Hi Justin

I guess I am only going to say the obvious, which will not be helpful to your situation:

1. Reduce the length of the table top, especially as it appears to extend to the corners, it is a bit hard to tell from the drawing and what the structures are, but might road users might not be able to see pedestrians crossing at the far edges of the table top and vice versa.
2. Increase the width of the pelican crossing, but this could become problematic as the width is quite large and distance between crossing controls might not be practical.
3. Do some of both 1 and 2.
4. Ask what consultation with visually impaired people has been undertaken as recommended in the guidance for new crossings. Contact the RNIB and Guide Dogs to see if they want to campaign about it.
5. Ask what consultation was undertaken on the other crossings you mention they have already done (which is a bit worrying that they are doing this elsewhere).

Tactile paving at road crossings is there to serve as a hazard warning and the user has to then interpret the situation. In this particular instance the introduction of an area with a pelican crossing with tactile paving and an area that is uncontrolled without tactile warnings is very confusing and not to be recommended.

Kind Regards
Marcus

Please note that my working days are Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday

Professor Marcus Ormerod MRICS, FHEA, Inclusive Designer
School of Built Environment
Room 433b Maxwell Building
The University of Salford
Lancashire
M5 4WT

07887556425
________________________________________
From: Accessibuilt list [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Ryan, Justin [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 07 December 2016 11:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ACCESSIBUILT] hump crossings and tactiles

Dear All



Over the last few years there has been a move to do away with drop kerbs on busy Roads and instead introduce humps, which help slow down traffic. At the same time there has also been a move to remove railings and other pavement ‘clutter’. This leads to an issue that I would like some help/guidance with as it falls outside the standard guidance that currently exists – it maybe covered in other non standard publications ( so if you know of any please send them over!).



Below is a local council proposed ‘hump’ on a busy street close to a railway station. This hump (replacing the existing drop kerb) is being proposed to reduce the overall speed of cars along this road anyway and to make the crossing more obvious with pedestrians that much higher than they are now when crossing and a much more defined crossing. It shows the standard width of tactile that you would expect to see at a crossing (it will be a pelican controlled crossing) however because of the hump, there will be an absence of kerb extending further than covered by the tactile, indicated by the arrows on both sides of the tactile in the picture below.

The question is really how can we ensure that visually impaired people in particular, but not exclusively, are sufficiently warned where there is a lack of kerb ( beyond the arrows the kerb will be 100mm high) about the fact there is a road?

Obviously the ‘old’ way would have been to have railings – as we know, for good or bad, they are being removed ( however there are none at this crossing now anyway as it is a drop kerb, not a raised hump). So maybe the tactile should be extended but this would be way beyond the area that we want people to cross and potentially put them in conflict with the cars stopped on the crossing – they would also extend past the columns of the traffic lights at the crossing.



I would appreciate any views on this, pointing me to any studies or guidance that is available and in particular any practical suggestions – although we have some say over this crossing on one hand, it is being funded by the local council and I suspect there are many others in the town which are just like this so it will need a strong argument to sway them away from this design when they will no doubt point at all the others they have installed where there have been no problems or negative feedback ( not that I would be able to challenge that as they are unlikely to be forthcoming with any if there had been!)



I appreciate your help with this.



Thanks



Justin Ryan



[cid:image002.jpg@01D2507D.BAF15D40]





******

Southeastern is the trading name of London & South Eastern Railway Limited. London & South Eastern Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Govia Limited of which The Go-Ahead Group plc is a shareholder.

London & South Eastern Railway Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 04860660, The Go-Ahead Group plc is registered in England and Wales with company number 2100855 and Govia Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 3278419. The registered office for each of the aforementioned companies is situated at 3rd Floor, 41-51 Grey Street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 6EE.

This email together with any file attached to it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please do not use or publish its contents, notify the originator of the email immediately then delete.

Contracts cannot be concluded with us nor service effected by email. Emails are not secure and may contain viruses for which The Go-Ahead Group plc (and its subsidiaries) cannot be held responsible

******
----------End of Message---------- Run by SURFACE for more information on research, teaching and consultancy: http://www.surface.salford.ac.uk Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html

----------End of Message----------
Run by SURFACE for more information on research, teaching and consultancy:
http://www.surface.salford.ac.uk
Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html