Category: Transportation

Feeling safe, walking and wheeling

If we want to get everyone walking and wheeling for their health, and the health of the environment, a few things have to change. If people don’t feel safe walking and wheeling, they will avoid the journey or take the car. Many people who are blind or have low vision fear a collision with vehicles and cyclists. That makes them feel unsafe on our streets, and means they are less likely to venture from well-known routes in their community.

Pedestrians who are blind or have low vision have difficulty knowing when it is safe to cross at non-signalised crossing points. This is compounded by traffic volume and speed. Not every person with low vision uses a cane or dog indicating to drivers they have reduced vision.

Two young women stand at a pedestrian crossing. One is holding the arm of the other. There is a car in the background on the crossing. Are they feeling safe walking and wheeling?

If you want to know more about the issues encountered by people who are blind or have low vision, take a look at the study by Victoria Walks. They conducted a survey of people with vision impairment and carried out some street audits. The aim was to gain a better understanding of the road and footpath safety issues encountered by this group.

“Difficulty in judging whether it is safe to cross the road” was the biggest overall concern, followed by tripping hazards on the footpath. Crossing the road at non-signalised intersections was not an option for many. Given that most mid-block crossings and intersections are not signalised, this severely limits this group’s mobility. But they are not the only ones. People with poor depth perception and some cognitive conditions find it difficult to judge when to cross.

Interaction with other road users

Drivers are required to give way to pedestrians. However, at traffic lights for example, motorists failing to give way was the biggest concern for people who are blind or have low vision. Failing to give way to pedestrians on the footpath across driveways was another real problem. Shared paths with cyclists, pedestrians with dogs, and just other pedestrians were also an issue.

People who are blind or have low vision are not the only ones with poor road and footpath experiences. Consequently, if we can get it right for this group, every pedestrian should benefit.

An older woman wearing a straw hat, carrying an orange bag, and using a walking cane, crosses the road.

Site audit issues for safe walking and wheeling

Issues common to most areas audited were:
– Tripping hazards and obstructions on the footpath such as low hanging tree branches, shop sandwich boards, and outdoor dining.
– Poor kerb ramp design that potentially sends pedestrians with a vision impairment into the middle of an intersection rather than directly across the road.
– Differences between the width of a crossing and the width of the kerb ramp used to access it causing a potential trip hazard.
– Missing or poorly functioning Tactile Ground Surface Indicators (TGSI) or audio tactiles.

The title of the report is Road Safety for Pedestrians who are Blind or Have Low Vision. There is more detail about each audit location in Victoria and what was recommended. Also more detail from the survey, all of which is instructive.

Shared spaces as successful places

Artist impression of evening in George Street Sydney showing a shared street.
An artist’s impression showing the QVB stop in the George Street pedestrianised zone

What role do shared spaces play in “successful places”? And what are shared spaces anyway? A report compiled by the Transport Research Centre at UTS for the NSW Government attempts to answer these questions. The focus of the report was to understand how shared spaces can enhance the development of “successful places”, a key strategic priority of Transport. 

Varied terminology on the topic of shared spaces is not helpful and needs a standard definition. Another issue is whose opinion counts most. Is it user perceptions or transport performance measurements? And implementation is difficult even though there are many guidelines and there are few case studies.

What is a shared space?

The report offers the following definition.

“A public street or intersection that is intended and designed to be used by all modes of transport equally in a consistently low-speed environment. Shared space designs aim to reduce vehicle dominance and prioritise active mobility modes. Designs can utilise treatments that remove separation between users in order to create a sense of place and facilitate multi-functions.”

 Findings

Broadly, high level critical findings include:

  • The shared space design concept is one tool for forming successful places across the community.
  • A spectrum of intervention and design options are available to transport professionals to achieve a shared space within the road network.
  • Defining relationships between design parameters and performance metrics are key to determining the factors leading to implementing successful shared space.
  • Current guidelines, standards and practical processes limit the application of novel shared space solutions.

The title of the Shared Spaces Review is, Evaluation and Implementation of Shared Spaces in NSW: Framework for road infrastructure design and operations to establish placemaking. Examination of existing Shared Space knowledge. The Transport Research Centre, University of Technology Sydney conducted the research for Transport for NSW. 

The report is comprehensive and detailed with some international case studies to illustrate issues and findings. The report provides recommendations and current best practice for Transport for NSW. 

Intergenerational shared spaces 

Having interaction between generations, particularly older and younger people is beneficial for everyone. Julie Melville and Alan Hatton-Yeo discuss the issues in a book chapter, Intergenerational Shared Spaces in the UK context. 

The authors discuss how the generations are separated by life activities and dwelling places. The design of the built environment is a major concern because is not conducive to sharing spaces across the generations.

While this book is not specifically about universal design, it is about inclusive practice and social inclusion.

Google Books has the full book, Intergenerational Space, edited by Robert M Vanderbeck and Nancy Worth.

What happens when tactiles fail

Taking another perspective, Dean Homicki has some short videos explaining the details that matter and why. His latest video is the placement of tactiles at a railway crossing. He titled it, “Why the chicken shouldn’t, couldn’t and didn’t cross the rail-road“.

Walking in Berlin

A working paper based on five participants with disability highlights the small but important details that form barriers to getting around in the public domain. The results of their neighbourhood movements are traced in a map showing the barriers.

The usual barriers are encountered and are specific to Berlin and most likely representative of suburban neighbourhoods in Australia as well. Another paper to add to the collection.

The shortened title of the report is, An explorative case study involving disabled people in Berlin.

It’s not the bus that’s inaccessible

Imagine you could travel to only 1% of the city where you live – areas that were easily accessible to other residents. The main problem is it’s not the bus system itself that’s inaccessible. It’s all the infrastructure around it such as footpaths and kerb ramps. That’s the claim by researchers in Columbus, Ohio.

“People with mobility disabilities need to get to and from bus stops to use public transportation, and that isn’t easy in many parts of the city.”

The roadway is marked with the words "bus stop" in yellow lettering.

The study of wheelchair users who rely on public transport, found that powered wheelchair users were a little better off than manual users. The researchers used high-resolution, real-time data on the usage of buses by people with and without disabilities.

In one analysis, the researchers found how many of the bus stops could get users to various places in the city within 30 minutes. Manual wheelchair users had 75% fewer bus stops they could use compared with non-disabled users. For powered wheelchair users, they experienced 59% fewer stops. Even when they gave them more time to complete the journey, it was little better. That means wheelchair users are confined to self-segregated parts of the city.

Public transit is not a business, it is not just a social service.  It is crucial urban infrastructure and footpaths are part of that.

Ohio Theatre facade showing a level footpath and kerb ramp for the crossing. It isn't the bus that's inaccessible.

The title of the article is, Why buses can’t get wheelchair users to most areas of cities.

The research paper is titled, Disparities in public transit accessibility and usage by people with mobility disabilities. You will need institutional access for a free read.

From the abstract

Many people with mobility disabilities rely on public transit to access crucial resources and maintain social interactions. However, they face higher barriers to accessing and using public transit.

We used high-resolution public transit real-time vehicle data, passenger count data, and paratransit usage data from 2018 to 2021 to estimate and compare transit accessibility and usage of people with and without mobility disabilities. We found significant disparities wheelchair users’ accessibility relative to people without disabilities.

The city center has the highest accessibility and ridership, as well as the highest disparities in accessibility. We also find that people with reduced mobility using a fixed-route service are more sensitive to weather conditions. Most will ride in the middle of the day rather than during peak hours.

The spatial pattern of bus stop usage by people with disability is different to people without disabilities. This suggests their destination choices are driven by access concerns.

Bus and tram stops by universal design

A young woman is sitting in a bus shelter and looking down the road. The shelter is lit and has an information board. Bus and tram stops by universal design.

Public transport is often perceived as an inefficient way to travel, especially in terms of time taken. Not good for customer service or engagement. A research paper reports on a detailed analysis of bus and tram stop positioning using a holistic universal design approach.

A common story

“To get from my house to the nearest restaurant is a mile-and-a-half walk, which takes me about 30 minutes each way. To get to the same restaurant by bus, I must walk half a mile, then cross a heavily traveled arterial street with no pedestrian protection to arrive at the nearest stop (it’s unprotected) for a route that passes the restaurant.

“Once the bus arrives, I have to ask the driver where the bus is going, since there’s no signage at the stop, pay the fare, and then watch as the bus stops six times in the remaining mile, all of those stops on the same arterial street I just crossed to board the bus. It takes me 10 minutes to walk the half-mile to the bus stop, and according to the Met Transit schedule, it takes the bus another 20 minutes to negotiate the remaining mile to the restaurant, so walking or riding the bus are equivalent in terms of time spent. It’s the sort of bus service that encourages people to drive a car instead.”

Placement and design are critical

The article addresses the placement and design of the stops in detail. There’s some joined up thinking for the eighteen elements identified including: safety, convenience, lighting, routing patterns, width of footpaths and pedestrian activity. The pros and cons of different stop placements are listed in a table. Service frequency and faster travel times were more highly regarded than add-ons, such as WiFi and USB ports. Shelters at stops and up to date information were critical design elements.

A transit stop serves more than one purpose. It signals the presence of a transit service, information about the service and surrounding destinations, and a place to wait. This article draws together the elements that transport designers should consider in providing a good customer service experience.

The title of the article is: Urban Design of On-Street Stops and Road Environments: A Conceptual Framework.

From the abstract

Transit stops should be situated where they are convenient and safe for passengers and alternative road users has been taken into consideration.

On-street stops and their connecting roads are viewed as a holistic environment, instead of an ordinary place or location to make a stop. This environment includes elements such as: Accessibility through street connectivity, street and road design, and transit stop design. This paper develops a conceptual model that links the various variables together. It highlights how one affects the other and their impact on the overall ability to produce a good passenger experience.

Transit stops are easier to locate when there is high street connectivity which determines how transit passengers gain access to a transit service. The design and configuration of on-street stops and connecting roads lead to increased safety, thereby leading to increased ridership.

Bus stop design for diverse populations

From the abstract

Disadvantaged groups, encounter barriers in bus stop environments that limit their mobility, health, and social equity. This study evaluates bus stop design guidelines from six countries. It focuses on critical facility components such as wheelchair pads, tactile indicators, and seating. 

While most guidelines primarily address mobility and visual disabilities, gaps persist for overlooked groups. These include people with cognitive or invisible disabilities and pregnant women. This study highlights the need for inclusive bus stop design standards to ensure equitable access, promoting active transportation and public health.

The title of the research paper is, Accessible bus stops: evaluating bus stop design guidelines for diverse transportation-disadvantaged groups.

Design guide for active travel

This design guide aims to improve infrastructure for people wanting to walk, cycle, scoot, and ride mobility devices. That means anyone and everyone who is not a driver of a motor vehicle. This is part of the ACT Government’s policy is to support active travel.

In the Canberra context, unless designated, all paths are shared by people walking, wheeling, cycling and using mobility aids.

Few people fully understand road rules, which is why design treatments must indicate that pedestrians have priority.

A diagram of an intersection taking from the Design Guide .

People using mobility devices and older people are given the label of “vulnerable” pedestrians. This is default language in transport jargon, but serves, unfortunately, to reinforce stereotypes. In reality, all pedestrians are vulnerable compared to motor vehicles.

When all pedestrians are incorporated into designs, we should just talk about “pedestrians walking and wheeling”. And with a Safe Systems Approach there should be no delineation between who is safer than whom.

Movement and Place framework

The Movement and Place framework together with a Safe Systems approach puts people into the centre of the frame. The lens has always been on vehicle traffic flows and the convenience and economics of reducing traffic delays. If we are to have active travel really happening, we have to re-think this priority.

The Design Guide is comprehensive and serves as a “how-to” tool for transport planners. It covers:

  • principles of safe design
  • street types
  • walking
  • cycling and micromobility
  • intersection principles and elements
  • signalisation
  • pedestrian and cycling provision at intersections
  • public transport
  • intersection guidance
Photo of a cycle path from the ACT Design Guide.

The title of the 63 page guide is, Design Guide: Best practices for urban intersections and other active travel infrastructure in the ACT.

Images are from the Design Guide.

Road rules should put walking first

Do vehicles cross pedestrian paths of travel, or do pedestrians cross vehicle paths of travel? We probably assume that unless it is a designated pedestrian crossing, vehicles have the right of way. “Giving way” is complicated. Drivers must exercise duty of care, so whose fault is it if there is a collision with a pedestrian? Janet Wahlquist of WalkSydney, says road rules should put walking first. That includes wheeling as well.

Drivers must always give way to pedestrians if there is danger of colliding with them, however pedestrians should not rely on this and should take great care when crossing any road.

Two women using wheelie walkers are crossing the road in a country town.

However, the above statement is not supported by a road rule, according to Wahlquist. Does this mean a slow moving person can’t cross the street because they might cause a collision? The law gives the benefit of doubt to the driver who can choose whether to give way or not. A person walking into a car makes no sense, but a car hitting a person is life threatening. Wahlquist references the UK Manual for Streets which reverses our ideas of who has right of way.

A diagram showing the order of who should be considered first. The order is Pedestrians, Cyclists, Public Transport Users, Specialist service vehicles, and last, other motor traffic in the road rules.

A recommended hierarchy of street users from the UK Manual for Streets.

Pedestrians first

Public policy aims to promote walking (and wheeling) but preference remains with motor traffic. However, drivers and pedestrians alike are not aware of the current road rules of who gives way to whom and under what circumstances. This is particularly important for slow moving pedestrians who fear a collision if they are not quick enough to cross the road.

Intersections as continuous footpaths

“We believe all intersections without signals – whether marked, courtesy, or unmarked – be legally treated as marked pedestrian crossings. (It might help to mark them to remind drivers of this.) We should think of these intersections as spaces where vehicles cross an implicit continuous footpath, rather than as places where people cross a vehicular lane.”

Wahlquist’s article in The Conversation is, Why road rules should be rewritten to put walking first. The article presents a good arguments for putting pedestrians first. There is a 2010 update to the Manual for Streets.

Good road design

An aerial view of a winding road through a wooded area. Good road design is needed.

How much design thought goes into roads and highway? Is it just left to engineers, or are other designers involved? Seems times are changing and a bit more thought is going into roads in the UK. The Design Council has an article that lists the ten principles of good road design that include words such as inclusive and sustainable. The ten principles are

  1. makes roads safe and useful
  2. is inclusive
  3. makes roads understandable
  4. fits in context
  5. is restrained
  6. is environmentally sustainable
  7. is thorough
  8. is innovative
  9. is collaborative
  10. is long-lasting
Two cars on a road in rural England.

    Fourth progress report

    This work was updated in 2021 with the fourth progress report. Over the past year and a half, the Design Panel made the following key recommendations. Highways England should: 

    • accelerate communication and training to promote and embed its design vision and principles into its processes and culture
    • act on the Design Panel’s recommendations for adapting to climate change, reducing carbon, supporting biodiversity and the design of corridors
    • publish a design strategy to clearly articulate its ambitions for the second road period and beyond

    Manual for Streets 2

    Motor vehicles have dominated road design and road rules for most of the last century. With public policy promoting walking and wheeling this has to change. With this in mind, the UK Government’s Manual for Streets 2 gives pedestrians a higher priority on streets and roads. It builds on the original manual published in 2007 with a wider application of the principles.

    Research carried out in the preparation of Manual for Streets 2 indicated that many of the criteria routinely applied in street design are based on questionable or outdated practice.

    Street patterns last for decades so we have to get them right for the future.

    Front cover of Manual for Streets 2 showing four photos of pedestrians and cyclists.

    Manual for Streets 2

    The Manual for Streets 2 begins with a rationale and principles. Photographs and case studies illustrate the design ideas. The main body of the document covers design principles and detailed design issues. It includes:

    • Street networks, and connectivity
    • Community involvement
    • Pedestrian needs
    • Cycle facilities
    • Bus facilities
    • Junctions, crossings, access
    • Traffic signs
    • Parking and street furniture
    Image of people from the knees to the feet walking on a footpath.

    The likelihood of walking goes beyond a level, uninterrupted footway. It is influenced by the quality of the walking experience and how safe people feel. Design that accommodates the needs of children and people with disability will suit all users. this includes easy ways to cross the street in their line of travel.

    The Manual advises that there should be little need for dedicated cycle lanes, but doesn’t advise sharing space with pedestrians. Rather, the aim is to create conditions on the carriageway so that cyclists are content to use it. Nevertheless, where there is high traffic volume and larger vehicles, cycle lanes, or combined cycle/bus lanes will be required.

    Manual for Streets 2 is a companion to the original Manual for Streets published in 2007, which has a handy 8 page summary document. Although it is a UK publication, much is transferrable to Australian conditions.

    Front cover of the Manual for Streets showing a residential street scene with a child in the foreground.

    Universal design and psychosocial disabilities

    The COVID 19 pandemic has given rise to new thoughts about planning and design of the built environment including public transportation. People with psychosocial disabilities respond in different ways to situations. Travelling was easier for some because of less crowding, but others feared contamination. Facial masks increased anxiety in some, but others found that people not wearing masks a problem. This is where a universal design approach can help.

    ” … universal design should include the social and organisation environments, in addition to physical design, in terms of making the transport system accessible to everyone.”

    A man stands on a train platform looking at his smartphone. He is wearing a hat and has a bright yellow backpack.

    Between 20% and 25% of the population have a mental illness at any given time. People with psychosocial disabilities travel less than others leading to social isolation and worsening symptoms. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that by 2030 mental health conditions will be the leading burden of disease.

    Improving travel with universal design

    Few studies include mental health with reference to universal design. Anja Fleten Nielsen’s study asks “How can a broad understanding of universal design be used to improve travel for people with psychosocial disability?” She investigated the impact of COVID-19 and the main barriers to using public transport.

    Nielsen’s study involved in-depth interviews focusing on barriers, travel behaviour during the pandemic and suggested solutions. Recruiting participants was difficult in terms of getting written consent – signing a consent form could raise anxiety levels. Nielsen explains more about methods and the literature review.

    The key results are fell into: physical environment, social environment, organisational environment, and individual aspects.

    The roadway is marked with the words "bus stop" in yellow lettering.

    Physical environment: Crowding, important information during the journey, lack of toilet facilities and sensory overload.

    Social environment: Negative experiences with fellow passengers and interaction with transport personnel, and being afraid to ask for help.

    Organisational environment: Availability and ease of access, and lack of seamlessness between modes with long waiting times.

    Individual level: Planning difficulties, travel induced fatigue and financial barriers.

    COVID-19 made barriers more apparent

    Nielsen’s paper discusses each of the four aspects in detail. The pandemic increased symptoms in many participants and has made them more visible to transport planners. To answer the question about universal design, Nielsen claims that environmental factors are of greater importance. This is because the individual factors are related to special and customised solutions.

    The title of the study is, Universal design for people with psychosocial disabilities – The effect of COVID-19.

    Planners and designers need to look beyond physical impairments. Universal design is just as relevant for people with psychosocial disabilities. Social and organisational environments are of equal importance for this group. These are factors that also improve journey experiences for the travelling public.

    From the abstract

    During and after the pandemic, most informants travelled less and/or used their car more than before. Some stopped using public transport due to fear of contamination, while others found it easier to travel during the pandemic due to less crowding.

    Use of facial masks were perceived by some as an additional problem increasing anxiety, while others found it more problematic with fellow passengers not wearing masks. In general, findings support prior studies in terms of barriers related to crowding, lack of seamlessness, financial issues, problems with staff, lack of access in rural areas, and low knowledge of support systems.

    Lack of toilet facilities, negative experiences with other passengers, sensory overload, travel-induced fatigue, and problems related to planning are considered problematic. Station areas may pose a barrier for people with former drug addictions. Hence, universal design should include the social and organisation environments, in addition to physical design, in terms of making the transport system accessible to everyone.

    New mobility and universal design

    On one hand, new mobility technology increases opportunities to improve transport systems. But on the other, the technology is unevenly distributed in terms of access and inclusion. This means many will be left out, especially those with reduced mobility. 

    The new technology can create unintended barriers: physical, technological, economic and mental – each one a challenge to universal design. Public policy also has a role to play in reducing barriers to mobility.

    Norway has a whole of government universal design policy and has done good work in making public transport accessible. However, many advancements require digital skills in using smartphone apps and electronic ticketing. And that’s just one universal design challenge. 

    The challenges to universal design and new mobility are discussed in a book chapter by Jørgen Aarhaug. The chapter title is, Universal Design and Transport Innovations: A Discussion of New Mobility Solutions Through a Universal Design Lens. It’s open access.

    From the abstract

    Most technological advances in mobility result in better accessibility for many, yet the benefits remain unevenly distributed. New and improved mobility technologies typically result in increased mobility. However, most new technologies create both winners and losers. Who wins and who loses depends on how the mobility solution in question is introduced to the mobility system.

    This study finds that many of the new mobility technologies that are introduced, though not directly relating to universal design, strongly affect the universality of access to mobility.

    The chapter aims to give insight into how certain new mobility solutions affect different user groups, and to highlight how the outcome is a function of the interplay between technology and its implementation. The paper concludes by pointing to the need for regulation to align the objectives of the actors behind new technologies and an inclusive society.

    Automated vehicles: mobility and accessibility

    The transportation and mobility sector has a design history focused on infrastructure efficiencies. User perspectives are being introduced in other sectors and it is time for the mobility sector to catch up. 

    An article from Norway discusses the issues introducing universal design and co-creation.  The author uses three vignettes to highlight some of the issues users encounter. 

    The title of the article is, Automated Vehicles Empowering Mobility of Vulnerable Groups – and the Pathway to Achieve This.

    From the abstract

    Many people in Europe still have limited access to transportation modes overall. Socio-economic constraints, and cognitive, sensory and physical impairments affect everyday life, posing challenges to accessing mobility services.

    Technologies for vehicle automation have advanced in recent decades. Yet, the implementation and use of automated and autonomous vehicles (jointly referred to as AVs) entails chances but also hurdles regarding accessibility and inclusivity of vulnerable groups.

    This concerns both the use of the vehicle by humans as well as the interaction between humans and vehicles as participants in road traffic.

    In this chapter, we identify opportunities and risks narrow down the vulnerable social groups we are looking at. Subsequently, we present the benefits that co-creation and universal design can have in overcoming or, in the best case, avoiding these obstacles.

    Detailed recommendations for action cannot be given within this framework, but suggestions for solutions are outlined.

     

    Universal design and future of transport

    What will transport in the future look like, and will it be universally designed? Engineers Australia’s discussion paper takes a fresh look at transport systems and infrastructure. That means taking a long-term view of the relationship with community, government policy and regulations. A big job with lot of dots to join up.  Front cover of the future of transport discussion paper. Transport systems are designed to move people and freight, but they need different things. If we are to reduce emissions, we need innovative transport options. That means talking to consumers – passengers, pedestrians, drivers, and riders. It also means revising regulations and digital infrastructure.  The title of the discussion paper is The future of transport. The section on access for all discusses universal access in terms of people with “mobility challenges”. Reference is made to the the Universal design for transport discussion paper and lists the benefits of accessible transport. Benefits include better access to employment opportunities and participation, and enhancing quality of life. Getting the design right at the beginning saves money, increases patronage and enhances economic activity. The next section has more information on the earlier universal design for transport paper. 

    Front cover of the Universal design for transport discussion paper.Universal design for transport

    The paper’s purpose begins with disability statistics followed by reference to disability discrimination legislation and standards. There is a list of benefits and some case studies followed by recommendations. Although the document uses “universal design” in the title, it uses “universal access”. Not quite the same thing. 

    Recommendations

    The recommendations from Universal design for transport are based on the concept of universal access rather than universal design. This means the focus is on physical access for people with reduced mobility rather than inclusive access for all.  1. Recognise that compliance alone doesn’t mean good accessibility  2. Support the DSAPT (Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport)  3. Leverage existing programs (fleet purchasing, major projects) 4. Need for long term program and state commitment to retrofitting existing infrastructure to achieve DSAPT standards – including a funding commitment. 5. Make more use of state-based accessibility groups in understanding solutions and prioritisation of finite funding 6. Make sure there is access to public transport for those who are reliant on public transport including in regional areas. 7. Leverage technological advances including internet of things (IOT) and artificial intelligence into wayfinding, access to services etc. 8. Engineers and designers (and regulators) need to have agile mindset to new technologies and ways of providing accessible transport options. 9. Opportunities for new vehicles to be designed for more accessibility- zero emission busses (ZEBs), new trams and trains. 10. Universal access needs to be a guiding principle through the design process not post-design check. 11. Harmonise public transport and active transport infrastructure design standards and best operating practices. 12. Subject matter experts should be engaged at project commencement to identify appropriate standards that lead to good accessibility outcomes. Universal design should be part of land-use planning, transport planning, and sustainable development, not just equity and inclusion. The Universal Design for Transport: Transport Australia Society Discussion Paper is a 2022 publication. The future of transport discussion paper is a January 2023 pubication. To provide feedback please email policy@engineersaustralia.org.au   

    Shared space on streets and roads

    Perceptions of safe walking and cycling routes relate more to visual separation than physical barriers. Bushes provide little, if any, protection for pedestrians and cyclists, but they are sufficient to give a sense of safety. That was a finding in a new report from Germany. So the issues related to shared space on streets and roads is more about the sense of separation not provided by road markings.

    Shared space on streets and roads is often contested space. In urban settings, shared space also includes sharing with buildings, street furniture, kiosks, trees and other vegetation.

    A cycle-way divided by yellow bollards with a man on an e-scooter and a man on bicycle travelling in opposite directions. Pedestrians are visible on the separated footway.

    Many pedestrians avoid shared paths due to the likelihood of cyclists approaching suddenly or silently. It makes them feel unsafe. Cyclists find they need to concentrate more when sharing space with pedestrians. So it seems the shared pathway experiment needs a serious review. What better way than to ask pedestrians and cyclists?

    A total of 408 participants took part in a study on this topic. Four options were provided to participants using 3D virtual presentations followed by a survey. The four options for dividing shared space were, bollards, stones, bushes and no treatment. Both pedestrians and cyclists put bushes as their first preference and no treatment as their last preference. Visual separation in the form of lines or road and path marking are considered an insufficient solution.

    The study also shows the importance of involving street and road users in design decision processes.

    While the researchers challenged the concept of user integration, they do not recommend eliminating the shared space concept. Rather, they propose we re-think the shared space concept for all street and road users, particularly pedestrians who are the most vulnerable.

    The title of the article is, Reimagining shared (space) street design: Segregating to better integrate?

    Abstract

    The shared space concept proposes to reduce traffic control to integrate road users. Yet, defining boundaries to create a pedestrian safe zone is particularly relevant for a successful implementation. Therefore, to determine if road users also expect a protective barrier delimiting the safe zone, this paper presents part of the results of an online survey that evaluated the preferences of pedestrians and cyclists.

    A total of 408 participants completed the survey and ranked the alternatives (i.e. none, bollards, bushes, and stones) according to their preferences. Approaches suitable for ranking data were then applied to further understand the results, which indicated that only providing a safe zone with visual separation is not necessarily preferred when compared to the provision of additional physical barriers.

    Both pedestrians and cyclists prefer bushes over the presented alternatives. As bushes objectively provide less physical protection than bollards and stones, it can be assumed that the sense of segregation, rather than the physical protection itself, should be considered in shared space design.

    By challenging the concept of user integration, this paper suggests reinterpreting the shared space design to combine physical barriers in an attempt to better accommodate vulnerable road users.

    Step-free railway stations: benefits for all

    If any aspect of a public transit journey creates inconvenience or anxiety, people just won’t make the journey. Or only make when it is essential. This has a knock-on affect for socialisation and the economy. People with reduced mobility usually face more inconveniences than others when using public transport. A study in the UK found that step-free railway stations has benefits for all.

    A classic view of a railway station in the UK. Access to the train carriage looks difficult due to the gap between the platform and the carriage door.

    A train waits at a railway station platform. In the distance there is a flight of steps to an overpass. The train look modern but the platform looks old.

    Lifts to platforms are a good start but this is only one link in the whole journey. The physical aspects are getting to the station, into the station, using a transit card or ticket, and getting onto the platform. Then there’s the matter of getting onto the train, finding a seat, getting off again and ready to negotiate the platform and station at the destination. Lots of actions to seamlessly link up. And then there is the information side of things.

    What is step-free?

    Researchers in the UK found that transport professionals had different definitions of step-free. Some used guidelines or standards rather than critically thinking about the overall design of the train or station. However, they all interpreted “step-free” as being physical, whereas if it were to be inclusive, it would consider more than steps in and around the station and the train.

    Using mixed methods, the researchers found that there was no agreement about what constituted step-free access. In some instances it was confined to the station itself, while in others it included the street to train.

    The researchers list the key benefits of inclusive railway design in a table. It tabulates three types of benefit: economic, mental health and physical health. Both direct and indirect revenue and environmental benefits are also included.

    Although this paper is focused on UK railway stations and and operators, it makes the links between good accessible, inclusive design and benefits for the economy and society. It goes beyond the traditional benefits for people with reduced mobility, which is what most other studies have done.

    Once again, designing for a marginalised group means designing for everyone.

    The title of the article is, Step-free railway station access in the UK: the value of inclusive design. The article is part of a collection of papers in a special journal issue, Towards collaborative and more inclusive transport systems. All articles are open access.

    From the Abstract

    People with reduced mobility travel less than than others. That’s despite substantial investment in step-free access at UK railway stations. This research examines the benefits of step-free access and the wider benefits of railway station accessibility.

    The results show that the benefits of step-free access extend beyond those with reduced mobility. It demonstrates the potential to positively affect the society economically, environmentally, and socially.

    Government and interested stakeholders should commit to expanding the number and coverage of step-free stations throughout the UK. They should ensure that the appraisal process for investment in step-free accessibility appropriately captures both user and non-user benefits.