Cycle lanes and footways

This section covers the usage of cycle lanes and footways that are alongside trunk roads. Because the base sizes are relatively small, (60 cycle lane users and 91 footway users), the data presented here cannot be said to be representative of the wider population of cycle lane and footway users and should be interpreted with caution.

Satisfaction with cycle lanes

Cycle lane users were largely dissatisfied with the general condition of cycle lane surfaces (62%), with just 13% being satisfied. Overall satisfaction was lower than in 2019 (13%, compared with 29%) (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1: Satisfaction with the general condition of cycle lane surfaces, as described in the text above
Figure 5.1: Satisfaction with the general condition of cycle lane surfaces

Of all aspects of cycle lanes, users were most satisfied with the amount of guard railing (37%) and least satisfied with the availability of cycle lanes (17%) (Figure 5.2).

Figure 5.2: Satisfaction with features of cycle lanes, as described in the text above
Figure 5.2: Satisfaction with features of cycle lanes

Satisfaction with footways

Among those who had used footways by trunk roads in the previous 12 months or so, 38% were satisfied with the general condition of footway surfaces, while 31% were dissatisfied. (Note that due to a scripting error, 11 users were not asked the questions about satisfaction with footways.) These findings are broadly in line with results from previous years (Figure 5.3).

Figure 5.3: Satisfaction with the general condition of footway surfaces, as described in the text above
Figure 5.3: Satisfaction with the general condition of footway surfaces

Respondents were generally positive about the features of footways they had used along trunk roads, with lighting on footways having the highest satisfaction rating (51%) (Figure 5.4).

Figure 5.4: Satisfaction with features of footways, as described in the text above
Figure 5.4: Satisfaction with features of footways