Not for profit planning
  • Home
  • Services
    • Accessible transport
    • Inclusive streets and public realm
    • Strategy and planning
    • Governance
    • Policy development
    • Culture and heritage
  • News and updates
  • About me
  • Blog

Should 'continuous pavements' have tactile paving?

7/22/2019

0 Comments

 
I’m a big fan of the benefits of ‘continuous pavements’ which extend the footway over side roads. They give pedestrians clear priority over turning vehicles and provide a flat surface that makes crossing a side road much easier for anyone with a walking difficulty or mobility aid (including a wheelchair). They also slow down traffic, benefiting cyclists as well as people on foot. Commonly used in some parts of the continent, continuous pavements are becoming more common in the UK, often as part of neighbourhood improvement and cycling schemes. (Photo: Middlefield, Leith Walk, Edinburgh)
Picture
However, blind people have expressed serious concerns about the concept of continuous pavements, which RNIB oppose. As the RNIB says, the problem is that they “pitch us, without warning, into a shared space without knowing it.”

The
London Cycling Design Standards acknowledge these concerns, saying that continuous pavements “should currently be regarded as experimental in the UK. Further development of the concept is needed, in consultation with access groups, to determine acceptable approaches, given concerns over the lack of delineation between the footway and the area accessible to vehicles that runs over the entry treatment. Any proposal should be subject to an Equality Impact Assessment.” (P43)

So would the obvious design solution be to add tactile paving to continuous paving, to warn a visually impaired pedestrian that they are entering a space where they may encounter a vehicle? My hunch is that many advocates of continuous pavements would resist the use of tactile paving in such situations on the grounds that it would signal, to both pedestrian and driver, that walking priority is limited. Rather than walking across the side road with full confidence, a pedestrian should pause and check that vehicles aren’t turning into or out of the side road, undermining the ‘people over vehicles’ philosophy. Tactile paving also can inhibit the mobility of other disabled pedestrians, so it should not be over-used.​

But on many ordinary pavements, there is already a risk of encountering a vehicle every few yards - where there are driveways or garages. The reality is that many pavements are already ‘shared space’ to some degree, as is every crossing of a side road. Would anyone expect tactile paving to be installed every time a driveway crossed a pavement? (Saughton Road North, Edinburgh).
Picture
Sometimes, a pavement crosses a small development where several cars are parked; here the risk of encountering a vehicle is clearly increased, but still so low that tactile paving may not be suitable. (Stanhope Street, Edinburgh).
Picture
There comes a point, however, when the volume of traffic, and therefore the risk of pedestrian-vehicle conflict, is sufficiently high that it would surely be reasonable to provide a tactile warning to visual impaired pedestrians. And where a busy side road has too much traffic, it may not be suitable for a continuous pavement at all. (Yeaman Place, Edinburgh)
Picture
So, should continuous pavements have tactile paving? The answer is probably “it depends”. As with so many other aspects of street design, each site really needs to be designed specific to the context, especially taking account of traffic (volume and speed).

As the DfT is at last reviewing the woefully out of date guidance on ‘Inclusive Mobility’ and
tactile paving it is timely to give this some serious thought. It would be useful to have detailed national guidance, based on both research and consultation on if, where and when tactile paving is required on a continuous pavement.
0 Comments

Cherry-picking statistics downplays the impact of bad cycling

7/5/2019

0 Comments

 
I’m increasingly seeing a specific statistic cited by cycling advocates responding to criticisms of antisocial or dangerous cycling: i.e. that over 99% of pedestrian deaths are caused by motorists, while cyclists are responsible for fewer than 1% of pedestrian fatalities.  An example is Laura Laker's piece in the Guardian last year, while recent examples by journalists and broadcasters include Jeremy Vine and another Guardian journalist Peter Walkers’s Youtube video.  

This statistic shows, so the argument goes, that cyclists present a negligible hazard to pedestrians, and that criticism of cycling is misplaced. Road safety effort should be directed to motor vehicles which are overwhelmingly responsible for deaths and injuries on the road. And of course, this is true; for example, according to the
Department of Transport 2017 Great Britain traffic collision statistics (Table RAS10012), just under 1% of pedestrian fatalities were caused by collisions with bicycles. So why do I find this line of argument dispiriting?​

A sole focus on fatalities will always downplay the problem cyclists can cause pedestrians. The proportion of *injuries* caused by cyclist collisions with pedestrians will be considerably greater that this “1%” figure.  Simple physics (speed x mass) means that an impact between a bicycle and a pedestrian is less likely to kill than an impact between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian - but injuries, including serious injuries, are more frequent.
​

As the table below shows, the percentage of all serious injuries sustained by pedestrians resulting from a collision with a cyclist were considerably higher than 1%. The proportion of ‘slight’ injuries recorded for pedestrian/cyclist collisions is also more than double that for fatalities at 2.3%. However, this is almost certainly a very significant under-estimate of the ‘slight’ injuries caused by pedestrian-cyclist crashes. Many collisions which don’t involve a motor vehicle (and insurance implications) are unlikely to be reported to the police (and therefore officially recorded) especially if they don’t result in a serious injury.
Picture
So the *total* number of injuries to pedestrians caused by collisions with cyclists is considerably higher than the ‘1%’ figure often quoted (for fatalities). I would imagine by a factor of at least 3; possibly as high as 5 or more?  Of course, this is still very low compared to crashes involving motor vehicles, which are overwhelmingly responsible for pedestrian (and cyclist) casualties. So does it matter if cycling accounts for 1%, 3% or 5% of pedestrian collisions? Yes, I think it does. 
​
Firstly, selective cherry-picking of statistics discredits the basically sound argument that the  principal focus of road safety efforts should be on motor vehicles (rather than cyclists).

Secondly, we need to recognise the anxiety that cycling can cause pedestrians. While there seems to be little statistical or academic evidence on this, there can be no question that inconsiderate cycling - especially on pavements, or through pedestrian crossings - seriously intimidates many pedestrians; especially those who are blind, deaf, old or generally less confident and steady on their feet. Indeed, Peter Walker acknowledges in his video that pavement cycling can intimidate; but in the next breath describes it as “harmless”. 
​
While it is wrong for the media and politicians to disproportionately focus on cyclists’ involvement in pedestrian collisions, it is also wrong for cycling advocates to simply dismiss the impact of inconsiderate cycling as negligible or irrelevant. A little more empathy from some cycling campaigners - such as on the lines of Suzanne Forup’s excellent recent blog  - would not go amiss; it might also do more to win wider public support for more investment in cycling.
0 Comments

Let's talk about taxis...

4/5/2019

2 Comments

 
Picture
There has been a lot of discussion about the number of buses on Edinburgh’s Princes Street, and the idea of removing some or all of them as part of moves to reduce traffic in the city centre. (See here for my thoughts on the subject). However, I’ve seen very little discussion about taxis. When private traffic on Princes Street was first restricted 20 odd years ago, most council officials wanted taxis banned entirely but after lobbying by the taxi trade, this idea was dropped. It would be timely to revisit the matter. 

​Thousands of taxis use Princes Street each day - my surveys suggested that they could form more more than a quarter of all vehicles on the street. But many taxis carry no passengers at all. I carried out a count of how many passengers occupied 50 taxis in the block between Frederick and Hanover Streets in half an hour on the morning of 2 April. Just over half the taxis passing had no passengers, with the driver either plying for hire, or off duty.  Only 9 (18%) carried more than one passenger. The average occupancy of all taxis was 0.7 people (excluding the driver, obviously). More detailed surveys of different parts of the street and at different times are needed to establish better data, but these results raise important questions. Is this an efficient way to move people in the city centre? Is this the best use of the premium space that is Princes Street? Removing taxis would reduce congestion and pollution, speed up buses and make cycling safer.
​
Picture
Picture
The taxi trade would clearly be hostile to any plan to exclude them from Princes Street.  It would add to their costs - and that of their passengers. Many people making their living through taxis already feel under siege from the explosion in the number of private hire cars (which aren’t permitted to use Princes St) and threatened by policy measures which could be introduced as part of a Low Emission Zone. 

​I am a big fan of taxis as an important (and often under-valued) part of the transport mix, especially for disabled people and others who need door-to-door transport. But at the end of the day, taxis aren’t there for the benefit of the taxi trade. There are wider interests to consider and it would be timely to have a renewed discussion about where taxis are, and aren’t, appropriate in a city centre less dominated by traffic.

2 Comments

Motability: it’s other peoples’ money

2/8/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
Motability has been criticised again by the House of Commons Work and Pensions and Treasury Committees at evidence taken on 9 January. This follows publication of the recent report by the National Audit Office (NAO) which broadly endorsed the criticisms of executive pay, reserves and governance. Senior figures in both the Motability Charity and its commercial arm Motability Operations say they accept all the NAO recommendations - while appearing at the same time to justify all their actions. Some words used by MPs included “evasiveness”, “lack of transparency”, “defensiveness”. NAO’s head, Sir Amyas Morse, concluded his evidence by saying “there does need to be change”. 

Three observations: Firstly, risk management is fundamental to the business, and Motability Operations makes much of its “dynamic and robust approach” to managing risks (lots more like this screenshot in the Annual Report). So how didn't it spot the very obvious reputational and political risks currently resulting from its remuneration and reserves policies? They were surely not hard to foresee…
Picture
Secondly, much of Motability Operations’ justification for the levels of executive pay was made on the grounds that it is a complex business. The CEO was apparently paid £360,000 ‘retention payments’ in addition to long term incentive payments likely to exceed £2 million (which were only recently revealed to MPs). However, as a monopoly, Motability has no competitors; it has one principal source of income (disabled peoples’ benefits) which is in effect guaranteed; it has a single principal business activity (car leasing) and it operates solely in the UK. In essence it is a very simple business - it is big, certainly, with a turnover of over £4 billion - but that is not the same as complex.

Finally, from listening to the evidence of Motability representatives, there appears to be no real awareness whatsoever that the money it accumulates as a surplus is disabled people’s money. All the money in the system - including the assets of around £3 billion between the different  Motability organisations - derives from the disability benefits of individuals. Motability Operations really has no business collecting more from its customers than it needs, whether this is passed on to the Motability Charity or not; it’s other peoples money, not theirs.
0 Comments

Motability: good governance?

1/2/2019

1 Comment

 
Until last year, Motability (the supplier of cars for disabled people) attracted little public attention. However this changed last year when the Treasury and Work and Pensions Committees issued a highly critical joint report [https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/news-parliament-2017/motability-report-published-17-19/ following press criticism of the levels of its reserves and executive pay. This in turn led to a review by the National Audit Office, which broadly endorsed these criticisms in a report launched on 7 December 2018 https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-motability-scheme/.

I have been following these reports on behalf of the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland (MACS) which will advise Scottish ministers on any recommended action. Motability essentially consists of two parts: the Motability Charity, and its much bigger commercial arm Motability Operations, which leases the vehicles. The NAO raises questions on too many issues - from executive pay, value for money and the extent of influence of Motability Charity on Motability Operations - to comment on here, but one thing which has struck me is the apparently cosy world which seems to have dominated many key governance roles.

For example, until last year, the average tenure of Motability Charity trustees was 18 years. Motability Operations had the same auditor (Price Waterhouse Cooper) for 24 years until last year http://fr.zone-secure.net/-/MotabilityAnnualReportAndAccounts2018/-/#page=70 Four out of the five listed directors of Motability Operations appear to have been recruited from two companies (Lease Plan UK and Dial UK) which share a common address https://www.motabilityoperations.co.uk/about-us/our-executive-team/#0. In addition, it seems that almost all Trustees and Non Executive Directors have traditionally been London-based.

Motability is a success story, having grown massively since it was founded as a modest charitable venture by its current Chair Lord Sterling and the late Lord Goodman in 1977. Motability must now be by far the biggest player in the UK’s ‘accessible transport’ field, with some 625,000 customers and a turnover of over £4 billion a year. It would be therefore reasonable to expect the highest levels of transparency and accountability to its customers and the the public in general, especially as it is ultimately paid for entirely through disabled peoples’ benefits.  Stability may be a virtue, but would such ‘generous’ levels of executive pay and ‘large unplanned profits’ (to use NAO’s terms) have been challenged more effectively if there had been more change in personnel and greater diversity?

A number of significant changes appear to have been made in 2018, presumably in response to the new levels of political and NAO scrutiny: for example several new appointments have been made both to the Board of trustees of the charity and Non Executive Directors in Motability Operations, and a new auditor appointed. Motability (the charity) has promised to implement in full all the NAO recommendations, so is likely to remain in public eye in 2019 while efforts are made to improve governance.
1 Comment

Princes street traffic/buses (part two)

9/29/2018

0 Comments

 
Last winter, I carried out a short traffic survey of Princes Street. I wanted to see if Princes Street is really clogged up with buses, as is claimed increasingly in some quarters. Only half the traffic on the street turned out to be local buses.I repeated the exercise in August, to see if there was a marked seasonal difference and the answer seems to be no.
Picture
Local service buses again formed less than half of all traffic in Princes Street, with other significant vehicles including tourist buses and especially taxis. Many of these vehicles don’t stop at all on Princes Street, using it simply as a short cut thoroughfare. If reducing traffic on Princes Street is a key aim (as it appears to be as part of the ‘City Centre Transformation initiative’), wouldn't it make sense to look at removing such traffic first?​
Picture
Before any plan to significantly remove buses from Princes Street is developed, a much more nuanced discussion is needed on what the street is for (especially the balance between ’movement’ and ‘place’) and what are the implications of major changes on other city centre streets. There are also, as I argued previously, a number of other small-scale measures (from improved traffic enforcement to minor bus route changes) which should be explored before any major change to the bus network is contemplated.

Of course, these surveys (both carried out on a Wednesday afternoon) would need to be corroborated by proper traffic counts, including at morning and afternoon peaks and weekends. But they provide enough evidence to show there’s a risk of arriving at quick ‘solutions’ without first establishing the necessary information.
0 Comments

The Iron Law of Street Clutter: “Clutter attracts clutter”

4/28/2018

2 Comments

 
Picture
Another thought on street clutter...although widely recognised as a significant problem for pedestrians (both because it reduces the available space for walking and because it can represent a serious hazard for some people, most obviously those with visual impairments) what is less widely acknowledged is the apparent effect that street clutter has on attracting other clutter.
From my observations, there seems to be a clear pattern where temporary obstacles of one kind or another are often placed next to other obstacles. For example, an ‘A-board’ may be placed next to (or chained to) a signage pole. Old roadworks debris (cones, signs, sandbags etc) are left beside or behind a utility box or cycle stand. Wheelie bins may be placed next to a phone box and so on. Fly tipping of old mattresses or pallets etc is most likely to be next to some pre-existing clutter. Cycle stands on the pavement will invite the addition of A-boards or bins. The more untidy the space is, the more likely something will be added to it. So clutter attracts clutter - I’ve come to think of this as “the Iron Law of Street Clutter”.
Picture
Picture
Picture
This is important because not only does one form of clutter seem to encourage the accumulation of more clutter, but it is often the combination of different forms of clutter - say ‘A-boards’ and signage poles - which most restrict pavement space and which most cause danger. No clutter is much better than some clutter.
Picture
2 Comments

Where is the appetite for decluttering?

1/10/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) has announced its programme of annual awards for 2018. Unfortunately there is no category this year for ‘reducing street clutter’ as in 2017. This award was a very welcome initiative in view of the publication of the new Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD, or ‘Traffic Signs Regs’) in 2016. 

To those unfamiliar with this less-than exciting sounding document, this is the statutory guidance which governs when and where road signs are required. The guidance states ” the number of traffic signs has doubled in the past 20 years. This is unsustainable, and bears out the need to reduce signing wherever possible. A culture change is needed in the way signing is used” (2.9).​
Picture
Picture
Many streets throughout the UK are littered with dozens of poles bearing signs indicating parking and loading restrictions, or warning of hazards. Leaving aside aesthetic considerations, they narrow the walking space for pedestrians especially if combined with other street clutter and can be a hazard for those with disabilities and visual impairments. It is also common to see signage poles with no sign on them, a pet hate of mine.

Many of these signs are no longer required at all under the new TSRGD policy - local authorities now have much more discretion and flexibility on how best to advertise Traffic Regulation Orders and such like which were previously strictly prescribed. The 2016 guidance also relaxes the former requirement for many signs to be lit, recognising that there are many more options for high-visibility signs now on the market. This has huge potential for councils to save money through reduced electricity consumption and cheaper maintenance.
​

Despite its timeliness, my understanding is that the CIHT’s decluttering award last year did not attract many entrants. Particularly disappointing is that no entry was received from Scotland, I understand. Not one of Scotland’s 32 local authorities had either the desire, or the material, to submit an entry for what would surely be a ‘quick win’ in making streets less cluttered and easier for people to use. There are not many opportunities to both improve streets and saving money at the same time.
Picture
Inadequate, narrow pavements are rife across the UK and realistically, funding to widen them significantly is not there in the short to medium term. Keeping them clear of clutter should therefore be a top priority for councils wanting a cost-effective way to encourage people to walk, with all the benefits that brings to the local community and economy. Lets hope that a decluttering culture will come into fashion soon, and the CIHT will resume its award ‘by popular demand’.
0 Comments

Don't mess with Princes Street buses lightly!

12/6/2017

9 Comments

 
Picture
During his recent work in Edinburgh (1) the influential Danish urban designer Jan Gehl reportedly described Princes Street as a “big bus station”. Certainly, the pedestrian environment is dominated by traffic, which can also obscure the famous views to the Old Town and Castle. There now seem to be growing whispers of a radical change to Edinburgh’s transport system; to shift buses off Princes Street.  
​

The Council is currently consulting on hugely unpopular proposals for a triangular gyratory system on Picardy Place (2) on the north-east edge of the UNESCO World Heritage site. Officials have recently claimed that one benefit of the scheme is that it would enable buses from the north side of Edinburgh to terminate there and turn around. Passengers for Princes Street and beyond would then be expected to change onto an expanded tram network, so removing hundreds of buses a day from Princes Street. This is not something that should be considered lightly.
Picture
Edinburgh’s bus network is widely recognised as the best in Scotland, with 27.4% of adults reportedly using the bus nearly every day, and bus use at nearly twice the Scottish average (3). Buses are relatively cheap, modern and frequent and contribute significantly to Edinburgh’s enviably low share of commuting by private car. There is a reason that so many buses travel along Princes Street - that it is where people want to go. Bus passengers also value direct services. There is considerable resistance to interchanging on public transport (4), and of course having to get off the bus and onto another vehicle is harder for some people than others: notably disabled people, older people, parents with small children, those with luggage etc. These equality issues are a fundamental consideration. A major change in the bus system without careful thought could risk this success story.

So what can be done about congested Princes Street? I carried out a snapshot survey of traffic on Princes Street recently and found that local buses accounted for only half of the traffic on the street (table and chart below). Taxis and express buses also contributed significantly to traffic levels and this holds true even excluding bicycles (which occupy negligible space).  This snapshot (for one hour on a November Wednesday afternoon) may not be typical, but it indicates that local buses aren’t the whole cause of Princes Street congestion. 
Picture
Picture
If the tram is extended to Leith, as seems the intention, there would presumably be a significant reduction in bus services which duplicate much of the route. It should also be possible to re-route some bus services two that more cross Princes Street, rather than run along it. There are also a number of other options to reduce congestion that don’t require any changes to local bus services at all. All these options can - and should - be explored fully before any thought is given to the nuclear option of forcing passengers to change public transport:
  • banning taxis;
  • banning express buses;
  • banning private tourist coaches, minibuses etc;
  • setting up a terminus for coaches at the west end of the city;
  • enforcement of red light jumping and yellow box encroachment which snarls up traffic,
  • adding bus stops, to reduce bus queuing on Princes Street;
  • adjusting traffic signal timings.
Picture
Of course, there will be pros and cons with all of these options, but these kind of measures - and no doubt others - could realistically halve the number of vehicles on Princes Street. They should be thoroughly explored before an assumption takes hold that making passengers change buses is a good idea. Hopefully, the ‘City Centre Transformation’ initiative announced by the Council in October 2017 to look at how best to manage the city centre will provide a means to do that.
  1. Gehl Architects, Public Space Public Life, 1998/2010 http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/237/edinburgh_revisited
  2. http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/2394/latest_picardy_place_designs_revealed
  3. Edinburgh by Numbers 2017, Tables 109,111 http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20247/edinburgh_by_numbers/1012/edinburgh_by_numbers
  4. For example p90 in: http://www.trpa.org/documents/rseis/New%20References%20for%20Final%20EIS/Balcombe%20et%20al%202004.pdf
9 Comments

Invest in walking to aid low income workers

11/13/2017

1 Comment

 
People on lower incomes are much more likely to walk to work thank those on higher incomes, who are much more likely to drive. While this may be an intuitive and obvious statement, the difference in the travel-to-work patterns of poorer and wealthier people in Scotland is starkly evident from statistics published by Transport Scotland earlier this year. * The chart below shows the correlation between income and driving; and also the inverse correlation between income and walking. This demonstrates, not for the first time, the importance of investing in walking not only on environmental and health grounds, but also to promote social equality.
​
Picture
* scot-tran-stats-35-chapter11-personal, Table 11.18 bit.ly/2jn0V10
1 Comment
<<Previous
Forward>>

     “I hate the way everyone responsible for urban life seems to have lost sight of what cities are for. They are for people” Bill Bryson, Neither here Nor there, 1991 p61

    Welcome to my occasional blog: mostly this is about making public places inclusive and attractive, but I may touch on other policy and governance topics…


    Archives

    August 2023
    April 2023
    November 2022
    January 2022
    May 2021
    March 2021
    December 2020
    December 2019
    July 2019
    April 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    September 2018
    April 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    August 2017
    May 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    February 2016

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.