http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Edinburgh cycle path widths en Wed, 13 May 2026 06:29:59 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16360#post-220402 Thu, 19 May 2016 07:47:43 +0000 duncans 220402@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7074/26822573770_fe0ebef6db_m_d.jpg"> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16360#post-220385 Wed, 18 May 2016 17:13:16 +0000 duncans 220385@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>A8 'Main cycle route' at Ratho Station. ~65 cm wide at its narrowest. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16360#post-219165 Sun, 08 May 2016 14:20:58 +0000 gembo 219165@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Friday evening there was a pretty big motor bike parked just west of the aqueduct on the towpath with. I think the riders on the pontoon, a parent and wee kid though not usual teenagers, was either 125 or maybe 250 cc</p> <p>I gave it a very hard stare </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16360#post-219159 Sun, 08 May 2016 10:53:52 +0000 Nelly 219159@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@gembo</p> <p>yep - happens here too, to a lesser extent with cars, but a few times on my commute I have come F2F with a motorbike/scooter going through bollarded area on a bike path / pedestrian area (Fords Road last week most recently) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16360#post-219153 Sun, 08 May 2016 08:50:46 +0000 gembo 219153@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Think you would want the width narrower than a car though or else we all know what will happen.</p> <p>I had a car bump up in front of me onto the first Boris highway one Sunday afternoon when I had cycled 80 odd miles in from Windsor. The highway was raised and blue but the driver seemed to know what shortcut it afforded him regardless of any of the myriad reasons not to do so. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16360#post-219145 Sat, 07 May 2016 21:20:12 +0000 Arellcat 219145@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Just putting a thread in here to store information about the widths of various cycle lanes and shared spaces in Edinburgh. So far I've measured either inside the white lines or between kerbs/verges, depending on which is more usable in practice.</p> <p>On an editable map here:</p> <p><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=1n_NI5LZQc2ECs6Z8VWCov48LESI&amp;usp=sharing" rel="nofollow">https://drive.google.com/open?id=1n_NI5LZQc2ECs6Z8VWCov48LESI&amp;usp=sharing</a></p> <p><strong>Stenhouse/Balgreen path</strong> – 2.7 metres, fully shared space (excluding space for streetlights, etc.)</p> <p><strong>Middle Meadow Walk cycle lane</strong> – 2.3 metres</p> <p><strong>North Meadow Walk cycle lane</strong> - 2.45 metres (west end), 2.35 metres (at MMW), 2.0 metres into two-way lanes (east end)</p> <p><strong>New Boroughloch cycle lane</strong> - 1.85 metres</p> <p><strong>Meadows-Gifford Park cycle lane</strong> - 2.45 metres as two-way lanes</p> <p><strong>St Leonard's Street cycle lane</strong> - 2.0 metres between kerbs, as two-way lanes (usable width less because of accumulated grit)</p> <p><strong>Innocent Railway tunnel</strong> - 2.5 metres, fully shared space; 1.5 metre verges either side</p> <p><em>George Street cycle lanes – 2.3 metres, were as two-way lanes, 1.1 metres per lane</p> <p>Waverley north ramp footway – 1.95 metres maximum, 1.45 metres between bollards</em></p> <p>Given that London is building its superhighways to a standard of between 3.0 and 4.0 metres, albeit two-way, our dedicated infrastructure is pretty shy in comparison. The Stenhouse path is good for 30mph if there are no pedestrians around, but the St Leonard's installation is woefully pootley and hard to use because it's so darn narrow and right-angular.</p> <p>Looking at photographs of continental utopian cycle highways, and London at Blackfriars, if you can almost but not quite fit a car into the width of a single lane, that's about the right width. </p>