8. Recommendations related to inclusive physical design measures

8.1.1. The development of the recommendations for inclusive physical design measures builds upon the key messages and findings from the Literature Review, disabled street user focus groups, surveys with designers, implementers and promoters and further research. It includes consideration of the review of key messages and findings against existing guidance.

8.1.2. The recommendations are based on action needed to address the conclusions of the research undertaken whilst building upon the existing guidance.

8.1.3. The principles, supporting sub-principles, and recommendations are set out in full in Appendix J with accompanying links to the evidence from this research study underpinning each principle and sub-principle.

8.1.4. 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.

8.2.1. Principle 10: 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.

• Recommendation: It is recommended that guidance embeds the importance of consistency in the approach to (including engagement to inform the design) 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.
• Sub-principle 10.1: 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.
  • Recommendation: Further research is recommended into 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 should encourage the completion of EQIAs, setting out how undertaking EQIAs supports the Public Sector Equality Duty.
• Sub-principle 10.2: Consistent monitoring and evaluation will inform better design and support access for disabled street users by incorporating lessons learned and good practice.
  • Recommendation: 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.

8.2.2. Some guidance does refer to the PSED under the Equality Act (for example the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 6), but guidance could be enhanced to include the importance of EQIAs when considering the potential impact on the existing level of amenity for street users.

Evidence

8.2.3. Note that the evidence reference codes are set out in section 7.1.1.

8.2.4. This principle and the supporting principles reflect evidence from the literature review, focus groups on inclusive engagement, focus groups on inclusive design, designer / implementer / promoter interviews, further research and good practice examples (LR1 to LR12, FGE1, FGE2, FGE7, FGD1 to FGD25, DIP14, DIP16 to DIP21, H3, GP4, GP5).

Commentary on pedestrian design guidance

8.2.5. There may be benefit in further research into the value of a single pedestrian design guide to draw together existing guidance (and updates to guidance) and include the principles and recommendations from this research.

8.2.6. A new consolidated pedestrian design guide could include engineering detail to replace / update Inclusive Mobility, pedestrian elements of 'Roads for all - Good practice guide for roads' and Traffic Signs Manual (Chapter 6). There are common concerns and issues shared by disabled and non-disabled street users which can be addressed by pedestrian design guidance which can support greater consistency in the application of good design principles. The guidance can outline specific detail to address the concerns and issues of disabled street users.

8.2.7. The new guidance would incorporate guidance on accessible street design (informed by all the key principles recommended from this research report). This would need to be aligned with the emerging research on tactile paving guidance and inclusive mobility.

8.2.8. The research highlighted the importance of consistency in approach, in material choice and surface quality of the streetscape and a design guide document would support this.

8.2.9. The availability of recent design guidance for cycle infrastructure and how it should be delivered highlights the current lack of an equivalent single national pedestrian design guidance document, including engineering detail to replace / update existing guidance.

8.2.10. This perspective aligns well with the 'Pedestrian Environment' mentioned in the DfT 'The Inclusive Transport Strategy: Achieving Equal Access for Disabled People'^[13], Scotland's Accessible Travel Framework Delivery Plan^[14] and Transport Scotland's National Transport Strategy (NTS2)^[15] in relation to reducing inequalities and the prioritising sustainable transport, i.e. walking, wheeling and cycling.

8.2.11. A pedestrian design guide would embed approaches that support access for all street users. By supporting the consistency of good street design and clarifying the requirements for inclusive design measures it support access for disabled street users.

8.2.12. The design guidance should incorporate existing guidance and incorporate the recommended principles identified in this report (prioritised over existing guidance). This guidance should highlight the importance of consistent in approach in terms of design, material, maintenance and build quality.

8.3.1. Principle 11: The type of and frequency of pedestrian crossings (controlled and uncontrolled) can improve access, safety and enhance the confidence of disabled street users in town centres and on busy streets.

• Recommendation: It recommended that 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 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.
• Sub-principle 11.1: 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.
  • Recommendation: Further research is recommended into:
    • i. 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. Further research is recommended to inform if change to current guidance is required, with some form of non-tactile to differentiate between the two stages of crossing the street (i.e. crossing both lanes).

8.3.2. The Traffic Signs Manual update has guidance on the inter-relationship between kerb height, camber / slope to the drop kerb and the level footway clearance at the top of camber / slope.

8.3.3. Research on continuous footways is required to determine how well users, particularly disabled streets users, can understand and navigate continuous footways. It is also needed to understand the behaviour of drivers and cyclists at continuous footways in different conditions (e.g. day / night, varying traffic conditions and pedestrian demand).

8.3.4. The research should also consider the extent to which design components impact on understanding and behaviour e.g. use of contrasting surfacing materials, defined kerblines, tactile paving, ramps, etc. Aligned with the research could be an investigation into the respective use and behaviour at raised entry treatments to understand how the types of measures compare in their level of amenity for disabled street users.

• Sub-principle 11.2: Signal controlled crossings are the preferred crossing type by all disabled street users and provide the highest degree of confidence to disabled street users.
  • Recommendation: It is recommended that guidance should be expanded to incorporate this principle, and to include the following considerations as part of the design following the Site Assessment under TSM Chapter 6:
    • i. A signalised crossing should by default be considered in new installations or the upgrading of existing facilities subject to TSM Chapter 6 guidance regarding demand, minimum distance between junctions, etc.
    • ii. Further signalised crossings can be considered subject to TSM 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.

8.3.5. The provision of a signalised crossing (standalone or part of a signalised junction) could be considered if there is not currently one available within reasonable walking distance and / or if it presents an opportunity to improve access and / or the level of amenity for existing disabled street users.

8.3.6. Design consideration: The provision of a non-signalised pedestrian crossing should not be inhibited if there is an existing or proposed signalised crossing (standalone or part of a signalised junction) that supports existing disabled street users identified as part of the Site Assessment.

Evidence

8.3.7. This principle and the supporting principles reflect evidence from the literature review, focus groups on inclusive engagement, focus groups on inclusive design, designer / implementer / promoter interviews and further research (LR1 to LR7, FGE1, FGD1 to FGD9, FGD19, DIP1, DIP14, DIP19, H4, H5).

8.4.1. Principle 12: Regular rest locations with clear wayfinding and directions improve access for disabled street users to crossings.

8.4.2. Rest locations improve access for pedestrians with mobility needs and support all street users to access crossing opportunities. Rest locations should be at regular intervals, aligned with 'walking distances' as outlined in Inclusive Mobility section 2.4. Rest Location street features should not impact on other principles such as demarcated pedestrian clear corridors.

Evidence

8.4.3. This principle and the supporting principles reflect evidence from the focus groups on inclusive design and further research (FGD20, H4, H5).

8.5.1. Principle 13: Disabled street user access is conditional on physical street design features that are conspicuous, legible, comprehensive and credible.

• Recommendation: 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.

8.5.2. For example, a clear demarcated pedestrian corridor will be conspicuous, legible, comprehensive and credible to the disabled street user supporting their confidence in accessing the street with respect to their level of adaptation / personal support. For a visually impaired street user this could be achieved in the provision of detectable edges (i.e. kerbs, tactile paving) and tonal colour contrast between street features (in all weather conditions).

• Sub-principle 13.1: All disabled street users value some form of kerb demarcation to define the pedestrian place and demarcate it from the vehicle place (including cyclists).
  • Recommendation: 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 support access for the majority of users (i.e. 85%ile of street users).

8.5.3. This research considered the available research and concluded that a firm recommendation on kerb height cannot be made without further research on kerb height in 'real world' conditions with a broader range of disabled street users.

8.5.4. PAMELA^[16] research concluded that kerb heights of 60mm and above were detectable when stepping up and stepping down and induced the greatest confidence in what they were and what they signified. Kerb heights of less than 40mm appeared to result in less consistent detection rates and thus consideration should be given to avoiding them if possible. PAMELA states that kerb edge profile is unlikely to make a significant difference as long as the kerb face is approximately vertical.

8.5.5. The PAMELA research identified a need for further research in the form of epidemiological tests to determine if 50mm kerbs would be a problem in the wider population of people who are blind or partially sighted.

8.5.6. The recommended research could be supplemented with consideration of a monitoring and evaluation study of known sites where a kerb has been implemented, categorised by street type, street features, dimensions, pedestrian / cyclist / vehicular demand and vehicle speeds.

• Sub-principle 13.2: 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.
  • Recommendation: 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. Based on focus group inputs to this research the suggested maximum width of the demarcated clear pedestrian corridors is 4 metres.
• Sub-principle 13.3: 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.
  • Recommendation: 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.
    
    Further research is recommended to define 'low flow / low speed' conditions in town centres and busy street areas.

8.5.7. The research team has included this sub-principle to ensure that the application of level surface streets can be retained in exceptional circumstances. This is to support access to historical and / or narrow streets.

8.5.8. As with other principles these should not be viewed in isolation. In considering level surface streets Principle 15 is a key consideration along with consideration around the restriction / banning of cycles and scooters in these locations during peak periods of pedestrian demand.

Evidence

8.5.9. This principle and the supporting principles reflect evidence from the literature review, focus groups on inclusive design, designer / implementer / promoter interviews and further research (LR3 to LR7, FGD4, FGD10 to FGD21, FGD23, FGD24, DIP15, DIP16, H2).

8.6.1. Principle 14: The segregation of pedestrians and cyclists in town centres and busy street areas supports access for disabled street users.

• Sub-principle 14.1: 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.

8.6.2. This research supports that pedestrian density / demand and duration should be the principle upon which segregation between pedestrians and cyclists is determined (for example in level surface environments). There is a point of pedestrian demand beyond which sharing the space is not advisable and an alternative route which allows cyclists to bypass these areas during high pedestrian demand periods should be provided.

8.6.3. Kerbed demarcation to cycle tracks increases the level of access for visually impaired and those users with reduced mobility in particular.

8.6.4. The principle of segregation is supported in new guidance - LTN 1/20 sets out: "On urban streets, cyclists must be physically separated from pedestrians and should not share space with pedestrians".

Evidence

8.6.5. This principle and the supporting principles reflect evidence from the literature review, focus groups on inclusive design, designer / implementer / promoter interviews and further research (LR3 to LR7, FGD4, FGD10 to FGD13, FGD15, FGD17, DIP16, H1).

8.7.1. Principle 15: Colour and tonal contrast of street features and pavements in all weather conditions supports access for all street users.

• Recommendation: 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 to assessing tonal and colour contrast.
  
  e.g. Paving patterns should be given careful consideration as these can cause confusion.
  
  e.g. Bollards should be constructed in a contrasting colour or illuminated, wherever possible.
• Sub-principle 15.1: 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.
• Sub-principle 15.2: The maintenance of surfaces and build quality / standards supports access for all street users. This is good practice which is highlighted in current guidance including Designing Streets.

Evidence

8.7.2. This principle and the supporting principles reflect evidence from the focus groups on inclusive design, designer / implementer / promoter interviews and further research (FGD2, FGD8, FGD9, FGD10, FGD14, FGD16, FGD17, FGD19, DIP16).

8.8.1. Principle 16: Within town centres and busy street areas all street features should be outside / away from the demarcated pedestrian clear corridor.

• Recommendation: It is recommended that guidance embeds the importance of demarcation of clear pedestrian corridors in enabling inclusive access for disabled street users.

8.8.2. There could be consideration regarding the value of common guidelines to ensure consistency of approach and adherence with good practice in all areas of the country, not just large urban areas, but also smaller and more rural / remote communities. Development of standard arrangements must be evidence-based and informed by the experiences of disabled street users.

• Sub-principle 16.1: 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.
  • Recommendation: It is recommended that guidance conveys the importance of considering the needs of disabled users with regards 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.
• Sub-principle 16.2: Regulation of moveable temporary street features could support access for disabled street users.
  • Recommendation: 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 its efficacy in supporting access for disabled street users.

8.8.3. The regulation of A-frame signage 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.

Evidence

8.8.4. This principle and the supporting principles reflect evidence from the focus groups on inclusive design, designer / implementer / promoter interviews and further research (LR3 – LR7, FGD20, FGD22, FGD24, DIP16).

Previous Page | Next Page