Shared use of footpaths
Need for scrupulous attention to specific guidance

It is therefore essential to focus scrupulously on the specific guidance:
i) Local Transport Note 2/86 Shared Use Between Pedestrians and cyclists (DoT, August 1986, current HMSO/TSO publication £5.50 including postage) and subsequent updates to that guidance, specifically:
ii) Cycle-friendly infrastructure (DoT, CTC et al 1996, currently available from CTC(Godalming), £5.00 inc postage), and:
iii) The (then) DTLR's March 2000 circular to Local Authorities on Local Transport plans, specifically section 12.1, which describes this shared use as a "last resort."

As for the specific decision making procedure of the local authority, each of the following six steps must be completed to convert a pavement to shared use. Omitting, or carrying out incorrectly, any one of these steps would make the process invalid, and would establish maladministration and the need to reverse the scheme,

(quotes, and reference no. in brackets, are from of LTN 2/86)

CONTENTS

1) A specific cycle danger problem on the road in question must be identified: (If there's no problem, no action needed!)

2. All possible on-carriageway measures to address the identified danger problem must be examined.

3. The pavement must meet minimum width requirements

4. There must be surveys

5. There must be full consultation on the specific proposal

6. The results of this consultation must be reported to the relevant committee, the elected members of which must then decide and minute their decision on the proposal.

National Planning and Policy Context

LTN 2/86 says (3.2) that, in allowing pavement proposals to be considered, only after on-carriageway ones have been rejected, that "It assumes that significant road safety gains are to be made by removing cyclists from the carriageway in question. There no advantage in removing cyclists from relatively safe carriageways." (italics in original text).
(2.1) also refers to specific locations where use of footways and footpaths "Is the only way of enabling cyclists to avoid serious accident risks on the highway".

References to establishing a need for cycle facilities are also found in 2.1, 2.3, 9;1. 9.4.
(9.4): "Footway or footpath sharing should not be regarded as a general or area-wide remedy to cycle safety problems, but should be confined to specific links and locations where there is no alternative solution to a cycle safety problem;" (Italics in original text, note use of "safety".

(Most of these measures are now set out in the DoT's Cycle- ~friendly~infrastructure, and require applying a Hierarchy of Solutions in which regulating motor traffic and speeds is foremost.)

LTN 2/86 (3.2): "the second essential is to examine whether there is any alternative way of providing safe cycling facilities on the carriageway.... This note starts from the assumption that such options have been considered and found impracticable."

Please note that "cycle facilities" does not necessarily refer to hard infrastructure: this could mean, for example, speed limit enforcement or reduction, rerouting traffic (including cycles), altered signage, altered lane widths, coloured road surfaces, rearranged parking, or introducing/changing painted markings such as hatchings, edge lines or rumble strips.

Only when all possible measures to address the identified danger problem on the carriageway have been examined and found impossible can investigation even begin of the "last resort" shared use of a pavement or footway. Investigating a pavement or footway does not at all presuppose it will be converted: there are more steps to complete.

There is no point considering something which does not meet minimum physical width requirements, and so will be unsafe and unworkable. LTN 2/86 devotes pages 7-10 to this issue, under the heading Design considerations, comprising (6.1) to (6.23). At the very least, two prams/wheelchairs should be able to pass one another, as should two cycles. The diagram and width charts make clear that a bounding feature such as a wall requires an extra .25m width, as people cannot walk or cycle against it, or bushes, or parked cars, and that a converted footway needs to be separated from an adjoining carriageway/kerb by .5m. Street furniture, eg lampposts and signs, is also to be subtracted from the available width as per (7.6).

The Unsegregated Facilities section (6.19-6.23) warns that (6.20): "Some pedestrians may feel so much at risk on an unsegregated shared facility that they will no longer use a route which includes such facility. Any potential loss of use, and attendant loss of mobility particularly to disabled, elderly, blind or partially sighted people, needs full and careful consideration in the appraisal of all schemes involving unsegregated conversion".

Cycle-friendly Infrastructure (CFI) (which DTLR have said updates LTN 2/86) states in 12.1.2 (p. 49) that two way cycle tracks should be a minimum 3m wide. The "personal transport space" diagram on the following page makes clear that a path bounded by kerbs or railings requires an additional .5m minimum. In effect a two way unsegregated shared use path with bounding features requires 3.5m minimum width.

Although CFI updates LTN 2/86, CFI 12.1.2 confusingly refers briefly to LTN 2/86 accepting a 1.5m width under "exceptional circumstances". LTN 2/86 (6.21) actually specifies these exceptional circumstances as sites with low usage and broad grass verges both sides, but does not encourage this. When there is no possibility of a wider, segregated facility, the general minimum width given in the superseded LTN 2/86 (6.21) is 2.0m, and allowing for bounding features of wall and kerb this rises to 2.75m. This is not encouraged, and it is again pointed out (6.19) that this must be merited by "road safety gains."

LTN 2/86 (3.1) "The first essential in considering whether cyclists should be admitted to selected pedestrian facilities is to recognise that a sense of security on footways and footpaths is essential to the carefree mobility of all pedestrians and particularity to visually or aurally handicapped, disabled or elderly people. It is important for these people to feel safe as well as to be safe. Appraisal of any proposed shared use facility must always take their needs into account. Before any decision is taken involving the conversion of a pedestrian facility, and design work begins, surveys must be undertaken to determine the existing use of the route."

LTN 2/86 (Annex B, Surveys, existing use of the pedestrian route), calls for 12 hour on-site surveys (1.1) Annex B (1.2) states: "as the decision to introduce a shared facility will depend not only on total flows, but on the number of vulnerable footpath users, pedestrians should be classified as follows:
1) elderly pedestrians
2) pedestrians with walking problems
3) pedestrians with prams, or wheelchair users
4) pedestrians`with young children under school age
5) visually handicapped pedestrians
6) school children
7) all others"

Annex B continues (1.3) "Such categorisation will inevitably be subjective and may usefully be supplemented by evidence about the use of the route derived from consultation which would, for instance, reveal whether there were particular concentrations of pedestrians at certain points such as bus stops. The general age structure of the population of the area, and the proximity of schools, old peoples' homes, hospitals or other facilities for blind and disabled people will also be relevant to a picture of the use made of the pedestrian route."

There must also be surveys of road traffic, including cycles, and into the existing pedestrian and/or cycle accident record at the site. (Annex B, point 4, p.14:) "The Stats 19 record of accidents involving pedestrians and/or cyclists should he obtained for the preceding 3 or more years, and analysed as far as available details allow."

LTN 2/86 4.1) "Any proposal to allow cyclists to use pedestrian facilities must involve extensive consultation and publicity." (original italics.) "When any shared use is under consideration representatives of blind and partially sighted and disabled people must be consulted at the earliest possible stage."  

6. The results of this consultation must be reported to the relevant committee, the elected members of which must then decide and minute their decision on the proposal.

LTN 2/86 (4.5) "The final decision to convert a pedestrian facility will rest with the elected members of the local highway authority". Annex A, legal procedures, explains that the conversion powers are exercised under section 66(4) and 65(1) of the highways Act 198O, and specifies: "The process need not necessarily involve physical construction work, but there needs to be clear evidence that the local highway authority have exercised their powers. This can be provided by a resolution of the appropriate committee."

An approved scheme must be monitored and may need to be reversed. LTN 2/86 (4.5) Once a conversion has been undertaken it will be necessary to monitor its effects. Any decision to undertake a conversion must imply a readiness to suspend or modify the new arrangements if they prove unacceptable in practice" (original italics)

National guidance on cycle planning is set out in Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure (CFI), Guidelines for Planning and Design, produced in 1996 by the (then) DoT, The institute of Highways & Transportation, The Cyclists' Touring Club (the national organisation representing bicycle users), and the Bicycle Association (the body representing bicycle manufacturers). This sets out principles and details of cycle planning. Chapter 4, Principles of Cycle Planning, requires the application of a Hierarchy of Solutions, set out in section 4.3.2 as follows:
1. Traffic reduction
2. Traffic calming
3. Junction treatment and traffic management
4. redistribution of the carriageway
5. Cycle lanes and cycle tracks (last choice)

Cycle-friendly infrastructure 12.2, Conversion of Footways, has, as the DTLR have confirmed in writing, updated the earlier DTLR guidance on shared use (ie Local Transport Note 2/86). CFI 12.2 states:

12.2.1 "cycling on the footway in England is an offence...this is of much concern to many pedestrians, particularly the elderly and people who are visually impaired."

12.2.2 "A number of footways have been converted for shared use by cyclists and pedestrians in the UK over the past 20 years. Few, however, have created good quality routes for cyclists, particularly in urban areas. Typically they suffer from inadequate width and sightlines... Continental experience, particularly in Germany, has been similar."

12.2.3 "In specific and limited instances where no on-carriageway solution can be found, and where visibility is good, it may be appropriate to convert a section of the footway to shared use... Consultation with all local interests is essential..."

12.2.4 Organisations representing cyclists and pedestrians have produced a joint position statement which explains their joint views on design issues and stresses their common interests (CTC and Pedestrians Association 1995).

(The 1995 PA/CTC joint policy referred to in 12.2.4 above states (section 4.3): "The shared use of urban footways (pavements) by cyclists and pedestrians should be seen as a last resort, where no other engineering solution to a particular danger problem will work. ...a level of segregation should be provided...')

Only allowing shared use of pavements as a poor last resort has been DTLR policy for years, and this was forcefully reasserted in the March 2000 guidance to local authorities on Full Local Transport Plans, which states (12.1): "The conversion of footways and footpaths to shared use by cyclists and pedestrians should be regarded as a last resort measure, where there is no opportunity to improve conditions on the carriageway."

Please note that this guidance does not exempt novice or inexperienced cyclists, leisure schemes, children, tourists, "segregated" schemes, Promenades, the National Cycle Network project, (or Cornwall County Council).

Cornwall County Council wrote to the local MP on 27 July 99 to assure him that the Cycle-friendly Infrastructure guidance would be followed, and that any shared use would be a last resort.

(Please note that "shared use" refers to both segregated and unsegregated schemes, and may refer to converted pavements or converted footpaths).