Cyclists in Preston are to be given a shared-use path to enable them to avoid the busy A6 road while riding into the city centre and to Cardinal Newman College.
The £90,000 scheme, financed by cash from the Department for Transport’s Local Sustainable Transport Fund, was approved by Lancashire County Council last week.
As part of the works, the footway running alongside the A6 London Road between Frenchwood Avenue and North Road will be widened to 3 metres to allow people on bikes and those on foot to safely share the space.
A report recommending the scheme prepared by an official at Lancashire County Council said: “The conversion would not jeopardise the safety of pedestrians as the shared space would be sufficiently wide to safely provide a route for both pedestrians and cyclists.”
It also said the proposed route had been audited by representatives of local cycling groups and it scored well in terms of both safety and directness.
It said that since the beginning of 2009, there had been two incidents in which cyclists were clipped by vehicles overtaking them on the stretch of road in question.
The report added: “The route is heavily used by buses so the shared use path would reduce the chance of an accident involving a bus pulling out from a bus stop and a cyclist trying to overtake the bus.“
One of the issues highlighted in the report concerned the possible relocation of a bus shelter.
It said that “the Operations Manager at Preston Bus strongly objects to the shared use footway as he said that one of his staff members was off work for 9 months following a collision with a cyclist travelling at speed on a shared use footway.
“If the scheme must go ahead he would prefer a separate cycleway around the back of the bus shelter to reduce the potential for conflict with bus passengers, although he still feels any shared use space is potentially unsafe.”
Three options were considered regarding the bus shelter. The most expensive of those, costing £75,000, was to leave it where it is and split the shared-use path so that cyclists would go round it one way, and pedestrians the other.
However, the council will proceed with a cheaper option of relocating the bus stop a further 1.5 metres away from the road, at a cost of £15,000.
One local resident who lives on the route responded to the council’s consultation by welcoming the scheme.
According to the council, she said “that the shared use space is a wonderful idea to help promote the environmentally friendly mode of transport that is cycling.”
It added: “She supports the scheme and would like to see more in Preston.”
34 thoughts on “Preston cyclists to get shared used path alongside A6”
Shared used paths?
Because
Shared used paths?
Because they are always a good idea arent they?
8|
Some Fella wrote:Shared used
Sometimes it works – generally only when its a major non-urban road that almost no pedestrians ever use anyway. Dunno if that applies here.
Why a shared use path rather
Why a shared use path rather than a properly segregated cycle lane?
Shared use paths are really
Shared use paths are really the lowest form of cycle facility. They are only of any use if there’s not a lot of side roads, if the surface is good and maintained (a recently installed one in Manchester is already full of broken glass and the council road sweepers cannot get on to sweep it) and if there’s a decent level of segregation between peds and cyclists. 3m should be wide enough for a solid white line to segregate – as a ped its irritating having to move out the way for bikers, and when you’re on your bike its equally irritating to have to slow and ding your bell/ask to squeeze by.
As a traffic engineer myself I despair though at the use of these things. Bicycles and pedestrians can often come into conflict (as the friendly Operations Manager at Preston Bus has seen, a bike and a pedestrian colliding can result in injury) – but still LA’s think shared use is a good idea. Cars and pedestrians can also come into conflict so the default design is to segregate them, not have a shared ped/motor vehicle route. Why this blind spot when it comes to cycle facilities? It’s because we have just become used to accepting that cycle facilities are inherently going to be a bit crap.
Zermattjohn wrote:3m should
This worries me if you’re a traffic engineer. That sort of “segregation” never works, and results in a too-narrow cycle way and a too narrow footway- 1.5m isn’t really good enough for either.
Al__S wrote:Zermattjohn
I quote the 3m as that is what the article says is going in. If they are putting in this scheme, which as I argue is the poorest form of facility, then the very least additional they should do is put a solid white line to make it of any real use to people on bikes. Segregated shared use facilities should be absolute minimum 4m wide in the part of the country I work in, but this is not a standardised requirement – there’s no reason why, particularly if ped flows are light (I don’t know this area) a line could be considered. If ped flows are heavy, then a shared use surface was a poor choice of scheme anyway. As I say, I wonder if any local user groups have been involved in the design.
Fuck sake. My council
Fuck sake. My council recently installed exactly the same thing near me. Credit to them, they have the best of intentions, and it’s certainly an improvement for the average “bloke on a bike off to work”. But for someone who rides down the road alongside it at 25mph, it’s a disaster, compounded by the idiots in cars who now seem to think I’m compelled to use what amounts to a wide pavement. That I should cede priority at every junction. And worse still, it has a large hidden dip near a manhole cover, at night it’s completely black so if I hit it at 25mph I would be over the handlebars in an instant.
The best part? The new path leads to a road junction on which ONE POINT THREE MILLION POUNDS has just been spent – all to reduce a 5 minute delay to motorists.
Peowpeowpeowlasers: That’s
Peowpeowpeowlasers: That’s not Flixton in Mcr is it?
Zermattjohn
It is indeed Flixton. The hidden dip is near the car hire place. Last night, cycling down the road there, I counted six pedestrians in three groups of two. All pitch black, all occupying the full width of the pavement. All trying to avoid the multiple piles of horse poo.
my commute has a shared use
my commute has a shared use path, it works? in so much that very few people use it, however, from observation, it isn’t lit and pedestrians are very hard to spot in the dark and no one likes being next to the main road.
Other shared use paths I know tend not to work because the traffic volumes are higher and the above observations still apply.
The only shared use paths I
The only shared use paths I know of that “work” (and I use the term loosely) are those on long stretches that roughly follow a major road (i.e. dual carriageway), and so are of such distance between useful junctions for pedestrians that very, very few people walk on them anyway.
So in other words they “work” for cyclists (don’t have to keep conceding priority in the manner of a pedestrian), but don’t work for pedestrians.
Which I think tells you all you need to know.
P.S. If we start thinking about the width of these paths and the state they are in (i.e. usually at least 50% overgrown, full of holes) then the “work” term degrades quite rapidly.
about to asked exactly the
about to asked exactly the same question…..flixton out to carrington is a cluster feck of galactic proportions. that junction at the end is now a joke, it saddens me to say that this is pretty much the only lights i ignore and do my own thing as its safer.
I emailed the council to ask wtf they were thinking but never received a reply
mrchrispy wrote:about to
I now ride a carbon frame, the lights on Isherwood Road do not recognise my presence. The only time I don’t run a red light there is when a car is available to trigger the sensors.
BTW if you want to know more, you need to speak to Trafford Cycle Forum. They’re a good, well-intentioned bunch but they don’t have the funds to build the infrastructure we need and they just have to do the best they can. That said, the new junction is a disaster for cyclists.
Shared paths are OK as long
Shared paths are OK as long as there are not too many pedestrians or too many cyclists, but sharing doesn’t even come close to the problems with this scheme
The main problem is where they meet side roads, following the link and checking out the 1st three detailed plans, The solution appears to be a Cyclist Dismount sign, and then expect the cyclist to cross the road.
We all know that in theory turning traffic should stop for pedestrians (and dismounted cyclists) when they are turning. In practice it is probably one of the most dangerous points for the pedestrian.
The solution should have had as a minimum, a raised crossing point, clearly indication that cars should give way to crossing pedestrians and cyclists.
If I were to ask a question
If I were to ask a question about Flixton I’d email TfGM. They are responsible for the “quality” of all the schemes in Mcr, and also are responsible for the Carrington Lane junction, so you might get an answer from someone who knows the story.
Sorry to hijack this thread…..the Manchester Rd in Cheadle scheme is a great example of a good idea totally messed up by the local authority, in this case Stockport MBC.
Shared use paths are of no
Shared use paths are of no use to you if you want to go faster than about 15 mph… in fact general guidance is that you should be in the road if you want to go that fast.
I live in Lancashire, not far
I live in Lancashire, not far from Preston. My experience of shared-use (and even dedicated cycle lanes) round here is that they are not swept or maintained so they have treacherous, broken surfaces covered in glass and rubbish; pedestrians walk line-abreast along them, absolutely refusing to make way for cyclists despite the painted pictures of bikes on the floor; dog walkers let their dogs wander about on extendable leads that act like trip wires across the cycle lane and then expect cyclists to take evasive action (vertical take-off?); they are not adequately lit; and there are a lot of right-angle turns that no bike could take at anything more than walking pace.
I never use them because they are a death trap to anyone not pootling along at 5mph on a mountain bike. I just have to put up with the odd shout that I should be on the cycle path.
Sanderville wrote:I never use
You don’t have to use them. Most of these excuses for cycle facilities are justified by LA’s by them saying they’re designed for children, the elderly, or less confident cyclists. As the person shouting at you is presumably in a car, they should be familiar with the Highway Code, so just advise them to read rules 61 & 63. “Use of a cycle facility is not compulsory blah blah..”.
They’ll probably know them by heart, as they are required to learn and keep up to date with the HC to permit them a driving licence….oh, wait, silly me…
My commute has sections of
My commute has sections of shared paths (2 metre and 3 metre) and segregated.
I find pedestrians are more likely to walk anywhere, but mostly prefer to walk at the side furthest away from the traffic even if that’s the “cycling” bit. A white line and a slightly different sign makes no difference to them. If there is a group of them or they are emptying a dog, then again they’ll use the widest section or away from the traffic.
Also if you do need to swap sides to avoid pedestrians, then the thick white line can be slippy in wet weather, so that’s another minor reason for shared over segregated.
Shared works fine for me. I’ve never had any Mr Angry types moan at me.
The path surfaces I cycle on tend to be better than the roads which are horribly potholed and cracked from the wagons, and I can maintain a decent speed.
Sunderland council are just completing widening a section which will fill in a gap which was previously on-road though a supposedly 40 mph zone between a couple of roundabouts which was where I was almost ran off the road from behind 3 times in the last 3 months of 2014 by LGVs close passing with horns blasting.
So I’ll take a reasonably wide quiet shared path over a busy single or dual carriageway at peak times any day thanks as it keeps me a lot safer
I count thirteen junctions
I count thirteen junctions for cyclists to cross along this stretch: motors are supposed to defer to pedestrians but will they? And for cyclists?
I use this road now and again
I use this road now and again and it is a nasty stretch. I’m general not too fussed about busy roads though and will use this streach.
A shared footpath here is an insult and stupid. there are quite a few pedestrians and the bus services are well used so, also some of the local residents are not the nicest so there will be loads of broken glass before you know, as well as a lot of ladies where there religious clothing (sorry but I don’t know the name) so will have good vision seeing cyclist.
I’ve just looked on street view and most of the way there is loads of room for a proper cycle track where cyclist could have a proper right of way.
LCC just going for the cheapest option again!
now where is that box to tick!
Has anyone else noticed that
Has anyone else noticed that all very vocal opponents of cycling infrastructure know someone who was off work for months after a collision with a cyclist travelling at speed on a shared path.
I’m fairly sure that a collision this serious would be reported but strangely there never is any evidence. 😕
And it’s always a friend, a colleague, relative, bloke/woman down the street, a blind person, etc. … it’s never them! The story never goes “I was hit by a speeding cyclist!”, if the story is ever in the first person it’s always “I was nearly run over…”; “I was nearly killed…”. I wonder why?
When you mix bikes and
When you mix bikes and peds
http://road.cc/content/news/140302-cambridge-mp-says-thoughtless-cyclists-need-watch-pedestrians
If shared use bike lanes are
If shared use bike lanes are so bad (I prefer not to use them for all the reasons pointed out above) then how come councils think these are such a good idea? (Wakefield are building a new road near me and are installing a shared use path instead of a dedicated road. This is across a brown field site, so space to install dedicated infrastructure or have a road wide enough for a proper on road lane isn’t an issue, this all comes down to cost). The only advantage I can see with this shared use lane is that my children will be able to use it, however it will spit them straight out onto junction 32 with the M62, at which point there is no infrastructure and I have near misses at least once a week, so they won’t actually be able to get anywhere safely from this point, but at least they’ll have a mile of cycle path they can ride up and down I suppose (at least until it gets clogged up with broken glass and dog shite).
As for painted lanes on the road, I really don’t have an issue with them. Of the ones I use cars always give me adequate space, the only issues I ever have with them are when locals think that they are parking lanes so they don’t have to walk the extra five yards from their actual parking space.
Surely adding a painted cycle lane on the road would be cheaper than widening the entire pavement as all this is going to do is make the road narrower and then frustrate car drivers as they now have few opportunities to safely overtake cyclists who refuse to use the paths.
dazwan wrote:
Surely adding a
a painted line that gets used as a carpark or ignored etc.
I am assuming you don’t mean this as a cycle lane?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.965255,-2.158127,3a,75y,191.17h,69.92t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1szCxSs3gqgjgU7XhJTD33QA!2e0
Because they are cheap and
Because they are cheap and traffic engineers dont give a toss about cyclists.
Some Fella wrote:Because they
They are cheap, that I agree with. But not your other point – I’m a TE and I do give a toss about cyclists. Its the reason I am one. Moaning about facilities wont work, so I thought I’d get in and try to change things. I would hope that the local authority consulted with user groups before coming up with this. The best way to make a difference is to become part of your local authority’s cycle forum. If they haven’t got one, demand they start one up.
As I read recently, we already have a brilliant cycle network – its called the roads. Its the users than are the problem – I’d rather this money was spent on educating drivers rather than shoving people who choose to travel by bike to the edges.
This is exactly the sort of
This is exactly the sort of scheme we’d be vociferously opposing if it were Cambridge. As others have said- and as is Dutch practice- there’s a time and a place for having combined pedestrian and cycling facilities, however that place is well out of town on inter-urban links where there’s few pedestrians
There is a shared route along
There is a shared route along the A59 Longton Preston which is not used by a lot of riders even though there is a national speed limit on road many prefer to mix it with the traffic because there are too many side roads poor path maintainance and no right of way for the cyclist meaning a stop start Journey, unfortunately drivers see the path and think it gives them the right to shout abuse or come very close if u dare use there road.
Shared routs work for people out for a gentle ride who don’t mind stopping often but anyone wanting to make reasonable progress… Forget it!
There is a shared route along
There is a shared route along the A59 Longton Preston which is not used by a lot of riders even though there is a national speed limit on road many prefer to mix it with the traffic because there are too many side roads poor path maintainance and no right of way for the cyclist meaning a stop start Journey, unfortunately drivers see the path and think it gives them the right to shout abuse or come very close if u dare use there road.
Shared routs work for people out for a gentle ride who don’t mind stopping often but anyone wanting to make reasonable progress… Forget it!
There is a shared route along
There is a shared route along the A59 Longton Preston which is not used by a lot of riders even though there is a national speed limit on road many prefer to mix it with the traffic because there are too many side roads poor path maintainance and no right of way for the cyclist meaning a stop start Journey, unfortunately drivers see the path and think it gives them the right to shout abuse or come very close if u dare use there road.
Shared routs work for people out for a gentle ride who don’t mind stopping often but anyone wanting to make reasonable progress… Forget it!
Just read the piece regarding
Just read the piece regarding painted cycle lanes on roads. I prefer this option over shared lanes, they also exist on part of the A59 Preston and are well adhered to by motorists in my experience and you have right of way at u junctions! I know it’s not ideal but cheeper and in my opinion safer than shared cycle/ped lanes.
‘we already have a brilliant
‘we already have a brilliant cycle network – its called the roads. ‘
this, x1,000,000.
Sent an email and got a
Sent an email and got a response which was you are getting the standard shared cycle lane. The response was from the Senior Cycling Officer, Sustainable Travel, Lancashire County Council and if this is the best he can up with I really thing he needs to change jobs!!!
Now when he says standard I would class it as minimum/absolute basic, and below what is needed for any cyclist of any standard,
I have responded to this and have not had a reply as of yet but will try again.
Went along the road the other day and they are on with it, as you can see from the pictures (if I can get them uploaded) the have widened the path by about 2 foot. So what was a wide foot path will now be a waste of space with loads of dangerous points for all users.
For me a waste of money and an insult to cyclists.