A523 Poynton - New "shared space" junction

[Debaser]

I would say that on the whole the shared space idea does work...

Derek

It can, but I'd argue only under certain conditions. Those being massively reduced traffic flows, such that pedestrians outnumber motor vehicles by a significant factor and therefore have the confidence of safety in numbers to 'take the space', and also very slow speeds (20mph is still too fast to truly 'share' a space - unless all peds become Usain Bolts).

[Mark Hewitt]

The Netherlands has the concept of guest streets. Which necessarily are access only by design but the priority rules are complete reversed with cars having to proceed at very slow speed and give way to pedestrians.

Sounds just like our Play Streets of a generation ago.

Yes, but with a different stated purpose, that they are supposed to be for everyone, not just the concept of children playing.

[PeterA5145]

The thing about this debate is two extreme camps are arguing their positions and both have data to prove their point. That is because both are correct. This is one of those cases where some things work to improve safety and other work to make it worse.

I would say that on the whole the shared space idea does work. Traffic generally does slow and become more considerate and I would expect on the whole accidents decrease and therefore the space becomes safer on average. Problem is, it's the "on average" bit that causes the problem. As with all traffic it only takes one idiot/distracted driver/downright psychopath to cause mayhem.

So, do we have to build our streets as defensive zones to protect vulnerable people from the danger of traffic? The idea of going back to fences and the design approach of the 1960's is unlikely to be popular.

Those opposing this need to be careful what they wish for. Do they really want urban streets to be highly regimented and segregated, festooned with barriers and full of conflict points?

Once the bypass is complete, Poynton will be a very different place anyway.

[Mark Hewitt]

Horses for courses. As said shared space is only suitable for very low motor vehicle volumes and very low speeds. It may be that once the Poynton bypass goes in that it does actually become suitable.

[kit]

Those opposing this need to be careful what they wish for. Do they really want urban streets to be highly regimented and segregated, festooned with barriers and full of conflict points?

I think idealistically no-one would object to shared spaces. It's just that designers have to realise that getting rid of kerbing and having fancy paving aren't a magic formula. Either pedestrians have to outnumber vehicles, or engineering measures need to be taken to reduce the speed of vehicles.

These don't neccaserily need to be traditional chincanes - using trees or flowerbeds every 100-200yards to narrow the road to either a single lane or two very narrow lanes would probably have the same effect. It would probably be useful to have indicated cycle lanes through these to avoid cyclists being squeezed to the edge.

Designers need only to exit a football stadium at 5pm to see the number of pedestrians needed to take precedence over cars on a 30mph S2!

[Jim606]

Those opposing this need to be careful what they wish for. Do they really want urban streets to be highly regimented and segregated, festooned with barriers and full of conflict points? PeterA5154

I think idealistically no-one would object to shared spaces. It's just that designers have to realise that getting rid of kerbing and having fancy paving aren't a magic formula. Either pedestrians have to outnumber vehicles, or engineering measures need to be taken to reduce the speed of vehicles. Kit

The Poynton scheme represented the appearance of shared-space to a wider UK audience. Now with the passage of time, such schemes (which are all slightly different) have been put-out to scrutiny by various urban designers and road observers (such as the great and the good of SABRE). I think everyone is generally agreed that shared-space only works with very low traffic volumes, as noted by kit above. I am not anti-shared-space, as such, and in certain circumstances it can offer a solution to the issues, as noted by peterA5154. But, there are problems and these problems have never been fully answered by its proponents. Going back to Cycle Bath https://cyclebath.org.uk/2016/07/12/sha ... ven-dials/ The author mentions the following;

There are some defining principles of shared space that you need to accept before you can make it work.
1.You cannot build it where the road is a through road. It must be access only and preferably highly restricted to motorised vehicles.
2.You ignore the partially sighted or blind in your design and acknowledge that shared space will stop that group from using the space.
3.Shared space is where people walking are the most vulnerable and you need to educate people cycling that they need to be considerate in how they traverse the space. The “Pedestrian Priority, Cyclists please show consideration for other shared space users and warn pedestrians of your approach.” Something like this:pedestrian_priority_signage21
4.A recognition that shared space has big problems and that they cannot be fixed easily.
5.DfT LTN 1/11 specifically requires a safety audit of a scheme after implementation. This needs public engagement from users of the space and they NEED to be listened to and changes made.

Some key quotations from the post:
Shared space is all about individuals interacting respectfully with each other, achieved through eye contact and deferment to the most vulnerable. How this is achieved when you have no eyesight, nobody has answered. The initial proponents of shared space admitted they “forgot” about people with sight problems. It’s fundamentally hostile to people with visual disabilities. The real issues are within the Seven Dials space (in Bath). Partially sighted people have trainers that take you into a space and teach you how to negotiate the space. They gave up. The use of the ribbed pavers to mark the edge of the pavement and where the road begins. A blind person cannot tell which side of the paver they are standing on. Something a 6cm dropped kerb would allow them to do.

If the council is unable to be open and recognise that Seven Dials (in Bath) has failed for the most vulnerable users of the space then it is time that it put pedestrians back in control and paint a 5m wide zebra crossing in the middle of it. I know that the council is about to begin a safety review of Seven Dials, however as far as I am aware, it is not doing this in conjunction with stake holder groups or the general public. It feels like it’s a rubber stamping exercise.

More importantly Seven dials was delivered using £1.2M of Cycle Ambition Fund Money, with a £243k underspend that was returned to Bristol, then re-returned to BaNES. This money is still in the council somewhere and it is imperative that it is used to fix Seven dials for the most vulnerable users. Don’t even get me on to the fact that Seven Dials delivered no benefits for cycling.

However this is not just about cycling, this is about the truly vulnerable. The people with sight issues, the people that are absolutely terrified to use this space and avoid it like the plague.

One of the reasons that CycleBath wants the council to create segregated space for cycling by taking space away from the carriageway and not compromising footpaths, as they recently did on Upper Bristol Road. Sharing space sucks. Mixing vulnerable road users with less vulnerable is not a good approach. It needs to stop.

Interestingly CycleBath talks about the fact that a 5m wide zebra crossing could have been incorporated into the scheme mentioned which was something Mark Hewitt suggested earlier in this thread. The proponents of shared-space really need to wake-up to the problems and issues mentioned and start to design projects which acknowledge what is wrong and design better schemes as a result. The Dutch have moved on from the ideas of Hans Monderman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman so why can't we in the UK?

[PeterA5145]

One of the reasons that CycleBath wants the council to create segregated space for cycling by taking space away from the carriageway and not compromising footpaths, as they recently did on Upper Bristol Road.

Aha, the mask slips, and the true agenda is revealed.

Sharing space sucks. Mixing vulnerable road users with less vulnerable is not a good approach. It needs to stop.

So we have to have that highly regimented, segregated environment I mentioned before?

[SteveA30]

If eye contact is central to shared space working then, all those Smart zombie peds glued to their screens are in for a painful time.

[Jim606]

Peter5145 wrote: So we have to have that highly regimented, segregated environment I mentioned before?

Segregated satire from the 1930s

Segregated cycling illustration 1.jpg (17.6 KiB) Viewed 1705 times

These arguments have been going on for decades; as this illustration from the 1930s shows. This of course all goes back to the Cycling Touring Club (CTC) being frightened about being forced off the road when the first cycle tracks were constructed on the A40 by the then transport secretary Leslie Hore-Belisha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Ho ... re-Belisha Please see https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... mpaigning/ for more details about the over-reaction by the CTC and others leading to no more being built for decades. This legacy carried-on until the turn of the century when bloggers finally started to get their act together and challenge the prevailing view of the CTC / John Franklin (CycleCraft) etc. Please see https://rottenindenmark.wordpress.com/2 ... mpaigning/ Basically these bloggers / campaigners challenged the 'why can't we all just get along' and 'share the road' view. Shared space in my opinion carries on these 'can't we just all get along and share' ideas. The Dutch have found that shared space isn't all its founder Hans Monderan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Mond ... ared_space is cracked up to be and continue to build segregated cycling infrastructure because it works. Here in the UK we seem to have taken up Monderman's ideas with great gusto and forgot about utility cycling and those with slight problems. All I am saying is that the designers / supporters of shared space need to take the criticisms on-board and design better schemes as a result. Fancy paving is well just fancy paving and the likes of Exhibition Road, I would say, are not a great success, as vehicular traffic speeds up and down the remaining (but unmarked) S2 lane seemingly as fast as it did before. The 'road' is difficult to cross (especially for those with sight problems/disabilities/young children etc.) and cyclists have to be bold and confident and take the lane John Franklin stylie. When other schemes such as Frideswide Square in Oxford opened without any provision for cycle lanes when there was clearly the space to provide them only stuck me as bad planning and a clear lack of understanding by the designers. I am not the only one who thought this: http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/136254 ... de_Square/ and https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... provision/. Is it really too much to ask for a decent dedicated route?

Cycle path in London.jpg (11.51 KiB) Viewed 1705 times

[andrewwoods]

According to the local paper "National inquiry will look at shared spaces"

A NATIONAL inquiry into the accessibility of public spaces will look at shared space schemes like those in Boscombe and at Horseshoe Common.

The parliamentary Women and Equalities Committee is currently inviting submissions from the public on whether such schemes create barriers for disabled people, and whether “the needs of all groups” are given adequate consideration in urban design.

I'd link to the enquiry details, but there don't seem to be any!

[Jim606]

Further to our on-going discussion about shared-space, some interesting cycle paths have recently appeared in Enfield as part of TfL's Mini Holland scheme.

This is the type of path which I believe could have been incorporated into the Poynton scheme - but wasn't. The ambiguity of shared-space only forces pedestrians to the edge and cyclists either onto the 'pavement' or into the 'road' whilst what they need is there own 'dedicated space' as a number of designers are now starting to realise. Thanks to http://betterstreets.co.uk/news/ & Michael Nevin for the photo

[Chris5156]

Further to our on-going discussion about shared-space, some interesting cycle paths have recently appeared in Enfield as part of TfL's Mini Holland scheme.

Don't know anything about the details of the scheme, but that looks an awful lot nicer than a lot of cycle infrastructure schemes. It's good to see real attention being paid to appearance rather than "value engineering" something that's just good enough.

[mikehindsonevans]

I've lurked in the background of this particular debate. I know Poynton and I have lived in Copenhagen: I regularly walk and cycle around London (I also clock up multi-thousand mile years as a car driver on occasions).

At the back of our home here in Chandlers Ford, a mixed-use path links several cycle tracks together, so I can cycle to Parkway station and the airport in 15 minutes or walk in 55 minutes. All users have evolved a standard of behaviour; smile, step to the edge for cyclists and beckon them through; in return, *MOST* cyclists use their bells to provide advance warning of their imminent arrival. It works (some speed-freak cyclists continue to take their chances out on the road, because they don't want to stop where the mixed-use path crosses side streets). People are infinitely adaptable and most people are nice. It's a bit like driving!

The new Boris cycle paths in London work very well. Unlike our continental cousins (who had help from the RAF and the Luftwaffe in remodelling their narrow streets in the early 1940s), we have (in some places) a medieval street layout where ANY change will necessarily involve compromise (and learning lessons from failures - as in Poynton and, from the sound of it, Bath).

An earlier post on this thread mentions two evidence-based and opposing camps. If we are going to make roads fit for everyone, then the partially-sighted need assistance. Some years ago, one of our American colleagues came across to visit the London office. As we headed out for lunch, we stopped at, then used, a Pelican crossing. She asked why the crossing box was bleeping and my PA replied blithely: "oh, that's for blind people to let them know when the traffic is stopped". Our colonial visitor then stunned us with the perspicacity of her response.

"In America, we don't let blind people drive".
Mike

[Jim606]

Don't know anything about the details of the scheme, but that looks an awful lot nicer than a lot of cycle infrastructure schemes. It's good to see real attention being paid to appearance rather than "value engineering" something that's just good enough.

I believe these new bike lanes in Enfield are the kind of thing cycle campaigners were envisaging for Poynton, but sadly didn't happen. I particularly like the use of cobbles to demarcate the lanes, rather than a 45 or 90degree kerb which makes the users feel like they're cycling in a trough or a culvert. These new lanes raise the standard of what can be done in the UK and on that note I think the Mini Holland schemes deserve a separate thread, but for more detailed review of cycling in Poynton please see Mark Treasure's As Easy as Riding a Bike blog
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... 6/poynton/

[kevjs]

Further to our on-going discussion about shared-space, some interesting cycle paths have recently appeared in Enfield as part of TfL's Mini Holland scheme. Church St. Enfield new cycle lane 2017.jpg This is the type of path which I believe could have been incorporated into the Poynton scheme - but wasn't. The ambiguity of shared-space only forces pedestrians to the edge and cyclists either onto the 'pavement' or into the 'road' whilst what they need is there own 'dedicated space' as a number of designers are now starting to realise. Thanks to http://betterstreets.co.uk/news/ & Michael Nevin for the photo

Ooh, that looks nice.

Wonder how it would fit into a residential area with lots of drives - apparently this road https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.93116 ... 312!8i6656 has pavements which are too narrow for cycle infrastructure (original proposal was shared use path to be fair) - and the residents, rightly complained, that visibility would be very poor backing out of drives.

The path in that picture could fit in very well ( although touching any tree including diseased ones falling down and ripping the pavement up results in way too much complaining so I doubt they could get too far )

[c2R]

Cambridge are trying this: after - before

which is a definite uglification of the road that was previously there by removing grassed areas and adding in large coloured cyclelanes by the edge of the road, creating a flat carriageway for cars and cycles, but cyclists are clearly segregated away from the cars.

This should resolve the problems of pavement cycling and provide spare for cyclists to overtake, while at the same time preventing cyclists riding in the car lanes (there isn't physically the room now)

How well it works, we shall see...

[mikehindsonevans]

Further to our on-going discussion about shared-space, some interesting cycle paths have recently appeared in Enfield as part of TfL's Mini Holland scheme. Church St. Enfield new cycle lane 2017.jpg This is the type of path which I believe could have been incorporated into the Poynton scheme - but wasn't. The ambiguity of shared-space only forces pedestrians to the edge and cyclists either onto the 'pavement' or into the 'road' whilst what they need is there own 'dedicated space' as a number of designers are now starting to realise. Thanks to http://betterstreets.co.uk/news/ & Michael Nevin for the photo

Ooh, that looks nice.

Wonder how it would fit into a residential area with lots of drives - apparently this road https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.93116 ... 312!8i6656 has pavements which are too narrow for cycle infrastructure (original proposal was shared use path to be fair) - and the residents, rightly complained, that visibility would be very poor backing out of drives.

The path in that picture could fit in very well ( although touching any tree including diseased ones falling down and ripping the pavement up results in way too much complaining so I doubt they could get too far )

In Eastleigh, on Leigh Road, the council took great care, in widening the footpath to convert it into a mixed-use path, to ensure that sightlines were maintained. Fortunately, most residents reverse onto their driveways, because reversing out onto a busy Leigh Road in the morning is a royal pain.
Mike

[Reading]

Cambridge is infinitely better than what we got in Reading - Before https://goo.gl/maps/TRhZgDtKwn62 After https://goo.gl/maps/P2gCrRtAtNt, the pavements are still shared use but there are now on carriageway cycle lanes as well, meaning the main carriageway is narrower so no room for filter lanes (or motorcyclists filtering), in fact despite this being the A329 and a bus route there is now more tarmac available to cyclists than motor traffic

[ianwallis]

Not specifically about Poynton but some anti-shared space commentary here. https://www.transport-network.co.uk/Ant ... port/14018

[Jim606]

The 'issue' of providing cycle paths within shared-space schemes is on-going elsewhere. We've already mentioned the fiasco of Frideswide Square in Oxford where yet again cycle paths were not incorporated into the shared-space design

Graham Smith, south-east councillor for cycling charity CTC, said: "After two years or so there has been no improvement in the proposals beyond the 'shared space', whereas the 2012 proposal had been to 'accept' that cyclists would use the 'footways' without permission. But real journeys have not been accommodated. “I predict that the flow of people cycling is such that it will be unacceptable in an undefined shared space." A submission by Mark Treasure of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain said: “Appropriate, inclusive design for cycling, along a road like this one, should involve dedicated cycle provision, separated both from the carriageway and from footways. “However, this scheme expects people either to cycle in the carriageway – not a realistic or enticing prospect for the vast majority of the population on a road carrying well over 10,000 vehicles a day, including many buses – or, more likely, to cycle on busy footways shared with pedestrians. “This is plainly bad design, needlessly putting people walking and cycling into conflict, when the two modes could easily be separated, making both walking and cycling more attractive. "There is a large amount of space available here that could be put to much better use. A scheme fit for future growth in cycling (to say nothing of existing demand, to and from the railway station) has to involve wide cycle tracks, separated from the footways by shallow, chamfered kerbing. "These cycle tracks should pass behind the bus stops in the square, with clear crossing points for people accessing the bus waiting islands. This 'bypass' design - common in Europe, and increasingly employed in new schemes in Britain - should be standard practice for a scheme like this one."

http://road.cc/content/news/130984-oxfo ... ampaigners

Two people cycling on the enormous pavement giving a good visual guide of exactly where segregated cycle tracks should have been built in Frideswide Square ...

Now these arguments are also going on Ireland with the proposed shared-space project in College Green, Dublin http://irishcycle.com/2017/03/13/counci ... ommitment/ It would be interesting if someone could provide an update on this particular scheme. However, the Dutch don't seem to have any problems with cycle paths and large open spaces