This page will link to resources we have found useful, including a few other sites which give links to useful resources!

Most resources relate to cycling at the moment, reflecting the group’s previous emphasis as Trust Pathways. We will be adding more walking-related material over the coming months. If there are any useful resources you think we should include, please contact us.

Official design guidance and standards

Department for Transport

  • LTN 1/20: Cycle infrastructure design. Department for Transport, 27 July 2020.
    Compliance with this guidance is required for any scheme receiving central government funding. There is a new emphasis on avoiding shared pedestrian/cycle paths in urban areas which SPACE for Durham welcomes.

Welsh Government

The Welsh guidance has resulted from the groundbreaking Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013. This act requires local authorities to assess and map all cycling and walking routes in urban areas, and produce a programme for improvement. Cycle routes are not allowed to appear on the map unless they meet a certain standard. The design guidance includes the tools to assess whether a route meets the standards, as well as a comprehensive set of design templates. Because the document covers both walking and cycling, it avoids the need to refer to separate guides which might conflict.

The guidance went through a public consultation stage before adoption, and as it is designed to cover all Welsh local authorities there is no reason why it could not be applied to County Durham without alteration.

Highways England

This publication originated in 2016 as Interim Advice Note (IAN) 195/16. It covers cycling provision on the strategic road network, and junctions that interact with it. In County Durham this means the A1(M) and the A19. It is now fully part of DMRB, the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

Oxfordshire County Council

In 2017 Oxfordshire published a couple of guides covering walking and cycling. They were produced in conjunction with the borough councils in Oxfordshire and Oxford City Council. They are well-presented, engaging, and include some encouraging photographs of facilities around Oxfordshire. For detailed guidance the Oxfordshire guides refer to several of the other guides on this page.

Design guides from non-government bodies

Wheels for Wellbeing

This charity helps disabled people get the full benefits of an active lifestyle through the use of various kinds of cycles. Their guide covers how to design routes for users of non-standard cycles, and requirements for cycle parking. It also covers many other aspects such as the social and legal barriers to cycling that disabled people face. For example, the fact that legislation does not recognise cycles as mobility aids for the disabled is a barrier. (Conversely, currently mobility aids such as motorised wheelchairs cannot legally be used on dedicated cycle tracks, despite the fact that the infrastructure needs are identical. The Netherlands allows such use, and the pervasive provision for cycling in turn makes provision for the disabled very much better than in the UK.)

Other material on infrasfructure

  • Case study: Lucan roundabouts
    A roundabout in Ireland that has been rebuilt with tighter geometry and zebra crossings. Includes videos of traffic behaviour before and after. The rebuild has resulted in a lot more people walking in the area.
  • Collision data before/after railing removal
    Transport for London study showing that road crossings are safer without guard rails.
  • Effect of SLOW markings
    Transport for London study showing that painted SLOW markings in the carriageway have no discernable effect on driver behaviour.
  • Cycling infrastructure in London by Brian Deegan, Transport for London
    Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability, Vol. 169, issue ES3, June 2016, pages 92–100
    A paper analysing the effects of different types of investment in London boroughs. Some boroughs went for high-quality provision, others chose mainly shared-use infrastructure, and some boroughs made no investment at all. A highly relevant point for Durham is that the boroughs that invested in shared-use provision actually saw less increase in cycling than the boroughs that made no investment. Various bits are well worth quoting. For example, from page 96:

    Given the control group assumptions, Brent, Camden, Haringey, Islington, Lewisham and Wandsworth could be viewed as employing design approaches leading to outlying project success. None of these local authorities focused on shared footway schemes. In outer London, only three authorities experienced an increase in cycling trips beyond the underlying trend and two of these authorities did not undertake any shared footway schemes. Likewise, four of the five authorities with the smallest increases all favoured shared footway facilities as their primary design option. Of the 11 boroughs that did utilise shared footways, ten of them fell below the underlying trend, which suggests that focusing on this type of infrastructure may actually deter cycling growth. Examples of shared footways are assessed in detail in Section 5.

Policies and strategies


County Durham

Other local authorities

Charities and campaign groups



Useful blog postings

  • That cycling revolution
    Showing that almost every time politicians have hailed a growth in cycling in Britain, they have been wrong. And reminding us just how much cycling there was in the 1950s.
  • Three went to Kings Hills
    Report on a large new housing development near Maidstone, and what could have been done better.


Dutch cycling culture

Many people think that the reason there is so much cycling in the Netherlands is that it is cultural, and therefore could not be reproduced in Britain. Actually it is entirely due to infrastructure. There are several good examples showing how until the late 1970s the Netherlands was much the same as Britain in its infrastructure.

Related issues

Air pollution

Social attitudes