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 motor car at home and walk or cycle. 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 is needed now. The intersection of bus stops, pedestrians and cyclists is a good example of this vexed issue.
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.
The Living Streets reportreviews the literature and the status of cycle tracks in the UK. Several design options were studied and four are presented in the report (see 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)
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.
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.
Research by Guide Dogs NSW/ACT reveals there are new footpath and urban design challenges faced by people with low vision or blindness. The research is part of a longitudinal study to understand what environmental and footpath clues are needed and used. Tactile indicators are only part of the story even when they are present and properly placed.
A total of 622 people with low vision or blindness from around Australia took part in the survey. Many challenges impact their confidence in getting out and about. New-style urban design features are creating additional challenges.
The first survey was conducted in 2015. The 2023 survey revealed new challenges not mentioned in the earlier survey. Micro-mobility, shared paths, shared roads, and crowd protection barriers are now on the list of challenges.
Shared paths
The application of shared paths has increased significantly since 2015. Consequently, this emerged as a major issue in 2023. The speed and unpredictability of cyclists and micro-mobility users means these paths feel unsafe.
Flush finishes
Another new and popular urban design feature is flush finishes. Not surprisingly, 80% of respondents lacked confidence in crossing roads when the footpath and road were at the same level. Places where the road and footpath are level are often found in shared zones and flush finish intersections. Respondents over the age of 65 find these finishes particularly unsafe.
The absence of clear distinctions and continuous finishes hinder straight-line navigation. This is made worse by street furniture, goods displays and outdoor dining positioned along the building line.
Flush finishes at intersections with traffic lights where there are no gutters, kerbs or kerb ramps are a significant challenge. With multiple lanes of traffic in both directions, together with buses and light rail, create high levels of anxiety for safety. Consequently, they are often avoided.
Wayfinding
Key wayfinding factors for safe travel are based on maintaining a straight path, safe road crossings, and knowing where it safe and hazardous. This is regardless of whether the person is using a cane, a guide dog or their remaining sight.
Kerb ramps are vital markers. People who are blind or have low vision know to pause and assess the situation. They also reinforce appropriate guide dog behaviour when approaching roads.
Read more about this research in an article in Access Insight. It’s titled, Environmental clues: Using them and losing them. The article explains why newer street and urban design features are preventing people with low vision or blindness from equitable use of our public domain.
From a universal design perspective, many design features that are essential for some, are also good for others. Children are taught to stop at kerbs for safety, and older people prefer clear separation between footpaths and other zones. People with neurodiverse conditions, including dementia, also need clear signals to navigate the built environment.
Walking is supposed to be good for us, but not if street design causes anxiety and prevents people from making journeys.
Tactile markers vs wheelchairs: A solution?
One paper that sparked a lot of interest at the UDHEIT conference is the thorny issue of pedestrians and wheelchair users negotiating those yellow strips of tactile markers. Tactile markers, known as Braille Blocks in Japan, cause problems for wheelchair users, pram pushers, and others with mobility difficulties.
Based on research by Yoshito Dobashi in the context of public transportation, the solution seems simple. Create small breaks in the line of tactile blocks to make wheelchair and baby buggy crossing points. These crossing points are now installed in Fukuoka city and in some airports, but not yet on a national scale.
Dobashi cautions that, “…improvements need to be made in response to the voices of visually disabled persons who note that the crossing points pose a hazard to them. In his latest study, Dr. Ito of the University of Tokyo proposes a new braille block system that incorporates an improved version of braille blocks with wheelchair crossing points upon verifying its feasibility with wheelchair users and baby buggy users.
Good research paper by a man passionate for his topic and keen to find solutions. The image shows Dobashi presenting at the universal design conference in 2018 in Dublin.
The article is from the open access proceedings of the UDHEIT 2018 conference held in Dublin, Ireland, an open access publication.
Roadblocks to inclusive streets
Mail delivery vehicle crashes into an electrical services box. Note no footpath only grass.
Streets are essential to mobility and that means pedestrians, not just motor vehicles. Dangerous intersections, pedestrian crossings, steep kerb ramps and those utility vaults make wheeling a nightmare. Steve Wright says that universal design is what we should be aiming for. That’s because there are a hundred ways a street can deny mobility to a wheelchair user. And if they deny a wheelchair user, they can deny people unsteady on their feet and make pushing a stroller difficult. Wright lists his top 8 roadblocks to inclusive streets.
8 Roadblocks to inclusive streets
Narrow footpaths: If two wheelchairs or two strollers cannot pass each other than it is too narrow. Many footpaths don’t even accommodate two people walking side by side. Even where a footpath has sufficient width, there can be other obstructions.
Too many stakeholders: Several agencies have a stake in the footpath – hence the many access covers scattered throughout the paving. And then there is street furniture and rubbish bins.
Crappy kerb ramp: Problems often arise where a steep ramp into the gutter meets a steep rise onto the roadway. The deep V means wheeled mobility devices get stuck half way. Then there is the kerb ramp set on a corner that means people have to roll into oncoming traffic. And of course, there are kerb ramps which don’t line up to create a straight line across the roadway.
Traffic calming islands and safe havens: These must be at least wide enough to take a mobility scooter and an adult pushing a stroller. And not everyone can cross a wide street quickly. Mid-way points are a must if traffic takes priority.
Cross slopes and cambers: Narrow streets also mean that driveways and kerb ramps cut into the footpath creating cross-falls that are difficult for wheeled mobility users.
Footpath closures: Construction projects seem to be blissfully unaware of the havoc they create with their “no pedestrians” or “pedestrians this way” signs. And some of these are not just for a day – they can be for years.
Pedestrian crossing buttons out of reach: While the button might technically be at the right height, sometimes the pole it’s on isn’t within reach.
Transportation decision makers don’t have a disability: Transportation projects go to contractors and subcontractors with many other stakeholders involved. They would do well to embrace some co-design methods.
Wright discusses the issues in more detail from a US perspective. He says: “Universal design is what we should be aiming for, but there are 100 ways that even the most well-intended complete street can deny mobility to wheelchair users due to poor design, implementation, maintenance, and even policy.”
Making walking and wheeling more inclusive is the aim of the Walking for Everyone Guide. At 122 pages the online guide sets an ambitious and inclusive agenda for the future of walking across diverse communities. Community-led engagement is important to ensure changes meet the needs of residents. This is how you get local place-based needs met – there is no one-size-fits all.
Walking is often ignored in transport policy. Even when it is, the budget allocation takes it from the top of the hierarchy to the bottom. Consequently, basic elements like footpaths are not delivered. Despite almost every journey beginning and ending with walking and wheeling, streets are not inclusive.
Valuing and promoting lived experience enables transport planners to understand different experiences especially where they conflict. The Guide reminds us that solutions will sometimes require compromise, but marginalised groups should come first. After all, their needs will improve experiences for other walkers.
The Guide presents a framework of recommendations targeted national and local governments. There are three key themes:
Improving governance, planning and decision making
Creating better places for everyone to walk and wheel
Supporting everyone to walk and wheel
Each of the themes is dealt with in detail. In Theme 2, Creating better places, they tackle road safety, air quality and physical severance by roads. In the UK, cars are allowed to partially park on the footpath in narrow streets, but Living Streets recommend this practice end. This is because it often limits the movement of people using assistive mobility devices.
Close the mobility gap
A key point in Theme 3 is to close the mobility gap by making walking and wheeling inclusive. This includes ensuring everyone who needs a mobility device can get one. These devices include assistance dogs, personal assistants and support workers as well as equipment.
The Guide is well presented with attractive photographs depicting a diverse population of pedestrians. It includes a socio-economic context and next steps which is a call to action for government, business and community sectors to work together. There is a useful list of reference documents at the end.
Living Streets Scotland also has a useful Tools for Inclusion publication. This one is a guide on devising an Equality Impact Assessment at local government level. The report looks at the use of Equality Impact Assessment in delivering the obligations of the public sector to address the inclusion of people with disability. The findings of their study show there is still a long way to go. The report has several useful recommendations.
Infrastructure for everyone
Queensland’s Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) commissioned a project to map walking infrastructure for people with disability. The aim was to collect information to help planners create footpaths and crossings for everyone. “Walking” includes people using a mobility device such as a cane, frame or wheelchair.
The mapping project collected data from wheelchair users using technology to assess footpath surface, effort to push, barriers and kerb ramps. The technology also collected data on shade and signage.
“People with disability can be left stranded by a missing section of footpath or kerb ramps. Providing infrastructure suitable for people with disability means everyone benefits: people with prams, children, people with an injury, older people and anyone who wants to walk beside someone else comfortably.”
TMR’s Action Plan for Walkingis part of their plan for walkable communities and places. Other parts of the Plan are Walking for Transport, and Greening Streets. Mapping the best routes for walking was another project. The aim was to identify the best routes for walking to and from important places such as public transport and shops.
As a result of these mapping exercises, TMR funded network walking plans for 11 places in south-east and northern Queensland. The plans include works programs that have actions to make the network a reality. These include building missing footpaths and convenient crossings.
The 2 minute video below explains how the mapping technology works. Three key aspects were identified, effort, connectivity and the risk presented with the network.
Access and inclusion for transport in Queensland
Different government departments are responsible for different aspects of transport services and infrastructure. Consequently, not only do we “mind the gap” at the platform, we have to mind the gaps elsewhere in the system. And these gaps are sometimes just too wide for some people with disability. Queensland’s department of Transport and Main Roads seeks to overcome these gaps with their Access and Inclusion Strategy.
Queensland is a popular tourist destination and accessible tourism needs accessible travel to support this sector. Queensland is also hosting the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games and this has provided an extra reason to get things right.
The Access and Inclusion Strategy aims to create a single integrated network accessible to everyone. The Strategy was developed in consultation with customers, employees and partners, and it covers services, products, information and infrastructure.
The Accessibility and Inclusion Plan 2023-2024 supports the Accessibility and Inclusion Strategy. The Plan has 27 actions across three key pillars: strategy, culture and process.
The web pagesfor the Strategy and the Plan have a summary and links to alternative formats of the documents including Auslan and a narrated version. There are alternative language summaries and video transcripts as well.
The UK has an ambitious target that 50% of journeys are walked or cycled by 2030. However, for some groups the quality of footpaths is a major deterrent to walking. According to a Living Streets report, 48% of older adults say they would walk more if footpaths were better maintained. Their fear of slips, trips and falls is enough to put them off. And there is a health cost for this – not just the falls, but the lack of incidental exercise.
The number of trips and falls due to poor footpath maintenance is difficult to establish due to lack of data. Living Streets has done their best to gather what information there is to find out the state of play.
Hospital admissions and insurance claims are two obvious sources of information, but even this is patchy.
Pedestrian falls happen to people of all ages, but as people age they are more likely to fall and to sustain an injury. As a consequence they are more likely to find themselves in institutional care.
One finding is that the number of hospital admissions from pedestrian falls was three times the number from pedestrian-vehicle crashes. So, if we had better data on pedestrian falls, it could change the priorities for road maintenance spending.
The Living Streets report uses 10 observational case studies to gather more information on footpaths and falls. In the UK vehicles are allowed to park over kerbs onto the footpath. This not only blocks the path of travel, it degrades the quality of the footpath. Local authorities had different ways for people to lodge complaints about footpath maintenance.
Can things be improved?
The bottom line is that budgets decide priorities, but whose budget? In the UK, falls cost the national health service more than $2.3b per year. This figure is set to rise as the population ages. However, the focus of this cost is falls indoors and unreported falls outdoors is still a problem. Using proxy figures, Living Streets estimates there could be more than one million outdoor falls among older adults each year.
The role of road strategies and plans
In the UK, the Highways Asset Management Plan allows for local authorities to claim they they taken reasonable care to make sure the road was not dangerous to pedestrians. Is this still valid in 2024? The focus on the cost to highways is not accounted for in the cost of hospital and social home-based care. Both these costs are borne by local authorities yet there is no connection between the two.
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? 
