Appendix K: Principles and recommendations for inclusive physical design measures

NR

Principle / sub-principle

Recommendation

Good practice / notes / comments

Evidence

General principles

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.

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.

Opportunity: there may be benefit in further research into the value of a single pedestrian design guide to draw together existing guidance and include the principles and recommendations from this research.

LR 3 to 9 FGE 1,2, FGD 1 to 25, DIP 16,17,21

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.

The Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) Chpt 6 does outline the PSED under the Equality Act but guidance (which could include Manual for Streets and Inclusive Mobility) could be enhanced to include the importance of EQIAs when considering the potential impact on the existing level of amenity for street users.

Principle: LR1 to LR9, FGE1,7, FGD18, H3 DIP14,16, 17,21 GP5

Recommendation: LR1 to LR7, LR12, FGE 1, FGD1 to FGD25, DIP14, 6,17 ,20,21, GP4

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.

LR 10, 11, FGE1, FGD18, DIP18, H3

Crossings

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.

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 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.

LR1 to LR7, FGE 1 FGD1 to FGD9, FGD19, DIP14, H4, 5

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).

The Traffic Signs Manual update has updated 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.

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). 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.

LR3 to LR7, FGD1 to 6, 8, 9, 19, DIP1, 19

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.

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.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.

LR1 to 7, FGE1, FGD1 to 9, 18, 19, DIP14, H4, 5

12

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

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.

FGD20, H4, H5

Segregation

13

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.

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 adaption / 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).

LR3 to 7, FGD10 to 19, DIP15

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).

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

Based upon PAMELA and reviewing the street design guidance (e.g. TfL and CEC) a kerb height of 50mm should be used to segregate between pedestrians and cyclists, and in case of pedestrian and motorised vehicles car, this should be at least 60 mm (TFL) or 100 mm (CEC). Please refer to 7.4 of the report.

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.

LR3 to 7, FGD4,10,11,12,13,15,17, DIP15

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.

Based on focus group inputs to this research the suggested maximum width of the demarcated clear pedestrian corridors is 4 metres.

LR3 to 7, FGD4,16,20,21,23,24, DIP16

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.

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

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.

LR3 to 7, FGD4,14, DIP15, 17, H2

14

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

Relatively recent guidance (LTN 1/20) supports the physical separation pedestrians and cyclists. 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.

LR3 to 7, FGD 10,11, DIP16, H1

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.

Kerbed demarcation to cycle tracks increases the level of access for visually impaired and mobility impaired groups in particular.

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."

LR3 to 7, FGD4,10,11,12,13,15,17, DIP16, H1

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.

Paving patterns should be given careful consideration as these can cause confusion.

FGD2,8,9,10,16,17, DIP16

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.

FGD14, 16, DIP16

15.2

Sub-principle: 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.

FGD19, DIP16

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.

There could be consideration regarding the value of common guidelines to ensure consistency of approach and adherence with best 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.

For example, consideration should be given to locating cycle racks and waste bins in the carriageway, although this should not be at the expense of disabled parking.

LR3,4,5,6,7, FGD20, 24, DIP16

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.

FGD22

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.

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.

FGD24