicycles offer the ideal flexible transport between Liverpool’s leisure attractions; they can be
hired & parked cheaply & easily & can be used at all hours of the day. Cycling is a healthy recreational
activity in its own right providing non-intrusive transport to the countryside around Liverpool.
3.36Cyclists tend to spend more per capita than car users both en route to & at their holiday destination. Cycle
hire facilities, accommodation, restaurants, pubs & cafes all benefit from cycle tourism.
Britain’s competitors are actively developing their cycle networks for tourism, France is the market leader,
with Denmark, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland & more recently Italy, Spain &
Portugal investing to attract cycle tourists.
The Tourist Information offices in Liverpool which currently lack materials for the public on cycling,
should display information on cycling facilities such as cycle hire, parking, routes, attractions &
opportunities for cycle carriage on trains & the ferries.
3.37The traffic calming & management measures needed to facilitate cycle use & walking, together with the
predicted resultant transfer from car to bicycle, will do much to create a more pleasant, human scale
environment for leisure pursuits, while ensuring accessibility. It will also convey a high status to Liverpool
among an increasingly environmentally concerned visiting public.
3.38In the draft Parks & Open Spaces strategy (1995), policycPS13 states that “cycling will generally be
accepted on suitable pathways within the parks”. There is a commitment to identify strategic routes for
recreational cycling & introducing minor improvements including signing & cycle parking. There is
mention of linking to other routes & the identification of the basis for a route network is seen as a matter of
urgency.
3.39 Specific measures which will help both cyclist & tourists are:
• Development of the Millenium Route for cyclists & walkers as part of the NCN.
• Provision of crossings of the busy Strand St, Chaloner St, Sefton St to facilitate access to the Dock
attractions.
• Improved cycle access to & promotion of , the Ferry links to & from Birkenhead & Wallasey.
• Improved parking at tourism & leisure sites & throughout the city Centre.
3.40All major leisure attractions are on or easily accessible from the proposed cycle network.
Cost-effective transport mode
3.41cycling can provide low cost transport for the majority of Liverpool’s population, both in terms of personal
costs to the user & costs to the highway authority. In comparison with the private car, a bicycle offers many
economic advantages to individuals: low capital outlay, low maintenance, cost low insurance, no parking or
fuel costs, no road tax For the highway authority, cost of providing cycle facilities& education &
promotion programmes are significantly lower than facilities to accommodate even existing levels of
motorised vehicles.
3.42The CBI estimates that congestion costs British industry £16billion per year. Traffic generated ground air
pollution in the UK costs £2.5 billion per year, mostly in health care cots but also in damage to buildings &
plants.
3.43An increase in cycling will lead to an increased trade for Liverpool’s cycle dealers. The Liverpool Cycle
Centre is a new source of employment & many other European cities which have successfully promoted
cycling now enjoy several such facilities offering secure parking & other services.
Funding
3.44Cycling is now being recognised by central & local government as an integral part of mote environmentally
friendly transport programmes. Local Authority Circular 2/96 “TPP Submissions for 1997-98” states that
cycling, walking & public transport….”must in future play a more important role in transport strategies ass
an alternative to the private car. The arguments in their favour are weighty….”
3.45The amount of funding for cycling (both absolute & relative) is increasing & Circular 2/96 states that…”the
Department will expect TPP as to shoe that local authorities are developing policies that make better
provision for cyclists…. The Package guidance also emphasises the part to be played by restrictions on the
use of cars, in persuading people to use less polluting forms of transport.”
3.46The Liverpool Cycling Strategy is one of the first major LA cycling initiatives to reflect the
recommendations of the Governments National Cycling Strategy launched in July 19996. Liverpool is thus
in an excellent position to attract DoT funding thought he TPP & Package process, by including
comprehensive measures at the core of its transport strategy.
4.0 OBJECTIVES OF A CYCLING STRATEGY FOR LIVERPOOL
4.1 The NCS was launched in July1996 as a multi agency venture to bring together central & local
government, user groups & specialist agencies in a partnership to rise the level of cycling as a mode
of transport in the UK to be more in line with that of our European neighbours.
4.2 The development of the Strategy as a cooperative venture bringing in specialist in many areas &
their final report will be the principal source of policy advice over the next few years for virtually
every highway authority. The need to help cycling achieve its potential as a traffic mode is shared by
all political parties & opinion surveys show that it is also very popular concern among the
population at large. We have therefore tried to make full use of the new Strategy & the wide range
of expert working papers which accompany it.
4.3 The NCS incorporate suggestions for statements of policy for Las. It is intended that these should be
taken as models & adapted for local needs. We have been given valuable assistance by Council
officers in wording these NCS objectives so that they are now highly relevant to Liverpool:
CO1 To maximise the role of cycling as a transport mode, in order to reduce the use of private cars.
CO2 To develop a safe, convenient, efficient & attractive transport infrastructure which encourages &
facilitates the use of walking, cycling & public transport, & which minimises reliance on, &
discourages unnecessary use of private cars.
CO3 To ensure that policies to increase cycling & meet the needs of cyclists are fully integrated into the
UDP, TPP,& Road Safety Plan & in all complementary strategies including transport studies &
strategies, environment , education , health & leisure strategies.
4.4 These objectives have been developed into specific targets (see section 5 below)& into an action
plan (see section15).
5.0 TARGETS
5.1 The following targets form the basis of a monitoring & review procedure for the implementation of
the Cycling strategy.
CT1
To increase the overall modal share of cycle trips from 1.5%to 4% by 2001, & to seek to increase this to
8% by 2007 & 12% by 2012.
5.2 In the City Council’s draft cycling strategy document prepared in 1995 an ambitious target of
increasing cycle use within the city to 10% of all urban journeys by 2005 was referred to, this being
in line with the Royal commission on Environmental Pollution recommendations(1994).
The Merseyside Package Bid document for 1997/98 includes a target for cycling provision to
increase the modal share of cycle trips from 1.5% to 4% by 2001.
This is consistent with the NCS aim of doubling overall cycle usage for the whole of the UK
between 1996 & 2002 , & to double 2002 levels by 2012.
5.3 In order to measure progress towards thee trgets there will need to be a more systematic & regular
collection of date on cycle usage within the city.
There is a new DoT study in progress to develop the most cost effective ways for local authorities
to achieve this.
As a necessary first step a representative travel survey should be undertaken over the next 6 months
to confirm existing cycling levels in different parts of the city, & a mechanism put in place for
repeating it at regular intervals so that increases can be measured with confidence.
===============================================================================
CT2 To seek to increase the modal share of cycling to at least 50% of all non-walk journeys to school by pupils
of 10 years or older by 2012.
5.4 Journeys to & from Secondary school are seen as a particularly important sector to capture.
Given supportive education staff, comparatively small expenditure on secure cycle & luggage
storage, & priority to cycle route improvements in the vicinity of Secondary schools, it should be
possible to make significantly higher increases in school journeys by bicycle.
Neighbouring Sefton already has over 30% of pupils cycling to some of its Secondary schools.
CT3 To seek to reduce the casualty rate for cyclists per km cycled by
20% by 2002
55% by 2007
85% by 2012
compared to 1996 casualty rates.
5.5 The DoT is currently reviewing its philosophy for setting & reviewing targets for traffic casualty
reduction. Liverpools’s own targets for casualty reduction for cyclists and all road users will need to
take account of these consultations. The accuracy of casualty rates will also depend on the quality of
the cycle usage data.
===============================================================================
CT4 To seek to reduce rates of cycle theft by
40% by 2002
60% by 2007
compared to the level of theft in 1995 & to seek further reductions, where possible, thereafter.
5.6 Merseyside Police currently compile statistics of reported cycle theft, & it is likely that these will be
progressively refined in line with the recommendations on cycle security systems in the NCS.
===============================================================================
CT5 To seek to provide cycle training for 50% of 9 -12 year olds by 2002, with at least 50% of these trained in
an interactive learning situation with an on-road practical element, in accordance with RoSPA & TRL
recommendations.
5.7 The City recognises that there are currently difficulties in meeting the potential demand for child
cyclist training with existing numbers of staff & volunteers, & this has limited the move to more
effective but labour intensive training methods.
CT6 To ensure that cycle schemes make up 5 -10% of the minor works bid within the package bid submission 7
that full consideration of the needs of cyclists is given within the LSS budget.
5.8 Cyclists are heavily over-represented in Liverpool casualty figures. While accounting for less than
1% of present traffic levels they make up almost 5% of reported casualties (& there may still be
some under reporting).
Cycling accidents tend not to cluster in the same way as other accidents & the present procedures for
allocating funds for LSS requires the schemes to be aimed at known accident problem sites.
Nevertheless there should still be opportunities to direct some of the LSS budget into appropriate
measures to assist cyclists, particularly along know n corridors which have a cycle accident history
===============================================================================
CT7 To ensure that cycling receives proportionate benefits from the revenue budget for highway maintenance,
lighting & other transport related expenditure.
5.9 Cyclists are particularly vulnerable to defects in road surfaces, & it is important that cycling benefits
appropriately from the allocation of revenue resources for routine cleaning & maintenance & other
regular expenditure.
===============================================================================
6.0 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
Introduction
6.1 One of the commonest complaints heard from cyclists is that comparatively minor deficiencies in
traffic management & highway schemes have had a disproportionately serious effect on the cycle
friendliness of the highway network.
The lack of :
• dropped kerbs at road closures,
• lack of safe provision for cyclists in new one way orders
• unnecessarily wide carriageways,
• low deflection angles at roundabouts,
• short intergreen periods at traffic signals
are all features which can be identified & in many cases improved at reasonable cost.
6.2 Conversely, traffic & transport professionals often complain that they receive conflicting demands &
advice from cyclists, & from those claiming to speak on their behalf.
Segregated cycle lanes or tracks are requested but then not used when they are provided.
Cycle campaigners themselves argue fiercely about the relative merits of segregated & integrated
(in-traffic) solutions, or about the relative priority to be given to committing resources on leisure
rather than utility routes.
IHT Guidelines
6.3 Fortunately there is now some generally accepted guidance to help professionals to avoid causing
unintentional difficulties to cyclists, & cyclists to avoid making unreasonable & impractical
demands of local authorities.
This is the CTC/IHT/DoT “Cycle friendly infrastructure – guidelines for planning & design”. This is
referred to in more detail in the sections on Networks (Section 7), but its important
recommendations include the following:
• Special tracks & lanes for cyclists should only be considered when other measures (traffic
reduction, traffic calming, junction improvements) do not achieve a safe & comfortable
environment for the type of cyclists being considered.
• Routes for cyclists (whether on existing roads or on special facil9ties) should meet standards
of coherence, directness, safety, attractiveness, comfort.
6.4 The NCS draws heavily on this publication. It also recommends 2 new procedures to help prevent
highway & traffic engineers & planners avoid common pitfalls in providing for cyclists.
These are the “cycle audit” of any proposed changes to the highway or traffic environment & the
“strategic cycling review”, essentially an application of cycle audit procedure to existing roads &
cycling facilities.
Cycle Audit
6.5 Cycle Audit is a review procedure which aims to ensure that highway & land use schemes are as
cycle friendly as possible. This will ensure that opportunities to enhance cycling conditions are not
missed & that new schemes do not inadvertently introduce new problems for cyclists.
6.6 Many new schemes are routinely subjected to a Safety Audit by an independent officer or outside
consultant. This assesses the impact of the scheme on the safety of all users.
Cycle Audit could complement safety audit by assessing all the features, of which safety is one,
which will attract or deter cycling.
It could take the form of a checklist which evaluates the proposed scheme according to each of the 5
main requirements: coherence, directness, safety, attractiveness s & comfort.
6.7 The NCS states that “Cycle Audit procedures should be adopted by all highway authorities” &
emphasised that Cycle Audit will be “considered as a requirement for future local transport funding
bids”.
Initial guidance to local authorities on Cycle Audit will be produced by the end of 1997 by the DoT
in consultation with local authorities.
Cycle Audit procedures are already being developed by a number of Las & there are some outline
proposals in the NCS Appendices. Appendix 6 contains a draft for a more detailed Cycle Audit
procedure.
6.8 We suggest the adoption of the following policy, based on the recommendations in the NCS:
CP1 All highway & land use development schemes will include a cycle audit to ensure that schemes provide
improvements to , or at least have no negative impact on, the coherence, directness, safety, attractiveness &
comfort of routes used by cyclists.
6.9 Cycle Audit is an effective means to improve conditions for cyclists. Applying the Cycle Audit
Procedure as part of all new highway & traffic schemes should ensure that the highway network
gradually becomes more cycle friendly, in addition to any specific cycle route networks & other
facilities being proposed.
Cycle Audit will greatly reduce the need for remedial action at a later date to correct defects or
introduce cycle specific facilities where these have been overlooked.
6.10
Cycle Audit should ideally be applied to all schemes , albeit on a simplified form for very small
projects. This is because even low cost measures can have a significant effect on the directness,
safety & comfort of routes used by cyclists.
For practical purposes, the following schemes are most likely to have implications for cyclists:
• Highway schemes (major & minor)
• Traffic Management schemes
• Traffic calming schemes
• Major maintenance schemes
• Planning proposals / Developer led schemes. (M.Belcher – Cycle Audit in the NCS
Appendix – topic papers & other support material pp 77-84. DoT 1996)
6.11
Resource requirement for Cycle Audit falls into 2 categories:
• Training requirements of City staff in the design & construction of cycle friendly initiatives.
This should include at least a 1 day course for al staff who are involve din transport policy or
highway or traffic scheme design.
• Staff time to perform the Cycle Audit. Cycle Audit will take up to 1 officer day for large
schemes at each of 4 stages :
o 1A Feasibility
o 1B Preliminary Design
o 2 Detailed design
o 3 Post implementation.
This represents approx £250-450 per scheme for large schemes & considerably less for
smaller schemes.
Any extra time required to modify the scheme to remedy problems identified by Cycle
Audit will be additional.
Strategic Cycling Review of the existing highway network
6.12 The NCS recommends a 5 year SCR by local authorities of their existing highway networks. The
following policy is suggested for inclusion in the Liverpool cycling strategy:
CP2 The council will undertake a strategic cycling review of its existing road network, to be completed by
Autumn 2002, to assess locations & routes on the basis of the criteria of coherence, directness, safety,
attractiveness & comfort for cyclists.
The council will aim to undertake traffic management &/or engineering measures as necessary to treat any
problem sites & routes identified in the review as resources become available, or develop equally
convenient & safe alternative & additional routes.
6.13 The review can make use of Cycle Audit Procedure & should address all sites & routes where
traffic dangers, detours, time delays, social safety problems, local prohibitions on cycle parking or
access reduce the attractiveness of cycling as a mode of transport.
The review should identify all feasible opportunities to provide cyclists with safety improvements,
shortcuts, & access advantages over less sustainable modes (eg by exemption for cyclists from one
way orders, prohibited turns, & in vehicle restricted areas)
The review will form significant input into detailed planning & prioritisation of the authority’s cycle
networks.
6.14The review should be conducted by staff who are well trained in the needs of all types of cyclists,
the problems they encounter, & how these may be overcome.
“On completion of the audit ( at each of the 4 stages from design to construction) the cycle auditor
should send an audit report to the design engineer / project manager & a meeting should be held o
discuss the problems & recommendations contained in the audit & to agree on actions to date” (ibid)
Other technical aspects of traffic management
6.15The IHT “Cycle Friendly Infrastructure” book provides excellent guidance on such issues as
signage, parking, bus lanes, road closures etc. & the Bibliography (see Section 17) lists other
sources of useful information.
6.16The City has existing standards on the surfacing & subsequent maintenance of special cycling
facilities, where these are to be used. These are listed in Appendix 11 (not provided).
Cycle networks
7.1 Development of a strategic route network is an important step to improve cyclist’s safety &
convenience on key routes & to raise awareness of cycling.
As a visible demonstration of an authority’s commitment to cycling it can also help to allay people’s
concerns about the status of cycling as a mode of transport.
7.2 The following policy framework is suggested as a basis for developing a Cycle Route Network &
other route improvements for cyclists.
CP3 High quality route networks will be provided for cyclists, with priority given to the main urban areas &
links to surrounding settlements which generate significant amounts of commuting.
The route network will comprise the highway network, modified where necessary using traffic restraint, traffic
calming & cycle specific facilities to enable safe & convenient access to all destinations.
CP4 Priority will be given to routes as follows:
1. Major routes which serve utility cycling trips; in particular safer routes to schools, routes from
residential areas to significant journey attractors such as retail centres, major employers, public transport
interchanges, hospitals, other education & leisure facilities.
2. Other connecting routes used for utility cycling, including inter-urban links.
3. Recreational routes including links to non-urban sections of the National Cycle Network.
CP5 Route networks will achieve high standards of coherence, directness, safety, attractiveness & comfort, &
design criteria will adopt the hierarchical approach recommended by the IHT/DoT/CTC/Bicycle association
publication: Cycle friendly infrastructure: Guidelines for Planning & Design (1996).
CP6 Measures will be provided, wherever feasible, which improve cyclists safety & give priority (in terms of
access & journey times) over other traffic, on roads with significant cycle flows or significant potential cycle
flows.
CP7 the city council will undertake a high standard of maintenance of segregated cycle facilities & all roads
used by cyclists within its current maintenance regime.
CP8 the city council will ensure that, where feasible, development does not sever routes used by cyclists or
pedestrians or prejudice accessibility by walking or cycling without providing suitable diversions.
CP9 The city council will make use wherever possible of planning gain & commuted payments to improve
transport infrastructure to aid cyclists.
CP10 The city council, in conjunction with Merseytravel, will seek to integrate cycling with public transport,
to facilitate cycle use as part of longer journeys.
7.3 We have identified a provisional CYCLE ROUTE NETWORK for Liverpool which e recommend
should form the basis for consultation with:
• local cyclists
• residents
• community groups
• police
• other organizations.
The detailed route descriptions are to be founds in Appendix 3 & plans are enclosed as follows:
• Plan 1: Northern Area
• Plan 2: Central Areas (Excluding City Centre)
• Plan 3: Southern Area
• Plan 4: City Centre (draft map). A 1:2500 plan giving much greater detail on City Centre routes
will be included in the Stage 2 Report (final draft).
7.4 In identifying the network we have been assisted by helpful suggestions from many individuals &
organizations, particularly members of the MCC & CTC.
7.5 The NCS (DoT July1996) aims to double the number of cycle trips currently made (1996) by the
end of 2002.
One method of providing for & promoting cycling is by adapting road space & priority to make the
highway network more “cycle friendly”. The NCS recommends:
• Providing for increase cycle use within all highways & traffic management schemes
through applying a Cycle Audit procedure to schemes.
• Designing for safe & convenient cycle use of the road network following the principles of
Cycle Friendly Infrastructure (CFI)
• Reallocating road space to cycling through Reviews of urban road networks & development
of Local Cycling Strategies by 1999.
7.6 CFI sets out the principles of [planning for cycling & stresses the importance of providing routes
that are fit for cyclists rather than providing for cyclists per se.
CFI describes the role of a cycle network as “a tool to help set priorities & ensure route continuity”.
The proposed network identifies a number of through & distributor routes on which measures
should be concentrated.
However this does not imply that measures may not also be required elsewhere.
Design Background
7.7 The City offers considerable potential for increasing the level of cycle use. Liverpool has a compact
urban structure & most of its built up parts lie within a 5 mile radius of the city centre. Also the
majority of its larger journey attractors are located in the city centre.
7.8 Cyclists already benefit from a num,ber of facilities such as the University Route, Speke Boulevard
& the off road Loop Line. These will form a useful part of the proposed network.
The Loop Line & new links to it will comprise the Liverpool section of the National Cycle
Network.
7.9 As a major metropolitan centre Liverpool’s strategic road network carries high volumes of traffic
including HGVs serving the Docks.
Liverpool also has a number of multi lane dual carriageways used by fast traffic & with complex
junctions that serve as deterrent to cycling.
In the City centre further difficulties are faced by cyclists due to the one way system, major
intersections & heavy volumes of traffic.
7.10 The existing road system is the most important facility for cyclists & there is plenty of scope for
making it more attractive & safer for cyclists.
Measures such as junction improvements & speed restrictions on major roads & signposting of
minor roads can contribute to a more cycle friendly road environment.
The cycling Action Plan (Chapter 15) also recommends accident remedial measures to improve
safety at identified cycle accident cluster sites.
7.11 In order to create cycle friendly routes, we have used the accepted criteria of safety, coherence,
directness, attractiveness & comfort when evaluating the different route options.
Wherever possible, on road routes have been recommended, although the proposed network
includes some off road sections through parks, recreation grounds, & along the Loop Line.
These sections are mostly unlit & although they may have a recreational function, their use by
commuter cyclists is limited by concerns over social safety. We have recognized these concerns in
the proposed CYCLE ROUTE NETWORK & have minimized the use of off road routes. As far as
possible where off road routes have been recommended ( as useful short cuts or to bypass major
junctions) on road alternatives have been suggested.
Types of measure proposed
7.12
• Reduction of speed limits
• Speed restraint measures
• Cycle friendly traffic calming
• Speed cushions
• Road humps
• Bypasses of pinchpoints & buildouts
• Speed cameras where physical measures are inappropriate
• Traffic management measures that give priority to cyclists & improve their safety:
• ASLs & feeder cycle lanes at traffic signals
• Exemptions from road closures & banned turns
• Contraflow cycling in one way streets
• Cycle lanes
• Making heavily trafficked roads safer for cyclists (&other users) by:
• Bus / Cycle lanes
• Widening nearside lanes to(to 4.25m)
• Treatment of specific junctions with cycle accident clusters or which deter cycling
because of perceived danger.
• Crossing & turning facilities:
• Refuges
• Toucan crossings
• Signed routes on quiet roads
• Car parking: restrictions, provision of parking bays
• Limited construction of segregated cycle tracks
• Limited use of pedestrianised streets
• Widescale resurfacing of roads &infilling of potholes
7.13 The 1996 Cycle Friendly Infrastructure Guidelines provide additional information on these types
of measures & the DoT Traffic Advisory Leaflets also provide technical advice.
The proposed cycle network
7.14In developing a network of cycle routes, Liverpool will be taking a significant step towards
becoming a cycle friendly city. The cycle network must not be considered in isolation however as
cyclists use virtually all roads.
Cycling needs to be integrated with other transport policies & measures, & complemented by the
promotion of all environmentally friendly modes of transport.
7.15The process of identifying a cycle route network in Liverpool has taken into account a variety of
factors.
The 5 criteria of Safety
Coherence
Directness
Attractiveness
Comfort
Have been satisfied.
Account has been taken of the many site-specific factors which affect whether a particular road is
suited to or could be adapted to become a cycle route.
Existing facilities & routes suggested by local cyclists have been included where possible.
As well as through routes , links to important journey attractors such as schools, shops, hospitals
have been suggested.
7.16The proposed cycle route network consists mainly of on road routes. Most of these will require
minor works in order to meet the cyclists criteria, while some junctions will require major works.
Possible treatments have been suggested to make the road network more cycle friendly, but these
are non means exhaustive & it has not been possible in this study to produce definitive solutions.
Further consultation& more detailed investigation & design is very likely to modify & improve the
suggested solutions in several locations.
The recommendations utilize the hierarchy of measures in the Cycle Friendly Infrastructure
Guidelines i.e. considering traffic reduction first, followed by traffic calming, junction treatment &
traffic management, redistribution of the carriageway, & cycle lanes & cycle tracks.
7.17Adapting existing roads to make them more cycle friendly & introducing a cycle audit system to all
new highway works would greatly benefit cyclists, & encourage greater use of the bicycle.
Traffic calming & new crossings such as Toucans also benefit pedestrians & many of the measures
recommended for specific cycle routes could be implemented as part of wider traffic management
schemes or LSS.
7.18 It is intended to provide a network density so that at any point in the city a cyclist is only 1km from
a designated cycle route. The provisional strategic network consists of 130km of radial & orbital
routes & a further 124 km of connecting links.
7.19 The provisional routes are as follows:
ROUTE NAME/DESTINATION
APPROX
LENGTH
KM
City Centre
20
Radials
1 Docks
3
2 Kirkdale 3
3 Aintree
station
7
4 Croxteth 8
5 West
Derby
7
6 Mill
Yard 7
7 Finch
Lane 7
8A Woolton
7
8B Mossley
Hill 4
9A Speke
13
9B Princes
Park
(now part 2
of Millenium Route)
10 Otterspool 7
Total
75
Orbitals
Inner
8
Middle
10
Outer
16
Total
34
Local
124
Distributors
Millenium
Pier Head to Loop Line
13
Millenium Loop
Line
13
Millenium
Riverside to Cycle
1
Centre, Berry St
Total
27
TOTAL
280
7.20The detailed routes proposed are fully described in Appendix 3.
7.21 The density of the resulting network can be roughly assessed as follows. In an American style city
based on a grid of streets, every home or destination would be within 1km of a strategic cycle route
if there were 4km of route for every 4 sq km of area.
7.22 Comparison:
Proposed Network
Length KM
Area SQ KM
Liverpool 130
113
London 2000
1800
7.23The City Council will aim to implement the Strategic Cycle Route Network within a 5 year
framework
(by mid 2002).
However this will be dependent on the availability of funds .
The aim will however be to achieve as much of the network as can be funded within the 5 yr
target period.
This will provide major through & distributor routes .
7.24There will be a need to review the provision after 5 yrs, & in subsequent yrs, with a view to
carrying out further network improvements including:
• Completion of the Strategic cycle Network
• A finer infill of distributor & access roads to provide safety, route choice, & journey time
improvements for cyclists throughout local highway networks
• Safer routes to school networks, providing the higher degree of protection needed by child
cyclists ( & pedestrians) in the vicinity of Secondary Schools.
• Capacity & priority improvements on existing routes to accommodate increases in cycle
usage.
7.25The strategic 5 yr Cycling Review of the existing highway network, recommended by the NCS,
should reveal the needs & opportunities for the network improvements outlined above.
Road safety schemes
Traffic calming
Demand restraint of private meotor traffic
Cycle facilities where necessary
Should deliver a road network which cater for safe, convenient access by cycle & encourages modal
shift to cycling.
8.0 CYCLE PARKING
8.1 Cycle security & a lack of secure cycle parking have been identified as major problems by both
existing& potential cyclists in Liverpool.
The current provision is extremely low & acts as a disincentive to using a bicycle as a regular means
of transport.
Parking would be a low cost & highly visible measure to promote cycle use, & would be particularly
effective where it is coordinated with the development of cycle routes.
Cycle parking also benefits from a relatively short implementation cycle.
8.2 The recent publication of a NCS aims to promote & increase the use of the bicycle through a variety
of measures. Local authorities are encouraged to provide cycle parking at all major destinations in
partnership with public transport operators & the private sector.
It is anticipated that Las will develop a programme of parking provision by 1999 &
Establish cycle parking standards for development plans by the end of 1998.
8.3 In the Model Local cycling Policy in the NCS there are suggested policies on parking which would
be very appropriate for Liverpool:
CP11 Adequate cycle parking will be provided according to standards defined in the city councils SPG Note 8
(Car & Cycle parking standards), at educational establishments, retail centres, public transport interchanges,
leisure facilities & other major journey attractors. Employers will be encouraged to provide cycle parking at
workplaces.
CP12 The city council will adopt cycle parking standards to ensure that cycle parking facilities are secure &
accessible, & where possible are well lit, under shelter, & conveniently serve the cycle route network.
Liverpool Cycle parking facilities
8.4The number of existing parking sites is extremely limited. One can see lamp posts & other street
furniture being used instead, in an untidy & inconvenient way.
8.5The network study proposes the installation of parking at major journey attractors throughout the
city, with particular concentration in the city centre
General locations are described below as well as specific city centre locations.
Public transport interchanges
8.6 Cycling has even grater potential as a mode of transport if it is combined with other modes. For instance by
providing cycle carriage on public transport & parking at public transport interchanges, the cyclist is able to
travel larger distances whilst retaining the flexibility of the bicycle at one or both ends of the journey.
8.7 The City & Merseytravel have together identified 4 stations where parking could be installed
experimentally with CCTV:
Lime St (main line)
Central
Mossley Hill
Broadgreeen
We suggest provision of cycle parking at every rail station in Liverpool, & other interchanges such as
ParadiseSt Bus Station
Queen Square Bus Station.
National Express Coach Station
Mersey Ferries Terminal at Pier Head.
Retail Centres
8.8 Although the city centre is the major retail centre there are a number of district centres where the use of
cycles for short trips could be encouraged.
It is also important to encourage food superstores & other large scale outlets to, provide cycle parking for their
customers, rather than increasing car dependency.
8.9 In the city centre, suitable parking sites were identified at entry points to the pedestrianised central shopping
area by the MCC in December 1994. These have been included as well as additional sites identified during our
study.
Cultural & leisure facilities
8.10 Liverpool has a large number of major cultural & leisure facilities & it is important that these are
accessible by bicycle. In the city centre parking locations have been identified close to all theatres, museums &
concert halls. Cycle parking should also be provided at all cinemas, & indoor sports facilities.
8.11 As a famous footballing city Liverpool can set an example by encouraging local supporters to cycle to
matches by providing secure cycle parking at or near to Anfield & Goodison park stadiums. This could help to
ease the problems of match day traffic . Other major sporting venues such as Aintree racecourse would benefit
from cycle parking facilities.
Educational establishments.
8.12 The City should endeavour to ensure that cycle parking is provided at all Secondary Schools, FE colleges,
University sites (including Halls of residence).
University students are a potentially large group of cyclists &* the network includes an existing route & new
routes to the Mount pleasant area & routes which pass close to JMU sites. It is likely that a large number of
stands will be required for students & staff - exact locations should be chosen through consultation with
potetntial users.
Those places of education not funded by the City will need to contribute towards the cost but it can be
demonstrated that these will bring corresponding benefits to the institutions themselves.
Employment
8.13 all th preceding categories are also places of employment & many of the locations for parking stands will
also serve workplaces. Cycle commuters will have different demands for parking than short stay visitors to
shops, leisure facilities etc.
8.14 Private sector employers could also be persuaded to provide or to contribute to costs of cycle parking for
employees (see Appendix 7).
OTHER MAJOR JOURNEY ATTRACTORS
8.15 Facilities are recommended for public building s such as the town hall, Law Courts, Libraries, Hospitals.
The two Cathedrals also require cycle parking facilities.
8.16 In Chinatown the restaurants & other attractions have led to the proposal for a cycle parking site on
Nelson St near Gt George St. The Berry St Cycle Centre will also provide secure parking.
New Developments
8.17 Cycle parking should be considered for all new development as an integral part of the planning process.
The NCS recommends the development of local cycle parking standards for new development.
City Centre cycle parking locations
8.18 These are also indicated on Plan 4
(1:2500 plan of city Centre)
Public Transport Interchanges
• Lime St station (under cover on side entrances)
• Moorfields station
• James St station
• Central station
• PSBS (Lord St & South John St)
• QSBS (Dawson St)
• Mersey ferries terminal, Pier Head
• Coach Station, Norton St
Retail Centres
• Clayton sq (entrance beside Boots)
• Williamson Sq
• South John St (pedestrian area)
• St Johns Precinct (under cover by Elliot St entrance)
• Lord St (North John St end)
• Church St (Ranelagh St & half way along)
• Whitechapel – north & south ends of pedestrian area & near Conservation Centre opposite Dawson St
• Bold St (at east & west ends of pedestrian area)
• London Rd pedestrian area
• Derby Sq (outside Law Courts)
Cultural & Leisure facilities
• St Georges Hall
• Philharmonic Hall
• Everyman Theatre
• Albert Dock entrance (Hartley Quay)
• Albert Dock on Gower St
• Albert Dock (Tate Gallery)
• Museum of Liverpool Life
• Liverpool Museum/Central Library/Walker Art Gallery
Educational Establishments
• JMU Byrom St Campus
• Liverpool University Mount Pleasant campus
• All other university sites
• Liverpool College sites
Other
• Chinatown
• Town Hall
• Anglican Cathedral
• Metropolitan Cathedral
• Royal Hospital (staff, visitors)
Places of employment
8.19 Secure covered parking for staff & visitors should be provided by city centre employers including the City
Council.
Provision of cycle parking facilities
8.20 The type of cycle parking facility will depend on
• Location &
• Whether demand is for short or long stay parking.
While lockers may be viable for long-stay at some sites (particularly rail stations), for most purposes
public short stay parking at shops & public buildings is best satisfied by the Sheffield stand.
Most other kinds of rack or block are not suitable, either because not all types of bike can be
accommodated, they do not allow secure locking, or because wheels & other parts can be easily damaged.
8.21 When making detailed decisions on siting the following factors should be considered:
• Whether there is adequate space for parking without compromising pedestrian flows – it is preferable to
take space from the roadway rather than obstruct a narrow footway.
• Whether the location is prominent & therefore well-observed (i.e.) not a dark side street or at backs of
buildings). In city centres, parking could be provided in locations observed by CCTV.
• The site should be well lit.
• Where possible parking should be under cover, (particularly for long stay).
• Accessibility in relation to cycle routes – dropped kerbs should be provided to link up with on-road
routes.
• Cycle parking facilities should not detract from the street design.
9.0 ENCOURAGEMENT
Publicity Campaigns
9.1 There is now widespread acceptance among LAs that there is a role for publicity in trying to help
people make sensible & responsible travel choices.
Travelwise, the Hertfordshire initiative now used widely throughout the country uses posters,
leaflets, radio & video programmes to get over messages about the problems caused by unrestricted
car travel growth.
9.2 Cycling too can benefit from this approach, Reducing traffic volume is given the highest priority in
the hierarchy of measures to help cyclists in “Cycle friendly Infrastructure”.
CP13 The city council will support its infrastructure measures with a sustained programme of complementary
publicity to publicise the cycle network & other facilities, to emphasise the health, financial & environmental
benefits of cycling & the need for reduced use of private cars.
9.3 The city has been considering adopting the travelwise concept, but has not yet reached a conclusion.
Research is currently under way to evaluate the success of Travelwise initiatives & the results may
help to resolve the issue.
Employer Initiatives
9.4 Local major employers contacted so far including:
• Chamber of Commerce & Industry
• Inland Revenue
• Charity Commission at Queens Dock
• Littlewoods
• Liverpool Post & Echo
Have shown a willingness to become involved in schemes to encourage cycle commuting & to
provide secure storage facilities. We have received support too from the 2 major universities who are
keen to reduce pressure on the limited parking space available on campus.
9.5 The principal requirement is cycle parking facilities. These can be basic Sheffield stands, provided
they are under cover & are perceived to be secure.
This is best achieved within a building or in an outside location to which strangers do not have
unchallenged access.
9.6 Other facilities are less critical, but somewhere to store easily removable items (bags, helmets) &
wet outer clothes should also be provided.
Showers are often mentioned, but these are probably for a later stage when a cycling culture has
been established.
Initially there will be many potential cyclists who could be encouraged, even if no showers are
available.
9.7 Appendix 7 suggests in more detail the ways in which employers can become involved to their own
benefit.
9.8 The City Council will need to join the ranks of cycle friendly employers. Good quality cycle parking
at City offices is clearly an essential component, & we have been pleased that initial difficulties on
providing quality cycle parking at the new Planning & Transportation premises
(Millenium House –
actually under pressure from MCC, Echo, & financed through the Cycling Capital Programme, not
from the building cost) seem to have been resolved.
Conversion of 1 car space can provide room for 8-10 bicycles.
9.9 Although there are unlikely to be many staff for whom cycling in connection with work is a practical
alternative, it would still be advantageous to publicise a realistic mileage rate for City Council
business, to help raise the status of cycling./
Appendix 7 suggests a minimum of 15p per mile is needed to cover expenditure, & it can be argued
to the Inland Revenue that this does not include any element of emolument.
9.10
The City should consider a programme of interest free loans to employees towards buying a
bicycle, perhaps as part of a wider Green Commuting scheme towards loans for public transport
season ticket purchases.
9.11
Appendix 7 suggests providing facilities for the setting up of a BUG can prove very helpful in
creating a cycling culture.
CP14 The city council will establish a programme of cycle friendly employer initiatives.
Health promotion
9.12
The annual Liverpool to Chester mass cycle ride is a good example of the health authorities
becoming actively involved in promoting cycling. This event demonstrates that an increasing
number of members of the public have access to cycles but d not use them other than for special
occasions.
The Ride could be further developed & used as a tool to promote the advantages of cycling as a
mode of transport.
9.13
Contacts made so far with health promotion agencies suggest that much could be done to bring
cycling more into public awareness as part of a healthy lifestyle.
9.14
The City Council could, through its partnership areas, develop cycle facilities & promote the use
of bicycles as part of an overall strategy to improve the health of its inner city communities.
The Liverpool Cycle Centre
Defunct by end 2001
Paras 9.15 – 9.19
10.0
EDUCATION
10.1
The City currently runs cycle training for upper primary school age children (around 10yrs old)
in accordance with RoSPA’s National cycling proficiency Scheme.
Also an advisory package for parents of those aged under 9 is available on request.
The City has recently reviewed its involvement in cycle training in the light of new guidelines from
RoSPA & the Road Safety Officer organisations.
10.2
While there is good evidence that this training provides good value for money , the City
acknowledges that some of its practices (eg off road training in protected areas rather than on
suitable quiet roads) are dictated by lack of resources.
We recommend that the whole question of resources for cycle safety training in schools should be
reviewed in the light of the new requirements of the NCS for increased investment in cycling.
In particular, recent research by the TRL confirms that more classroom based cycling awareness
courses have a more long lasting effect than simple practical courses of the kind run by Liverpool.
This would of course involve building new relationships with head teachers & education officials, &
it is recognised that this will be difficult, particularly in the short term.
10.3
The number of children trained in Liverpool each year is around 1100, approximately 20% of the
children in the age group.
This is well below the national average, but not out of line with the proportion for inner Lbndon &
other metropolitan areas, reflecting lower levels of cycle ownership, especially of flat dwellers, &
the problems of bringing bicycles to school for practical training.
10.4
However a target of 50% could be achievable in the long term if teachers could be persuaded to
play a more active part & to use some of the well structured materials available form RoSPA &
BITER which can take advantage of the needs of the National Curriculum.
Classroom activities would be linked to, & lead to more effective, practical cycle training.
We are aware that there are many pressures on teachers time, & it will not be easy to improve the
situation in the short term.
CP15 The city council will seek to provide on-road cycle training for at least 50% of 10-12 year olds as part of
its school transport policy.
10.5
In Secondary schools the opportunities for formal cycle training are largely absent, as students &
staff have to concentrate on subjects & exams.
The promotion of safe routes to school & improved cycle & accessory storage at schools will
inevitably draw school authorities into the cycling encouragement programme.
10.6
The whole issue of schools as traffic generators needs to be raised in public debate. The
proportion of pupils going to school by car has increased dramatically in recent years. Peak hour
roads re noticeably less congested during school holidays. The school journey is a particular target
for increasing the level of cycling,
provided that the school authorities themselves cooperate & provide safe storage.
CP16 The city council, in conjunction with Merseytravel, will seek to prepare a school transport policy, which
will encourage & facilitate walking & cycling (in combination with public transport use where necessary) as a
means to improve the safety, fitness, & independent mobility of school children, & to reduce congestion &
traffic danger around schools.
10.7
The issue of training adult cyclists is touched upon later in connection with the Safety Plan
(Section 16).
The Cycle Centre may provide an opportunity for trying to achieve a breakthrough in adult training
which has proved elusive elsewhere.
CP17 The city council will endeavour to provide, in partnership with local cycling organisations, on road cycle
training for adults.
11.0 ENFORCEMENT
11.1 A large increase in the number of cyclists could pose problems if some do not follow accepted
rules of behaviour.
The other elements in the strategy – to promote responsible attitudes to cycling through the
activities of the Cycle Centre, the media & schools will help to minimise the scale of any problem,
but
as a final resort, the Police may be needed to conduct periodic campaigns to discourage
irresponsible & illegal behaviour, particularly cycling on footways (other than where specifically
provided for, or for very young children), disobeying traffic signals, or riding without lights at
night.
CP18 The city council will liaise with Merseyside Police to ensure that enforcement of traffic law receives the
highest possible priority among its many policing responsibilities.
11.2 Similarly the actions of motorists who endanger VRUs should be subject to visible legal actions. This will
help to maintain the status of cyclists as legitimate road users & to give new cyclists more confidence.
11.3
Bicycle are rarely used for policing in Liverpool, unlike in other parts of Merseyside. While this would
be impractical in some parts of the city, the experience of cycles in other forces suggests that they can have
a role to play in policing. This would also have a beneficial effect on the credibility of cycling as a serious
form of transport. (Police squad of city centre cycle patrols introduced in 2003).
Cycle registration
11.4
The NCS has suggested practical ways in which existing & new cycle registration schemes can be co-
ordinated in the fight against cycle theft. The Cycle Centre could help to coordinate other cycle retailers to
build on any new initiatives in this field.
Currently about 1000 cycle thefts a year in Liverpool are reported to police, but this is probably only a
small part of a larger problem.
CP19 The city council in partnership with Merseyside Police will endeavour to adopt a Theft Reduction
Strategy, recognising that the fear of cycle theft is a major deterrent to cycling for many utility journeys.
12.0
MONITORING & REVIEW OF POLICIES & ACTION
12.1
Liverpool will be committing a significant part of its resources over the next few years to
projects to encourage cycling. It is therefore essential to monitor these projects & the effects they are
having on the levels of cycling., accidents,and on cycle theft.
The effect on public perceptions of, & attitudes towards cycling & cyclists could also be relevant,
although such attitude surveys would need to be carefully focused.
CP20 The city council will undertake comprehensive monitoring of cycle use, accidents involving cyclists &
cycle theft in cooperation with Merseyside Police) to inform its programme of infrastructure development & to
measure progress towards its targets.
12.2
The City already has a rolling programme of traffic counts, although many of these are achieved
through automatic counters which cannot classify vehicles by type.
Even with classified counts it is easy to miss cyclists particularly if they are on the footway.
Staff should be aware of the need to count cyclists as accurately as possible.
12.3
M.I.S maintains a range of surveys on complementary data for the whole region, & may be the
best agency to monitor attitudes.
In 1996 –97 it will be important to establish baseline data accurately to allow measurement of future
progress towards the targets agreed for improving the position of cycling.
The Police are also developing more sophisticated systems for recording crimes & clear-up
information.
CP21 The city council will ensure that its programme of highway schemes & all cycling infrastructure
proposals are supported by monitoring of cycle use (as described in “Monitoring & Review of policies &
action) & by regular consultation with local cycling organisations.
12.4
At present there is good informal contact between cycling organisations & the City Council.
This relationship will be enhanced by the setting up of regular Cycling Forum of councillors,
council officers from all relevant departments, members of cycling organisations, & other interested
parties to give regular advice & feedback on cycling issues.
It is intended that the forum will meet bi-monthly (
out turn was/is quarterly) & act as a 2-way
channel of communication.
13.0
STAFFING REQUIREMENTS
13.1
The NCS recommends that “all local authorities should identify an officer with sufficient
authority & resources to promote cycling measures & influence the design process.”
Currently a senior engineer takes responsibility for cycling within the City as part of her wider
duties.
13.2
the work programme envisaged to implement the cycling strategy will require further human
resources for design & management,
and the eventual aim should be to appoint a dedicated Cycling Officer at a senior level to co-
ordinate the planning & implementation of the Citys cycling policies.
13.3
A Cycling Officer, with or without a dedicated team, should be able to play an important role in
ensuring effective progress towards a cycle-friendly authority.
In some authorities the effect of specialisation has not been so beneficial. Unless at the same time
engineers & planners in general become committed to & knowledgeable on the needs of cyclists,
the effect could be to marginalize cycling & to omit consideration of cyclists in general-purpose
highway & traffic schemes.
13.4
We therefore recommend that all relevant technical staff in Planning & Transportation should
undergo some training on the latest techniques & guidelines for meeting cyclists needs.
The IHT guidelines on CFI form an excellent basis for such training.
13.5
The most effective role for the cycling officer could then be to:
• raise awareness within the technical departments of the city,
• to develop specific plans for the route network & other aspects of the Strategy, and
• to manage or help to manage specific infrastructure projects.
Technical staff could be assigned from other sections to work on particular projects, without
necessarily forming a permanent dedicated team.
CP22 The city council will ensure that sufficient expertise exists among a wide range of staff within the
relevant departments to meet the targeted increase in cycling as a mode of transport.
13.6
In Liverpool the future of cycling will depend on changing public attitudes as well as improving
the infrastructure. There is a good case for a staff member principally concerned with promoting
events & educational programmes. & funding could be sought from health promotion budgets.
16.0 CYCLING SAFETY PLAN
Accident Remedial Measures
16.1 Our study included a review of all reported accidents involving cyclists over a 3 year period, & the
Stage 1 report identified a number of high risk sites where some remedial action might be appropriate.
As priorities in the Citys’s ongoing Safety Scheme programme these sites should be examined for the most
appropriate action.
No of
Location
Accidents
11
Smithdown Rd between Tunnel Rd & Salisbury Rd
(opposite Cemetery)
10
Smithdown Rd between Gainsborough Rd & Ullet Rd
8
Prescot Rd between Onslow Rd
(near Kensington Market ) & Stanley St
(opposite Newsham Park)
8 Junction
(Roundabout) of Prescot Rd / Brookside Ave / Blackmoor Dr /
Pilch Ln
7
Oxford St between Grove St & Smithdown Ln
7
Junction of Townsend Ln / Richard Kelly Dr / Maiden Ln (since signalised
with ASLs)
5
Junction of Townsend Ln /Walton Breck Rd / Priory Rd,
Junction of Priory Rd / Lower Breck Rd
4
Junction of West Derby Rd / Rock Ln / Belmont Rd / Sheil Rd
4
Junction of Townsend Ave / Utting Ave
(double roundabout at Broadway)
4
Junction of Edge Ln / St Oswalds St / Rathbone Rd
(since remodelled with
no attention to cyclist needs)
4
Almonds Green between Meadow Ln & Castleview Rd
(West Derby
Village)
4
Junction of Muirhead Ave / Meadow Ln / Stalisfield Ave
4
Junction of Ashfield Rd / Victoria Rd / Elmswood Rd / North Sudley Rd
(since signalised)
4 Green
Ln
(Old Swan) between Carnegie Rd & Brainerd St
16.2
In identifying cycle routes as part of the CRN inevitably some junctions &links have been included
which are not at present cycle friendly. A number of these have been indicated in the detailed description
of routes in Appendix 3.
There will need to be liaison between those engineering staff responsible for accident remedial measures &
those charged with implementing the network, to ensure that site improvements to help cyclists will also as
far as possible remedy other safety problems at that site,
and that site improvements to remedy safety or other problems will also improve cycle friendliness.
16.3
We have made proposals elsewhere for the introduction of a cycle audit procedure for highway &
traffic schemes. These complement safety audit & provide additional guidance on safety problems for
cyclists. The safety audit should filter out a number of situations of potential danger , particularly
roundabout design.
Education, Training & Publicity (ETP)
16.4
The RSU will have an important role to play in publicity aimed at older cyclists, in addition to its child
training activities. (also Cycle Centre).
16.5
Some cycling organisations run Bike Buddy schemes from time to time to provide experienced guides
for inexperienced commuter cyclists. (also Cycle Centre).
Cycle helmet campaigns.
16.6
Helmets offer protection against serious injury , particularly where no other vehicles are involved in an
accident.
The RSU already runs publicity campaigns to encourage more wearing of helmets, particularly by young
cyclists.
We would urge caution against creating the impression that helmets are a major contribution to cycling
safety, & that by inference, cycling is a highly dangerous activity.
We believe that the present balance is about right, & that the City should continue to encourage wearing of
helmets as a positive protection against injury.
16.7
A large number of local authorities are now considering the issue of road safety in a wider context,
particularly with respect to the perceived danger felt by cyclists or would –be cyclists.
As such people often respond to their fears by accepting restrictions on their mobility, or by using cars
themselves, thereby making the problem worse for others.
There is a need for local authorities to consider traffic management & other schemes which are not directly
related to a demonstrable accident history.
CP24 The city council will adopt a Danger Reduction Strategy to ensure that the desired increase in cycle use
is accompanied by a decrease in cyclist casualty rates. The approach of this strategy will be to reduce road
traffic danger at source, through the programme of engineering measures & education & enforcement
strategies.
CP24
Funding
CP23 The city council will identify potential funding sources for cycling measures, & will make appropriate
bids for such funding, in order to implement the measures contained within the strategy.
18.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Allot Transportation wish to thank the following for their help in providing information & advice in the
preparation of this Strategy:
LCC
Name Department
Contribution
Abbey Lawal
Transport Policy
•
spent many hours
helping
•
prepared the original
Draft Cycling Strategy
in 1995
Keith Moores
Head of Transport Policy
•
guided the project
•
ensured wide support for
our team at all levels
within the Council.
Peter Molyneux
Head of A.I.U (Traffic
•
accident data
Management)
•
helpful comments on our
draft proposals
Alan Stilwell
Head of Traffic Management
•
accident data
•
helpful comments on our
draft proposals
Helen Rowland
?
•
digital map data for
cycle travel in the City
Centre
Brian Rogers
RSU
•
Road Safety policies
•
arrangements for
training young cyclists
Steve Lindfield
?
•
Millenium Route.
Norman Wilkinson Head of Leisure Services
•
explained how cycling
could fit into the citys’
leisure promotion plans
Tony Concepcion
Chair, Planning & Transport
•
Encouragement
Committee
•
arranged meetings with
councillors & other
interested parties.
Other organisations & individuals
Name Organisation
Contribution
Alan Bate & Simon Cycle Centre
•
shared vision &
O’Brien
enthusiasm
Richard Hebden
MCC
•
shared years of
Colin Langdon
CTC
experience in suggesting
Roland Graham
ways to make Liverpool
Lewis Lesley
more cycle friendly
Martin Randall
Julie Hotchkiss &
Many other local
cyclists
Steve Cook
Merseytravel
•
background to MT
environmental initiatives
•
success & difficulties in
meeting cyclists needs.
Alistair Newman
MIS
•
Census & other travel
pattern data
Peter Rigby
Chamber of Commerce
•
Explained role of
Chamber
•
Discussed possible
involvement of members
in CFE initiatives
Angela Smith
Police
•
Enforcement
Geoff Howarth
•
Particular issues of
cycling
Peter Foster
Sustrans
•
Wide knowledge of
cycling in Liverpool
•
Steered us towards best
solution for Millenium
Route
Kevin Sutton
Sefton MBC
•
Sefton’s success in
financing an extensive
cycle route programme.
Alison
Healthy City Project
•
Health promotion
O’Shaughnessy
AHA
•
Role of cycling as a way
Joyce Carter
AHA
of improving health &
Diane Forest
fitness
Robin Ireland
Healthstart
•
Promotional activities
•
Liverpool to Chester
Ride
Ray Buss
Liverpool University
•
Transport requirements
•
How an increase in cycle
use by staff & students
might be encouraged
Mike Biddulph
LU School of Civic Design
•
How students might be
Peter Brown
encouraged to consider
cycling as a mode of
urban transport as part
of their studies
Pam Wilsher
Merseyside Tourism &
•
Spoke to us very
Conference Bureau
positively of how an
increase in cycle use
might contribute to an
improvement in the
appearance & quality of
street life in the City
John Blythe
JMU
•
How greater use of
cycling as a means of
transport could benefit
students fitness &
mobility
•
& assist the University
to meet its environmental
objectives.
Pete Matthews
Cycle shop
•
pattern of cycle
retailing in Merseyside
•
role of events &
encouragement
programmes in
increasing levels of
cycling
Brian Fisher
Mersey Ferries
•
spoke of continuing
commitment of his
organisation to
providing for cyclists,
who represent a
significant part of his
regular business.
Mike Gilbert
MDC
•
described the
Corporation’s plans for
improving the cycle
friendliness of the
Riverside Walk under its
control
Almost all our informants reported that they were cycle users themselves, some very regularly indeed.
SUMMARY
OBJECTIVES
CO1 To maximise the role of cycling as a transport mode, in order to reduce the use of private cars.
CO2 To develop a safe, convenient, efficient & attractive transport infrastructure which encourages &
facilitates the use of walking, cycling & public transport, & which minimises reliance on, &
discourages unnecessary use of private cars.
CO3 To ensure that policies to increase cycling & meet the needs of cyclists are fully integrated into the
UDP, TPP,& Road Safety Plan & in all complementary strategies including transport studies &
strategies, environment , education , health & leisure strategies.
TARGETS
CT1
To increase the overall modal share of cycle trips from 1.5%to 4% by 2001, & to seek to increase this to
8% by 2007 & 12% by 2012.
CT2 To seek to increase the modal share of cycling to at least 50% of all non-walk journeys to school by pupils
of 10 years or older by 2012.
CT3 To seek to reduce the casualty rate for cyclists per km cycled by
20% by 2002
55% by 2007
85% by 2012
CT4 To seek to reduce rates of cycle theft by
40% by 2002
60% by 2007
compared to the level of theft in 1995 & to seek further reductions, where possible, thereafter.
CT5 To seek to provide cycle training for 50% of 9 -12 year olds by 2002, with at least 50% of these trained in
an interactive learning situation with an on-road practical element, in accordance with RoSPA & TRL
recommendations.
CT6 To ensure that cycle schemes make up 5 -10% of the minor works bid within the package bid submission 7
that full consideration of the needs of cyclists is given within the LSS budget.
CT7 To ensure that cycling receives proportionate benefits from the revenue budget for highway maintenance,
lighting & other transport related expenditure.
POLICY STATEMENTS
Cycle Audit
CP1 All highway & land use development schemes will include a cycle audit to ensure that schemes provide
improvements to , or at least have no negative impact on, the coherence, directness, safety, attractiveness &
comfort of routes used by cyclists.
CP2 The council will undertake a strategic cycling review of its existing road network, to be completed by
Autumn 2002, to assess locations & routes on the basis of the criteria of coherence, directness, safety,
attractiveness & comfort for cyclists.
The council will aim to undertake traffic management &/or engineering measures as necessary to treat any
problem sites & routes identified in the review as resources become available, or develop equally
convenient & safe alternative & additional routes.
Cycle networks
CP3 High quality route networks will be provided for cyclists, with priority given to the main urban areas &
links to surrounding settlements which generate significant amounts of commuting.
The route network will comprise the highway network, modified where necessary using traffic restraint, traffic
calming & cycle specific facilities to enable safe & convenient access to all destinations.
CP4 Priority will be given to routes as follows:
4. Major routes which serve utility cycling trips; in particular safer routes to schools, routes from
residential areas to significant journey attractors such as retail centres, major employers, public transport
interchanges, hospitals, other education & leisure facilities.
5. Other connecting routes used for utility cycling, including inter-urban links.
6. Recreational routes including links to non-urban sections of the National Cycle Network.
CP5 Route networks will achieve high standards of coherence, directness, safety, attractiveness & comfort, &
design criteria will adopt the hierarchical approach recommended by the IHT/DoT/CTC/Bicycle association
publication: Cycle friendly infrastructure: Guidelines for Planning & Design (1996).
CP6 Measures will be provided, wherever feasible, which improve cyclists safety & give priority (in terms of
access & journey times) over other traffic, on roads with significant cycle flows or significant potential cycle
flows.
CP7 the city council will undertake a high standard of maintenance of segregated cycle facilities & all roads
used by cyclists within its current maintenance regime.
CP8 the city council will ensure that, where feasible, development does not sever routes used by cyclists or
pedestrians or prejudice accessibility by walking or cycling without providing suitable diversions.
CP9 The city council will make use wherever possible of planning gain & commuted payments to improve
transport infrastructure to aid cyclists.
Cycling & Public Transport
CP10 The city council, in conjunction with Merseytravel, will seek to integrate cycling with public transport,
to facilitate cycle use as part of longer journeys.
Cycle Parking
CP11 Adequate cycle parking will be provided according to standards defined in the city councils SPG Note 8
(Car & Cycle parking standards), at educational establishments, retail centres, public transport interchanges,
leisure facilities & other major journey attractors. Employers will be encouraged to provide cycle parking at
workplaces.
CP12 The city council will adopt cycle parking standards to ensure that cycle parking facilities are secure &
accessible, & where possible are well lit, under shelter, & conveniently serve the cycle route network.
Encouragement
CP13 The city council will support its infrastructure measures with a sustained programme of complementary
publicity to publicise the cycle network & other facilities, to emphasise the health, financial & environmental
benefits of cycling & the need for reduced use of private cars.
CP14 The city council will establish a programme of cycle friendly employer initiatives.
Education
CP15 The city council will seek to provide on-road cycle training for t least 50% of 10-12 year olds as part of
its school transport policy.
CP16 The city council, in conjunction with Merseytravel, will seek to prepare a school transport policy, which
will encourage & facilitate walking & cycling (in combination with public transport use where necessary) as a
means to improve the safety, fitness, & independent mobility of school children, & to reduce congestion &
traffic danger around schools.
CP17 The city council will endeavour to provide, in partnership with local cycling organisations, on road cycle
training for adults.
Enforcement
CP18 The city council will liase with Merseyside Police to ensure that enforcement of traffic law receives the
highest possible priority among its many policing responsibilities.
CP19 The city council in partnership with Merseyside Police will endeavour to adopt a Theft Reduction
Strategy, recognising that the fear of cycle theft is a major deterrent to cycling for many utility journeys.
Monitoring & review of policies in action
CP20 The city council will undertake comprehensive monitoring of cycle use, accidents involving cyclists &
cycle theft in cooperation with Merseyside Police) to inform its programme of infrastructure development & to
measure progress towards its targets.
CP21 The city council will ensure that its programme of highway schemes & all cycling infrastructure
proposals are supported by monitoring of cycle use (as described in “Monitoring & Review of policies &
action) & by regular consultation with local cycling organisations.
Staffing requirements
CP22 The city council will ensure that sufficient expertise exists among a wide range of staff within the
relevant departments to meet the targeted increase in cycling as a mode of transport.
Funding
CP23 The city council will identify potential funding sources for cycling measures, & will make appropriate
bids for such funding, in order to implement the measures contained within the strategy.
Danger Reduction
CP24 The city council will adopt a Danger Reduction Strategy to ensure that the desired increase in cycle use
is accompanied by a decrease in cyclist casualty rates. The approach of this strategy will be to reduce road
traffic danger at source, through the programme of engineering measures & education & enforcement
strategies.
.
Document Outline
