Thank you all for your contributions both direct and through the list. To take the bull by the horns (to coin a phrase) I propose making our submission to the DfT (for them to pass on to the Audit Commission) along the lines below. Instead of asking them to give us guidance I propose telling them their definition is unclear, and that we are (helpfully) sorting it out for them so that they get consistent results from TCUG members. If I get no objections from you I'll circulate it to all the TCUG members at the same time as passing it to the DfT. What do you think? Pete Bull TCUG members (who include those with the reponsibility for preparing the information for BV165 -The percentage of pedestrian crossings with facilities for disabled people) 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. For completeness the full definition of BV165 is also included below. 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) It is suggested 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. Some authorities switch off audible indicators in residential areas late at night to avoid disturbance to residents, would such a crossing only comply if tactile indicators were also installed? 2.2) It is suggested that a crossing fitted either with audible indicators or tactile indicators (as appropriate depending on local conditions) would comply. Indicators should be available 24 hours a day, so if audible indicators are switched off at night tactile indicators will also be required for the crossing to 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) It is suggested 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) It is suggested that this "local conditions" option should only apply to the decision whether or not audible or tactile indicators are appropriate at a particular site. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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