IWA Submission on Movement and Mobility
Shared spaces
Shared spaces in theory is a good concept but in practice does not work for people with disabilities for many reasons. Shared Space, Shared Surfaces as an urban design concept is generally not supported by people with a disability and is not recommended by IWA as a safe and inclusive design approach to the design of urban streetscapes. There are several very specific elements of the Shared Space, Shared Surfaces design approach that cause anxiety for people with disabilities and other vulnerable streetscape users, namely:
• The removal of signal-controlled crossings
• Courtesy crossings, which are not signalled, depend on the ability of the pedestrian to negotiate a roadway crossing through eye contact with the motorist/cyclist which is a complicated and uncertain process.
• The concern that the person will not have sufficient time to cross the road or will have incorrectly understood the giving of permission from the motorist/cyclist to cross the road.
• The removal of kerbs is particularly problematic for people who have a visual impairment as kerbs provide a way-finding function.
• Pedestrian interaction with cyclists is of particular concern to vulnerable streetscape users where cyclists are not required to dismount when passing through a shared area or where cycle lanes with no kerb demarcation are routed through a shared space environment. Various UK reports , having studied and consulted regarding this design approach, have recorded that people with disabilities experience concern about the uncertainty created within these types of ‘shared’ environments and have consequently recommended the provision of ‘Comfort Zones’ within the Shared Spaces, Shared Surfaces design, ie designated pedestrian routes, kerbs between pedestrian and vehicle/cycle traffic and designated crossing points; effectively a return to the more usual and traditional streetscape design. Where a space is badly designed or located so that people feel uncertain of their ability to safely negotiate a crossing, then people with disabilities and other vulnerable road and street users may avoid the area completely, leading to greater social isolation and disconnected communities. Clearly, the inclusion of a ‘Shared Space, Shared Surfaces’ approach in an urban design project requires careful, collaborative and real consultation with people with disabilities and their representative organisations to ensure that the environment is safely and confidently usable by everyone. This consultative process should commence at the design and planning phase and should be cyclical in nature during the life of the project eg. regular feedback from users which can be incorporated into each phase of the design process.
Below is an example of the reality of shared spaces at uncontrolled traffic lights for a person with a disability. A person with a mobility issue may feel that they cannot judge the timing of traffic to enable them to cross safely, and a person with a visual impairment will be unable to know when it is safe to cross as they will not be able to see on-coming traffic which includes cyclists.
Bus Island
These islands are known as “suicide islands” as people with disabilities feel they are taking their lives in to their own hands. Again, they are being pitched against the cycling community but as a pedestrian they are more at risk from any type of vehicle traveling at speed. To suggest that a cyclist will slow down when coming to these shared spaces is not a reality. Experience of people with a visual impairment already is that they have been knocked over and/or abused for stepping out when a cyclist is approaching them. This is not a satisfactory or safe way for anyone to negotiate their way through the bus connects system. There is nothing in theses designs that force cyclists to slow down/stop/dismount which leaves the pedestrian in a very vulnerable position.
These are where the cyclist crosses the front of the bus stop which means the pedestrian must cross a cycle lane. The plans do not show speed reduction methods being used here.
Cycle Behind Bus Stop
Very similar to a bus island except the entire space behind the bus stop is shared space.
Parking
Parking spaces alongside cycle lanes were fought against but ignored. These clearly show that these are a danger to a passing cyclist and to a person with a disability entering or exiting their car. Theses parking spaces are not the regulated standard size for wheelchair accessible parking.
.
While moving in to a new era of eliminating private transport from our cities it is important to remamber thatmany people with disabilities can not use public trasport and rely on priate transport. The council needs to ensre that an appropriate number of wheelchair accessible parking bays are safely positioned around the city for ease of access
Pavements and Cycle Lanes
The safety of pedestrians, and particularly of vulnerable pedestrians, should always receive priority in the planning and design of any urban or suburban streetscape. Cycle lanes should be physically separated from all pedestrian routes by using flat-top kerbs with a minimum height of 60mm, but preferably 100mm in height; chamfered or sloped kerbs are not appropriate as they facilitate cyclists to mount onto the pavement. Cycle lanes should not be located on or within pavements or between parked vehicles and the adjacent pavement. The course of a cycle lane should never deviate into a pedestrian route. The developing practice of diverting cycle lanes off the carriageway and around a bus stop, thereby causing the bus stop to be ‘islanded’ between a cycle lane and a carriageway, is considered by IWA, to be unsafe to pedestrians and should not be adopted as an acceptable design practice.
Crossing Times at Controlled Crossings
All kerbs at pedestrian crossings should be flush with the roadway and have appropriate tactile paving in place.
At controlled crossings the pedestrian signals must allow adequate time for all pedestrians to cross safely. The minimum recommended time is 20 seconds. On a wide and/or busy roadway, a longer crossing period will be required. The pedestrian signals should be both audible and pulsating and the push button should be located at a height of 900-1000mm. Road markings at crossings should prevent vehicles from blocking sight lines and from blocking dished kerbing.
Public Transport Interface Bus and tram stops: Public Transport Interface Bus and tram stops should be located on or adjacent to pavements and should be readily and easily accessible to transport users without the person having to cross cycle tracks. The developing practice of diverting cycle tracks around bus or tram stop locations is not recommended as the bus or tram stop then becomes located on an island bounded by a carriageway and a cycle track. This practice is considered dangerous to pedestrians and particularly to vulnerable pedestrians. Kerb heights at bus and tram boarding points should be designed to negate or lessen any vehicle ramp gradient and to minimise vertical and horizontal stepping distance onto or off the bus/tram. The vehicle boarding area should have a minimum 2000 x 2000mm clear area, or as dictated by individual vehicle type requirements.
Shelters
Bus and Tram Shelters: Where bus or tram shelters are provided, they should contrast against the surrounding background. The placement of shelters should not compromise the clear pavement width and any glazing on a glass-fronted enclosed shelter should incorporate manifestations on the glass between 850- 1000mm and again between 1400-1600mm. There should be a clear view of approaching traffic and sufficient illumination so that timetables can be easily read. Timetables and all passenger information should be located with the mid-point of the sign at a height of 1400mm. There should be no obstacles located in front of the timetable/information so that a person using a wheelchair can position in front of the signage. Perch-style seating can be provided at heights between 460-900mm and arm rests should be incorporated into the seating. Fully enclosed shelters should incorporate an 1800mm turning circle, while open-type shelters should have a minimum depth of 1200mm.
There is a need for strong meaningful consultation links between Kilkenny City Council, National Transport Authority, and people with disabilities to make our cities work for everyone
The question of access for people with limited mobility and wheelchair users is the single biggest issue to impact on individual lives. Without good accessibility, the ability of people to live independently and to be treated as equal is severely impacted on.
Shared spaces
Shared spaces in theory is a good concept but in practice does not work for people with disabilities for many reasons. Shared Space, Shared Surfaces as an urban design concept is generally not supported by people with a disability and is not recommended by IWA as a safe and inclusive design approach to the design of urban streetscapes. There are several very specific elements of the Shared Space, Shared Surfaces design approach that cause anxiety for people with disabilities and other vulnerable streetscape users, namely:
• The removal of signal-controlled crossings
• Courtesy crossings, which are not signalled, depend on the ability of the pedestrian to negotiate a roadway crossing through eye contact with the motorist/cyclist which is a complicated and uncertain process.
• The concern that the person will not have sufficient time to cross the road or will have incorrectly understood the giving of permission from the motorist/cyclist to cross the road.
• The removal of kerbs is particularly problematic for people who have a visual impairment as kerbs provide a way-finding function.
• Pedestrian interaction with cyclists is of particular concern to vulnerable streetscape users where cyclists are not required to dismount when passing through a shared area or where cycle lanes with no kerb demarcation are routed through a shared space environment. Various UK reports , having studied and consulted regarding this design approach, have recorded that people with disabilities experience concern about the uncertainty created within these types of ‘shared’ environments and have consequently recommended the provision of ‘Comfort Zones’ within the Shared Spaces, Shared Surfaces design, ie designated pedestrian routes, kerbs between pedestrian and vehicle/cycle traffic and designated crossing points; effectively a return to the more usual and traditional streetscape design. Where a space is badly designed or located so that people feel uncertain of their ability to safely negotiate a crossing, then people with disabilities and other vulnerable road and street users may avoid the area completely, leading to greater social isolation and disconnected communities. Clearly, the inclusion of a ‘Shared Space, Shared Surfaces’ approach in an urban design project requires careful, collaborative and real consultation with people with disabilities and their representative organisations to ensure that the environment is safely and confidently usable by everyone. This consultative process should commence at the design and planning phase and should be cyclical in nature during the life of the project eg. regular feedback from users which can be incorporated into each phase of the design process.
Below is an example of the reality of shared spaces at uncontrolled traffic lights for a person with a disability. A person with a mobility issue may feel that they cannot judge the timing of traffic to enable them to cross safely, and a person with a visual impairment will be unable to know when it is safe to cross as they will not be able to see on-coming traffic which includes cyclists.
Bus Island
These islands are known as “suicide islands” as people with disabilities feel they are taking their lives in to their own hands. Again, they are being pitched against the cycling community but as a pedestrian they are more at risk from any type of vehicle traveling at speed. To suggest that a cyclist will slow down when coming to these shared spaces is not a reality. Experience of people with a visual impairment already is that they have been knocked over and/or abused for stepping out when a cyclist is approaching them. This is not a satisfactory or safe way for anyone to negotiate their way through the bus connects system. There is nothing in theses designs that force cyclists to slow down/stop/dismount which leaves the pedestrian in a very vulnerable position.
These are where the cyclist crosses the front of the bus stop which means the pedestrian must cross a cycle lane. The plans do not show speed reduction methods being used here.
Cycle Behind Bus Stop
Very similar to a bus island except the entire space behind the bus stop is shared space.
Parking
Parking spaces alongside cycle lanes were fought against but ignored. These clearly show that these are a danger to a passing cyclist and to a person with a disability entering or exiting their car. Theses parking spaces are not the regulated standard size for wheelchair accessible parking.
.
While moving in to a new era of eliminating private transport from our cities it is important to remamber thatmany people with disabilities can not use public trasport and rely on priate transport. The council needs to ensre that an appropriate number of wheelchair accessible parking bays are safely positioned around the city for ease of access
Pavements and Cycle Lanes
The safety of pedestrians, and particularly of vulnerable pedestrians, should always receive priority in the planning and design of any urban or suburban streetscape. Cycle lanes should be physically separated from all pedestrian routes by using flat-top kerbs with a minimum height of 60mm, but preferably 100mm in height; chamfered or sloped kerbs are not appropriate as they facilitate cyclists to mount onto the pavement. Cycle lanes should not be located on or within pavements or between parked vehicles and the adjacent pavement. The course of a cycle lane should never deviate into a pedestrian route. The developing practice of diverting cycle lanes off the carriageway and around a bus stop, thereby causing the bus stop to be ‘islanded’ between a cycle lane and a carriageway, is considered by IWA, to be unsafe to pedestrians and should not be adopted as an acceptable design practice.
Crossing Times at Controlled Crossings
All kerbs at pedestrian crossings should be flush with the roadway and have appropriate tactile paving in place.
At controlled crossings the pedestrian signals must allow adequate time for all pedestrians to cross safely. The minimum recommended time is 20 seconds. On a wide and/or busy roadway, a longer crossing period will be required. The pedestrian signals should be both audible and pulsating and the push button should be located at a height of 900-1000mm. Road markings at crossings should prevent vehicles from blocking sight lines and from blocking dished kerbing.
Public Transport Interface Bus and tram stops: Public Transport Interface Bus and tram stops should be located on or adjacent to pavements and should be readily and easily accessible to transport users without the person having to cross cycle tracks. The developing practice of diverting cycle tracks around bus or tram stop locations is not recommended as the bus or tram stop then becomes located on an island bounded by a carriageway and a cycle track. This practice is considered dangerous to pedestrians and particularly to vulnerable pedestrians. Kerb heights at bus and tram boarding points should be designed to negate or lessen any vehicle ramp gradient and to minimise vertical and horizontal stepping distance onto or off the bus/tram. The vehicle boarding area should have a minimum 2000 x 2000mm clear area, or as dictated by individual vehicle type requirements.
Shelters
Bus and Tram Shelters: Where bus or tram shelters are provided, they should contrast against the surrounding background. The placement of shelters should not compromise the clear pavement width and any glazing on a glass-fronted enclosed shelter should incorporate manifestations on the glass between 850- 1000mm and again between 1400-1600mm. There should be a clear view of approaching traffic and sufficient illumination so that timetables can be easily read. Timetables and all passenger information should be located with the mid-point of the sign at a height of 1400mm. There should be no obstacles located in front of the timetable/information so that a person using a wheelchair can position in front of the signage. Perch-style seating can be provided at heights between 460-900mm and arm rests should be incorporated into the seating. Fully enclosed shelters should incorporate an 1800mm turning circle, while open-type shelters should have a minimum depth of 1200mm.
There is a need for strong meaningful consultation links between Kilkenny City Council, National Transport Authority, and people with disabilities to make our cities work for everyone
The question of access for people with limited mobility and wheelchair users is the single biggest issue to impact on individual lives. Without good accessibility, the ability of people to live independently and to be treated as equal is severely impacted on.