Footnotes
Footnotes
1. RNIB – Royal National Institute of Blind People
5. https://trl.co.uk/publications/accessible-public-realm--updating-guidance-and-further-research
6. The term "accessible design" is used in the literature review report in Appendix A.
7. Excluding raised continuous footways as referenced in FGD2
8. BSI 8300-1:2018: Design of an Accessible and Inclusive Environment. Part 1: External Environment – Code of Practice
9. Rothman, L., Buliung, R., To, T., Macarthur, C., Macpherson, A., & Howard, A. (2015). Associations between parents' perception of traffic danger, the built environment and walking to school. Journal of Transport & Health, 2(3), 327-335.
10. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual
11. https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/
15. https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/47052/national-transport-strategy.pdf
16. Refer 11. Tyler 2017, Appendix A1 – Literature review
17. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82126115.pdf
19. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/manual-for-streets
20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=nILU4BmexTc&feature=emb_logo
21. TEC "Developing the SPT School transport PUDO assessment process" McDonald, Camp (Campopiano), Scott (June 2008)
22. The term "accessible design" is used in the literature review report in Appendix A1.
23. The term "mobility impaired" is used in Appendix A.1.
24. Norgate and other studies included in the Review appear with their dates in brackets e.g. Norgate (2012). Those not included in the Review appear as referenced Footnotes.
25. Anvari, B., Bell, M., Sivakumar, A., Ochieng, W. 2015. Modelling shared space users via rule-based social force model, Transportation Research Part C, 51: pp. 83-103.
26. Brookfield, K., Tilley, S. 2016. Using Virtual Street Audits to Understand the Walkability of Older Adults' Route Choices by Gender and Age, International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health, 13.
27. Hsu, C., Lee, T. 2017 Evaluating the perceptions of road users in different scenarios of shared spaces, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 12: pp. 1210-1217.
28. Ruiz-Apilánez, B., Karimi, K., García-Camacha, I., Martín, R., 2017. Shared space streets: design, user perception and performance, Urban Design International, 22(3): 267-284.
29. Friesen, M. 2017 The contested public space of shopping streets: The case of Købmagergade, Copenhagen, Journal of Landscape Architecture, 12(2)): pp. 18-31.
30. Sukaryavichute, E., Prytherch, D. 2018. Transit planning, access, and justice: Evolving visions of bus rapid transit and the Chicago street, Journal of Transport Geography, 69: 58-72.
31. Hamilton-Baillie, B. 2008. Towards Shared Space, Urban Design International, 13: 130-138.
32. Johnson, D., Clarkson, J., Huppert, F. 2010. Capability measurement for Inclusive Design, Journal of Engineering Design, 21(2-3) pp. 275-288.
33. Haylighen, A., van der Linden, V., van Steenwinkel, I. 2017. Ten questions concerning inclusive design of the built environment, Building and Environment, 114: pp. 507-517.
34. Koutsoklenis, A., Papadopoulos, K. 2011. Auditory cues used for wayfinding in urban environments by individuals with visual impairment, Journal of Visual Impairment and blindness, 105(10): pp. 703-714.
35. Martens, K. 2018. Ageing, impairments and travel: Priority setting for an inclusive transport system, Transport Policy, 63: pp. 122-130.
36. World Health Organisation, 2011. World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. WHO: Geneva
37. Burton, E., Mitchell, L. 2006. Inclusive Urban Design: Streets for Life. Architectural Press.
38. Grasham, M. et al, 2019 Developing evaluation of signage for people with dementia, Housing, Care and Support, 22(3): 153-161.
39. Kasemsuppacorn, P., et al, 2012. Understanding route choices for wheelchair navigation. Disability & Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 10(3): pp. 198-210.
40. Haylighen, A., Van der Linden, V., Van Steenwinkel, I. 2017. Ten questions concerning inclusive design of the built environment, Building and Environment, 114: pp. 507-517.
41. Reid, S., Kocak, N., Hunt. L. 2009. DfT Shared Spaces Project—Stage 1: Appraisal of Shared Space. London: MVA Consultancy.
42. Department for Transport, 2011. Local Transport Note 1/11 — Shared space. London.
43. Disability Discrimination Act 2005. Elizabeth II Chapter 50. Part III: Discrimination in Relation to Goods, Facilities and Services. Her Majesty's Office, London. UK.
44. Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation, 2018. Creating better streets: Inclusive and accessible places. Reviewing shared space. London: CIHT.
45. Bentdixen, K., Benkzton, M. 2015. Design for all in Scandinavia, Applied Ergonomics, 46: pp. 248-257.
46. Ahmed, M., Ergenoglu. A. 2012. An assessment of street design with Universal Design principles: Case in Aswan/As-Souq, Megaron, 11(4): 616-625.
47. Rebernik, N., Marusic, B., Bahillo, A., Osaba, E. 2019. A 4-dimensional model and methodological approach to inclusive urban planning and Design for ALL, Sustainable Cities & Society, 44: 195-214.
48. Sze, N., Chistiansen, K. 2017 Access to urban transportation system for individuals with disabilities, IATSS Research, 41: 66-73.
49. Nillies, M., Kaparias, I. 2018. Investigating the relation of highway design standards with network-level walkability: The case study of Luxembourg, International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 7(5): pp. 254-263.
50. Curl, A., Ward Thomson, C., Aspinall, P. 2015. The effectiveness of 'shared space' residential street interventions on self-reported activity levels and quality of life, Landscape & Urban Planning, 139: pp. 1117-125.
51. Asadi-Shekari, Z., Moeinaddini, M., Shah, M. 2013. Non-motorised Level of Service: Addressing Challenges in Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Service, Transport Reviews, 33(2) pp.166-194.
52. Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation, 2018. Creating better streets: Inclusive and accessible places. Reviewing shared space. London: CIHT.
53. As have others, including the CIHT. See Reference 21.
54. Judgements were given on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicated that the characteristic can theoretically cause no hindrance, and 5 indicated that the characteristic can cause insurmountable hindrance to the orientation and the independent mobility of visually impaired persons and their feeling of safety when walking in the environment.
55. A set of guidelines were developed from this work in Montreal in French (thus out of Scope). Contact has been made with agencies in Montreal and a summary version is expected to be available during Stage 2 of the project.
56. TNS-BMRB, 2010. The impact of shared surface streets and shared use pedestrian/cycle paths on the mobility and independence of blind and partially sighted people. Report JN: 197369.
57. DfT (2011). Shared space, local transport note, 1/11. London: DfT.
58. In discussion with the project manager this study was included as it was assessed to have merit and added value for this Review despite being out of scope.
59. Two separate BSL interpreters in two separate sessions and two independent e-notetakers in two separate sessions
60. In four cases, participants opted for a charitable donation of the same value to be made to a nominated support organisation, instead of accepting a gift voucher directly.
62. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-engagement-and-eu-exit-guidance-for-local-authorities
64. https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/20222453/Final_Published_Version.pdf
65. https://vinesimspecs.com/index.php
66. Glasgow Queen Street Station re-design was cited as an example of good practice whereby individuals had been consulted on a regular and ongoing basis, and information on plans had been made publicly available at the station via large screens, including signed sub-titles.
67. Some organisation representatives also stressed, however, that they too did not receive feedback following their contributions to engagement exercise. Often, they had to proactively seek information on progress to share with their members, rather than it being forthcoming.
68. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-noise-systems-to-stop-silent-electric-cars-and-improve-safety
70. Footway widths defined in Inclusive Mobility (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3695/inclusive-mobility.pdf)
71. Refer 11. Tyler 2017, Appendix A1 – Literature review
72. A similar observation was made in the literature review - refer to Imrie and Kumar (2011)
73. Poorly maintained footways are not inclusive; and they are a significant source of injury. For example, in Glasgow City an annual average of 272 slight pedestrian casualties were recorded in police traffic collision statistics from 2012-2016 (Transport Scotland, 2016). On the other hand, Glasgow City Council dealt with 320 footway trips and slips claims (all involving injury) in 2016 – figures which are unlikely to be included in the Transport Scotland traffic collision statistics. This fell to around 150 claims in 2018 after a programme of maintenance for highly trafficked footways (Glasgow City Council, 2018).
Sources: Glasgow City Council, Land and Environmental Services Roads Infrastructure Status & Options Report 2018, Transport Scotland (2016) Reported Road Casualties Scotland 2016.
74. https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/news-and-blog/press-media/pavement-parking-ban-approved-in-scotland
75. http://www.voicescotland.org.uk/media/resources/NSfCE%20online_October.pdf
76. https://www.placestandard.scot/
78. https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/43830/roads-for-all-good-practice-guide-for-roads-july-2013.pdf
79. The National Transport Strategy (NTS2), Transport Scotland 2020
80. Designing Streets, Scottish Government 2010
81. Manual for Streets, DfT 2003
86. Achieving inclusive design: consultation with disabled people. Authors: Alan William Lowe, BEng, , David Robert Partington, BA, MBE, , and Scott Graham Richardson, BA.
87. https://tfgm.com/accessibility
88. https://www.breakthrough-uk.co.uk/disability-design-reference-group
89. Achieving inclusive design: consultation with disabled people. Authors: Alan William Lowe, BEng, , David Robert Partington, BA, MBE, and Scott Graham Richardson, BA.
90. https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/directory/10232/edinburgh-design-guidance
92. This chapter is based on a presentation given by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) at a workshop on the Equality Act and Streetscape in January 2016, and revised, updated and presented by Tom Rye (in consultation with the EHRC) at a subsequent Transport Scotland workshop on Inclusive Streets in January 2017. This has been supplemented by the wider WSP team.
93. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
94. Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 – proposes the introduction of a Scotland-wide ban on pavement and double parking to make it easier for local authorities to ensure pavements and roads are safer and more accessible to all.
95. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0116-judgment.pdf
96. http://www.voicescotland.org.uk/media/resources/NSfCE%20online_October.pdf
97. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-engagement-and-eu-exit-guidance-for-local-authorities
98. https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l153.pdf
99. https://www.trl.co.uk/about-us
100. https://www.trl.co.uk/publications/trl583
101. https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/14173/cycling_by_design_2010__rev_1__june_2011_.pdf
102. https://www.crow.nl/english-summary
103. https://www.ciht.org.uk/media/4463/ciht_shared_streets_a4_v6_all_combined_1.pdf
104. http://www.bv.transports.gouv.qc.ca/mono/1018971.pdf
105. Van Gurp, Marc, 'De veiligheid van mooi'Onderzoek naar de verkeersveiligheid en functionaliteit van nieuwe ontwerpen van de openbare ruimte., Goudappel Coffeng, unpublished project report, 2007.
106. Qualitative evaluation study of urban shared spaces in New Zealand, Auttapone Karndacharuk a, Douglas J. Wilson b,1, Roger C.M. Dunn b 2015
107. A Review of the Evolution of Shared (Street) Space Concepts in Urban Environments Auttapone Karndacharuk, Douglas J. Wilson & Roger Dunn, 2014
108. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/shared-space
109. www.voicescotland.org.uk.
110. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-engagement-and-eu-exit-guidance-for-local-authorities
111. https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/New%20Conversations%20Guide%20refresh_11.pdf
112. https://www.communityplanningtoolkit.org/community-engagement
113. http://www.tedcantle.co.uk/publications/033%20Tension%20monitoring%20guidance%20iCoCo%202010.pdf
117. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/manual-for-streets
118. https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/mfs/mfs2.pdf
119. https://www.gov.scot/publications/designing-streets-policy-statement-scotland/
120. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-120
121. https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/roads-for-all-good-practice-guide-for-roads/
122. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual
123. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/streetscape-guidance-.pdf
124. https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/streets-toolkit#on-this-page-3
125. https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/13723/edinburgh-street-design-guidance
126. http://www.scotsnet.org.uk/documents/national-roads-development-guide.pdf
127. https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/14173/cycling_by_design_2010__rev_1__june_2011_.pdf
128. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/shared-use
129. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-transport-note-ltn-1-11-shared-space