20 Years Since 'DDA'

A piece on the BBC News website about the protests in the early 1990s which brought about the Disability Discrimination Act has had me thinking.

DDA (as it has popularly been abbreviated) came into force the year I graduated with my civil engineering degree and it has been an issue always in the background for me, although in recent years it has rightly pushed its way into the foreground. I often hear people refer to things and being "DDA compliant", despite the fact that it was absorbed into the Equality Act in 2010, although I think it is a good example of how mainstream thinking about access has become.

I am not going to spend this post going through the legislation or what it means, the good people at the Equality and Human Rights Commission have done a far better job than I ever could. I am going to explore what I think this means for transport. I have referenced accessibility in transport quite a bit over the last (nearly) 3-years of blogging and if you are interested, just search "equality" and "accessible" for some more posts.

I am not suggesting that accessible streets and transport are now cracked, far from it, but there is a generation of designers and engineers which have now grown up with the concept and it does take this kind of time for change to become ingrained in the collective thinking. My first recollection of accessible transport was the Jubilee Line extension (JLE) of the London Underground which started on site when I was a student and which I used in its early years after opening in my regular visits to the Institution of Civil Engineers in Westminster, where I was involved with its Association of London Graduates & Students. 

Proper step-free on the Docklands Light Railway

The platform doors and level thresholds to the trains are memorable and in later years, I became a fan of the lifts to street level for when we took our brood for a day trip in their buggies. Even the placing and arrangement of lifts makes a difference. If you are travelling in a group, you don't want to have to hunt the lift - it should be where the stairs or escalators are placed. Also, if they are arranged to provide different entrance and exit doors, people don't need to turn round which is great for buggy pushers and wheelchair users alike - it is subtle, but these little things make a huge difference. I have appreciated the high level of accessibility on the JLE because travelling with small children reduces one's mobility and it is a prime example of how access for all really is access for all. Fast forward to Crossrail and until very recently, Transport for All (TfA) has been running a campaign to push for step-free access to this railway (i.e. train to street). 

At one point 33 of the 40 stations were planned to be step free and this is only because many London boroughs had to lobby extremely heavily when the enabling legislation was making its way through. Of course, 33 is not 40 and TfA's campaign has managed to push the number up to 37 stations (all within London) and most recently, after further pressure it was announced that all stations would be accessible. It remains shocking that the original plans didn't allow for all stations to be accessible and it just shows that we need to keep the pressure on. It costs a great deal of money to retrofit stations for accessibility, but in a modern and civilised society, this is a cost which mustn't be an obstacle to well, transport being an obstacle. Of course, we also have the DLR in London and many tram systems across the UK of a varying quality and age, but with the newest installations we have some excellent levels of accessibility.

Staying on the streets (see what I did there), I have to mention buses. In most UK cities I have visited, most buses seem to be low floor and "kneeling" (that is, the suspension can drop to bring the loading doors nearly level with the footway) and with extending ramps for wheelchair users (although the technology can still be hit and miss). Unless one is forced to catch a smoke-belching, semi-scrapped rail-replacement bus, the UK fleet is improving. The trouble is that the places where passengers are picked up and dropped off haven't kept up with the technology. I am talking about bus stops dammit!

An accessible bus stop. Photo from TfL guidance.

In London, the Mayor is throwing money at the boroughs to meet his crazy promise of 95% of bus stops in the Capital being fully accessible by 2016 (whether than is 1st January or 31st December, nobody is saying - probably the 2016/17 financial year from what I can work out!). Well, it isn't that crazy for inclusivity, but the target is tough and believe me, it is hard work surveying, consulting and building accessible bus stops. Transport for London has some good guidance on the subject, although it is a little old and is being reworked to include wider street issues.

So, onto the streets more generally. This is where the action is because so many people are trying to change things for the better, although not always for the better in terms of inclusivity. I'll start with walking. We have spent decades systematically removing walking as a viable transport mode for short journeys in our urban areas with convoluted crossings, footway parking, flooded subways, guardrail, so much clutter and traffic severance; not to mention road danger and pollution. In some ways, pedestrian infrastructure has been around a long time as we generally have footways everywhere, but the pedestrian has been marginalised by the car. 

Pedestrian Neatebox in action.

Look at some of our urban dual carriageways to see what I mean - crossings only at main junctions (with several crossings stages and green men if you are lucky) and no easy way to cross mid-block. If we actually measured the quality of our streets against the theme of DDA (as was), the results would be shocking - "reasonable adjustments" often accommodate car use! On the good news front we have seen the use of tactile paving to help people become pretty much mainstream (if not always done properly) and new technology such as "Pedestrian Neatebox" to assist people at signalised crossings gives us a glimpse of a future where the infrastructure can be tailored to the person. But, we also risk marginalising the most vulnerable in our society with our changes and by that I mean visually impaired people caught up in many of the "shared space" schemes placed on busy motor traffic corridors. 

This not a post against shared space, I have one brewing for the future. But, sharing is a matter of power and where the powerful can dominate, sharing will not be successful. So for me, the only successful shared spaces are those where the powerful are removed or substantially curtailed (in volume and speed) and that means limited, slow access for motors. This view will not sit well with some of my peers, but it needs stating. Don't take my word for it, if you do anything today spend 30 minutes watching "Sea of Change Film - Walking Into Trouble" and see and hear what the most vulnerable pedestrians have to say about how they are treated.

The East-West Cycle Superhighway under construction.

Of course, people wanting to cycle are also hugely excluded with many places in the UK suitable for only the "fit and brave" when it comes to cycling. Where routes away from traffic are provided, we confound anyone who cannot dismount or carry their cycle with barriers and gates. Use a non-standard cycle, then forget it, the infrastructure is not for you - have a look at this video to see what I mean (HT to Sally Hinchcliffe). Fortunately, we are seeing some good UK schemes now either as routes (such as the London East-West and North-South Cycle Superhighways) or at a city level such as the changes being made in Leicester. the really good stuff can be easily used by people using tricycles, handcycles, tandems and trailers and show what inclusive infrastructure design can be achieved. We need to remain careful that we don't erode the pedestrian experience otherwise what we build will be not better than the ring-road of yesteryear (at least from a walking point of view). 

DDA has done a great deal of good over the last 20 years when it comes to public transport and I think we have made great strides on our streets. But we clearly still have a long way to go. In the coming couple of years I expect to see a test case brought against a local authority under the Equality Act for barriers on either a footpath or a cycle route which cannot be used by all as sometimes this is what it takes to move the argument forward. In the mean time, we need to keep listening to the end users to make sure they are being properly accommodated.

Powerful Words

This week's post is more of a reply to a post from Katja Leyendecker, erstwhile engineer and now PhD researcher.

In her post, "A Common Language", Leyendecker decries a Sustrans suite of city-based publications which essentially present an inconsistent approach to the language being used to described "cycling facilities". She helpfully links to a US website which seeks to provide some smart language for various things linked to providing safer streets and is worth a look. The post ends with a plea to get some common language in the UK so people are able to know they mean the same thing.

Before I continue, let's have a non-cycling example. If I said "pavement", I would be confident that most people would think I am talking about the paved area along the side of the road, (a sidewalk to those over the Pond) which is normally separated with a kerb and normally at a higher level than the road. This is a mass-market word which probably didn't need me to describe. But, if you were talking to a highway engineer, they would recognise pavement as the various layers which make up a road (generally applying to the carriageway, but can mean the footway or indeed a cycle track). 

Oh, that's some more terms I have introduced. A carriageway is that part of a highway which is generally constructed for vehicular traffic to use (including cycles). Carriageways are generally designed to be heavy-duty because of the damage inflicted on them by motors. A footway is actually what someone like me would call a pavement. A cycle track is like a footway, but reserved for cycle use, except when it is shared with pedestrians.

I'll pause for a moment as this has got a little complicated and probably confusing. We professionals like our own language and this applies to highway engineers as it does doctors and the legal profession. Language is a powerful tool. It can be used as a common "code" between like minded professionals and it can be used to exert power over those who don't know that code. Despite me being a fan of people asking stupid questions (and there is no such thing as a stupid question), people don't like asking for clarity and so the "them" and "us" system of power is maintained.

But, please don't blame the professionals completely (apart from the lawyers of course). For highway terminology, we have primary legislation (hence my friendly pop at the lawyers) which sets it out. The Highways Act 1980 is the principal (but not only) source of interpretation with Section 328 (often written as S328 and the act written as HA1980) defining a "highway" and S329 defining most of the other terms we need to be concerned with. So, returning to the items mentioned above;


“carriageway” means a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way (other than a cycle track) over which the public have a right of way for the passage of vehicles

“footway” means a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only

“cycle track” means a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way, that is to say, a right of way on pedal cycles with or without a right of way on foot.


The reason for the confusion in the cycle track term is that it can be shared with pedestrians - i.e. a "shared use" cycle track. Even more confusingly, a shared use cycle track can be unsegregated (a free for all) or segregated (often with line painted down the middle). As a layperson, an engineer referring to a shared use, unsegregated, cycle track is a bit of a mess. I would also say that segregated and unsegregated isn't strictly defined legally, it comes from guidance (but don't worry about it here). A cycle track can also be purely for cyclists, but that is another discussion as well! I think that "cycleway" would be a better term and be consistent with "footway", but again, there is no legal definition.

There is no legal interpretation for road or pavement, although I guess road is probably understandable by most lay people. As I have said, pavement is probably used most consistently outside of highway engineering circles. Groups such as Living Streets and the media at large perpetuate the use of pavement in campaigns and reporting, but a little part of me always finds it grating when I am personally used to the "official" term of footway.  My guess with the Sustrans reports is local employees or volunteers involved haven't quite managed to get a "house style" and perhaps the messages are being watered down as a result.

Personally, I would rather stick to the legal terms where they exist because ultimately there is something we can refer to and we don't need to guess. Where there isn't then we should try to use similar language. For example, we have "continuous footway" which means a footway which extends across a side road - technically a footway can do this, but adding continuous gives a helpful descriptor.

I know this post seems to be me forcing my world-view onto others, but as explained in Leyendecker's post, inconsistency creates confusion and certainly within the cycling spheres, so many terms are bandied about no wonder we are in this state. The legislation can be pretty impenetrable sometimes and really, the Government should put together an authoritative list of definitions (with references) to make lives easier. But, it is official and when used in dealing with those within the highways community (who ultimately implement schemes) you will at least be able to put your point across. Of course, to speak to us on our terms means there is some learning to do - but always ask for clarification.

I will leave it up to you of course. I have a list of terms on the glossary page of the blog and the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain has an extensive dictionary on a whole range of terms (and you might recognise the odd definition from yours truly!).

Zombie Nation

As Jim climbed into his car, he shivered as he thought to himself "the paper shop is only down the road, but it is too cold to walk". Jane was running late as usual. She yelled at the kids to put their seat belts on. She tutted to herself as she saw Jim pull away, "why doesn't he walk to the paper shop, it's only round the corner" she grumbled. 5 minutes later, she pulled up on the 'school keep clear' zig-zags before shooing the kids out of the car into school.

Raj finally got fed up with sitting in the daily traffic jam, stuck there because just down the road parents would be dropping off the kids at the school. "Bollocks to this" he thought and so he overtook the queue on the wrong side of the road before swerving off down a side road, just missing a person crossing, "bloody zombie pedestrians, never look where they are going" he muttered as he slowed down behind the queue of people who had done the same thing as him. Sam shouted after the car which nearly hit her as she crossed the side road, "what were you thinking being on the wrong side of the road!"

John had to step on the brake sharply as the car came towards him, "didn't he see me for goodness sake, I'll have a passenger complain about my driving; I am sure that guy using the wheelchair at the last bus stop will have something to say because I didn't stop, but I just couldn't get into the kerb because of that idiot parked there to go into the shop" he groaned. 

Bill looked up from his book as the bus lurched, now stuck in the middle of the junction "this flipping bus journey gets worse and worse, stuck in this blasted traffic every day. Why can't they just rephase the traffic lights at this stupid junction", he thought. 

Emily was already late for college and rather than ambling along her normal route by the canal, she decided to take the direct route which involves a diagonal crossing at Campbell junction, "six green men to cross, I would have been better off by the canal after all", she groaned as she dodged a bus which was blocking the crossing. 

Yannis was arguing with a bloke on a bike, "I have a delivery to make and I can't go round the corner", "but you are not only blocking the cycle lane, just look at the traffic jam you have caused back through the lights" countered Paul. "It's not my fault", said Yannis," I have to make this drop now, otherwise I won't make by next one on the other side of town". Jess smiled as she weaved through the traffic thinking "why is he arguing with that van driver, he stops there every morning". SMASH. Jim hadn't seen the cyclist as he opened his door.

Yes friends, it's the run up to Halloween and this is my little hat-tip to the season, but this is not a nightmare. It is far worse then that. This is real life and is found daily in many of our towns and cities where we lurch on in a stupor worthy of a character from the brain of George Romero; unable to comprehend that there are better ways to run our local transport networks. Yes, the Zombie Apocalypse is here, we are the zombies and this is our very own Zombie Nation. They're us. We're them and they're us.

Interim Changes To Tactile Paving Guidance

The use of tactile paving is one subject to guaranteed to get engineers, urban designers and users into a debate on what is needed and how it should be laid out.

Well, the Government is currently consulting on some interim changes to the current guidance which dates back to 1998 and is apparently based on research carried out in the 1980s. This post is not about how tactile paving should be laid, but some observations on the proposals which I have separately sent off as a consultation response (you have until 13th November if you fancy responding). 

You may disagree with me, but I will try and give some reasoning. I will also add that the proposals are limited and are not a rewrite of the whole document. I did cover a fair bit of detail on tactile paving some time ago which was inspired from a workshop I attended where the draft consultation (and other issues) were debated.

The first thing to say is that the current guidance doesn't often fit into the real world, especially where tactile paving is installed on a corner, rather than being from a straight kerb line (which isn't a problem). The example on the left is aimed at people crossing the road to the right of the photo.

However, a visually impaired person walking ahead could mistake this layout for indicating that they should proceed ahead at a crossing point (which it's not). The problem is that people cannot align themselves with the crossing direction particularly easily.

The interim proposals are to ensure that where tactile paving is being provided on corners, that it be cut in to the same curve at the rear of the tactiles so a constant width strip is provided (typically 800mm or 1200mm).

You can see the idea in the consultation document, but a real-world example might be helpful, so here is a Google Streetview image of a site near Liverpool Street Station in the City of London;

You can see a constant curve of tactile paving 800mm deep. The square tactile paving units are cut in to suit as the little domes (or blisters) need to show the direction people should walk to meet the tactiles on the opposite side - note the stem to the left (right from a user point of view) which shows where the push-button for the crossing is located. In theory, this makes things much clearer for visually impaired users. Here is the comparison between the existing and proposed guidance (from the consultation);

The problem with the layout is that we now end up with two places to cut the slabs into and in my experience, it is hard enough to get people to do it right now, let alone with two sides to cut. If it is not done right, we end up with really small pieces of paving which are a horror to maintain as they always fail.

The other option being proposed is rather than cutting the rear strip in, whole slabs can be used, but stepped in - again from the consultation;

In essence, this is an approximation of the shape of the kerb on the corner and avoids having to cut slabs at the rear. From a user point of view, there is less likelihood of confusion as they will know that the staggered pattern runs parallel with the kerb. A stem can still be provided when required. 

This option has been provided because of concerns raised about cuts creating small pieces of slab. It has taken me a while to be won round, but because we need to do more to help users (hence the idea of the interim guidance), but I am happy to support the second version. The first is too much fiddling about from a practicality and maintenance point of view. Urban design types will prefer the first because it looks neater, fine, invest the time and money is designing the layout of the slabs and cutting in correct rather than leaving it to the poor contractor. Not every site uses high quality paving and so does it really need to be made more complicated? In fact, allow both options if we must. Where the kerb is straight, the guidance holds as it will just be two or three rows of slabs.

Next, we have an important suggestion and that is the issue of colour. Currently, red is reserved for controlled crossings (signals and zebra) which urban designers hate (because it is ugly), and any other colour can be used at uncontrolled crossings, so long it is a contrast to the surrounding paving colour. Most people specify buff for uncontrolled crossings as it works in most places. The proposal is to do away with the red requirement for controlled crossings and simply go for a colour contrast of 50% - the suggested text is;

The tactile surface used to indicate the presence of a controlled crossing should provide a contrast ratio of at least 50% to the surrounding paving in both wet and dry daylight conditions and when illuminated by the adjacent street lighting at night.

I am not yet sure how one measures this (we'll get there, I'm sure), but this means that for those with low colour vision, the contrast will be far clearer. Some mock ups are given which show how poorly red performs;

Clearly, dark tactiles on a light paving or light tactiles on a dark background works a treat. This also holds for uncontrolled crossings as well. Again, stems are used where required at controlled crossings. The current guidance allows for a departure from red if local conditions are appropriate (such as in conservation areas), but this has been pushed too much to a point where there is little or no contrast such as this example from Silk Street in the City of London (again from Google);

The paving and tactiles are all York stone and there is very little contrast for visually impaired people. The urban designers might get upset at dark grey or black tactiles here, but they would look better than red and do a proper job for users. Yes, I fully support this, but there needs to be some help on measuring contrast and selecting materials.

The next one will be controversial. It starts by stating; 

"Introduce a universal requirement for the boundary between carriageway and footway to be demarcated with tactile paving wherever they are at the same level"

OK, at first glance this makes some sense and I refer you to Exhibition Road in Kensington, London. I don't like the scheme, but that doesn't matter for now as the point is that a line of corduroy tactiles were provided to show a "footway" zone after a campaign and legal threat by Guide Dogs.

Of course, the main part of the road remains a traffic sewer and the need to show a footway makes a mockery of the so called "shared space" scheme (it is actually a single surface shared space, but that's another blog). So, visually impaired users want and need some sort of demarcation in this type of situation as an entirely separate issue from whether or not a particular scheme is a good idea.

It does seem fair enough, but then we get this as the suggested guidance;

Wherever there is no level change between carriageway and footway, or a level change of less than 60mm, the boundary between footway and carriageway should be delineated with a tactile surface of at least 800mm in depth. This rule should apply to any continuous barrier-free surface occupied by pedestrians and vehicles be that a flat top road hump, a raised side road or junction, or an extended level surface area.

Before I comment, let's look at the current guidance for a flat-top road hump across a whole junction;

You will note the guardrail provided in the location where one would expect a small kerb upstand (if done right, the tactile crossing points have a flush kerb which would raise slightly at corners as this type of hump would be 75mm to 100mm high normally, and kerbs are nominally 125mm high). I don't recall ever seeing this in real life!

So this proposed guidance gives the message to a visually impaired person that beyond this 800mm strip of tactile surface there is either a flush surface or a step of up to 60mm. The proposed interim guidance doesn't specify which tactile pattern is appropriate and so I have to assume corduroy, which is also sometimes used to show the start of a shared cycle track or at the top/ bottom of stairs. Of course, if there is a crossing point, it will be blister paving and at corners - your guess is as good as mine. Yes, this will make things quite complicated. The new diagram is as below;

I am not sure what pattern of tactile paving is being proposed where here. Utterly confusing for the designer, so goodness knows what nonsense would get built. But it is worse. The spirit of equality legislation is new schemes should cater for the needs of users with protected characteristics (e.g. disabled people) and rightly this extends to the use of appropriate tactile information where required. This up to 60mm upstand (which I predict will be called the "60mm rule" if it goes forward) will mean that designers either go flush or make sure they are above 60mm (and perhaps that might be appropriate long term).

However, it is also the spirit of equality law that reasonable adjustments be made by highway authorities where infrastructure is substantially refurbished. When a footway is being resurfaced or reconstructed, good highway authorities already provide decent dropped kerbs with appropriate tactile paving as part of the maintenance operation and that is good practice. But, what if this work is taking place where the existing kerb (which may have been there for 100 years) only has a 50mm upstand - will a reasonable adjustment end up meaning an 800mm strip of tactile paving has to be provided too? (right where some drivers bounce onto the footway edge) Sorry, this has not been thought out properly.

Here is (I promise you) a random street in Forest Gate, East London (Google again). There are lots of streets like this with wide granite kerbs, laid with a very small kerb face. I have not measured this, but it is probably around 60mm, possibly a touch higher, but it demonstrates my worry about the pitfalls. What about vehicle crossings which have a kerb face of about 25mm to 40mm - are we to put a strip of tactile paving along the edge of every new one? I will leave you to think about that one!

Next we have the situation (which is not paving!) where most authorities only place a rotating tactile cone on the right hand side of signalised crossings which have push buttons on both sides. For visually impaired people, this is a pain because if you reach the left hand box first, you still need to get to the right hand box for the cone. The suggestion is cones on both sides. It's a fair idea, although with complicated layouts, there is a risk that people may feel a cone on the left which is meant to be for a different crossing, so designer care is needed (as should be the case). The photo to the right is an example of a cone.

Finally, we have a neat suggestion for a tactile arrow on top of push button boxes (as borrowed from Israel!) to show the direction of the crossing. I assume that this will be adjustable on site or a stick-on plate, as the position of the box (as in angle to the road) varies with site conditions. So apart from the installer getting it right, this seems like a good idea and would cost very little to roll out with new installations/ replacements.

So, there you have it. A bit of a mixed bag, but I do think the flush to 60mm issue needs more discussion and consideration as it is going to create a bit of a mess in my view. As I have said, these views will be sent on to the consultation, but please, have your say.

You Put One Foot In Front Of The Other

Today I did the school run. Well, the school walk because we are fortunate that our local primary school is a short walk away.

By short, I mean less than 500 metres or about 6 minutes (a touch more with our aspiring toddler on foot). Like many primary schools, the surrounding streets were choked with parents' parked cars (and in many cases, parked is too precise a word). The school is on a local street which carries a bus route and is access to a couple of small industrial estates, which means all too often we end up with drivers of larger vehicles stuck and facing off with car drivers. Today we had two buses with drivers working hard to get through, but being thwarted by the car drivers who were determined to barge their way through.

How did we get to this point. How did we end up with conditions which are so hostile for walking which should be the first choice for school travel for such short journeys? Like the frog in a pan of water which is being heated up, this hasn't happened overnight. Our boil has taken a generation to bubble up and we are now seeing adults who were driven having kids of their own and following suit. 

Yes, even in the Netherlands, we have streets blocked by drivers on
the school run.

I think it is more complex than simply criticising those who drive their children to school and the answer is more complex than trying to force them out with parking controls and driving restrictions (although this will be part of the answer). 

There are people who drive because of their mobility or that of their child which is fine and they should be assisted. There are those who are on tight schedules and need to get to work after dropping the kids off and there is no decent alternative; although I worry if they are then rushing to get to work in their cars. Then we have the other people, the lazy ones, the ones who want to drive because of perceived status (showing off). We also have a few who will drive because they are not going to be told they can't.

Part of my day job involves working with schools on travel planning in terms of advising on possible engineering measures to enable active travel and I know the school communities yearn for change. In London at least, there is a travel planning accreditation programme (STARS) which awards schools for their own approach to travel planning. The problem is that many now have the gold award and have really done everything they can do for themselves and they are realising that the cold, stark and unshakable conclusion is that we need to change our streets. But more than that, we need to engage with those who drive to try and find out why and to see how they can be helped or enabled to at least get their children to school actively. It has taken us a long time to get here and I fear my walk-rage will continue for the foreseeable future.