Changes

This is an annoted copy of the scheme drawing as published. 

The changes will affect walkers, cyclists motorists and residents in different ways.

Shared pavements

There will be two lengths of 'shared use' pathways; near the fish & chip shop, and along the south side of Bradford Rd.  

Here cyclists and pedestrians share the same unmarked path (ie they are unseparated). 

To many people it feels intuitively unsafe for walkers and cyclists to share pavements. Mothers with small children, the elderly and infirm, those with limited mobility or wheelchair users - unable to get out of the way rapidly will be particularly nervous. Other people at risk are visually impaired people, deaf or partially deaf who may not hear approaching cyclists' 'ping' on their bell, and for guide dogs (who are not trained to listen for cycles approaching from the rear).

It is easy to find reports of tension and incidents stemming from such designs.

You might think therefore that the design treats one group of users less fairly than the others. This is a valid reason to object.

This design actually might discourage some people from walking because of tension between pedestrians and cyclists where neither knows exactly who has priority. 

Here is something like how it will look after turning left from Combe Rd into Bradford Rd, bur t remember cyclists can travel in both directions.

Officially shared paths reduce the danger for cyclists who do not have to share the road with cars, but of course at the same time a shared path brings greater risks to pedestrians, and it does not take much googling to find dissatisfaction both from pedestrians and cyclists.

This section of Bradford Rd is a real funnel in term time for children going daily to all three of the local schools from Mulberry Park, Foxhill, and anywhere east. There is no alternative, except to go by car.

Primary school children are often accompanied by parents, often with prams for younger siblings. 

You might think that this was a bad section of pavement to be made shared use, and that this design might actually discourage some people - older, infirm, etc, from walking here at all because of tension between pedestrians and cyclists where neither knows exactly who has priority. This concern could be a valid reason to object to the scheme. 

Zebra crossing moved

The current zebra crossing near Bramble Way will be removed and replaced with a new 'parallel crossing' near the roundabout. These crossings are dual use, cyclists can cross as well as pedestrians. 

They have a section for each - again intuitively it feels less safe than the familiar zebra crossing.

The reason for the shared crossing is so that cyclists can get to the new piece of shared pathway, as part of the Scholars Way route. The shared pathway and parallel crossing link Mulberry Way and Combe Rd for cyclists.

Parallel crossings are subject to the same concerns as shared pathways: it brings pedestrians and cyclists into conflict. Who has the right of way? Who gives way to whom? Nothing is clear. 

the space on either side of this crossing is very narrow, the above image is a mockup of the south side of the crossing, where it funnels dierctly into a blind entrance, a gateway where the emerging residents can see neither right nor left what is coming until they have stepped onto the actual pavement. Cyclists approaching this point actually have no visibility of the gate, since it is recessed behind a stone pillar. They see it only at about 12m distance, and even at 5mph it is only a second before they have reached the gate and potentially struck someone. Meanwhile having to watch the traffic behind them and the crossing in front of them.

Who benefits?

It seems reasonable to judge who between diffreent classes of user wins or loses: pedestrians/cyclists/motorists

Do pedestrians benefit?

People crossing from Combe Rd to Bramble Way maybe to go to the rugby club now must walk to the roundabout to cross, unless they cross at an uncontrolled point, so that is a disadvantage of  the new crossing.

In other respects the new design neither speeds nor slows pedestrian progress. 

But since they have to share with cyclists when currently they do not, pedestrians are  clear losers

Do cyclists benefit?

To try to decide this its easier to view from an aerial map (east is to the top, west to the bottom):

Travelling Mulberry Way to Combe Rd after the changes (marked blue line, starting left ending right), a cyclist cross Bradford Road three times; at the parallel crossing, at an uncontrolled place coming to Combe Rd, and turning right into Combe Rd itself.

It's hard to see on the face of it why this is an advantage: s/he will have to slow to use the parallel crossing, then be careful of sharing pedestrians on the pathway, then cross oncoming traffic to be positioned to turn right into Combe Rd.

The current route (white line) seems better integrated into the road network. Maybe at peak times travelling west after the change some cars could be overtaken using the shared pathway, but s/he would lose the time straight away when leaving the shared path and trying to merge into eastbound traffic again.

It looks to be a lot more complex than simply using the current route.

Considering the reverse direction, here the cyclist leaves the westbound lane for abut 70m, before needing to cross with the pedestrians.

Then returning to Mulberry Way (on the shorther shared path) s/he has to cross oncoming traffic at an uncontrolled place, just before the bus stop,  possibly negotiating a loading bus and therefore with nil visibility behind it.