Appendix E: Summary of "the accessible public realm: updating guidance and further research" TRL ltd, 2020

Appendix E: Summary of "the accessible public realm: updating guidance and further research" TRL ltd, 2020

30. Introduction

30.1.1. This Appendix to the main research report entitled "Inclusive Design in Town Centres and Busy Street Areas" summarises the research report: Accessible Public Realm: Updating Guidance and Further Research - Overview and recommendations (TRL Ltd., 2020)[83].

30.1.2. The Department for Transport (DfT) Inclusive Transport Strategy[84] included a commitment to review two existing guidance documents to determine where and how they need to be updated. The guidance documents are:

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

30.1.3. In 2018, DfT commissioned a scoping study, involving a literature review and stakeholder consultation, which concluded that these guidance documents need updating and identified several areas to be considered. The results of the scoping study were published as Updating Guidance on the Accessible Public Realm (Greenshields et al. 2018).

30.1.4. Accessible Public Realm: Updating Guidance and Further Research - Overview and recommendations (TRL Ltd., 2020)[85] presents findings from further research based on the outcomes of the 2018 scoping study to inform forthcoming updates to Inclusive Mobility (2002) and Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces (1998).

30.1.5. The research considered the following main themes:

  • Real-world implementation of tactile paving and how users interpret different tactile surfaces.
  • Guidance on the dimensions of mobility devices.
  • Additional or updated guidance requirements for different street user characteristics, including mental health conditions, older age, dementia, and non-visible disabilities.
  • Identifying new technologies and infrastructure not currently considered within Inclusive Mobility.

30.1.6. During cross-working discussions between the DfT's Accessible Public Realm research team and the research team for Inclusive Design in Town Centres and Busy Street Areas, it became evident that there was overlap between the two research projects. Therefore, it was agreed in November 2019 that the Inclusive Engagement and Design research should exclude any research which the DfT study was undertaking, since it was then at a more advanced stage. It was also agreed that a summary of the DfT research findings would be provided in this report. This summary is set out in the following section.

31. Summary of the accessible public realm research findings

31.1 Introduction

31.1.1. The main findings of the Accessible Public Realm research are presented below. These have been grouped under the main themes covered by the study.

31.2 Review of guidance on tactile paving

31.2.1. The research identified a need for a simplification of tactile surface typologies from both users and practitioners. Most users were able to reliably identify blister paving; however, just under half of participants recognised the corduroy surface type, and only a minority recognised other types. Design practitioners also had good awareness of blister and corduroy, but the other surface types were less well-known.

31.2.2. The research findings recommend a reduction in the number of surface types from the existing seven to just four surface types for future schemes. However, it states this still needs to be considered through further consultation, research, and trials. The four tactile surface types which are proposed to be retained are set out below.

  • Blister: The report states that this should only be used to warn of a crossing point where there is no detectable kerb, and not for stems leading to the crossing points (for which the 'guidance' surface type may be preferable).
  • Hazard / corduroy: The report states that this should be used as currently and as a replacement for the ladder / tramline surface type (see below).
  • Platform edge (on-street) / lozenge: The report states that this should be used for all tram / rapid transit platforms (including, for consistency, those which may be off-street) and on raised bus stop platforms.
  • Guidance: The report states that this should continue to be used as currently specified, as well as for stems leading to the blister surface at controlled crossings.

31.2.3. The report also recommends that the ladder / tramline tactile surface should no longer be used due to widespread user and practitioner confusion, and due to safety concerns of cyclists. This surface type should be replaced by hazard / corduroy surface type laid in 'ladder' orientation across the whole path. The report also states that the delineator strip can continue to be used as currently.

31.3 Review of the dimensions of wheeled mobility aids

31.3.1. The research found no compelling evidence to justify recommending further changes to Inclusive Mobility in relation to any of the following:

  • Width of wheeled mobility aids.
  • Manoeuvring space required for users of wheeled mobility devices.
  • Overall height or eye height of device users.
  • Overall mass of devices.

31.3.2. The study identifies that further research is needed to obtain robust evidence on the prevalence and use of different classes (including sizes) of wheeled mobility device.

31.4 Additional or updated guidance requirements for different street user characteristics

Tonal and colour contrasting materials

31.4.1. The report found that tonal contrast is particularly useful for visually impaired users. It recommends that the primacy of tonal contrast over colour contrast should be emphasised in design guidance, with examples used to help inform the practitioner. However, the report also recommends the increased use of colour contrasting materials to encourage active travel by older people. The report concludes that further research is required on how best to assess tonal and colour contrast, including the performance of different materials in different weather conditions.

Pedestrian realm 'clutter' and obstructions

31.4.2. The report states that, where pedestrian environments are not easily navigable for older people or those living with dementia and other non-visible disabilities, individuals may find it difficult to access other services or facilities that are important to their mobility and independence, such as bus stops and railway stations.

31.4.3. The study found that the important issues for older people in the pedestrian environment include:

  • Obstacles e.g. street furniture and uneven surfaces;
  • Crossing the road (including identifying large enough gaps in motorised traffic);
  • Tactile paving (particularly when the footway is sloped); and
  • Navigating slopes and ramps.

31.4.4. Where the pedestrian environment is unsuitable, it can lead to an increased risk of personal injury due to trips and falls and also reduced perception of safety.

31.4.5. Stakeholders participating in the study stated that the design of the pedestrian environment should better consider and promote the need for wider footways that are better maintained, less cluttered, and provide enough room for pedestrians to walk around tactile paving wherever it is used, if required.

31.4.6. The study recommends that the guidance tactile surface type is used where pedestrians need to be guided around obstacles. However, care should also be taken in siting street furniture to ensure that such problems are not created.

Segregation between pedestrians and vehicles

31.4.7. The blister tactile surface should be installed in the absence of a kerb upstand at both controlled and uncontrolled crossing points where either:

  • The footway has been dropped flush with the carriageway; or
  • The carriageway has been raised to the level of the footway.

31.4.8. The report states that the question of whether 25mm remains an appropriate boundary between what is / is not 'flush' should be subject to further consideration.

31.4.9. One of the key recommendations of the study to encourage active travel amongst those with dementia was the avoidance of 'shared space' schemes and 'cross-use' of spaces, as these can be disorientating and confusing for those with dementia. Instead, simple environments with distinct spaces, clear lines of sight and clear signage to support easy navigation and feelings of familiarity were recommended.

Crossings

31.4.10. The report findings recommend increasing the number of pedestrian crossings and where possible to include signalised crossings. However, no recommendation of the maximum distance between crossings is presented. The report recommends removing or reducing the use of underpasses and enclosed walkways.

Public transport waiting and boarding

31.4.11. For boarding / alighting from train carriages, the study recommends that there should be a reduced gap between the train and the platform. This should be achieved by increasing the width and length of steps at train doors.

31.4.12. Participants in the study with mental health conditions identified that, where possible, bus shelters should be used, rather than bus stops.

Parking

31.4.13. The report does not consider the availability and location of vehicle parking. However, an infrastructure solution identified through engagement with people living with a mental health condition was the need to reduce / remove incidents of vehicles parking on footways.

32. Conclusions of the accessible public realm research

32.1. The Accessible Public Realm research study and associated recommendations have covered a range of important areas relating to the needs of disability groups and the design of the public realm. Most of the scope covered by the study do not overlap directly with the scope of Inclusive Design in Town Centres and Busy Street Area. Areas where there is overlap between the two studies include:

  • Pedestrian realm 'clutter' and obstructions.
  • Segregation between pedestrians and vehicles.
  • Crossings.

32.1.1 It is considered that the findings of the Accessible Public Realm research study are complementary to this Inclusive Design study and do not present conflicting outcomes or recommendations.

32.1.2 It is considered that the recommendations presented in the Accessible Public Realm Research study, if taken forward, should result in more effective design and better interpretation and understanding of the public realm by all users.

Previous Page | Next Page