Skip navigation

The Rampton-Cottenham cycle path

The shared-use path between Rampton and Cottenham has recently been upgraded, possibly to provide a safe route to Cottenham Primary School for children from Rampton. The original shared-use path was of such dire quality that it was not considered to be a cycle facility and was rarely used. This article is a detailed analysis of the new 'facility' by Martin Popple (a Cottenham resident) who set out to highlight the issues with this path before the Cottenham-Histon shared-use path is upgraded later this year.

The local transport problem

Cottenham is essentially a car-centric village. The roads within Cottenham and leading to surrounding villages are plagued by high traffic volumes and speeds. The environment is so unpleasant that cycling levels are low, possibly marginally above the national average of around 2% (of commuter levels). However, given the proximity of Cottenham to Cambridge, the cycling capital of England (27% commuter levels), and Histon (10% commuter levels), it should be possible to induce a modal shift from cars to cycling within the Cottenham area. This would be hugely beneficial for everyone in Cottenham in terms of their quality of life. But to obtain a dramatic increase in cycling levels, motorists must be persuaded out of their cars, without disadvantaging the present cycle commuters.

Understanding success

The UK standard width of 3 m for a two-way shared-use path is never reached, with some sections being as narrow as 0.5 m.
Image as described adjacent

In the Cambridge area, converting pavements into shared-use paths was for a while the default solution to providing for cyclists, and it remains so between the necklace villages. But when improving facilities for cycling, no-one states what they expect to achieve in terms of increased cycling numbers, so it is difficult to measure the success of a solution. For example, in creating a particular cycle path, is the goal to obtain a 2%, 10% or 27% commuter cycling level (as for the UK average, Histon or Cambridge areas) or is the aim a 37% cycling level as in the whole of the Netherlands (note this figure is for all journeys). For a new facility in a necklace village one might define success as 'An increase in cycling levels from the present 2% of commuter journeys to 10% in one year and 25% in five years time'. These figures should be achievable for Cottenham because it is so close to the cycling centres of Cambridge and Histon. If the cycle facilities implemented cannot achieve this level of cycling then we must question the approach being taken.

Understanding the generic needs of cyclists

The generic needs of cyclists can be stated simply. Any facility needs to provide a pleasant environment which is not only safe but also feels safe. The facility should be of a consistent high quality permitting sports cyclists, commuters, novices and children to mix safely together. The routes selected need where possible to be more direct and more convenient than those available for a motorist.

The capacity of any cycle facility is particularity important and one indication of capacity is its width. An adult's cycle is typically 0.6 m wide and a cyclist feels comfortable with a minimum distance of about 0.4 m from hedges, pedestrians, etc. (although a pedestrian is likely to prefer more). So one-way cycling requires a path width of 1.4 m whilst two-way cycling requires 2.4 m. Where an adult is cycling along controlling a child cyclist (i.e. has a hand on their shoulder), a width of 1.7 m is required (assuming a typical child bike is 0.4 m wide and a 10 cm overlap is needed for control). For two-way cycling a width of 3.0 m is required. The width of a standard child cycle trailer which carries two children is typically 0.9 m and thus a parent would require a path width of 1.7 m one-way, or 3.0 m for two child cycle trailers passing each other. These values fit in well with the latest UK guidance on cycle infrastructure, i.e. that one- and two-way shared-use paths should be 2 m and 3 m wide, respectively.

The fundamental question in this case is: does the upgraded Cottenham-Rampton shared-use path fulfil the generic needs of cyclists?

Detailed analysis of Rampton-Cottenham shared-use path

A detailed analysis of the Rampton-Cottenham shared-use path is rather long because the number of problems is significant, and many of them are common to shared-use paths between villages (and indeed elsewhere). Here we present only an outline of the issues:

The narrowness of the path here may create friction between cyclists and pedestrians wishing to pass each other.
Image as described adjacent
Overgrown hawthorn impinges on the narrowest section of path and fallen thorns left uncleared are likely to cause punctures.
Image as described adjacent

Conclusion

The solution selected for the transport problems between Rampton and Cottenham inherently disadvantages cyclists and pedestrians. This low-capacity, inconvenient and dangerous shared-use path is very unattractive for cyclists and it is inconceivable that motorists will switch from their cars to cycles because of the poor design of the path. The path provides an illusion of safety whilst creating more hazards for pedestrians and cyclists, and fails to address the fundamental problem of the route, namely high vehicle speeds.

The Rampton-Cottenham shared-use path inherently disadvantages both cyclists and pedestrians.

Prior to any upgrade of the Cottenham-Histon shared-use path a fundamental review of what it will achieve is required. Any solution should put the safety and convenience of cyclists first and ensure that pedestrians are not disadvantaged. This inevitably means not considering the needs of motorists as the main priority. We must certainly ensure that the present poor-quality Cottenham-Histon shared-use path is not upgraded by default to a slightly better poor-quality shared-use path.

Chris Dorling