LTN 1/20 - what does it actually say about the width of cycle lanes?

In July 2020 the Department for Transport published guidance for local authorities on designing high quality and safe cycle infrastructure, Local Transport Note 1/20, generally referred to as LTN 1/20 (design guidance also existed before this; for further reading check out Shared use routes for pedestrians and cyclists (LTN 1/12) and Cycle infrastructure design (LTN 2/08). The publication was timed to coincide with the first allocation of Active Travel Funds (ATF) to local authorities (tranche 1 (the emergency ATF) funding for 2020 to 2021 supported the installation of temporary measures to mitigate for the lack of public transport capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic). At the time Worcestershire County Council received £135,500 (only 50% of the allocated funds due to the inadequacy of the bid; none of their proposals involved the installation of temporary measures). This is also the same period where a presentation surfaced from within County stating that the leadership made it clear that no loss of road space or car parking would be accepted when designing active travel schemes; given that 4 years later this is still the case, it begs the question whether the 'policy' remains in place?I digress. LTN1/20 is easy to read, and is sensible and practical, providing plenty of leeway for designers to work within both financial and physical space constraints, and still provide high quality infrastructure that meets the core design principles; that networks and routes are coherent, direct, safe, comfortable and attractive.If nothing else it's worth reading the introduction which includes: "Cycling must no longer be treated as marginal, or an afterthought. It must not be seen as mainly part of the leisure industry, but as a means of everyday transport. It must be placed at the heart of the transport network, with the capital spending, road space and traffic planners’ attention befitting that role."So what's the problem? Somewhat frustratingly it appears to be used by local members (and officers?) as a reason not to invest in cycling infrastructure, as the design requirements are now so onerous that any investment will be prohibitively expensive. So we'll do nothing. The alternative take is to rubbish LTN 1/20, which I'm reading as future proofing excuses for when the next bit of infrastructure is poor. The phrase 'Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good' gets a regular outing, a rather annoying phrase as it implies there a plans for new infrastructure, and that the alternative to perfect (LTN 1/20 compliant) is good (recent example here). Hmmmm. Another recent suggestion is that if existing infrastructure isn't installed to LTN 1/20 standards then cycling should be prohibited; but we're not anti cycling...we support all forms of transport at the detriment of none.Much of this centres around the misconception that LTN 1/20 states that cycle lanes should be 3.5m wide. Or 3.0m wide. Or whatever half remembered 'fact' is being used to support whatever pseudo argument that is hastily being constructed. So what does LTN1/20 actually say about this particular design parameter?

Cycle Lane Widths

Cycle lanes and track widths is predominantly covered in section 5.5 Cycle Lane and Track Widths:

5.5.1 Table 5-2 sets out the recommended absolute and desirable minimum widths for different types of provision, including recommended additional width to accommodate higher cycle flows.5.5.2 The absolute minimum width should only be used for sections where there is a physical constraint on an existing road. Designers should take account of the potential loss of width of usable track due to drainage gullies where these reduce the effective width (as cyclists will avoid overrunning gully gratings).5.5.3 Where a route is also used by pedestrians, separate facilities should be provided for pedestrian and cycle movements. However, away from the highway, and alongside busy interurban roads with few pedestrians or building frontages, shared use might be adequate (see Chapters 6 and 8). Such facilities should be designed to meet the needs of cycle traffic, however – including its width, alignment and treatment at side roads and other junctions. Conversion of existing footways to shared use should only be considered when options that reuse carriageway or other (e.g. verge) space have been rejected as unworkable.

Shared Use Widths

Shared Use widths are covered in section 6.5 Shared Use:6.5.6 Shared use may be appropriate in some situations, if well-designed and implemented. Some are listed below:

• Alongside interurban and arterial roads where there are few pedestrians;
• At and around junctions where cyclists are generally moving at a slow speed (see Figure 6.27), including in association with Toucan facilities;
• In situations where a length of shared use may be acceptable to achieve continuity of a cycle route; and
• In situations where high cycle and high pedestrian flows occur at different times (also see Figure 6.27).

6.5.7 Recommended minimum widths of shared use routes carrying up to 300 pedestrians per hour are given in Table 6-3. Wherever possible, and where pedestrian flows are higher, greater widths should be used to reduce conflict.

6.5.9 Research shows that cyclists alter their behaviour according to the density of pedestrians – as pedestrian flows rise, cyclists tend to ride more slowly and where they become very high cyclists typically dismount. It should therefore rarely be necessary to provide physical calming features to slow cyclists down on shared use routes, but further guidance on this, and reducing conflict more generally, is given in Chapter 8, section 8.2.

Summary

LTN1/20 is a brilliant document, and to simplify it down to a single design parameter (cycle lane widths) is doing it a huge injustice, although maybe  this is a flag for people pretending to have read it. That said, a minimum 1.5m for segregated bike lanes, and 3.0m for shared use seems to be an answer, but subject to various caveats, and well chosen words such as 'recommended' and 'should' which provides further leeway. Overall there appears to be plenty of wriggle room for designers and engineers to be compliant with LTN1/20 and still provide quality modifications to our urban environment to make dramatic improvements for those travelling by bike. In short, LTN1/20 is not a barrier to progressing any improvement, it just appears to be a convenient excuse to continue with business as usual and do nothing (I still haven't figured out why anyone would take this stance).As for the notion that existing infrastructure should have cycling prohibited as it isn't LTN1/20 compliant, a photo of Diglis Bridge appears in the document adjacent to the section on bridge widths; but the person who made the statement knows this, because he's read LTN1/20, right?Always good to finish with an eye roll emoji.