Cycling Infrastructure Policy
The Department of Transport and Main Roads Cycling Infrastructure Policy states that along principal cycle routes, the department will positively provide for cyclists in transport infrastructure projects.
On other routes, the department will seek to make state-controlled transport projects cycle-friendly by incorporating cycle-friendly design. This may include the economical retrofitting of roads where necessary to accommodate cyclists.
Positive provision for cyclists includes marked bicycle lanes, bicycle or shared paths or other suitable facilities. Cycle-friendly provision involves road design that makes it easier and safer for cyclists to use a particular section of road.
This policy applies to all state-controlled transport projects and corridors, including government funded infrastructure projects, upgrades and sponsored projects at all stages of the transport network infrastructure process, including:
- corridor preservation
- programmed maintenance/rehabilitation (where current or intended surfacing width is adequate)
Provision of cycling facilities via the Cycling Infrastructure Policy complements dedicated funding programs which retrofit cycling facilities where no other transport projects are planned. The two approaches combined will result in a transport network that is accessible and attractive for cycling.
Cycle Design References
The primary technical references for people engaged in the planning and design of transport infrastructure, including cycling infrastructure, in Queensland are:
- Road Planning and Design Manual (RPDM), this will soon be renamed the Guide to Road Design Qld supplement to Austroads
- Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
- Traffic and Road Use Management Manual
- Austroads Guide to Road Design (GRD)
- Austroads Guide to Traffic Management (GTM)
- Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides (CAAG)
In addition, the NSW Bicycle Guidelines are also approved for use in Queensland to support the selection and design of cycling facilities with a small number of practice exceptions. These exceptions are in Table 1 below.
The guidelines can be downloaded from the NSW Transport Roads & Maritime Services website.
Table 1: NSW Bicycle Guideline practice not approved for use in Queensland.
|Issue ||Comments ||Austroad Guides
||NSW Bicycle Guideline |
|Right turn bike lanes
||The incorporation of right turn bicycle lanes may be appropriate in some instances (for example, when cyclists have to cross one through lane, as shown in Figs 7.15 and 7.18 of the NSW Bicycle Guideline). In other instances, however, this treatment may cause operational and safety problems. For example, instances where there are multiple through lanes, heavy traffic volumes, and significant uphill grades. Such instances may not provide sufficient opportunities for cyclists to cross into the right-turn lane.
Where right turn bicycle lanes are provided, it is assumed that alternative paths through the intersection will be provided for younger and less experienced cyclists. It is considered that bicycle hook turns would be a better treatment (see NSW Bicycle Guidelines, Fig 7.19, p58 or Austroads Part 4A Fig 10.10).
|GRD 4A 10.6.4
CAAG 5.1 to 5.3
|Fig 7.15 and 7.18, p54-57|
|Headstart / bicycle storage areas across multiple traffic lanes
||The provision of headstart/bicycle storage boxes across multiple traffic lanes may result in some cyclists attempting to enter the boxes at the commencement of the green phase, causing potential safety problems (particularly when it is possible for visibility of cyclists to be obscured by large vehicles).
||GRD 4A Fig 10.10
|Fig 7.18, p57 |
|Off-road bicycle path bend out at unsignalised intersection
||In the NSW Bicycle Guidelines example, the conflict areas (the cycle crossing and the intersection) are very close. This may create problems for car drivers in perceiving two Give Way signs in close proximity when approaching on the minor leg (the "see through" effect). It may also create problems for left turning drivers from the major road to perceive the Give Way sign. Also, design vehicles turning left from the major road stopped at the Give Way sign may well overhang onto the major road, causing operational and safety problems.
It would be preferable to further separate the cycle crossing from the intersection. A general rule of road design is to locate conflict points a minimum of 4 seconds of travel time apart. The spacing would also have to take into account the length of the design vehicle plus clearances. Alternatively, use the bend-in treatment as shown in NSW Bicycle Guideline Figure 7.2, p43.
|GRD 4 9.6.3 CAAG 7.6.7
||Section 7.2.2, Fig 7.3, p44|
|Shared bicycle and bus lane widths
||Where 4.5m width is available, it is preferable to provide a 1.5m wide bicycle lane abutting a 3m bus lane than to provide a shared 4.5m bicycle/bus lane.
For retrofitting situations, a minimum 4.3m shared bicycle/bus lane may be provided. A 1.2m bicycle lane beside a narrow bus lane is not supported as this represents combined minimum design standards.
Where a 4.3m shared bicycle/bus lane cannot be achieved, provide a separate bicycle facility and limit the bus lane width to 3m to reduce the incidence of buses trying to squeeze past cyclists.
|GRD 3 4.9.2
||Figures 5.5 and 5.6, p25-26|
|Bicycles at roundabouts
||None of the roundabouts in Figures 7.6, 7.8, and 7.9 show good entry and exit curvature, which is essential to slow motorists and maximise safety, including that for cyclists. Placing bicycle lanes immediately adjacent the entry curve (as in Figure 7.8, p48) reduces the ability to provide good entry curvature as motorists may cut across the bicycle lane. The splitter island treatment in Figure 7.9, p49 addresses this problem and is much preferred, even for bike lanes on multi-lane roundabouts.
|Figures 7.6 and 7.8, p46-48|