Making Ripples

Introduction:
Continuous footways are designed to make walking, wheeling, and cycling easier, more efficient, and more pleasant for all, to slow down turning traffic and to keep pedestrians and cyclists safe. They reflect and reinforce the pedestrians’ right of way and the requirement for traffic turning at the entrance to a side street to stop and give way.
The physical features of a steep ramp up for vehicles, sharp corner and narrow lane width force turning traffic to a near stop far more effectively than the traditional “stop” sign and highway code alone. Meanwhile there’s no step down for people walking and wheeling and the footpath paving continues, enabling us to make uninterrupted progress along the footway without having to stop at every T-junction to look out for traffic. If there’s a cycleway, that is also continuous with right of way for people going straight on, raised higher than road level and protected by a steep ramp or drop curb. The road surface stops, to reinforce visually to drivers that they are about to enter a pedestrian space.

This design is safe and effective and much of the evidence for this comes from The Netherlands where it is seen very commonly. I am fully in support of having continuous footways here, but, like other active travel infrastructure, success depends upon the design details, and I have some concerns that if these design details are wrong, this could negate the benefits seen with the continuous footways in the Netherlands.

The old design for T-junctions in most cities in the UK (with continuous roadway and discontinuous footway) is less convenient for pedestrians and at odds with the current Highway Code rules. Pedestrians naturally stop at the curb, and this is sensible because there’s little to prevent traffic rounding the corner dangerously.

I am worried about potential confusion caused by footways that are neither the conventional design nor truly continuous. I call these not-quite-continuous footways. I don’t think these have an evidence base supporting their use, I cannot find any study showing that they are as safe as the continuous footway.
Just because a continuous footway is safer than a conventional turning it does not necessarily follow that a not-quite-continuous footway will be safer. It might be more dangerous than both. Although the pedestrian has the same right of way in both cases, I don’t think it’s safe to continue on at a conventional turning because the driver is seeing the space as a “road” and people drive mostly on system 1 thinking and not on conscious analysis of the Highway Code all the time. In other words, they will see a “road” and drive onto it. In a not-quite-continuous footway, the driver might still see it as a road, especially if it is a similar colour to the road. The pedestrian might see it as a conventional turn, and stop naturally as we do when we come to a road (notwithstanding the right of way they have) or they might see it as a continuous footway and keep going. If this is confusing for humans, it’s possibly worse for non-humans; guide dogs are trained to stop at a curb, and would presumably carry on along the footpath, but what about a not-quite-continuous footway? I have read one observation that some guide dogs stop and others don’t.

The Highway Code is clear, but if the infrastructure doesn’t clearly match that, there’s going to be more confusion, more hesitations where both stop and more “forced yields” of pedestrians – precisely what the continuous footway is designed to prevent. There might even be more collisions, which is not the case with the properly continuous design.
Since a wise person learns from the mistakes of others, I have listed some common design flaws found in the UK and elsewhere.

Mistake 1:
The footpath and road colours are confusing: either because they’re too similar or because the road surface is continuous and the footway colour is not continuous, even when other features are continuous. Drivers must see (as well as know and feel) that they are driving into a footpath and not a road.

In practice, more often, car drivers do notice the unfamiliar layout but they treat it as “shared space”. They’re slowing down alright, but when they see pedestrians hesitate, they just roll on, taking the right of way and making pedestrians wait. The importance of having a continuous footway and not a shared space is that here, there is a clear right of way for pedestrians going straight ahead, they should not need to behave any differently from being on a standard footway. They make progress quickly and easily along the path without confusion. Shared space, on the other hand, relies on seeing other road users and so it is unsuitable for visually impaired people, and also can be difficult those with hearing impairment. The shared space concept also relies on vehicles slowing right down, but some vehicles, such as SUVs and lorries, are still a threat to life even at very low speeds.

Mistake 2:
The footpath surface is hard-going and tiring for wheelchair users (little paving blocks).

Mistake 3:
The street is being used as a rat-run and the rat-runners are not respecting the pedestrians’ right of way. This should be addressed before building a continuous footway because it could be dangerous, and because another design solution might be the answer, such as a modal filter.

Mistake 4:
The footpath surface is getting damaged by vehicles and may become hazardous.

Mistake 5:
The ramp part is not steep enough to force all vehicles to slow down to a near stop. This is an important factor and we already know that rules, enforcement and signage aren’t enough to stop some drivers.
Addition of physical structures such as bollards to narrow the lane may be needed slow the larger vehicles.

Mistake 6:
There isn’t enough distance between the ramp that slows down the cars and the pedestrians – the front of the bonnet could be very close before the car stops. There’s an optimal distance though, because if too far away, the visibility advantage would be lost – pedestrians, (esp children, wheelchair users) on a higher level than approaching vehicles.

Mistake 7:
Either the right-angle turn isn’t tight enough, or drivers are able to smooth it out by going onto the footpath too early.

There shouldn’t be any obstacle to wheelchairs and pushchairs, no curb or change in height, that’s usually done alright.

Mistake 8:
A small minority of drivers are failing to stop. In the example I saw, these were a few taxi drivers licenced and regulated by the council.

Debatable:
I have read that this one is debatable, some say if the footpath is properly continuous, there should be no need for the textured paving, though blind people may need something to inform them of the side street to orient themselves? There also needs to be some indicator to prevent someone from veering off the footpath down the ramp or dropped kerb onto the road.

In conclusion:
The reason we have continuous footways is to improve the convenience and comfort for all pedestrians and cyclists, including and perhaps especially those with impairments. It’s vital to ensure this is not at the expense of safety for any street users, and in fact continuous footways should improve safety compared with conventional design. They should also help the attractiveness of the street for anyone who sees it and the ease of travel for all.

Right of way for pedestrians and the infrastructure that supports it are one step towards easing the perverse economic incentive structures that encourage driving. Who hasn’t reached for the car keys in an effort to make up when they realised they were running five minutes late? Who hasn’t driven their child to a destination that they could have reached on foot if only the footway were safe and continuous? Who doesn’t regularly take time-consuming detours to avoid the externalities of motor vehicles? Who hasn’t inhaled dangerous smog whilst waiting for car after car to pass a pelican crossing?

We know it is possible to design city centre road junctions to be safe. And by “safe” I don’t mean “so scary that nobody except the fittest and ablest dares to cross on foot or bicycle” but rather “you’d be confident to walk through backwards and blindfolded” or at least that we don’t fear for our children on their own way to school.

It’s important to ensure that everyone’s point of view is taken into account and that nobody’s special needs are ignored in the design process. Decisions should be based on the best possible evidence and care should be taken to ensure safety in every detail.