Public Realm schemes emphasise the importance of ensuring that an appropriate hierarchy of road users is in place on streets which have a role beyond that of simply conveying traffic from one point to another. For example a shopping street in a town centre is a location where the needs of pedestrians can quite justifiably be put ahead of those of the drivers of motorised vehicles. Conversely, a motorway is not an appropriate, or safe, environment for pedestrians to travel along.
An important part of many Public Realm schemes is the concept of shared space, defined in Manual for Streets as:
“a street or place accessible to both pedestrians and vehicles that is designed to enable pedestrians to move freely by reducing traffic management features that tend to encourage users of vehicles to assume priority.”
And defined in Local Transport Note 1/11 is:
“…a design approach that seeks to change the way streets operate by reducing the dominance of motor vehicles, primarily through lower speeds and encouraging drivers to behave more accommodatingly towards pedestrians.”
Manual for Streets goes on to describe two other concepts, closely associated with shared space; level surface and comfort space. Level surface refers to shared space where the street space is not physically segregated by kerbs. Comfort space is space(s) within the design to discourage or prevent vehicular access.
The level surface aspect of shared space Public Realm schemes has proved to be a cause of concern to the visually impaired community. In March 2015 this concern prompted the then Minister of State for Transport, Baroness Kramer, to write to all relevant Local Authority chief executives on the subject of shared space and the public realm.
The letter emphasised the need to consult with all affected groups, stressing the importance of considering the needs of disabled people (among other groups) and reminded practitioners of their duties under the Equaility Act 2010.
The letter goes on to direct its readers to guidance produced by the National Federation of the Blind of the UK (NFBUK)[1] in 2013. The NFBUK recommended that this guidance be read in conjunction with Manual for Streets and LTN 1/11.
Section 2.0 of the guidance, “High kerbs, low kerbs or no kerbs ?” is of particular relevance in relation to shared space and the concept of a level surface. Several points are made which focus around the difficulties encountered by the visually impaired when kerbs are lowered or removed. A possible solution, put forward in the guidance (section 3.0) is a perimeter footway, protected by a standard height kerb and linked across the access streets by Puffin or Pelican crossings.
It is unclear to what extent the guidance in the NFBUK document has been taken on-board by highway authorities responsible for Public Realm schemes. Several local authorities have produced documents their approach to Public Realm and shared space. A very quick review of two of these documents suggests either no policy in relation to the visually impaired, or a policy that does not recognise the importance of kerbs stressed by the NFBUK.
In practice, the needs of the visually impaired have been recognised in the design of some Public Realm schemes. In one scheme, that was the subject of a Stage 1/2 Road Safety Audit by Road Safety Initiatives LLP, clear areas, away from motorised traffic, are indicated by line of studs. However the NFBUK document (section 2.9) indicates that an arrangement of this type would not be recognised by guide dogs and white cane users. In addition, the NFBUK are of the view it may not be adhered to by motorists. However, most Public Realm schemes contain strong visual clues, through the use of coloured surfacing and street furniture, to the areas intended for shared use and the area reserved for Non Motorised Users.
There appears to be some way to go before there is a meeting of minds between groups representing the visually impaired and the designers of Public Realm schemes. Those of us involved in road safety can contribute towards enhancing this understanding. In the auditing of schemes we can ensure that the needs of visually impaired pedestrians are not overlooked. In monitoring schemes we can identify problems inadvertently caused to the visually impaired. It should, eventually, be possible to design schemes that meet the needs of the visually impaired, without compromising the aspiration of Public Realm designers to create shared spaces.