Segregation Detail

From "Causewayhead Road and Dunster Road"

Go to the project

A shared use path is a path built for the use of pedestrians, disabled users and cyclists to share. Those using the path must be considerate to the comfort and safety of others. Generally they are best used in traffic-free routes E.g. parks or places of recreation, but can be used in an urban context to overcome specific constraints.

Our standard minimum widths for a footway is 1.8 metres, 3 metres for the cycleway and 6.5 metres for the carriageway. Along Causewayhead Road there are challenges with fitting in a segregated cycle lane due to width constraints across the road. Would you rather see the introduction of a slightly narrowed footway, cycleway and carriageway along short constrained sections (approx. 30m in length) or the introduction of a shared use path?

OPTION 1 - NARROW SEGREGATION

OPTION 2 - WIDE SHARED USE

Comments(7)

Commenting is not possible because this project is currently not active.

Most recent comments have loaded.

Profile of Terry Macdonald

Posted by:Terry Macdonald

6 years ago

I favour a segregated path as it's much safer for pedestrians especially when there are less experienced or less considerate cyclists around. The footway under the railway bridge is quite hazardous at present - the 'cyclists dismount' notice is ignored and only seems to be on one side anyway. Most cyclists don't even slow down, although there's no clear view to the other end.

1 like

Posted by:unknown author

6 years ago

If there is less than three metres width for the cycleway, it needs to be a shared path. It's questionable whether short sections of shared path interspersed with sections of segregation would be followed by pedestrians. It may just be that you have to accept the limitations of the overall width and make it a shared space from Cornton Road, through the Railway Bridge, to Dumyat Road. If Causewayhead Road is reduced to 20 mph, experienced cyclists should be comfortable using the road as an alternative over that section. Access to the carriageway would need to be provided at each end.

Profile of David Robertson

Posted by:David Robertson

6 years ago

It needs to be segregation for the majority of the route (would probably need to be shared under the railway bridge). If it were to be all shared use, pedestrians would spread out over the path and slow down cyclist constantly and it would become a safety issue. My only concern is that 2m seems pretty narrow for the cycleway as it can get busy along this route.

Profile of Ashleigh

Posted by:Ashleigh

6 years ago

Shared use is problematic for cyclists who are commuting as it can be very slow. Pedestrians tend to spread out over shared use paths, and often have headphones in and are looking at their phones. This means cyclists have to regularly slow right down, or even stop, until they are noticed. It can be dangerous for pedestrians too, as some cyclists are not cautious enough of small children and their potentially unpredictable movements. Shared paths are better for leisure routes, not commuting routes.

2 likes

Profile of Bridget Clark

Posted by:Bridget Clark

6 years ago

Continuing segregation where possible is best and gives clarity to users. Even a painted line here would help to guide users if more flexibility is needed.

Profile of Bridget Clark

Posted by:Bridget Clark

6 years ago

Under the railway bridge with railings is too narrow to be segregated safely, so slow shared use is the only practical option here.

3 likes

Profile of William Watson

Posted by:William Watson

6 years ago

I think given the narrow space available for both a two way cycle path and a footway that the second option of a shared use pathway would be safer particularly for less experienced cyclists. Please see my earlier comments re Causewayhead Road section

Posted by

unknown author on 17 February 2021

Current status

proposed