[TCUG] Re: Putting BV165 to bed
- From: "Hill, Reg" <R.Hill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:22:14 +0100
Peter
All the important points are well documented in your submission . I agree on
the approach and I am sure they will find that their definition is
clarified by your helpful comments.
Reg
-----Original Message-----
From: Bull Peter [mailto:Peter.Bull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 10 July 2002 18:39
To: tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [TCUG] Putting BV165 to bed
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
**********************************************************************
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does
not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions
and other information in this message that do not relate to the official
business of the Council of the City and County of Cardiff shall be understood
as neither given nor endorsed by it.
**********************************************************************
Mae'n bosibl bod gwybodaeth gyfrinachol yn y neges hon. Os na chyfeirir y
neges atoch chi'n benodol (neu os nad ydych chi'n gyfrifol am drosglwyddo'r
neges i'r person a enwir), yna ni chewch gopio na throsglwyddo'r neges. Mewn
achos o'r fath, dylech ddinistrio'r neges a hysbysu'r anfonwr drwy e-bost ar
unwaith. Rhowch wybod i'r anfonydd ar unwaith os nad ydych chi neu eich
cyflogydd yn caniatau e-bost y Rhyngrwyd am negeseuon fel hon. Rhaid deall nad
yw'r safbwyntiau, y casgliadau a'r wybodaeth arall yn y neges hon nad ydynt yn
cyfeirio at fusnes swyddogol Cyngor Dinas a Sir Caerdydd yn cynrychioli barn y
Cyngor Sir nad yn cael sel ei fendith.
**********************************************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
Other related posts:
