Views on shared-use paths

[Zulu Eleven]

Or rather, we try and increase the number of cyclists from 2% modal transport share to an order of magnitude more.
There's quite a few things that have been fine for ages but creak when put to significantly more use (e.g., just about every road that's ever been upgraded as traffic flows increase).

Pete.

I don’t think it’s necessarily just to do with volume either - the problem is perhaps a bit of a magic mix of faster, quieter and more frequent. - in my experience resurfacing of rural paths with tarmac is a really key issue here, particularly where little or no thought is given to the established user base (including canals & disused railway lines) and I don’t think enough work has been done on how that impacts on other users - particularly those with dogs and those with vision &/or hearing difficulties.

One could question whether the answer to the roads being unsafe is really to tarmac more of the countryside, or begin to tackle e problem at source…

[Nearholmer]

^^^

The trouble is that “the source” is simply incompatibility of characteristics between the vehicles using the roads (lorries, cars, and bikes) once the permitted speed significantly exceeds leg-power-speed (say >20mph, certainly >30mph).

It’s actually pretty much the same issue as has the potential to cause trouble on shared-use paths if traffic density is too high and/or users fail to share nicely, notably if cyclists make unconstrained use of their capabilities.

So, if you want each mode to be able to use its full capability, you probably need multiple paths (walkers, runners, cyclists), plus the road, and maybe even a different road for mopeds. Which doesn’t sound at all feasible, or even at all necessary, or at all environmentally desirable, in many places.

So, to make the world work sensibly, somebody has to operate below their ultimate capability, cars have to slow down for bikes on roads, and cyclists have to slow down for pedestrians on shared paths. Share nicely, in short. And, 90+% of people can manage that easily …… it’s the ones that can’t, either in cars or on bikes, that we’re talking about though.

[thirdcrank]

^^^

The trouble is that “the source” is simply incompatibility of characteristics between the vehicles using the roads (lorries, cars, and bikes) once the permitted speed significantly exceeds leg-power-speed (say >20mph, certainly >30mph).

It’s actually pretty much the same issue as has the potential to cause trouble on shared-use paths if traffic density is too high and/or users fail to share nicely, notably if cyclists make unconstrained use of their capabilities.

So, if you want each mode to be able to use its full capability, you probably need multiple paths (walkers, runners, cyclists), plus the road, and maybe even a different road for mopeds. Which doesn’t sound at all feasible, or even at all necessary, or at all environmentally desirable, in many places.

So, to make the world work sensibly, somebody has to operate below their ultimate capability, cars have to slow down for bikes on roads, and cyclists have to slow down for pedestrians on shared paths. Share nicely, in short. And, 90+% of people can manage that easily …… it’s the ones that can’t, either in cars or on bikes, that we’re talking about though.

The links I posted to The National Federation of the Blind of the UK material were about blind or partially-sighted pedestrians who did not agree with you. Of course, this is not all people with poor eyesight but those who do not want to share space with sources of danger.

[Nearholmer]

Nobody wants to share spaces with sources of danger, whether they be blind or not. That’s why tigers are kept in cages, or left in peace in the jungle.

But in the case under discussion, there are two options for removing, or at least moderating to an acceptable level, the source of danger:

- segregation; or,

- managed sharing of space, in which the “tigers” have be tamed (slow down, and act carefully and considerately) to protect the more vulnerable users.

In very busy city centres, segregation is about the only practical measure (motor vehicle lanes, cycle lanes/paths, pavements), but once the density of use falls, such provision becomes utterly impracticable (the money, time, and effort expended to achieve it isn’t justified by the benefits it delivers) and managed sharing has to be applied.

For us as cyclists, the question boils down to whether, away from the few places where full segregation is justifiable, we are happiest to share with motorists, relying on them to take account of our vulnerability, or to share with pedestrians, which involves us having a care to their vulnerability. Speaking personally, I’m comfortable to share with motor vehicles up to 40mph, but really prefer 20 or 30mph, and am very happy to moderate my cycling to be able to share with pedestrians.

[thirdcrank]

Can I take it that you did not read my links to the NFBUK stuff?

[Nearholmer]

I did, and they’re about pavements, not shared-use paths in the broader sense.

Have you read this thread from the beginning?

If I get time tomorrow, I’ll try to get hold of a local spokesperson for one of the blind-advocacy groups, to find out what their members’ experience of the paths here is.

[thirdcrank]

I have read the thread from the beginning. (If there's anything you feel I'ver overlooked, I'll be happy to have another look. Your latest clarification suggests to me that I have not.)

[Nearholmer]

So, do you read the NFBUK words about “pavements” to read directly across to the sorts of paths we’re talking about? I don’t, because they aren’t “pavements”, they’re something else: shared-use paths, designed for sharing.

The NFBUK material actually doesn’t seem to acknowledge the existence of shared-use paths at all, which makes me wonder whether the author isn’t aware of them.

[thirdcrank]

I cannot see anything in my links which supports what you are saying.

I would say that the NFBUK material is not something I thought up. I linked to it as something I was aware of which seemed to contradict what you were saying. It's a long time since I took any part in cycle campaigning but I came in for quite a lot of aggro from people assuming I supported pavement cycling in its various forms which is how I was alerted to their views - or perhaps their predecessors'. I posted the links in an attempt to show that things are not as clear cut as you suggest. Indeed, they seem to be the opposite.

[Nearholmer]

Their material talks about pavements, “the Highway”, by which it seems to mean roads, dedicated cycle paths, and “shared spaces”, which it explicitly says involve people sharing with vehicles with drivers. Nowhere in it can I see mention of shared-use paths.

Quite why you believe I think things are “clear cut”, I’m not sure, since I’ve multiple times mentioned things like density of use and the need for cyclists on shared paths to take account of other users.

The one thing that is clear cut though, is that fully segregated infrastructure isn’t justifiable except in densely trafficked areas; some modes have to share, and to make that acceptably safe, the more powerful of the sharers has to moderate their behaviour.

[thirdcrank]

I can only say I've tried to draw attention to the NFBUK material because it was something I was aware of. I have no intention of indulging in a discussion of what they mean, not least because I'm by no means their spokesperson.

I feel that by alerting to you to their campaign material, I have done all I can. You are, of course, free to ignore it, but please don't say you were not made aware.

[Nearholmer]

If it had been a simple alert, I wouldn’t have reacted, but what you said was:

The links I posted to The National Federation of the Blind of the UK material were about blind or partially-sighted pedestrians who did not agree with you.

My point is that I can’t see that they’ve expressed agreement or disagreement with my enthusiasm for shared-use paths (the ones that are actually designed for sharing). They simply haven’t mentioned them.

Anyway, the point that the needs of the blind and partially sighted need to be considered is uncontroversial, so maybe we leave it at that.

[Stevek76]

I don't really see too much issue with current ltn1/20 guidance on shared use, which at any rate is pretty similar to the Dutch CROW design manual.

It broadly boils down to don't unless pedestrian/cycle flows are expected to be very low. And for any area with genuine ambitions for much higher cycle mode shares then 'expected' needs to be looking at that level of desired use, not current.

This largely limits shared use to rural connecting routes as it tends to be in the Netherlands (at least the newer stuff). If its in a built up area then separate footways are usually better.

Shared use over very low flows is not a good experience for either set of users hence the guidance as is.

And yes that means most of MK's is pretty meh. Combined with the ease of driving about in such a car centric town is why the cycle mode share is very low.

[Nearholmer]

And yes that means most of MK's is pretty meh.

I’d really like to understand what that means, because, as you can see from the earlier part of this thread, I don’t regard it as ‘meh’ at all.

Is it that you have to cycle at a speed that takes account of other users, or is it something else that you don’t like about the Redways?

(I don’t mean particular questionable design features in particular places, because there are definitely some of those; I’m asking about the general principle)

[Bmblbzzz]

I didn’t really mean this to be solely about MK, more a way of illustrating that shared-use paths can be a very good thing, if well-made and provided where they fit the bill.

So, here’s a rural one that I’d give 8.5/10 to:

IMG_3186.jpeg

IMG_3185.jpeg

This goes from Buckingham to Winslow, so “inter village” and is a repurposed and upgraded former pavement. It saves cycling in a road that is busy, fast, and has some quite twisty sections.

1.5 points deducted, because where it interfaces with a couple of side-roads, and where it crosses from one side of the carriageway to the other, the design is a bit flakey.

Not knowing it, I can only judge from those two photos and from my experience of similar paths, but I think I'd be inclined to give it less than 8.5/10. I find such paths are inevitably slower than riding on the road, tricky at junctions, and can be difficult to pass pedestrians or an oncoming cyclist. They're slower because they're narrower, less well surfaced, have sight lines made for walking speed not riding speed, often involve negotiating or losing priority at private entrances (I appreciate there probably aren't any on this particular stretch), and you really don't want to get too near the kerb. They're tricky at junctions because you normally lose priority over the side road and traffic leaving the main road, and you often need to look through almost 360 degrees. And they're tricky to pass others because they're narrower and often have encroaching hedges and bushes.

Re-purposed pavements can walk okay but they really need to be very wide and have good treatment of junctions.

The shared use path in pjclinch's A91 example looks great though, being in effect an additional carriageway, with a fence.