On 22nd October Merton Council's Planning Committee approved the proposals for Bishopsford Road (Mitcham) Bridge. Like many local groups and residents we have concerns about the design and layout and whilst we want a re-constructed bridge as swiftly as possible we also think what is built should be fit for purpose far into the future, and meet the Council's own policies to tackle the Climate Emergency and promote active travel.
Many of our concerns stem from the ways in which the designs don't meet the Department for Transport issues Local Traffic
Notes (LTNs) to guide Council’s designs.
The Planning Committee were recommended to
approve a shared-use pavement on the bridge based on a quotation from a section
of LTN 1/20 which specifically relates to Motor Traffic Free areas and
therefore is not applicable to this road bridge design. A follow up Q&A on Merton’s
website, regarding the Planning Approval, claims that guidance allows shared-use on bridges if there isn’t sufficient space. LTN
1/20 makes clear that this applies not to road bridges but to Motor Traffic
Free bridges.
These serious misrepresentations of LTN 1/20 are
putting the Council in the position of promoting an installation likely to
endanger all users of the bridge.
This can be relatively easily resolved by slight
rearrangement of space to give two dedicated cycle lanes and a pedestrian
pavement which conforms with the ambitions expressed in the Planning Application's
Design and Access statement and fundamentally does not go against the carefully
researched guidance of Local Transport Note 1/20.
MCC's response to the Council's Q&A
Last week a series of
Questions and Answers were published on Merton’s Council website to
justify Committee Approval of the design for Bishopsford Road Bridge.
Question: I
have been told that the bridge doesn’t meet cycling design regulations
published by the Government in July 2020
LB Merton Answer: It
does. In summary, the new guidance recognises that shared surfaces between
pedestrians and cyclists aren’t ideal but can be used where there isn’t enough
space, such as on bridges and underpasses. Section 6.3 of guidance sets out how
to design a shared surface and Merton’s design fully complies with this.
MCC's Response:
The LTN 1/20
section that covers shared-use is Section 6.5. The quoted Section 6.3
relates to Light Segregation and is therefore inappropriate for
shared-use.
Section 10.8
covers bridges and underpasses, but these are bridges and
underpasses that are limited to pedestrian and cycle use and are Motor Traffic
Free.
Section 6.5
whole-heartedly discourages shared-use on pavements in built up areas. However
says if it must be done it should be ‘well designed’.
Table 6.3 (as opposed to Section 6.3)
comes under sub clause 6.5.7 and gives recommended minimum widths of shared use routes
carrying up to 300 pedestrians per hour with up to 300 cyclists per hour at 3.0
metres and with over 300 cyclists 4.5 metres.
Where
pedestrian flows are higher, it says greater widths should be used to reduce
conflict.
In the Officers
Report to the Planning Committee that recommended approval
The Report’s Item
8.9.14 states ‘Members should consider the guidance note from DfT
Local Transport Note 01/20 which states that “A fully shared surface is
preferable to creating sub-standard widths for both pedestrians and cyclists
where the available width is 3.0m or less”
This
quotation from LTN 1/20 sub-clause 8.2.8 is from Section 8 which is
devoted entirely to Motor Traffic Free Routes and therefore is not the context
for this bridge.
If the Officers
Report to Committee had been minded to include sub clause 15.2.20 which refers
to the edges and verges of such off-road paths, the Committee would have
understood that “Vertical features such as hedges and walls
reduce the useable width, so ideally a mown grass verge or low, slow growing
plants should be provided for 1.0m immediately next to the path”.
A road bridge is
in a different context being shared-use next to motor traffic but having a
parapet beside it will in the same way reduce the useable width.
Should the design
of the bridge have a verge of one metre between the shared-use and a parapet?
An answer to this
is available in Local Transport Note 1/12 which was specifically on
shared-use and took it for granted. The attitude has altered with the
publication of LTN 1/20 and LTN 1/12 was withdrawn.
However cyclists
and pedestrians haven’t altered and they retain the same dimensional
characteristics as under LTN 1/12. If a shared-use pavement is to be forced on
this bridge and it is to be ‘well designed’ and safely
designed then the dimensional implications for interaction between pedestrians
and cyclists need accommodating. A very clear and universal diagram was available in LTN 1/12 and is highly relevant if shared-use is, against
guidance, to be used.
This involves the
proximity to vertical elements and the effect these have on cyclists, in
particular. But in the melée of unsegregated shared-use vertical elements
become a safety issue for both cyclists and pedestrians. Both pedestrians and
cyclists are vulnerable if unbalanced by being squeezed over a pavement edge
into the path of A217 motor traffic on account of the pavement being too
narrow. This applies to the bridge approved by the Planning Committee. It can
be concluded that this is a dangerous arrangement that is likely to get more
dangerous in future years under a Council Policy promoting Active Travel.
With regard to
carriageway widths this is covered under Section 6.1.1 in LTN 1/20 where
reduction in carriageway width is encouraged. This contrasts with
Section 6.5 where shared-use on pavements in built-up areas are actively
discouraged.
The safe solution
to this bridge and only way to satisfy the dimensional restraints is to reduce
the carriageway width and have two dedicated cycle lanes and a pedestrian
pavement. For pedestrians, the bridge parapet does not increase the pavement’s
effective width so separation of cyclists and pedestrians is the answer.