Shared Use vs Segregated Traffic-Free Routes

[paulah]

Behold that monument to bad converted railway design - the Middlewood Way (Marple ot Macclesfield). This which has a footpath and bridlepath separated by a barrier for much of the central section and amusingly, the two keep continually switching sides.

I've never worked out which side the cyclists are supposed to be on (and neither has anyone else by the looks of things but most prefer the footpath because it's less like a quagmire) but whichever side you cycle on, you're continually having to stop. On the wider bridlepath because you would be cycling too close to the horses and on the footpath there's usually no room for even pedestrians to pass without one party standing in the vegetation. All the barrier does is stop people from overtaking and passing.

On the plus side, it does seem to bring out the best in people, spend an hour on the Middlewood Way and you'll say and hear more "thank you's" than in the entire previous week.

[Gisen]

"Shared use" paths do not work. Pedestrians walk on the "bike" side, there seems to be no way to stop them doing so. In fact, I was knocked off a couple of weeks ago by school kids who deliberately jumped in front of me, onto the bike path, then back again, causing me to swerve and slide along on my face for a fair distance. Paths need to be totally seperate if they are to work for distance commuting.

[kwackers]

"Shared use" paths do not work. Pedestrians walk on the "bike" side, there seems to be no way to stop them doing so. In fact, I was knocked off a couple of weeks ago by school kids who deliberately jumped in front of me, onto the bike path, then back again, causing me to swerve and slide along on my face for a fair distance. Paths need to be totally seperate if they are to work for distance commuting.

I think shared paths do work, but not when segregation is via a white line.

Where the path is shared and unmarked and is used properly by cyclists (i.e. slowly and with due care) I think they're fine.

Where they're separated by a white line then ownership becomes an issue.

[Gisen]

I took "work" to mean "be useful for me" because if I have to slow down to walking speed I might as well walk. Of course it's ok for short distances but if you're going a couple of miles on these paths then then they are pointless.

[GeoffL]

Why pointless? From my point of view they are extremely worthwhile and I usually "do" between 25 and 60 miles in a day's cycling on them at an average speed of eight to ten mph. OK, that's not fast enough for everyone's taste, but if you want to get from A to B as quickly as possible there's always the A-roads!

Geoff

[kwackers]

I took "work" to mean "be useful for me" because if I have to slow down to walking speed I might as well walk. Of course it's ok for short distances but if you're going a couple of miles on these paths then then they are pointless.

Sorry - I'm generalising a bit more. I use a couple of lengths of these paths because they offer shortcuts and in one case avoid a horrible bit of dual carriageway (particularly a nasty bit coming up to a set of lights were 2 lanes become 3 and I need to be in the rh lane - very nasty in rush hour).

If you need to travel fast then shared paths are either useless or need to have 'hard' segregation. I haven't any experience of the latter so I'm not really qualified to say.

[Phil Jones]

Thanks to everyone who responded to this thread - the results are very useful indeed.

It's always difficult to be precise about classifying the responses to an open question, but here's what I've taken from the discussion (numbers show how many times the point was made)

Advantages of no segregation/Disadvantages of segregation

15 Pedestrians do not respect segregation - eg white line, planting
6 Inadequate width left for 2-way cycling/overtaking
4 Tramline paving dangerous
4 Shared use encourages better cooperation between users,
2 More expensive to have segregated path (wider)
2 Cyclists go faster when segregated -greater risk to pedestrians
1 Wider path than with segregation - easier to pass cyclists
1 Cyclists do not respect segregation
1 Dangerous/difficult for inline skaters - effect of raised line
1 Rain water retained by white line
1 Segregation not needed on low volume routes
1 Upstand kerbs used for segregation create risk
1 Fences used for segregation create risk (handlebars)
1 Segregation reduces ability of cyclists to get out peds' way
1 Segregation introduces street clutter
1 Shared use allows for groups of users - more sociable
1 Prefer shared path but with centre line (directional) marking


Disadvantages of no segregation/Advantages of segregation
2 Segregation allows cyclists to go faster
1 Shared usenpleasant to use for both peds and cyclists
1 Pedestrians do tend to move out of the way onto their side
1 Pedestrians made more aware of cyclists by markings
1 White line does give guidance to users where to be
1 Segregation by strip of grass works well
1 Segregation needed on approach to road junctions


On that basis, can I take it that CTC members have a preference for unsegregated paths over segregated ones - (even though they may not like off road paths at all )

Thanks again

Phil

[AndyB]

On that basis, can I take it that CTC members have a preference for unsegregated paths over segregated ones - (even though they may not like off road paths at all )

I'm not sure that really is a valid conclusion, since it weighs all comments equally. Even worse, several of the items in the top list are problems with different means of separating (tramline paving, white lines, upstand kerbs, fences, street clutter), as is one of the bottom list (grass). While the method of segregation is very important, the fact that people discussed the disadvantages of some and advantages of one does not demonstrate any preference for non-segregation per se, only that it can be difficult to do well. Furthermore, some of the criticisms of segregation are that the segregation doesn't happen (pedestrians don't respect it, cyclists don't respect it, segregation reduces ability of cyclists to get out of pedestrians way) - these are all (to a greater or lesser extent) also going to be problems with non-segregated paths.

I would suggest that your simple analysis can only tell you what problems might arise, and what peoples preferences are for how segregation is done. I speak as one with no preference: I always take the road.

Andy.

[Si]

On that basis, can I take it that CTC members have a preference for unsegregated paths over segregated ones - (even though they may not like off road paths at all )

Not quite: not everyone who uses this forum is a CTC member and not every CTC member uses this forum, and of those that do, not everyone responded to the question. Thus it would be wrong to attribute that particular statement to CTC members.

[CJ]

If "segregation by a strip of grass" counts as an opinion on segregated paths rather than a misunderstanding of the question, I think the question cannot have been put clearly enough.

I am sure that we would ALL (except those who never use cyclepaths as a matter of principle) much rather have exclusive use of a path at least 3m wide, as is the norm in countries with the political will to build REAL cycling facilities, than have to share that space with pedestrians.

What I thought you meant was how would we prefer to divvy up, or not divvy up, the miserably small amount of space that pedestrians and cyclists are jointly permitted in Britain. It seemed to me implicit in your question, that the amount of space for a grass strip was entirely out of the question.

[Simon L6]

On that basis, can I take it that CTC members have a preference for unsegregated paths over segregated ones - (even though they may not like off road paths at all )

Thanks again

Phil

that's the kind of research that gives research a bad name. What use it to be put to - or are we simply going to read that 'CTC members are in favour of unsegregated paths'?

[Si]

On that basis, can I take it that CTC members have a preference for unsegregated paths over segregated ones - (even though they may not like off road paths at all )

Thanks again

Phil

that's the kind of research that gives research a bad name. What use it to be put to - or are we simply going to read that 'CTC members are in favour of unsegregated paths'?

We have been commissioned by Sustrans to carry out a review of the advantages and disadvantages of segregated and non-segregated traffic-free cycle and pedestrian routes.

read more at:

http://www.philjonesassociates.co.uk

[Calandra]

A major flaw with all Sustrans routes is that they take no, or very little, account of OTHER vulnerable users - in-line skaters, horse riders, mobility scooters etc etc etc.

Being a horse rider and a cyclist, with a sister who uses a mobility scooter, I am constantly frustrated by Sustrans paths, which seem to be an ineffective mish-mash annoying almost all users, or wannabe-users, for one reason or another.

Sustrans should take note of the work done by, and the studies undertaken or commissioned by, the Mendips Cross-Trails Trust, if they wish to be an INclusive provider of paths for non-motorised users, instead of an increasingly EXclusive provider of paths for - who? - dog walkers and leisure cyclists - who are both apt to drive to an access point by car!

Surely one has only to look to the traditional bridleway or the newer restricted byway to see a REAL non-motorised multi-user path? There is surprisingly little conflict on most of these, other than when illegal motorbikes and 4WDs invade. I will grant you that most of them are unsuitable for fast cycling - but so are most Sustrans routes that I have used, and which are available (legally) for a far narrower group of users,

The principles behind which the French Voies Vertes and indeed the Spanish Vias Verdes are conceived are far superior to those of Sustrans, with an assumption of INclusivity of all non-motorised users unless circumstances dictate otherwise, unavoidably.

[Pete Owens]

If "segregation by a strip of grass" counts as an opinion on segregated paths rather than a misunderstanding of the question, I think the question cannot have been put clearly enough.

I am sure that we would ALL (except those who never use cyclepaths as a matter of principle) much rather have exclusive use of a path at least 3m wide, as is the norm in countries with the political will to build REAL cycling facilities, than have to share that space with pedestrians.

Speak for yourself.

ANY cyclepath can and will be used by pedestrians than there is no legal or practical way to prevent that. If I encounter a pedestrian or other cyclist using a path I want as much space as possible to avoid them.

If I am cycling with a group on a lightly used path I want to use the whole width to ride sociably side be side, rather than travel in single file.

You seem to think that 3m somehow represents an a "REAL" facility rather than a joke. I know it is wider than many UK paths, but that is not an adequate width for 2-way cycle traffic to pass each other and leave sufficient safety margin. The absolute minimum needed for a 2-way cycle path is 3.5m (this allows 1m for the travelling width of each cyclist with a safety margin of 50cm either side) and that gives you a poor quality path, where overtaking and passing is difficult. This is unsuitable for a significant volume of traffic. Similarly pedestrians can pass each other on a 2m path, but would benefit from more space.

So, even if you aquired an 10m coridor to build your route, it would still be better to provide a 6m wide shared surface with a wide verge either side than to provide two separate poor quality minimum standard paths.

[meic]

A lot of the roads that I cycle on around here are not 3.5m wide for all of their length.