Forum

Hi Pete

It is vital to the Connect2 project that these new links are seen to enable all non-motorised users to travel in their neighbourhood in a direct and sustainable way - the route will provide an advantage over the motorcar. We hope that any new link will be of use to commuters and those making utility trips, as well as providing a public space that suits itself to more leisurely trips.

Our routes are designed to be shared between different users and pedestrians will always have priority, but good design and adequate width can ensure that cyclists do not feel disadvantaged by this. Of course, any cyclist wishing to use the route as part of a time trial may be disappointed, but we feel that everyday cyclists, including those on the way to work will find the conditions for their journey have improved immensely.

Regarding wheelchair and tandem access, the routes will comply fully with the Disabilities Discrimination Act and will be free of motorcycle barriers - it is Sustrans policy not to install them. 

Cheers

Paul Hilton (Sustrans Technical Officer)

I would like to lend my support to the proposed route.  However, I think we need to be clear whether this is meant to be a route for leisure cycling or a route for transport cycling.

My experience on many Sustrans routes is that they are built with the cyclist as the traveller who is assumed to have the lowest priority at all points (eg. shared paths with pedestrians where cyclist have to give way to pedestrians, road junctions where pedestrians and motorists have priority over cyclists.)  This is less of a problem if one is out for a gentle ride because it is a nice day.  It is a total turn off if one is cycling to work, to the shops and using the route as part of a transport system.  The term ‘system’ is, of course, the key word.  As yet, cycling in the UK is not treated as a system and so local authorities can get away with all sorts of silly ‘cycle paths’ that are a joke from the users’ point of view.  Imagine if the design criteria for cycle routes were applied to roads.  I imagine there would be riots across the country!

So, enough of this rant.  Could I also beg the designer(s) to give thought to active independent disabled users.  My wife falls into the latter category and is regularly frustrated by poor design.  For example the inclusion of ‘wheel-chair’ enabled kissing gates.  These are usually designed for short hospital wheel chairs, and seem to assume that the user will be pushed by a carer.  Our off-road chair with its handcycle  attachment is too long and even if the bay were long enough, does not have a reverse gear for getting out, never mind a device for switching the (spring loaded) gate.  So it is quite impossible to use such a facility without an attendant carer.

We also use a tandem tricycle which is a superb machine for people with sight problems and limited walking or poor balance.  It is great on rail trails as the gradients are reasonable and one can get the feeling of ‘flying along’.  However, where bridges are knocked out the designers usually instal very steep drops down to the ground level and up the other side.  Fine for the ABs, but tough for handcyclists and tandem trikes.  Of course there will also be the motor bike barriers... 

So, yes, please go for a Nantwich - Crewe route but imagine it is to be used by horse riders.  We find that routes that include them usually have good gates and do not have all the bike barriers that cycle only routes have. I think there is a good chance that such a route would be heavily used as there is a lot of traffic between the two towns with many people living in one and working in the other.

Pete 

You've raised a very good and much discussed point.

When installing sections of cycle network, we usually dedicate our efforts on the initial construction of low maintenance and easily sustainable routes. Lighting can then be put in at a later date when funding and planning restrictions allow. In the first instance, lighting is usually reserved for particularly dark sections such as tunnels. 

We are constantly looking into affordable and sustainable methods of lighting the networks. Examples include 'cats-eye' style LED's or even motion sensors to turn lights on or off.

One of the major issues we've come across when building routes is ensuring that they are low impact and do little to alter the character of rural areas. Factors such as light or noise pollution have to be kept to a minimum and have an enormous effect on the success of planning applications. Much like the majority or rural roads or lanes the network has to remain unlit where it will have an effect on the character of an area.

There is also the issue of the on-going maintenance of paths. There's around 10,000 miles of National Cycle Network at present in the UK, of which some 7,500 is in rural areas. We're unfortunately restricted by the high costs and practicalities of installing and then maintaining lighting over such a distance. 

If you’re concerned about issues when using cycle paths, you might find it interesting to look at the following documents which discuss conflict on shared use paths. They are slightly aged (2001) but definitely provide an encouraging message, stating "conflict is very infrequent, and is generally slight...":

Left click to view the following PDF's:

http://www.sustransconnect2.org.uk/docs/howpeople_1-12010.pdf http://www.sustransconnect2.org.uk/docs/Howpeople_tcm2-11972.pdf

Whilst sections remain unlit however, it's probably worth popping in to your local bike shop and investing in some bike lights. There's a great number of very effective, light weight and easy to use lights that are available for under the £30 mark. They will be useful for the cycle network and essential when riding on the road.    

I hope that's of some use,

This post was edited by a moderator at 12/02/2007 16:16