We've been having a fun debate here - a further note, however on the layout 
of streets for the horse & carriage.  The designers had the commonsense to 
include the detail of narrow back lanes which matched the pedestrian grid density 
and also allowed deliveries to the rear.  

I had lobbied for Glasgow Planners to keep the lanes not privatised already, 
open as through routes but sadly developers continue to close them off, to 
connect plots on either side with more sales or office space, and the condition 
of the lanes which remain often deters most users, as the private owners are 
not a coordinated group, and the utility openings etc take place, frequently 
blocking through access, and invariably failing miserably to properly repair the 
surface.  How does this work with other towns & cities?   

I do like the way that Nottingham - against the common trend kept the route 
through Broad Marsh operational as a street - and the shopping mall thus 
remains open 24/7 with the nice twist that it is a lot cleaner, drier, and better 
lit than the street it used to be.

I was chuffed to get this response though, but Graham deserves a pat on the 
back for slimming the thinking down to 3 succinct points. 

Dave Holladay makes a great point, in this string started by Angus, which
is often lost in considering layout guidance: "where (once) the route was
determined by purpose rather than to suit the vehicle".  Seems to me that
'on and off route provision' is a 'wrong division'!   Off route provision
is ... lets face it ... useless.  Look at it like this:-
1  People make journeys
2  The routes which carry most journeys become main routes
3  Therefore all modes will use main routes to reach destinations.

It also follows that if we (the DFT), design new layout types to
accommodate car ownership and use, as we have done for at least 50 years,
that the new layouts will, effectively, have the physical impact of making
none-car modes all but impossible.  Our current situation outside
traditional connected grid-like development.

So a new years' resolution could be, lets remake all layout guidance to
newly encourage walking and cyling and public transport.  Nothing to stop
car use - but congestion and inconvenience.  Result; proper cities??

Graham Paul Smith

Message: 1
Subject: RE: Cycle Route Innovation

Thank you for your replies on cycle routes and innovation. Alongside a 
literature review it would seem the overall view is that the core principles 
'coherence, directness, attractiveness, safety and comfort' are rarely achieved when 
providing off-carriageway facilities.

So, as a follow-on question, is the inability to meet these core design 
principles inevitable with off-carriageway provision, or is it perhaps more that 
engineers have been slow to innovate with strong design which really delivers 
these principles? Is anyone doing off-carriageway well in the UK or is best 
practice really only happening in places like the Netherlands?

Many examples of off-carriageway provision are at best poorly designed (and 
are at worst downright dangerous) so that cyclists would often be far better 
integrated with other traffic on the carriageway. So is off-carriageway 
provision ultimately just an unattractive last resort for cycle planners and a legacy 
from the era when, for whatever reason, planners thought they should segregate 
bicycles and cars?

Angus Jeffery
Environment and Transport Research
Halcrow Group Ltd., Sussex.

Message: 4
Subject: Re: Cycle Route Innovation

Old transport infrastructure, where the route was determined by purpose, 
rather than to suit the vehicle, means that for most local transport puposes the 
existing highway goes the best  routes to the places people want to go, and any 
contrived and additional off carriageway routes either duplicate or provide 
less useful solutions for the cyclist, and for that matter the pedestrian 
(which is why people jaywalk rather than use ridiculous routes over bridges and 
under subways).

For pedestrians a comfortable & workable grid spacing of approx 25 metres 
shows up in the narrow & closely spaced lanes and vennels of towns and cities 
which retain their medaeval street pattern, whilst the later towns have a grid of 
wider streets spaced at greater distances (to suit the horse & carriage) and 
so on up to the motor age which has the best motor traffic networks with 
massive blocks, which then need subsidiary routes for walking & cycling.  

Perhaps one means of analysis is to examine the grid and see if the spacing 
is appropriate for cycling, if not that there will be a need to add 
intermediate routes for cycling fitted between the main roads to ensure cycling distances 
are not over extended by having to travel 2 very long sides of a large 
triangle.  

Topography also plays a part - In Glasgow and Edinburgh a route around a 
drumlin, or the Royal Mile dyke and plug/New Town escarpment, will attract users 
because of the 'easiest way' factor using contours rather than direct routes.

 Dave Holladay
>
Dave Holladay 
Glasgow

PS those who track the work of the Project for Public Spaces from the 
European side of the pond, might note that they are visiting Scotland between 15 and 
17 February details on 
http://www.greenspacescotland.org.uk/default.asp?page=15&theme=Training%20and%20Events&UID=116&textonly