Publications:
Designing for Disabled People in Home Zones

Appendix B: Full Findings of Literature Review

1. Project Objectives

This project will consider the safety of disabled people in Home Zones around Britain and consider how any problems identified may be resolved, whilst maintaining the concept's integrity. The assessment for the safety of disabled people will include:

  • navigation
  • spatial awareness
  • crossing the street
  • conflict with motorists and other road users
  • conflict with other pedestrians
  • perception of safety

2. Literature Review Aims

This literature review will:

  1. provide an overview of current literature and research in relation to the safety of disabled people in 'traditional' street environments;
  2. consider current literature and research in relation to the design of Home Zones for disabled people;
  3. identify conflict between a) and b) and any gaps in knowledge in order to inform this research or possible future research;
  4. begin to establish whether there are any design solutions that can be incorporated in to Home Zones to make them safer for disabled people.

3. Background Information

3.1 Mobility of Disabled People

Many organisations of disabled people argue for the basic right to mobility within the external environment, with freedom from danger, risk or injury. DPTAC[1] states that everyone should be able to use the walking environment. For many disabled people this is not currently possible due to barriers created by the design, management and operation of the walking environment. This is a major concern for groups of disabled people. For example the Joint Committee on the Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS)[2] believe that safe and independent movement is currently not possible and that blind, deafblind and partially sighted people experience enormous barriers to freedom of movement, seriously limiting their opportunities and choices[3].

There has been various research undertaken, illustrating these concerns. In a Mori poll, commissioned by DPTAC, disabled people gave problems in the pedestrian environment as their main concern, ahead of public transport[4]. Numerous other research projects carried out by organisations representing blind and partially sighted people have consistently found that poor conditions of the pedestrian environment is a major factor limiting the mobility and independence of visually impaired people[5]. These concerns and barriers help to explain why the design of the external environment is so important, and why it should include features that can aid navigation and mobility.

Mobility within the street environment will present different issues for people with different disabilities. The term disability is a broad one and exploration of its definition is not within the remit of this project. This is currently being considered by the Disability Rights Commission through their consultation on 'definition of disability'. When referring to disabled people within this research it should therefore be taken to refer to the generally recognised inclusion of people with a physical, sensory or mental impairment.

It will explore this through the principles of 'Inclusive Design' - that is designing an environment that can be used equally by everyone, regardless of disability, age, ethnicity or gender. These principles are defined as being:

  • easily used by as many people as possible without undue effort, special treatment or separation
  • able to offer people the freedom to choose how they access and use it, allowing them to participate equally in all activities it may host
  • able to embrace diversity and difference
  • safe
  • legible and predictable
  • of high quality[6]

Consequentially, there are design requirements in the environment to enable and assist the mobility of disabled people. The next section will provide a brief introduction to this process. It will concentrate on the needs of blind and partially sighted people who are recognised as having particular mobility requirements and there are a number of guidance and research papers available for this specific group. This section will also explore the available information for people who are deaf or hard of hearing and people who have learning difficulties. Information specific to these groups proved hard to locate. Further investigation is currently being undertaken. Further detail in relation to the pedestrian environment and the design practicalities required to assist this process will be discussed in Section 4, which will in turn be used to assess the Home Zones design guidance.

3.2 Mobility of People who are Blind or Partially Sighted

People who are blind or partially sighted have little or no vision, which affects their ability in various ways, depending on the nature of the sight loss, to receive information on the environment around them[7]. Some people with sight loss may benefit from the use of an aid to facilitate their mobility. The most common mobility aid used by blind people is another person's assistance, followed by the long white cane and then a guide dog[8]. This, however, was the situation over 10 years ago and therefore is an issue that should be further investigated further, although it is outside of the remit of this project. The cane is used to scan the ground in front of the user, allowing them to detect changes in levels and obstructions. A guide dog is trained to lead their owner around obstacles and to stop at distinct hazards, such as changes in level. Many people will not have mobility aids and rely solely on their residual vision and their awareness of the environment to get around. People who do use mobility aids will also make use of their residual vision in order to navigate[9].

Most blind and partially sighted people do not benefit from receiving outdoor mobility or rehabilitation training. Guide Dogs reports that 9 out of 10 blind and partially sighted people have never received any assistance, despite nearly all those who had saying it improved their quality of life and independence[10]. The issue of training with mobility aids will be discussed during this project with Mobility Officers, with consideration given to the traditional means of teaching orientation skills and whether these may need to be reviewed for Home Zone areas. The research will investigate the perceived risk of mobility within a Home Zone and whether this may be affected through education and re-training. It is predicted that due to the limited remit of this research project, this may be an area, which will require further research.

The most reliable cues for blind and partially sighted people are permanent and can be detected even in unfamiliar environments[11]. Blind people often use the kerb for orientation because it fulfils this requirement, as it can generally be relied upon as a constant feature[12]. The presence of a kerb also helps to make the pathway more easily identifiable through peripheral vision; "The edge of the footway should be clearly defined, either by a kerb or by a distinct change of texture, such as grass or gravel"[13]. The pavement itself can also act as an orientation tool, "If a pavement is to be easily identified by peripheral vision it must be differentiated from adjacent walls"[14]. The use of the kerb and the pavement as an orientation tool will be investigated further, through site tests and discussions with rehabilitation and mobility officers, during the course of this research project.

Blind and partially sighted people may also use non-visual cues in the environment to assist with mobility, such as the sound of traffic, the slope of ramps and changes in texture. Providing information using more than one sense increases the likelihood that disabled people and others will be able to make informed travel decisions. For example, tactile paving can be detected not only by texture, but also by sound and colour contrast[15].

A reduction of available information in the surrounding environment, and also the use of a mobility aid to facilitate mobility, has significant implications for the design process. The main design principles outlined in Building Sight (1999, p.33) are:

Layout - simple and logical and therefore easier to form a memorable mental picture
Visibility - use of colour and tonal contrast to raise visibility and accentuate features
Lighting - adequate and evenly distributed lighting

3.3 Mobility of People who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

It is now well established that the use of visual clues, such as that provided when important features are contrasted with their surroundings, are also important for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. This group of users, when moving around an environment, will most likely utilise their visual acuity to enhance their communication strategy (lip reading etc), rather than their navigation strategy. It can therefore be suggested that the main design principles outlined for the assistance and safety of mobility of people who are blind or partially sighted are therefore applicable to people who are deaf or hard of hearing.

3.4 Mobility of People who have Learning Difficulties

The key findings from recent research into wayfinding for people with learning difficulties[16] identified the wide range of abilities possessed by people with learning difficulties, and also the range of signage and communication systems already in use. The results suggest that it is unlikely that any single signage system developed would be equally effective for all. It was also apparent that signage is only one aspect in a whole range of techniques and methods, which people with learning difficulties use in order to wayfind. It can be argued that these findings have some influence over the Home Zones research project in terms of the difficulty in defining what 'learning difficulty' should include, and therefore who to recruit for site testing. It could also have an effect on the aim to develop design features within the Home Zone environment for the assistance of people with this type of disability.

Many people with a learning disability will also have other additional disabilities. Approximately 30% have a sight impairment and 40% have a significant degree of hearing loss[17]. In addition many people with a learning disability may have mobility difficulties or use a wheelchair. The effects of an ageing population and increased life expectancy will also lead to an increasing number of people with learning disabilities who may also develop dementia. This will have an additional effect on how people identify and use signs and negotiate their way around the external and built environment. These statistics mean that measures taken to assist mobility for other disabilities will also benefit access for some people with learning difficulties.

A number of information sources on wayfinding for people with a learning disability were identified within the BOI (2004) research. Several publications on wayfinding, whilst not solely focused on learning disabilities, either have sections that relate directly to people with learning disabilities, or the principles detailed in them supports evidence gathered from other publications[18]. Evidence has shown that the primary way of learning a route for people with mild or moderate learning disabilities is one-dimensional. Assistance in this travel training from other people was identified as a method used by people with learning disabilities to learn new routes[19].

The use of features, landmarks, varied materials and textures along a route or in a building was identified as a key means of wayfinding[20]. The use of sounds has been identified by the Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB)[21] as a valuable source of location and directional information for people with either visual or learning disabilities. It can be suggested that many of these wayfinding methods are assisted by design principles which are similar to the design features which assist people who are blind or partially sighted.

4. Design Guidance on Access for Disabled People to the Street Environment

The design principles, which assist the wayfinding and mobility of disabled people can be applied all the way through the design process, to design practicalities. This has been achieved within design guidance documents for disabled people that aim to make environments accessible for disabled people.

There is limited guidance or research available on access for disabled people to a specifically traditional residential street environment. This section will therefore cover the literature on access to the general street environment, to inform the issues within a residential environment, as the issues are likely to be similar.

There are a few key texts which are widely recognised as best practice guidance documents, with recommendations by key disability organisations for their use within the street environment. These include:

  • DfT - Inclusive Mobility
  • DfT - Guidance on the use of Tactile Paving Surfaces
  • English Heritage - Easy Access to Historic Landscapes
  • Fieldfare Trust - BT Countryside for All
  • RNIB - Building Sight
  • RNIB - Housing Sight
  • DfT - Traffic Advisory Leaflet 4/91: Audible and Tactile Signals at Pelican Crossings
  • DfT - Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/91: Audible and Tactile Signals at Signal Controlled Junctions (Superseded)
  • DfT - Parking for Disabled People, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 05/95
  • ODPM Approved Document M (2004 edition) of the Building Regulations
  • British Standards Institute BS 8300: 2001 Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people - Code of Practice

A review of all these documents has been undertaken, with the key issues selected that might relate to disabled access within a Home Zone environment. These documents will be referred to throughout Section 6: Design Practicalities, when assessing whether the design practicalities in the Home Zones guidance meet the best practice requirements for disabled people. These will occasionally be cited.

If it does not appear that design practicalities in the Home Zones guidance meet these requirements, this review will begin to assess this issue. It will ask whether this is due to knowledge gaps in the design, or to the concept of Home Zones conflicting with the design needs of disabled people.

For some design issues, non-UK guidance and research was identified, to fill gaps that have been identified in the UK guidance. Unfortunately, due to the limited scope of this project, this area could not be pursued. It is recommended that this is an area that could be undertaken in future research.

5. Home Zones Design Guidance on Access for Disabled People

The main Home Zones documents which have been reviewed in relation to design for disabled people are Home Zones Design Guidelines[22] and Home Zones: Challenging the Future of Our Streets[23]. The latter document has the intention to "disseminate good practice in Home Zone design and scheme development". It will therefore be used to assess the practical application of the design guidance outlined in the former document, and assist with assessment of the success of the Home Zones concept.

5.1 Characteristics of Home Zones

Home Zones Design Guidelines[24] outlines which characteristics should be provided by a successful Home Zone. The issues within these that are most likely to impact significantly on mobility of disabled people are:

  • Reduction in social isolation, particularly amongst older people
  • Improvements in the safety of residential areas, and perhaps more importantly, residents perception of safety
  • Support for members of the community - including disabled people - to reclaim their local environment from the car
  • Encouragement for people to walk within their local area
  • Improvements to the quality of the built environment

In theory, these issues support the aims of disabled organisations as outlined in Section 3. The issue is therefore whether these aims are achievable within the redesign of a streetscape to a Home Zones environment. The guidance document recognises that "disabled people will have particular requirements which must be taken into account"[25]. The DfT (2005) guidance[26] also states strongly that authorities must consider needs of disabled people to be an integral part of the design process. In principle, there is a recognition and commitment to making this space accessible to disabled people. This research project will therefore assess whether this is achievable within the Home Zones concept and if so, whether it has been applied in practice.

5.2 Development with Community and Consultation

A Home Zones scheme is also expected to meet the needs of the local community and changes to the street should be developed in partnership with them[27]. It is outlined in both IHIE (2002) and DfT (2005) guidance that consultation should be fully inclusive and that the specific needs of disabled people will need to be considered[28]. DfT's Traffic Advisory Leaflet on participation[29] again explicitly states that the needs of people with disabilities must be taken into account.

Disability groups such as JCMBPS welcome the commitment to consultation. They also suggest that this should be extended beyond the Home Zones streets to the wider community. This is a recommendation within the DfT (2005) guidance but not within IHIE (2002) guidance. A number of factors are given to ensure that the consultation process is accessible to disabled people, for example consultation papers must be produced in an accessible format, meetings are in an accessible venue, communication support is provided if required[30]. There appears to be no direct reference to these details within the Home Zones guidance documents.

The site testing will investigate the consultation undertaken, whether this included disabled people, and the effect of this on the design and accessibility of the Home Zone site.

5.3 Design Principles

There is no blueprint for a Home Zone. Individual schemes may use similar elements, but each scheme needs to reflect the community's aspirations.

There are some key design principles that a Home Zone may consist of[31]:

  • Shared surfaces
  • Indirect traffic routes
  • Areas of planting
  • Features to encourage use of the street, such as seating
  • Gateways and signing to mark the limits of the area

It will be assessed whether these two principles do in fact complement one another - i.e. whether the community needs in relation to disabled access actually reflect the design principles of Home Zones. It has certainly been recognised that in general these two principles have lead to a diversity of schemes and different approaches being adopted[32].

6. Design Practicalities

6.1 Site Layout

6.1.1 Shared Surfaces

"It is the buildings, trees, planting and surface treatments that should define the Home Zone space rather than conventional kerb edges and carriageway widths. Each Home Zone space should be unique..."[33].

This design detail within a Home Zone i.e. the removal of the traditional kerb edge and the definite defined spaces for pedestrians and vehicles, is a design principle that can be argued to be the key to the Home Zones concept and its application. "Shared surface designs are the most desirable form of street and should be the aim"; "The raised kerb gives a powerful message to all road users that the street is divided into vehicle and pedestrian areas. Home Zones must not be segregated in this way."[34].

6.1.1.1 Impact of Shared Surface on Disabled People

Shared surface is one of the key differences between the 'traditional' streetscape and a Home Zones site. It is potentially one which has the most impact on access for disabled people and is therefore discussed in the following sections in some detail.

Within the guidance, this shared surface and removal of the kerb is stated as beneficial for wheelchair users and people with mobility aids, as it can create a level surface that will allow more ease of movement[35]. In theory, it appears to be more accessible but due to the non-linear layouts, parking of cars and location of street furniture these issues may in fact block areas required for easy mobility. This aspect can be assessed during the site tests. Consultation with organisations representing these disabilities are currently being undertaken to identify any further issues within the Home Zone environment.

There are a number of documents available which outline how this shared surface is potentially one of the most problematic design features for the mobility of people who are blind and partially sighted and potentially for people with other disabilities especially people with learning difficulties and deaf or hard of hearing. E.g. Sections 3.3. and 3.4 of this review identified that design features to assist mobility and wayfinding may be similar, therefore these groups may also have concerns about shared space, along with other design features. As explained earlier (Section 3.2) people who are blind or partially sighted require a clearly defined pedestrian pathway. The definition between the carriageway and the pedestrian area has traditionally been achieved via the kerb edge. There are two main concerns created by the removal of the kerb[36]. These are:

  • Through the removal of the segregation between pedestrians and vehicles, people will be sharing a space with vehicles and there are implications that this may have on safety, both real and perceived.
  • The kerb is one of the most effective cues in the environment to assist with the orientation due to it consistently and reliably providing a demarcation between the footpaths and the carriageway. It also provides definition between the building line and the edge of the pathway that further assists with orientation.

6.1.1.2 Effect on the Safety of Disabled People

JCMBPS explains further the potential effect of this shared surface on the safety of blind and partially sighted people. The main issue with the possible removal of 'safe' pavements from cars and other vehicles, particularly cycles, is how these road users respond within this shared space to pedestrians. People who are blind or partially sighted may not be able to detect the approaching vehicle and act accordingly to avoid the potential hazard. There is also concern about whether drivers will be prepared to automatically give way, especially to people who may not be identifiable as blind or partially sighted. Where a shared use footpath has been tried, with pedestrians and cyclists, RNIB research showed almost universal condemnation for such facilities by people who are blind or partially sighted. 96% of people thought it was either essential or desirable that there were no shared pavements[37].

The effect that the shared space has on safety of people who are blind or partially sighted, whether perceived or actual, is not directly discussed in the IHIE guidelines[38] in terms of detailed design. The only reference is that in principle, the design of streets should be governed by safety for disabled people. Research from the Netherlands Home Zones claims that shared space is beneficial to pedestrian safety, and within the UK, it is suggested that shared surfaces are not inherently unsafe[39].

Information on whether safety assessments of Home Zones within the UK included people with disabilities is not provided, therefore safety statistics of disabled people or reports of incidents experienced by disabled people is an area to be investigated further, during site testing. The safety issue for disabled people within existing shared surface sites have started to be explored within JCMBPS's research for its 'Shared Space' policy statement. It was found through contact with European blind organisations that no figures directly relating to safety of disabled people were found, or seemed to have been considered; that no consultation had been undertaken with disability groups, and they shared similar concerns with this environment[40]. During a brief scoping study of European Home Zones sites for this research, there was no obvious reference to access for disabled people, and no available safety figures including disabled people. The investigation of statistics for the chosen Home Zone sites will be undertaken in Stage 2. Information on safety statistics in the pilots will be also be assessed although again it is predicted that neither of these are likely to have information directly referring to the inclusion of people who are blind or partially sighted.

As JCMBPS[41] highlights, safety figures would require information on the involvement of blind and partially sighted people in these trials. If blind and partially sighted people (and possibly also other disabled people) use the area less or not at all, this would impact on accident figures and should not be said to demonstrate success. It is essential that the safety research into the sites includes not just accident figures, which incorporate blind, deafblind or partially sighted people, but considers the number of users before and after the implementation of shared space. This is because there is a strong possibility that people may use the area less due to safety concerns, and therefore the figures would not be reliable. JCMBPS also request that safety figures include a range of accidents from minor to major, to assess the full impact on safety. Whilst records of reported accidents can be assessed, it is more difficult to take account of 'near misses' or minor accidents which were not reported, but will affect perceptions of safety. Local consultation with representative groups and inviting public comment would be useful here. These are all issues that will be assessed within the site tests.

JCMBPS's response to the mixing of vehicles and pedestrians in the Home Zone environment is that, "It is essential for visually impaired pedestrians to be able to use a route that is exclusively for pedestrians in all circumstances"[42]. This issue of safety through the provision of a clear, pedestrian only route, is arguably something that IHIE guidance does not pick up on strongly enough. It is an issue that therefore needs to be explored in the site testing, both in the safety of disabled people, and also whether it is a practical provision within the design concept of the Home Zones streetscape. Refer to Section 6.1.3 for more details on this requirement of a clear pedestrian path.

6.1.1.3 Effect on Orientation for Disabled People

There is also a potential effect on the mobility of disabled people through the street environment due to the removal of the kerb as an orientation cue.

The effect of the removal of the kerb and creation of a shared surface on orientation is an issue that IHIE guidance does recognise[43]. The document states that this orientation clue must be replaced by another means[44]. The document does provide a number of design features as this replacement.

"The edge of the route for pedestrians should be capable of discrimination by a cane or guide dog so that it can be followed safely and with confidence by visually impaired people using a mobility aid. This will often be provided by the building line or highway boundary, which should be clear and easy to follow by cane with no gaps, nor hazards such as overhanging trees at head height."

There are however a couple of potential issues in relation to this recommendation. One issue that needs to be explored is whether in practice in the design of Home Zones, the edge of the route provided by the building line or the highway boundary is without hazards. The IHIE (2002) guidance makes a recommendation in relation to building edges: "A high proportion of residential buildings in Home Zones should have active fronts to the street (i.e., the windows of habitable rooms, doors and entrances)[45]. The concern for people who are blind and partially sighted if using a building edge with active fronts as an orientation clue, is there may be a number of potential protrusions along that route which they may not be able to identify. This is a potential safety issue within the Home Zone environment that will be explored in the site tests.

Secondly, there needs to be clarification over the use of the term "highway boundary". The kerb normally defines this with a traditional street environment but with the principle of shared surfaces, this is recommended not to be present. The identification of the highway boundary is not explicitly outlined in the document so there is open interpretation in relation to the design of the highway boundary. IHIE (2002) does move some way to potential interpretation of this issue through recommendation of the use of contrasting materials in both texture and appearance to define key routes and particular locations which can assist VIPs to negotiate streets[46].

JCMBPS raises concern over this method of definition of different surface uses: "This use of textures and/or colours for delineation and guidance needs careful consideration. Tactile surfaces are mainly used to indicate a potential danger and to use them for directional purposes on a large scale may be confusing and inappropriate, as well as uncomfortable for other pedestrians. Colour and tonal contrast is useful in many circumstances to enhance delineation but is not a solution for blind people with little or no residual vision - and there are obvious aesthetic considerations"[47]. There is therefore concern over these recommendations in terms of what surface would be capable of being identified through tonal or colour contrast yet retain aesthetic and design requirements. Also concern over what texture is capable of discrimination by a guide dog, cane or with residual vision yet not a safety or mobility concern for other users. IHIE[48] itself recognises that "too many surface types are potentially confusing" and recommends that the existing guidance document on the use of tactile paving[49], is likely not to be required, apart from as an indicator that you are moving out of a shared space (refer to Section 6.1.4 Access Points for more information on this issue). The documents also suggests that recognisable features could also be used, such as dished drainage channels, to assist make the layout legible[50]. There is however currently little research on the usability of a drainage channel as a guidance path or on the use of guidance paths in general. IHIE (2002) guidance states that "there is considerable written material on this issue[51]" for designers. Arguably, a review of the standard documents reveals that there is not considerable research or guidance on the use of tactile and coloured paving or on the use or design of wayfinding and guidance paths to assist orientation and navigation. There appears therefore to be neither clear guidance on what should or what could be used on the edge of or along the route for pedestrians to make it capable of discrimination. This could potentially leave designers of Home Zones with a difficult decision as to how to implement the requirement to make the "Home Zones legible to blind and visually impaired people"[52]. Consultation with professionals in Stage 3 and 4 will explore the implementation of this issue and whether enough detailed guidance is provided.

IHIE (2002) guidance does recognise that this issue of making Home Zones legible to people who are blind or partially sighted is problematic and recommends that this should be discussed with an access professional, whether this is a local access officer or an independent access consultant[53]. It further suggests an independent access audit of the scheme to identify barriers. JCMBPS further recommends that changes in texture should be used cautiously and only after consultation with local visually impaired groups[54]. All these recommendations will be included and explored in the site tests.

Finally, the site tests will also explore the mobility of disabled people with the removal or reduction of the standard pavement edge and effect of its replacement with other orientation cues. From preliminary investigation of sites and also shared space research in the public realm[55], there appears to be different levels of delineation. Whilst some schemes with shared surfaces remove the separation between vehicles and pedestrians completely, others retain some separation. There is variation in its treatment, including standard height kerb segregation, low kerb segregation or delineation via colour and/or surface texture. This initial scoping of differentiation will help inform the sample selection for site testing in order to assess the effectiveness of the alternative surfaces for provision of information for people who are blind or partially sighted as a tool for assistance in wayfinding.

6.1.1.4 Shift in Definition of Shared Space and Its Application

Whilst the text does not state this explicitly, there seems to be some doubt about the merits and definition of a shared surface in the DfT (2005) Home Zones guidance. This represents a shift away from the IHIE (2002) design guidance in which shared surfaces are highly favoured, if not mandatory. The main difference appears to be a shift from what used to be understood as shared space i.e. 'free vehicle movement' - based on the European experience, to what is now understood as "footways and carriageways still being maintained, but the emphasis is on reducing the free space for vehicles"[56]. The guidance recognises that this free movement shared space was met with a mixed response from both residents and other professionals. Through the requirement to ensure the "practicality of the concept through delivery"[57], it led to the modification of the delivery of shared surfaces and sometimes meant that kerbs and footways were kept[58] and that "it is clear that in some cases definition of space is still necessary"[59]. There is however no reference to maintenance of the traditional streetscape design as a requirement for disabled people although there is reference to a requirement to accommodate "other users needs" and that an access consultant is involved through the process"[60]. It would be of use to explore during the site tests whether the retention of kerbs and footways and more traditional streetscape was a result of disabled peoples' requests.

It is interesting to note that IHIE (2002) guidelines recognise that, "in some schemes, particularly those involving existing streets, creating a shared surface throughout the Home Zone may be unachievable due to cost constraints." This is also similar for Conservation areas, where it may be necessary to preserve the line of the kerb, possibly through a change in materials, so that this key feature is retained in visual terms"[61]. There is also a potential clash with implementation of shared surface design by the requirement by the National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) for footways of 2m wide to accommodate buried services[62], which would meet the best practice requirements for disabled people in traditional streetscape. IHIE (2002) also recognise that part of the shared surfaces will be preferable to be safeguarded for pedestrians. It provides the example of this segregation for play areas or building entrances[63]. It recommends that this be achieved through use of street furniture, or planting. It appears that free movement shared surface is not implemented and some kerb line or delineation between the pathway and carriageway is maintained, yet the streetscape is still classified as a Home Zone. If this is the case, then it could be plausible to provide this for disabled people if it appears from the research data collected on site that shared surfaces are creating safety and wayfinding concerns. The project should explore where a shared surface has not be implemented and some form of traditional delineation has been maintained what was the influencing factor for this, including the factors outlined above.

The result of this practical application of the design principle of shared surfaces therefore appears to represent a shift from European free movement of pedestrians and vehicles to the retaining of delineation between them. A question arises of whether this removal of a key design feature of a Home Zone means that this type of streetscape can be classified as a Home Zone?

6.1.2 Crossing the Carriageway

JCMBPS highlights that the removal of controlled crossing points within a shared space scheme and the provision of raised tables as informal crossing points is a potential issue for the mobility of people who are blind or partially sighted[64]. The application of this best practice design feature however may be less appropriate to a residential environment as in traditional residential streets controlled crossing points are rare. A factor which may influence navigation through a site is whether there was/is a controlled crossing point in immediate vicinity of the Home Zone. This will be investigated during site tests. The site tests will also assess how and where people cross the street within the Home Zone, looking at whether it is free movement or determined by other features. The site testing will also consider peoples' perceived safety when crossing in a Home Zones environment.

Best practice guidance on general street design states that, "Crossovers should be distinguished from the pavement with a different texture and colour surfacing"[65]. IHIE guidance however suggests that these normal measures to assist blind and partially sighted people that they are about to cross the carriageway will not be required within a Home Zone[66]. The removal of this requirement is related to the removal of the kerb on which the blister paving would traditionally be required on a dropped section[67]. This issue however may need to be re-addressed with the possibility of maintenance of some kerb or delineation as discussed in Section 6.1.1.1/2/3. The site tests will explore this issue.

There is an argument that Home Zones reduce car speeds and require different behaviour from vehicles and therefore crossing the carriageway should be safer for all pedestrians including people who are disabled. This issue will be explored within the site tests both in terms of vehicle behaviour to disabled people and pedestrians in general and also in terms of perceived safety and confidence of disabled people.

6.1.3 Indirect traffic routes (Vehicle Track, Forward Visibility and Achieving Low Speeds)

The concept and application of a shared surface for cars and pedestrians affects the potential movement of cars within this space, moving from "conventional straight lines of carriageway and footway"[68] to a more illogical layout in order to achieve reduced speeds. This is potentially achieved by designing in horizontal deflections in the car's route such as parking spaces, trees, planting and street furniture[69].

These indirect traffic routes potentially create an environment for the pedestrian which is non-linear, introducing features which have to be orientated around. This would be against recommended designs for people who are blind or partially sighted in terms of a logical layout, as previously discussed, with the rationalisation of street furniture to create a clear, simple route and circulation space. This could have implications for people who are blind or partially sighted in terms of wayfinding and orientation.

There is some reference within the IHIE (2002) design guidance to provision of pedestrian only areas. It states that it may be desirable to safeguard parts of the shared surface, for example to protect areas of play[70]. The clear width recommended is 1.8m[71], which is below the 2m width recommended within Inclusive Mobility[72]. IHIE (2002) states that due to design requirements of the Home Zones, localised narrowing may be required. These should be no less than 1m or extend more than 6m[73]. This is in line with best practice design guidance for disabled people. The width and length of pedestrian only paths will also be assessed to see if they are meeting the design guidelines.

The described layout potentially also has an effect on safety of disabled people. If people are unwittingly moving into an area of shared space with cars, this could be hazardous. This is potentially more dangerous for people due to reduced visibility of the sight lines for drivers meaning that vehicles may have less time to react to people being hidden by street furniture and parked cars. IHIE[74] however states that this danger is present in all residential roads where parking is allowed and argues that the risk will actually be lower in Home Zones streets, due to the lower speeds and the greater degree of care required when driving through the area. This is based on the argument that vehicles behave in a more responsible manner. This will therefore need to be assessed in the sites chosen.

It is recognized by IHIE[75] that vertical features are uncomfortable for some people and should only be used where necessary. This is good practice and should be maintained. There is no reference in IHIE (2002) to the potential of traffic calming features as being problematic for people who are blind or partially sighted. e.g. through the removal of the kerb there is no indicator that they have reached the end of the pedestrian area and are about to step onto the road. JCMBPS suggests that caution needs to be taken with the installation of raised tables and that guidance on the use of tactile paving on these raised tables should be followed. Refer to Section 3 for more detail on this issue.

The issues that will be assessed in the site testing relate to:

  • Is a straight, clear pedestrian route possible within an indirect vehicle route?
  • Is it wide enough for disabled users?
  • Does street furniture/planting become an obstacle to navigation?
  • Are people more at risk when stepping out from behind furniture when not clearly visible from a distance by drivers?
  • Do vehicles drive slower in illogical layouts?

6.1.4 Access Points

Home Zones must be clearly marked at their entrance and exits to ensure that all street users recognised the different nature of the area[76].

It is stated that a textured ground surface should be used to mark the entrance to Home Zones to help visually impaired people know when they are entering and leaving the area. This should not be blister paving, rather corduroy which means, "proceed with caution". It is recommended that this may be used after consultation with local visually impaired people.

The correct use of this tactile paving will be assessed in the site tests as will the effectiveness of it in providing information to people that they are entering a Home Zone site.

The guidance document further suggests that more subtle design features should be included[77]. The site tests will assess whether these create a potential collision hazard to people and whether they assist with identification of the site and thus sufficiently signal the change in behaviour and mobility for users.

The guidance document further recommends the use of standard blister paving in accordance with the DTLR guidance[78] to be used at the crossings at the entrance[79]. Again, the correct installation of this will be assessed at the site testing as will the users mobility within this space and perception of well-being when using the access points and movement into the Home Zone site.

6.1.5 Parking

There are a number of parking possibilities within a Home Zone and the choice of parking provision is likely to be a key concern especially in existing sites as it is likely to affect the layout[80]. Those parking provisions most likely to effect the layout of the streetscape are on-street and on-plot car parking. This is recognised as likely to be an issue that will dominate resident discussion especially in relation to demand and in relation to numbers of spaces and vicinity to the resident[81]. If allocated parking is provided and adhered to the site testing will investigate whether it creates obstacles for disabled people both in terms of access points and clear routes therefore not to interrupt safe and easy mobility. Refer to Sections 6.1.3 and 6.1.4 for further details on this requirement or whether, as was highlighted in IHIE, uninterrupted parallel parking actually creates reinforced linearity in the street[82], which may be more suitable for people who require this layout out for easy mobility. This will be explored at the site tests.

If the parking problem is not resolved at the design stage, there may be more likelihood for indiscriminate parking, possibly on clear routes which may be used by pedestrians, especially if there is a lack of distinction between the road surface and pavement areas. This is likely to be problematic for people who are blind or partially sighted as indiscriminate parking is highlighted as being one of their biggest problems to mobility (refer to Section 3 for further details).

IHIE recognises that it may be necessary to designate parking spaces for disabled people and these spaces should meet best practice guidance. Also that spaces could be made larger from the outset to accommodate disabled parking if it is in if required after the scheme has been implemented[83]. Site testing will assess whether the correct dimensions are provided and also whether larger spaces are ever provided considering the high demand for parking.

6.2 Design of Street Elements

6.2.1 Street Furniture

For people who are blind or partially sighted there may be potential collisions with the features used to create an indirect route and also the elements that are central to making a Home Zone. This includes items such as seating, bollards, cycle racks or bin storage as well as pieces of art. IHIE[84] does recognise this to some extent stating that street furniture should be colour contrasted from its surroundings so it is more legible to blind or partially sighted people. This is in line with good practice guidance, however there may be an issue of achieving colour contrast in the external environment. Site testing will assess whether colour contrast is being achieved and if it is effective to warn people of the potential hazard. There is no reference within IHIE (2002) to the preferred height of bollards. Best practice guidance recommends that they should be a minimum of 1m high to increase visibility and reduce their potential as a trip hazard. This is an issue that will also be addressed in site tests.

Best practice guidance for disabled people[85] recommends that seating should be provided every 50m. There should also be no sharp edges, splays or projections that can not be detected at ground level by a cane user. These issues will be measured in site tests.

6.2.2 Lighting

IHIE[86] recognises that attention should be paid to lighting obstacles that have to be negotiated by drivers and people on foot. This is good practice as lighting obstacles makes them more identifiable to people who are blind or partially sighted. The mounting of street lighting units on walls to reduce clutter[87] is again best practice in terms of people who are blind or partially sighted. Inclusive Mobility (2001) states that, "Lamps should be mounted on walls or buildings wherever possible"[88], as it reduces the number of potential collision hazards and obstacles that have to be negotiated. On the other hand however, Home Zones: Challenging the Future of Our Streets suggests that lighting columns can also mark routes and strengthen linearity of the street[89]. This is something that would be potentially welcomed by disabled people who traditionally prefer a defined, linear logical layout. The location of the columns however has to be carefully considered so that they are positioned off the main circulation route. "Placing them at the back of the footway so near to the property line as possible is acceptable[90]". This is where recommended in traditional streetscapes, although should the location of the columns along the highway and pedestrian route assist with delineation then this may be the best positioning in the Home Zones streetscape. This is an issue that will be explored in site tests.

IHIE (2002) recognises that even lighting levels are required, avoiding pools of light and dark, to make access easier for visually impaired people[91]. Again this is in line with best practice requirements although Inclusive Mobility[92] does also make reference to the avoidance of glare and reflections which the IHIE (2002) does not specify. Inclusive Mobility refers to BS 5489 Code of Practice for Road Lighting, Part 3 which recommends maintained average illuminance figures varying from 3.5 to 10 lux[93]. The question will be whether this lux level is sufficient. JCMBPS does state that street lighting should be increased by 25%[94]. Furthermore, discussions with a researcher working on a research project for DfT to develop street audit software stated that his research had found that 30 lux was preferable in relation to security issues. The lux level is an issue that needs to be explored further both in available research through further contact with experts in this field but is outside the remit of this project.

The colour spectrum of the lighting is also an issue raised within Home Zones: Challenging the Future of our Streets. There is no direct reference to the preference of colour but in Biddulhp (2001) it states that white lighting rather than yellow lighting can help create better colour definition at night and highlight paving features[95]. This is good practice in terms of visibility for people who are blind or partially sighted.

6.2.3 Materials

It is recommended that a limited use of material is used to minimise visual clutter. Ideally the only change of paving material in colour or texture should be to have a distinct purpose - for example to denote car-parking spaces or to define a key pedestrian route[96]. It will be interesting to assess whether a change in material has been limited to this recommended usage as for people who are blind or partially sighted this will assist in removing visual clutter and providing a clear, more logical environment.

The use of artificial coloured materials is not recommend as they can fade over time, compromising the original design intent[97]. This is good practice in terms of the colour contrast remaining as strong as possible to assist with identification by people who may need to use it as an orientation clue. This recommendation is however at odds with the requirement for excessive contrast between materials to be avoided[98]. This is likely to reduce the ability for people to detect the demarcation of routes or spaces. This issue needs to be explored during site tests and also in discussion with design professionals during focus groups.

The research should also take into account Conservation Areas where contrasting materials may not be preferable due to the requirement of existing materials[99].

It is recognised that a "rumbly" material used on vehicle tracks keep traffic speeds low. If these rough surfaces are used, then it is required that clear and adequate smooth paths through the space along desire lines will need to be maintained for disabled people and cyclists[100]. This is a good practice requirement for disabled people in terms of the path but as outlined in Section 6.1.1.2, sharing of space with cyclists is a concern. The provision of this will therefore be assessed in site tests.

6.2.4 Planting

Planting is considered as a vital element in the design of Home Zones[101].

It is recognised by design guidance for disabled people that vegetation adds to the attractiveness of a space and can also assist with orientation of visually impaired people particularly if they have a particular fragrance, color or distant shape. They need however to be positioned so that they do not create a collision hazard or present too much of a maintenance problem[102]. This will be assessed during site tests.

1: dptac.independent.gov.uk/wg/personalmobility/index.htm.
2: JCMBPS is an independent body consisting of representatives of all the principle organisations of and for blind, deafblind and partially sighted people, with a specific interest in mobility. jcmbps@guidedogs.org.uk.
3: JCMBPS (2002) Walking Strategy; JCMBPS (2005) Public Realm.
4: DPTAC (2002) Attitudes of Disabled People to Public Transport dptac.independent.gov.uk/pubs/research/apt/index.htm.
5: Guide Dogs, 1999, A New Way Forward - available from Guide Dogs 0118 9835 555; RNIB, 1999, Rights of Way - available from RNIB Customer Services; RNIB, 2002, Travellers Tales - available from RNIB Customer Services; Transport Research Laboratory; 1995, Gallon, C et al, Accidents Involving Visually Impaired People Using Public Transport or Walking.
6: Disability Rights Commission (2003) Creating an Inclusive Environment www.equalityhumanrights.com.
7: RNIB (1995) Building Sight.
8: RNIB (1995) Building Sight p.28.
9: RNIB (1999) Rights of Way.
10: JCMBPS (2002) Walking Strategy.
11: Beneficial Design (1999).
12: JCMBPS Response to IHIE Consultation on Home Zones Design Guidelines.
13: RNIB (1995) Building Sight p.40.
14: RNIB (1995) Building Sight p.29.
15: Beneficial Design (1999).
16: BOI (2004): Signage and Wayfinding for people with learning difficulties (Produced for ODPM. Yet to be published).
17: Department of Health (2001) White Paper Valuing People a New Strategy for Learning Disability in the 21st Century 2001. www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5086/5086.pdf.
18: ARTHUR P. and PASSINI R. (1992). Wayfinding: People Signs and Architecture (McGraw-Hill Bok Company) Chapter 8.4, p 67-68.
19: DISABILITY RIGHTS COMMISSION. (2003). Good Signs Improving signs for people with a learning disability. (London: Disability Rights Commission).
20: Ibid; GOLLEDGE R. G. ed. (1999). Wayfinding behavior Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press); NHS ESTATES. (1993). Design Guide Day Facilities for people with severe learning disabilities. (London NHS Estates); CRANDALL W. BRABYN J. BENTZEN B.L. MYERS L. (October 1999). Remote infrared signage evaluation for transit stations and intersections. (Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, October 1999, volume 36, issue 4, pp341- 355).
21: RNIB. (1995). Improving environments for people with visual and learning disabilities. (London: RNIB).
22: IHIE (2002) Home Zones Design Guidelines.
23: DfT (2005) Home Zones: Challenging the Future of Our Streets.
24: IHIE (2002) Home Zone: Design Guidance, p.12.
25: Ibid p.13.
26: DfT (2005) Home Zones: Challenging the future of our streets, p. 65: 4.1.
27: Ibid p.11.
28: DfT (2005) Home Zones: Challenging the future of our streets, p.12; IHIE (2002) Home Zones Design Guidelines.
29: DfT (2002) Traffic Advisory Leaflet 8/02: Home Zones - Public Participation.
30: JCMBPS: Response to Draft Document: Home Zones Design Guidelines.
31: IHIE (2002) Home Zones Design Guidelines p.11.
32: DfT (2005) Home Zones: Challenging the Future of Our Streets 2005.
33: IHIE (2002) Home Zones Design Guidelines p. 23.
34: Ibid p.29.
35: Ibid p.29: 3.5.6.
36: JCMBPS (2005) Shared Space in the Public Realm.
37: Within Reason: Access to Services for Blind and Partially Sighted People. Thomas (A) RNIB 1998.
38: IHIE (2002) Home Zones: Design Guidelines p.29: 3.5.1.
39: Ibid p.38-39.
40: JCMBPS (2005) Shared Space in the Public Realm.
41: Ibid.
42: JCMBPS: Response to Draft Document: Home Zones Design Guidelines.
43: IHIE (2002) Home Zone: Design Guidelines p.30/31: 3.5.9/10/.
44: Ibid p.30/31: 3.5.11/12/14.
45: Ibid p.24.
46: Ibid p.31: 3.5.12.
47: JCMBPS (2005) Shared Space in the Public Realm.
48: IHIE p.31: 3.5.13.
49: DfT 2002 Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces.
50: IHIE (2002) Home Zones: Design Guidelines p.31: 3.5.13.
51: IHIE (2002) Home Zones: Design Guidelines p.31: 3.5.15.
52: IHIE (2002) Home Zones: Design Guidelines.
53: Ibid p.31: 3.5.15.
54: JCMBPS (2005) Shared Space in the Public Realm.
55: Ibid and TFL (2005) Review of Simplified Streetscapes.
56: DfT (2005) Home Zones: Challenging the Future of Our Streets p.26.
57: Ibid p.26.
58: Ibid p.9.
59: Ibid p.68.
60: Ibid p.26.
61: IHIE (2002) Home Zones: Design Guidance p.31.
62: Ibid p. 46: 3.8.15.
63: IHIE (2002) Home Zones: Design Guidance.
64: JCMBPS (2005) Shared Space in the Public Realm.
65: RNIB (1995) Building Sight p.46.
66: IHIE (2002) Home Zones: Design Guidance p.31: 3.5.14.
67: DfT (2002) Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving.
68: DfT (2005) Home Zones: Challenging the Future of Our Streets p.66.
69: IHIE (2002) Home Zone Design Guidelines p.40: 3.7.11.
70: Ibid p.30: 3.5.7.
71: Ibid p.30.
72: DfT (2002) Inclusive Mobility p.26.
73: IHIE (2002) Home Zone Design Guidelines p.30.
74: Ibid p.40: 3.7.10.
75: Ibid p.40 3.7.11.
76: Ibid p.24: G9.
77: Ibid p.25: 3.3.6.
78: DfT (2002) Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces.
79: Ibid p.25 3.3.9.
80: IHIE (2002) Home Zones Design Guidelines p.35.
81: DfT (2005) Home Zones: Challenging the Future of Our Streets p.69: 4.5.
82: Ibid p.37: 3.6.18.
83: Ibid p.36: 3.6.14/15.
84: IHIE (2002) Home Zones Design Guidelines p. 44 3.8.2.
85: Philip Oxley (2001), Inclusive Mobility: A Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure p.26.
86: Ibid p.44: 3.8.4.
87: Ibid p.44 3.8.4.
88: DfT (2002) Inclusive Mobility p.32.
89: DfT (2005) Home Zones: Challenging the Future of Our Streets p.70: 4.6.
90: DfT (2002) Inclusive Mobility p.32.
91: IHIE (2002) Home Zone Design Guidelines: 3.8.5.
92: DfT (2002) Inclusive Mobility p.133.
93: Ibid p.134.
94: JCMBPS Response to Consultation on IHIE.
95: Biddulp, M (2001) Home Zones - A Planning and Design Handbook.
96: IHIE (2002) Home Zones Design Guidelines p.45; 3.8.7.
97: Ibid p.45: 3.8.9.
98: Ibid.
99: Ibid p.46: 3.8.10.
100: DfT (2005) Home Zones: Challenging the future of our streets, p.6: 3.8.11.
101: DfT (2005) Home Zones: Challenging the future of our streets, p.47.
102: RNIB (1995) Building Sight p.51.

[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]