Are the lives of children really considered in our planning processes? The main reason for not walking to school is not the distance. There are several other factors at play here, particularly safety. However, getting to school and other activities is not a priority in land use and transport planning. Consequently, many schools are not conveniently and safely accessible by footpath or public transport. Result – they are reliant on cars.
Traffic, personal safety, convenience in busy schedules, lack of safe, reliable public transport are key issues. Consequently, driving is seen as the only viable option to ensure children arrive safely and on time.
Hulya Gilbert and Ian Woodcock discuss the issues in an article in The Fifth Estate. Road trauma is the leading cause of death for 1-14 year olds. That’s one issue. The other is that using the car for safety and convenience reduces physical activity. Getting to school on foot is good for gaining independence and opens up opportunities for social interaction.
School drop-off danger zone
Poor planning on the placement of schools often results in chaotic and dangerous school drop-offs. Gilbert and Woodcock say the afternoon pick ups are the most dangerous of all. Local school travel plans attempt to overcome some of the issues, but it is a piecemeal approach.
An alternative approach: Child Friendly Index
With a focus on population ageing there is a risk of leaving children out of urban planning decisions. However, what is good for children is good for everyone. Gilbert and Woodcock have devised a Child-Friendliness Index which combines social and built environment attributes. The Index demonstrates that areas with higher levels of friendliness have higher levels of walking, cycling and public transport when accessing schools.
The Index enhances understanding of what attributes make a ‘local school’. It provides concrete pointers towards specific actions and interventions. As such it supports the development of clear polices so that children can reach a wider range of environments.
Once again, designing for a marginalised group has benefits for everyone. Children should always be part of a universal design approach. Their experiences matter too.
Pedestrians and cyclists sharing space is based on the idea of everyone being socially responsible. It’s expected that whoever is present in the space will politely negotiate the right of way. That’s because there are few, if any traffic controls, barriers or road markings. More recently, shared space has come under scrutiny because some pedestrians avoid such routes. So what are the preferences for shared space design? Researchers in Germany used a video-based survey to find out.
Shared space revolves around integrating different road users into a common physical space. 408 participants evaluated different case designs and considered the placement of street furniture. Image of a street in Frankfurt, Germany.
For some people who do not drive or own a car, a bike is a good way to get around. However, everyone needs to feel safe. Safety is all down to perception and that’s why dedicated lanes for pedestrians, bikes and cars is the optimum.
This paper explores the preferences of pedestrians and cyclists for shared space design. It looks at configurations that emphasise the sense of place, integration, and informal segregation. In an online survey, 408 participants experienced videos of virtual environments with different designs. They were asked to assess various attributes and their influence on the perception of the space and crossing behaviour.
The results indicate that pedestrians and cyclists do favour similar attributes and space configurations. Both find motor vehicles undesirable, but they hold a positive view of the central placement of design elements and protective barriers.
Do Bike Lanes Slow Traffic?
Compared to many other countries, Australia has a low rate of bike riding. Researchers from Swinburne and Melbourne universities decided to check out the issue of cycling infrastructure. That’s because cities that prioritise cycling infrastructure have higher rates of people cycling. But there is community resistance to this infrastructure with comments such as bike lanes slow traffic
The researchers used a modelling technique to find out if retrofitting separate bike lanes into residential streets slowed traffic. When done well, it increased car travel times by 7%. Cycling times increased marginally due to avoiding streets without bike lanes.
Images from the article. Cycle lanes are narrow (less than 0.6 m wide) with no physical separation by a concrete kerb. (left) Kensington and (right) Collins Street Melbourne.
Reduction in vehicle speeds are another key factor, but this alone does not prevent traffic injuries for cyclists. Running into car doors due to poor separation is the reason for most accidents. Safe and separated cycling lanes are good for pedestrians too, especially those who fear shared paths.
The title of the article is, Do Safe Bike Lanes Really Slow Down Cars? A Simulation-Based Approach to Investigate the Effect of Retrofitting Safe Cycling Lanes on Vehicular Traffic. There is much more to this research project to digest.
From the abstract
Cycling is a sustainable transportation mode that provides many health, economic and environmental benefits. Cities with high rates of cycling can better address challenges of densification, and carbon-neutral goals. Participation rates in Australian cities are critically low and declining.
This low participation rate is often attributed to the dangers of Australian cycle infrastructure that mixes cyclists with car traffic. Residents of car-dependent Australian suburbs are resistant to the installation of cycle infrastructure. That’s because they are perceived as a threat to traffic flow and less on-street parking.
This low participation rate is often attributed to the dangers of Australian cycle infrastructure that mixes cyclists with car traffic. Residents of car-dependent Australian suburbs are resistant to the installation of cycle infrastructure. This is because they are perceived as a threat to traffic flow and less on-street parking.
We investigated the effects on traffic behaviour of retrofitting safe, separate cycling lanes into existing residential streets in a Melbourne suburb. We utilised only the widths available on the existing roadway of these streets.
Travel demand was modelled using travel demand that suits suburban trips to services and shops. We also selectively applied separate cycling lanes to suitable residential streets and varied the effect of lowering speed limits.
Simulations showed at worst case the selective inclusion of safe cycling lanes leads to a 7% increase in the average car travel times. And cyclists only increase their travel distance marginally to avoid streets without dedicated cycling lanes.
Do footpath and crossing retrofits actually encourage walking for all people? Are guidelines inclusive of all potential walkers (and wheelers)? Are planners using statistical modelling to guide retrofit decisions. Or are they using the lived experience of pedestrians? New research offers insights into how to improve current guidelines for pedestrians.
Three New Zealand researchers decided to check out the walkability characteristics of crossings to provide insights for retrofits. Then they looked at whether local design guidelines were providing appropriate advice.
•We objectively characterised pedestrian crossings perceived as barriers to walking.
• We compared characteristics with local design guidelines and Healthy Streets.
•Technical documents not specific enough to inform retrofit.
The 56 interview participants were aged 20 to 89 years and living in Auckland. Almost half had some difficulty with either walking, seeing, hearing, or remembering. They reported the attributes that made walking trips difficult or unpleasant, or discouraged them from walking.
Non-signalised crossings were the most frequent barrier mentioned and would fail the Healthy Streets Check assessment. Tight cornering radii, complexity, traffic volumes and speed were also factors in making walking difficult or unpleasant. The authors explain more about this in their article.
Guidelines – how useful are they for inclusive planning?
Guidelines mostly focus on best practice, naming all the aspects that should ideally be in place for a “walkable” environment. However, aspects that could be perceived as barriers are absent from the guidelines. For planners, knowing what to improve first makes for a difficult decision process.
Pedestrian crossings are a key feature both in terms of risk of road trauma and impacts on pedestrian experience. In car-dominated environments, retrofitting existing infrastructure to enable and encourage walking is a challenge. It is unclear what difficulties people experience and whether current design guidelines encompass these.
This study aims to provide a real-world perspective on local design guidelines and the Healthy Streets metrics. We use objective measures of the built environment and users’ perceptions of unfeasibility or difficulty.
Interview participants considered non-signalised crossing points as barriers to access. The Healthy Streets metrics are not set up to enable cities to easily identify these difficult crossings.
These findings provide information needed to improve local guidelines and Healthy Streets metrics to enable them to support proactive retrofit.
Queensland’s Walkability Improvement Tool is part of their healthy and active communities strategy. It’s about retrofitting neighbourhood enhancements – not an easy task. The key elements are connectivity, block lengths, footpaths, parks or open space, and one street tree every 15 metres.
The advice includes identifying the primary audience for the improvement. Examples are given such as schools, shopping precincts and public transport nodes. However, children don’t just go to schools and shoppers don’t just go to shops. The danger of focusing on a single audience is that others risk getting left out of the designs. The result is journeys not made.
Older people and people with disability live in all neighbourhoods which include school zones and shopping precincts. Therefore, “special” treatments are needed for connectivity for everyone across neighbourhoods. One missing kerb ramp, street crossing or footpath is enough to discourage walking.
The retrofitting challenge
Many Queenslanders are living in established communities which are unwalkable, with few footpaths, unconnected street layouts and few street trees to provide shade and shelter. People walk for health and wellbeing, relaxation and recreation, and as a transport option for short trips.
People are deterred from walking because of inadequate or no footpaths, safety concerns, insufficient shade, very long blocks.
Footpaths
The desktop analysis stresses the importance of footpaths but only on one side of the street in residential areas. Nevertheless, this will be an improvement in areas where no footpaths exist. Footpaths also need lighting, shade trees and kerb ramps, and to be clear of vegetation. A line of concrete is insufficient in itself to encourage walking.
Observations of pedestrian and vehicle counts are useful, but they do not measure pedestrians who use the car because the neighbourhood is not walkable or wheelable for them. It doesn’t measure those who stay home and get their goods delivered. Similarly surveys must have accessible questionnaires in different formats to capture the diverse experiences of pedestrians.
Images illustrate some of the difficulties in providing footpaths such as the location of stormwater drains, narrow verges, and large street trees. The Walkability Improvement Tool is a downloadable assessment tool.
The City of Sydney has updated its strategy and action plan for walking in Sydney. It begins with a note on terminology. Walking covers people using any means to mobilise on a footpath other than a bicycle or an e-scooter. Children can continue to cycle on footpaths.
Because street and transport designers have traditionally left out mobility device users, other terms have crept into use such as ‘walking and wheeling’. Adding ‘wheeling’ is a reminder to designers to remember everyone and design universally. It is easy to forget this unless specific reminders appear regularly in policies and plans, not just as a note at the beginning.
The key to the walking strategy is the hierarchy of walking needs from Can I walk? to Do I want to walk? Wanting to walk is the aim if we are to be less reliant on cars. Making not just possible, but enjoyable and comfortable is essential. The hierarchy is shown below and is used to frame the City’s strategy and principles.
Raised pedestrian crossings are good for pedestrians and serve to reduce the speed of traffic. That is, as long as they are designed to access standards. Continuous footpath treatments create visually distinct pathways across side roads and driveways. They indicate that people walking have the right of way, not the vehicles.
A City for Walking Strategy and Action Plan: Continuing the Vision addresses street design, traffic calming and pedestrian amenity. Footpaths are essential, but there are other necessary features to encourage and support walking. Toilets, seating, wayfinding and lighting are important too.
Public toilets
The City of Sydney plans to install public toilets within 400m of any point within Central Sydney. Village centres, and major neighbourhood parks will also have toilets. The planned toilets are unisex wheelchair accessible.
Interior of the new automated public toilets showing wheelchair circulation space and transfer rails, wheelchair accessible sink with sensor operated taps and fold-up baby change table.
The strategy has interesting information in graphs and case studies. The speed limit change from 50 m/h to 40 km/h in the city centre continues to reduce crashes significantly.
Road space allocation is not fair
Some of Sydney’s busiest footpaths have as much traffic as some motorways. 85% of people are walking but only get 40% of the space.
And note, designs such as kerbless shared spaces are not good for everyone, especially people who are blind or have low vision.
We are all encouraged to leave the car at home and walk or cycle more. However, road and street infrastructure was built at a time when vehicle movements were the focus. That means a lot of retrofitting and work-arounds are needed now. The intersection of bus stops, pedestrians and cyclists is a good example of this vexed issue. The Living Streets report reviews the literature and the status of cycle tracks in the UK. The case studies in the appendices are highly instructive.
Are infrastructure designs for bus stops with cycle tracks making streets less inclusive? Image from Inclusive design at bus stops, by Living Streets.
What do you do when a cycle lane continues past a bus stop? What do pedestrians do and what do cyclists do? Who has right of way? Are design solutions inclusive? Living Streets in the UK investigated these questions and produced a report.
The most consistent concerns were reported by people who are blind or have low vision. But other pedestrians have problems too. Confusion reigns over who has the right of way on cycle tracks that are not part of the footpath or carriageway.
Several design options were studied and four are presented in the report in the image below.
The researchers found that it was not possible to choose one design over another. While they provide a useful framework, they don’t solve all the design problems in the real world. Consequently, this leads to case-by-case solutions, not a one-size-fits-all ruling or guide.
The main factors
Some of the main factors are whether:
The cycle track passes in front of, behind, or between, elements of the bus stop area.
Passengers wait on an island or on an ordinary stretch of the pavement, and whether they alight onto the cycle track, near the cycle track, or onto an obvious island
A bus stop island is part of something bigger (e.g. with multiple shelters, seats, trees, etc), smaller and well defined (e.g. dominated by a single bus shelter), or so small and/or insignificant that people wouldn’t wait on it.
Cycle tracks are one-way or two-way (unidirectional / bi-directional).
A bus stop island is separated from the rest of the pavement by a cycle track, by a road, or by some less conventional access arrangement (e.g. mostly used by cyclists, but open to some other vehicles)
Pedestrians are crossing an area of cycle track, cyclists are crossing an area of pavement, or whether cyclists and pedestrians both cross something that feels to be neither quite part of the pavement nor of the cycle track.
Recommendations for bus stops
Briefly, the 11 recommendations focus on:
working with the disability community on local projects
amending design guidance to be clear that cycle tracks are not part of the footpath or carriageway, and options for designs
the risks of disadvantage to a wider group of pedestrians, particularly people who are blind, should be acknowledged.
Appendices are instructive
There are 6 appendices to the main report with details of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure and bus stops. Photographs illustrate the text and provide examples of what does and does not work. A great toolbox of ideas to work with.
Inclusive design at bus stops with cycle tracks: Appendix 1 – (Detailed study sites.) Instructive graphics show the level of both cycling and pedestrian movements in each design type. Key observations are enlightening especially where the bus stop island is used instead of the signalised crossing to cross the road. This is a good example of how people will take the shortest route possible, not necessarily the safest.
There is much more to this document titled, Inclusive design at bus stops with cycle tracks – MARCH 2024. Kerb designs, colour, separation of pedestrians and cyclists, kerb-free crossings and signalised crossings. A pertinent point raised by people with disability was about the emphasis on this aspect of street design. That’s because they see so many other serious problems with street design and maintenance.
Better Bus Stops
How difficult can designing a bus stop be? Turns out there are lots of elements to consider. Bus stops are one element of an accessible and inclusive travel chain. Each country has their own format or standards for bus stops. But this doesn’t help visitors who are unfamiliar with the design and how it works.
Accessible bus stops are more than a stop sign and perhaps a seat with a shelter. It has to fit within an accessible urban environment. Footpath materials, information and communication and street furniture all have a part to play. A bus stop outside an airport in Portugal is the subject of a case study. The researchers looked specifically at older travellers. They were able to compare bus stops back home with the one at the airport and give useful feedback and share ideas. Portugal is a favourite destination within Europe so there were many comparisons.
The results were generally consistent across the responses regardless whether the respondent had a disability. Many of the responses were fairly obvious, such as barrier-free footpaths and no obstacles around the bus stop. Shelters with seats at a suitable height and easy to read timetables rated as important. Of course, a bus stop is useless if you can’t use the bus, so low floor buses were important.
Sustainable mobility demands an integrated approach covering all modes of transport in a built environment designed for everyone. Social inclusion strategies requires the improvement of transportation for people with reduced mobility. Accessibility is incorporated into urban renovation processes, settlement, housing and transportation.
Assessments measured the performance of spatial indicators and considered technical parameters and/or user perception. In the context of accessible tourism, infrastructures and services were adapted to be inclusive for all.
Accessible built environments are required hence urban spaces, buildings, transport vehicles, information technology and communication, and services must bear in mind the approach of Age Sensitive Design.
Findings indicate that older tourists with disabilities are more critical of the existing accessibility conditions, and have a greater perception of the inclusive characteristics of bus stops. Although older people take barrier-free spaces into account, there is some criticism around pedestrian crossings, bench design and the lack of room for wheelchair users.
Air travel is an anxious affair for many, but for people with disability the worries are multiplied. The Australian Government has produced an Aviation White Paper which highlights the difficulties people with disability experience travelling by air. For wheelchair users, the US Transport Board’s report found there is no engineering reason why power chairs can’t be secured in the aircraft.
Melbourne Airport trials disability access hubs
Beginning from September 2024, Melbourne Airport will trial a four-month Airport Assist program. The program will help passengers navigate the airport precinct, check-in and pick-up and drop-off zones.
The hub is open from 10am to 6pm and offers buggy transfers between T4 ground transport areas and departure areas. It will also have lanyard for the Hidden Disability Sunflower Program.
Air travel with a wheelchair
Wheelchair users can stay in their powered wheelchair in taxis, trains and buses, but not in aircraft. Every wheelchair user takes a deep breath and hopes their wheelchair will come through the flight without damage. The risk of personal injury in wheelchair to seat transfers is also a worry. The other inconveniences and indignities just add to air travel with a wheelchair.
Currently, people are potentially put on a flight in a seat that is not appropriate for them. Travellers and airlines risk injury in transfer and in flight. It also risks serious damage to their wheelchair which is set up for their individual requirements.
Preliminary research from the US Transport Research Board (TRB) found no major design or engineering challenges stand in the way of securing personal power wheelchairs in commercial aircraft. The TRB concluded that installing wheelchair securements is a win-win for wheelchair users, airlines, and everyone else involved in transporting wheelchair users. Consequently, that means it is up to the willingness of airlines to make the necessary changes.
No major design or engineering challenges stand in the way of securing power wheelchairs in commercial aircraft.
While there are mandates for minimum standards for the built environment, airport layout design make life difficult for people with disability and older people. Many airports were designed decades ago when traveller comforts were not considered. Arriving kerbside or at the drop-off is where the problems begin.
Assistance is not available outside the terminal entrance which becomes the first hurdle to overcome. In many instances, help is not available until check-in processes are complete. A kerbside or drop-off check-in would solve that. Or at least provide a means for travellers to contact service staff to help them from the kerbside point.
The US Airport Cooperative Research Program has a detailed report that identifies the issues and provides solutions. The title of the report is, Assessing Airport Programs for Travelers with Disabilities and Older Adults. The aim is to assist airport designers and airline operators to make their places and services accessible and inclusive. There are 8 chapters to the report.
Airport facilities
Chapter 7 of the report is about Facility Accessibility. It begins with access on arrival at the airport and the provision of accessible ground transportation. The advice for the design of terminals is to adopt a universal, inclusive approach. That includes addressing long distances between the key points for travellers who don’t use a mobility device.
Self-service kiosks, elevators, power outlets, seating and lighting, along with catering for people with a diversity of cognitive conditions are covered in detail. Case studies provide information about restrooms, adult sanitary change facilities, provisions for assistance animals, and quiet rooms.
August 2024 Update
The Commonwealth Government is proposing to update the transport disability standards to include aviation standards. The standards will require airlines to set up assistance profiles for passengers which lists what they need. The list could include things like wheelchair battery specifications and assistance animals. The two wheelchair policies will also be under review. A new Aviation Ombudsman will replace the industry-funded Airline Consumer Advocate. This information was taken from a Crikey article.
The policy push to encourage people to walk and use public transport is one way to reduce emissions and improve health. However, whether to choose the car or public transport, or not to go out at all, depends on many factors. So, do people choose the car because they are constrained from using other forms of transport? Or do they use the car because it just suits them better?
A review of the literature found that people with poor health, older age, low income and lack of access to a car are less likely to get out and about. Difficulties with public transport are linked with walking difficulties. So the design of the public transport system itself is not the total problem.
Some retirees might engage in several activities in one day making public transport a time consuming business. On the other hand, some retirees may only leave the house for medical appointments and grocery shopping. The paper based on the literature review goes into these issues in depth.
Some conclusions
Policies aimed at reducing car usage by older people with physical and mental impairments, must be approached with caution. Car mobility represents a crucial means of maintaining independence for older people.
The advantages of allowing older people to drive, despite minor disabilities, often outweigh the risks they may pose to themselves and others. It is noteworthy that France, togethr with the Netherlands and the UK, are nations with the most lenient procedures and minimal medical examination requirements for driving license renewal. However, these countries also report the lowest fatality rates for car drivers within this age group.
The links between mobility, safety, and older people shows that people aged over 65 are considerably more vulnerable to fatal incidents as pedestrians than as drivers. So there is an intricate balance between considering the mobility needs and safety of the older drivers and pedestrians.
Universal design helps
Researchers found that physical difficulties are contextual, and decrease when universal design measures are taken. Universal design is not a luxury for a few individuals. Physical accessibility helps a lot a people to move around more smoothly and comfortably.
In a nutshell: the motor car becomes a mobility device as people age and walking becomes more difficult.
From the abstract
Our research challenges the prevailing notion that immobility only occurs in exceptional circumstances. Our work shows instead a close link with individuals’ activity levels and constraints on their schedules.
Retirees and non-working population groups exhibit higher immobility levels than workers. This is influenced by factors such as poor health, old age, low income, lack of access to a car, or rural residency.
Driving and walking difficulties are significant contributors to immobility, with age being a primary explanatory factor. However, living in dense urban areas tends to reduce immobility levels across household categories. Difficulties with public transport, as such, do not trigger immobility, but they are entangled with walking difficulties.
Implications for public action include targeting age-specific interventions for reducing car dependency, and approaching policies aimed at curbing car use by older people cautiously.
Implementing universal design measures to enhance physical accessibility also helps to make mobility smoother and decrease perceived walking difficulties. Finally, this paper underlines the interconnectedness of mobility, social isolation, and sedentary lifestyles.
Is the driveway to the shopping centre carpark part of the road or is it part of the footpath? Most people – motorists and pedestrians – don’t realise that driveways are part of the footpath. And what about crossing side streets adjoining main roads? Who should give way to whom?
Sometimes it’s difficult to tell because the visual cues are confusing. If the footpath section has a steep camber towards the roadway it looks like the road. And sometimes there are hazard warning tactile markers where the driveway goes over the footpath. So it looks like the road. Also, the colour of the driveway is often different to the adjoining footpath.
Augustus Brown discusses the issues in his article about continuous footpaths at driveways and side streets. Drivers crossing the footpath to or from a driveway must give way to people walking. Drivers must also give way to people crossing the road when turning at intersections.
To highlight the priority for people walking, footpaths should be designed to give a clear visual cue that drivers need to slow and give way.
Image from the article
Design principles of continuous footpaths
Footpaths should be visually uninterrupted at the crossing point
Footpath pavement material should be consistent
Footpath pavement should remain level at the crossing
Narrow kerb ramps should lift crossing vehicles to the height of the footpath
Images from the article
Clearly marked continuous footpaths and cycle lanes give priority to both cyclists and pedestrians.
Brown’s article has several examples of well designed treatments of footpaths across driveways and side streets and some drawings with more information. The title of the article is, Continuous Footpaths at Driveways & Side Streets.
Public transport infrastructure in Queensland is undergoing significant design changes using co-design methods. The new Cross River Rail project embraced the concept of co-design to ensure new and upgraded infrastructure is fully accessible. The result is a transport infrastructure co-design toolkit as well as accessible trains and stations.
Co-design of large-scale public transport infrastructure spans several stages in the design process. Consequently, embedding a culture of co-design across the organisation is essential in the planning, development and implementation stages.
Image from the Toolkit
The authority responsible for the project collaborated with the disability community and established strategic priorities to support ongoing infrastructure design.
Accessibility agenda
First there needs to be an accessibility agenda – finding out the diversity of accessibility challenges. That means establishing ways of working with the disability sector to drive decision making. However, there is a risk that some of these priorities disappear in pre-project activities such as feasibility studies and technical requirements. Some decisions made at these stages cannot be changed as they lock in key aspects of the design.
A culture of accessibility
An organisation-wide culture of accessibility is essential for the success of projects. Without this culture change the potential for “gaps” in the travel chain will arise for travellers. Sharing information across the different transport organisations and contractors and consultants is a must. By consolidating the knowledge base across the sector, it eventually gets easier to create inclusive public transport projects.
The title of the Toolkit is, Embedding Accessibility Co-design into the Delivery of Public Transport Infrastructure. The document is the result of research collaboration between the Hopkins Centre and the Cross River Rail Delivery Authority. The outcome has established a clear set of priorities for continued support of changes including those already underway. They key element is co-design with the disability community.
Toolkit contents
There are three parts to the document: Context and background, Outline of the co-design process, and Facilitating the co-design process. The appendices have extra detail and additional resources.
The Appendix on co-design mindsets appears to follow the theory of the once popular Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Nevertheless it does indicate that different people think differently – a concept aligned with Universal Design for Learning. It means people should be given the opportunity to express their thoughts in different ways.
The video below gives an overview and showcases some of the innovations in design. For more about accessibility, visit the Cross River Rail website where there are more videos with transcripts.
The policy push to encourage people to walk and use public transport is one way to reduce emissions and improve health. However, whether to choose the car or public transport, or not to go out at all, depends on many factors. So, do people choose the car because they are constrained from using other forms of transport? Or do they use the car because it just suits them better? 
