1. Executive summary

1.1 Introduction and background

1.1.1. Transport Scotland (TS), the Scottish Government (SG) and the Department for Transport (DfT) required research, evidence and recommendations on methods and approaches to help deliver inclusive design environments within town centres and busy street areas. WSP was commissioned to undertake the research and produce this research report.

1.1.2. This research project has been undertaken in parallel with separate research commissioned by the DfT, and undertaken by TRL, to review the following two sets of DfT guidance with the aim of understanding how they need to be updated:

Inclusive Mobility: A guide to best practice on access to pedestrian and transport infrastructure (published in 2002)
Guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces (published in 1998).

1.1.3. Both research studies have been designed to be complementary without significant overlap of content.

1.1.4. This research included two main aspects - evidence on how inclusive engagement approaches can support inclusive design, and evidence on physical design measures that can support inclusive and accessible design.

1.2 Research methodology

1.2.1. The research drew on the following sources and approaches, the full details of which are included under the relevant appendices listed below.

A Literature Review (Appendix A)
Perspectives from disabled street users through a series of focus groups (Appendix B and C)
Perspectives from designers, implementers and promoters through an online survey and a series of follow-on interviews (Appendix D)
Good practice examples (Appendix F)
Other research on street design (Appendix H)

1.3 Research findings – inclusive engagement

1.3.1. The findings derived from this research can be summarised across five key themes:

Theme 1 - Stakeholder identification
Theme 2 - The scale and nature of the engagement process, including timing and notification
Theme 3 - Accessible engagement
Theme 4 - Recording
Theme 5 - Establishing and maintaining a good working relationship.

1.3.2. A review of the alignment between current guidance and the principles related to inclusive engagement concluded that existing guidance does cover the majority of points.

1.3.3. It is, however, clear from the focus group and designer feedback that, despite the existing guidance (spread across a range of different documents), there remains a gap between what has been implemented as part of street design projects and the expectations of disabled street users and designers, and that there are some specific requirements for street design projects to be addressed.

1.3.4. The research has established principles that will support the delivery of more inclusive engagement. A recommendation of this report is that these principles be reflected in guidance, supported by further research as recommended in this report.

1.3.5. The key principles and recommendations for inclusive engagement (supported by further sub-principles described in this report) are set out in Table 1.

1.3.6. It should be noted that all the principles need to be considered collectively, i.e. not in isolation, in order to recognise the inter-relationship between maintaining the existing level of amenity for disabled street users and the opportunity to improve the level of amenity for all disabled street users.

Table 1 – Principles and recommendations for inclusive engagement
NR	Principle / Sub-Principle	Recommendation
1.0	The individuals and groups representing the views of local disabled street users who will be affected by the proposed changes to the street design should be identified during the planning of the inclusive engagement process.
1.1	Sub-principle: Local disabled street users who make use of the street space, and whose existing level of amenity may be impacted by the proposed changes to the street design, should be included in the engagement.
1.2	Sub-principle: The identification of local disabled street users can be achieved through a combination of accessible media promotion and organisations that represent and / or support local street users.	Further research is recommended into the development of a GDPR-compliant stakeholder list (including preferred communication methods) to improve stakeholder identification / engagement. The GDPR-compliant mailing list could be passed to the designer (under conditions of use) at the start of a project.
1.3	Sub-principle: Input from any one stakeholder group should be proportionate and seeking views from only one interest group should be avoided.	It is recommended that more training be given to designers and promoters in respect of the broad range and complexity of different disabilities. This will support a greater appreciation of how disabled street users' perspectives may differ and encourage a wider range of views to be sought.
1.4	Sub-principle: The use of internal accessibility officers or equivalents within local authorities to "proof check" designs instead of undertaking engagement should be avoided.
1.5	Sub-principle: Engagement should include proportionate representation from local older adult street users and disabled pedestrians and cyclists to ensure that all voices are heard equally.	Further research is recommended into engagement with older adults with age-related disabilities in order to support the inclusive design for lifelong conditions and the needs of an aging population of disabled street users.
2.0	Utilising established local groups (where there are no Access Panels) who represent the views of locals disabled street users will benefit the planning and delivery of inclusive engagement.	Further research is recommended to examine different approaches to the efficient and effective establishment of such local groups, where Access Panels are not in place or inactive.
3.0	Engagement should be undertaken from the start of the design process, ideally at scheme conception.
3.1	Sub-principle: Local disabled street users should have the opportunity from early on in the design process to provide input to the design process, to outline how they use the space, and to describe their existing level of amenity.
3.2	Sub-principle: Engagement should be regarded as a multi-stage process and invite ongoing contributions from those affected by proposed changes.
3.3	Sub-principle: Working with local stakeholder and the community can help ensure that the correct scale of engagement forms for a project are undertaken and at the most suitable times within the project cycle.
4.0	The scale and nature of the engagement should inform the project commissioning with budget and timescales established to meet these requirements.
4.1	Sub-principle: The approach to inclusive engagement should be proportionate to the size and type of project.
4.2	Sub-principle: Sufficient budget should be set aside to allow for the full inclusive engagement process (from concept stage onwards).	Further research is recommended into the costs for inclusive engagement on completed projects in order to benchmark reasonable and realistic budgets for engagement on different types of projects.
4.3	Sub-principle: The project programme should allow for the identification of stakeholders, time for stakeholders to mobilise and attend engagement events, and time for responses to consultation throughout the engagement.
5.0	Media promotion should be multi-sensory and should recognise the limitations of media format to those with sensory impairments.	Further research is recommended into: i) determining the response / value of accessible media promotion through local TV, radio, audio newspapers versus DPO spoken media (RNIB^[1] Radio) for different project types. ii) determining the response / value of making a press release to DPOs to promote engagement / stakeholder identification standard practice. Use could be made of participant records from future engagement as to how they became aware of the engagement event and feedback on efficacy of approaches adopted.
6.0	The use of different communication methods can improve access and understanding during the inclusive engagement process.
6.1	Sub-principle: Inclusive engagement is supported through the provision of different ways of physically interacting with the proposals, such as walk-throughs and material samples.
6.2	Sub-principle: Inclusive engagement is supported by facilitating different forms of engagement (e.g. joint events and one-to-one interviews).
6.3	Sub-principle: Inclusive engagement is supported by a clear definition of the different communication preferences of the disabled street users to be engaged with, and provision for these approaches to be adopted.
7.0	The sourcing of accessible venues that can accommodate participants with a range of impairments (in the group of disabled street users being engaged with) supports inclusive engagement.
8.0	Maintaining a record of engagement supports inclusive design and the designer's Public Sector Equality Duty compliance under the Equality Act.	It is recommended that guidance be updated to ensure designers maintain records which include the design response to inputs from the engagement, including design changes and reasonable adjustments made, or where no action has been taken, in order to inform the EQIA / Access Audit. The EQIA / Access Audit (or similar) should form the central document for demonstrating compliance with the relevant legislation and regulations associated with inclusive design and engagement.
8.1	Sub-principle: The recorded input from the engagement process should be assessed and responded to (i.e. 'you said, we did').
8.2	Sub-principle: Engagement input and feedback should be facilitated in the most accessible format for the participant, with associated record keeping.
9	A collaborative approach that encourages local disabled street users or representatives to consider the needs of other users supports inclusive engagement.

1.4 Research findings – inclusive physical design measures

1.4.1. The perspectives of disabled street users with respect to inclusive physical design measures were sought in relation to specific design features and their impact on people with different impairments.

1.4.2. The physical design features considered by the disabled street user focus groups were:

Crossings - uncontrolled and controlled crossing of carriageways.
Segregation between pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles.
Obstructions and 'street clutter'.

1.4.3. Two key themes were drawn from the research that are of overarching importance to the implementation of inclusive design.

Theme 1 - Consistency in approach.
Theme 2 - The influence of feeling 'unsafe' on access and use of areas by disabled street users.

1.4.4. Most aspects of physical design measures are covered to some extent by existing guidance. However, the guidance is spread across multiple documents leading to inconsistency in its application and a perception of a lack of effectiveness of guidance by disabled street users.

1.4.5. The research has established principles that will support the delivery of more inclusive physical design measures. A recommendation of this research study is for these principles to be reflected in guidance, supported by further research as recommended in this report.

1.4.6. The key principles for inclusive engagement (supported by further sub-principles) are set out in Table 2.

1.4.7. It should be noted that all the principles need to be considered collectively, i.e. not in isolation, in order to recognise the inter-relationship between maintaining the existing level of amenity for disabled street users and the opportunity to improve the level of amenity for all disabled street users.

Table 2 – Principles and recommendations for inclusive physical design measures
NR	Principle / Sub-Principle	Recommendation
	General Principles
10.0	Consistency in the approach to, and design of, street features in town centres and busy street areas supports access for all street users, increases the confidence of disabled street users and minimises feelings of discomfort and/or feeling unsafe.	It is recommended that guidance embeds the importance of consistency (including engagement to inform the design) in the approach to and the design of street features and the need to consider the impact of any proposals on the existing level of amenity of disabled street users, as well as seeking opportunities to enhance the level of amenity.
10.1	Sub-principle: Undertaking an EQIA where changes to physical design features are proposed will support the identification of changes to the existing level of amenity for disabled street users. It will allow action to be taken to best support access for disabled street users.	Further research is recommended in respect of the training of designers (and those who contribute to design) to better equip designers undertaking EQIAs to appreciate the perspectives and needs of street users with different abilities. It is recommended that guidance, which may include Manual for Streets, Designing Streets and Inclusive Mobility, should encourage the completion of EQIAs.
10.2	Sub-principle: Consistent monitoring and evaluation will inform better design and support access for disabled street users by incorporating lessons learned and good practice.	Further research is recommended into the standardisation of the monitoring and evaluation of street design schemes. This should include consideration of requirements for baseline surveys (including street user perception and health and wellbeing) and categorisation of street design into standard categories, in order to allow comparisons between different locations and project scales.
	Crossings
11.0	The type and frequency of pedestrian crossings (controlled and uncontrolled) can improve access and safety, and enhance the confidence of disabled street users in town centres and on busy streets.	It is recommended, as part of the Site Assessment outlined in Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 6, that the level of amenity of existing disabled street users is observed and that this should inform the considerations of crossing location, type and regularity (taking into consideration demand and reasonable walking distances to existing and preferred crossing facilities). The street design should be developed with consideration of the outcomes of the Site Assessment and the principles presented from this research. It is recommended that guidance should be expanded to incorporate this principle.
11.1	Sub-principle: Street features included at all crossings which are conspicuous, legible, comprehensible and credible from the perspective of the disabled street user, whilst maintaining access, especially for disabled street users with reduced mobility, will support access for disabled street users.	Further research is recommended into: i) Further research into the design of continuous footways. ii) Pedestrian refuge island design detail for facilities of less than 2m wide (between kerbs) where no tactile separation is currently required. Additional research is recommended to establish if changes to current guidance are required, incorporating some form of non-tactile demarcation to differentiate between the two stages of crossing the street (i.e. crossing both lanes).
11.2	Sub-principle: Signal controlled crossings are the preferred crossing type by all disabled street users and provide the highest degree of confidence to disabled street users.	It is recommended that guidance should be expanded to incorporate this principle, and include the following considerations as part of the design following the Site Assessment under Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 6: i) A signalised crossing should by default be considered in new installations or the upgrading of existing facilities subject to Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 6 guidance regarding demand, minimum distance between junctions, etc. ii) Further signalised crossings can be considered subject to Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 6 guidance regarding demand, minimum distance between crossings, etc. iii) Signalised crossings provide the least discomfort to visually impaired street users. iv) Zebra crossings can complement signalised crossings in town centres / busy streets to provide an improved level of crossing amenity. v) Zebra crossings are preferred over courtesy crossings by non-visually impaired disabled street users. Visually impaired street users experience a high level of discomfort and avoid zebra crossings. vi) Courtesy crossings are considered the option which gives the least access to disability groups, with visually impaired participants expressing a high level of discomfort with and avoidance of such facilities.
12.0	Regular rest locations with clear wayfinding and directions improve access for disabled street users to crossings.
	Segregation
13.0	Disabled street user access is conditional on physical street design features that are conspicuous, legible, comprehensive and credible.	It is recommended that guidance outlines the importance of the physical street features in supporting the confidence of disabled street users in accessing an area.
13.1	Sub-principle: All disabled street users value some form of kerb demarcation to define the pedestrian place and demarcate it from the vehicle place (including cyclists).	Further quantitative research is recommended to define the kerb height provision with and without tactile demarcation, taking into consideration all types of disabled street users. The research approach should consider the level and type of disability, the level of personal adaptation and degree of personal assistance as well as street conditions. The research should seek to identify the kerb height that supports access for the majority of users (i.e. 85%ile of street users).
13.2	Sub-principle: The provision of a demarcated pedestrian clear corridor of a minimum width of 2 metres clear of obstructions provides a 'safe area' for pedestrians and supports access for disabled street users in busy streets / town centres.	It is recommended that guidance should include a requirement in town centres and busy streets for a horizontally segregated pedestrian clear corridor or zone which is demarcated from cyclists and vehicles. Further research is recommended into the maximum width of demarcated clear pedestrian corridors.
13.3	Sub-principle: The provision of Level Surface streets with tactile demarcation can be considered in exceptional circumstances with low flow (vehicles and wheeled modes) / low speed conditions after consultation with local disabled street users, in particular the visually impaired.	Further research is recommended to define 'low flow / low speed' conditions in town centres and busy street areas. The provision of Level Surface streets with tactile demarcation may be retained in exceptional circumstances. This could be accompanied by additional support to improve the accessibility of these areas such as one-way traffic flow or restricting vehicle access. This is likely to be mainly on historical streets and should be restricted to "low flow / low speed" locations. In the absence of detailed quantitative research, it is suggested that the definition of "low flow / low speed" locations in Manual for Streets of 100 vph / under 10 mph is adopted. Where these flows / speeds are exceeded, kerb demarcation is required.
14.0	The segregation of pedestrians and cyclists in town centres and busy street areas supports access for disabled street users.
14.1	Sub-principle: Kerbed demarcation to cycle tracks supports access for disabled street users. The provision of some form of kerb demarcation reduces anxiety, promotes confidence and increases the level of access.
	Use Of Materials
15.0	Colour and tonal contrast of street features and pavement in all weather conditions supports access for all street users.	It is recommended that guidance reflects the requirement for colour and tonal contrast in town centre and busy street areas, with examples and suggested approaches for assessing tonal and colour contrast.
15.1	Sub-principle: Material textures can be used to differentiate between the footway and the carriageway but should not present an obstacle or trip hazard or present differently in wet weather or lower light.
15.2	Sub-principle: The maintenance of surfaces and build quality /standards supports access for all street users.
	Obstructions / Street Clutter
16.0	Within town centres and busy street areas, all street features should be outside / away from the demarcated pedestrian clear corridor.	It is recommended that guidance embeds the importance of demarcation of clear pedestrian corridors in enabling inclusive access for disabled street users.
16.1	Sub-principle: Street features that support pick up and drop off (PUDO) by support vehicles improve access for disabled street users in town centres and busy street areas.	It is recommended that guidance conveys the importance of considering the needs of disabled users with regard to pick up and drop off (PUDO) facilities. This relates to providing clear kerbside access and to other considerations such as the provision of wayfinding to these PUDO areas and ensuring their close proximity to destinations.
16.2	Sub-principle: Regulation of moveable temporary street features could support access for disabled street users.	Further research is recommended into the regulation of the use and location of moveable temporary street features (e.g. domestic waste wheelie bins) on footways and in respect of efficacy in supporting access for disabled street users.

1.5 Principles and recommendations related to training

1.5.1. The theme of improved guidance and training was evident from all the sources considered in the research and reflects evidence from the good practice examples identified.

1.5.2. Therefore, the development of guidance and training needs to be undertaken with consideration of the different professions that are likely to be involved in leading and implementing engagement and design.

1.5.3. Principle 17 is that the training of designers, implementers and promoters and those involved in the design process such as access panels needs to convey a greater appreciation of the key aspects pertaining to inclusive design.

1.5.4. The report makes recommendations that will support the development of training courses and materials that would help to convey the key aspects to the audiences for the training material.

1.6 Conclusion

1.6.1. This report sets out principles and recommendations that would support inclusive design in town centres and busy streets.

1.6.2. It is recommended that these principles be embedded in guidance and applied in practice, and that the recommended further research be undertaken.

Previous Page | Next Page