• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

If a cyclist, do you use dedicated cycle paths?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
View attachment 98241

credit - cyclinguphil.com

may use this one. Lots like it in the uk often with more dangerous ends.

That's just bad all round, there's no need for the line at the far, there's no end marking. Assuming that cyclists are supposed to join a shared facility (there's no obvious markings or signs though) that's still not an ideal layout as they join then have to giveway to the side road/access almost straight away.

As it's next to a pedestrian crossing point,* it would have been better to have built an island which was ~1.5m wide with a ~1.5m cycle gap between the main footway and the island. As that would have aided pedestrians in crossing the road and would have given the cyclists more protection without impacting other road users (as the solid cyclelane marking indicates that cars must not enter it anyway).

The latest guidelines for cycle design should help, as they recommend that the designer cycle the route so that they understand the needs of a cyclist.

Edit: *looking again it's courdry paving (start/end on footway cycle facilities) not tactile paving, however the rest of the point still stands as the mandatory cycle lane has "closed" that lane to other traffic anyway.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
It seems to be a problem that sometimes the designers don’t cycle themselves. This one is a problem that didn’t need solving and appeared out of the COVID funding.

Previously it was a 2 lane road with a wide path.

Crossing this route I never felt under threat until this appeared. If I was with a child it is a wide pavement so you can cycle on it without irritating pedestrians. On a bike you cycled in the left lane moving to the right in time for the roundabout. Now if the lights are red you struggle to get into the right lane. The motorist that are already irritated won’t let you in as they were delayed by the loss of a lane. The cyclists have a conflict that previously didn’t exist. We have both lost and our respective transport choices are made worse as a result of this cycle Lane. Going the other direction it is even worse.

I have put my feedback in I live in the area suggesting it is removed.

i have cycled in many European countries. Well maintained and segregated cycle lanes are great. With the cyclists getting priority over turning cars from the main road to cross the lane. (which is not the case in the uk currently). in the uk as others have said they are not maintained well so you are often fighting nettles, brambles, trees etc.

 

Attachments

  • E6AE58D4-F297-46FB-954D-11D499DD8D2A.jpeg
    E6AE58D4-F297-46FB-954D-11D499DD8D2A.jpeg
    672.8 KB · Views: 41

duncombec

Member
Joined
3 Sep 2014
Messages
775
Seeing the photograph of the short cycle lane above reminds me of a website I used to peruse occasionally years ago, and I'm surprised it's still around: enter "Weird Cycle Lanes of Brighton", showing how even a well-clued council can get things totally wrong!


I rather wish I'd been in a better position to stop and take some photographs of the things I encountered on an hour's ride last night... all known to me, but would illustrate some of the points being raised in this thread perfectly.
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,609


I don't think I have ever followed a Cyclists Dismount sign anywhere I wouldn't have dismounted anyway, and I don't intend to start anytime soon!
When I still lived in the UK, those were put up at the entrance to a golf club on a very wide segregated cycle path along a dual carriage way.
Link to Google streetview, Entrance to Berrington Hall from A570.
No other junction along that cycle lane was deemed to require them, So why is a cyclist going along the main right of way at 20-30km/hr be required to dismount to cross the entrance and exit of a car park? For the record, I have never ever seen anyone dismount.

They are the most enfuriating signs in the world and should be banned. Why should cyclists even have to give way in this scenario. Roads should be designed to keep the cyclists flowing at all but the busiest intersections.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
When I still lived in the UK, those were put up at the entrance to a golf club on a very wide segregated cycle path along a dual carriage way.
Link to Google streetview, Entrance to Berrington Hall from A570.
No other junction along that cycle lane was deemed to require them, So why is a cyclist going along the main right of way at 20-30km/hr be required to dismount to cross the entrance and exit of a car park? For the record, I have never ever seen anyone dismount.

They are the most enfuriating signs in the world and should be banned. Why should cyclists even have to give way in this scenario. Roads should be designed to keep the cyclists flowing at all but the busiest intersections.
That is my point, in Germany and Austria the cycle way would have priority in such a situation and they cycle way would be straight and inclined. But if you get a lot of this kind of road crossing on cycleway, people stop using it as it is more relaxing to stay on the road rather then constantly stop (not dismount of course)
 

JohnMcL7

Member
Joined
18 Apr 2018
Messages
861
Like many others I'm the same in that it depends on how usable the cycle path is and also what sort of bike I'm on. The main cycle routes here are slightly widened pavements and not remotely suited to bikes going 20+ mph as they're far too narrow which means either cyclist go belting past people too close or have to keep slowing down as well as having to slow down/stop/accelerate constantly for each junction. There was a fairly significant project to build a new cycle path out to a popular location here but it's incredibly narrow with almost no room for two way cyclist traffic as intended, there's no maintenance ever done on it and it's right beside the road so it's always littered with debris and dangerous to rode on bikes with narrower tyres. Since my day to day bike is a road bike (I'm not getting another bike to deal with badly designed cycle paths nor should anyone have to) in occasions like above I'll use the road instead, I don't like cyclists buzzing past me when I'm walking so I'm not going to do it to others.

However good cycle paths are very welcome and I very much like to use them, there's a retail park here and the official cycle route was a narrow pavement shared with pedestrians and right next to a 50mph dual carriageway with no separation as well as needing to cross a 70mph slip road with no traffic lights which was not fun so often ended up trying to go at night when it was quiet. However they built a dedicated cycle path going through quiet fields and it's absolutely superb and makes it easy to get to the retail centre at any time, noticeably there's always a good variety of different people getting the use out of as well. They've also been creating some cycle routes by linking together back streets that don't allow traffic to flow through only access which are also great to use.
 

Speed43125

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
1,131
Location
Dunblane
I have to say I do use them when on a busy road with decent segregation, and in town, where it's almost always just piggybacking off footpaths I would stick to the cycle lane. However, often in towns it is merely a converted half of the pavement and then I don't bother, even if it means pedalling hard to keep up with traffic taking off from traffic lights. Outside of towns cycle lanes made of pavements work fine as the foot traffic is limited, and quite frankly, so is the cycle traffic, at least here in Stirlingshire, and the few neighbouring counties (Clacks/Perth and Kinross).

I find that often a cycle lane will be provided when within a 20 or 30 limit, but when the speed limited goes to 40 or National, the cycle lane will suddenly disappear right as the speed differential increases. The B823 is particularly bad for this as both the Bridge of Allan and Stirling ends have some very comfortable cycle lanes that are largely smooth and pretty fun to ride on, the off give way to driveways excepted - and far superior to the adjacent A9 (which only redeems itself by running next to the railway!) - but the central bit especially going south has nothing and has the cycle lane end right after a level crossing on a sharp left hand bend which can be very frightening waiting to pull back out onto the road.

If there's a road with a painted cycle lane at the edge I will try and stick to it as much as possible. I ride a mountain bike (albeit with a hybrid tyre on the back) with the suspension constantly on the softest setting so potholes are less of a bother to me.

Cycling on the pavement seems to be the standard way of dealing with scary roads around here, and when tired I have definitely joined that bandwagon.
 

david1212

Established Member
Joined
9 Apr 2020
Messages
1,464
Location
Midlands
I am not a cyclist not least as my commute is 12 miles plus neither main roads nor lanes very suitable even in summer.

A few years ago near where I live footpath alongside a section of road just under a mile long mostly with a 40mph limit that is both busy and accident prone was converted to a shared footpath and cycle path. The reported cost was £250000.

However some cyclists do not use it which is both frustrating and an accident risk. Just this morning heading in the opposite direction to me a cyclist was leading a queue of traffic. The first vehicle was a builders merchants delivery lorry with no chance of passing.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
I am not a cyclist not least as my commute is 12 miles plus neither main roads nor lanes very suitable even in summer.

A few years ago near where I live footpath alongside a section of road just under a mile long mostly with a 40mph limit that is both busy and accident prone was converted to a shared footpath and cycle path. The reported cost was £250000.

However some cyclists do not use it which is both frustrating and an accident risk. Just this morning heading in the opposite direction to me a cyclist was leading a queue of traffic. The first vehicle was a builders merchants delivery lorry with no chance of passing.

There are many reasons that cyclists don't use facilities for them. However that is down to the individual.

Frustrating, yes, however cyclists are entitled to pass and repass on the adopted highway (as are pedestrians) and (as long as they follow the law) in any way that they like.

For instance it would be perfectly reasonable for a group of pedestrians to walk up the middle of one lane of traffic on that road. If the police were called then they could only really advise that they use the footway.

There's often a view held by too many car drivers that cyclists are an annoyance that shouldn't be in their way. The reality is that the amount of delay caused by cyclists in general is below zero. As whilst occasionally traffic is held up by a cyclist, if everyone cycling were to drive congestion would be much much worse, as would trying to find a parking space.

The entire population of the UK would be able to fit (sit down and havea picnic) into the space of (a 3 lane in each direction) motorway which ran from one end of the country to the other. Most of the space we take up is down to using cars.

For instance the footprint of my driveway is 2/3rds of that of my house (with the other 1/3rd being the road in front of my house).

It gets worse at work, the car park is about the same areas as 2 of the 3 floors of the 3 story building. And worse still at the local supermarket where the store could be twice the size if 1/3 of the parking was lost.

I've said it before, there are more cars than there are tax payers in this country (which isn't reflected in many households where there's 2 working and one or no cars).
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,085
Frustrating, yes, however cyclists are entitled to pass and repass on the adopted highway (as are pedestrians) and (as long as they follow the law) in any way that they like.

I agree, but if some cyclists do not use cycle paths, built at some expense, is this a good use of the money? Would it not be more sensible to use the money to fix all of our potholes, which would benefit both cyclsts and motorists (and be safer for cyclists if they do not have to swerve to avoid potholes)?
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,642
Location
Northern England
Shared foot/cylepaths are a terrible design which, apart from some niche situations, needs to be phased out entirely. They are dangerous to pedestrians and gratuitously slow down cyclists. It always comes across to me as a bit of a half-a***d solution and a cheap-out, when you could just narrow the road a little more, put in an extra kerb on each side, and have a proper segregated arrangement which is a million times better for everyone involved.

There is certainly no excuse for new roads being opened in the 2020s without proper cycle and pedestrian infrastructure separated from both each-other and from motor vehicles. If the road is too expensive to build with that facility, then it should be considered too expensive to build, full-stop.
 

dm1

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2017
Messages
206
I agree, but if some cyclists do not use cycle paths, built at some expense, is this a good use of the money? Would it not be more sensible to use the money to fix all of our potholes, which would benefit both cyclsts and motorists (and be safer for cyclists if they do not have to swerve to avoid potholes)?
A shared use pedestrian/bike path is not good cycle infrastructure, in most cases it's a cop-out. So no, in most cases they are not a good use of money and there are often perfectly good reasons why they don't get used.

That doesn't mean that good cycle infrastructure (that also costs money) isn't absolutely necessary. Compare the costs of building a road from scratch and the costs of building a good cycle-highway and then the benefits of both and you will see that in almost all cases the cost-benefit calculation will almost always favour the cycle-highway. Nowadays, almost all road projects have a negative (<1) or at most neutral BCR, while cycle infrastructure can have BCRs as high as 3 or 4 (for every £1 you spend building it, you get £3-4 in benefits).

Potholes are indeed an issue - but they are more down to this country's inability to maintain things properly using a consistent maintenance budget that doesn't get cut as soon as money is tight elsewhere.
 

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
3,576
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
Growing up there were cycle paths on both sides of part of my route to school. Did I use them ? Rarely, because at every side road motorists had priority. Nowadays the junctions have been altered so that the cycle lane is continuous, but would I trust motorists to stop short of the cycle path ? Not a chance !

Near where I live now the council have created a cycle lane on a busy main road by coning it off, with the result that it is now covered in debris, and with the aforementioned hazards of side roads, and bus stops. Then a junction where the left hand lane was for turning left only.... I wanted to go straight on. A bit further on again, round a bend to see a roadworks sign blocking the cycle lane requiring me to immediately leave it while trying to avoid the cones and check for traffic behind.... If only I had more eyes. So it is entirely understandable why cyclists sometimes do not use cycle lanes.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,024
Location
West Wiltshire
Depends on the cycle path, will use quality ones.

But the bad bodged ones that zig-zag around poles, have random gaps, switch between cycle and shared zones, have right angles (yes I have seen one where painted lines actually turned 90 degrees), change width randomly, or are like a roller coaster as they are built on driveway crossovers, then I generally feel safer on the road.
 

Doctor Fegg

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2010
Messages
1,814
I am not a cyclist not least as my commute is 12 miles plus neither main roads nor lanes very suitable even in summer.

A few years ago near where I live footpath alongside a section of road just under a mile long mostly with a 40mph limit that is both busy and accident prone was converted to a shared footpath and cycle path. The reported cost was £250000.

However some cyclists do not use it which is both frustrating and an accident risk. Just this morning heading in the opposite direction to me a cyclist was leading a queue of traffic. The first vehicle was a builders merchants delivery lorry with no chance of passing.
Having priced up similar projects, I can tell you that a one-mile cycle path for £250,000 (assuming funded and project managed by the local highways authority) is not exactly going to get you a high-quality cycle superhighway. It will get you a slightly wider path and some signage. If there are any side-road crossings there won't be anything other than a cursory give-way treatment.

So if you have a cyclist on a road bike capable of riding at 20mph, it is almost certainly safer for them, and any pedestrians using the path, for them to continue to use the road. The value of the cycleway is for slower and less confident cyclists.

And really: let's say the delivery lorry was stuck behind the cyclist for the full mile at 20mph, rather than travelling at their usual 40mph. That means they took three minutes rather than 90 seconds to cover the mile. If you get so annoyed that you have to post on a forum about a 90-second delay, I'm not convinced you should be on the road.

Shared foot/cylepaths are a terrible design which, apart from some niche situations, needs to be phased out entirely.
I wouldn't go that far. Shared paths are almost always the wrong answer in urban areas. They are very often the right answer in rural areas, if designed properly. If you have a three-mile roadside path between villages, the number of pedestrians using it will always be low; much better to build a wider shared-use path than two narrow paths.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,642
Location
Northern England
Depends on the cycle path, will use quality ones.

But the bad bodged ones that zig-zag around poles, have random gaps, switch between cycle and shared zones, have right angles (yes I have seen one where painted lines actually turned 90 degrees), change width randomly, or are like a roller coaster as they are built on driveway crossovers, then I generally feel safer on the road.
Indeed. Bad cycle infrastructure is worse than no infrastructure, because cyclists won't use it, and then you have annoyed motorists who are likely to be more hostile towards cyclists as a result. Or cyclists will use it under the illusion that it's good when it's not, possibly putting them in danger.

I wouldn't go that far. Shared paths are almost always the wrong answer in urban areas. They are very often the right answer in rural areas, if designed properly. If you have a three-mile roadside path between villages, the number of pedestrians using it will always be low; much better to build a wider shared-use path than two narrow paths.
I'll concede that in cases where traffic from one mode is very low, it makes sense for both modes to share the space. But where they are used, what shared paths do need, which is almost never done, is physical separation from the motor vehicle carriageway. Part of the reason I feel so unsafe on a shared path is that if I have to swerve to the right for any reason I'm likely to end up in the road. Just a pavement with some paint on it is not good enough.
 

Doctor Fegg

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2010
Messages
1,814
Yep. DfT guidance does say that (over a certain minimum road speed) there should be separation from the carriageway, but as ever, local councils tend to cheap out.
 

chorleyjeff

Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
673
This thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/london-green-transport-usage-drops.218658/ discusses the drop in numbers of passengers on buses and trains as a consequence of Covid, and suggests cycling is now more dangerous because of the increase in the number of cars being driven.

Near where I live, the Council has spent £££'s providing dedicated cycle paths, mostly sharing pavements with pedestrians in dedicated lanes. However, the few cyclists I have seen have continued to use the road.

If you are a regular cyclist, do you use dedicated cycle paths where provided, or do you stay on the road? If the latter, why? (I'm ignoring paths delineated by white lines on road - I'm interested in where separate paths are provided.)
Where I live. Former main road into town now quiet road with cycle lanes. Cyclists use pavements.
Town centre pedestrianised streets. Cyclists use as roads.
Main road between town and village with grass verge, footpath, grass verge, cycle track, grass verge road with regular central bollards and repeated other side. Cyclists mostly use the road but some use the dedicated track.
But the main gripe is off topic but cars parked on pavements causing prams and mobility scooters into the road on blind bends. And hospital employees who park on the yellow lines outside my house but don't seem to be able to tax their nice nearly new cars.
 

gordonthemoron

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2006
Messages
6,589
Location
Milton Keynes
I live in Milton Keynes, we have lots of cyclepaths (Redways), which I almost always use, although some could do with resurfacing and/or have the adjacent foliage cut back. Early on in the pandemic, I was using the estate roads instead as there were a lot more pedestrians using the Redways. I have no intention of cycling on the grid roads as the traffic is too fast and the many roundabouts are too scary
 

sprunt

Member
Joined
22 Jul 2017
Messages
1,156
And hospital employees who park on the yellow lines outside my house but don't seem to be able to tax their nice nearly new cars.
You know that tax discs were phased out a few years ago and you have no way of knowing whether or not a car is taxed just by looking at it, right?
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,642
Location
Northern England
You know that tax discs were phased out a few years ago and you have no way of knowing whether or not a car is taxed just by looking at it, right?
No, but you can use the vehicle enquiry service on Gov.UK to look up whether any particular vehicle is taxed and MOT'ed. I think it would be a little nosey to go out of the way to look up the cars parked outside your street just to check the owners had taxed them though.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,640
If it's a reasonable quality path, especially where it's a busy or fast road then I'll use it. But like many of the previous commenters there's a lot of terrible facilities that mean using the road is better.
Some of it is actively dangerous, as per this story - https://www.jackfm.co.uk/news/oxfordshire-news/updated-cyclist-dies-after-crash-in-oxford/
I think https://goo.gl/maps/qZdKfevKCrdXv4VXA is the area in question, you can see how the poles for the crossing are right in your path if you've been following the cycle track.
https://goo.gl/maps/W172ZRk8kuKaxagVA is near my house, a joke of a facility where you have to give way for every opening (there are 4 in shot), so if I'm travelling in that direction I'll use the miserable painted cycle lane on the road, as then drivers will expect me to be continuing on and are less likely to pull out on me.
 

185

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
4,970
This thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/london-green-transport-usage-drops.218658/ discusses the drop in numbers of passengers on buses and trains as a consequence of Covid, and suggests cycling is now more dangerous because of the increase in the number of cars being driven.

Near where I live, the Council has spent £££'s providing dedicated cycle paths, mostly sharing pavements with pedestrians in dedicated lanes. However, the few cyclists I have seen have continued to use the road.

If you are a regular cyclist, do you use dedicated cycle paths where provided, or do you stay on the road? If the latter, why? (I'm ignoring paths delineated by white lines on road - I'm interested in where separate paths are provided.)
Separate paths are rarely swept by councils and often strewn with glass.
Cars often parked over them entirely in some cities.
They are often pointless, badly designed, having to stop every 30 seconds for every side road.
Often blocked by large crowds in urban areas near shops and bus stops.
Often don't go anywhere useful.
Routinely used for truck drivers 'oh, i'm just nipping into it' to avoid cars turning right.
Some of the highest risk city roads have no cycle lane at all, and cyclists take to pavements unsurprisingly (eg, Great Ancoats St, Manchester).


Solution:
Continue to use 'white line' segregation designs, but instead of paint, install & fix down 30cm-high kerbstones to demark the lane as done (cheaply) in Europe.
Where relevant, councils purchase one additional narrow mini sweeper truck to sweep the lanes at least once a week, pref Sun morning.
 
Last edited:

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,642
Location
Northern England
I'd stay in the car driving
If the location listed on your profile is accurate, you might not have much of an alternative... (or that's what the British stereotype of an American city suggests anyway :))

Bit hypocritical of me to say though - our cycle infrastructure in Britain is mostly pretty bad as well.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,085
Separate paths are rarely swept by councils and often strewn with glass.
Cars often parked over them entirely in some cities.
They are often pointless, badly designed, having to stop every 30 seconds for every side road.
Often blocked by large crowds in urban areas near shops and bus stops.
Often don't go anywhere useful.
Routinely used for truck drivers 'oh, i'm just nipping into it' to avoid cars turning right.
Some of the highest risk city roads have no cycle lane at all, and cyclists take to pavements unsurprisingly (eg, Great Ancoats St, Manchester).


Solution:
Continue to use 'white line' segregation designs, but instead of paint, install & fix down 30cm-high kerbstones to demark the lane as done (cheaply) in Europe.
Where relevant, councils purchase one additional narrow mini sweeper truck to sweep the lanes at least once a week, pref Sun morning.

This has happened in Coombe Lane, near Raynes Park but has to be interupted every few yards to allow for driveways.

(Link to Google Maps Streetview shows Coombe Lane with a cycle path separated by kerb stones, but which are non-continuous to allow access to driveways.)
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,642
Location
Northern England
This has happened in Coombe Lane, near Raynes Park but has to be interupted every few yards to allow for driveways.

(Link to Google Maps Streetview shows Coombe Lane with a cycle path separated by kerb stones, but which are non-continuous to allow access to driveways.)
The ideal solution to this is that you only design so that driveways are only accessed from streets with slow enough traffic for a segregated cycle lane not to be needed in the first place. This means avoiding houses built straight off major roads - you either build a narrow street is built at the side, reminiscent of an collector lane, or put the driveways "round the back" on a side street.
 

Puppetfinger

Member
Joined
18 May 2018
Messages
103
I have a road bike and am another who manages about 20 mph when out and about.

Generally, I am on the road. I can only think of two proper cycle ways in my area, one of them is actually good, but is less than a mile long, and at its ends you are forced back onto the road, at rather busy junctions, this I find more dangerous than staying on the road.

The other is terrible, as the lined off area for cycles is far too narrow.

What also is of bigger concern is how these shared cycle / footways are used. Pedestrians are often bad for walking in the cycle way, which then starts a slalom type ride of dodge people. These type of shared paths are great for the slower rider or children etc, but has been said, not great for the faster cyclist.

On the road, I always remember one thing, regardless of any laws, might has right. I am always going to come off worse with any motor vehicle, so I ride defensively with that in mind. Why take the risk? It does annoy me when I see other cyclists out sometimes two or three abreast on the road, this should be banned if you ask me.

Also I generally plan my rides ahead, and avoid the main trunk roads where I would be at greater risk, but appreciate I am fortunate to be able to do this, many others aren't.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,085
The ideal solution to this is that you only design so that driveways are only accessed from streets with slow enough traffic for a segregated cycle lane not to be needed in the first place. This means avoiding houses built straight off major roads - you either build a narrow street is built at the side, reminiscent of an collector lane, or put the driveways "round the back" on a side street.

Unfortunately, funding is not unlimited. To do what you suggest would allow only 10%* of the cycle paths to be built, the rest of the funding required to build alternative access roads.

(* Ok, so I made up this figure - but I would imagine most of the costs would be diverted to build roads. relocate drains, buy up land etc, so little would be left for the cycle path.)
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,642
Location
Northern England
Unfortunately, funding is not unlimited. To do what you suggest would allow only 10%* of the cycle paths to be built, the rest of the funding required to build alternative access roads.

(* Ok, so I made up this figure - but I would imagine most of the costs would be diverted to build roads. relocate drains, buy up land etc, so little would be left for the cycle path.)
I know - a lot of these things are much easier to do if you're building a city from scratch - which we're not, of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top