Recommendations for Action on Cycling On Campus

  1. Development of a Cycling Ethic
    1. Mapping. Cycle paths and cycle parking facilities should be shown on the campus map.
    2. Education.
      • Security Section to continue its annual campaigns to raise awareness of the need for lights at night, together with campaigns on other aspects of safe cycling as needed. Such campaigns should preferably be organised in conjunction with the Students' Union.
      • Courses in basic cycle maintenance to be provided for staff, possibly arranged by Professional Development unit.
    3. Consultation. LUFBUG to be consulted over any new cycling facilities and other developments affecting cyclists. [This is already happening with specifically cycling facilities, but it would be useful to be consulted on some other developments.]
    4. Travel plan. A Green Travel Plan should be developed, to encourage the use of the most sustainable form of transport for any journey, whether cross-campus, commuting, or other travel on University business. A member of staff should be designated as Travel Plan Officer, to oversee the operation of the Plan and to develop it further.
    5. Cycle mileage allowance. The cycle mileage allowance should be maintained at the maximum currently allowed by the Inland Revenue.
    6. Car parking fees. Car park charging should be by the day, rather than an annual fee. Such a system would encourage the use of cars only when necessary. A more refined scheme may be required, for instance to ensure fairness to part-time staff. Car parking permits should be valid only for a single car park, to discourage car use for cross-campus journeys.
  1. Security and Parking
    1. Types of parking facilities. Acceptable designs of cycle-parking facilities are:
      • Individual Sheffield stands.
      • "Toast racks" consisting of 6 stands, provided that there is sufficient spacing between stands to avoid difficulties in manoeuvering cycles in and out when all stands are occupied.
      • Wall-mounted loops or bars, provided that the attachment to the wall is sufficiently secure.
      Other forms of cycle parking, especially front-wheel holders, should be progressively replaced with the designs specified above.
    2. Placement of cycle parking facilities. Recommendations:
      • Near main entrances to buildings where this does not cause obstruction.
      • Under cover. Very few of the existing facilities on campus are sheltered from rain, and this is frequently identified as a disincentive to cycling to work.
      • Not on slopes.
      • Sufficient space to manoeuvre cycles in and out. In particular, a toast-rack should be accessible from both sides; otherwise, half the capacity is wasted.
    3. Locations most in need of further cycle-parking provision.
      • Administration buildings and EHB squash courts area
      • Sir Frank Gibb building and annexe
      • Brockington building
    4. Provision in new buildings. Many new buildings have appeared on campus in recent years. Cycle parking facilities for most of these buildings do not comply with all the recommendations in 1.2 above. There is a need for cycle parking to be considered at an early stage in the design of all buildings (at least as early as car parking). Contractors also need to be monitored closely, to avoid incidents like the installation of front-wheel holders at the new swimming pool.
    5. Additional security measures. Mobile security cameras should be used for surveillance in areas where cycle theft is prevalent. [The cameras need not be dedicated entirely to cycle-related crime.]
    6. Signposting. Cycle parking facilities to be signposted where they are not immediately visible.

 

  1. Network of cycle facilities
    1. General standards. Recommendations in the manual Cycle Friendly Infrastructure (published jointly by Cyclists' Touring Club, Department of Transport, Bicycle Association and Institute of Highways & Transportation) should normally be followed. This applies not only in designing specifically cycling facilities, but also in any works which may affect cyclists in any way. Some deviation from the recommended standards may be acceptable where the only alternative would be to make no provision at all, provided that such deviation does not significantly compromise the safety or amenity of cyclists.
    2. Junction improvements.
      • Top of Library Hill: many conflicting movements of motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians on University Road, paths to Physics and Coniston Crescent, and the entrance to the deliveries yard of Burleigh Court; there are no crossing facilities.
      • Any others?
    3. Dropped kerbs. A survey to be undertaken of all dropped kerbs on campus likely to be used by cyclists or wheelchair users. Any with an upstand more than 10mm to be made flush.
    4. New cycle paths.
      • A route into campus from the signal-controlled crossing over Ashby Road, passing through the Bastard Gates, has been designed. It will also join onto the path towards the Epinal Way roundabout on the South side of Ashby Road. Several years after the design was approved, the route still awaits completion!
      • Access by cycle to some important buildings in the Central site, especially James France, is difficult. [E.g. the toast-racks outside James France can only be approached easily from the direction of Ashleigh Drive.] A survey to be undertaken to identify possibilities for improved cycle access to James France from north and west. This would ideally involve the construction of a cycle path from the Admin area through to the road in front of Brockington, if a feasible route can be found; such a path would provide an alternative to Haslegrave Hill for cyclists.
      • Hazlerigg Walk provides a direct cycle path from the Student Village to the Students' Union, but the route in the reverse direction is circuitous because of the one-way system on Rutland Way. A two-way cycle path is required here.
    5. Improvements required on existing paths.
      • Widen the path from the top of Library Hill to Burleigh Court entrance.
      • The dropped kerb where Hazlerigg Walk meets Margaret Keay Way is offset; a dropped kerb is required on the direct line of the path.
      • The barrier arrangement at the bottom of Margaret Keay Way (near Rutherford Gate) is far from ideal: there is a single gap for cyclists going in both directions, the gap is narrow and close to a somewhat sunken drain.
      • The slabs path through the area between the Victory Hall and the Sir John Beckwith building is an important link, and should be widened to form a proper cycle and pedestrian path.
    6. Maintenance of cycle paths.
      • Cycle and pedestrian paths to be given same priority as roads for gritting in wintry weather.
      • All cuttings to be swept from cycle paths immediately following any hedge-cutting or other gardening activities nearby.

 

  1. Other facilities for cyclists
    1. Showers, changing and lockers. The EHB squash courts in Central Park and the New Sports Hall in East Park have changing and shower facilities available to cyclists, although they need to be more clearly publicised. No such facilities exist in the West Park. A suitable location has been identified: a large but little-used toilet facility in the basement of W building could be converted to a changing/shower facility.
    2. Spares and repairs. t should be possible to get cycles repaired and to buy lights, locks and other parts, accessories and clothing (e.g. high-visibility items, wet-weather gear) on campus. Ideally a permanent cycle shop should be established, but a mobile spares/repairs shop attending the campus regularly (several days each week) may be sufficient; the best location would be at the Students' Union building. Courses in basic cycle maintenance would also be useful.
The Lufbug