7. Inclusive physical design measures - research findings

7.1.1. The research findings in relation to inclusive physical design measures were based upon the following elements of the research undertaken:

• The Literature Review (Appendix A).
• Perspectives from the disabled street user focus groups (Appendix C – referenced with the code 'FGD').
• Perspectives from designers, implementers and promoters (Appendix D – referenced with the code 'DIP').
• Further research considered as part of this study (Appendix H – referenced with the code 'H').

7.1.2. The principles, supporting sub-principles and recommendations are set out in full in Appendix K, together with links to the underpinning evidence from this research study.

7.1.3. Through the analysis of the inputs from the elements above, with respect to disabled street users with different impairments and the physical design features, key findings were identified which have informed the principles and recommendations.

7.1.4. The key findings drawn from the Literature Review are summarised in Chapter 4 (LR3 to LR12).

Overview of the user group format

7.2.1. The disabled street user focus groups considered the impact of inclusive physical design features against the framework of different categories of impairment and physical design features.

7.2.2. The impacts on access for the following categories of impairment were considered against the physical design features:

• Hearing impairment.
• Visual impairment.
• Deaf / blindness.
• Reduced mobility.
• Learning disabilities / non-visible disabilities.

7.2.3. The physical design features considered were.

• Crossings.
• Crossing types - uncontrolled and controlled crossing of carriageways.
• Segregation between pedestrians and vehicles / level or reduced level surfaces.
• Footways - kerbed footways.
• Cycle track – cycle track adjacent to the carriageway and / or footways.
• People orientated streets - street types found in town centres and busy streets relating to different level of demarcation as well as vehicle flow and speed.
• Obstructions and 'street clutter'.
• Supporting vehicles - disabled parking, tricycle parking, etc.
• Street features / 'street clutter' - bollards, A-frame signage, seating, cycle parking, litter bins, etc.

Additional research notes – disabled street user focus groups

7.2.4. The following notes provide additional information with regards to disabled street users that was considered by the research team and that should be considered in any current and future guidance pertaining to inclusive engagement and design.

Degree of Impairment and Personal adaptation

7.2.5. Whilst the descriptions of the individual participants' impairments have been standardised in the reporting of the focus group inputs, the research has drawn out distinctions between different degrees and / or types of impairment where possible.

7.2.6. The degree of an individual impairment is a combination of the level of personal adaptation the individual has achieved to support their own mobility as well as the external support they may have, including the use of a personal assistant.

7.2.7. When considering the research findings, a level of caution has to be applied by the reader in order to not generalise disability as it is very personal to the individual. The difference within impairment categories should be appreciated. Further, appreciation of the needs of those with multiple impairments, and the stage in the life where an impairment presents itself, be it at birth or later in life, is essential in considering inclusive design.

Learning disability and non-visible disability

7.2.8. The disabled street user focus groups included a number of participants representing disabled street users with cognitive impairments e.g. dementia, and non-visible disabilities e.g. learning difficulties. Upon analysis of the inputs drawn from the focus groups there appeared to be a paucity of feedback specific to these disabilities.

7.2.9. The only unique aspect that was raised by this group of disabled street users was the importance of colour and tonal contrast in pavement design and that paving patterns can have an impact on access. Paving patterns can cause confusion and / or disorientation for this group of disabled street users.

7.2.10. This specific aspect of design falls outside the scope of this research but it has been noted here for the record.

Disabled street user focus group inputs – key messages

7.2.11. The disabled street user focus group discussions were analysed and the following sections summarise the key messages summarised from the focus groups.

Crossings

Informal (uncontrolled) crossings

• FGD1 - Unmarked courtesy crossings are considered the option that gives the least access to disability groups, with visually impaired participants expressing a high level of discomfort, and avoidance of such facilities.
• FGD2 - Raised continuous footways - there is a level of acceptance from disabled street users if designed correctly, with a clear distinction between the carriageway and footway, with contrasting and tactile paving to define the area.
• FGD3 - Pedestrian refuge islands are helpful but need to be designed to an appropriate width and not be too narrow. However, some consideration needs to be given in refuge island design to ensure that it is apparent that there is another carriageway to cross for those who are visually impaired / blind, i.e. the tactile paving should not be laid across the full depth of the refuge.
• FGD4 - Dropped kerbs are helpful but need to be appropriately located and designed to comply with standards for maximum gradients, crossfall and kerb upstand. Otherwise they become more of a barrier than a help to disabled people.

Formal (controlled) crossings

• FGD5 - Zebra crossings are preferred over courtesy crossings by non-visually impaired focus group participants. However, visually impaired focus group participants expressed a high level of discomfort and avoidance of these facilities, similar to their experience of courtesy crossings.
• FGD6 - Signal controlled crossings are considered by all users as the option that presents most access to disability groups, although visually impaired participants still expressed a level of discomfort with such facilities as they required assurance (by listening) that vehicles had stopped.
  • Additional concerns were raised by visually impaired participants on some older traffic signal installations with poor location and orientation of the push button unit. A few participants with reduced mobility expressed a preference for the push button unit to be located on a level area rather on the slope at the dropped kerb.

Crossings (general)

7.2.12. Based on the collective feedback from the focus groups in relation to formal and informal crossings, a number of key messages were identified.

• FGD7 - User preference for the type of pedestrian crossing is influenced by an individual's level of confidence, ability and any personal adaptation, including their familiarity or otherwise with the local street environment. All disability groups preferred signalised crossings, with visually impaired users expressing that they experience the least amount of discomfort with signalised crossings.
• FGD8 - There is a level of acceptance to the use of non-signalised crossings on town centre / busy streets by disabled street users who were not visually impaired. In addition, visually impaired street users would consider refuge islands and continuous footways when familiar to them, although this is dependent on the traffic and pedestrian flow and a good standard design arrangement (tactile paving / kerb edges, i.e. any kerb edge running parallel to a carriageway).
  • These crossings become more acceptable when disabled street users are escorted (personal adaptation) by a personal assistant / carer.
• FGD9 - Tactile paving and kerb edges, i.e. any kerb edge running parallel to a carriageway (representing good standard design arrangement) improve the level access / comfort when street users interact with a crossing in a town centre / on a busy street.
  • The research has shown that the standard requirement at a crossing^[7] should include dropped kerbs, suitable slope / camber, tactile paving in the correct orientation, colour and contrast and a minimal kerb upstand at the dropped kerb (6mm maximum)^[8]. Furthermore, at a signalised crossing the pole position and push button unit orientation must be correct and pedestrian detection to extend the crossing time is beneficial.
• FGD16 - Colour and tonal contrast are essential for street features and pavement in all weather conditions, and paving patterns need to be given consideration.

Segregation between pedestrians and vehicles / level or reduced level surfaces

• FGD10 - Footways - from the collective feedback, it is evident that clear, straight demarcated pedestrian footway / pavement areas that are free from obstacles are essential for disabled street users.
• FGD11 – Cycle tracks - the provision of kerbed demarcation increases the level of access for visually impaired and users with reduced mobility (in particular) with all groups expressing the most comfort / least anxiety.
• FGD12 - People Orientated Streets - from the collective feedback, the provision of some form of kerb in town centre / busy street areas is required to support access by a wide range of disabled street users.
  • There is lack of consensus on the kerb height, with some informed participants referring to research quoting 60mm. There is agreement that a kerb is considered appropriate with tactile (paving) edging being insufficient.
• FGD13 - People Orientated Streets - the same message was repeated as for footways and cycle tracks: to support disabled access in town centres / busy street areas, the pedestrian area needs to be free from obstruction and clearly demarcated. This minimises the level of discomfort in accessing these spaces.
• FGD14 - 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. Attention needs to be paid to the street design as well as to the wider traffic management / strategy.
  • It should be acknowledged that this option does present a level of discomfort to visually impaired street users and may impact upon them adversely if not designed correctly and / or if the low vehicle flow / low vehicle speed situation is not achieved.
  • Therefore, it is essential that consultation is undertaken with local disabled street users that could be impacted upon as there may be locations where level surface streets may be considered to support access for people with reduced mobility, i.e. historical streets.
• FGD15 - Vertical segregation between pedestrian street users and vehicles, including pedal cycles, is required in a town centre / busy street environment to support access for all disabled street users.
  • This segregation ensures vehicles are located in predictable positions and provides a level of comfort to pedestrians.
  • This segregation can be achieved by a form of kerb demarcation which creates a tactile / 'step off' level change that informs the pedestrian they have entered a different street space.
• FGD16 - In town centres / busy streets the formation of a horizontal segregated, unobstructed, pedestrian corridor is required between the building line and some form of demarcation to vehicles.
  • This should ideally have at least 2.0 metres (1.8 metres is required for two wheelchairs to pass) clear effective width and should have no moveable street features. Participants in the focus group suggested the demarcated pedestrian corridor should not exceed 4.0 metres to ensure the visually impaired are not disorientated
  • Wider pedestrian areas can be provided outside this demarcated area for those with no visual impairment.
  • It is essential for street features and pavement to have colour and tonal contrast in all weather conditions, and paving patterns need to be given consideration.
  • Disabled streets users in the focus groups did not express a specific preference for the location of the corridor within the space between the carriageway and the building line. However, the corridor needs to be straight and demarcated in a way that can be detected by the disabled street user.
• FGD17 - Within a town centre / busy street environment determining a standard kerb height requires careful consideration as this can impact on the level of access for other street users.
  • Kerb height impacts on the slope / camber to dropped kerbs and reduces the effective level width at the top of slope which will impact on those with mobility impairment.
  • Additional to these considerations (presented by the disabled street user focus groups) is cycle pedal clearance height on a cycle track adjacent to a footway: if the kerb is too high, the cycle track width would need to be wider, as a cyclist will cycle further away from the kerb. This can result in reduced footway width.
• FGD18 - Successful street design that results in an increased number of pedestrians in that area can potentially have an indirect impact on access for disabled street users who find these areas become too demanding / challenging to interact with.
• FGD19 - Surface maintenance and building quality / standards are key considerations impacting on inclusive access.

Obstructions and 'street clutter'

• FGD20 - Within town centre / busy street environments, all street features should be outside / away from the pedestrian clear corridor and be appropriately placed with some form of demarcation.
• FGD21 - Within town centre / busy street environments, consideration should be given to locating cycle racks and waste bins in the carriageway, but this should not be at the expense of disabled parking.
• FGD22 - Within town centre / busy street environments, street features that support pick up and drop off by support vehicles improve access for disabled street users. Features that facilitate support vehicles (e.g. charge points) are considered potential obstacles and could impact on access for disabled street users.
• FGD23 - It is essential to properly regulate the use and location of moveable temporary street features, e.g. domestic waste wheelie bins on footways (post collection) or tables and chairs. Erratic and / or unpredictable placement of moveable street features negatively impact on access for disabled street users.
• FGD24 - The regulation of A-frame advertising boards in the cities of Edinburgh and Perth was welcomed and well received by disabled street users. Similar approaches to the regulation of A-frames and other temporary moveable street furniture are required if a clear pedestrian corridor through town centre / busy street environments is to be delivered in practice.

Commentary on demarcation in 'shared space' environments

7.2.13. The disabled street user focus groups raised a significant amount of feedback on the role of the kerb, in particular in relation to 'shared space' as a design concept and with its association with 'level surface' physical design features and the absence of kerb demarcation.

7.2.14. 'Shared space' is based on influencing how street users use the spaces and is not dependent on a level surface as illustrated by the Table 2-1 of the withdrawn LTN 1/11: Shared Space guidance.

7.2.15. The feedback from disabled street user focus groups was that all disabled street users prefer a form of kerb demarcation when there is a level of motorised vehicle traffic in the same space.

7.2.16. The conclusion drawn by the research team is that the LTN 1/11: Shared space guidance did not provide comprehensive guidance as to when 'level surface' streets can be considered and this has led to inconsistent application of design features such as kerbs.

7.2.17. The detectability and predictable nature of the streetscape is a key principle in supporting access and supporting disabled street user comfort / anxiety in these spaces which is depended on suitable forms of demarcation.

7.3.1. The input from designers, implementers and promoters was based upon a series of online survey questions and follow-up interviews. The survey questions were not structured around specific physical design measures or disability groups, and hence provide supporting input to the specific physical design measures explored with the disabled street user focus groups. Full details of the research undertaken are included in Appendix D.

7.3.2. The views of the designers, implementers and promoters reflected 'informed designers' which represented 25% of all respondents. These are designers, implementers and promoters who demonstrated (in the assessment of the research team through the interview) a sufficient depth and breadth of appreciation of the needs (and how to make reasonable adjustment to support engagement) and concerns (understanding of the main issues) of disabled street users, and of the value of working collaboratively with disabled street users to achieve inclusive design.

7.3.3. The following sections summarise the key messages drawn from the designer, implementer and promoter surveys.

• DIP11 - In order to address the challenge of outdated guidance and practice, updated design guidance which has the broad support of different disability groups and users is necessary to allow designers to make more informed design decisions.
  • The new guidance should also aim to reduce the burden on disability groups and users to provide similar feedback on similar issues on each project they are consulted on. This will allow more focus and attention to be given to the consideration of, and feedback on, new and innovative design features.
• DIP14 - In England and Scotland, the policy position is clear that the needs of pedestrians should be considered first when making decisions on street design. On this basis, street features which reinforce this priority should be given the greatest consideration when making design decisions relating to town centres and busy streets.
• DIP15 - Schemes which reduce segregation between vehicles and pedestrians through the use of techniques such as level surfaces should only be considered appropriate where vehicle speeds and volumes are 'perceived' as low.
  • Even if these criteria are met there should be provision for clear pedestrian-only movement corridor(s) within the space with tactile or other types of demarcation, i.e. planters, barriered seating, etc.
  • In other circumstances, i.e. where vehicle speed and / or volumes are perceived as 'high' then a form of demarcation is required. Further consideration needs to be given to the definition of a 'low flow / low speed' situation.
• DIP16 - A collaborative design approach between designer and street users which helps to identify the requirements and location of different types of street furniture is recommended to maintain the pedestrian clear corridor. This approach can help ensure that the use of street furniture is rationalised in terms of number and location and best meets the needs of the people most likely to use it and benefit from it.
• DIP17 - There remains a lack of guidance on how to decide which measures to implement when two or more required elements are in opposition with each other.
• An example of a situation where requirements are in opposition to each other is the location of a push button at a signalised crossing: to support the visually impaired the button needs to be correctly orientated but the position of the pole on the slope is not ideal for the people with reduced mobility who may be concerned that they could roll or fall onto the carriageway while waiting to cross.
• DIP18 - Undertaking a post-implementation project review can be an important part of the inclusive design process and hand over to the client. This ensures that promoters and designers are able to take forward the lessons learned about what worked well and what could have been improved. This helps to inform subsequent design projects. Including the disability groups and users engaged during the design phase in the review allows their views on the engagement, design process and outcomes to be considered as well as building on these relationships for the next project.
• DIP19 - There is a need to understand the interactions of continuous footways and bus stops and bypasses and how they impact disabled and vulnerable street user groups.
• DIP20 - There should more widely available inclusive engagement training for designers and all those involved in the decision-making process to encourage a fuller understanding of the needs of communities and groups with a wide range of different disabilities and the various needs associated with both visible and non-visible disabilities.
• DIP21 - There is a need for clearer guidance on both inclusive engagement approaches and inclusive physical design measures to aid designers and to increase the confidence of vulnerable users that a space is safe and easy to use.

7.4.1. In addition to the Literature Review and research evidence collated from disabled street users and designers, implementers and promoters, further research was considered (outlined in detail in Appendix H). This further research covered subjects that could not be considered as part of the qualitative approach adopted for this study (i.e. user or designer perspectives) and was not captured within the search criteria of the Literature Review.

7.4.2. This further research supplemented the Literature Review and the engagement with disabled street users, designers, implementers and promoters and was focussed on the following:

• Factors when considering segregation between pedestrians and cyclists.
• Shared space – the impact on safety.
• Shared space – the impact on level of comfort: 'users versus avoiders'.
• Pedestrian crossing intervals.

7.4.3. Following analysis of the further research considered a number of key findings were identified (as included in Appendix H).

• Key message H1 - Sharing a town centre or busy street space between pedestrians and cyclists should be considered in the light of the pedestrian demand / density. At higher levels of pedestrian demand / density, segregation is advised in order to avoid negatively impacting on disabled street user access. An alternative route which allows cyclists to bypass these areas during high pedestrian demand periods should be provided.
• Key message H2 - Further research is required into the accidents associated with existing 'shared space' sites or similar design concepts within the UK.
• The research needs to include specific reference to vehicle speeds and flows, as well as the form and nature of the design, including consideration of level surfaces and kerbs with associated tactile paving.
• Key message H3 - Disabled street users may adapt their behaviour and potentially avoid an area in response to feelings of discomfort resulting from higher pedestrian demand / density, i.e. an area that is comfortable for a disabled street user to access at a lower level of pedestrian demand may not be comfortable at a higher pedestrian demand / density.
• Key message H4 - More formal and informal crossings are needed overall.
• Key message H5 - Consideration should be given to relocation / rationalising existing crossing facilities with regards to walking distance without rest in terms of detours for current users and that any proposal that increases the walking distance to a crossing needs to consider rest facilities to support older and disabled users, but without creating an obstruction.

7.5.1. Following analysis of the research inputs from all the sources set out in section 7.1, two themes were drawn from the research inputs that fall outside of the framework of specific disability groups and / or physical design features and are of overarching importance to the implementation of inclusive design.

• Theme 1 - Consistency in approach.
• Theme 2 - The influence of feeling 'unsafe' on access for disabled street users.

Inclusive design theme 1: the need for consistency in approach

7.5.2. An overriding theme from across the disabled street user focus groups regarding inclusive physical design measures was the importance of consistency in approach and in the application of street design (LR8, FGD25, DIP18, DIP20, DIP21).

7.5.3. From the perspective of disabled street users, 'consistency in approach' supports and improves access. Consistency further improves the confidence of disabled street users that journey can be made and successfully completed in areas that are less familiar to them. From the perspective of designers, implementers and promoters, consistency will improve collaborative engagement through the design process (DIP2) and increase the potential for designs to support greater diversity in the use of space by disabled street users.

Inclusive design theme 2: the influence of feeling 'unsafe' on access

7.5.4. In advance of the focus groups meeting, the research team found (through initial engagement with disabled street users, and attendance at other events as set out in section 3.3.2) that safety concerns were regularly raised in discussions about disabled street users' interaction with street features.

7.5.5. When this subject was further explored it was evident that the disabled street users 'feel unsafe' and they are concerned their needs (in relation to this perception of lack of safety) are not being met.

7.5.6. It is of course worth noting that disabled pedestrians are not the only road users who feel unsafe when trying to negotiate existing street design and modify their behaviour as a result – parents have been found to do the same in relation to their children's independent mobility as pedestrians.

7.5.7. It is also important to note that perceived road danger does not always accord with objective measures of danger, such as recorded numbers of accidents, as shown in Rothman et al (2015)^[9]. This further implies that planning for inclusive streets requires planning to reduce perceived as much or more than actual road danger.

7.5.8. This was explored when raised in focus groups and it was found this related to a 'level of confidence' by disabled street users in their interaction with the street which can be referred to in research / street guidance as 'user comfort' (see FGD8).

7.5.9. 'User comfort' is an important aspect to consider when discussing the impact on access to town centres / busy street areas due to the provision or lack of certain street features. The impact on access is not only a function of the street design but also on the degree of disability and the level of personal adaptation.

7.5.10. Hence any design proposal that impacts upon their existing level of amenity, or would require additional personal adaptation, needs to be considered as part of the inclusive design process. The disabled street users may have to consider what 'reasonable adjustment' they need to implement to support their level of comfort / feel safe to access the street beyond what can be reasonable applied in street design.

7.6.1. This research study recognises that there is a significant amount of design guidance currently available. Whilst the research is not a review of the current design guidance it acknowledges existing and emerging guidance and recommends that any future guidelines should take these into consideration.

7.6.2. This research study acknowledges that other standards, and guidance, are used in street design, this includes the Traffic Signs Manual^[10], Designing Streets and the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges^[11] as well as number of guidance documents that have been applied by local government organisations.

7.6.3. Existing guidance considered is included in Appendix I.

7.6.4. Further research relating to the update to guidance on inclusive mobility and tactile paving has been recently published^[12] and a summary of the findings has been included in Appendix E to this report.

7.6.5. The conclusion from the review of the alignment between the findings and existing guidance is that the majority of aspects are covered to some extent by existing guidance. However, the guidance is spread across multiple documents leading to inconsistency in the application of guidance (and in the perception of the effectiveness of guidance by disabled street users).

7.6.6. In conclusion, there appears to be a gap in the use of the guidance for street design projects and there are some specific requirements for street design projects.

7.7.1. Conclusions and recommendations on inclusive physical design measures are set out in Chapter 8.

Previous Page | Next Page