Shared-use Pavements

22 posts / 0 new
Last post
Bracken Van Ryssen
Bracken Van Ryssen's picture
Shared-use Pavements

My local council appears to have fascination with shared-use pavements and clearly thinks they are the best solution for 'encouraging' cycling. The cycling strategy plan states:

 "It is proposed that the ongoing programme be adopted to create safe cycling facilities in Solihull’s Parks and green open spaces and that greater use be made of the extensive existing network of footpaths through conversion to shared use."
  As a supporter of mass cycling I find this worrying as shared-use pavements create cycle-pedestrian conflict,violate pedestrian's rights to safe spaces, offer no priority over side roads (designing in either conflict or reduction of momentum), are not sustainable with large pedestrian/cyclist volumes and only effectively serve to legalise pavement cycling. Yet consultation after consultation is wheeled out containing shared-use pavements as 'cycle infrastructure', a recent example can be seen here: Shirley High Street and in the entirety of the brand new North Solihull Strategic Network (covered in my blog post here).   This state of affairs seems set to continue for the immediate future, with the council continuing to spend more on similar schemes. However, while these schemes are still worlds away from best practice. They do deliver small amounts of legal protection and encouragement for the current population of pavement cyclists, and it is money being spent on cycling.   My question is; what would be the best way to try and shift the council's thinking towards more sustainable, inclusive and effective forms of infrastructure? (Is it best to oppose all shared use schemes even if the deliver marginal benefits? Ignore the schemes and continue lobbying the council? Welcome the schemes as money spent on cycling? etc...)
 Thanks 
Bracken 
Solihull Bicycle Campaign
rygie

 

I feel your pain. Coventry City Council have embarked on a 2 year project called cycle Coventry. They have been granted £7m to increase/improve cycling infastructure. They also seem to be in favour of the shared use paths. I have been attending meetings at the council house every six weeks and have aired my views on shared use paths.

Local Transport note 1/12 gives guidence and information on the shared use path. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...

This document expresses a general preference for on-carriageway provision for cyclists over shared use in built up areas, where cycle and pedestrian movements are frequent. Altough in green areas it does vote in favour of the shared use path.

The Sustrans handbook for cycle friendly design also discourages shared use paths due to their lack of continuation and reduced room for future improvements. Also transitions from the road to a shared use path are usually drop curbs, the handbook states that these must be flush to make cycling comfortable and attractive. 

Here is a dropbox link to the handbook. https://www.dropbox.com/s/fvgoku1niprbxqn/cycle%20design%20handbook%2011...

I believe that if they are going to widen the pavement then there must be a clear separation and the cycle path must be a minimum of 1.5 m wide.

I have discovered the only way to deal with shared use paths is to buy a loud bell! Maybe as pedestrian/cyclist conflicts increase it will force a re think?

Ryan

 

 

Bracken Van Ryssen
Bracken Van Ryssen's picture

I am a little concerned that pedestrian-cyclist conflict will shift public opinion away from cycling infrastructure totally, the shared-use schemes in the north are already receiving quite a bit of flak from the public due to going over budget and not delivering any appreciable amounts of cycling.  

I would have less of a problem with the schemes if they were placed in low density rural areas, but the majority are placed right around the highest density centers and as a result become impassable to bike users during the school run and iffy at other times.

Thanks for the links, I shall see what I can do to get them into council thinking.
 

gazza_d

I have been told, both  by my LAs cycling officer, and by cycling officers in a neighbouring LA, that shared paths are now preferable as:

  • they are more maintenance free (no white line to periodically repaint)
  • People generally ignore the segregation and walk whereever they feel most comfortable
  • It allows the space to be "shared" more effectively

In my experience, pedestrians do seem to ignore the lines and walk furthest away from the traffic. IF the shared path is wide enough >3m and pedestrian traffic is fairly light (which it is for me), then it's not much of a problem in reality. 99% of people will quite happily move once they hear a cheery shout. 

 

Gaz

 

Bracken Van Ryssen
Bracken Van Ryssen's picture

'Sharing the pavement/road seems to be a prolific buzzword but most councils get it wrong on so many levels and a user hierarchy usually asserts itself through volume or speed. I think it is mostly motivated by a lack of will to do anything to the carriageway (no surprises there).

Seems like the pedestrians are well  trained in your area, wish I could have the same over here. People seem very reluctant to move out of the way even when walking towards us, we also get a few scowls for being 'on the pavement' (signs don't seem to matter).

SRD
SRD's picture

Very true.  People don't get signs.  Here's a blog I did about exactly that, where I argued that it would be better not to have cycle facilities than to have more shared use, precisely because people don't get the shared use stuff.

 

http://deceasedcanine.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/when-improving-facilities-f...

Hesterkw

I agree with all of the objections to painting the line. The problem is just converting existing pavement in the first place, line or no.

I have found a height separation to be mostly effective.

 

The separation here is nearly 100% http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/9143/

And here http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/9071/

Here works as well: http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/13907/ Even though there's no height separation, there is other physical separation. People tend to keep to the designated side even after the sides re-join.

To work the pedestrian side has to be on the desire line, and the cycle side needs to be wide enough for at least two cyclists to pass each other.

 

However these were all purpose-built as pedestrian and cycle infrastructure.

 

This works reasonably well shared, but it's a 12 mile rural route and 4m wide http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/59209/

 

I'm going to post my article against shared-use provision again, to avoid repeating the arguments: http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/111/article11.html

 

Hesterkw

I agree with all of the objections to painting the line. The problem is just converting existing pavement in the first place, line or no.

I have found a height separation to be mostly effective.

 

The separation here is nearly 100% http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/9143/

And here http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/9071/

Here works as well: http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/13907/ Even though there's no height separation, there is other physical separation. People tend to keep to the designated side even after the sides re-join.

To work the pedestrian side has to be on the desire line, and the cycle side needs to be wide enough for at least two cyclists to pass each other.

 

However these were all purpose-built as pedestrian and cycle infrastructure.

 

This works reasonably well shared, but it's a 12 mile rural route and 4m wide http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/59209/

 

I'm going to post my article against shared-use provision again, to avoid repeating the arguments: http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/111/article11.html

 

mjray

"pedestrians do seem to ignore the lines and walk furthest away from the traffic" - it's not just shared paths where that happens.

At the A10/A47/A149 roundabout near King's Lynn which I ride most days, the two-way (typical abysmal HAg) cycle tracks around the outside are split from footways at every crossing and run a couple of metres further away from the road. Officially, they're not shared, but of course, people walk on the cycle track because it's further from the noisy motors and closer to desire lines when leaving/joining the roundabout. Conversely, people often ride on the footway next to the road because it has fewer walkers on it, it's smoother, it's wider and it takes a safer approach line to some crossings (not all) - plus in winter, the footway gets gritted by overspill/spray from the road and the cycle track is an icy deathtrap.

People don't want to walk right next to HGVs and cycleways could provide a good buffer space for walkers, couldn't they?

SRD
SRD's picture

See if you can create an alliance with a local pedestrians campaign.  They may be suspicious, but hopefully you can convince them you have interests in common.  In edinburgh we recently had shared use proposed for an important link.  So many cyclists and pedestrians both complained about it that they went back to the drawing board and current plan is for very nice segment of segregated cycle lane.  They're scared silly of he pedestrian campaigns, so if you can get them to object, you should be in a good position. 

 

We also tweeted and blogged a lot  about the really random bits of shared use that the council had put in recently, got the local paper to highlight them, and generally made it clear that they're not suitable except in very certain places - out of town, low footfall, very wide paths.

Bracken Van Ryssen
Bracken Van Ryssen's picture

Hmm that might be worth following up, the area doesn't appear to have any vocal pedestrian campaigns , but guide dogs for the blind and rambling societies do seem to engage in some consultations (such as the recent proposal for a shared pedestrian and bus area in the town center). I'll also see if I can get some videos of the bad areas, might create an impact.
Thanks for the input, I'll keep pushing :).

SRD
SRD's picture

You might also considering trying to set up a living streets local group?  We had one in edinburgh that was pretty moribund, but have managed to breathe some life into it.  

 

But it as you say, it doesn't have to be an explicitly pedestrians group.  Guide dogs definitely good, but also other local environmental groups.  

 

Btw, this was my first blogpost about this - trying to detail all the little bits of shared use at had suddenly popped up.  The response I got to this made me realise that it wasn't just me, and that this was something we really needed to address. Luckily, it seems to council has been listening.

http://deceasedcanine.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/shared-use-ad-hoc-and-short...

Good luck!

sallyhinch

Maybe also worth talking to more general disabled groups - well designed separated paths are good for mobility scooter users as well as cyclists.

Sometimes a white-line separation does work if there's a high volume of cyclists and a very clear dividing line (Newcastle has very good 'lane discipline' among pedestrians for some reason!). Different surfaces (brick/tarmac) are good too. 

AKA TownMouse

SRD
SRD's picture

sorry. double post.

pete owens

It is not just where you live it is universal.

As far as highway engineers (and indeed the vast majority of the non-cycling population) are concerned shared use pavaments ARE cycle paths. If you campaign for cycle paths this is what they think you are asking for - and if you don't oppose them then they think they are doing a wonderful job.

Paul Cooke

they like them because they are cheap and they don't interrupt traffic flow...

all they need are a few bits of paint and some small signs... no expensive re-engineering of the junctions to raise the paths across side streets and put in calming to slow turning motorists down.

redrobin
redrobin's picture

In my opinion, shared-use can actually work extremely well; the problem is that it works best in wide open spaces where there is plenty of space for pedestrians and cyclists to move around each other.

In Shoreham there is a shared-use footbridge of at least 5 m (if not more) in width, and both cycling and walking here is pleasant. However, this only happens because the bridge is wide and there is plenty of space for users to move around each other.

Shared-use pavements are typically an 'on-the-cheap' conversion to create cycle infrastructure on paper that tends to be weak or sub-standard in practice, because pedestrians feel threatened and cyclists must slow down. If a council proposes a shared-use pavement because of 'space restrictions' we should ask if segregated footways and cycleways can be created by taking road space away from motor vehicles. Only where this and all other options (e.g. re-routing cycle infrastructure) are impossible and or extremely impractical should pavements be converted to shared-use.

Jim66

I would also agree with the opinion that they are cheap to implement, as they are basically a wide pavement which doesn't involve any extra work remodeling junctions etc. A local council / Sustrans can then say that they have provided cycling infrastructure for all to enjoy.

I think that shared-use pavements work the best when there is a low amount of cycling traffic, I once read that as a general rule of thumb this is 20% and below. Any more than that then the route should be fully segregated to avoid conflict.

However, a lot of modern cycles are capable of relatively high speeds 20-25mph and weaving around pedestrians in such circumstances is unsafe. Sustrans have a ‘Code of Conduct’ on their website about this matter http://www.sustrans.org.uk/change-your-travel/get-cycling/cycling-code-conduct-shared-use-paths But surely, cycling infrastructure should be aimed at providing a quick, safe and easy way to get between A & B. Leisurely cycling is not the same as someone wanting to make a daily commute on a well oiled, 29” wheel, 21 geared, £1,000 bike for example.

In this case for example; http://road.cc/content/news/109548-bath-bristol-path-not-place-reckless-speed-cycling-says-sustrans-after-9-year I feel poor design was just as much an issue as high speed cycling. Sustrans can’t seem to admit that they are also at fault for building substandard paths, as the first reader’s comment from the above article states:

If someone were to walk their horse on the M1 and it got hurt, society would gather round to pile mutual contempt on the feckless owner. Why? Motorways are for cars and shared use cycle paths are a PR exercise to convince the greater public that government cares about sustainable transport solutions...they are follies not to be confused with credible transport links.

The so-called ‘Bikelash’ issue is also worth considering, as a high quality fully segregated cycle path would need to be quite wide at say 3 to 4meters, plus and extra couple of meters or so for pedestrians. People would then start to grumble about the path taking up too much space. A 3m wide shared-use path is well just a path, but just a bit wider than normal. Only when Transport for London (TfL) or someone else has actually built some high quality infra that people will be able to look and say; ‘that’s what we want and look at how well it works!’ Hopefully this may well happen with the new cycle superhighways in London.

Thankfully things are now changing and more voices are pulling together, i.e. thru the work of this blog and many others.

tombaileytyne

All depends on context.  Have just been involved in building a huge cycling scheme around the Nissan plant near Sunderland.   All shared use, but an out of town low footfall location.  The car/truck roads are around 7m wide, the new bike road 3m wide with a better surface.

But depressingly the idea that shared use next to the carriageway in urban areas is acceptable provision seems alive and well.  Budgets, roadspace and parental demand are the excuses but have even seen this proposed in a new development. 

 

Chris Juden

Yes, all agreed, cycling on not-wide-enough, side-road and kerb-interrupted pavements, i.e. footWAYS, is rubbish.

But the quotation in the original post was all about sharing footPATHS in parks, and that's an altogether different proposition. Those paths are not instead of but additional to the road network. It doesn't matter so much if they're a bit rubbish, because they may offer a short-cut and link up otherwise disconnected no-through-roads, creating new routing possibilites for avoiding busy roads. And since these paths and their signs are NOT alongside any road, they do not invite drivers to swerve, hoot and yell at any cyclist who has the temerity to ignore the inconvenient pavement (i.e. footway) alternative and remain on the carriageway.

I take the point that your council is over-fond of inviting cyclists to share narrow pavements, i.e. footways, but that is not what they're proposing with that policy. Extra routing possibilities are always welcome, and if they're a bit rubbish, if pedestrians complain as someone has already suggested, it's always possible in a park, to widen or even provide two paths should the eventual level of footfall and cycle traffic demand that.

The downside of welcoming cycle access to these across-parks footpaths, is that the council will also fail to understand why you have a different attitude to sharing footpaths as opposed to footways and thus be encouraged come back at you with even more of the latter! 

 

CllrJohnWall

I'm completely against them - as as a cyclist I find that the pedestrians get in the way ! Too many people walk around with earphones on, trying to become deaf prematurely, so they can't hear your bell. Not only do the pedestrians slow you down but without priority at junctions it's just continual stop/start. I get a lot of complaints about pavement cycling - particularly from senior citizens - and these just make it worse. My officers know I'm completely against shared paths so, strangely enough, they tend not to propose them:-)

Clive Durdle
Log in or register to post comments