Appendix C: Perspectives of disabled street users on inclusive physical design

Appendix C: Perspectives of disabled street users on inclusive physical design

19. Introduction

19.1.1. This Appendix to the main research report entitled "Inclusive Design in Town Centres and Busy Street Areas" summarises the findings from the second stage of the focus groups undertaken with disabled street users which examined their perspectives on the physical features that are typically found within town centres and on busy streets, and approaches to inclusive physical design measures.

19.1.2. The full methodology for undertaking the research with disabled street users is provided in Appendix B to the main report.

20. Overview of the research methodology

20.1 Introduction and evolution of methodology

20.1.1. At the outset of the research study the intention was to gather the perspectives of disabled street users through a series of structured interviews. During stage 1 of the project there were a number of requests to the research team via the client group by members of the working group who wished to assist the research team in their understanding of the existing issues.

20.1.2. These inputs took the form of site visits and additional grey literature material. The research team attended a TRL "Accessible Public Realm" workshop as an observer and meetings were held with the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB), Guide Dogs and with the National Federation of the Blind of the UK (NFBUK).

Observer at the TRL "Accessible Public Realm" workshop

20.1.3. A member of the research team attended a TRL group workshop as observer. The group covered a number of different disability perspectives. While the group could not reach consensus on some areas, it was observed that some underrepresented their own perspective to support another disability perspective, with respect to kerb height. This informed a revised approach for this research study with focus groups made up ideally of disabled street users with the same impairment.

Guide Dog / RNIB street experience Leith Walk, Edinburgh

20.1.4. The importance of the kerb in guidance for white cane and guide dog users was highlighted during an on-street meeting between the research team and the Guide Dogs and Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB).

20.1.5. Guide dogs require kerbs to guide them and to inform decision points, e.g. crossing the road. White cane users value the kerb similarly and there was more confidence with this type of demarcation.

20.1.6. The meeting highlighted their concerns regarding street features such as level surfaces and the limitations of tactile demarcation, as well as bollards, A-frames etc. There was concern about visually impaired street users walking into the cycle lane (in level surface designs with tactile demarcation) and so conflicting with cyclists, floating bus stops and in particular concerns about 'safety' using zebra crossings to access bus stops which impacts upon the users' confidence in using such crossings.

Site meeting with NFBUK – Kirkintillock and Lenzie Station

20.1.7. The research team attended a site meeting with the National Federation of the Blind of the UK (NFBUK) in Kirkintilloch and Lenzie Station.

20.1.8. Similar concerns to those raised by the Guide Dogs / RNIB were raised. Safety concerns were raised with regards to kerb demarcation between pedestrian and vehicle areas. A preference was noted for signalised crossings, whilst zebra crossings were reported as feeling 'unsafe' and there is less confidence in their use.

20.1.9. It should be noted that the term 'shared space' was used during the site meeting to describe the scheme collective and individual features. This caused a level of confusion but was clarified on site by questioning and understanding their concerns.

20.1.10. There was discussion on safe routes not being the shortest and straightest route and poorly located street features presenting a hazard to access.

Focus group approach taken

20.1.11. The above observations informed the focus group approach, in particular the inclusive physical design measures element. The participants were encouraged to attend the focus groups which related to their particular disability or interest. This ensured there were appropriate reasonable adjustments in place, but also allowed the researchers to gain a level of consensus from each disability street user perspective, without being influenced by other perspectives.

20.1.12. The term 'shared space"'was very emotive to some groups, therefore the term was clarified with 'people orientated streets' and a number of examples were given for each group to consider. When participants used the term 'shared space' they were asked what they meant and if necessary, to create distinction by describing the physical features such as 'kerb', 'low kerb' and 'level surface'.

20.1.13. The term 'low kerb' was used by participants during the focus groups to refer to kerbs of lower height, but as this term does not have a specific definition it has been reported upon in this research study as 'kerb'.

20.1.14. The focus group facilitators were asked to pay particular attention when 'safety' was mentioned and to ask participants to explain what their safety concerns were.

20.2 Inclusive physical design measures considered

20.2.1. As outlined in the main report, the scope of the research into inclusive physical design measures considered four design topics, namely:

• Crossings (crossing types and spacing).
• Segregation between pedestrians and vehicles (vertical and horizontal).
• Level or reduced level surfaces.
• Obstructions and 'street clutter' including signs, advertising, street furniture, waste recycling and bollard type fixtures.

20.2.2. The second half of the focus groups followed a topic guide (Appendix C.1) which explored the public realm features that might be encountered on a typical town centre or busy urban centre street setting and whether these features were considered to have any positive or negative impacts on access. The public realm features considered included:

• Crossings – uncontrolled and controlled crossing of carriageways.
• Footways – kerbed footways.
• Cycleways – cycleway adjacent to carriageways and / or footways.
• People orientated streets - different street types found in town centres and busy streets relating to different levels of demarcation as well as vehicle flow and speed.
• Supporting vehicles – disabled parking, tricycle parking etc.
• Street features – bollards, A-frame signage, seating, cycle parking, litter bins etc.

20.2.3. Table 4 below outlines the research study scope in relation to the street feature themes.

Table 4 - Research areas in relation street features themes

Street Feature Themes	Crossings (formal and informal types and regularity)	Segregation between pedestrians and vehicles (vertical and horizontal)	Level or reduced level surfaces	Obstructions and 'street clutter'
Footways		YES
Cycleways		YES
People orientated streets		YES	YES
Crossings	YES
Supporting vehicles				YES
Street features				YES

Limitations

Degree of impairment and personal adaption

20.2.4. The descriptions of the individual participant's impairment have been standardised in focus groups, although the summary table for each section does, where possible, identify any distinction between different degree and / or type of impairment.

20.2.5. The degree of an individual's impairment is a combination of the level of personal adaption they have achieved to support their own mobility as well as other support they may have, including a personal assistant.

20.2.6. When considering the participants' responses, a level of caution should be made by the reader not to generalise impairment, since it is very personal to the individual, and appreciating the difference within each category as well as those with multiple impairments.

Cognitive impaired and non-visible disability input

20.2.7. There were a number of participants representing the disabled street users with cognitive impairment (dementia) and non-visible disabilities (including learning difficulties) who attended the focus groups. Upon review of the material given there was not a lot of detail specific to these impairments.

20.2.8. The importance of colour / tonal contrast and the impact of paving patterns and its impact on access by causing confusion / disorientation was raised by some participants in this group of users.

21. Crossings

21.1 Introduction

21.1.1. The focus groups discussions around different crossing types were separated into informal (uncontrolled) and formal (controlled) crossings. This allowed examination of the qualitative factors that influence different crossing types but excluded speed and traffic flow as objective research into these would require a site-based approach in order to establish a common point of reference.

21.1.2. The crossing types considered within each group are summarised below.

Informal (uncontrolled) crossing

• Unmarked courtesy crossings - dropped kerb at either side of road, no markings.
• Raised continuous footway - a crossing which is raised up to the same level as the footway.
• Pedestrian refuge islands - a safe area for those crossing the road, located within a traffic island.
• Dropped kerb - a lowered level of footway to reduce the height of the kerb relative to the road.

Formal (controlled) crossing

• Zebra crossings - visible crossings marked onto the road, drivers required to stop and give way.
• Signal controlled crossings - push button operated pedestrian signals (puffin crossing with a detector and same-side signal and pelican without detector and far side pedestrian signal).
• Toucan crossing - push button operated signals for use by both pedestrians and cyclists.

21.1.3. Respondents were asked to consider each of the different crossing types and to explain which factors support the level of access they provide.

21.1.4. The regularity of crossings was not covered in the focus groups due to the format, however the parallel TRL research did examine this.

21.2 Informal (uncontrolled) crossings

Unmarked courtesy crossings

21.2.1. Participants who had no visual impairments would consider using an unmarked courtesy crossing, for example a hearing impaired participant noted that great care was needed with courtesy crossings, and that they act as a barrier to access as they place a greater amount of responsibility on the user when compared to signal controlled crossings. In comparison, street users with reduced mobility said that their level of comfort with using a courtesy crossing varied depending on a combination of footfall and traffic levels, such as reasonable level of pedestrian demand and low traffic levels.

21.2.2. Unmarked courtesy crossings were not supported by participants who had a visual impairment. The deafblind respondents reported concerns over a lack of clarity over who has priority, while the visually impaired street users said that they are impractical for them as there was no certainty of whether a driver would stop (in the absence of visual cues). The overall consensus was that unmarked courtesy crossings do act as a barrier to access with those that are visually impaired:

• Participant comment on courtesy crossings: "I wouldn't trust that; how would drivers know to stop there if there isn't anything on the road!? I would think a dropped kerb would indicate a driveway." [deafblind male]

Raised continuous footway

21.2.3. Raised continuous footways are considered more accessible and would, for many, be seen as an improvement to a flat crossing on the road (unmarked or zebra crossing) in that they also offer benefits as a traffic calming feature.

21.2.4. It was also suggested in several groups that using a different colour contrast between the pavement and the area with vehicles, as well as kerb and / or markings would be beneficial for raised continuous footways as a way of making it more visible and obvious to drivers that the space was to be used differently. Indeed, it was suggested having them marked clearly in this way may also work as a traffic calming measure at junctions. There was also mention of a need to use contrasting colour and texture to ensure that there is differentiation between the footway and the carriageway (i.e. a continuous footway did not look like a piece of the footway which could be walked on unintentionally).

• Participant comment: "I think the best thing would be changing the colour of the tarmac, putting different stone chips in the tarmac…with a motorist's hat on - if that looks like it's flat, you can fly into that and rattle your suspension." [male with reduced mobility]

Pedestrian refuge islands

21.2.5. Participants who had no-visual impairments considered pedestrian refuge islands support their access needs if designed correctly. The most important consideration was the width of the island and whether there was sufficient space to wait safely.

21.2.6. Participants who had a visual impairment gave mixed views on how pedestrian refuge islands impacted on their sense of access to an area. There was concern among visually impaired street users that great care is needed to ensure that the island is not mistaken for the far side of the road. This could mean that a visually impaired user may think that they have reached the safety of the opposite pavement, when in fact they are still in the middle of the road. This would therefore pose a safety risk to the person crossing the road.

• Participant comment: "I find pedestrian refuge areas difficult to use as I have difficulty judging traffic speed, you need to be sighted to take advantage of these." [deafblind female]

21.2.7. Overall, pedestrian refuge crossings were only supported by a minority of the visual impairments group, by people who either had a level of sight, and / or are familiar enough with their local area to utilise such crossing facilities.

Dropped kerbs

21.2.8. Across all groups, dropped kerbs were considered to support access. However, it was identified that it is important they are designed to allow a guide dog or white cane user to find them easily. Any tactile paving for visually impaired street users also needs to be correctly orientated when used at dropped kerb locations. Overall however, it was considered that a dropped kerb offers pedestrians a clear and safe point of accessing crossing points and must be located at routine intervals in busy areas. It was also noted that the location of the dropped kerb should be in an appropriate and useable position, where there would not be obstacles present.

• Participant comment: "It's (important) to put dropped kerbs in appropriate places and not in parking bays – I've seen that where you've got a parking bay right in front of a dropped kerb." [female with reduced mobility]

21.3 Formal (controlled) crossings

Zebra crossings

21.3.1. There were contrasting views on how zebra crossings support access. A number of participants considered them safer than courtesy crossings and more appropriate for moderately higher vehicle flows. Those with a hearing impairment and deafblind participants welcomed that the law was on their side when using a zebra crossing, in that motorists are legally obliged to stop.

21.3.2. In contrast, it was noted in the visually impaired group that there was still concern on the potential of non-compliance of drivers stopping. Indeed, there was a sense that users 'hoped' that a driver would stop to allow them to cross but had no way to confirm this, as it relies on visual confirmation. Similarly, in the group of participants with reduced mobility, there was comment that drivers do not always seem to understand how zebra crossings work (i.e. non-compliance).

• Participant comment: "Difficult to use as there is no way to stop the traffic and no way to confirm that the traffic has stopped." [visually impaired male]

21.3.3. It was noted by one respondent that some people with certain impairments view the 'zebra' style of colour scheme as giving the impression of there being 'holes' in the road in black segments.

21.3.4. Overall, non-visually impaired participants stated that zebra crossings are preferable over courtesy crossings and support access on moderately higher traffic flows. One respondent in the group of participants with reduced mobility preferred the zebra crossing as it requires an element of eye contact, rather than just obeying the green light without looking properly at the street surroundings. In contrast, visual impaired participants considered zebra crossing inhibiting their access, as there is lack of confidence in drivers giving way to them on zebra crossings, with all participants expressing various level of discomfort.

21.3.5. It was suggested from both the deafblind and reduced mobility groups to have zebra crossings raised up in more locations which would be helpful as a traffic calming measure as well as reducing speed.

21.3.6. Visually impaired respondents also noted that there was likely to be an issue for them in the future as electric vehicles become more prevalent, as they are much quieter (although, all new electric cars are to be fitted by acoustic vehicle alert system (Avas))^[68], meaning that a pedestrian may step into the road without being aware of the vehicle's presence.

Signal controlled crossings

21.3.7. Signalised crossings are the preferred crossing type among all disabled street users, be it at standalone facility or as part of signalised junction. Despite this, it was noted that while more accessible than zebra crossings, there was still a level of concern raised by participants with visual impairment on the reliance on drivers obeying the rules and stopping at signalised crossings.

21.3.8. For example, a deafblind respondent questioned how it was possible to know that it is safe to cross, even with a signal-controlled crossing (with green person signal and a tactile cone). This lack of confidence in driver compliance to stop was considered to be an uncomfortable arrangement ('felt unsafe') for this group.

Push button unit - location

21.3.9. Across the groups, there were comments about the traffic signals themselves, including the positioning of the call (push button unit) box, which was considered problematic. This was in the sense that the pole and pedestrian push button position could be positioned away from the pedestrian desire line with the layout / position of pole / pedestrian push button not consistent or most convenient (i.e. push button unit should be located at the right hand side at all crossing points as outlined in existing guidance / historical installation this is not always the case).

21.3.10. Wheelchair users also noted that it would be more helpful if the pole / pedestrian push buttons were located on a level area rather than on a slope at the dropped kerb and questioned why, when placed on pedestrian island crossings, this had to be at the far end, furthest away from them (outside of the desired line). The participants referred to the practice of pedestrian push buttons being orientated to face oncoming traffic (i.e. the left-hand side of the island crossing).

21.3.11. Similarly, for guide dog users, there was an additional problem that the dog tended to go to the kerb to wait, while the pedestrian push button / pole was often set further back, therefore making it difficult to press and to observe the signals / orientate themselves and be ready to proceed (i.e. losing crossing time).

• Participant comment: "Where crossing boxes are at the side rather than in front of me, once I have hit that box the guide dog walks up to the kerb, the box is now behind me - there isn't anything across the road, I need to look back to see whether there is a red light, while holding onto the guide dog, or if there is one to use the rotating cone." [deafblind impaired male]

Multi-sensory signals

21.3.12. Visually impaired participants acknowledged the importance of having audible beepers and / or rotating tactile cones as enabling access, but only when these are in working order (which often they are not). However, respondents in the deafblind group noted that audible beepers were not always useful, as it can sometimes be difficult to know where the noise is coming from (and so a rotating tactile cone was considered much better).

21.3.13. It was also noted across the groups that it was vital signalised crossings allow sufficient time for pedestrians to cross the road - which some do not seem to do. One group of mobility impaired respondents indicated that the safest type of signalised crossing were the ones that detected a person present on the crossing and would hold the traffic on red aspect until the pedestrian has cleared the crossing (PUFFIN^[69] crossing - Pedestrian User Friendly Intelligent).

Toucan crossings

21.3.14. While broadly seen as unproblematic, hearing impaired street users did not seem comfortable with toucan crossings (two can cross - pedestrian and cyclists crossing), with the question being asked whether it would be possible to have a marked cycle lane across a crossing and whether cyclists should be forced to walk and push their bike on a crossing. At present, the rules for using toucan crossings are seen as ambiguous and this made pedestrians feel anxious and unsure about their right of way.

Open to Highway Code awareness

21.3.15. Participants were open to and would welcome more awareness raising or making more obvious how different crossing types work. This was based upon several participants explaining that they were unaware of the different types of crossings and what differentiated them (for example, some did not know the difference between a puffin, pelican or toucan crossing).

21.3.16. The point was made that, unless people had taken a driving test, they are unlikely to be familiar with the highway code and different crossing types. Given that several participants are precluded from driving (for example, having been blind from birth or disabled from an early age), they are unfamiliar with some of the technical differences in crossing types and their appropriate use.

21.3.17. It was stressed this was likely to be an issue that was disproportionately prevalent among disabled people.

21.4 Summary

21.4.1. All groups reported a preference for signal-controlled crossings, as they provide the most confidence / comfort. Participants with a level of visual impairment reported having less confidence / comfort with other types of crossing than the other groups.

21.4.2. A key aspect in the suitability of the type of crossing was the traffic flow along the road being crossed, as well as the pedestrian flow. Some visually impaired street users will use a pedestrian refuge island if they are familiar with the crossing in their local area, rather than a zebra crossing which may be used in a busier location.

21.4.3. A summary of the findings with regards to crossing is outlined below and in Table 5.

Informal (uncontrolled) crossings

• FGD1 - Unmarked courtesy crossings are considered to give the least access to disabled 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, dropped kerb at the crossing 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 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.
• GD4 - 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 participants. 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 mobility impaired participants expressed a preference for the push button unit to be located on a level area rather than on the slope at the dropped kerb.

Key messages

21.4.4. 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 adaption, 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 adaption) 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 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 (5mm maximum). Further, 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.

Table 5 - Summary of crossings – formal and informal, type and regularity

Impairment / Disability	More Access / More Enabling	Less Access / Less Enabling	Notes
Hearing	Signalised crossing preferred. Consider using zebra crossing over courtesy crossing. Dropped kerbs. Consider using pedestrian refuge if designed correctly. Consider using continuous footway. Consider using unmarked courtesy crossing.
Visually	Signalised crossing preferred - presents the least discomfort. Dropped kerb with tactile correctly orientated. Consider using continuous footway if designed correctly with tactile distinction between pavement and carriageway.	Zebra crossing presents a level of discomfort to users. Users unlikely to use these unless in a familiar and known location. Consider using pedestrian refuge if designed correctly / known location and familiar. Unmarked courtesy crossing – users will avoid these crossings.	Visually impaired (VI) groups were concerned about the level of assurance that can be given that vehicles have stopped, with signalised crossings presenting the least discomfort / anxiety.
Deafblind	Signalised crossing preferred - presents the least discomfort. Dropped kerb with tactile correctly orientated. Would consider using continuous footway if designed correctly with tactile distinction between pavement and carriageway.	Zebra crossings present a level of discomfort to users and are unlikely to be used unless in a familiar and known location. May use pedestrian refuge if designed correctly or in a known location and familiar to the user. Unmarked courtesy crossings – users avoid these crossings.	As per VI group comments, participants were concerned about the level of assurance that can be given that vehicles have stopped, with signalised crossings presenting the least discomfort / anxiety.
Mobility	Signalised crossing preferred. Consider using zebra crossing over courtesy crossing. Consider using pedestrian refuge if designed correctly. Dropped kerbs. Consider using continuous footway. Consider using unmarked courtesy crossing.
Learning / Non-visible	No comments raised.	'Zebra' crossings - style of colour scheme can give the impression of there being 'holes' in the road in black segments.	Follow-up (following focus groups) with participants with learning disability and / or non-visible disability revealed that users' views are aligned with those of other disability groups.

22. Segregation between pedestrians and vehicles / level or reduced level surfaces

22.1 Introduction

22.1.1. The focus groups discussion around the three themes (footway, cycleway and people orientated streets) aimed to inform the research by understanding factors that impact on access for each disability in the town centre / busy street areas. This allowed qualitative factors that influence segregation between pedestrians and vehicles to be examined.

22.2 Footways

22.2.1. Participants were initially asked about footway widths and the extent to which these features impact on their level of access. Broadly speaking, these are separated into narrow, standard and wide footways, as a guide. The following outlines the different perspectives and wider issues that impact on access of footways.

Width

22.2.2. Across all groups, there was agreement that narrow footways impact on their level of access the most, especially if obstacles are present such as lampposts and bus stops that reduce the effective footway width. Among those with a hearing impairment, the presence of a narrow footway posed an additional communication problem in particular, since deaf participants can be reliant on lip reading as one of their main means of communication (alongside BSL) and are unable to have sufficient distance to allow them to see their communication companion when speaking or interpreting:

• Participant comment: "When I'm walking with a companion and trying to talk and lip read, we can't walk as close as two hearing people…we need more space." [hearing impaired participant]

22.2.3. This also means that communication may need to stop if it proved necessary to walk single file on the pavement. On wider footways, this problem was less apparent as there is sufficient room to walk side by side, even if an obstacle was encountered. This was also described as more comfortable.

22.2.4. A similar theme came from deafblind respondents, who described the challenges associated with having a guide dog on a narrow footway, which can be difficult to manage where obstacles and street clutter are present:

• Participant comment: "There isn't enough room always…particularly when there are bus shelters and other people on the pavement." [deafblind participant]

22.2.5. This concern was also shared with participants in the visually impaired group. When being guided, deafblind respondents indicated that wider footways are better as they reduce the need to move single file through the footway. This problem for guide dogs was said to be often not realised or understood among street designers. As such, the effective width of the pavement is key, not just in terms of the distance from the edge of the building or wall line to the kerb but also any obstacles present in the footway which effectively reduce the useable width of the footway further.

22.2.6. Respondents with other physical impairments considered that the wider a footway is, the better. It was agreed that as wheelchair specifications / models are becoming larger, there needs to be more / sufficient space for them to pass. There was a similar view from those in the group of participants with reduced mobility who indicated that where a footway is too narrow it can result in one person needing to move out into the roadway to pass, which is unsafe. Wider footways were seen to lessen the likelihood of this happening and therefore were considered more enabling for participants with reduced mobility, while narrow footways were considered to impact the most on their level of access.

22.2.7. Pavement clutter was also mentioned as 'a big problem' for participants with reduced mobility (covered in more detail in the Obstructions and 'street clutter' in section 5.3) due to obstacles being present on a footway which can present difficulty in moving around town centre environments, especially for those using wheelchairs.

22.2.8. It also became apparent during conversations that while for some groups (specifically those with reduced mobility and visually impaired individuals) the pavement needs to be sufficiently wide, there is a risk that the pavement can be 'too wide' (although it is important to note that this was not mentioned by deaf or deafblind people or those with reduced mobility).

22.2.9. In the visually impaired group, it was stated that people tended to follow the building line or the kerb when navigating through a space, and therefore pavements that are too wide make it difficult to navigate due to the large distances between the kerb and building line. Participants described such spaces (including pedestrianised areas during busy periods) as being potentially disorientating and, therefore, areas to avoid:

• Participant comment: "If the pavement is 4 metres then it's a wide pavement, but you would still manage that. If it was 12 metres, then it's a different story… it's not really a pavement then!" [visually impaired male]

22.2.10. Where spaces are wider, visually impaired respondents commented that tactile edges are required to demarcate the edge of the footway and that these need to be properly maintained. Hearing impaired participants also mentioned the need to be able to feel ridging or tactile edging on the pavement as something that was important to them. However, participants with reduced mobility made the point that tactile edging and blister paving can cause discomfort / potential 'painfulness' for some such older adults with reduced mobility / fragile joints, etc. Tactile surfaces and slope / camber were also raised as they can redistribute the balance of weight and place too much pressure on lower body joints.

Footway conditions

22.2.11. Across the groups, comments were made about poor standard of footways and general maintenance of pavements, especially in relation to cracking and subsiding of paving slabs and poor-surface quality. One deafblind respondent mentioned that the condition of the pavement (footway) was more important than the width in terms of what disables them and others in the group of participants with reduced mobility concurred, stating that uneven surfaces and loose slab paving are a particularly significant obstacle to access. Width was considered immaterial and the main concern was that the pavement was even and level.

22.2.12. Tree roots / surface rooting was also mentioned by several respondents as something which interfered with pavements / pathways and which could be a significant trip hazard to pedestrians, especially those with visual impairments and reduced mobility. Therefore, careful consideration is needed on the location and types of tree being considered, as well as root management / containment. See section 5.3.

Materials – colour and contrast

22.2.13. In the hearing, deafblind and blind and visually impaired groups, discussions turned to the need to ensure that footways have sufficient contrast so that they can be clear where the edge of the road is. Examples given were the same material (or similar in terms of colour and contrast) being used for the road and pathway, which made it difficult to distinguish potential obstacles or edges.

22.2.14. It was also noted that certain materials are often used but then found to be unsuitable when exposed to different weather conditions. For example, the impact of precipitation on certain types of paving leads to this becoming a slip hazard, or material when wet has a reduced level of tonal contrast. It was the view of participants that these materials are often used for heritage (historical streets) reasons and should be used only if further consideration to account for seasonal changes on the different level of detection (access) by disabled street users is given.

Other footway issues

22.2.15. The camber / slope of the footway was also mentioned by several respondents as something that impedes balance (access) and can be especially challenging for those using wheelchairs. A downward slope can make pedestrians feel that they are forced down towards the road edge, leading to feelings of instability. Similarly, the camber / slope to dropped kerb can be steep and potentially reduce the effective width of the level of the footway, both of which impact on wheelchair users and those with mobility aides directly. For users of manual wheelchairs, there is an additional challenge in that they must compensate for the camber / slope which is physically demanding for a manual wheelchair user.

22.3 Summary – footways

22.3.1. Table 6 summarises the factors that support access (by disability group) in relation to footways.

22.3.2. 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 (FGD10).

Table 6 – Inclusive design public realm features - Footway summary

Impairment / Disability	More Access / More Enabling	Less Access / Less Enabling	Notes
Hearing	Effective clear width of a standard footway.[70] A form of kerb demarcation / edge.	Narrow footway.	Narrow footways have a detrimental impact on communication with someone else as hearing impaired street users can be reliant on lip reading as one of their main means of communication and are unable to have sufficient distance to allow them to see their communication companion when speaking or interpreting.
Visually	Effective clear width of a standard footway. Colour contrast to highlight kerb / edge / street furniture – supported by careful choice of material.	Narrow Footway. Crossfall. Footway too wide.	Narrow footways provide insufficient space for a guide dog or personal assistant and other pedestrians to pass safely. Wide footways can increase disorientation and / or walk distances.
Deafblind	Effective clear width of a standard footway. Colour contrast to highlight kerb / edge / street furniture – supported by careful choice of material.	Narrow effective width.	Narrow footways provide insufficient space for a guide dog or personal assistant and other pedestrians to pass safely.
Mobility	Effective clear width of a standard footway.	Poor surface quality. Uneven surface. Crossfall. Narrow effective width.	Narrow footways provide insufficient space for a guide dog or personal assistant and other pedestrians to pass safely.
Learning / Non-visible	Effective clear width of a standard footway.	Material choice (for example, natural stone paving) can present slip hazard. Uneven surface, water pooling.	Comments reflected the perspective of participants with reduced mobility who had similar comments.
Common themes	Effective clear width of a standard footway. Colour contrast to highlight kerb / edge / street furniture – supported by careful choice of material.	Crossfall. Quality of surface. Footway too narrow or wide.	Ideal footway is clear pedestrian corridor with clear demarcation between building line and kerb line with kerb highlighted with colour contrast. An even surface with minimal crossfall supports access. Seasonal effects on street material need further consideration.

22.4 Cycleways and unsegregated shared use paths

22.4.1. The views of the participants on cycleways were mixed between the groups. However, overall there was a sense that some form of demarcation is needed between pedestrians and cyclists in town centres and busy street areas.

22.4.2. Hearing impaired participants commented that in instances where there is no demarcation or segregation for a cycleway on a busy street, they would typically look for a safer route through to avoid people (at busy times) and cyclists, and this often meant staying on one side of the street. It was also stated that it can be confusing and dangerous where no footway markings are present, meaning a lack of clarity of where they should be, especially as they may not hear a cyclist approaching. Where it is clearly marked out as for cyclists, this was seen as a better street design.

22.4.3. Tactile demarcation between pedestrian areas and cycle lanes was seen as effective, but only if both cyclists and pedestrians use it correctly, and if drivers do not park on the spaces. From a deaf street users' perspective, this type of demarcation supports them in accessing the town centre and busy streets and could in fact be slightly better if used correctly. Colour differences between the footway and cycle lane would also be helpful to identify the useable space.

22.4.4. Visually impaired and deafblind respondents commented that a key issue, especially for visually impaired people, is not knowing which side of a pathway to be on (where pathways run parallel to cycle ways) leading to increased potential for collisions.

22.4.5. A deafblind respondent outlined instances where cyclists have not recognised that a person who is deaf had accidentally strayed onto the wrong side, resulting in a level of annoyance or irritation from the cyclist when a disabled street user is in their way i.e. since hearing impairments are not always apparent to other street users.

22.4.6. This issue was also raised by a visually impaired respondent as something that made them particularly uncomfortable. It was considered that lack of any demarcation impacts on their level of access and that there should always be something in the way of a marking. It was noted that there is no 'standard side' that cyclists should be on when using unsegregated shared use lanes and similarly no 'standard side' that pedestrians should use.

22.4.7. Similarly, it was seen as problematic that cycleway layouts are not always uniform and standardised. A few participants suggested greater level of public awareness raising about different types of cycle and pedestrian ways and different rules that apply to their use in different contexts was seen as key. This aligns with feedback in the first half (inclusive engagement) of focus groups, and elsewhere within the feedback on inclusive design.

22.4.8. It was considered by deafblind respondents that having something tactile between the footway and the cycleway is a better option than having just a painted line along the road - that way it is more obvious to users what side they needed to be on:

• Participant comment: "Non- separation doesn't make sense… clear separation is absolutely key." [male with reduced mobility]

22.4.9. Mobility impaired street users described unsegregated shared use paths as 'scary', noting that there sometimes is not enough awareness that cyclists can use the same space as pedestrians. It was suggested that there needs to be education of what space is permissible for use by pedestrians and cyclists and that this would make both more responsible users of shared space. Even a white line was not seen as sufficient by all mobility impaired users:

• Participant comment: "I wasn't sure where the cycle lanes were, and someone gave me a double expletive because I wasn't sure where I was, and I wasn't aware that one half was a cycle lane and one half was for pedestrians." [mobility impaired male]

22.4.10. This group also agreed that a tactile edge is better than a white line and that corduroy tactile edges would be better for mobility impaired users than just a line. However, it was also noted that wheelchair users could get their wheels caught in this, leading to a risk of being tipped out.

22.4.11. Mobility impaired street users outlined that kerb delineation was agreed to be good as long as it was of at least a minimum height and some of the more informed participants quoted the PAMELA^[71] research that a minimum of 60mm as being required for visually impaired users. One participant mentioned that they are aware of an example of kerbed delineation which was not well executed^[72] - it was good for a cyclist, but not for a wheelchair user.

22.4.12. Kerbs were considered by the mobility impaired group to be the most suitable measure to define spaces as they provided them with more knowledge of where cyclists are going to be:

• Participant comment: "Ideally, you would want to keep cyclists, motorists and pedestrians separate - disabled people are proportionally more likely to be pedestrians" [mobility impaired male].

22.4.13. A kerb was also considered to be a better option than separation by grass on the basis of detectability. Ideally, cyclists, motorists and pedestrians should be separated, not just by markings, but through different height levels such as kerbs. While there needs to be a kerb, it was noted that these need to be dropped kerb at certain points, with a flat area on the footway wide enough for two wheelchairs to pass alongside to avoid a camber issue / adverse slope (see difficulties encountered with camber / slope above).

22.4.14. Among visually impaired respondents, some form of kerb was considered to be the best option as a delineator between a cycleway or the cycle area in a shared use path and the pedestrian area (agreed throughout the groups). There was also mention of this being preferable to the other solutions discussed, including using tactile edges, which are said to provide insufficient delineation:

• Participant comment: "Tactile marking will not stop cyclists turning onto it." [visually impaired male)

22.4.15. It was also noted that colour delineation was insufficient in many cases, so having some tactile contrast was agreed to be better. Guide dogs may not be able to understand colour line delineation alone, and dogs (if capable) would also need to be taught how to interact with corduroy paving (since they instinctively follow kerbs). Indeed, the complexity of modern-day public spaces was said by one guide dog user to restrict the accessibility of spaces that rely on markers that are unfamiliar or confusing to guide dogs.

22.4.16. Finally, it was noted that visually impaired users who had some hearing loss had difficulty hearing bicycles or could not hear them at all, either in urban areas (due to background traffic noise) or in other areas meaning that they did not know when cyclists are approaching. It was identified that there was often too much reliance on the cyclist or guide dog identifying each other as an obstacle and a potential hazard and therefore knowing when to stop.

22.4.17. As above, there are some notable differences between the groups on what impacts upon each group level of access. Similarly, there is agreement that some form of kerb demarcation is ideal for disabled street users, although, there is an acceptance for tactile demarcation by hearing impaired and deafblind groups. Visually impaired and mobility impaired users prefer some form of kerb demarcation, for visual impaired users it is about confidence / comfort to access the area, while for mobility impaired users it is acceptable with kerb and dropped kerb provision. There is also concern about the trip hazard which tactile paving presents to wheelchair or stick users.

Key message – cycleways and unsegregated shared use paths

22.4.18. Table 7 summarises the factors that support access by disability group in relation to cycleways.

22.4.19. From the collective feedback, it is evident that kerbed demarcation to cycleways is essential for disabled street users. The provision of some form of kerb demarcation increases the level of access for visually impaired and mobility impaired groups in particular, with all groups expressing the most comfort / least anxiety (FGD11).

Table 7 - Inclusive design public realm features - Cycleways summary

Impairment / Disability	More Access / More Enabling	Less Access / Less Enabling
Hearing	A form of kerbed demarcation (ideal). Tactile line demarcation / colour contrast highlighting demarcation. Line marking as a minimum.	No demarcation.
Visually	A form of kerbed demarcation.	Line marking demarcation only. Tactile surface demarcation only. No demarcation.
Deafblind	A form of kerbed demarcation.	Line marking demarcation only. Tactile surface demarcation only. No demarcation.
Mobility	A form of kerbed demarcation (ideal). Tactile line demarcation / colour contrast highlighting demarcation.	Line marking demarcation only. No demarcation.
Learning / Non-Visible	A form of kerbed demarcation. Tactile line demarcation / colour contrast highlighting demarcation.	Line marking demarcation only. No demarcation.

22.5 People orientated streets

22.5.1. During the research study, it became clear that the 'shared space' term meant different things to different people, resulting in a level of confusion when discussing specific features that impact on access to the town centre / busy street environment. To assist with the focus group discussions, the participants were asked to explore four options considered as 'people orientated streets'.

• Level surface high street with restricted service vehicle access (pedestrianised street).
• Level surface high street with local access only (pedestrianised street).
• Level surface high street with no vehicle restriction.
• Kerb demarcation high street with no vehicle restriction.

22.5.2. Again, respondents were asked to consider each of the different street types and to explain which factors impact on the access in a town centre / busy street environment.

22.5.3. If participants wished to discuss 'shared space' they were asked to refer to features which impacted on their level of access.

Level surface high street with service vehicle access (perceived low flow / low speed) – pedestrianised street

22.5.4. In the main, those participants with a hearing impairment considered that restricted time access for service vehicles was acceptable. Mobility impaired street users also found it supports their access to have a level street with vehicles only at certain times, as long as it is completely flat and the surface quality good. Furthermore, it was agreed that service vehicles for deliveries need to have access, but required to be managed, consistent between and within areas, and that streets need to be well-designed.

22.5.5. Pedestrianised streets that allow access for service vehicles at strict times were acceptable to mobility impaired users, as long as the location of motor vehicles was defined / predictable. If there are restrictions and enforcement of the access times for service vehicles, then this was considered as supporting access for mobility impaired users.

22.5.6. Visually impaired street users also commented that loading and unloading at specific times seemed acceptable but noted that it can be frustrating having delivery vehicles parked up at certain times, although this could be addressed by planning to pass through areas at different times of the day and / or service vehicle parking in designated area.

22.5.7. In addition, some visually impaired users noted that audible warnings on service vehicles are not particularly helpful, as it was not always clear whether the vehicle was moving towards or away from them. Overall, there was an acknowledgement of the need to carry out deliveries, but a message that these need to be regulated and adherence with scheduled times enforced.

22.5.8. Deafblind respondents highlighted that it can be difficult to navigate around parked lorries and there was, therefore, a key question of where they should be allowed to park on a shared level surface. This was consistent with views from participants with a hearing impairment, that both drivers and pedestrians would need to be educated on which part of the street area they should be using.

22.5.9. There was a clear message that consistent design and communication should be used to better manage the pedestrian and vehicle access in streets where deliveries are made.

Level surface high street with local vehicle access (perceived low flow / low speed) vehicle access

22.5.10. Level surface streets with local vehicle access made visually impaired users feel vulnerable and they noted that people tended to be less observant of their surroundings when they did not need to look out for cars. This can lead to pedestrians / cyclists being less predictable when using level shared surface, such as walking in front of others, criss-crossing over streets, etc. and this can be hazardous, especially for visually impaired individuals who are unable to visually predict the behaviour of fellow pedestrians.

22.5.11. One visually impaired participant also described pedestrian behaviour changes at different times of the day / week as resulting in 'different kinds of busy'. At particularly busy times (e.g. morning and afternoon rush-hour), the behaviour of other pedestrians can make areas uncomfortable to access, and without personal assistant support, the participant said that they would avoid the area. A number of mobility impaired participants made similar comments about avoiding busy locations during the festive period, at festivals or during special events, e.g. Christmas markets.

• Participant comment: "You think you might go down as a pedestrian on a Monday afternoon, but you don't know if anything is going to come down, so it has either got to be pedestrianised or open to vehicles with suitable pavements - trying to have a mixture doesn't work." [visually impaired female]

22.5.12. Among the mobility impaired group, the level surface streets with (low flow) local resident access, there seemed to be some concern with residents perhaps feeling that they have priority over pedestrians and service vehicles. This may mean that they are more likely to use the space inappropriately, and in a way that made disabled street users feel unsafe.

22.5.13. Most mobility impaired users considered service vehicle access to a level surface high street acceptable, but that the introduction of residents' vehicles (low traffic flow) made the area feel less comfortable. Hearing impaired street users suggested that they are 'fine' with a level surface high street with residents' access, although even on a low flow street, there are concerns about bicycles using this area, cyclists need to be more considerate in such environments.

22.5.14. On a general note, comments were also made that people-orientated streets with vehicular access (either resident or service vehicles) would be easier to navigate with confidence for those who are familiar with the space, compared to visitors to the area. This is because such spaces are often not accompanied by clear and accessible signage and wayfinding which sets out what the access rules are. Even where signage is present, this can be placed in unsuitable locations (e.g. too high up for wheelchair users to read) or not be made available in accessible formats (i.e. no braille alternatives), meaning that visitors to the area are unlikely to know what to expect. It was suggested that the street design, while navigable for those familiar with the space, may be inappropriate for visitor use.

Level surface high street with no vehicle restrictions

22.5.15. Visually impaired and deafblind participants were asked to expand on their previous comments in relation to level surface. They reiterated the importance of having safe predictable space and clutter-free pavement areas. When asked about the general traffic levels being considered in this option, they considered this option to have most impact on their access on the town centre / busy street and presented a high level of discomfort to the point of users avoiding the area. Some form of clear demarcation is essential, with a kerb being expressed as preferred.

22.5.16. Deafblind street users mainly indicated that they would not be comfortable navigating such a level surface space, since they do not like streets without delineation and likened it to the experience that a sighted person would have if it had been snowing and all demarcation was covered / removed.

22.5.17. Hearing impaired participants identified that level surface high streets with vehicle access can be confusing as to where vehicles can go and where they can park, including parking outside businesses and becoming an obstacle in the process. For these participants it was considered risky, as they need to look for where it is safe to cross and cannot hear traffic. The lack of demarcation / level surfaces was also identified as being unsafe, as it is unclear where / when they can walk and who has right of way. On busy streets with a lot of people walking, those with a hearing impairment indicated that they could unintentionally block traffic flow by holding vehicles up.

22.5.18. Among the non-visually impaired participants, it was discussed that the number of pedestrians using a space (i.e. how busy it is) was likely to have a bearing on how comfortable respondents found it to use - generally busier streets are more difficult to navigate, and some suggested that streets with lots of traffic are 'terrifying' to use.

22.5.19. The hearing impairment group suggested that a sign to indicate the operation of level surface areas might be helpful, so that pedestrians and drivers know the characteristics of the street they are entering (but, as above, such signage needs to be accessible and consistent and readily available to visitors to the area in pre-planning their journeys).

22.5.20. Mobility impaired participants initially responded positively to level surface shared space, as in their view it supported their needs. They indicated that if they utilised disabled parking spaces they could access / egress from their vehicle more easily. However, further discussion in which they considered using the spaces and potentially having children with them changed their perspective. A consensus was reached that these spaces are uncomfortable in terms of how they interact with these environments.

22.5.21. In the learning disabilities and non-visible disabilities group, there was a sense that while good in theory, there is often confusion about how level surface high streets work in terms of permissible use of space by pedestrians and vehicles:

• Participant comment: "Good spaces, but nobody really knows how to use them… that's the problem - pedestrians or cyclists tend to panic when they see a car." [cognitively impaired male with non-visible disability]

22.5.22. It was further noted that significant design work would be needed to help reduce the speed of any traffic that is present, which would reduce potential hazards.

22.5.23. On streets with lower vehicle speeds, it was considered that level street designs could work as long as they had a clear design, which included managed vehicle speeds:

• Participant comment: "If the design is such that a car cannot go fast, it can work, but it really needs to be designed in a way that ensures that nothing can go fast, otherwise it is hazardous. I think if you have really slow traffic and really good clear design, it should work for most people." [cognitively impaired female with non-visible disability]

Summary of level surfaces – people orientated streets

22.5.24. Across the groups, in relation to people-orientated streets with level surfaces, the greatest level of acceptance was with service vehicle access restrictions, with perceived low-flow low-speed traffic, and with clear definition of the appropriate areas for vehicles and pedestrians, removal of street clutter and appropriate vehicle use.

22.5.25. There was further agreement that any residential or general traffic on level surface streets where it is not low-flow / low-speed conditions was unacceptable without the provision of some form of kerb demarcation.

Kerb demarcation high street with no vehicle restriction

22.5.26. Across all the groups, there was a preference for some form of kerb demarcation to distinguish between the pavement and carriageway / road, when there is general traffic in the area. During the discussion of the three options, with an option to introduce low flows (local residents' access) into level streets, the importance of some form of kerb demarcation came up quickly. With general traffic, it was considered as essential to enable access.

22.5.27. There was a sense that some form of kerb demarcation made it clear which area was for the pedestrian to use, therefore making it feel safer and more comfortable to use than a tactile edge. Use of some form of kerb (with suitable drops to allow crossing) was also preferred by mobility impaired individuals (including wheelchair users) as tactile edging could present a trip hazard. Deafblind respondents questioned how useful tactile paving would be if covered in snow and so also agreed that kerbs are preferred.

• Participant comment: "Concerned about this level surface with tactile demarcation, that seems a tripping hazard. You either have something that is a more traditional barrier, or you have nothing at all - a small tactile thing could be a problem." [mobility impaired male]

22.5.28. For visually impaired street users, it was also mentioned that guide dogs require a kerb to navigate and, without one, it was very possible for the guide dog to become disorientated. Therefore, the consensus was that including kerbs feels safer and gives confidence to the wide range of disabled street users, although there was less consensus around what the height of the kerb should be.

• Participant comment: "We are so ingrained with having that height differential with a kerb, as what demarcates road and pavement, that to change that seems a bit of leap!" [mobility impaired male]

Summary – people orientated streets

22.5.29. Table 8 summarises the factors that support access by disability group in relation to people orientated streets.

22.5.30. From the collective feedback, the provision of some form of kerb in town centres and busy street areas between pedestrian areas and the carriageway is required to support access by a wide range of disabled street users. While there is a lack of consensus on the kerb height, some informed participants referred to the PAMELA research quoting 60mm. There is agreement that a kerb is considered to be appropriate with tactile (paving) edging regarded as insufficient (FGD12).

22.5.31. The same message was repeated for demarcation to cycleways and cycle areas: to support disabled access in town centres and busy street areas the pedestrian area needs to be free from obstruction and clearly demarcated from cycleways and cycle areas through the provision of some form of kerb and free from obstruction. This minimises the level of discomfort in accessing these spaces (FGD13).

22.5.32. 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 (FGD14).

22.5.33. 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 flow / low speed situation is not achieved. Therefore, it is essential that consultation is undertaken with existing local disabled street users that could be impacted upon as there may be locations where level surface streets may be considered to support mobility impaired access, i.e. historical streets.

Table 8 - Inclusive design public realm features – People orientated streets

Impairment / Disability	More Access / More Enabling	Less Access / Less Enabling
Hearing	A form of kerb demarcation in town centres and busy streets with general traffic (i.e. not low-flow / low-speed).	Level surface town centres with low-flow / low-speed conditions with clear demarcation.
Visually	A form of kerb demarcation in town centres and busy streets with general traffic (i.e. not low-flow / low-speed).	Level surface town centres with low-flow / low-speed conditions with clear demarcation.
Deafblind	A form of kerb demarcation in town centres and busy streets with general traffic (i.e. not low-flow / low-speed).	Level surface town centres with low-flow / low-speed conditions with clear demarcation.
Mobility	A form of kerb demarcation with dropped kerbs in town centres and busy streets with general traffic (i.e. not low-flow / low-speed).	Level surface town centres with low-flow / low-speed conditions with clear demarcation.
Learning / Non-Visible	A form of kerb demarcation in town centres and busy streets with general traffic (i.e. not low-flow / low-speed).	Level surface town centres with low-flow / low-speed conditions with clear demarcation.

22.6 Key messages

22.6.1. Based on the collective feedback from focus groups in relation to pedestrian and vehicle mode segregation, the key messages set out below were identified.

• FGD15 - Lateral segregation between pedestrian street users and vehicles, including pedal cycles, is required in a town centre / busy street environment to support access by 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. Colour and tonal contrast are essential for street features and pavement in all weather conditions, and paving patterns need to be given consideration.
  • Focus group participants 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 affect access for other street users. This particularly impacts on the slope / camber to dropped kerbs and reduces the effective level width at the top of slope, which can impact on those with reduced mobility. Additional to these considerations (presented by the disabled street user focus groups) is cycle pedal clearance height on a cycle track adjacent to the 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^[73].

23. Obstructions and 'street clutter'

23.1 Introduction

23.1.1. In relation to obstructions to access and street clutter, the focus group discussions covered two themes. The first related to supporting vehicles which improve access to busy street / town centre areas. The second theme covered obstructions and 'street clutter' such as bollards, seating, lighting columns, signage, etc. These focus group discussions allowed for the examination of the qualitative factors that influence obstructions and methods of managing 'street clutter' and how they impact on access for disabled street users in town centre / busy streets areas.

23.2 Supporting vehicles

Disabled parking

23.2.1. There was broad agreement regarding the need for disabled parking provision in busy street environments. Hearing impaired participants commented that parking needs to be available next to a path / footway as some older car parks just have car spaces and no designated path / footway from anything other than the closest bays. In these circumstances, it can be possible to be walking along and not notice traffic nearby. When designing a car park, it should ideally have a pedestrian foot / pathway from every bay, especially disabled bays, and this was seen as a good practice design feature.

23.2.2. Deafblind respondents indicated that there was a drive to reduce the number of disabled parking bays, although no further detail was given. They noted that this should be avoided.

23.2.3. Mobility impaired respondents noted that disabled parking bays are enabling only if they are located in appropriate areas, for example if a ramp needs to come out, that it does not do so into another parking bay or that there are not bollards located nearby. There also needs to be awareness that these bays do not necessarily always have a dropped kerb, so disabled drivers may sometimes find that they are unable to navigate safely and smoothly from the parked vehicle onto the footway:

• Participant comments "I was out with one of the (charity organisation) ambassadors and she ended up in the middle of the road trying to get into her car: she ended up having to go right down in the middle of the street in the middle of a busy street in the city centre because there wasn't a dropped kerb… she was like 'I can't get up'!" [mobility impaired female]

23.2.4. In the interests of meeting the needs of those with non-visible disabilities, there was also a suggestion for accessible parking bays that are marked as such. Having bays that are more generic (rather than being for blue badge holders only) was seen as essential for making busy street spaces accessible for those who had limiting conditions, but who did not qualify for a blue badge or other parking permit. This may include older adults with general mobility challenges, or adults with mental health impairments who may find allocated parking easier to use than general parking spaces. Respondents noted that they had more confidence that such accessible spaces would be sufficiently self-managed if made available (for example, similar to parent and child parking bays).

Taxi bays

23.2.5. Across the groups, it was agreed that having defined taxi bays are essential, although the main concern was a need for more accessible taxis which can accommodate a wider range of mobility needs, including wheelchairs with different specifications. One individual in the mobility impaired group suggested that licences for traditional black cabs as accessible vehicles should be withheld, as in this individual's view they do not meet the acceptable requirements when compared to other modern taxis.

23.2.6. Issues were highlighted with rear access taxis specifically around alighting onto the kerb from the back of the taxi. People want to be able to travel as independently as possible and without the need for assistance (if it was not wanted / needed) and so easier ways of alighting different vehicle types should be explored. Compared to rear access taxis, side access taxis seem to be more supported by the various groups, on the whole.

23.2.7. Mobility impaired participants also mentioned the need to have accessible taxis as well as taxi facilities which are clutter free and in central locations. Among visually impaired respondents, it was noted that taxis provide a point to point service which is vital for orientation, wayfinding and so being able to be dropped off locally was key:

• Participant comment: "It's a fixed spot, plus the taxi driver knows how to find me if I'm using that spot to pick the taxi up." [mobility impaired male]

23.2.8. Taxi bays and ranks support access in terms of wayfinding and orientation, for all disability, but in particular for blind users.

Bus stops

23.2.9. Bus stop raised boarding areas were considered very enabling by the mobility impaired group, while visually impaired users suggested that great care was needed in using them. It was noted between groups that certain bus companies do not like raised boarding zones for buses and the buses nearly always have to use a ramp anyway. Another issue raised by wheelchair users was that buses are often not flush (i.e., where the foot of the bus door is parallel and level to the kerb) like trams. Mobility impaired users commented that bus stops need to be clutter free, with a shelter present which is large enough to have sufficient width for wheelchairs to enter.

Vehicle charging points

23.2.10. There were mixed views with regards to electric vehicle charging points. Deafblind participants identified that charging points could be an obstacle, but this largely depends upon where they are positioned. Clutter associated with plugged in vehicles could also be a barrier to visually impaired users when walking on pavements. Existing designs were said to be potentially bulky and easy to bump into. One respondent who was deafblind also commented that charging points were often not accessible for wheelchair users, making it difficult for them to connect their car to the charging point.

Disabled tricycle parking

23.2.11. Few respondents had experience of using adapted bikes and so few considered themselves to be in a position to be able to comment on what would be enabling / disabling when considering the positioning of bike parking in street designs. The one group where participants were users of adapted bikes suggested that similar principles should apply to non-adapted bikes, i.e. should be in the same location as standard bicycles and placed somewhere non-obstructive. One respondent who was a user of a hand cranked cycle stressed the importance of having secure storage for wheelchairs at the places where they alight / change to handcycles, especially for home to work trips.

Summary

23.2.12. Table 9 summarises the factors that support access by disability group in relation to supporting vehicles.

Table 9 - Inclusive design public realm features – Support vehicles

Impairment / Disability	More Access / More Enabling	Less Access / Enabling
Hearing	Disabled parking with accessible footway. Bus stops.
Visually	Disabled parking with accessible footway. Taxi bays and ranks support access in terms of wayfinding and orientation. Bus stops.	Vehicle charging point – are considered an obstacle. Disabled tricycle parking – are considered an obstacle.
Blind and Visually	Disabled parking with accessible footway. Taxi bays and ranks support access in terms of wayfinding and orientation. Bus stops.	Vehicle charging point – are considered an obstacle. Disabled tricycle parking – are considered an obstacle.
Mobility	Disabled parking with accessible footway. Taxi bays and ranks support access in terms of wayfinding and orientation. Accessible taxi vehicles. Bus stops – correct orientation of bus to kerb for ramp and appropriate kerb height and clearance for ramp.	Disabled tricycle parking – limited to few users and need for additional storage. Non-tricycle users consider them to be obstacles similar to cycle racks.
Learning / Non-Visible	Disabled parking. Taxi bays.
Common themes	The provision of access for support vehicles generally improves access for disabled street users, but the location of parking and other supporting features (such as charging points) requires careful consideration in order that these do not contribute to street clutter.

23.3 Obstructions and 'street clutter'

A-frame signage

23.3.1. A-frame signage was considered problematic and disabling by the majority of respondents across all groups, largely due to the ad-hoc nature in which they are placed. Hearing impaired participants noted that they can cause issues for lip reading due to increased risk of collision for companions / support assistants who may be turned towards each other if lip reading.

23.3.2. Visually impaired participants stressed that they could interfere with canes or be problematic for guide dogs to navigate. Wheelchair users could be forced off the pavement and onto the road if A-frame signage are placed inappropriately. Overall, there was consensus that the placement of A-frame signage and other advertising boards needs to be overseen by local authorities, with clear regulations in place governing their use and regular monitoring of compliance.

23.3.3. One group of participants had been engaged in efforts to achieve the removal of A-frame signage in a busy area of Edinburgh and cited this as an example of where pressure to control the use of advertising had been successful in making streets less cluttered and more accessible for a wider range of street users. It should be noted that there was also discussion around 'fixed' boards being safer as they would not be blown over / move during bad weather conditions, creating unanticipated hazards. It was noted that having boards in defined locations had been successfully implemented in certain locations e.g. Perth and Edinburgh.

Waste bins

23.3.4. Waste bins were similarly considered too often be an obstacle on busy streets. As with A-frame signage they were considered more acceptable if laid out in a consistent and ordered manner, and fixed public waste bins were seen as less hazardous and more acceptable than wheelie bins or industrial bins, which are often placed more haphazardly and irregularly and are subject to changing location. The distinction between bins in fixed locations and moveable waste bins such as wheelie bins should be noted – essentially, that one type is predictable due to its fixed location and the other is less predictable, i.e. moveable.

23.3.5. All participants accepted the necessity of waste bins / recycling in busy street areas to minimise littering and spilled rubbish, which can itself be hazardous to those using walking aids, wheelchairs or to those with visual impairments. However, as with A-frame signage more could be done to monitor and enforce inappropriate placing or location of waste facilities. Other suggested solutions included making refuse collection times during 'out of hours' time periods when pedestrian footfall was likely to be less and storing bins on the road instead of the path (although this poses risks to vehicular traffic).

Bollards

23.3.6. The main issues raised in relation to bollards were visibility (including detectability for visually impaired adults) and positioning (placement). Mobility impaired street users noted that bollards need to have sufficient clearance to allow a wheelchair to pass through, while for deafblind and visually impaired respondents, there was the issue of how detectable bollards are. For example, bollards made of similar material or a material that reflects the surrounding area such as stainless steel, and also materials of the same colour as the street / pavement, can make them difficult to distinguish at a distance, as well as difficult to see in poor light conditions. There was also an issue of size, in that smaller or shorter bollards are difficult to detect. It was identified that bollards should be constructed in a contrasting colour or illuminated, wherever possible.

23.3.7. Several respondents also queried the general purpose of bollards and noted that in their view the use of bollards in some public spaces was not justified i.e. use should be restricted only to areas where it was likely that cars would otherwise mount the pavement in order to park, which has been recently prohibited in Scotland. As such, there may be a reduced need for bollards when the newly approved pavement parking regulations are enforced^[74].

Café seating

23.3.8. Across all groups, the view was that barriers around café seating are welcome and necessary in order to confine people to a particular area. Some visually impaired street users identified that café seating without boundaries could act as an access deterrent, not least because it could present an unanticipated obstacle e.g. if street furniture spills onto streets that are usually clear and where the street user expected the space to be clear. Visually impaired participants also stressed that barriers are more enabling, as they can prevent collisions with people sitting having hot drinks; could help to protect guide dogs by providing a clear boundary; and prevent café users from encroaching out further onto the street. While broadly welcomed, barriers were seen as only serving their maximum functionality if they reached the ground, so that they can be detected by being tapped by stick / cane users.

Seats and benches

23.3.9. Seating was welcomed as a general street feature, especially for older individuals and those with physical impairments to support regular rest intervals. Seating should, however, be positioned so that it is possible to see from a distance i.e. to allow journey planning. Similarly, seating options needed to be clearly signposted for people who are unfamiliar with the area to allow them to know when to anticipate potential for breaks in their journey.

23.3.10. This linked to the view of visually impaired street users that seating did not support their access unless they are familiar with the street. For someone in a wheelchair or with reduced mobility the positioning of seating is supportive when it is in a fixed position at regular intervals and can support access as a means of orientation as well as to allow for an opportunity to rest. It was noted that push up bars / handles on seating are also helpful in allowing older people and those needing to move between seats and wheelchairs to get up more easily. Across all groups, it was considered necessary to place seating well away from the main thoroughfare, and at regular intervals where possible.

Tactile maps

23.3.11. Visually impaired participants noted that tactile maps are helpful in general terms, but often seem to be confined to certain locations such as railway stations and other transport interchanges. Wider use of tactile maps in busy street / town centre areas would be welcomed by some visually impaired (with some sight) respondents, however blind respondents said that they did not find tactile maps useful in unfamiliar locations, and they could be difficult to find them without support.

Other wayfinding features

23.3.12. A number of hearing impaired participants said that they did not find audible navigation aids helpful, as the poor sound quality often makes these very difficult to hear and understand. A number of respondents across different groups highlighted that smartphone apps are instead perhaps more helpful as audible aides for wayfinding. Such audible apps are also seen as helpful for those who may have difficulty reading or interpreting maps:

• Participant comment: "There are a number of apps that have wayfinding features - as someone who is dyslexic, I sometimes have problems reading maps or reading literature." [mobility impaired male]

23.3.13. Those in the visually impaired group suggested that while apps can be helpful, not everyone can afford them and not everyone has smartphones that enable them. They are also dependent on phones being in working order and being charged. Participants noted that apps can also become quickly outdated. For example, it was mentioned that for visually impaired users, it would be difficult to navigate using a smartphone in noisy areas.

23.3.14. Among sensory impaired participants, landmarks were also highlighted as a way to navigate, including making use of certain smells present in a town centre environment to follow familiar routes, etc. However, it was acknowledged that this only works for those that are familiar with the area. For those that are not, alternative way finding features are needed.

23.3.15. It should be noted that visually impaired participants considered a kerb line, change in light between one area and another, e.g. daylight between building lines at junctions, as well as key locations such as shops, as significant wayfinding features.

Hedges and planting

23.3.16. Across the groups, a few participants highlighted that hedges and planting in street areas can become hazardous if they are overgrown, as people can walk into them. They should, therefore, be properly and regularly maintained. This was particularly voiced among those with a visual impairment. Raised flowerbeds were mentioned as a specific obstacle to visually impaired respondents as they "often have sharp corners that can be collided with".

Trees

23.3.17. Trees were largely considered to be aesthetically pleasing in urban street design; however, it was noted that the effective street width would have a bearing on their suitability. Visually impaired participants stressed that in some cases, trees could impact on the level of access, especially due to lower tree canopy / branches on the trees, as they can strike the body / face / wheelchair if not maintained. One person in the group disagreed and found trees enabling as helpful to navigate and stay separate from traffic (however, this was a minority view).

23.3.18. Leaf fall was also mentioned by several respondents across different groups as this can make it difficult to navigate through a town centre space if surfaces become slippery or tactile surfaces are obscured. There was an additional issue for manual wheelchair users, with leaves and other waste matter on the wheel moving onto the hands, and an emphasis, therefore, on the importance of street maintenance / street cleaning.

• Participant comment: "Falling leaves are a blind man's fog." [visually impaired male]

23.3.19. Finally, participants noted that the base surrounding trees planted in street areas should, ideally, be a flat surface (something raised by respondents in different groups). Grills surrounding trees were seen as acceptable as they can be kept level and do not become a trip hazard. Resin bound gravel was also seen as suitable for tree bases by one group of mobility impaired users.

Cycle stands / cycle parking

23.3.20. Visually impaired and deafblind participants suggested that they found cycle stands (including bike share) impacted on their level of access if poorly located, especially if placed in locations like entrances to stations / other public buildings. Similar to other street features, good positioning is key. Alternatively, it was considered by some that cycle stands could be located on the road in car parking spaces.

• Participant comment: "As a cyclist, I often feel guilty locking up my bicycle in the proper place, as I feel like it is taking up space on the pavement - somebody could bump into it easily. Off the pavement would be much, much better." [mobility impaired male]

23.3.21. Mobility impaired participants agreed that it would be good to have cycle parking kept off the pavement where possible, but not to the detriment of disabled parking provision. It is also important that they have a good colour differential from the ground.

Summary – 'street clutter'

23.3.22. Table 10 summarises the factors that support access by disability group in relation to street features.

Table 10 - Inclusive design public realm features – 'Street clutter'

Impairment / Disability	More Access / More Enabling	Less Access / Enabling
Hearing	Seating and benches - correctly located. Cycle stands – correctly located. Café seating with barriers.	A-frame signage. Bollards. Waste Bins. Café seating without barriers. Hedging / trees – if not maintained it negatively impacts on head clearance and root intrusion results in path deformation. Tactile maps that are limited or poorly located.
Visually
Blind and Visually
Mobility	Seating and benches at regular intervals. Cycle stands – correctly located.	A-frame signage. Waste bins. Bollards. Café seating with / without barrier. Hedging / trees – if not maintained it negatively impacts on head clearance and root intrusion results in path deformation.
Learning / Non-Visible	Seating and benches at regular intervals.	A-frame signage. Bollards.
Common themes	Straight, pedestrian corridor clear of obstruction, with some form of demarcation*. Street features located in designated area. Should be at least 2 metres wide and ideally no more than 4 metres wide.	Pedestrian corridor with a number of obstructions and no demarcation. Street features that are irregular and poorly located. Moveable street features, discarded objects and unexpected obstructions.

* The reference to demarcation has been taken from the 'people orientated street' section in the focus group discussions considering its inter-relationship with a 'clutter'-free environment and designated areas for street features that support other disabled street users.

23.4 Key messages - obstructions and 'street clutter'

23.4.1. Based on the collective feedback from focus groups in relation to obstructions and 'street clutter', the key messages set out below were identified.

• 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 improves 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 including 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 communities. 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.

24. Inclusive physical design measures - summary of key messages

24.1 Discussion point - need for national guidelines

24.1.1. There was a shared view across the focus groups that there is a current lack of reference to existing good practice guidance and policy around inclusive street design.

24.1.2. Current guidance on street design was described as generally outdated and 'prehistoric' by some and needed to be replaced by standards (which were less likely to be interpreted loosely than guidance) or minimum requirements. It was considered that if there were standards set down there would be less need for in-depth consultation as designs would be based on standards that have already been agreed.

24.1.3. A few participants argued for regulations as well as standards as a way of ensuring that standards are applied and adhered to. It was stressed that more education was needed among planners, designers and contractors.
Key message (FGD25): Common guidelines are required 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.

24.2 The key messages drawn from the research

24.2.1. The key messages drawn from the disabled street users with regards to inclusive physical design measures are included in the table below. A review of the alignment between these messages and existing guidance is included.

24.2.2. Existing national guidance is included under Appendix I of the main report.

Table 11 – Key messages from disabled street user focus groups on inclusive physical design measures in relation to existing guidance

Nr	Key Message	Alignment and Gaps with Existing Guidance
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.	No mention of user preference or level of discomfort within existing guidance.
FGD2	Raised continuous footways have a level of acceptance from disabled street users if designed correctly, with a clear distinction between the carriageway and footway at the crossing with contrasting and tactile paving to define the area.	TfL Streetscape Guidance and CEC Street Design Guide outline a raised (table) entry treatment, which is aligned with visual impaired street user expectations of detectable crossings.
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.	Manual for Streets refers to refuge islands, with photographic examples in Figure 10 referring to the above shown. Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces (currently being updated). Figure 10 shows layouts for pedestrian refuge islands less the 2 metres, with no non-tactile gap as shown in Figure 11. This reflects other guidance (TfL, CEC).
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.	Manual for Streets parts 6.3.27-3.3.28 refer to level clearance: "normal footway crossing should be maintained as far as practicable from back of footway (900mm minimum)." Aligns with current guidance, with the following exception. There are variations in guidance with regards to impact on level footways at the back slope, with some guidance suggesting a slope to the back of footway and others a level surface. TfL Street Design Guides mentions discomfort with slope for mobility impaired.
FGD5	Zebra crossings are preferred over courtesy crossings by non-visually impaired participants. Visually impaired focus group participants expressed a high level of discomfort and avoidance of these facilities, similar to their experience of courtesy crossings.	Traffic Signs Manual chapter 6 - Traffic Control, outlines PSED under the Equality, section 15.2 Accessibility, and importance of undertaking consultation. There is no mention of level comfort / anxiety on certain disabled street user. Manual for Streets presents minimum delay to pedestrians in the right location (no mention of visual impaired discomfort). It makes reference to signalised crossings being preferred by older and visual impaired users by providing greater certainty (driver compliance) when crossing. CEC Street Design Guide highlights signalised controlled preference over zebra crossings for street users, in particular visually impaired, young and old pedestrians. TfL guidance discuss comfort in terms of pedestrian density on footway.
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 mobility impaired participants expressed a preference for the push button unit to be located on a level area rather on the slope at the dropped kerb.	Traffic Signs Manual chapter 6 - Traffic Control, outlines under Equality, section 15.2 accessibility, and the importance of undertaking consultation. There is no mention of level of comfort or anxiety for certain disabled street users. Existing guidance outlines the Push Button Unit (PBU) location should be the right-hand side. Further consideration in guidance is for PBUs to be located on a level area or stipulate maximum slope for mobility impaired (wheelchair user).
FGD7	User preference for the type of pedestrian crossing is influenced by an individual's level of confidence, ability and any personal adaption, 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.	Manual for Streets makes reference to signalised crossings being preferred by older and visual impaired users by providing greater certainty (driver compliance) when crossing. CEC Street Design Guide makes reference to use of non-signalised crossings and the impact on access for certain street users. Existing guidance does not make any reference to crossing type preference or comfort / confidence but does direct designers to undertake consultation with local users under their PSED of the Equality Act.
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 adaption) by a personal assistant / carer.	Manual for Streets makes reference to signalised crossings being preferred by older and visual impaired users by providing greater certainty (driver compliance) when crossing. CEC Street Design Guide makes reference to use of non-signalised crossings and the impact on access for certain street users. Existing guidance does not make any reference to crossing type preference or comfort / confidence but does direct designers to undertake consultation with local users under their PSED of the Equality Act.
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 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). 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.	Traffic Signs Manual chapter 6 - Traffic Control. Manual for Streets (sections 6.3.27-3.3.28) makes reference to level clearance: "normal footway crossing should be maintained as far as practicable from back of footway (900mm minimum)". It recommends dropped kerbs with tactile treatment, i.e. an uncontrolled crossing every 100 metres. Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces (currently being updated).
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.	Manual for Streets makes reference to obstructions, surface quality, and no maximum footway / pavement width. Designing Streets make reference to clear pedestrian corridor free from obstruction. TfL Streetscape Guidance includes a preferred minimum footway width of 2m. Existing guidance does not highlight the need for detectable demarcation and the corridor to be straight / linear. Maximum width of the pedestrian corridor is not defined.
FGD11	Cycleways - from the collective feedback, it is evident that kerbed demarcation to cycleways is essential for disabled street users. The provision of some form of kerb demarcation increases the level of access for visually impaired and mobility impaired groups in particular, with all groups expressing the most comfort / least anxiety.	Cycling By Design (being updated). Cycling Infrastructure Design (being updated). CD 195 Design for Cycle Traffic (DMRB) outlines that kerb demarcation between cycleway and footway. Minimum kerb between stepped cycleway and carriage way of 50mm and cycleway to stepped footway 25-50mm. TfL London Cycling Design Standards – 50mm kerb demarcation (note between footway and carriageway this increases to 60mm). Reference to supporting the visual impaired. Edinburgh street design guide covers 50mm kerb height hard segregation.
FGD12	People Orientated Streets - the provision of some form of kerb in town centre and busy street areas between pedestrian areas and the carriageway 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 participant referring to research quoting 60mm.	As per FGD11. Manual for Streets references the importance of kerb demarcation (parts 7.2.10 to 7.2.12). LTN 1 / 11: Shared Space (withdrawn) references requirement to undertaken local consultation before removal of kerb demarcation but does not stipulate kerb height.
FGD13	People Orientated Streets - to support disabled access in town centres and busy street areas, the pedestrian area needs to be clearly demarcated from cycleways and cycle areas through the provision of some form of kerb and free from obstruction from cycleways. This minimises the level of discomfort in accessing these spaces.	As per FGD10 and FGD11. TfL Streetscape Guidance and London Cycling Design Guide discuss pedestrian orientated streets and the need for a kerb (50mm between the cycleway and footway) demarcation to support visual impaired users. CEC design guidance includes good practice examples where a 50mm kerb height between cycleway and footway has been adopted.
FGD14	Within a town centre / busy street environment a level surface street (potentially with tactile paving demarcation) could be considered in low flow / low speed situations. 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 flow / low speed situation is not achieved. Therefore, it is essential that consultation is undertaken with existing local disabled street users that could be impacted upon, as there may be locations where level surface streets may be considered to support mobility impaired access, i.e., historical streets.	LTN 1 / 11: Shared Space (withdrawn) references requirement under PSED to undertake local consultation with disabled street users, including visually impaired users who are impacted by the proposals, before removal of kerb demarcation. LTN 1 / 11 stated that the maximum benefit of pedestrians sharing space is achieved when vehicle flows are in the order of low-flow (<100vph) and low-speed streets (<15 mph). Although higher flows can be successful.
FGD15	Vertical segregation between pedestrian street users and vehicles, including pedal cycles, is required in a town centre / busy street environment to support access by 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.	For cycleway to pedestrians: - Cycling By Design (being updated). - Cycling Infrastructure Design (being updated). - FGD10, FGD11, FGD12 and FGD13 outline guidance regarding kerb segregation between pedestrian and cyclists. For cycleway to carriageway: - SCOTS National Road Development Guideline recommends a 40mm in 'shared space' schemes. - TfL Streetscape Guidance and London Cycling Design Guide (125mm) CEC Street Design Guide (75-100mm).
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. Colour and tonal contrast are essential for street features and pavement in all weather conditions, and paving patterns need to be given consideration. Focus group participants 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.	As per FGD10 (Manual for Streets). TfL Streetscape Guidance and CEC Street Design Guidance include a minimum pedestrian clear corridor of 2 metres width, with wider clearance permissible to support pedestrian comfort. The TfL approach is related to pedestrian density / level of service). The guidance highlights obstruction free, but no mention of demarcated pedestrian corridor. TfL Streetscape Guidance outlines colour and tonal contrast paving and physical street features.
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 reduced mobility. 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.	As per FGD15.
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.	TfL Streetscape Guidance and CEC Street Design Guide include a minimum pedestrian clear corridor of 2m width, with wider clearance permissible to support pedestrian comfort. TfL approach is related to pedestrian density / level of service).
FGD19	Surface maintenance and building quality / standards are a key consideration impacting on inclusive access.	SCOTS National Road Development Guideline refers to Designing Streets which includes a good level of detail, but does not mention how good maintenance, build quality etc. can support access. Manual for Streets outlines the importance of surface quality and maintenance. TfL Streetscape Guidance is more detailed than the CEC Street Design Guide with regard to material choice, build quality, surface quality, maintenance and opportunities to improve access / facilities. There is no guidance or mention of how poor maintenance impacts on 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.	Designing Streets. Manual for Streets. TfL Streetscape Guidance. CEC Street Design Guide. Guidance could be stronger with regards to demarcation and pedestrian clear corridors.
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.	Designing Streets. Cycling by Design. Current guidance does cover cycle parking location but does not highlight the need to preserve disabled parking provision.
FGD22	Within town centre / busy street environments, street features that support pick up and drop off by support vehicles improves 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.	Inclusive Mobility (being updated) covers support vehicles.
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 impacts on access for disabled street users.	Manual for Streets makes reference to the Making Space for Waste Bins document.
FGD24	The regulation of A-frame advertising boards in the cities of Edinburgh and Perth was welcomed and well received by disabled 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.	No specific guidance on street clutter regulation.
General
FGD25	Common guidelines are required 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.	N / A

Appendix C.1

Focus group guide

Focus Group – blind and partially sighted users
Theme B - Inclusive street design features

Please think about physical features you may encounter on a high street or busy street on a typical day-to-day journey.

Here is a list of typical street features.

On a scale from 'very disabling' to 'very enabling', please indicate how you feel about each of these features. For example, do they make it easier or more difficult for you to move around these areas? Please tick not relevant if you feel that these features do not apply to you.

If you need further information on a feature mentioned, we have some images / show cards to help.

	Footway Features E.g. pavements
	Very Disabling	Somewhat disabling	Neutral	Somewhat enabling	Very enabling	Not relevant
Narrow footway Less than 1 metre wide
Standard footway 2 metres wide
Wide footway More than 2 metres wide

Footway Features
E.g. pavements

What is the main footway width listed above that most enables you when in a street environment?

Please explain why this is the case…

What is the main footway width listed above that most disables you when in a street environment?

Please explain why this is the case…

	Cycleway features E.g. Cycle lanes, cycle tracks, segregated cycleway.
	Very Disabling	Somewhat disabling	Neutral	Somewhat enabling	Very enabling	Not relevant
Shared footway / cycleway with no demarcation E.g. No tactile separation between cycles and pedestrians - perhaps painted markings.
Alongside footway with tactile demarcation E.g. Raised studs / surface texture separating cycles and pedestrians
Alongside footway with kerb and tactile demarcation E.g. As above, but including kerb separating cycles and pedestrians
Separate from footway E.g. With grass verge / planting separating cycles and pedestrians

Cycleway features
E.g. lanes, tracks, segregation

What is the main cycleway feature listed above that most enables you when in a street environment?

Please explain why this is the case…

What is the main cycleway feature listed above that most disables you when in a street environment?

Please explain why this is the case…

	People orientated streets / shared space E.g. streets where pedestrians interact with other road users
	Very Disabling	Somewhat disabling	Neutral	Somewhat enabling	Very enabling	Not relevant
Pedestrianised high street with limited service vehicle access E.g. Lorries loading/unloading goods share unsegregated space with other users
Pedestrianised high street with limited access for residents' vehicles E.g. Vehicles accessing homes share unsegregated space with other users
Level surface high street with tactile demarcation between footway and carriageway E.g. Street with footway and roadway at the same level, but with tactile edging to segregate users
Low kerb demarcation high street between footway and carriageway, with drop kerbs E.g. Low kerb with drop kerbs to aid crossing

People orientated streets / shared space
Streets where pedestrians interact with other road users

What is the main people orientated street / shared space feature listed above that most enables you when in a street environment?

Please explain why this is the case…

What is the main people orientated street / shared space feature listed above that most disables you when in a street environment?

Please explain why this is the case…

	Crossing types - Main roads and minor road E.g. ways of crossing roads
	Very Disabling	Somewhat disabling	Neutral	Somewhat enabling	Very enabling	Not relevant
Signalised junction with pedestrian / cyclist facilities E.g. Traffic controlled lights with crossing
Uncontrolled 'courtesy' crossing (shared space) E.g. Crossing with no lights or push button operation
Zebra Crossing on main road (with Belisha beacons) E.g. Flashing beacons visible to drivers and other road users
Mini Zebra Crossing (without Belisha beacons) E.g. Without flashing beacons
Controlled Signalised Crossing for pedestrians only (Pelican / Puffin) E.g. Traffic controlled lights with push button operated crossing
Controlled Signalised crossing for pedestrians and cyclists (Toucan) E.g. Traffic controlled lights with push button operated crossing
Pedestrian Refuge islands E.g. No traffic signals, but raised 'safe' area for users crossing the road
Raised Continuous footway E.g. Crossing raised up to same level as the footway
Drop Kerbs only E.g. Drop kerbs to aid crossing of the roadway
Access road with lowered footway E.g. Vehicle access with lowered kerb

Crossing Types - Main Roads and Minor Road
E.g. Ways of crossing roads

What is the main crossing type feature listed above that most enables you when in a street environment?

Please explain why this is the case…

What is the main crossing type feature listed above that most disables you when in a street environment?

Please explain why this is the case…

	Supporting vehicle E.g. ways to make access to vehicles easier for users
	Very Disabling	Somewhat disabling	Neutral	Somewhat enabling	Very enabling	Not relevant
Disabled Car Parking at key facilities E.g. Designated disabled bays
Pick up and Drop off facilities at key facilities for car and taxi E.g. Layby or bay for loading/unloading
Disabled Tricycle Parking at key facilities E.g. Parking location for tricycles
Accommodation of tricycle or adapted cycles on dedicated cycle infrastructure. E.g. Cycle lane with features to aid users on adapted cycles and tricycles
Accessible facilities at Taxi ranks (i.e. level footway for temporary ramps) E.g. Raised or level footway to enable easier loading and unloading of taxis for wheelchair users
Bus Stop with High Kerbs to access buses E.g. Raised footway to enable easier access for wheelchair users
Charging points for mobility scooters/ wheelchairs E.g. Provision of locations to charge electrically powered mobility aids.

Supporting vehicle
E.g. ways to make access to vehicles easier for users

What is the main supporting vehicle movement feature listed above that most enables you when in a street environment?

Please explain why this is the case…

What is the main supporting vehicle movement feature listed above that most disables you when in a street environment?

Please explain why this is the case…

	Various Street Features E.g. typical elements of a busy high street / main street
	Very Disabling	Somewhat disabling	Neutral	Somewhat enabling	Very enabling	Not relevant
Advertising boards on street E.g. A-frame signs or permanent advertising features in the footway
Waste bins E.g. Recycling and waste bins located in the footway
Bollards E.g. To segregate traffic or prohibit entrance to certain streets / lanes
Seating (at regular intervals) E.g. Seating laid out in a consistent manner
Seating (not at regular intervals) E.g. Seating laid out sporadically
Café seating and tables with no barriers E.g. Seating for café users with no segregation from main flows of people
Café seating and tables with barriers E.g. Seating for café users with segregation from main flows of people
Tactile maps E.g. Maps to aid navigation for those with visual impairments
Wayfinding features that are tactile or audible E.g. Features to aid navigation which use audible or tactile information
Trees (leafed / deciduous) E.g. Trees with a leaved canopy
Trees (non-leafed / coniferous) E.g. Trees without a leaved canopy
Tree with guard / cage E.g. Trees which have a metal frame or cage to aid their growth / prevent damage to the tree
Hedging E.g. Hedges and other planting being integrated into the street
Cycle racks / storage in parking bay areas E.g. Cycle stand in car park area

Various Street Features
E.g. typical elements of a busy high street / main street

What is the main street feature listed above that most enables you
when in a street environment?

Please explain why this is the case…

What is the main street feature listed above that most disables you
when in a street environment?

Please explain why this is the case…

Previous Page | Next Page