8 Bridges 27 01 15

Sustrans Design Manual Chapter 8
Bridges and other

structures (draft)
February 2015
September 2014 1
Sustrans Design Manual Chapter 8: Bridges and other structures (2014, draft)
About Sustrans Contents

Sustrans makes smarter travel choices This chapter of the Sustrans Design Manual should be read in
possible, desirable and inevitable. Were conjunction with Chapter 1 Principles and processes for cycle friendly
a leading UK charity enabling people to design. That chapter includes key guidance on core design principles,
travel by foot, bike or public transport whether to integrate with or segregate from motor traffic, the space
for more of the journeys we make every required by cyclists and other road users as well as geometrical
day. We work with families, communities, considerations. Readers are also directed towards the Handbook for
policy-makers and partner organisations cycle-friendly design which contains a concise illustrated compendium
so that people are able to choose of the technical guidance contained in the Design Manual. This chapter
healthier, cleaner and cheaper journeys, has initially been issued as a draft and it is intended that it be reviewed
with better places and spaces to move during 2015; feedback on the content is invited and should be made by
through and live in. 31 May 2015 to designandconstruction@sustrans.org.uk
Its time we all began making smarter 1. Key principles

travel choices. Make your move and
support Sustrans today. 2. Introduction
www.sustrans.org.uk
3. Underbridges and overbridges
Head Office 4. Headroom, parapets and gradients

Sustrans
5. Bridges: design
2 Cathedral Square
College Green 6. Bridges: utilising existing opportunities
Bristol
BS1 5DD 7. Bridges: construction materials
8. Retaining structures
Sustrans February 2015
Registered Charity No. 326550 (England and 9. Boardwalks
Wales) SC039263 (Scotland)
10. Subways / underpasses
11. Wheeling ramps
12. Tunnels
Issue level: 01
13. Key references
Owned by: NCN Director
Contact: tony.russell@sustrans.org.uk
Photography: Sustrans or CTC

Benchmarking unless noted otherwise
2 February 2015
1. Key principles
structures should enable creation of a continuous network
derestricted roads carrying in excess of 10,000 vehicles per day are

difficult barriers to negotiate and it is often more practical to look at
using structures to resolve crossing issues
modern structures should be as lightweight as possible and feel

spacious to the user even at busy times
desire lines can be difficult to reflect, but any deviation from a direct
route should be limited
minimise the effect of any approach gradients 1 in 20 is preferred,

and appropriate for all user groups, however where necessary
steeper gradients are acceptable where achieving 1 in 20 would be
disproportionally expensive
design widths should acknowledge suppressed demand and allow for

growth in user numbers
deck width should allow for effect of parapets with a minimum

width of 3.5m
avoid right angled turns on approach paths, which are difficult to

negotiate
where desirable heights for parapets cannot be achieved on existing

structures this should not necessarily preclude their use as crossings
for cyclists
consider maintenance and how it will be looked after
when there is a requirement for a structure to be lit, lighting columns

should not restrict the usable width of the path. Lighting sources can
be imaginative and be an integral part of the structure, rather than an
add on
not all usable structures are new. Farm accommodation crossings may
need to be adapted to create approach gradients that suit walking and
cycling, but these structures offer plenty of opportunity, especially in
rural areas
road bridges can often be adapted to meet the requirements of a traffic

free route, particularly where carriageway space can be reallocated
February 2015 3
2. Introduction
2.1
A traffic free path is likely to encounter any number of physical barriers
along its route. Railways, rivers, canals, small watercourses and roads
all create breaks in connectivity.
2.2
Dealing with the natural and artificial topography alongside routes
requires thought, as bridges and retaining structures, no matter how
small, are essential to solving some of the fundamental connectivity
issues that restrict non-motorised movement.
2.3
Structures on traffic free routes need to provide high quality continuous
routes that are fit for purpose. Particular attention needs to be paid to
their alignment and design, as well as construction details. Installing
structures can be complicated. Even on quieter urban roads a closure is
often necessary.
2.4
There may be particular constraints when re-using existing structures
including the presence of legally protected wildlife, such as bats and
birds.
3. Underbridges and overbridges

3.1
How a structure is defined depends upon how a traffic free route passes
across a barrier. The terms underbridge and overbridge date back to
how railway lines crossed obstacles, for which the structure is described
from the perspective of the train driver. This chapter describes the
structure from the perspective of the path user. Table 3.1 identifies
particular issues that may need to be considered in each case.
Table 3.1: Over and underbridges: items to consider
Overbridge (over line) Underbridge (under line)
Traffic free routes pass under a road or Traffic free routes pass over a road,
railway line railway, river or canal
Likely to generate issues of Likely to generate issues of
headroom headroom (road/canal users

requirements)
personal security
parapet heights
lighting
visual impact
drainage
approach gradients
path width (if on canals /
riverside paths) path alignment and
available land
visibility
vandalism / broken glass
4 February 2015
4. Headroom, parapets and gradients

4.1
Headroom and parapet requirements will vary depending upon the type
of barrier encountered. Re-using old structures, especially railway and
canal infrastructure or ancient road bridges, can be an effective way
of creating continuity for a traffic free route. These do not necessarily
comply with the guidance around headroom or parapets for new
structures.
4.2
Similarly, whilst advice on preferred gradients should normally be
followed, there are other factors to consider in making a decision, such
as additional distance for users, aesthetics and the need for rest areas.
There may be particular constraints when re-using existing structures.
Headroom: underbridges
4.3
The amount of height gain required to achieve a minimum headroom
clearance will have a significant effect upon the length of any approach
ramps, and therefore upon land required, aesthetics and planning
requirements.
4.4
Clearances are measured from road, rail or water level, and these may
bear little relationship to the surrounding ground levels. It is therefore
important to establish the exact difference along the approaches to
ensure that any lengths of ramp are designed with the end user in mind.
4.5
Table 4.1 below sets out various scenarios, and the minimum clearances
normally required to the underside of any new structure.
Table 4.1: Clearance / headroom requirements
Bridge Over Min Headroom (to soffit of walking /

cycling bridge)
Watercourse / stream Bridge soffit - 1 in 100 year flood +

600mm freeboard
Non navigable river Bridge soffit - 1 in 100 year flood +

600mm freeboard
Navigable / Tidal river Depends on location
Canal 2.7m from towpath preferred
Road 5.7m from top of kerb
Road - bus route 5.7m from top of kerb
Trunk Road 5.7m from top of kerb
Non electrified railway 4.78m from rail level
Electrified Railway 4.78m from rail level
Subway 2.4m (cycles)
February 2015 5
Headroom: overbridges
4.6
The recommended headroom for subways is 2.3m for pedestrians and
2.4m for cyclists, increasing to 2.6m and 2.7m for lengths in excess
of 23m. A headroom of 3.7m is required for mounted equestrians.
However, there are many examples of structures on public roads and
on traffic free routes with headroom well below 2.4m, with appropriate
warning signs, which operate without incident for cyclists, so low
headroom bridges should not prevent a route from being developed or
from being included for development with future funding streams. The
overall design of subways is covered in Section 10 below.
4.7
LTN 2/08 Section 10.10.2 takes a flexible approach to headroom around
subways and overbridges stating that the headroom around existing
pedestrian subways is typically 2.3m, and routes under canal bridges
often have less clearance. The restricted height should not lead to
automatic rejection of a proposed permit to cycle. It may represent the
best available option if potential risk to users can be managed.
4.8
On arched structures that have reduced headroom good through
visibility to the path beyond can ensure that users can use the section of
path with the greatest height, although this is not always possible.
Central Glasgow Northampton
Newton Abbot Peak Forest Canal, Hyde, Manchester
6 February 2015
Case Study:
Reach Lode, Cambridgeshire
In Cambridgeshire, the local fenland
environment has dropped following centuries
of peat removal, drainage and agricultural use.
The Lodes are a network of ancient waterways
linking the fens that now sit several metres
above the surrounding landscape. Several
are navigable, including Reach and Burwell
Lodes. Designing structures to cross these
needs to factor in the clearance required for
navigation, but in such a way that they still
have a positive aesthetic impact upon a very
flat landscape.
Case Study:
adapting an existing structure,
Rugby
Adapting existing structures can also lead to
designs for improved access requirements being
constrained by the surrounding topography. In
these images of Rugby, the main bridge structure
needed to clear overhead power lines for the West
Coast main line. The ground levels beyond the
Network Rail boundary were considerably lower
at this point, extending the length of access ramp
required.
A height gain of approximately 9m was necessary.

A single ramp at 1 in 20 would be 180m,
impractical in most locations. To create a solution
that worked the ramp gradient was steeper than
recommended, up to 1 in 15, and a zig zag
utilised to save space.
Land ownership constraints were a significant

factor in the design process, with a developer
unwilling to co-operate beyond what was
absolutely necessary under their planning remit
sometimes third party involvement is all about the
commercial impact. It also explains the erection of
the palisade fencing, albeit until the adjacent land
is turned into housing.
February 2015 7
Parapet Height
4.9
Parapet height for new bridges is normally 1.15m for pedestrians,
Bridges for cyclists should ideally 1.4m for cyclists, or 1.8m for equestrians. On existing structures being
have a parapet height of 1.4m (1.8m converted to cycle use this parapet height cannot always be achieved,
if also providing for equestrian use). but it should not necessarily preclude their use as crossings for cyclists;
On existing structures this cannot
advice is given in Sustrans Technical Information Note 30 Parapet
always be achieved, but it should
not necessarily preclude their use as Heights on Cycle Routes.
crossings for cyclists. LTN 2/08 Section
10.8.2, 4.10
Re-used old structures, especially railway infrastructure or ancient
road bridges, often do not comply with this guidance. There are many
examples of historic bridges on public roads with parapets below 1.4m
and no footway, which operate without incident for cyclists.
4.11
Where the 1.4m parapet height cannot be achieved cost effectively,
a risk assessment should be undertaken and there may be ways to
mitigate the main risks, for example:
old railway structures can be adapted to improve existing parapet

heights. Where original ballast remains in situ, this is often at a greater
depth than is necessary to support walking and cycling loadings
Bristol (Bedminster) reducing the depth of the ballast layer can have a significant impact
upon the overall height of the parapet (Figure 4.1)
take account of the thickness of the parapet walling; a thick wall
increases the effective height of the parapet
where width permits, locate the paths in the middle of a structure and
discourage users from straying near the edges
Overall parapet height

using old railway track Dished channel formed in
bed level is below surfacing to remove surface
1.40m water away from parapets. Use
existing drainge system to carry Alternatively
Reduce water away from structure if in raise the existing
Topsham existing suitable condition parapet height
railway by adding new
formation to railings
create extra
height to
parapet sides
Original track bed level
Check original waterproofing and add minimal depth

of construction to surface. Surface between parapet
walls to increase longevity of structure
Lambley Viaduct, Northumberland

Fig 4.1 Indicative sketch for works to
the Nidd Viaduct, Harrogate
8 February 2015
4.12
Adapting parapets is possible, but costs time and money to resolve,
although damaged stone parapets can be replaced with modern
installations that allow users better views of the local environment.
Where it is deemed appropriate to raise the parapets, the following
points should be considered:
different parapet styles can be used within the same structure

depending upon the state of the original parapet walls
lead-in rails on the approach to a structure will give a better aesthetic
when they are designed to the same style as the main structure
Sub-standard parapets on cycle route, Bristol
timber post and rail fences are effective, but lack aesthetic quality and
can become a maintenance liability
post and wire fencing has less visual impact and is a low cost solution,
but can also be a maintenance liability
retain open views wherever possible, but restrict access to steep sides,
deep/fast flowing water or major roads
does the structure contain legally protected wildlife,
such as bats and birds?
Hockley Viaduct, Winchester Glen Ogle
On traffic free routes that Simple adaptation of existing structures, and the parapets, can
accommodate horses, but have result in a visually appealing solution. Using parapets and bridge
structures that are not designed to decks as art projects could open up other funding streams
permit mounted horse use, provision that would not necessarily be considered for route development.
of timber or stone mounting blocks Clydach, South Wales
each side of a structure can aid
mounting, Kenilworth
February 2015 9
Gradients and approach paths

4.13
Approach paths designed to a maximum gradient of 1 in 20 will be
Table 4.2: Recommended gradients negotiable by all user groups, but depending upon the extent of height
gain required, this could create lengthy ramps. Recommended gradients
3% Preferred maximum are included in Table 4.2.
5% Normal maximum - up to 100m
4.14
7% Limited gradient - up to 30m Whilst advice on preferred gradients should normally be followed, there
are other factors to consider in making a decision, such as additional
>7% For short lengths distance for users, aesthetics, planning requirements and the need for
rest areas. There may be particular constraints when re-using existing
structures including the presence of legally protected wildlife, such as
bats and birds.
A maximum gradient of 3% is
recommended, but this can rise to 5% 4.15
for up to a maximum of 100m. Where However, providing gradients that exceed the maximum recommended
steeper slopes are unavoidable then the should be the last resort, after exploring all other solutions, including
limiting gradient is 7% over a distance additional land purchase.
of up to 30m. Steeper gradients are
not recommended, except over short
4.16
distances. LTN 2/08 Section 8.7.2
Approaches that are too steep or straight can generate a public
perception about speeding cyclists. Too flat and they will require
additional land, or become meandering zig zags, often caged in by
parapet sides resulting in expensive, aesthetically poor solutions.
The preferred maximum gradient for
off-carriageway routes is 3%, with an 4.17
acceptable maximum of 5%. Where new In construction, ramped accesses into a new building or property are
routes are constructed alongside the required to provide level landing areas where they are at a gradient of
existing carriageway, the gradient will 1 in 20 or greater. On a structure this is not necessarily appropriate
need to reflect the conditions of the road.
As such where it is not practicable to and a ramp that has several landing areas over its length can be
provide gradients not steeper than 5%, uncomfortable for cyclists. Each landing area adds extra length, so that
steeper gradients may be considered it is very easy for a 1 in 15 ramp to be similar in length to one of 1 in 20,
over shorter distances. DMRB TA90/05 with no landing areas.
Section 5.4
5. Bridges: design
5.1
Bridges can provide very useful connections along footpaths or cycle
tracks away from the road, avoiding conflicts at major roads and
taking routes across other barriers such as railways and waterways.
Where the topography is favourable the need for approach ramps
can be minimised and good natural surveillance improves personal
security. New bridges can be designed as features along a route and
may become attractors in their own right. New bridges are generally
considerably cheaper than new subways.
5.2
Particular benefits of bridges include:
provides a conflict free crossing of a major barrier
a new bridge may provide an opportunity for a landmark feature
a bridge will often be cheaper than a subway
good personal security
10 February 2015
5.2
Key design features:
bridges require considerable investment and should normally cater for

both pedestrians and cyclists
where a bridge will attract high numbers of pedestrians and cyclists the
aim should be to provide effective segregation between them so that
each group can travel at their preferred speed
where usage will be lower, an unsegregated bridge offers opportunities
for users to stop on either side to take in the view, and requires less
Killamarsh, Sheffield
width than segregation
bridge approaches and decks should be straight or nearly straight.
Right angled turns are difficult for cyclists to negotiate
gradients should be in accord with the maximum values given in Table
4.2, depending on slope length. Steeper gradients than 7% are not
recommended, except over very short distances
where the topography is favourable the need for approach ramps can
be minimised
5.3
The key dimensions for bridge widths are summarised in Figures 5.1 and
5.2 and noted below:
Gateshead Millennium Bridge
pedestrian only: minimum width of 2m, with additional width for busy
routes
unsegregated pedestrian/cycle bridge: the width should reflect the
level and type of use forecast with a minimum of 4m width on main
cycle routes, or 3.5m on less busy secondary routes. On particularly
heavily trafficked routes it should be increased to 5m or more
segregated pedestrian/cycle bridge:
footway width should reflect the level and type of use forecast with
a minimum of 2m width, increasing to 3.5m width where there is
frequent use by groups
cycle track width should be sufficient to accommodate the forecast
level of use with a minimum of 3m, preferably 4m or more
a bridge parapet has little impact on pedestrians width but reduces

the usable width for cyclists by 500mm on each side Diglis Bridge, Worcester
5.4
Parapet height for new bridges is normally 1.15m for pedestrians,
1.4m for cyclists, or 1.8m for equestrians. On existing structures being
converted to cycle use this parapet height cannot always be achieved,
but it should not necessarily preclude their use as crossings for cyclists;
advice is given in Sustrans Technical Information Note 30 Parapet
Heights on Cycle Routes. Parapet heights of existing and new structures
are discussed more fully in Section 4.
Glasgow city centre
February 2015 11
4m or more preferred
Parapet height (h) 3.5m min 3m min 2m min
1.4m preferred for cyclists,

but many existing bridges
operate well with lower
heights
1.8m for equestrian use h
(mounted)
effective width of bridge
reduced by 500mm at each
parapet
for advice on substandard
parapet heights, refer
to Sustrans Technical
Information Note 30 Figure 5.1 Width requirements Figure 5.2 Width requirements for
for bridges: unsegregated bridges: segregated
5.5
Figure 5.3 Other design considerations that are important for bridges include:
Design of ramps
design widths should take account of suppressed demand and allow
for growth in user numbers including potential new developments
along the route
Steps
exposure of users to the weather should be considered - covered
bridges will be beneficial
any new bridge over a road should also provide a good quality links to
that road
designs can be as simple or as complex as the budget allows, but
aesthetics can be crucial. A bridge over a key road corridor can make
a statement; a simple design might be more appropriate in areas over
Appropriate looked by housing
lead-in
barriers to clear signing for existing walkers and cyclists will give them key
the bridge
parapet
destinations along the road and the traffic free route
should be
considered, when designing a structure always ensure that the client, the designer
Gradient 5%
or less
particularly if and the contractor know where utilities are located
the approach
(preferred
gradient 3%)
is on an access onto structures should generally be barrier free
incline
where structures lift or rotate gated control is necessary. Locating
these controls requires careful thought so that the ability for all users to
Guard rail access the bridge easily is not impaired
may be
appropriate
Pont y Weirin, Cardiff
12 February 2015
the location of the bridge should take into account legally protected
wildlife either within existing embankments and structures or using the
feature being crossed, such as otters along a river
5.6
Similar criteria apply to the conversion of footways over road bridges to
shared use, and these are considered further in Section 6.
Millennium Bridge, Newcastle/Gateshead
Bradford
Peace Bridge, Derry/Londonderry
Hob Moat, York New River, Cheshunt
February 2015 13
6. Bridges: utilising existing opportunities

Introduction
6.1
When a new cycle bridge is required it may be possible to make use of
existing infrastructure to reduce the outlay. In some cases this may be at
a location where the existing embankments can be used when replacing
a demolished railway bridge, or where an existing busy road bridge can
be adapted to carry cyclists safely, or where use may be made of a farm
accommodation bridge. This section discusses issues that may need to
be considered when taking advantage of these opportunities.
Weymouth
Avebury to Chippenham
Kenilworth
Ecological considerations in existing structures
6.2
Where an existing structure is to be used, in particular structures made
from brick or stone such as old railway bridges or abutments, these
should be surveyed for wildlife at the earliest possible stage. The
presence of bats in a structure can significantly delay a construction
project and will lead to an increase in the complexity and cost of
proposals. It is unlikely that the presence of a protected species will
prevent construction but the sooner an issue is identified the easier it is
to deal with.
6.3
Cable Stay design, Scunthorpe
Similarly where existing embankments are to be used a survey should
be conducted for wildlife within the embankment or using the feature
that is being crossed (in the case of rivers or green space). In many
instances moving a development a few metres can substantially reduce
ecological impacts, allowing construction to take place whilst protecting
local wildlife.
Road bridges that retain the path level

6.4
In some locations, notably where a traffic free route uses an old
railway formation on which a bridge has been removed to allow a road
improvement, it may be feasible to construct a new bridge that needs
little or no change to the path level. In such situations the traffic free
route benefits from not having to drop down to the road to cross and
climb up again, with a better environment for walking and cycling. Traffic
on the road benefits from not being interrupted by pedestrians and
cyclists, particularly where a signalled crossing would be required. Such
a bridge will require a greater initial outlay than a controlled crossing,
but will need less regular maintenance. Convenient connections to the
road should be retained from both sides of the bridge.
14 February 2015
Adapting an existing road bridge

6.5
There are many locations across the UK that utilise existing structures
for walking and cycling, but the quality of provision is poor. Often cited
arguments are that shifting kerb lines and changing the dynamics of a
structure is impractical, that it is costly or that there are utilities affected.
However, where there is a desire to achieve a continuous and high
quality route many of these apparent obstacles can be overcome.
6.6
The scale of intervention may range from merely moving the kerb line
further into the carriageway to removal of a full lane of traffic in order
to provide a high quality route for cyclists that is segregated from both
traffic and pedestrians.
A127 Hall Lane, Upminster (before)
6.7
Shifting a kerb line to create better space requires consideration of the
following factors:
the benefits that cohesive routes built to a high standard can give
the amount of space that can be taken from the carriageway, bearing
in mind the level and type of traffic using the road
political will to take space from the motorist for pedestrian
and cycle use
minimising the costs associated with shifting or protecting
existing utilities
structural assessments of both bridge and parapets
A127 Hall Lane, Upminster (after)
timescales, times of day when works are restricted
Figure 6:1 Footway on existing bridge:

improving for shared use
Unsegregated
cycle track/footway
3.0m min two way 0.5m
2.0m min one way Margin

0.5m where practical
(widen into
carriageway
if needed)
h
Redcliffe Bridge, Bristol (before)
Not to scale
Parapet height (h)
1.4m preferred for cyclists, but many existing bridges

operate well with lower heights
1.8m for equestrian use (mounted)
effective width of bridge reduced by 500mm at each
parapet
for advice on substandard parapet heights, refer to
Sustrans Technical Information Note 30
Redcliffe Bridge, Bristol (after)
February 2015 15
Adapting a farm accommodation bridge

6.8
Re-using farm accommodation crossings can be key to retaining route
continuity in rural areas. Existing approach gradients are often steep
and will require extensive works to create new embankments with better
gradients, and land requirements will always need to be considered with
any purchase costs factored in.
6.9
In developing proposals to use an accommodation bridge the following
points should be considered:
parapet heights may need to be raised, or existing systems replaced

it is worth stripping the existing surfacing back to bridge deck and
waterproofing the whole structure
kerblines are not always necessary, but will prevent cyclists from
getting too close to the parapets, and will allow space for pedestrians
to stand if they want to stop. Always retain a clear route with a
minimum usable width of 2.5m
it may not always be possible to achieve a 1 in 20 gradient, but this
should not necessarily deter use of the structure
if more land is required talk to adjacent land owners, but always go
prepared with drawings showing what is actually required and have
them in a format that farmers and land owners understand
Sleaford, Lincolnshire (before)
Sleaford, Lincolnshire (after)
16 February 2015
7. Bridges: construction materials

7.1
Bridge design should be delivered to BS5400, the code of practice
for steel, concrete and composite bridges; in part some of this is
superseded by Euro codes. Designers should be encouraged to start
with this, but then allow a flexible approach to provide for pedestrian
and cycle movements.
7.2
Larger structures will give more scope for something creative, especially
if the client wants an iconic design. Smaller structures, perhaps up to
20m in length, can be bought from supplier catalogues, at a unit cost.
Some of the UKs most iconic structures provide striking solutions,
space for pedestrians and cycles to mix freely and have been the
catalyst to the expansion of a wider walkway and cycle network.
7.3
Often bridge designers will choose materials that they know will best do
the functional job required, but that shouldnt necessarily preclude other
options from being considered. A bridge built from concrete and steel
will be significantly heavier than one built entirely from steel, or timber,
with obvious implications for delivering to site, or the size of crane
required to lift it into place.
7.4
The simplest structures are often the easiest to transport from workshop
to site location, and will require very little effort to install. Considering
that most walking and cycling barriers are minor watercourses, a simple
lightweight timber, fibre reinforced plastic or steel structure will often
suffice. Materials and products should be sympathetic to the location.
Fig 7.1: Typical construction detail, lightweight timber structure
Rails: 45x120
Deck planks redwood, fixed
45x145 redwood to posts using
Hi-Grip Excel coach bolts
Posts:
410
70x120
redwood
410
1400
fixed to rails
using coach
1928
bolts
410
Post Bearers: 50x150

All dimensions in mm packers hardwood fixed @
(hardwood) 600 centres
Main beams
February 2015 17
Reinforced plastic
7.5
Several small structures around Watermead Park in Leicester use a
design consisting of green oak timber handrails and a glass reinforced
plastic decking material more commonly found in marinas. Using
a simple steel lattice frame as a basis these materials produce an
aesthetic yet extremely lightweight structure, ideal for the type of
loadings associated with walking and cycling.
7.6
Structures designed at 2.5m wide may suit some locations where usage
is likely to be very low, but designers should always seek to use the
maximum width available. Increasing to 3.5m for this style would require
longer transverse beams.
2500
75 x 225mm
Fig 7.2: Cross section timber rail
through one of the
Mesh to Marina
Watermead Park Deck 75 x 38mm
1400
BS 7818
lightweight bridges decking timber rail
Welded on bolt 38 x 225mm

heads to recieve timber rail
timber parapets Transverse beam
600 x 300 fabricated

box stringer
18 February 2015
Steel
7.7
Pure steel structures can be aesthetically pleasing, or simply functional
as the images below show. A simple warren truss design may lack visual
beauty but fabrication costs are considerably less. Iconic structures will
have a visual impact, but these come with a hefty price tag.
Northwich - River Dane
Bath - Two Tunnels
Northampton - River Nene & Grand Union Canal Newton Abbot - River Teign
Omagh - River Strule Workington - River Derwent
February 2015 19
Concrete
7.8
Concrete, or a composite of concrete and steel, produces heavy
structures often partially, or wholly, built in situ, creating huge
construction sites, but the structures that they produce are often iconic
and blend into the landscape or urban environment with relative ease.
Such structures are often part of a much wider series of enhancements.
Parapets
7.9
The choice of parapet style and deck surface treatment is important.
A sympathetic approach to both can leave a lasting impression of a
structure that has a good aesthetic quality.
7.10
Long structures over rivers and tidal areas that have used glass or
open sides, will allow pedestrians and cyclists to stop and enjoy
the environment through which they are passing. Even in urban
environments, structures over major roads need to be designed to allow
the user to feel that they remain connected to the outside world.
Glasgow
Shoreham
20 February 2015
8. Retaining Structures
8.1
Retaining structures are often needed to support a new path or the
adjacent embankment, and the different options available produce
differing aesthetics and have a wide range of costs. As Table 8.1
illustrates, there are a variety of options available and each type can
work in a variety of situations. Some are easier to construct (gabions),
and others easier to maintain (brickwork). Brickwork can attract graffiti
and become unsightly, but the ability to plant crib walling can soften
the aesthetics of the structure.
Table 8.1 Wall construction types and approximate costs

Hastings
Type of retaining structure Approximate

cost per linear
metre
Gabion boxes (1m x 1m x 1m + class 6G stone fill) 150
Steel I beam & timbers (175mm x 175mm I / 2.4m timber) 120
Brick retaining wall 300-400
Criblock wall 300-400

Exmouth
8.2
Banks up to 1 in 2 do not generally require retaining structures,
providing that they are planted; the root systems will bind together the
sub soils creating a natural stability.
Gabion box
8.3
The most common solution is a wire mesh and stone filled gabion
box. These are relatively cheap and easy to install, and have been
successfully used in a wide variety of situations. Aesthetically they are
Killamarsh, Sheffield
harsh, perhaps more suited to an urban environment, but functional.
Original
ground profile
Timber post
and rail fence
Cycle path
Figure 8.1 Typical
1100
gabion box layering
Layer 4 1x1x1
Powderham, Devon
Layer 3 1.5 x1x1
Temporary
works batter 1
Layer 2x1x1
2.5
Layer 1.5x1x1 &1x1x1
Possible
continuous line of
fence sheeting
6
February 2015 21
Timber wall
8.4
The simplest solution may still be a series of timber sleepers or steel
I beams set vertically, approximately 1700mm apart with horizontal
timbers, roughly 150 x 200 in size. The adjacent bank can be re-graded
so that it suits multiples of the timber size.
Exmouth
Conwy
Crib walling
8.5
For structures greater than 2.0m in height, or where there is a need to
provide something more aesthetically pleasing, using a system called
criblock walling may be an option. This is a wall set roughly at 15
degrees from the vertical and manufactured by several UK companies.
It is generally a timber solution, but the system can also be concrete.
Planting softens the aesthetics, creating a green wall over time.
8.6
Crib walling gives a flexible construction that can withstand some
degree of settlement and movement without detriment to the stability of
the wall. It is best applied in areas where dry subsoils exist.
Padiham, New criblock walling ramp supports the main path and enables access
ramp construction
22 February 2015
Paving slabs
8.7
Low earth embankments may be effectively retained by use of paving
slabs set no steeper than 7 degrees from the vertical.
Reinforced earth
8.8
Reinforced earth, where embankments are constructed in layers, and
the ground strengthened by installing primary and secondary layers of a
geogrid is another approach that has been proven to be successful and
will allow slopes of up to 35. It can be extremely useful when wanting
to re-work existing railway embankments, especially those that were cut
back following removal of an original structure many years ago. Paving slabs retaining a low embankment, Bedford
Reinforced earth approach to reconstructing original embankment, Bath
Wildlife enhancements
8.9
Retaining structures and enhancements offer opportunities for creating
habitats for wildlife along a route. The use of subsoil to create low
nutrient conditions on an embankment will encourage wild flowers and
butterflies. Gabion boxes and criblock walling create small holes and
crevices that can be used by small mammals, reptiles and amphibians
to hibernate. Retaining structures can also be used as the basis for a
green wall where vegetation is encouraged through the introduction of
soil, retained by a barrier, to a vertical surface.
Green wall, NCN 71 Whitehaven to Rowrah in Cumbria
February 2015 23
9. Boardwalks
9.1
Boardwalks and similar elevated structures are often viable solutions in,
or through, areas of ecological and environmental importance, or within
floodplains. Hardwood timbers and recycled plastics can work equally
well.
9.2
Boardwalks often require parapets. Where the risk of injury from falling
is minimal parapets are not necessary, however there is a risk that users
will step off a path if it is busy.
9.3
The minimum width for a boardwalk is normally 3.5m, but greater
width may be needed if it is expected to be busy. Many locations for
boardwalks are in coastal environments which can be popular during
summer months.
9.4
Boardwalks are not cheap to install, and a path that meanders through
sensitive areas may still be more practical.
9.5
Verges left between new boardwalks and existing structures or fences
require maintenance.
9.6
Boardwalks may be built at ground level where walking, cycling and
mobility access would otherwise have been difficult.
Southampton Exe Estuary Trail
Between Newport and Caerleon, with River Usk in flood Burton Point, North Wales
24 February 2015
10. Subways / underpasses

10.1
Subways/underpasses can provide very useful connections for
footpaths or cycle tracks away from the road, avoiding conflicts at
major roads and taking routes across other barriers such as railways.
Where the topography is favourable the need for approach ramps can
be minimised and good natural surveillance is essential for personal
security. Often this option will involve the conversion of an existing
pedestrian subway or an underpass provided for private access.
10.2
Poorly designed subways in particular can be intimidating places;
those with tight blind corners have a higher perceived safety concern
than those constructed higher and wider than the minimum guidance
suggests.
10.3
Particular benefits of subways include:
provides a conflict free crossing of a major barrier

avoids exposure to the weather
the longitudinal profile of an underpass (down then up) is more
comfortable for cyclists than bridges with approach ramps
New at-grade crossings provided with existing subway retained, Croydon
February 2015 25
10.4
underpasses require considerable investment and should normally

cater for both pedestrians and cyclists
underpasses can attract high numbers of pedestrians and cyclists and
the aim should be to provide effective segregation between them so
that each group can travel at their preferred speed
underpass approaches and the crossings themselves should be
straight or nearly straight. Right angled turns are difficult for cyclists to
negotiate
Bridge with sub-standard headroom on cycle route, gradients should be in accord with the maximum values given in Table
Nottingham 4.2, depending on slope length. Steeper gradients than 7% are not
recommended, except over very short distances
where the topography is favourable the need for approach ramps can
be minimised
10.5
The key minimum dimensions for new subways are summarised in
Figures 10.1 and 10.2, and noted below:
subways for pedestrians only require headroom of at least 2.3m (2.6m

for lengths over 23m) and a width of 3.0m (2.3m for light use)
Artwork in subway, Southampton subways for use by cyclists require headroom of 2.4m (2.7m for
lengths over 23m) and width of at least 4.0m (3m for light use) if
unsegregated
segregated: the width for pedestrians should be at least 2m, the cycle
track 2.5m and the margin strip 0.5m
headroom for cyclists and pedestrians as above
a headroom of 3.7m is required for mounted equestrians
Figure 10.1 Minimum requirements for Figure 10.2 Minimum requirements for
new shared use subways: segregated new shared use subways: unsegregated
2.4m (2.7m) 2.3m (2.6m) 2.4m (2.7m)
0.5m 2.5m cycle 2.0m 4.0m (3.0m with light usage)

margin track footpath
Note: dimensions in Note: dimensions in

brackets apply to subway brackets apply to subway
lengths>23m lengths>23m
26 February 2015
10.6
The headroom in existing pedestrian subways is typically 2.3m; the
restricted height or width available should not lead to automatic Changing the environment to
rejection of a proposal to permit cycling. There are many examples of permit cycling can be valuable, with
structures on public roads and on traffic free routes with headroom well clear demarcation that cycling is
below 2.4m, which operate without incident for cyclists. Any restricted permissible
headroom should be clearly signed. The Cyclists Dismount sign should
not be used.
10.7
Other design considerations that are important for subways include:
lighting should be vandal proof

no corners/recesses
exit must be visible on entering the subway
where segregation is required a shallow, or 45 kerb face, is normally
sufficient. A full height, or 90, kerb presents a barrier to cycles and a Dover before
trip hazard to pedestrians
generous headroom and width will be highly beneficial in terms of
subjective safety, natural surveillance and personal security
a greater width or walls diverging towards the top increases
natural light
light wells are desirable to maximise natural illumination
10.8
Where an existing subway is being adapted for use by cyclists
consideration needs to be given to wildlife that might use the feature. Dover after
In particular where a subway is not currently well lit it may act as a roost
site or commuting route for local wildlife that would be disturbed or
prevented from using the feature should it become well lit throughout
the night.
10.9
Where it is proposed to permit cyclists to use a pedestrian-only subway
this takes time and is likely to generate strong opinions on both sides.
Any such change needs to fully assess the suitability of alternative
options for providing connectivity for cyclists, to demonstrate that the
value of permitting cycling outweighs the disadvantages.
10.10
Maintenance can be a big concern; graffiti covered walls, broken glass,
broken lights, blind corners and litter give out a very different message
to the public when compared to something that has good quality
lighting, both naturally and artificially, has artwork rather than graffiti, is
accessible by street sweepers, and retains a straight through route.
New subway under the main railway line, Royston
February 2015 27
11. Wheeling ramps

11.1
Where cycle routes are introduced onto routes originally designed for
pedestrian use only, such as canal towpaths or railway footbridges,
flights of steps are sometimes unavoidable, at least in the short term. To
assist cyclists, wheeling ramps should be added to one or both sides of
the flights using steel sections or by forming them in concrete.
11.2
This though is by no means the best solution; it still forces cyclists to
dismount and many are poorly located, making them difficult to use.
Steps are still a barrier to wheelchair users and non-standard cycles,
and difficult to negotiate for parents with small children and buggies.
11.3
A design for a retrofit steel ramp is included as Figure 11.1, with a new
build concrete ramp in Figure 11.2.
11.4
locating the wheeling ramp close to the wall minimises the trip hazard
for pedestrians
the distance between the ramp and the wall should be enough to
ensure that the pedals and handlebars do not clash with the wall or
handrail while the bike is being held reasonably vertically
the wheeling channel needs to extend beyond the top and bottom
steps to provide a smooth transition
steel sections should have a nonslip surface so that the tyres grip the
ramp on descent
in most cases the ramp is fitted to one side, usually on the right for
people climbing, but on well used routes a ramp on each side should
be considered
200
Elevation
Handrail 100 x 50 steel channel
See detail for Channel end fixed to existing steps
top and bottom rounded off
Fig 11.1 Steel ends
wheeling ramp,
retrofit
100 x 50 steel 100mm flat end
channel bolted to steps for fixing to the
existing steps ground
Section AA Bottom end detail
100mm flat end

Channel for fixing to the
100 x 50 steel
end ground
channel bolted to
flattened
existing steps
off
200
100 Top end detail

Section A A
28 February 2015
11.5
Other considerations that are important when considering wheeling
ramps include: Elevation
200
wheeling ramps should not obstruct convenient access to the handrail
50mm dia semi-circular
nor be located in the centre of the steps where they might form a trip Handrail channel formed in
hazard concrete
where a ramp is constructed in metal, a continuous piece is preferred

joints in the metal can damage tyres if they are left un-maintained, and
all fixings should be counter sunk and left flush, or ideally fixed from Steps
below
in some instances timber and stone surfaces blend better with the Section AA
original construction
the considerable effort required from cyclists, especially with luggage
they are of no benefit to many non-standard cycles such as tricycles,
cargo bikes and cycles with trailers 50mm dia semi-circular
channel formed in
signing can be a great benefit, especially if route users can be advised concrete
in advance and given alternative routes as an option
200 100
ramps need regular checking; loose fixings, collections of broken
glass, and damaged sections can all be problematic for cyclists Edge of
steps
50
Section A - A
Fig 11.2 Concrete wheeling

ramp, new build
Ramp highlighted with colour,

Ladygrove
Cast concrete strip sited away from Aesthetically pleasing facility is set far enough
the handrail, Hamilton away from the wall to enable a cycle to be moved
upright, Nottingham
February 2015 29
12. Tunnels
12.1
In a similar way that re-opening old railway viaducts and bridges
provides a connection for walking and cycling routes above ground,
railway tunnels provide a similar, subterranean advantage. Where the
bridge or viaduct allows a path to continue across a valley without
significant level changes, the tunnel can provide the connection beneath
hillsides.
Fencing prevents access onto the tunnel entrance, Bath
A cage protects path users from falling rocks, Peak District Concreted refuges, Bath
Anti-vandal lighting, Dartford
30 February 2015
12.2
Victorian railway engineers have already undertaken the hardest part,
and in many cases there is no technical reason why todays engineers
should shy away from re-opening structures that are structurally sound
enough for walking and cycling infrastructure.
12.3
Understanding the challenges faced in developing a potential idea into a
coherent and spectacular route is only a small part of the process, and
the levels of risk that often get associated with such a project can be
widely off the mark. In order for a project to be successful the delivery
team will need to identify the key risks from a technical (engineering &
construction), ecological (bats) and end user perspective.
Electric box in secure cage, Bath Notice for users, Bath
Fencing to prevent boulders from falling onto path, Peak District
Bat box, Bath
February 2015 31
Technical Risks: Checklist
Understanding the tunnel Understanding the tunnel entrance and

the immediate approaches
previous inspections/examinations have they

highlighted any areas of concern? are wingwalls (side walls at the tunnel
entrance) free from vegetation?
have remedial works been

carried out as a result? do wingwalls have visible signs of cracking, which
may indicate settlement or movement?
Are tunnel portals free of vegetation or will
remedial works be required to clear away self-seeded
who owns it? - private landowners still have a vegetation?
responsibility to undertake regular inspections of
any tunnels that they own, and act accordingly
when remedial works are necessary is the ground above the tunnel entrance suitably
stable or will remedial works be necessary to remove
any loose material, including rocks / boulders?
what does the tunnel go through?
bored through rock
are approaches free draining or is
brick lined structure there any sign of standing water?
single or double bore (i.e. did it have has the tunnel been blocked off with access gates,
one or two railway lines through it?) partially or wholly filled in?
does it have ventilation shafts or side adits? what materials were used to fill in a tunnel entrance
inert or contaminated?
(Mining areas may have utilised colliery waste leading
to methane or coal gas build ups)
historical records
local interest groups
local libraries
noxious gases from rotting vegetation/timbers?
old land plans
national archives asbestos based materials?
the presence of statutory designations such as if a tunnel has been filled in around the
entrance is this because of structural issues with the
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)
tunnel mouth (this may not be noted in recent reports)?
are there legally protected species, especially

bats? are there any historic
records of bats in the local area?
32 February 2015
Inside the tunnel Construction
is the tunnel floor dry? if not, identify essential works to make a tunnel safe for opening (List A)
identify where water has entered
from and assess implications if left
alone. identify works that are required, but not essential (List B)
does the tunnel have a drainage use organisations that understand what it takes to re-open a tunnel.
system - can it be traced, repaired Local Authorities approach to undertaking such projects is based on
and re-used? using in-house term contractors and engineering consultancies and can
be very risk averse. Sustrans approach uses ex-railway engineers, who
understand railway structures
refuges (niches in the brickwork

that allowed railwaymen to step
away from trains) can be places understand the difference between essential and non-essential works
it can greatly reduce the amount of work that you think you need to do,
for people to hide - can they be
with an obvious impact on costs
blocked up or made inaccessible?
understand who the client is (it may or may not be the tunnel owner)
are there ventilation shafts? if so
do they have timber / metal sheets
attached that would have deflected
incoming rainwater away from the ensure that all known information, including historical records,
shaft - are they securely fixed or is given to the designer and contractor
can they be removed?
ensure that the design team understand the hazards including access,
operational plant, materials
does the air flow through
the tunnel?
where there is spalling to brickwork or the mortar face is damaged/

missing, it may not be necessary to repair or replace every little defect
are any previous
repairs obvious?
wedged brickwork if a tunnel is wet when first opened good ventilation during construction
can help to dry it out
colliery arches
timber beams
RSJs ensure that everyone working in a tunnel understands
that they are working in a confined space environment
concrete beams
use natural falls where possible to

is it obvious what defects exist? ensure that paths within tunnels remain dry
spalled brickwork
loose masonry
railway tunnels are likely to be lined with soot; a light
bulging brickwork clean up to 3m above path level is all that is required, it is
failure of rock or brick lining not necessary to clean every last piece of brickwork
can the former trackbed material be re-used as a path sub base?

is the tunnel used by bats
to roost, breed, swarm and/or
hibernate at different times of year?
where bats are present can mitigation be put in place to avoid harming
them and do we need to apply for a licence from Natural England?
February 2015 33
Maintenance Public perception and concerns
regular inspections are important, with how are you going to communicate to the public the length
annual routine inspections and a 6 yearly of the tunnel and time it takes to walk/cycle through it?
principal inspection
how will the public communicate an emergency?

general visual inspections should be
carried out to assess the following:
path surface how will anti-social behaviour be managed
(piped classical music played on a continuous loop has been
drainage concerns (especially after
used to deter loitering, for example)?
heavy rainfall, or in winter for snow/ice)
lighting - faults should be reported
immediately
is personal security an issue?
vegetation - remove any that appears
around wingwalls, abutments and tunnel
portals
is the tunnel lit? all day or timed on/off?
signing
is there CCTV provision?

items identified as non-essential
should be programmed when determined
appropriate
are there contact numbers clearly visible landlines where
mobile signals are poor?
emergency access paths are kept free

and usable at all times, ensure that any
how is a route signed within the local area? good signing will
locked gates have keys!
encourage more use, so that a route becomes self-policing
engage emergency services/power

suppliers/local authorities to ensure
that everyone knows what to do if an
emergency arises
34 February 2015
13. Key References

Technical Information Note 29: Lighting of Cycle Paths, Sustrans 2012
Technical Information Note 30: Parapet Heights on Cycle Routes,

Sustrans 2012
Bats in Bridges, Bat Conservation Trust (undated)
Bats and Lighting in the UK, Bat Conservation Trust, 2009
Forestry Bridges, Forestry Commission
Path Bridges, Paths for All, 2006
Subways for Pedestrians and Cyclists Layout and Dimensions, TD36/93,

Highways Agency 1993
Design Criteria for Footbridges, BD 29/04, Highways Agency 2004
Inclusive Mobility, DfT, 2002
February 2015 35

8 Bridges 27 01 15

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

8 Bridges 27 01 15

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Sustrans Design Manual Chapter 8

Bridges and other

About Sustrans Contents

Its time we all began making smarter 1. Key principles

Head Office 4. Headroom, parapets and gradients

11. Wheeling ramps

Photography: Sustrans or CTC

derestricted roads carrying in excess of 10,000 vehicles per day are

modern structures should be as lightweight as possible and feel

minimise the effect of any approach gradients 1 in 20 is preferred,

design widths should acknowledge suppressed demand and allow for

deck width should allow for effect of parapets with a minimum

avoid right angled turns on approach paths, which are difficult to

where desirable heights for parapets cannot be achieved on existing

consider maintenance and how it will be looked after

when there is a requirement for a structure to be lit, lighting columns

road bridges can often be adapted to meet the requirements of a traffic

3. Underbridges and overbridges

Table 3.1: Over and underbridges: items to consider

Overbridge (over line) Underbridge (under line)

Likely to generate issues of Likely to generate issues of

headroom headroom (road/canal users

4. Headroom, parapets and gradients

Table 4.1: Clearance / headroom requirements

Bridge Over Min Headroom (to soffit of walking /

Watercourse / stream Bridge soffit - 1 in 100 year flood +

Non navigable river Bridge soffit - 1 in 100 year flood +

Navigable / Tidal river Depends on location

Canal 2.7m from towpath preferred

Road 5.7m from top of kerb

Road - bus route 5.7m from top of kerb

Trunk Road 5.7m from top of kerb

Non electrified railway 4.78m from rail level

Electrified Railway 4.78m from rail level

Subway 2.4m (cycles)

Central Glasgow Northampton

Newton Abbot Peak Forest Canal, Hyde, Manchester

A height gain of approximately 9m was necessary.

Land ownership constraints were a significant

old railway structures can be adapted to improve existing parapet

Overall parapet height

Original track bed level

Check original waterproofing and add minimal depth

Lambley Viaduct, Northumberland

different parapet styles can be used within the same structure

Hockley Viaduct, Winchester Glen Ogle

Gradients and approach paths

bridges require considerable investment and should normally cater for

a bridge parapet has little impact on pedestrians width but reduces

Glasgow city centre

1.4m preferred for cyclists,

Pont y Weirin, Cardiff

Millennium Bridge, Newcastle/Gateshead

Peace Bridge, Derry/Londonderry

Hob Moat, York New River, Cheshunt

6. Bridges: utilising existing opportunities

Road bridges that retain the path level

Adapting an existing road bridge

Figure 6:1 Footway on existing bridge:

2.0m min one way Margin

Parapet height (h)

1.4m preferred for cyclists, but many existing bridges

Adapting a farm accommodation bridge