A brief introduction of active travel at a non-technical level. This submission is not about the technical aspects of active travel, which is well documented in the ACT Active Travel Key Documents. Combined with Austroads Standards there is enough there to build a good network. We are most certainly not failing because of a lack of standards. So, what might be some of the reasons?
5.1 The reason why we need active travel
In 2018 and 2019 the ACT Government released multiple policies to make Canberra a more liveable city, to combat the effects of climate change, and to prepare the city for a population of 500,000, who will need to commute to town centres and Civic across town twice daily. It is expected that our infrastructure will collapse under the peak period loads without the strategic investment in active travel and the construction of cycle highways. Canberra will need to move on from its ‘small city standards’ and mature into a regional metropolis.
To achieve the ACT Climate Change Strategy 2019-25 goals, less people need to drive their car, so that those, who must, can. Most Canberrans drive to work. If people are to give up their habit of commuting by car, then the Active Travel Network needs to be very attractive. The benefits must be greater than the disbenefits. We cannot live without work. In the future and with flexible work and hybrid teams becoming more common, more Canberrans may have the possibility of working from their home office, but for many it will still require a twice-daily commute. The 2017 ACT Household Travel Survey shows that the daily commute is one of the longest journeys made. Schools, shops, doctors, and sport are usually in the local area and the distance travelled is mostly shorter. Not surprisingly, commuters are least likely to leave their car at home. Getting to work is serious business.
The average commuting distance is less than 10 km for Canberrans.[1] The distance could be easily cycled in less time than the average commute driving (51.5 minutes in 2017).[2]
“Active Travel” is a vague term that is hard to understand and not particularly intuitive. It causes a great deal of confusion. It is noticeable that Principal (PCR) or Main Community Routes (MCR) have been branded “CBR Cycle Routes”. This makes a lot more sense to tourists and most Canberrans. Most people do not regard riding a bus as active travel, but it is because the “last mile” between the bus stop and the home, workplace, shops and schools, is usually walked. The ACT Disability Act further expands the function of the path network beyond walking, with the term “mobility device”.
The Active Travel Framework does not grasp the central importance of commuting in our daily lives. Commuting hides in the background of this document – implied but rarely in the spotlight.
Understandable, precise, and shared language in the active travel discussion is important and much needed for raising awareness and achieving buy-in. A common alternative to “active travel” in ACT Government documents is “active transport”. This is an improvement. Bikes for commuting are used for transport, not fitness. It would be better to change the wording to “riding to work”, “commuting to work”, “cycling commuters”, and “cycle highways”.
Cycle highways are a sticking point. The routes and paths must be designed correctly. Frequent commuters ride quickly and will only stop when they must. The commuter requires good quality, smooth, safe, and well-maintained paths that provide direct, low gradient routes, and can be used in all weather (even after heavy rains) and times of day (safe at night). Cycle highways are swept and cleared of debris. For construction sites, a safe and easy temporary path is provided to get around it. We cannot expect people otherwise to leave their car at home. Drivers understand what good infrastructure means.
Cycle highways are high-speed paths built for their utility and need to be designed with similar thoroughness and thoughtfulness as roads. But the requirements are quite different. For example, cars prefer to travel at speeds of 80 km/h, but pedestrians are very slow. Canberra’s urban planners and the ACT Government should note that “cycle highways” are not likely to be built by additions to existing road or pedestrian infrastructure that have been designed for a different purpose. The design of cycle highways cannot be compromised.
Bikes are getting faster and there are more of them. Shared paths will not work. Even with a normal bike, a cyclist commuting commonly reaches speeds of 20 km/h. Electric bikes are faster still with speeds of over 25 km/h, even uphill. Electric bike sales are still booming. Riding downhill, bikes can reach even higher speeds. Austroads cycle path design guidelines include path radius for speeds higher than 30 km/h. Riding to work requires a separated and dedicated infrastructure for bikes.
Infrastructure needs to be given the priority by the ACT Government as it takes a long time to build. Cycle highways are not the last step – they should be the first. There are other barriers to commuting including business clothes, sweating, hair, makeup, secure storage facilities for bikes, and clean and hygienic change rooms with big enough and well vented lockers.
ACT Climate Change Strategy 2019-25 active travel goals
In 2019, the ACT Government released the ACT Climate Change Strategy 2019-25. Active travel is one important pillar of this strategy:
“Once emissions from electricity are zero, transport will account for around 62%.” Key priorities to 2025 to reduce emissions will be to “encourage active travel by continuing to improve cycle paths and walkability.” Further, it “will require substantial changes in the way we plan and build our city”, and “there will need to be a greater emphasis on increasing active travel (for example, walking and cycling) and public transport use to reduce transport emissions to 2025.” Actions (goals) from the ACT Climate Change Strategy to 2025 include:
3D Encourage active travel
3.8 Implement the Municipal Infrastructure Standards for Active Travel and develop best practice guidance for industry and stakeholders to inform better design outcomes for active travel infrastructure.
3.9 Prioritise walking and cycling and enhance active travel infrastructure to improve safety and connectivity of the active travel network.””3E Reduce car use
3.15 Investigate and implement options for encouraging a shift to public transport and active travel through planning…” [3]
5.2 CBR Cycle Routes
The official signed cycle routes between Canberra’s town centres are branded CBR Cycle Routes. What we see today is part of a large network of cycle routes, some have not been built yet or only in part. In the Active Travel Framework, the CBR Cycle Routes are known as Main Community Routes in the Active Travel Standards. Local Community Routes are planned within suburbs to schools and shops.
The Plan
The CBR Cycle Routes are often seen on a “London Metro” styled map. Figure 5-1 is an enlargement of the map showing the CBR Cycle Route C5 between Coombs and the zoo.
Currently these are the routes planned.
The complete network of CBR Cycle Routes is shown in figure 5-3 from the active travel document Building an integrated transport network: active travel (2015). There are many different versions of this map. This version shows both existing and planned (future) routes.
5.2 Cycling Highways
The idea of “cycle highway” needs to be located within the Active Travel Framework, so that it is not disconnected from the planning mechanism in the ACT (both Road Authority and Planning Authority). Cycle highways sit in the active travel key statutory and non-statutory planning documents.
Scientists dissect and divide. In urban design it is done as well. The city is categorised and divided into pieces and the pieces given a name. The nomenclature involves classifications and hierarchies.
Active Travel contains an abundance of new terms. One of the Key Documents for active travel was released in 2019: Planning for Active Travel in the ACT: Active Travel Infrastructure Interim Planning Guideline.[4]
“Key documents – Standards and guideline documents which should be used in the planning and design of active travel facilities. These are listed in Sections 2.2.3 to 2.2.7.”[5]
Defining Active Travel
Most people have heard of active travel, but it is hard to define in just a few words what exactly it is. Any form of human powered mobility could be called active travel, but this is rather a literal definition, as it does little to make clear the thinking from which it came. Over the last century, cities have developed around the notion of “efficient transport networks” and this means, for the individual, generally roads and cars. Canberra has had a car-centric design from the beginning.
The realisation that we cannot build our way out of congestion has reshaped urban planning. The desire is now to build cities that are space efficient (limit sprawl) and rebalance space over mobility (Movement and Place Framework). Cities should be a good place to live. The result is a renewed importance of the oldest form of transport: human powered mobility.
One of the difficulties of active travel is that the user groups are so varied. This creates confusion and means that the required infrastructure varies too. One size does not fit all.
“User Groups – Pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians are made up of different groups of users that have different values and needs. Pedestrian user groups include walkers, joggers, people pushing prams or strollers and those using wheelchairs, both motorised or non-motorised. Cyclist user groups include primary and secondary school children, family groups / recreational cyclists, commuters, neighbourhood / utility cyclists, and touring and training cyclists (refer AGTM04 Table 4.12).”[6]
And not to be missed: a Wheeled Recreational Device (roller blades, roller skates, a skateboard or similar wheeled device).
Community Routes are of particular importance for urban planning in the ACT. Planning for Active Travel in the ACT: Active Travel Infrastructure Interim Planning Guideline[7] introduces the three community types.
“5.1.1 Community Routes
Community Routes are the alignments where the facilities representing the backbone of the Active Travel Network (ATN) are to be provided for active transportation. They link all major centres to residential areas and cater for walkers and cyclists of all abilities and ages (8-80s).
The Community Route component of the Active Travel Route (ATR) consists of a hierarchy of four levels designed to cater for the widest range of trips for different user types.
Principal Community Routes (PCRs)
These routes represent the “highways” for active transportation.
– Generally, connect town centres and to Queanbeyan
– To be branded as CBR Cycle Routes
– Include the same facilities as Main Community Routes except for the inclusion of route labels and brands as part of directional signage.Main Community Routes (MCRs)
These are the “arterials” for active transportation and connect PCRs to group and employment centres. Connected destinations also include hospitals, industrial areas and the airport precinct as well as major active travel venues such as Stromlo Forest Park.
There are a number of different types of Main Community Routes that have different purposes such as connecting town centres by alternative routes, links to other MCRs and PCRs to form a connected network and inner-urban loops in town and group centres. The latter allow higher amenity movement around these destinations with PCRs and MCRs generally terminating at the loops.
Local Community Routes (LCRs)
These are routes that link Main Community Routes (MCRs) with local destinations such as local centres, colleges, high schools, district parks and district playing fields.”[8]
What makes cycle highways so hard
The hierarchy of bicycle (community) routes gives active travel a level of sophistication that it has never previously possessed. It is also generally true, with this system approach, that the same level bike facility is paired with the same level of road facility. Also, the Road Authority, who design and build the roads, build the bike paths. The local consequence for active travel is that the higher level path type paths, Main Community Routes and Principal Community Routes, will need to be separated from pedestrians (other User Groups) for the facility to fulfil its function. At the top of the hierarchy the designs are specialised to play to the strengths of User Group or vehicle type (cars or bikes, but not both). This makes one design ill-suited for another User Group, so that the User Groups are best separated. User Groups should to be separated for safety reasons, if not function.
With the introduction of the Active Travel Framework the bike path has left its nest. The provision of infrastructure for bikes has always been torn by the tension between the cyclist as a “pedestrian” and the bike as vehicle (Vehicular Cyclist). Active travel now defines pedestrians, cyclists and motorists as different User Groups, and acknowledges that each User Group requires its own infrastructure.
The planning practitioners of today have seen urban planning develop from a road legacy to its logical conclusion. A bike network can be built without roads. Many User Groups are quite vulnerable. The Active Travel Framework and standards describe Safe Systems that are designed to mitigate the risks around roads. At its heart is the problem of dealing with roads. This thinking is quite limited as little thought is spent on what you could do with bike path design without roads. For example, the Estate Code (statutory document) specifies paths but only along roads. The Estate Code is silent on estate infrastructure for other User Groups. The design of independent path networks for cyclist (without any roads) is left out.
Roads are the problem not the solution. Building more roads begets more congestion. That is at the heart of the fallacy on which we have built our cities. Road building dominates urban planning discourse to the detriment of effect bike networks. Without changing our thinking, the Active Travel Framework cannot be realised. Without change, we will continue to build cookie-cutter suburbs designed around cars.
“Changing our belief systems has been put as rebuilding our house but it is more akin to trying to rebuild a rotten boat while you’re sitting in it.” Jonathan Glover
The Principal Community Route is a cycle highway
The term Principal Community Route (PCR) it is often used synonymously with the Main Community Route (MCR), however, they are quite different.
In the context of the Active Travel Framework, a Principal Community Route is a “cycle highway”. The Principal Community Route is at the top of the hierarchy, independent of roads, and can be planned and built without roads.
The financial incentives to do this are huge. You can build approximately 30 times more cycle highway (in length) for the same price of a dual lane carriage way in the ACT, which would have a Principal Community Route or Main Community Route alongside it. Dropping the overhead of the road construction (legacy), provides more money for cycle highways.
Cycle highways are found in the Key Documents as Principal Community Routes (PCR). This is important as we need standards to build one. The information is distributed through the Key Documents but needs to be summarised in one place to make it transparent.
The Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool (ATIPT) allows for the reservation of cycling corridors, which it refers to as Active Travel Route Alignments.
“Active Travel Route Alignments (ATRA) – The spatial alignment datasets of the five Active Travel Route types.”[9]
Cycle highways: grade separated from roads
The statutory planning document for active travel suggest that cycle highways are separate from roads.
“6.1.2 Statutory Planning
The main statutory planning documents are the National Capital Plan and the Territory Plan. Importantly, the objectives and requirements below need to be incorporated into proposed amendments and ACT Government variations to these documents. This is particularly important for elements of the plans such as Development Control Plans, Structure Plans or Precinct Codes that relate to specific locations.
Objective
Provide active travel facilities that respond to their environment and provide greater amenity to users.
Requirements
Consider the topography when identifying alignments for cycling routes.
Look for opportunities to connect Community Routes through green spaces or service corridors rather than following the road network, especially if these can offer more direct alignment and better grading opportunities.
Align routes for active travel transportation[10]
6.2 Estate Development Design
Objective
Provide active travel facilities that respond to their environment and provide greater amenity to users.
Requirements
Main and Local Community Routes should be intuitive and direct. Their alignment may influence the layout of the estate.
Consider the terrain when identifying Community Routes.
Look for opportunities to connect Community Routes through green spaces or service corridors rather than following the road network.”[11]
Active Travel Facilities Design MIS05
“3.3.2 Estate development – facilities in new or redeveloped areas
Walking, cycling and equestrian facilities
The Planning Authority provides strategic network planning for the pedestrian, cycling and equestrian routes in new and developing residential areas. Practitioners are to ensure the physical conditions of the facilities meet standards for each of the route types as defined in this Standard and the facilities align with the routes as shown on Active Travel Route Alignment. Active Travel Routes are to be planned to comply with the strategic planning requirements of Planning for Active Travel in the ACT.
The connectivity of routes for transportation and recreation are checked against the Active Travel Route Alignment. Figure 5-1 shows the implementation process in new urban areas (Estate Development context) and redevelopments in existing areas where the Active Travel Routes are aligned to most suit user needs. Route alignments are informed by terrain and directness to destinations and should not be dictated by road hierarchy.
If there is a need to modify Active Travel Routes as shown on Active Travel Route Alignment (for economic reasons for instance), practitioners will liaise with the Planning Authority to obtain acceptance. This should be documented in the Design Acceptance submission for the development.
Path provision requirements for verges are prescribed in the Estate Development Code (Estate Development Code), However, as the Estate Development Code requirements are related directly to road hierarchy and the Active Travel Network may utilise other green corridors for Main and Local Community Routes, the Estate Development Code may be modified to implement Active Travel Network facilities to more closely match ATR requirements (Refer Table 5-4 for more detail). …
Direct routes that take account of grade and separation at intersections require the early identification of alignments for Active Travel Routes through new areas. The urban structure or concept planning for a suburb includes an outline of the required routes for Main Community Route, Local Community Route, Equestrian Route and Main On-Road Community Routes at an early stage to identify locations which need grade separated crossings of arterial roads. The location of equestrian route crossings of arterial roads is noted and design provision for shared and separated underpasses included in the early design process.”[12]
“Estate development
Main, Local and Access Community Routes generally utilise paths and are designed for pedestrians and cyclists in accordance with the relevant ACT Standard Drawings, the Estate Development Code and the approved Estate Development Plan. Design issues to address include:
All new neighbourhoods should be made walking and cycling-friendly by following the key design principles outlined in Section 3. …
Main and Local Community Routes need not necessarily follow road alignments. When these routes are located in verges, facility provision is influenced by land use as shown in Table 5-4.”[13]
“4.4.1 Path design
Estate Development and Retrofit
Path design is to consider land use and route hierarchy contexts. For example, a trunk path on a Main Community Route through a green corridor in a suburban context will have a higher design speed than a trunk path on Local Community Route in an inner urban context. Path design will comply with AGRD06A, references to the relevant sections of AGRD06A are shown in brackets:
– Width (AGRD06A Section 5.1)
– Bicycle operating speeds (AGRD06A Section 5.2)
– Horizontal curvature (AGRD06A Section 5.3)
– Path gradients (AGRD06A Section 5.4)
– Clearances and the need for fences (AGRD06A Section 5.5)
– Crossfall and drainage (AGRD06A Section 5.6)
– Sight distance (AGRD06A Section 5.7)
– Changes in level (AGRD06A Section 5.8)
– Surface treatments and tolerances (AGRD06A Section 5.9 and 5.10)
– Lighting and underground services (AGRD06A Section 5.11 and 5.12)Paths should not be located directly adjacent to property boundaries because of the risk of blind spots particularly from drivers exiting from driveways. Paths should not be located abutting kerbs as they may locate path users in the car door opening zone or may be obstructed by refuse bins on collection days (see Table 5-5). Refer to MIS 01 Street planning and design for technical requirements for street cross section planning.”[14]
5.3 The Active Infrastructure Practitioner Tool
The Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool is embedded in the ACT urban development process. The general public, local residents and other stakeholders have a vested interest in new developments in the ACT. It can be difficult to find answers to what are sometimes simple questions. Urban development is a large machine that, by necessity, must serve the professionals and commercial partners, but Canberrans as residents and key stakeholders are important, too. These two groups are separated by both language and knowledge.
Why use the Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool?
The Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool is a website that displays ACT Government planning data from ACTmapi. The Tool is simpler than ACTmapi and provides a selection of data for Canberra’s current and future transport needs with the focus on Active Travel.
Canberra is developing very quickly. The population forecasts are dramatic. Building Canberra sufficiently quickly without compromising quality remains a challenge. The ACT has many design standards and considerations both statutory and non-statutory. Urban design is about compromise and balancing the competing interests. The balance between placemaking and transport is discuss in Movement and Place (Section 7).
Infrastructure upgrades are expensive and fraught with compromise. Greenfield construction is easier and cheaper. There is a high price to pay for mistakes in the planning of new estates. It makes sense trying to get it right the first time. While this is well known, problems with the Molonglo Valley development have led to a discussion of “quality” and ongoing attempts to improve the development process. The latest of these is the planning and development process around active travel. The Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool plays an important role in efforts to improve infrastructure quality in Canberra.
Active travel design
Active travel is supported by many documents and planning resources. References for active travel in the ACT include:
- Building an Integrated Transport Network: Active Travel (May 2015)
- Variation of the Territory Plan No 348: Incorporating Active Living Principles into the Territory Plan (27 October 2017)
- Planning for Active Travel in the ACT: Active Travel Infrastructure Interim Planning Guideline (January 2019)
- Active Travel Facilities Design – Municipal Infrastructure Standards 05 (MIS05) (April 2019)
The Active Travel Facilities Design is supported by the Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool. Here you can download the ACT Standard Drawings (ACTSD) for active travel. Particularly relevant to the new estate development are the following Standard Drawings.
- ACTSD-0521 mid-block paths crossings MCR
- ACTSD-0527 mid-block driveway crossings for paths (shared) MCR and LCR
- ACTSD-0528 side street crossings for paths (shared) MCR and LCR
Strength and weaknesses of the tool
The Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool shows existing and future community routes. The tool has the potential to:
- document existing infrastructure that is important to active travel
- prioritise its importance as part of a much large Canberra wide network of paths (Active Travel Network)
- set priorities for new paths to expand the network (some paths are more important than others)
- set priorities for the existing paths for maintenance, providing information on their relative importance in the network
- set design criteria and upgrade of paths depending on their function
- reserve corridors for future cycle highways that are essential to the network
- aid new estate development by stipulating what type of route is to be designed and the corridor’s spatial location
- make available fit-for-purpose ACT Standard Drawings (ACTSD) for active travel for each type of route including construction, surface, signage, line markings, lighting, and the intersection design.
The Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool is different to ACTmapi in that it selective shows information related to the Active Travel Network relevant to planning process from concept plans and Development Applications. An example of the spatial data is that for the road network with Local Access Streets, Minor and Major Collectors, and Arterials displayed in different colours shown in figure 5-6.
The Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool is not a project management tool either. It does not show timelines for construction, completion dates, project delays, or inform the outcome of Development Application approvals (or not). Development Applications are a better source of detail information in the later urban development phase.
New developments such as the Molonglo Valley will take 30 years to build. A simple question such as when I can walk or ride across the Molonglo Valley on a paved path cannot be answered by the Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool, as the tool does not include information regarding the sequencing of the estate construction. In the Molonglo Valley, the construction does not move from the south to the north, providing one continuous urban surface. The development is done area by area, in fragment way. It can be a decade before gaps close in the cycle path network. Paths are typically bundled with a much larger project such as a school or shopping centre. Roads are built first and buildings go up around them. In contrast, paths are built towards the end of the project after the buildings. Large projects often build from inside out and the paths on the edges are built last.
In conclusion, the routes described in the Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool will only be ridable/walkable along their entire length towards the end of the Molonglo Valley development. The earliest settlers of Coombs could have time to see their kids grow up and moved out before some paths are complete because the process puts little emphasis on path completion.
5.4 The Active Infrastructure Practitioner is dated
The Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool (ATIPT) is essential for the planning of greenfield developments. It should be kept up to date, but it is currently not. The Practitioner Tool contains the cycling corridors (Active Travel Route Alignments) that should be the starting point for estate planning.
The Practitioner Tool is out of date compared to the most current estate planning documents, perhaps because it is ignored in the planning process. The Practitioner Tool should be updated.
Why is the Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool important?
- “If there is a need to modify ATRs as shown on ATRA (for economic reasons for instance), practitioners will liaise with the Planning Authority to obtain acceptance. This should be documented in the Design Acceptance submission for the development.”
- “Datasets produced by EPSDD through the structure or concept planning and other EDP process are provided to TCCS for update of the Active Travel Route Alignments on completion of each of these processes. TCCS will update the Active Travel Route Alignments to include amendments to the alignments resolved primarily through the outcomes of feasibility and planning studies. This exercise is to be undertaken on a proposed 6 monthly basis.”[15]
Key points for the Molonglo Valley example
- Only 3 of the 6 planned crossing points currently exist.
- The 3 crossing points that doexist are all river-level crossings.
- The John Gorton Drive Bridge is location is not correct in the ATIPT.
- The river-level crossing opposite Deep Creek on the Molonglo River does not exist (survey 17/3/2020).
- The east-west arterial road bridge is also shown incorrectly in the ATIPT.
Maps section
The points from above are demonstrated on the following maps:
- Figure 5-8: Overview map for ATRA and corrections added
- Figure 5-9: Coppins Crossing and the John Gorton Drive Bridge (worryingly dated), Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool
- Figure 5-10: John Gorton Drive as planned (Biodiversity Review for S211)
- Figure 5-11: High-level planned bridge crossing from Molonglo Valley Stage 3 Planning and Design Framework
How the planning should work
“3.2 Active Travel Route Alignments
The current version of the Active Travel Routes (ATR) is available for use in preparing land development proposals at both a broad strategic scale and site specific level. The Active Travel Route Alignments (ATRA) represent an interconnected web of routes in established areas as well as indicative (future) alignments for routes in new areas. It is not intended to represent the facilities that currently exist on the routes, rather it shows the best alignments for human powered transport and recreation. …
Once the physical route alignments have been planned and included as part of the ATRA, the route type provides the basis for the design of the facilities required to serve the needs of users of the identified routes. In effect, it sets the aspirational standards for the routes. … Datasets produced by EPSD through the structure or concept planning and other EDP process are provided to TCCS for update of the Active Travel Route Alignments on completion of each of these processes. TCCS will update the Active Travel Route Alignments to include amendments to the alignments resolved primarily through the outcomes of feasibility and planning studies. This exercise is to be undertaken on a proposed 6 monthly
[1] ACT and Queanbeyan-Palerang Household Travel Survey, ACT Government, 2018, <https://www.transport.act.gov.au/about-us/planning-for-the-future/household-travel-survey> [accessed 7 July 2021].
[2] Wilkins et. Al., HILDA, Melbourne Institute, 2019, 79.
[3] ACT Government, ‘ACT Climate Change Strategy’.in Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate Website, Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate, 2020, <https://www.environment.act.gov.au/cc/act-climate-change-strategy> [accessed 8 July 2021].
[4] Transport Canberra & Canberra City Services, Planning for Active Travel in the ACT, ACT Government, 2019, https://www.cityservices.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1378545/Planning-for-Active-Travel-in-the-ACT.pdf, 22, [accessed 7 July 2021].
[5] Transport Canberra & Canberra City Services, Active Travel Facilities Design – Municipal Infrastructure Standards 05, ACT Government, 2019. <https://www.cityservices.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1382383/MIS05-Active-Travel-Facilities-Design.pdf>.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Transport Canberra & Canberra City Services, Planning for Active Travel in the ACT, ACT Government, 2019, https://www.cityservices.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1378545/Planning-for-Active-Travel-in-the-ACT.pdf, 22, [accessed 7 July 2021].
[8] Ibid.
[9] Transport Canberra & Canberra City Services, Active Travel Facilities Design – Municipal Infrastructure Standards 05, 2019.
[10] Transport Canberra & Canberra City Services, Planning for Active Travel in the ACT, 2019, 31.
[11] Transport Canberra & Canberra City Services, Planning for Active Travel in the ACT, 2019, 33.
[12] Transport Canberra & Canberra City Services, Active Travel Facilities Design – Municipal Infrastructure Standards 05, 2019, 25.
[13] Ibid., 35.
[14] Ibid., 41.
[15] Transport Canberra & Canberra City Services, Planning for Active Travel in the ACT, 2019, 12.
canberra.bike 