In his article on cycling and walking in Transition no. 4, Terence Bendixson cites the example of Copenhagen, where conflict arises because bus passengers have to cross cycle lanes to and from bus stops1. In fact, conflicts between cyclists, buses and pedestrians (whether bus passengers or passers-by) are to be found at all kinds of bus stop. This issue assumes ever greater importance as conditions for buses, walking and cycling are improved, often radically.
The needs of buses, cyclists and pedestrians are fairly easy to provide for whilst they are moving independently along a road, and those turning and crossing the path of another form of transport can be accommodated almost as well. This does not mean that these needs are being met, simply that their satisfaction is relatively straightforward. The big problems arise where buses, cyclists and pedestrians need to be in the same place at the same time: at bus stops. There is inevitably some conflict here, and someone generally loses out. The task of the planner of sustainable, integrated transport is to design stops so that the least inconvenience (and danger) is caused to users of sustainable forms of transport: buses, pedal cycles and feet, as well of course as wheelchairs. Indeed, stops form a focus for the potential conflicts between cycling and public transport. The problems at tram stops are of similar type to those at bus stops, but exacerbated for cyclists by the presence of the rails, requiring extra care in design 2.
The main issues are as follows:
The principle designs of bus stops in relation to the general traffic carriageway, footpath and cycle lanes are summarised in Figure 1. For ease of presentation, the road is in all cases assumed to be a single carriageway with one general traffic lane in each direction for cars, lorries and buses (no bus lane). The cycle lane marked can also be taken to include the usual path taken by cyclists on the near-side of the carriageway in the absence of a designated lane.
Diagram 1 shows the base case, with little space available. The stop obstructs the footpath (particularly if it includes a shelter) and buses stop where cyclists expect to be.
Diagram 2 represents an improvement for passengers waiting, passers-by and bus priority in traffic, by provision of a half-width bus boarder, freeing pedestrian space at the stop. If there is no parking, cyclists have to 'overtake' the boarder; if there is parking, cyclists' trajectory is straight, but buses are not able to achieve close alignment with the kerb. They still stop where cyclists expect to be.
Diagram 3 is a further improvement, with a full-width bus boarder, allowing more space on the footpath and in the waiting area (which can be on the boarder itself). A larger 'overtaking' manoeuvre is required of cyclists if there is no parking, but their trajectory is still straight if there is parking. In the latter case, buses area now able to align well with the kerb. They are still stopped where cyclists expect to be, but if in so doing they are also where other motor traffic expects to pass, cyclists are no more delayed than other traffic, at least.
Diagram 4 is effectively a variation on the last layout. The cycle lane is segregated and lies between the footpath and the carriageway, requiring passengers to cross it to and from the bus boarding area (an arrangement found across Scandinavia, for instance). There is inevitably conflict between passengers and cyclists, although this is reduced if the boarding area is large enough also to be the waiting area. In Denmark, cyclists are required to give way to bus passengers, but this is not always respected (various experiments have been tried to improve on this). There are no conflicts between buses and cyclists, and the boarding area can extend as a full bus boarder. Cyclists however may have reduced priority compared to general traffic, even where the latter has to wait behind the bus, if the boarding area is small or there are large numbers of passengers, as the cycle track can easily become obstructed by people waiting.
Diagram 5 returns to the base case, but with more space for waiting and passers-by than in diagram 1.
Diagram 6 is perhaps the worst of all worlds for non-car modes. The extra space is eaten into to provide a bus lay-by, so reducing space for waiting and for passers-by again. Whilst the cyclist's path is straight, it is potentially obstructed by buses not fully entering the lay-by (especially with half-width lay-bys) and further conflict arises from buses crossing it. For buses, lay-bys represent a priority measure for other traffic (except in a few cases where they would hold each other up), keeping them out of the traffic stream, which is more difficult to rejoin, and tending to attract parked vehicles. Parked vehicles aside, they are in any case the most difficult formation in which to achieve a close alignment with the kerb.
Diagram 7 uses the 'extra space' of diagram 5 more usefully, allowing buses a normal position with respect to the kerb and to the carriageway, and allowing cyclists to by-pass conflict with stationary or turning buses. However, there is new conflict between cyclists and people approaching or leaving the bus stop waiting area, and particularly with passers-by, who now find themselves with less space, perhaps actually on a shared use cycle and foot path.
Diagram 8 is perhaps the best scenario, with a (full-width) bus boarder increasing pedestrian space (the waiting area can be on it), so that the major conflict remaining is between cyclists and pedestrians (passengers or passers-by) on the two transverse arms of the cycle loop, a conflict whose resolution has relatively good precedent in streetscape design. (Careful design is of course necessary to ensure parked vehicles do not obstruct access to or from the loop.) Buses receive all the advantages found in diagram 3.
These diagrams do not show car parking and loading bays, as these do not alter the basic principles and their exclusion simplifies the presentation. Where parking is allowed either side of a bus boarder (diagrams 2 and 3), the cycle lane is either outside the line of parked vehicles (thus straight across the face of the boarder) or inside the parking and similar to the arrangement in diagram 4, but with a much wider boarder. Similarly, verges which incorporate stops (with the footpath behind the verge) correspond in layout to the parking lane (many are unfortunately used as such in any case) either side of a bus boarder, with similar advantages for passers-by and space for waiting - although of course the advantages of the boarder in terms of traffic priority are not available. Shelters and waiting areas can also be placed on any greensward behind the footpath, giving similar pedestrian advantages, although conflicts would still arise with footpath cycleways. The design of cycle lanes and their relationship to loading and parking bays should conform to the National Cycle Network Guidelines4.
If there is a shared bus and cycle lane (with sufficient width for cyclists to overtake buses at stops), then Diagrams 1-2 become acceptable. Otherwise, in general mixed traffic situations, the need for cyclists to overtake buses is problematic, as their safety can be compromised.
Where cyclists have no lane, or where it is not physically segregated from other traffic, diagram 8 is the recommended design, where space permits safe routing of the cycleway behind the stop. The waiting and boarding area needs to be at least 2.5m wide, with the cycle track (at least 1.5m wide) at least 0.5m from the shelter, which should also not obstruct cyclists' line of vision6.
Where space is not available for a cycle by-pass, diagram 3 represents the best design, as cyclists are at least not inconvenienced any more than general motor traffic, and benefits accrue to buses, passengers and passers-by. Where the cycle lane is physically segregated from the carriageway, the recommended diagram 8 merges with the wide-boarder end of the spectrum represented by diagram 4.
[If you have come to this point by following a reference link from within the text, simply click on your 'return' button to go back to your place in the article.]