[TCUG] Re: BV165 - Submission to DfT
- From: "Wallis, Ian" <Ian.Wallis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 09:59:52 +0100
One of our concerns in Derby is that the indicator no longer includes zebras
- over the past few years we have upgraded both zebras and pelicans to meet
the new standards. This work will not be reflected in the new indicator and
it is likely that our results would show a drop.
Incidentally if the crossings are supposed to conform to "Guidance on the
use of tactile paving surfaces, DTLR 1999" should the flush kerbs be painted
white - if so then with none in Derby our indicator will be zero!!
Ian Wallis
-----Original Message-----
From: Bull Peter [mailto:Peter.Bull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 08 July 2002 17:33
To: tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [TCUG] BV165 - Submission to DfT
At the last TCUG meeting I undertook to pass on to the DfT our concerns
about the recently revised BVPI 165 - The percentage of pedestrian crossings
with facilities for disabled people (I've included the definition at the end
of this e-mail). I've not had any further contributions, so I'll sum up what
I think people are concerned about below, and if there are no further
concerns I'll send this on to the DfT who have said they will take it up
with the Audit Commission.
The definition asks us to calculate "... the percentage of signal controlled
crossings ...". It is not clear what is to be counted as one crossing. Do
crossings on dual carriageways count as one crossing or two? Does a major
junction or signalled roundabout with many crossings all controlled by one
controller count as one crossing or many? Is it reasonable that a single
pelican should have the same impact on the indicator as a junction with four
dual-carriageway arms?
The definition asks for "... audible and tactile signals (as appropriate)
...". Does this mean that only crossings which incorporate both audible and
tactile indicators count, as might be argued are necessary to cater for the
deaf blind? If so, in order to improve their performance indicators, most
authorities would have to divert resources away from providing tactile
facilities at those existing sites which cannot have audible facilities,
towards providing tactile indicators at sites which already have audible
indicators. The effect would be to divert investment from one minority - the
visually impaired - to a much smaller minority - the deaf blind.
The definition asks for "... dropped kerbs ... installed in accordance with
... Guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces, DTLR 1999 (dropped kerbs
and tactile paving)" This publication requires kerbs to be flush with the
carriageway for the benefit of wheelchair users, even though this is not
approved by some visually handicapped users. Some authorities have
interpreted this to mean truely flush, others less than 6mm upstand, at
least one has come to agreement with their local disabled representatives to
compromise and have a 12/13mm upstand. A requirement to adopt the strict
flush definition could lead to the indicator for a lot of authorities
dropping to 0%. If a more generous interpretation is allowed, authorities
who have changed from larger upstands to flush or almost flush may see no
benefit in their perfomance indicator as a result of the investment.
Finally the definition states "It is assumed, however, that for each of the
crossings included in the BVPI an assessment will have been made by the
local authority, against the above guidance, and that those crossings
counted as meeting the BVPI will have the facilities appropriate to their
local conditions." This clause could overcome the problems raised by the
dropped kerb issue - local conditions being construed to include a
compromise agreement. However, wider application of the "local conditions"
option could make comparison of the indicator between different authorities
meaningless.
BVPI 165 - The percentage of pedestrian crossings with facilities for
disabled people
Source of definition: Best Value Performance Indicators 2002/03
Definition:
Only include controlled crossings - pelicans, puffins, toucans and
pedestrian facilities at traffic signalled junctions.
Calculate the percentage of signal controlled crossings incorporating
dropped kerbs, tactile paving and audible and tactile signals (as
appropriate) installed in accordance with the following guidance:
Guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces, DTLR 1999 (dropped kerbs and
tactile paving)
The Design of Pedestrian Crossings, LTN 2/95, TSO 1995
Audible and Tactile Signals at Pelican Crossings, TAL 4/91, DTLR 1991
Audible and Tactile Signals at Signal Controlled Junctions, TAL 5/91, DTLR
1991
Puffin Pedestrian Crossings, TAL 1/01
Installation of Puffin Pedestrian Crossings, TAL 1/02
It will not be appropriate in every circumstance for there to be an audible
signal because of the proximity of crossings. It is assumed, however, that
for each of the crossings included in the BVPI an assessment will have been
made by the local authority, against the above guidance, and that those
crossings counted as meeting the BVPI will have the facilities appropriate
to their local conditions.
Pete Bull
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning Transport & Highways, Sheffield City Council, Howden House,
1 Union Street, Sheffield, S1 2SH Tel: (0114) 273 6174
The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not be
disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. If you are not the
addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in your email software
as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot accept any responsibility
for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it has been transmitted
over a public network. If you suspect that the message may have been
intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
**********************************************************************
The views expressed in this email are personal and may not
necessarily reflect those of Derby City Council, unless explicitly
stated otherwise
This email, and any files transmitted with it, are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please
notify me immediately.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you should not
copy it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other
person.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been
swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
However, we cannot accept liability for viruses that may be in
this e-mail. We recommend that you check all e-mails with an
appropriate virus scanner.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
-- HTML Attachment decoded to text by Ecartis --
RE: [TCUG] BV165 - Submission to DfT
One of our concerns in Derby is that the indicator no longer includes zebras
- over the past few years we have upgraded both zebras and pelicans to meet
the new standards. This work will not be reflected in the new indicator and
it is likely that our results would show a drop.
Incidentally if the crossings are supposed to conform to "Guidance on the
useof tactile paving surfaces, DTLR 1999" should the flush kerbs be painted
white - if so then with none in Derby our indicator will be zero!!
Ian Wallis
-----Original Message-----
From: Bull Peter [mailto:Peter.Bull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[1]]
Sent: 08 July 2002 17:33
To: tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [TCUG] BV165 - Submission to DfT
At the last TCUG meeting I undertook to pass on to the DfT our concerns
about the recently revised BVPI 165 - The percentage of pedestrian crossings
with facilities for disabled people (I've included the definition at the end
of this e-mail). I've not had any further contributions, so I'll sum up what
I think people are concerned about below, and if there are no further
concerns I'll send this on to the DfT who have said they will take it up
with the Audit Commission.
The definition asks us to calculate "... the percentage of signal controlled
crossings ...". It is not clear what is to be counted as one crossing. Do
crossings on dual carriageways count as one crossing or two? Does a major
junction or signalled roundabout with many crossings all controlled by one
controller count as one crossing or many? Is it reasonable that a single
pelican should have the same impact on the indicator as a junction with four
dual-carriageway arms?
The definition asks for "... audible and tactile signals (as appropriate)
...". Does this mean that only crossings which incorporate both audible and
tactile indicators count, as might be argued are necessary to cater for the
deaf blind? If so, in order to improve their performance indicators, most
authorities would have to divert resources away from providing tactile
facilities at those existing sites which cannot have audible facilities,
towards providing tactile indicators at sites which already have audible
indicators. The effect would be to divert investment from one minority - the
visually impaired - to a much smaller minority - the deaf blind.
The definition asks for "... dropped kerbs ... installed in accordance with
... Guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces, DTLR 1999 (dropped kerbs
and tactile paving)" This publication requires kerbs to be flush with the
carriageway for the benefit of wheelchair users, even though this is not
approved by some visually handicapped users. Some authorities have
interpreted this to mean truely flush, others less than 6mm upstand, at
least one has come to agreement with their local disabled representatives to
compromise and have a 12/13mm upstand. A requirement to adopt the strict
flush definition could lead to the indicator for a lot of authorities
dropping to 0%. If a more generous interpretation is allowed, authorities
who have changed from larger upstands to flush or almost flush may see no
benefit in their perfomance indicator as a result of the investment.
Finally the definition states "It is assumed, however, that for each of the
crossings included in the BVPI an assessment will have been made by the
local authority, against the above guidance, and that those crossings
counted as meeting the BVPI will have the facilities appropriate to their
local conditions." This clause could overcome the problems raised by the
dropped kerb issue - local conditions being construed to include a
compromise agreement. However, wider application of the "local conditions"
option could make comparison of the indicator between different authorities
meaningless.
BVPI 165 - The percentage of pedestrian crossings with facilities for
disabled people
Source of definition: Best Value Performance Indicators 2002/03
Definition:
Only include controlled crossings - pelicans, puffins, toucans and
pedestrian facilities at traffic signalled junctions.
Calculate the percentage of signal controlled crossings incorporating
dropped kerbs, tactile paving and audible and tactile signals (as
appropriate) installed in accordance with the following guidance:
Guidance on the use of tactile paving surfaces, DTLR 1999 (dropped kerbs and
tactile paving)
The Design of Pedestrian Crossings, LTN 2/95, TSO 1995
Audible and Tactile Signals at Pelican Crossings, TAL 4/91, DTLR 1991
Audible and Tactile Signals at Signal Controlled Junctions, TAL 5/91, DTLR
1991
Puffin Pedestrian Crossings, TAL 1/01
Installation of Puffin Pedestrian Crossings, TAL 1/02
It will not be appropriate in every circumstance for there to be an audible
signal because of the proximity of crossings. It is assumed, however, that
for each of the crossings included in the BVPI an assessment will have been
made by the local authority, against the above guidance, and that those
crossings counted as meeting the BVPI will have the facilities appropriate
to their local conditions.
Pete Bull
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning Transport &Highways, Sheffield City Council, Howden House,
1 Union Street, Sheffield, S1 2SH Tel: (0114) 273 6174
The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not be
disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. If you are not the
addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in your email software
as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot accept any responsibility
for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it has been transmitted
over a public network. If you suspect that the message may have been
intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug[2]
**********************************************************************
The views expressed in this email are personal and may not
necessarily reflect those of Derby City Council, unless explicitly
stated otherwise
This email, and any files transmitted with it, are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please
notify me immediately.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you should not
copy it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other
person.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been
swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
However, we cannot accept liability for viruses that may be in
this e-mail. We recommend that you check all e-mails with an
appropriate virus scanner.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
--- Links ---
1 mailto:Peter.Bull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2 //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
Other related posts:
