Signalised Crossings Description

A signalised crossing provides priority for cyclists crossing busy roads through the use of traffic signals. Signalised crossings can take various forms including cyclist only crossings, pedestrian and cyclist shared crossings and pedestrian and cyclist segregated crossings. Shared crossings, similar to shared paths, provide a single crossing to be shared by cyclists and pedestrians across the carriageway; segregated crossings delineate space for cyclists and pedestrians separately across the carriageway. An example of a segregated crossing is shown Figure 6.12.

Legal Status

The Traffic Control Devices Rule Clause 11.4(5) Control where a cycle path route crosses a roadway states: “When a cycle path crosses a roadway, a road controlling authority may, as appropriate, control either the movement of cycles along the cycle path or traffic along the roadway by … the installation of traffic signals, in the same manner as described in clause 10.5 for an intersection.” Thus, where a shared or a segregated crossing is provided, separate signal aspects for cyclists and pedestrians must be installed.

Guidance

A summary of existing local, national and international guidance is shown in Table 6.9.

Figure 6.12 Example of a segregated pedestrian and cyclist crossing on Quay Street, Auckland

National NZ Local Guidance International

Crossing Form/ General Considerations

Austroads GTM6

Guidance on crossing location and

benefits/considerations of different crossing types. Recommends signals for higher speed zones and provides guidance on where appropriate based on road classification.

NZ Cycle Trail Design Guide

Defines appropriate crossing type by traffic volume and speed limit.

CCC MCR Design Guide

Provides thresholds for when signalised crossing should be considered – recommends consideration for traffic volumes as low as 3,500 vpd.

UK LTN 2/08

Provides thresholds based on traffic speed and traffic volume.

Pedestrian/Cycle interaction

Austroads GRD4

Minimal commentary on use of shared vs segregated crossings. Recommends segregated crossings where high volumes of pedestrians and cyclists.

Austroads GRD6A

Shows layout options for when paths intersect paths – a common occurrence near crossings. All layouts show defined right of way between paths and pedestrians/cyclists.

CCC MCR Design Guide

Includes segregated crossing guidance only Recommends consideration of separating pedestrian and cyclist crossings to allow for traffic efficiency to be retained

ATCOP

Requires separate phase timing for pedestrians and cyclists.

Department for Transport (UK) LTN 2/08

Recommends consideration widening route/space available to address pedestrian/cycle conflict rather than installing controls.

Our Ref: Issue Date: 139

National NZ Local Guidance International

Hardware and Detailed Design Components

Austroads GRD4

No dimension guidance. Guidance on kerb ramps and signal aspects and detection.

Austroads GTM6

Recommends consideration of pelican and puffin technology.

National Traffic Signal Specification

Some guidance on push button provision. Cycle detection guidance to be added (i.e. guide is incomplete)

MOTSAM Part 2

Dimension guidance e.g. stop line setback.

RTS 14

Guidance on the layout of tactile pavers.

CCC MCR Design Guide

Guidance on widths and detection location.

ATCOP

Some guidance on hardware and detection.

Department for Transport (UK) LTN 2/08

Post implementation studies, application examples and feedback from

survey

It is understood that some local authorities are currently working with the NZ Transport Agency to trial a specific style of tactile pavers at segregated crossings. Green tactile warning pavers (with no approach pavers) will be used across the threshold to the cycle crossing and yellow warning and approach tactile pavers (as is currently used at pedestrian crossings) will be used across the pedestrian crossing threshold. This has been developed to more clearly distinguish the separate crossings for pedestrians and cyclists, while ensuring that tactile warning pavers are provided across the entire width of the crossing to inform any visually impaired person who arrives there that it is a road crossing threshold.

The Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide crossing facilities tool can be easily adapted to predict the level of service for cyclists at various crossing provisions; this has been used on some MCR crossings in Christchurch to illustrate that the 3,500 vehicles per day threshold in the CCC MCR guide may be too low and that simple treatments (e.g. median refuges) would be more appropriate. However it should be noted that LOS here does not incorporate user type.

Discussion

The CCC MCR guide recommends that signalised crossings be considered for traffic volumes as low as 3,500 vehicles per day. This is much lower than other guides recommend and is likely a response to the lack of cycle priority options for medium-volume roads. Installing a signalised crossing on a low volume road can have significant safety disbenefits, as users (both motorists and cyclists) are likely to experience greater delays and choose to disregard the signals if they are stopped at a red light when it does not appear necessary. This can be mitigated for cyclists by providing advanced detection on the path leading to the signalised crossing. However, the requirements for yellow and all-red timings may still increase delays to motorists. The HAWK crossings, described in Section 6.3 are designed to reduce vehicle delay by allowing vehicles to proceed when no cyclists/pedestrians are present.

The CCC MCR guide also recommends segregated as opposed to shared crossings and the consideration of staged crossings for pedestrians separate from a single phase cyclist crossing. Segregated crossings, especially those that use green surfacing across the roadway, can be appropriate, especially where linked to an exclusive cycle facility and can provide a higher level of service for cyclists, This also makes sense given that separate signal aspects are required that separate crossings be delineated. However, it should be noted that pedestrians and cyclists may try to use the incorrect side of a segregated crossing.

Consideration of detection technology (both on the crossing and in the waiting area) is needed to help inform the crossing layout design.

Our Ref: Issue Date: 141

Gap Identification

Gaps identified in the guidance related to Signalised crossings are identified in Table 6.10.

Gap Type Comments

Cycle priority on key

cycle routes

No guidance exists Additional tools are required for cyclist priority on roads with medium volumes, dependent on target cyclist audience. Guidance on where signals might be appropriate on medium volume roads could be considered. To an extent the pedestrian crossing spreadsheet tool or the Austroads pedestrian crossing tool can be used, however this should be adjusted to ensure it can accommodate cyclists. Appropriate guidance for doing so should also be provided.

Cycle detection

technology

No guidance exists Consider currently available detection

technology (e.g. puffin crossings) and feed this through to layout considerations and guidance for signal design.

6.8 Unsignalised Crossings