Design principles

There were five design principles in the guidance document. Some of the responses to these related to the specific infrastructure elements that these principles cover.

Principle 6. Effective Separation Between Different User Zones

Some responses stated why they agreed or provided additional supporting information from their experience or their organisation. As well as this some comments made specific points on this design principle.

Regarding kerbs and dropped kerbs, one respondent referenced a 20mm height differential (as seen in Cycling by Design) and referenced in TRL guidance as being detectable by visually impaired users. Another respondent however suggested 60mm was the suitable size for the drop. A third respondent referenced BS8300 (British Standard guidance used by architects) with reference to dropped kerbs, that these should be 0-6mm for wheelchairs to be able to pass, but that these are sometimes up to 20mm in height and there is a need to audit dropped kerbs.

The ideal dropped kerb has a gentle slope from pavement to road, with a seamless join and tactile tiles to alert people with visual impairments to its presence… If a car is parked across a dropped kerb, it is rendered useless to wheelchair users.”

Other points concerned space demarcation. One respondent asked for national consistency on colour use to denote zones for pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles. Another asked for all new housing developments to have cycle lanes separate from cars and pedestrians. A third suggested floating parking is not good design because pedestrians have to cross the cycle lane to reach their car. A fourth respondent pointed to a section in the text relating to kerbs to define the pedestrian space – asking if this could be clarified that this does not relate to continuous footways? The same respondent expressed concern around the terminology of ‘low flow and low speed’ streets and the importance of the context of the town centre/busy streets guidance.

Principle 7. Clear, Unobstructed Pedestrian Corridors and Footways

Some responses stated why they agreed with the principle. Others provided additional information or suggestions. One respondent expressed concern about existing infrastructure, suggesting that as not all towns and cities have wide pavements in good repair the practicalities of introducing such a corridor becomes difficult. Another questioned how obstructions will be monitored and what penalties, if any, may ensue if the guidance is not adhered to.

One suggestion was to make cycle parking mandatory near water bottle filling stations. Another asked for the provision of facilities for larger cycles including adapted, tandem and cargo cycles to be added at bike storage locations. One respondent shared a concern about dockless e-bike and e-scooter schemes potentially leading to these vehicles being parked or discarded and blocking pavements. A further respondent noted that clear signage is helpful where footways may be shared with cyclists.

This is a particularly welcome aspect of the consultation. Despite being at the top of the sustainable travel hierarchy (from NTS 1 and NTS2) … pedestrian facilities all too often are not truly prioritised in plans and developments, particularly those where aspects are having to be retro-engineered.”

Principle 8. Crossings

Some responses stated why they agreed or provided additional supporting information from their experience or interest group. Others provided additional information or suggestions. One asked for controlled crossings at four way junctions, another that cycles are included in controlled crossings. The need for there to be a path through tactile paving at a crossing for those with feet problems was raised. Another respondent expressed concern about continuous footways as a form of crossing, while one participant was supportive of controlled crossings but suggested there may not always be enough time provided to cross the road.

Additionally, one respondent suggested bollards be placed either side of significant dropped kerb locations to prevent parking across them.

A local authority shared that they had done engagement with mobility stakeholders and people with mobility restrictions, finding a preference for two-staged crossings due to lack of time with a single stage.

Members recognise that new crossing display the ‘red/green man’ at a lower level on the same side of the road. While this may be helpful for some crossing users, for those with a cognitive impairment, this may cause confusion since it is not familiar, and they may not look for the signal at a lower level.”

Principle 9. Materials

Some participants provided additional comments from their experience or interest group. In relation to Principle 9, in one case it was requested that cobbled or flat paving tiles are not used, as these can become slippery. Another asked for guidance to support local procurement of materials, including assessing the lifecycle of the materials. A third requested that the work of one utility company is not quickly followed by another.

Principle 10. Consistency in Design

Some responses stated why they agreed or provided additional supporting information from their experience or interest group. Others provided additional information or suggestions.

Better enforcement of Equality Impact Assessments would be helpful according to one participant. Another said consistency in street design is good because it helps people with sight loss to navigate. In contrast, another welcomed a design led approach which leads to context specific projects rather than standardised designs. Regarding gathering data and auditing road safety one response suggested that councils cannot afford to do this.