Shared Use Routes for People Who Walk or Cycle: Addressing the Challenges

Abstract

Background Active travel (particularly walking and cycling) in urban environments is promoted for public health benefits and as a means of reducing motorised traffic. Walking is the most popular and inclusive form of active travel. In many urban areas, completely segregated space for cycling can be difficult to accommodate. This, combined with perceived dangers of sharing roads with motorised traffic, can act as barrier to cycling uptake. A solution has been to designate some paths as shared use. In Bristol this has led to some conflict between pedestrians and cyclists. In particular, older and disabled pedestrians can feel unsafe on shared use routes. Methods In preparation for a larger research bid, we undertook a social media campaign (mid-Feb to mid-Mar 2016). We encouraged pedestrians and other users to pinpoint shared spaces on a map of Bristol and insert a comment about the shared use. In addition, a researcher went out to community groups to help with use of the map (including taking paper maps) and/or collect verbal information about shared spaces. Results 427 points with comments were submitted from across the city. On-line use of the map focused on more central areas and cycling routes further out of the city (approx. 50% of responses). Researcher assistance generated comments from both inner city and outer neighbourhood groups with an emphasis on the elderly and people with disabilities (approx. 50% of responses). The Framework method was used to assist data analysis. All comments were entered into a chart and the text was coded as issues were identified. Five key themes emerged: space, speed, surfaces, signage and social behaviour. Space issues included: path widths, positioning of street furniture and dangerous pinch points. The speed of motorised traffic on roads, and cyclists on shared pathways, created feelings of vulnerability and tension for the slower user. Uneven surfaces and inconsistent design lead to discomfort and confusion for both pedestrians and cyclists. Signs are often unclear about who has priority and which areas are for pedestrians or cyclists. Much greater awareness of the social etiquette for shared use is required. Conclusions Walking and cycling in urban areas require appropriate infrastructure. Where shared use is a design solution, it should be considered from the perspective of a variety of users. Space, speed, surfaces and signage can all contribute to conflict between users. Clear guidance relating to behaviour on shared use routes is required and should be promoted.