7 minute read
Inclusive design for transport in the public realm
In this provocation to all landscape designers, Jill White questions whether common approaches to designing transport infrastructure in the public realm are inclusive enough – and searches for where improvements could be made.
What exactly is ‘transport’?
As designers of the public realm, we really should know what we mean – and it’s not just motorised wheels. People transport themselves on foot (including using walking frames); they may also employ a wheelchair or a scooter; carers may push others in a pram or buggy.
But who is deciding the rules on how we all get about in the same environment as motorised vehicles?
If you drive a car or other vehicle, you are legally obliged (as a condition of holding a driving licence) to keep yourself up to date with all the information in the current Highway Code, and to keep abreast of updates. As good landscape architects, I am sure that those of us who drive are regularly doing this but, even if you don’t drive, the Highway Code is hugely relevant to your practice if you are designing any masterplan featuring a road, track or path.
The recently revised Highway Code, with three new Rules (H1, 2 & 3), clearly sets out the legal transport hierarchy and puts pedestrians at the top, and this category includes wheelchair and mobility scooter users. This is because they are most at risk in a collision situation. Pedestrians may use any part of the road and use cycle tracks as well as the pavement, unless there are signs prohibiting pedestrians, and cyclists must give way to pedestrians to shared cycle tracks (Rule H2). The hierarchy then moves to cyclists, horse riders and motor cyclists, then cars and vans, with bus and lorry drivers at the bottom. We must be aware of this and should use this hierarchy system to inform our practice.
Designers: you should not only be thinking about the things you need to get around, as individuals are not representative of all users. Look around; improve your knowledge with CPD; talk to local people and organisations and learn about the most common public grumbles in the area you’re working in. When you’re scoping a project, perhaps consider needs by treating it like writing a specification and breaking it all up into the sequence of things that need to happen to achieve an end. In this case people want to get from A to B, so first we need to consider all the types of likely user in the space to be designed. What are they employing to get about? Is it feet, wheelchairs, pushchairs, mobility scooters, cycles, electric cars or vans and lorries (or a mix)? Then consider the world from their viewpoint, go out on a bike around the area, get hold of a wheelchair or pushchair with some weight – you’ll very soon understand first hand why you should be thinking extremely hard about where those dropped kerbs are, how many you are incorporating and the positions on the roadside they need to spring from. There’s nothing like doing it yourself to really have your eyes opened. Do a walk with an older person along any stree; the first thing that will strike you is how few seats or perching opportunities there are and how short the distance is that many older people can keep going before benefiting from a short rest. And while you’re thinking about those benches, make sure you choose some with one or two arm rests – it’s so much easier to get up and down from a bench using one of these. You’ll not only help older people, but will also benefit anyone else who is frail or unwell or is less able in any way. It’s a very easy win.
Now, we’ll assume these people are going to catch a bus, and so your next decision is about our shelter designs. First, consider flagging up the fact that they’re an obstacle on the pavement to visually impaired people by the use of tactile paving, and then help those same users by thinking about features such as talking bus stops and braille information. Consider also the size and colours of fonts and backgrounds for ease of reading for everyone, incorporating graphic designs too, to help users with low or no literacy, reduced language ability or who experience neurodivergence of some kind. Make sure the shelter has seats or perching facilities too, of course, and perhaps a mirrored surface of some kind. This will be much appreciated by people with hearing impairment, to avoid sudden surprises when others come up behind them unexpectedly.
Perhaps our local transport users are using an electric mobility scooter instead? Have you thought about whether your footways are going to be wide enough for passing between these and other path users? Such users are legally categorised as pedestrians and so should not feel forced out into the road. Consider also the proposed surface treatments, especially if it is going to be an informal area. If the pathway is to be shared by cyclists and pedestrians, remember the Highway Code states that pedestrians can use any part of that path unless it is signed otherwise (Rule H2), so if you are intending to keep users separated then be aware of this and the need to alert visually impaired users to this arrangement.
For informal areas, don’t employ layers of loose gravel everywhere; allow for at least some routing over a firmer surface such as bound gravel or hoggin. Just spend ten minutes pushing a wheelchair or buggy on loose gravel if you are not convinced. I have visited too many parks that have great accessible, bound gravel paths but which wheelchairs users really struggle to get onto because they can’t get from their car across the loose gravel car park to where the path starts.
We also need to be thinking about battery charging opportunities wherever possible in all of our design locations: ask any large National Trust property how any mobility scooters they have to go out and rescue on their properties every week because their batteries have run out. Parking facilities for buggies and mobility scooters also need to be provisioned in our inclusive transport environment. And, in the city, how about considering some more clearly defined spaces where rented e-bikes should be left out of the way of every disabled pedestrian trying to use a wheelchair or scooter?
Understanding different users’ needs by trying to obtain first-hand experience of someone else’s world, and researching the current regulations, can make it easier than you think to achieve greater inclusiveness in your transport designs for the public realm.
Such decisions don’t just come down to individual practitioners; practice managers also need to make sure staff knowledge of inclusive design is up-to-date. This can be done through practice-based CPD, such as inviting local groups (such as disability organisations) to talk and discuss with staff. Incorporate inclusiveness as part of your staff appraisal processes; make understanding the issues a requirement for working in your practice. Think also about managing the issues raised for your staff during public consultation events, especially around transport issues such as traffic mitigation or design work on low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs). With conspiracy theories abounding, and with racial and religious abuse issues, there can be real risks for staff sometimes.
Understanding different users’ needs by trying to obtain first-hand experience of someone else’s world, and researching the current regulations, can make it easier than you think to achieve greater inclusiveness in your transport designs for the public realm. And if you’re thinking along these lines for transport issues, it’s a very small step to using the same methods to achieve a more inclusive approach in all your design work.
Jill White is a landscape architect, horticulturalist and writer with a particular interest in creating more inclusive and accessible landscapes. This is Jill’s final edition as copy editor, having previously also served on the Editorial Advisory Panel. The Landscape Institute thanks her immensely for her contribution to the Journal.
