Scottish Government

G3 Street users' needs

CHAPTER AIMS

• Promote inclusive design.
• Set out the various requirements of street users.
• Summarise the requirements for various types of motor vehicle.

G3.1 INTRODUCTION

G3.1.1 Street design should be inclusive. Inclusive design means providing for all people regardless of age or ability. There is a general duty for public authorities to promote equality under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. ¹ There is also a specific obligation for those who design, manage and maintain buildings and public spaces to ensure that disabled people play a full part in benefiting from, and shaping, an inclusive built environment.

G3.1.2 Poor design can exacerbate the problems of disabled people - good design can minimise them. Consultation with representatives of various user- groups, in particular disabled people, is important for informing the design of streets. Local access officers can also assist here.

G3.1.3 Designers should refer to Inclusive Mobility²; The Principles of Inclusive Design³ ; Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces⁴ ; PAN 75 Planning for Transport⁵ and PAN 78: Inclusive Design⁶ in order to ensure that their designs are inclusive.

G3.1.4 If any aspect of a street unavoidably prevents its use by particular user groups, it is important that a suitable alternative is provided. For example, a safe cycling route to school may be inappropriate for experienced cyclist commuters, while a cycle route for commuters in the same transport corridor may be unsafe for use by children. Providing one as an alternative to the other overcomes these problems and ensures that the overall design is inclusive.

G3.1.5 This approach is useful as it allows for the provision of a specialised facility where there is considerable demand for it without disadvantaging user groups unable to benefit from it.

G3.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS

G3.2.1 When designing for pedestrians or cyclists, some requirements are common to both:

• routes should form a coherent network linking trip origins and key destinations, and they should be at a scale appropriate to the users;
• in general, networks should allow people to go where they want, unimpeded by street furniture, footway parking and other obstructions or barriers;
• infrastructure must not only be safe but also be perceived to be safe - this applies to both traffic safety and crime; and
• aesthetics, noise reduction and integration with surrounding areas are important - the environment should be attractive, interesting and free from graffiti and litter, etc.

G.3.3 PEDESTRIANS

G.3.3.1 The propensity to walk is influenced not only by distance, but also by the quality of the walking experience. A 20-minute walk alongside a busy highway can seem endless, yet in a rich and stimulating street, such as in a town centre, it can pass without noticing. Residential areas can offer a pleasant walking experience if good quality landscaping, gardens or interesting architecture are present. Sightlines and visibility towards destinations or intermediate points are important for navigating and personal security, and they can help people with cognitive impairment.

G3.3.2 Pedestrians may be walking with purpose or engaging in other activities such as play, socialising, shopping or just sitting. For the purposes of this manual, pedestrians include wheelchair users and people pushing wheeled equipment such as prams.

G3.3.3 As pedestrians include people of all ages, sizes and abilities, the design of streets needs to satisfy a wide range of requirements. A street design which accommodates the needs of children and disabled people is likely to suit most, if not all, user types.

G3.3.4 Not all disability relates to difficulties with mobility. People with sensory or cognitive impairment are often less obviously disabled, so it is important to ensure that their needs are not overlooked. Legible design, i.e. design which makes it easier for people to work out where they are and where they are going, is especially helpful to disabled people. Not only does it minimise the length of journeys by avoiding wrong turns, for some it may make journeys possible to accomplish in the first place.

G3.3.5 The layout of our towns and cities has historically suited pedestrian movement (Fig. G3.1).

Figure G3.1 Edinburgh New Town - the block dimensions are of a scale that encourages walking ( EDAW)

G3.3.6 Walkable neighbourhoods should be on an appropriate scale, as advised in Chapter G1. Pedestrian routes need to be direct and match desire lines as closely as possible. Permeable networks help minimise walking distances.

G3.3.7 Pedestrian networks need to connect with one another. Where these networks are separated by heavily-trafficked roads, appropriate surface level crossings should be provided where practicable. Footbridges and subways should be avoided unless local topography or other conditions make them necessary. The level changes and increased distances involved are inconvenient, and they can be difficult for disabled people to use. Subways, in particular, can also raise concerns over personal security - if they are unavoidable, designers should aim to make them as short as possible, wide and well lit.

G3.3.8 The specific conditions in a street will determine what form of crossing is most relevant. All crossings should be provided with tactile paving. Further advice on the assessment and design of pedestrian crossings is contained in Local Transport Notes 1/95⁷, 2/95⁸ and the Puffin Good Practice Guide⁹.

G3.3.9 Surface level crossings can be of a number of types, as outlined below:

• uncontrolled crossings - these can be created by dropping kerbs at intervals along a link. As with other types of crossing, these should be matched to the pedestrian desire lines. If the crossing pattern is fairly random and there is an appreciable amount of pedestrian activity, a minimum frequency of 100 m is recommended ¹⁰. Dropped kerbs should be marked with tactile paving where this is appropriate and aligned with those on the other side of the carriageway.
• informal crossings - these can be created through careful use of paving materials and street furniture to indicate a crossing place which encourages slow-moving traffic to give way to pedestrians (Fig. G3.2).

Figure G3.2 Informal crossing, Colchester - although the chains and a lack of tactile paving are hazardous to blind or partially-sighted people.

• pedestrian refuges and kerb build-outs - used separately, or in combination, they effectively narrow the carriageway and so reduce the crossing distance. However, they can create pinch-points for cyclists if the remaining gap is still wide enough for motor vehicles to squeeze past them.
• zebra crossings - of the formal crossing types, these involve the minimum delay for pedestrians when used in the right situation but can pose problems for people with visual impairments.
• signalised crossings - there are four types: Pelican, Puffin, Toucan and Equestrian crossings. The Pelican crossing was the first to be introduced. Puffin crossings, which have nearside pedestrian signals and a variable crossing time, are replacing Pelican crossings. They use pedestrian detectors to match the length of the crossing period to the time pedestrians take to cross. Toucan and equestrian crossings operate in a similar manner to Puffin crossings except that cyclists can also use Toucan crossings, while Equestrian crossings have a separate crossing for horse riders. Signalised crossings are preferred by blind or partially-sighted people. Consideration should be given to the raising of crossings, of whichever type, to pavement height where possible, in order to enhance pedestrian security and convenience.

G3.3.10 Obstructions on the footway should be minimised. Street furniture is typically sited on footways and can be a hazard for blind or partially-sighted people.

G3.3.11 Where it is necessary to break a road link in order to discourage through traffic, it is recommended that connectivity for pedestrians is maintained through the break unless there are compelling reasons to prevent it.

G3.3.12 Pedestrian desire lines should be kept as straight as possible at side-road junctions unless site-specific reasons preclude it. Small corner radii minimise the need for pedestrians to deviate from their desire line (Fig. G3.3). Dropped kerbs (with the tactile paving as appropriate) should be provided at all side-road junctions where the carriageway and footway are at different levels. They should not be placed on curved sections of kerbing because this makes it difficult for blind or partially-sighted people to orientate themselves before crossing.

Figure G3.3 The effects of corner radii on pedestrians

G3.3.13 With small corner radii, large vehicles may need to use the full carriageway width to turn. Swept-path analysis can be used to determine the minimum dimensions required. The footway may need to be strengthened locally in order to allow for larger vehicles occasionally overrunning the corner.

G3.3.14 Larger radii can be used without interrupting the pedestrian desire line if the footway is built out at the corners. If larger radii encourage drivers to make the turn more quickly, speeds will need to be controlled in some way, such as through using a speed table at the junction.

G3.3.15 The kerbed separation of footway and carriageway can offer protection to pedestrians, channel surface water, and assist blind or partially-sighted people in finding their way around, but kerbs can also present barriers to some pedestrians. Kerbs also tend to confer an implicit priority to vehicles on the carriageway. At junctions and other locations, such as school or community building entrances, there are benefits in considering bringing the carriageway up flush with the footway to allow people to cross on one level (Fig. G3.4). This can be achieved by:

• raising the carriageway to footway level across the mouths of side roads; and
• providing a full raised speed-table at 'T' junctions and crossroads.

Figure G3.4 Raised crossover, but located away from the desire line for pedestrians and therefore ignored - the crossover should be nearer the junction with, in this case, a steeper ramp for vehicles entering the side street.

Figure G3.5 Inviting pedestrian link (Greenbank Village, EDAW).

Figure G3.6 Uninviting pedestrian link - narrow, not well overlooked, unlit and deserted (Edinburgh, WSP)

Figure G3.7 Overlooked shared route for pedestrians and vehicles.

G3.3.16 The carriageway is usually raised using short ramps which can have a speed-reducing effect, but if the street is on a bus route, for example, a more gradual change in height may be more appropriate (Fig. G3.4). It is important that any such shared surface arrangements are designed for blind or partially-sighted people because conventional kerbs are commonly used to aid their navigation. Tactile paving may be required at crossing points. Other tactile information may be required to compensate for kerb removal elsewhere.

G3.3.17 Pedestrians can be intimidated by traffic and can be particularly vulnerable to the fear of crime or anti-social behaviour. In order to encourage and facilitate walking, pedestrians need to feel safe (Figs G3.5 and G3.6).

G3.3.18 Pedestrians generally feel safe from crime where:

• their routes are overlooked by buildings with habitable rooms (Fig. G3.7);
• other people are using the street;
• there is no evidence of anti-social activity (e.g. litter, graffiti, vandalised street furniture);
• they cannot be surprised (e.g. at blind corners);
• they cannot be trapped (e.g. people can feel nervous in places with few entry and exit points, such as subway networks); and
• there is good lighting.

G3.3.19 Streets with high traffic speeds can make pedestrians feel unsafe. Designers should seek to control vehicle speeds to below 20 mph in residential areas so that pedestrians activity is not displaced. Vehicle speed control should be designed-in and suggested methods of vehicle speed control are discussed in Chapter G4.

G3.3.20 Inclusive Mobility ¹¹ gives guidance on design measures for use where there are steep slopes or drops at the rear of footways.

G3.3.21 Places for pedestrians may need to serve a variety of purposes, including movement in groups, children's play and other activities (Fig. G3.8)

Figure G3.8 The footway and pedestrian areas provide for a range of functions which can include browsing, pausing, socialising and play.

G3.3.22 There is no maximum width for footways. In lightly used streets (such as those with a purely residential function), the minimum unobstructed width for pedestrians should generally be 2 m. Additional width should be considered between the footway and a heavily used carriageway, or adjacent to gathering places, such as schools and shops. Further guidance on minimum footway widths is given in Inclusive Mobility.

G3.3.23 Footway widths can be varied between different streets to take account of pedestrian volumes and composition. Streets where people walk in groups or near schools or shops, for example, need wider footways. In areas of high pedestrian flow, the quality of the walking experience can deteriorate unless sufficient width is provided. The quality of service goes down as pedestrian flow density increases. Pedestrian congestion through insufficient capacity should be avoided. It is inconvenient and may encourage people to step into the carriageway (Fig. G3.9).

Figure G3.9 Diagram showing different densities of use in terms of pedestrians per square metre. Derived from Vorrang für Fussgänge.¹²

G3.3.24 Porch roofs, awnings, garage doors, bay windows, balconies or other building elements should not oversail footways at a height of less than 2.6 m.

G3.3.25 Trees to be sited within or close to footways should be carefully selected so that their spread does not reduce pedestrian space below minimum dimensions for width and headroom (Fig. G3.10).

Figure G3.10 Poorly maintained tree obstructing the footway.

G3.3.26 Low overhanging trees, overgrown shrubs and advertising boards can be particularly hazardous for blind or partially-sighted people. Tapering obstructions, where the clearance under a structure reduces because the structure slopes down (common under footbridge ramps), or the pedestrian surface ramps up, should be avoided or as a minimum pedestrians should be kept clear of the hazard.

G3.3.27 Designers should attempt to keep pedestrian (and cycle) routes as near to level as possible along their length and width, within the constraints of the site. Longitudinal gradients should ideally be no more than 5%, although topography or other circumstances may make this difficult to achieve (Fig. G3.11).

Figure G3.11 In some instances it may be possible to keep footways level when the carriageway is on a gradient, although this example deflects pedestrians wanting to cross the side road significantly from their desire lines.

G3.3.28 Off-street parking often requires motorists to cross footways. Crossovers to private driveways are commonly constructed by ramping up from the carriageway over the whole width of the footway, simply because this is easier to construct. This is poor practice and creates inconvenient cross-falls for pedestrians. Excessive cross-fall causes problems for people pushing prams and can be particularly difficult to negotiate for people with a mobility impairment, including wheelchair users.

G3.3.29 Where it is necessary to provide vehicle crossovers, the normal footway cross-fall should be maintained as far as practicable from the back of the footway (900 mm minimum) (Fig. G3.12). Where narrow pavement widths would reduce the width of normal cross fall footway alternatives including a short steep ramp into the carriageway or the use of steeply angled kerbstones should be considered.

Figure G3.12 Typical vehicle crossover.

G3.3.30 Vehicle crossovers are not suitable as pedestrian crossing points. Blind or partially-sighted people need to be able to distinguish between them and places where it is safe to cross. Vehicle crossovers should therefore have a minimum upstand of 25 mm at the carriageway edge. Where there is a need for a pedestrian crossing point, it should be constructed separately, with tactile paving if appropriate, and kerbs dropped flush with the carriageway.

G3.3.31 Surfaces used by pedestrians need to be smooth and free from trip hazards. Irregular surfaces, such as cobbles, are a barrier to some pedestrians and are unlikely to be appropriate for residential areas.

G3.3.32 Designs need to ensure that pedestrian areas are properly drained and are neither washed by runoff nor subject to standing water (Fig G3.13).

Figure G3.13 Poor drainage at a pedestrian crossing place causes discomfort and inconvenience.

G3.3.33 Seating on key pedestrian routes should be considered every 100 m to provide rest points and to encourage street activity. Seating should ideally be located where there is good natural surveillance.

PEDESTRIAN CHECKLIST

GOOD PRACTICE

• Direct pedestrian routes that are easy to navigate
• Permeable networks with connected links
• Crossings with tactile paving where appropriate
• Crossings matching desire lines
• Dropped kerbs
• Improve perceived safety through ensuring routes are overlooked, avoid blind corners and ensure good lighting
• Minimum footway width of 2m
• Provide raised entrance treatments for side roads
• Small corner radii
• Keep routes level
• Ensure adequate drainage
• Seating every 100m where there is good natural surveillance
• Minimum 900mm footway width at normal crossfall (2.5%) at vehicle crossovers

AVOID

• Footbridges and subways
• Obstructions on footways
• Pedestrian routes that are isolated, signs of anti-social behaviour and blind corners
• Avoid trees that encroach on pedestrian footways and space

G3.4 CYCLISTS

G3.4.1 Cyclists should generally be accommodated on the carriageway in areas with low traffic volumes and speeds, there should not be any need for dedicated cycle lanes on the street (Fig. G3.14). However, where traffic volumes are high, there may be a need for cycle lanes ¹³.

Figure G3.14 On-street cycling (Scottish Government).

G3.4.2 Cycle access should always be considered on links between street networks which are not available to motor traffic. If an existing street is closed off or converted to one-way operation it should generally remain open to pedestrians and cyclists.

G3.4.3 Cyclists prefer direct, barrier-free routes with smooth surfaces. Routes should avoid the need for cyclists to dismount.

G3.4.4 Cyclists are more likely to choose routes that enable them to keep moving. Routes that take cyclists away from their desire lines and require them to concede priority to side-road traffic are less likely to be used.

G3.4.5 Cyclists are particularly sensitive to traffic conditions. High speeds or high volumes of traffic tend to discourage cycling. If traffic conditions are inappropriate for on-street cycling, the factors contributing to them need to be addressed, if practicable, to make on-street cycling satisfactory. This is described in more detail in Chapter G4.

G3.4.6 The design of junctions affects the way motorists interact with cyclists. It is recommended that junctions are designed to promote slow motor-vehicle speeds. This may include short corner radii as well as vertical deflections (Fig. G3.15).

Figure G3.15 The effect of corner radii on cyclists near turning vehicles.

G3.4.7 Where cycle-specific facilities, such as cycle tracks, are provided, their geometry and visibility should be in accordance with the appropriate design speed. The design speed for a cycle track would normally be 30 km/h (20 mph), but reduced as necessary to as low as 10 km/h (6 mph) for short distances where cyclists would expect to slow down, such as on the approach to a subway. Blind corners are a hazard and should be avoided.

G3.4.8 Cyclists should be catered for on the road if at all practicable. If cycle lanes are installed, measures should be taken to prevent them from being blocked by parked vehicles. If cycle tracks are provided, they should be physically segregated from footways/footpaths if there is sufficient width available. However, there is generally little point in segregating a combined width of about 3.3 m or less. The fear of being struck by cyclists is a significant concern for many disabled people. Access officers and consultation groups should be involved in the decision-making process.

G3.4.9 Cycle tracks are more suited to leisure routes over relatively open spaces. In a built-up area, they should be well overlooked. The decision to light them depends on the circumstances of the site-lighting may not always be appropriate.

G3.4.10 Like pedestrians, cyclists can be vulnerable to personal security concerns. Streets which meet the criteria described for pedestrians are likely to be acceptable to cyclists.

G3.4.11 The headroom over routes used by cyclists should normally be 2.7 m (minimum 2.4 m). The maximum gradients should generally be no more than 3%, or 5% maximum over a distance of 100 m or less, and 7% maximum over a distance of 30 m or less. However, topography may dictate the gradients, particularly if the route is in the carriageway.

G3.4.12 As a general rule, the geometry, including longitudinal profile, and surfaces employed on carriageways create an acceptable running surface for cyclists. The exception to this rule is the use of granite setts, or similar. These provide an unpleasant cycling experience due to the unevenness of the surface. They can prove to be particularly hazardous in the wet and when cyclists are turning, especially when giving hand signals at the same time. The conditions for cyclists on such surfaces can be improved if the line they usually follow is locally paved using larger slabs to provide a smoother ride.

CYCLISTS

GOOD PRACTICE

• Allow for cyclists on the carriageway in low trafficked areas
• Provide direct, barrier free routes
• Junction design affects how drivers interact with cyclists therefore promote short turning radii on junction corners
• Cycle tracks should have appropriate geometry and visibility for the design speed
• If the route is >3.3m width then consider separating cyclists from pedestrians
• Headroom requirements are >2.7m with an absolute minimum of 2.4m
• Ensure prohibition of car parking in cycle lanes - ideally 24 hours, but certainly in rush hours

AVOID

• Segregating cyclists if combined width is <3.3m
• Granite sets on routes used by cyclists

G3.5 PUBLIC TRANSPORT

G3.5.1 This section concentrates on bus-based public transport as this is the most likely mode to be used for serving residential areas. Inclusive Mobility gives detailed guidance on accessible bus stop layout and design, signing, lighting, and design of accessible bus (and rail) stations and interchanges.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT VEHICLES

G3.5.2 Purpose-built buses, from 'hoppers' to double-deckers, vary in length and height, but width is relatively fixed (Fig. G3.16).

Figure G3.16 Typical bus dimensions

G3.5.3 Streets currently or likely to be used by public transport should be identified in the design process, working in partnership with public transport operators.

G3.5.4 Bus routes and stops should form key elements of the walkable neighbourhood. Designers and local authorities should try to ensure that development densities will be high enough to support a good level of service without long-term subsidy.

G3.5.5 In order to design for long-term viability, the following should be considered:

• streets serving bus routes should be reasonably straight. Straight routes also help passenger demand through reduced journey times and better visibility. Straight streets may, however, lead to excessive speeds. Where it is necessary to introduce traffic-calming features, designers should consider their potential effects on buses and bus passengers; and
• layouts designed with strong connections to the local highway network, and which avoid long one-way loops or long distances without passenger catchments, are likely to be more viable.

G3.5.6 Bus priority measures may be appropriate within developments to give more direct routeing or to assist buses in avoiding streets where delays could occur.

G3.5.7 Using a residential street as a bus route need not require restrictions on direct vehicular access to housing. Detailed requirements for streets designated as bus routes can be determined in consultation with local public transport operators. Streets on bus routes should not generally be less than 6.0 m wide (although this could be reduced on short sections with good inter-visibility between opposing flows). The presence and arrangement of on-street parking, and the manner of its provision, will affect width requirements.

G3.5.8 Swept-path analysis can be used to determine the ability of streets to accommodate large vehicles. Bus routes in residential areas are likely to require a more generous swept path to allow efficient operation. While it would be acceptable for the occasional lorry to have to negotiate a particular junction with care, buses need to be able to do so with relative ease. The level of provision required for the movement of buses should consider the frequency and the likelihood of two buses travelling in opposite directions meeting each other on a route.

BUS STOPS

G3.5.9 It is essential to consider the siting of public transport stops and related pedestrian desire lines at an early stage of design. Close co-operation is required between public transport operators, the local authorities and the developer.

G3.5.10 First and foremost, the siting of bus stops should be based on trying to ensure they can be easily accessed on foot. Their precise location will depend on other issues, such as the need to avoid noise nuisance, visibility requirements, and the convenience of pedestrians and cyclists. Routes to bus stops must be accessible by disabled people. New bus stops should, where appropriate, comply with the guidance contained in DfT 2002 publication - Inclusive Mobility, particularly section 6 ¹⁴. Further guidance can be obtained from the TfL 2006 ¹⁵ document - Accessible bus stop design guidance. For example, the bus lay-by in Fig. G3.17 deflects pedestrians walking along the street from their desire line and the insufficient footway width at the bus stop hinders free movement.

Figure G3.17 The bus lay-by facilitates the free movement of other vehicles but it is inconvenient for pedestrians.

G3.5.11 Bus stops should be placed near junctions so that they can be accessed by more than one route on foot, or near specific passenger destinations (schools, shops, etc.) but not so close as to cause problems at the junction. On streets with low movement function (see Chapter 2), setting back bus stops from junctions to maximise traffic capacity should be avoided.

G3.5.12 Bus stops should be high-quality places that are safe and comfortable to use. Consideration should be given to raised kerbs to assist boarding and to providing cycle parking at bus stops with significant catchment areas. Cycle parking should be designed and located so as not to create a hazard, or impede access for, disabled people.

G3.5.13 Footways at bus stops should be wide enough for waiting passengers while still allowing for pedestrian movement along the footway. This may require local widening at the stop.

G3.5.14 Buses can help to control the speed of traffic at peak times by preventing cars from overtaking. This is also helpful for the safety of passengers crossing after leaving the bus.

BUS

GOOD PRACTICE

• Identify in the design process those streets likely to be used by public transport
• Bus routes and stops are key elements in walkable neighbourhoods
• Provide adequate density of development to support bus services
• Straight routes are better for buses but speed management needs to considered
• Bus priority measures including bus lanes
• 6m min width for two-way bus routes, parking needs to be considered
• Swept path analysis on bus routes may be necessary - buses require ease of access
• Bus stops should co-ordinate with pedestrian desire lines and should be accessible by pedestrians
• Cycle parking should be provided at bus stops with significant catchment

AVOID

• Torturous, curved bus routes
• Traffic calming that is detrimental to bus passenger comfort
• Long, one-way loops that cannot be accessed by buses
• Bus stops and shelters reducing footway width and impeding pedestrian movement

G3.6 PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES

G3.6.1 Streets need to be designed to accommodate a range of vehicles from private cars, with frequent access requirements, to larger vehicles such as delivery vans and lorries, needing less frequent access (Fig. G3.18). Geometric design which satisfies the access needs of emergency service and waste collection vehicles will also cover the needs of private cars. However, meeting the needs of drivers in residential streets should not be to the detriment of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users. The aim should be to achieve a harmonious mix of user types.

Figure G3.18 Private and commercial motor-vehicles - typical dimensions.

G3.6.2 In a residential environment, flow is unlikely to be high enough to determine street widths, and factors such as the extent of parking provision (see Chapter G5) will affect what is appropriate for the site.

G3.6.3 In some locations, a development may be based on car-free principles. For example, there are options for creating developments relatively free of cars by providing remotely sited parking (e.g. Greenwich Millennium Village see Fig. G3.19a) or by creating a wholly car-free development (e.g Slateford Green see Fig3.19b), Such approaches can have a significant effect on the design of residential streets and the way in which they are subsequently used. When considering the viability of such approaches it is important to take into account a range of locational factors, including access to public transport and local services.

Figure G3.19a Greenwich Millennium Village. Cars can be parked on the street for a short time, after which they must be moved to a multi-storey car park.

Figure G3.19b Slateford Green, Edinburgh, Car Free Development.

G3.7 EMERGENCY VEHICLES

G3.7.1 The requirements for emergency vehicles are generally dictated by the fire service requirements. Providing access for large fire appliances (including the need to be able to work around them where appropriate) will cater for police vehicles and ambulances.

G3.7.2 The Building Regulation requirement B5 (2000) ¹⁶ concerns 'Access and Facilities for the Fire Service'¹⁷. Section 17, 'Vehicle Access', includes the following advice on access from the highway:

• there should be a minimum carriageway width of 3.7 m between kerbs;
• there should be vehicle access for a pump appliance to within 45 m of all points within a dwelling house;
• a vehicle access route may be a road or other route; and
• turning facilities should be provided in any dead end access route that is more than 20m long.

G3.7.3 The Association of Chief Fire Officers has expanded upon and clarified these requirements as follows:

• a 3.7 m carriageway (kerb to kerb) is required for operating space at the scene of a fire. Simply to reach a fire, the access route could be reduced to 2.75 m over short distances, provided the pump appliance can get to within 45 m of all points within a dwelling;
• if an authority or developer wishes to reduce the running carriageway width to below 3.7 m, they should consult the local Fire Safety Officer; the length of cul-de-sacs or the number of dwellings have been used by local authorities as criteria for limiting the size of a development served by a single access route. Authorities have often argued that the larger the site, the more likely it is that a single access could be blocked for whatever reason. The fire services adopt a less numbers-driven approach and consider each application based on a risk assessment for the site, and response time requirements. Since the introduction of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, all regions have had to produce an Integrated Management Plan setting out response time targets. These targets depend on the time required to get fire appliances to a particular area, together with the ease of movement within it. It is therefore possible that a layout acceptable to the Fire and Rescue Service ( FRS) in one area, might be objected to in a more remote location;
• parked cars can have a significant influence on response times. Developments should have adequate provision for parking to reduce its impact on response times; and
• residential sprinkler systems are highly regarded by the FRS and their presence allows a longer response time to be used. A site layout which has been rejected on the grounds of accessibility for fire appliances may become acceptable if its buildings are equipped with these systems.

G3.8 SERVICE VEHICLES

G3.8.1 The design of local roads should accommodate service vehicles without allowing their requirements to dominate the layout. On streets with low traffic flows and speeds, it may be assumed that they will be able to use the full width of the carriageway to manoeuvre. Larger vehicles which are only expected to use a street infrequently, such as pantechnicons, need not be fully accommodated - designers could assume that they will have to reverse or undertake multi-point turns to turn around for the relatively small number of times they will require access.

G3.8.2 Well-connected street networks have significant advantages for service vehicles. A shorter route can be used to cover a given area, and reversing may be avoided altogether. They also minimise land-take by avoiding the need for wasteful turning areas at the ends of cul-de-sacs.

G3.8.3 However, some sites cannot facilitate such ease of movement (e.g. linear sites and those with difficult topography), and use cul-de-sacs to make the best use of the land available. For cul-de-sacs longer than 20 m, a turning area should be provided to cater for vehicles that will regularly need to enter the street. Advice on the design of turning areas is given in Chapter G4.

WASTE COLLECTION VEHICLES

G3.8.4 The need to provide suitable opportunities for the storage and collection of waste is a major consideration in the design of buildings, site layouts and individual streets. Storage may be complicated by the need to provide separate facilities for refuse and the various categories of recyclable waste. Quality of place will be significantly affected by the type of waste collection and management systems used, because they in turn determine the sort of vehicles that will need to gain access.

G3.8.5 Policy for local and regional waste planning bodies is set out in SSP10: Planning for Waste Management.¹⁸SPP10 refers to design and layout in new development being able to help secure opportunities for sustainable waste management. Planning authorities should ensure that new developments make sufficient provision for waste management and promote designs and layouts that secure the integration of waste management facilities without adverse impact on the street scene.

G3.8.6 The operation of waste collection services should be an integral part of street design and achieved in ways that do not compromise quality of place. Waste disposal and collection authorities and their contractor should take into account the geometry of streets across their area and the importance of securing quality of place when designing collection systems and deciding which vehicles are applicable. While it is always possible to design new streets to take the largest vehicle that could be manufactured, this would conflict with the desire to create quality places. It is neither necessary nor desirable to design new streets to accommodate larger waste collection vehicles than can be used within existing streets in the area.

G3.8.7 Waste collection vehicles fitted with rear-mounted compaction units (Fig G3.20) are about the largest vehicles that might require regular access to residential areas. BS 5906: 2005¹⁹ notes that the largest waste vehicles currently in use are around 11.6 m long, with a turning circle of 20.3 m. It recommends a minimum street width of 5 m, but smaller widths are acceptable where on-street parking is discouraged. Swept-path analysis can be used to assess layouts for accessibility. Where achieving these standards would undermine quality of place, alternative vehicle sizes and/or collection methods should be considered.

Figure G3.20 Large waste collection truck in a residential street (Scottish Government)

G3.8.8 Reversing causes a disproportionately large number of moving vehicle accidents in the waste/recycling industry. Injuries to collection workers or members of the public by moving collection vehicles are invariably severe or fatal. BS 5906: 2005 recommends a maximum reversing distance of 12 m. Longer distances can be considered, but any reversing routes should be straight and free from obstacles or visual obstructions.

G3.8.9 Section 3.25 of the Scottish Building Standards 2008 Technical Handbook for Domestic Buildings provides guidance on achieving the standards set in the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 with regards solid waste storage and collection point. The collection point can be on-street (see Section G3.8.11), or may be at another location defined by the waste authority. Key recommendations are:

• residents should not be required to carry waste more than 30 m (excluding any vertical distance) to the storage point;
• waste collection vehicles should be able to get to within 25 m of the storage point (note, BS 5906: 2005 recommends shorter distances) and the gradient between the two should not exceed 1:12. There should be a maximum of three steps for waste containers up to 250 litres, and none when larger containers are used (the Health and Safety Executive recommends that, ideally, there should be no steps to negotiate); and
• the collection point should be reasonably accessible for vehicles typically used by the waste collection authority.

G3.8.10 Based on these parameters, it may not be necessary for a waste vehicle to enter a cul-de-sac less than around 55 m in length, although this will involve residents and waste collection operatives moving waste the maximum recommended distances, which is not desirable.

G3.8.11 BS 5906: 2005 provides guidance and recommendations on good practice. The standard advises on dealing with typical weekly waste and recommends that the distance over which containers are transported by collectors should not normally exceed 15 m for two-wheeled containers, and 10 m for four-wheeled containers.

G3.8.12 It is essential that liaison between the designers, the waste, highways, planning and building control authorities, and access officers, takes place at an early stage. Agreement is required on the way waste is to be managed and in particular:

• methods for storing, segregating and collecting waste;
• the amount of waste storage required, based on collection frequency, and the volume and nature of the waste generated by the development; and
• the size of anticipated collection vehicles.

G3.8.13 The design of new developments should not require waste bins to be left on the footway as they reduce its effective width. Waste bins on the footway pose a hazard for blind or partially sighted people and may prevent wheelchair and pushchair users from getting past.

RECYCLING

G3.8.14 The most common types of provision for recycling (often used in combination) are:

• 'bring' facilities, such as bottle and paper banks, where residents leave material for recycling; and
• kerbside collection, where householders separate recyclable material for collection at the kerbside.

G3.8.15 'Bring' facilities need to be in accessible locations close to community buildings but not where noise from bottle banks etc. can disturb residents. There needs to be enough room for the movement and operation of collection vehicles.

G3.8.16 Underground waste containers may be worth considering. All that is visible to the user is a 'litter bin' or other type of disposal point (Fig. G3.21). This collects in underground containers which are emptied by specially equipped vehicles. There were some 175 such systems in the UK in 2006.

Figure G3.21 Refuse disposal point discharging into underground collection facility.

G3.8.17 Kerbside collection systems generally require householders to store more than one type of waste container. This needs to be considered in the design of buildings or external storage facilities.

G3.8.18 Designers should ensure that containers can be left out for collection without blocking the footway or presenting hazards to users.