Views on shared-use paths

[drossall]

I still think that sign-posting is critical. Road networks are designed to work for visitors and locals alike. To achieve that, they are signposted for both local and distant destinations - no-one is ever going to "The North", because it's not a place, but it appears on plenty of road signs. The MK cycleways can be tricky in my experience if, like me, you're not a local. The signs tend to be to the next "village", and following them across town is really hard work. I know some go alongside the V and H roads, but even then it's easy to get disoriented.

[mjr]

I still think that sign-posting is critical. Road networks are designed to work for visitors and locals alike. To achieve that, they are signposted for both local and distant destinations - no-one is ever going to "The North", because it's not a place, but it appears on plenty of road signs. The MK cycleways can be tricky in my experience if, like me, you're not a local. The signs tend to be to the next "village", and [...]

At last when I left, the signs included both the next district in lower case and one of a limited number of distant destinations in capitals ( CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES, NEWPORT PAGNELL, KINGSTON, BLETCHLEY, STONY STRATFORD, and I think WOLVERTON). As route numbers were added (NCN 6, H2, V4,. ..), those appeared in the point of the finger >.

[drossall]

My last visit was some time back, so they could well have improved.

[Aikon]

Shared use paths form a lot of my cycling, for me the key is similar to cycling in London, take my time and be kind.

Locally in Northants we have a reasonable number of shared paths, I also cycle regularly in Cambridge, MK & London.

Cambridge tourists, and MK’s school kids can often take up the width of the path, 10-30 deep, a polite greeting and a bell usually works, and always thank people, it’s rare for someone to get uptight about sharing, and the last one that did got a proper ticking off from his wife for his attitude toward me when I was nothing but polite.

[Nearholmer]

There have been some improvements in signage especially on the core network of main paths (now called “super Redways”), but it’s one of those things that the council seems to allocate a budget to each year, and it runs out rather quickly. At the moment, they’re going round reinstating missing “village” signs at the bridges as you go into each area, but while that will help locals, I can’t imagine visitors getting much from it.

TBH, as a visitor or someone passing through, you’re best using google maps (turn on the cycling option), because that actually has better data on the cycle paths than CycleTravel or CycleStreets, I think because the delivery robots mapped it all for their own purposes, then kindly shared it with us mere humans. The OpenStreetMap data are very inaccurate/incomplete.

[Nearholmer]

I didn’t really mean this to be solely about MK, more a way of illustrating that shared-use paths can be a very good thing, if well-made and provided where they fit the bill.

So, here’s a rural one that I’d give 8.5/10 to:

This goes from Buckingham to Winslow, so “inter village” and is a repurposed and upgraded former pavement. It saves cycling in a road that is busy, fast, and has some quite twisty sections.

1.5 points deducted, because where it interfaces with a couple of side-roads, and where it crosses from one side of the carriageway to the other, the design is a bit flakey.

[Zulu Eleven]

There are some com0lex issues with the MK redways network. Their legal status is, ahem, ‘complex’, and some potential minefields lie there (eg enforceability of planning conditions etc). One of the interesting things is that the ROW team have deliberately avoided the Bridleway network being subsumed and resurfaced in a way that would be detrimental to equestrian users.

The broad point you make though, that they have been viewed, from the outset, as genuine multi-user paths rather than cycle infrastructure is a good one - if you design for one user you risk deterring others, and more research really does need to go into the effect of different motivations/speeds of cyclists on other users on mixed-use paths (eg commuters tend to travel faster, and as you mention e-bikes are a potential issue there.

What’s interesting is that LTN 1/20 is pretty negative regards shared use, to the point that the redways network would be difficult to fund under current rules… that seems like a mistake to me.

[Nearholmer]

^^^

It seems a huge, gigantic, enormous mistake to me too.

The current guidance seems to be tipping the team at MKC towards thought of segregating bits of path for pedestrians and cyclists, which IMO would be a huge folly, except perhaps at one or two “pressure points” where usage sometimes exceeds what can be accommodated safely.

A lot of it is founded in the idea that people can’t share nicely, when in fact there is daily evidence of the vast majority doing exactly that. It seems that a combination of thinking derived from very heavily used areas, and the mess that is “put up a blue sign on a narrow pavement in an urban area” has made “shared use” into dirty words.

[pjclinch]

I didn’t really mean this to be solely about MK, more a way of illustrating that shared-use paths can be a very good thing, if well-made and provided where they fit the bill.

There's a great example by the A91 to St. Andrews from Guardbridge. The A road is single carriageway, quite busy and has enough bends to make what overtaking opportunities there are (what with the "quite busy" thing) even sparser.
The first wee bit isn't very nice, just being pavement directly adjacent to the road, but after a little of that it moves behind a fence/wall/hedgerow for a much longer stretch.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/zkSpR42XadjsDyRe7

It is so much nicer on the path than the carriageway, and that's not because of bad driving but the relentless overtaking where it's possible interspersed with knowing you're building up a big line of traffic behind where it isn't.

There are no side roads to give way to, I typically meet a handful of runners or walkers in a couple of miles, it's sensibly wide and well surfaced. In fact it's not too different to various rural paths I've used in NL where there isn't sufficient traffic to make separate footway and fietspad worth having.

Pete.

[mjr]

The current guidance seems to be tipping the team at MKC towards thought of segregating bits of path for pedestrians and cyclists, which IMO would be a huge folly, except perhaps at one or two “pressure points” where usage sometimes exceeds what can be accommodated safely.

This wouldn't be new. It already exists in a few places, such as the underpass by Galley Hill shops, which used to get really busy at school home time.

As to osm having incorrect info (which it seems to, as there are paths I'm sure I cycled marked as foot-only, and connections missing between redways and parallel minor roads), please correct it. Google maps is terrible at cycling and we should try to avoid MK residents having a double whammy of worse infrastructure and homocidal routing when they ride outside the city.

The superredways and even some of the older grid redways and named routes seem to be missing from osm. It would probably help routing if someone can add them. Would anyone like to crowd fund me to ride my old home city and fill in the gaps?

Another routing challenge is Sustrans seem to have gone full "SustScenicRoute" when routing NCN 6&51 through, so they're mainly unhelpful distractions to navigation engines.

[Nearholmer]

^^^

Sounds somewhat similar to the one completed last year between Lewes and Eastbourne, in parallel with the very, very busy A27. That even has some rather nice bridges to allow it to cross small rivers separately from the main carriageway, and it’s the only one I’ve seen where the crossing of the carriageway on the level is well thought-out.

Street view isn’t up to date, otherwise I’d show some pictures.

would probably help routing if someone can add them. Would anyone like to crowd fund me to ride my old home city and fill in the gaps?

Every time this comes up, I get a guilt pang, because learning how to do it, then doing it, is a public service I know I ought to do!

Another routing challenge is Sustrans seem to have gone full "SustScenicRoute" when routing NCN 6&51 through, so they're mainly unhelpful distractions to navigation engines.

So very true. Another service to humanity would be to show “sensible, but not quite so scenic” main routes n-s and e-w for people “going somewhere” on 51 & 6, who don’t want to ramble all about the place. Here’s where the two routes cross currently. A pleasant enough park, but not somewhere you need to go if on a schedule.

[Zulu Eleven]

And therein lies the problem with the NCN, it is neither man nor beast, unable to identify its primary purpose as a transport (utility & commuting) network or a leisure & recreation network. Thus it tries to appeal to both, leaving everyone dissatisfied.

The fact is that many of the sections of traffic free route, the primary function (fir 22 hours a day, at least) dogwalking/emptying - so the focus on cycle infrastructure (and indeed, demands for resurfacing etc. in order to promote commuting/utility cycling is often woefully misguided and not one of catering equally to all users.

As for ‘conflict’. We’ve got somewhere in the region of 25-30,000 miles of shared use routes that have run for decades without significant problems… it only seems to become a problem when we try and push commuters on to them.

[thirdcrank]

I think it's important to understand that other groups may be opposed to sharing space with cyclists.

The National Federation of the Blind of the UK (NFBUK) is one such group. Here are two of their publications which are worth readig by anybody who believes that only selfish drivers object to the various forms of "shared use"

https://www.nfbuk.org/campaign/pavement ... or-people/

https://www.nfbuk.org/campaign-category ... vironment/

[pjclinch]

As for ‘conflict’. We’ve got somewhere in the region of 25-30,000 miles of shared use routes that have run for decades without significant problems… it only seems to become a problem when we try and push commuters on to them.

Or rather, we try and increase the number of cyclists from 2% modal transport share to an order of magnitude more.
There's quite a few things that have been fine for ages but creak when put to significantly more use (e.g., just about every road that's ever been upgraded as traffic flows increase).

Pete.

[Nearholmer]

The point made by blind people is important, but again I wonder if it’s founded in a particular mental picture of what “shared use” means or implies in terms of density of use, nature of path, quality of “sharing nicely” etc ……. Back to “might they really be thinking of those blasted repurposed-on-the-cheap pavements?”.

Sustrans? Devil’s own job they’ve taken on, and frankly I understand why “the long thin bits” between clusters of paths that are of local utility sometimes feel decidedly notional: the number of potential users for many of them away from National Parks and AONB is very small. Added to which, Sustrans functions largely as a facilitator, it isn’t a body with immense funds to deploy. However, in many cases they could publish the routes of “bypasses” where their chosen route is very convoluted to touch particular tourist destinations.