Why don't we advocate Segregated cycle routes?

[GrasB]

If you're going to do segregation you've got to do it right, around town you don't have the space & between large population centres the cost would be prohibitively high I feel. That said it'd be nice to see a network of relatively direct segregated cycleways criss crossing the country so you didn't have to ride on the major trunk roads if you want to go between town without going miles out of your way to avoid major routes.

 

[Ian H]

If you're going to do segregation you've got to do it right, around town you don't have the space & between large population centres the cost would be prohibitively high I feel. That said it'd be nice to see a network of relatively direct segregated cycleways criss crossing the country so you didn't have to ride on the major trunk roads if you want to go between town without going miles out of your way to avoid major routes.

Checking a map is a useful exercise. You'll quite often find the most direct route is via lanes and old, by-passed roads. The new trunk roads often weave around conurbations and are not as direct as they seem in a car.

 

[GrasB]

Yes & no, the main trunk roads tends to go places you want to go in general & while you can cut corners often when looking at routes I see that the direct route takes in long sections of trunk road.

 

[marinyork]

Checking a map is a useful exercise. You'll quite often find the most direct route is via lanes and old, by-passed roads. The new trunk roads often weave around conurbations and are not as direct as they seem in a car.

Depends where you live. In many areas of the country the opposite is true. The trunk roads are the most direct route and most of the lanes running other routes will join up in triangles or other odd shapes where you have to zig zag violently to go in a straight line. It's not true of everywhere there are a few lucky places like Lincolnshire, East Anglia and bits of the south and south west where there seem to be proper patch work quilts of lanes or ones that are pretty direct.

The problem about some of the really major trunk roads is that they create major problems for cycling by restricting choices. This is normally associated with a lack of bridges whether it be over railways, rivers, motorways or whatever.

 

[jonesy]

...

The problem about some of the really major trunk roads is that they create major problems for cycling by restricting choices. This is normally associated with a lack of bridges whether it be over railways, rivers, motorways or whatever.

Yes, which is exactly the sort of situation off-road cycle paths can be very helpful for. In that respect the Sustrans Connect2 programme, by focusing on short links to overcome barriers in populated areas, is a welcome progression from the NCN, being far better targeted onto locations where off-road provision can actually make a difference.

 

[jonesy]

I am too, but I can see that in places there may be benefits to it.

Within cities, get rid of cycle lanes, just lower speed limits and a few other things will help.

Between towns (out of built up areas), where fast, busy lanes are the order of the day I can see a use. Certainly, where I posted a bit of my commute, if that had a separate bike lane which was well designed, I would use it. That road would not be used by children or people who weren't that experienced (brave, or stupid) without some type of provision.

...

Most people here will largely agree with this (though fast, major roads also occur within cities) and, better still, what you have described is basically what is advocated by official guidance on cycle infrastructure provision- NB, the 'hierarchy of measures' is based on Dutch guidance, so let's not get carried away with the idea that Dutch practice is solely about segregation...

 

[marinyork]

Yes, which is exactly the sort of situation off-road cycle paths can be very helpful for. In that respect the Sustrans Connect2 programme, by focusing on short links to overcome barriers in populated areas, is a welcome progression from the NCN, being far better targeted onto locations where off-road provision can actually make a difference.

I agree, although what I would say about connect2 is that locally they bodged that up by ignoring some of the harder more rewarding reserve schemes in favour of a bit of promotion of one of their poorly used sections of NCNs (basically because there are no entry/exit points!). I still think it's worth thinking about doing, but I think they've told a few porkies on the desirability of it and certainly the value for money. Still maybe they'll do something after connect2. I just hope some of the other connect2 schemes further afield are better.

 

[jonesy]

I agree, although what I would say about connect2 is that locally they bodged that up by ignoring some of the harder more rewarding reserve schemes in favour of a bit of promotion of one of their poorly used sections of NCNs (basically because there are no entry/exit points!). I still think it's worth thinking about doing, but I think they've told a few porkies on the desirability of it and certainly the value for money. Still maybe they'll do something after connect2. I just hope some of the other connect2 schemes further afield are better.

Well at least they'd have had plenty of choice in that respect!

The schemes I'm aware of are all likely to be beneficial, in that they will help remove a barrier to walking or cycling for journeys that could otherwise be made by these modes. I wouldn't say they are all necessarily the highest priority schemes in their areas, but sometimes local politics makes the better choices unavailable.

 

[marinyork]

Well at least they'd have had plenty of choice in that respect!

The schemes I'm aware of are all likely to be beneficial, in that they will help remove a barrier to walking or cycling for journeys that could otherwise be made by these modes. I wouldn't say they are all necessarily the highest priority schemes in their areas, but sometimes local politics makes the better choices unavailable.

The scheme I'm criticising is Killamarsh in North Derbyshire. I wouldn't really have a problem if Connect2 wasn't a one off or that sustrans spent more of their £25m a year on this thing slightly more often.

 

[jonesy]

The scheme I'm criticising is Killamarsh in North Derbyshire. I wouldn't really have a problem if Connect2 wasn't a one off or that sustrans spent more of their £25m a year on this thing slightly more often.

I've had a quick look, and I see what you mean...

http://www.sustransconnect2.org.uk/schemes/project_detail.php?id=101

I'm not convinced all the rather higgledy-piggledy routes shown on the map are on priority desire lines!

 

[Ian H]

Depends where you live.

Oh definitely.

 

[equicyclist]

Im assuming that there are many types of cyclist and the leisure cyclist using off road cycleways for pleasure wants different things to the road cyclist who wants to go from A to B quickly and safely. Should the urban cycleways be segregated like the roads? Do cyclists need a separate marked track to walkers? Do any of you have multi user routes that are not segregated?
Here it has been said that the way to make the roads safer is to push the cars and cyclists together so they have to look out for each other, not keep them apart.

 

[jonesy]

...Should the urban cycleways be segregated like the roads? Do cyclists need a separate marked track to walkers? Do any of you have multi user routes that are not segregated?
....

I'm not keen on trying to segregate pedestrians from cyclists on off-road paths. All that happens is that pedestrians use the cycle lane part anyway, which they have every right to do, and then you get conflict between cyclists and pedestrians of a similar nature to the conflict you get between cyclists and drivers when cyclists don't stay in their marked out area (the Commuting forum here is replete with such examples...).

DfT has drafted some guidance on shared use paths, still not published in final form:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives....e/2004/ltnwc/ltn204adjacentandsharedusefa1692

 

[GrasB]

jonesy, there is already conflict with cyclists/pedestrians on shared facilities, both marked segregation & unsegregated.

 

[dellzeqq]

When it comes to paths shared between cyclists and pedestrians we have to hold up a mirror to ourselves, and accept that what we see may not be particularly edifying. Cyclists routinely rush by pedestrians, often without warning or sometimes just sounding a bell (which I rate as rudeness). It's no use saying that only a minority of cyclists do this (although years of working by the Regents Canal suggest to me that at the very least a substantial minority of cyclists do this) - we have to accept that it is not right for pedestrians to feel put upon, or bullied by cyclists.