[TCUG] Final word on BV165
- From: Bull Peter <Peter.Bull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:40:42 +0100
I've had no major objections except for one pointing out that TAL 4/91 and
TAl 5/91 for audible indicators allow for them to be switched off at night,
and only suggest rather than require tactiles as well in those
circumstances. In the light of that I've deleted the last sentence in 2.1
and the second sentence of 2.2. I've also reworded the first paragraph and
changed "It is suggested ..." to "TCUG will recommend ...", in 1.2, 2.2, 3.2
and 4.2. See below for the completed document. I will now send this to DfT
and ask them to take it up with the Audit Commission, and will also forward
the recommendations to all TCUG members and ask them to use them when
preparing the next BV165 performance indicator.
Peter Bull
BV165 - TCUG recommended clarification of the indicator
In many local authorities, those with the reponsibility for preparing the
information for BV165 (The percentage of pedestrian crossings with
facilities for disabled people) are TCUG members. They have a number of
concerns about the detailed definition of some parts of the indicator. We
feel that unless clear guidance is given the figures produced by different
authorities will be incompatible, and part of the basis of CPA will be
undermined. The four main areas of concern are set out below, together with
the detailed definitions TCUG members have agreed to use to prepare figures
for the revised 2002/3 indices - it is suggested that the Audit Commission
may wish to incorporate these definitions in any more detailed guidance it
may issue in the future.
1.1) The definition asks for "... 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 pelican on
a minor single carriageway should have the same impact on the indicator as a
major junction with four or more dual-carriageway arms?
1.2) TCUG will recommend that a signal-controlled crossing be defined as
carrying pedestrians from one footway to another footway, irrespective of
any intermediate islands or refuges. So that a mid-block crossing of a
single or dual carriageway would count as one crossing, and a four-arm
junction with crossings on all arms would count as four crossings, whether
the arms were single or dual carriageways.
2.1) 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.
2.2) TCUG will recommend that a crossing fitted either with audible
indicators or tactile indicators (as appropriate depending on local
conditions) would comply.
3.1) 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 states that kerbs
should preferably be flush with the carriageway for the benefit of
wheelchair users, with a maximum upstand of 6mm. Many authorities are
concerned that drainage problems can lead to ponding at truly flush sites,
which discourages pedestrians from standing near the kerb edge. This can
restrict the pedestrian's visibility of oncoming traffic and make them less
visible to drivers, they may also step outside the kerbside detection zone
of puffin crossings. Most authorities adopt a nominal 6mm upstand and at
least one came to an agreement with their local disabled representatives
many years ago for a 12mm upstand. Other authorities point to the difficulty
of laying stone kerbs in conservation areas to exact measurements so that
kerbs laid to a nominal 6mm upstand may vary slightly in practice - would
any variation above 6mm lead to non-compliance for the site?
3.2) TCUG will recommend that compliant crossings should have an upstand
on
dropped kerbs of a nominal 6mm, with a tolerance of +/- 6mm, but that any
policy to lay crossings with an upstand greater than 6mm should only be
adopted with the agreement of local disabled groups representing both the
visually-impaired and wheelchair users.
4.1) 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 be construed to allow local conditions,
which might include local agreements and policies, to over-ride any of the
other definitions. Wide application of this "local conditions" option would
make comparison of the indicator between different authorities meaningless.
4.2) TCUG will recommend that this "local conditions" option should only
apply to the decision whether or not audible or tactile indicators are
appropriate at a particular site.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Other related posts:
- » [TCUG] Final word on BV165
