Designing for Disabled People in Home Zones

Appendix D: Draft Analysis of Site Testing Data

5. Outline of Findings at Southville Home Zone, Bristol

5.1 Participant sample at the Southville Home Zone

Out of the seven participants at the Southville Home Zone in Bristol, two were female and five were male (a 29% female / 71% male split):

• Two participants were blind or partially sighted
• One person had reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user)
• One person was blind partially sighted with reduced mobility (non wheelchair user)
• One person had reduced mobility (non wheelchair user)
• One person was partially sighted, hard of hearing and had reduced mobility (wheelchair user): and
• One person had reduced mobility (part-time wheelchair user).

The seven participants testing the Southville Home Zone made 28 positive statements about the Home Zone and 223 negative statements.

5.2 Positive statements about the Southville Home Zone

Orientation cues
Two participants made positive comments about being able to use the sound of vehicles to orientate (mentioned by a BPS person) and also how the guide dog used the edge of parked cars as an orientation line (mentioned by a BPS person).

Gateways to site
Two participants indicated that they were able to identify that they were entering the Home Zone using signage (mentioned by a partially sighted, hard of hearing permanent wheelchair user), and tactile paving (mentioned by a BPS person).

Provision of seating
Out of the seven participants five mentioned that they liked and could use the seating, mentioned by a permanent wheelchair user, a BPS person, a part-time wheelchair user, a partially sighted, hard of hearing permanent wheelchair user and a BPS person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user).

"Seating is at a good height - easy to get up from via edge of planters." Comments from a Blind partially sighted person

Figure 5.1: Seating provision built into planters

Surface materials
Three participants (a BPS person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user), a part time wheelchair user and a partially sighted, hard of hearing permanent wheelchair user) indicated that they liked the surface materials in the Home Zone:

"The surface is fine for me in this chair." Comments from a wheelchair user

5.3 Negative statements about the Southville Home Zone

Using the shared surface
Out of the seven participants, five made negative comments about the shared surface. This was for reasons including:

• the guide dog not being able to find an orientation line to navigate along, mentioned by a BPS person;
• lack of colour contrast or distinguishing features to navigate with, mentioned by a person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) and partially sighted person;
• fear of walking into foliage and vehicles, mentioned by a BPS person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user);
• a preference for segregation mentioned by a partially sighted hard of hearing permanent wheelchair user.

Orientation cues
Three participants mentioned that they were having problems using orientation cues, especially the lack of a kerb line (mentioned by two BPS people and a BPS person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user)) and also a need for surface markings and audio cues in locating a house (mentioned by a BPS person).

Pedestrian pathway / footway
Four participants indicated that they were having problems with the lack of a pedestrian pathway, this included:

• not knowing where to go when a vehicle approached mentioned by a person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user);
• inadequate width for pedestrians at some points, mentioned by a BPS person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user);
• a preference for segregation mentioned by a person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user).

"...because if a car came, for my own peace of mind I could go somewhere safe - get out of the way." Comments from a person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user)

Gateways to the Home Zone
All seven participants made negative comments regarding gateways to the Home Zone site. These included not knowing that they had entered a new type of street environment, not knowing what tactile paving was warning of, too much information on signage and signs being positioned too high for wheelchair users.

Figure 5.2: Gateway to the Home Zone

Above ground obstacles (Street furniture)
Five participants made negative comments about street furniture in the Home Zone. These included:

• poor colour contrast on street furniture, mentioned by a part-time wheelchair user;
• badly positioned furniture creating a collision hazard, mentioned by a BPS person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user);
• lack of tactile warning around planters, mentioned by a BPS person;
• not wanting to use seating because of exposure to vehicles, mentioned by a partially sighted, hard of hearing permanent wheelchair user;
• seating being too narrow, mentioned by a partially sighted, hard of hearing permanent wheelchair user.

Figure 5.3: Wooden bollard with reflective strip

Interaction among actors in the Home Zone
All seven participants indicated that they were experiencing problems with interacting with other people and vehicles in the Home Zone. This included:

• concerns over whether motorists will really change their behaviour, mentioned by a BPS person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user);
• speed and flow of vehicles using the area, mentioned by a partially sighted, hard of hearing permanent wheelchair user;
• parking behaviour of residents, mentioned by a permanent wheelchair user;
• worries over safety from vehicles, mentioned by a partially sighted, hard of hearing permanent wheelchair user.

5.4 Safety statistics

There were no STATS 19 casualties reported before or after the Home Zone was built (Bristol City Council, 2006).

The 85% speeds were reduced by about 9 mph to just under 20 mph and flows were reduced by about 4% (The Centre for Transport and Society, UWE).

5.5 User level statistics

The majority of residents indicated that traffic speed and pedestrian safety were less of a concern in the period after implementation. Parking remained the most identified concern (The Centre for Transport & Society, UWE).

6. Outline of Findings at Former Royal Infirmary Home Zone, Dundee

6.1 Participant sample at the Former Royal Infirmary Home Zone

Of the four participants at Former Royal Infirmary Home Zone in Dundee, one was female and three were male (a 25% female / 75% male split):

• Three participants were blind or partially sighted: and
• One person had reduced mobility (non wheelchair user).

The four participants testing the Former Royal Infirmary Home Zone made 26 positive statements about the Home Zone and 78 negative statements.

6.2 Positive statements about the Former Royal Infirmary Home Zone

Using shared surfaces
One person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) indicated that there were some positive aspects to using a shared surface:

"The good aspect of using the carriageway is that it means there are no obstructions, such as a drainage channels etc." Comments from a person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user)

Crossing the space
Two participants (both BPS people) made positive comments about being able to cross the shared surface space using brick paving areas that go across the vehicle path.

Figure 6.1: Brick paving section that crosses the vehicle path

Gateways to site
Two participants (both BPS people) indicated that they were able to identify that they were entering or leaving the Home Zone which included being able to use a line of cobbles at the entrance.

6.3 Negative statements about the Former Royal Infirmary Home Zone

Using shared surface
Three participants (two BPS people and a person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user)) mentioned problems with using the shared surface area which included preferring a kerb and footway and as opposed to shared surface, and not wanting to use "the carriageway" or stray onto residents' driveways or gardens (mentioned by a person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user)).

Gateways to the site
Two participants (both BPS people) mentioned that they had problems identifying that they were in a Home Zone, problems included just thinking that the area was a private housing estate and the Home Zone sign being too small and positioned too high.

Orientation cues (lack of kerb and building line)
Two BPS participants and one person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) encountered problems with orientation cues including the need for a kerb and footway to navigate and feel safe from vehicles. One BPS person also mentioned the requirement of a building line and indicators of where you are in the street such as entrances to houses.

Strategies to avoid vehicles
Two participants had concerns about avoiding vehicles in the shared surface environment, a BPS person mentioned that if they were approached by a vehicle they would choose to stay where they were. A person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) mentioned that they would always be looking for a safe place off "the road" as an area to go if approached by a vehicle, and was concerned about where to take refuge when approached by a vehicle.

6.4 Safety statistics

The Former Royal Infirmary Home Zone is a new build site and so no STATS 19 data was available.

6.5 User level statistics

Residents indicated that there had been incidents due to 'speeding' vehicles however there appeared to have been no injury casualties on the home zone site. There was a distinction between the east and the west of the site. In the west there was very little outside activity but in the east there were children spending time playing, adults chatting and other activities (Scottish Executive, 2006).

7. Outline of Findings at Lupton Street Home Zone, London Borough of Camden

7.1 Participant sample at the Lupton Street Home Zone

Of the 11 participants at the Lupton Street Home Zone in the London Borough of Camden, six were female and five were male (a 55% female / 45% male split):

• Five participants were blind or partially sighted
• One person was blind and partially sighted and had reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user)
• One person was deaf blind
• One person was deaf hard of hearing
• Two people had reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user); and
• One person had a learning disability and reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user).

The 11 participants testing the Lupton Street Home Zone made 42 positive statements about the Home Zone and 260 negative statements.

7.2 Positive statements about the Lupton Street Home Zone

Using delineation in shared surface areas
Five participants made positive comments about using delineation in shared surface areas at Lupton Street, these included:

• colour contrast - was mentioned by a person with a learning disability and a permanent wheelchair user who used the double yellow lines to navigate and a partially sighted person who noticed a concrete strip between the pedestrian area and the vehicle path;
• above ground obstacles (intermittent) - two permanent wheelchair users liked the use of bollards and trees as it gave them a sense of safety from vehicles but allowed them to see what was approaching, also a partially sighted person used the line of bollards to navigate and commented on the good colour contrast of these bollards;
• level surface allowing freedom of movement - two permanent wheelchair users mentioned that they liked the shared surface as it allowed for more options to cross the space and was very smooth to use.

"From the junction area I can see the line of bollards up to the end of task area and this helps me make out the area to move to and try to locate building line." Comment from a partially sighted person

Figure 7.1: Double yellow lines and concrete strip delineate the area

Orientation cues
Two people (both BPS people) indicated that they were using the building line as an orientation cue to move around the edge of the space. Another BPS person mentioned that they used audio cues (such as the sound of traffic) to navigate because of the lack of a kerb.

7.3 Negative statements about the Lupton Street Home Zone

Problems using delineation in shared surface areas
Six participants mentioned that they were having problems using delineation in shared surface areas, these problems included:

• colour contrast - such as not being able to tell where to go in the area which was mentioned by a person with a learning disability, becoming confused by double yellow lines and walking into the middle of the vehicle path which was mentioned by a partially sighted person and a preference for an area defined by colour (mentioned by a permanent wheelchair user);
• surface texture and tactile paving - not being able to locate oneself in the Home Zone because of the surface texture, as indicated by a person with a learning disability; and a lack of tactile paving to indicate that you are about to cross the vehicle path, as indicated by a BPS person and a Deaf Blind person.

Problems with a lack of delineation in shared surface areas
Seven participants mentioned that they were having problems with the lack of delineation in shared surface areas, these problems included:

• a desire for a kerb to aid navigation as mentioned by a BPS person;
• not being able to tell the difference between the vehicle path and pedestrian areas (mentioned by four BPS people) and walking into the vehicle path because they had no indication where it was (mentioned by a BPS person).

Using orientation cues
Three people (all BPS people) indicated that they needed a kerb to navigate and that this area did not provide a kerb.

Crossing the space
Two people mentioned that they would encounter problems trying to cross the space, this included a desire for a controlled crossing and tactile paving to indicate its existence (mentioned by a BPS person) and having no indication of where to cross (mentioned by a Deaf Blind person).

Gateways to the site
Three people (two BPS people and a Deaf Blind person) indicated that they had no idea that they were in a Home Zone (one person mentioning that this was because they couldn't use signage).

Above ground obstacles
Seven people indicated that they had problems with above ground obstacles such as street furniture, this included:

• above ground obstacles (intermittent) - bollards, cycle racks, bins and trees being a collision hazard and cluttering the area, as mentioned by two BPS people, a BPS person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) and a DHH person;
• above ground obstacles (continuous) - one BPS person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) mentioned that they were confused by the use of long "gate-style" railings in the area.

Figure 7.2: Railings used to delineate the area

Interaction with vehicles
Four people mentioned that they were concerned about the attitude and behaviour of motorists in the Home Zone, this included worries about vehicles cutting corners (mentioned by a DHH person), motorists not taking any notice of pedestrians (mentioned by a BPS person), non-local motorists not knowing how to use the area (mentioned by a permanent wheelchair user) and not knowing where vehicles are coming from (mentioned by a BPS person).

7.4 Safety statistics

There was one slight casualty in the 5 year period before implementation, which involved a taxi and a 33 year old pedestrian. There were none in the period after implementation. Mean speeds in the after period were about 12 mph (Camden Council, 2004).

7.5 User level statistics

Forty two percent of residents thought that speeds had reduced and only 2% thought that they had increased since the Home Zone was implemented. Similarly, 38% thought that traffic volume had decreased and 7% thought that it had increased. Just over half (51%) of respondents thought that the number of children and young people playing in the street had increased. Fifteen percent walked or used public transport more but for 71% it made no difference (Camden Council, 2004).

8. Outline of Findings at Staiths South Bank Home Zone, Gateshead

8.1 Participant sample at the Staiths South Bank Home Zone

Of the five participants at the Staiths South Bank Home Zone in Gateshead, two were female and three were male (a 40% female / 60% male split):

• Two participants were blind or partially sighted
• One person was deaf and partially sighted
• One person was deaf hard of hearing; and
• Two people had reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user).

The five participants testing the Staiths South Bank Home Zone made 27 positive statements about the Home Zone and 72 negative statements.

8.2 Positive statements about the Staiths South Bank Home Zone

Using shared surfaces
One permanent wheelchair user indicated that they liked the flush level surface areas in the Staiths South Bank Home Zone.

Using the building line and surface features as orientation cues
One BPS person mentioned that they were making use of the grass verge and wooden fencing as an orientation cue for navigation in the Home Zone.

Figure 8.1: Fencing in the Staiths South Bank Home Zone

8.3 Negative statements about the Staiths South Bank Home Zone

Using shared surfaces
One BPS person indicated that more delineation was needed to indicate the vehicle path. Two permanent wheelchair users expressed concern about not having anywhere to go when approached by vehicles.

Gateways to the site
One BPS person and two permanent wheelchair users indicated that they thought there should be specific signage to indicate that you are in a shared surface area. One BPS person also indicated that tactile paving should be in place at the entrance and exit to the Home Zone.

Drainage and gradient
A BPS person and two permanent wheelchair users mentioned that the guttering near to the ramp area was a potential trip hazard and a problem for wheelchair users.

Figure 8.2: Gutter at the ramp in the Staiths South Bank Home Zone

8.4 Safety and user level statistics

The Staiths South Bank Home Zone is a new build site and no casualties have been reported in the period after implementation of the Home Zone.

The 85th percentile speeds were typically between 16 and 19 mph (Gateshead Council, 2006).

9. Outline of Findings at Albany Street Home Zone, Kingston-upon-Hull

9.1 Participant sample at the Albany Street Home Zone

Of the six participants at the Albany Street Home Zone in Kingston-upon-Hull, two were female and four were male (a 33% female / 66% male split):

• Two participants had reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair users)
• One person was partially sighted
• One person was deaf hard of hearing
• One person was deaf hard of hearing and partially sighted; and
• One person was deaf hard of hearing and had reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user).

The six participants testing the Albany Street Home Zone made 13 positive statements about the Home Zone and 85 negative statements.

9.2 Positive statements about the Albany Street Home Zone

Above ground obstacles (intermittent)
Two participants (a DHH person and a BPS person) indicated that they could navigate around above ground obstacles such as wheelie bins, with the DHH person indicating that the wheelie bin had good colour contrast.

Surface materials
Two participants (a DHH permanent wheelchair user and BPS person) indicated that they preferred the black asphalt surface to the "compacted gravel" areas because it is smoother with few potholes.

Figure 9.1: The patterned surface at the Albany Street Home Zone

9.3 Negative statements about the Albany Street Home Zone

Problems using the kerb as an orientation cue
Three people indicated that they were having safety problems with using the kerb, two permanent wheelchair users and a BPS person mentioned that the crossfall and narrow kerb edging meant that they might fall off the side of the kerb and that it also affected their navigation.

"The electric wheelchair is not as good on chamfered edges so I can't navigate as easily." Comments from a permanent wheelchair user

Pedestrian pathway and footway
Two participants indicated that the footway provided was too narrow for them and that they were worried about getting stuck (between obstacles, mentioned by a permanent wheelchair user) and falling off the kerb (mentioned by a BPS person).

Figure 9.2: The chamfered kerb at the Albany Street Home Zone

Problems with surface materials
Two people indicated that the surface materials used were causing them problems. This included being confused about the meaning of the metal studs embedded in the surface, and discomfort caused by moving over "compacted gravel" mentioned by a permanent wheelchair user. Also, a BPS person indicated that the lighter coloured "compacted gravel" was reflecting sunlight and causing pain to their eyes and was concerned that the "compacted gravel" would damage their cane. The BPS person also indicated that the pattern on the surface was creating confusion about what route they should take.

Problems with parking and above ground obstacles
Two people (a BPS person and DHH person) mentioned that the cars parked on the footway were a collision hazard and that some above ground obstacles (that are intermittent, such as lampposts and a telephone box), were positioned in the pathway and could also be a collision hazard.

9.4 Safety statistics

There were 3 casualties in 6 years before the Home Zone was implemented at Albany Street. These involved 2 cars, an LGV and an 8 year old male pedestrian who was masked by parked cars, and a car which hit parked cars accidentally.

There is no data for the period after implementation (TRL, 2006).

10. Outline of Findings at Portchester Home Zone, Hampshire

10.1 Participant sample at the Portchester Home Zone

Of the six participants at the Portchester Home Zone in Hampshire, four were female and two were male (a 66% female / 33% male split):

• Two participants were Deaf hard of hearing with reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair users)
• One person was deaf hard of hearing
• One person had reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user)
• One person had reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user); and
• One person was partially sighted and hard of hearing.

The six participants testing the Portchester Home Zone made 35 positive statements about the Home Zone and 129 negative statements.

10.2 Positive statements about the Portchester Home Zone

Using delineation in shared surface areas
Two participants indicated that they could use the colour contrast delineation on the surface to navigate, this included being able to tell which area was for pedestrians and which was for vehicles (as mentioned by a DHH permanent wheelchair user). The partially sighted and hard of hearing person indicated that they also used the colour contrast of planters as an orientation cue and could detect the different textures between the different surfaces with their cane.

Figure 10.1: The red surface indicates the vehicle path and the black surface indicates pedestrian area

Using the building line as an orientation cue
Two participants (a DHH permanent wheelchair user and partially sighted hard of hearing person) indicated that they made use of the building line as an orientation cue to navigate in the Home Zone.

10.3 Negative statements about the Portchester Home Zone

Problems with delineation in shared surface areas
Two participants encountered problems using delineation in shared surface areas, a partially sighted and hard of hearing person couldn't tell what the different surfaces meant and a DHH permanent wheelchair user was confused by the inconsistent use of edging around planting areas.

Problems with parking
Three participants (partially sighted hard of hearing person, a DHH person and DDH permanent wheelchair user) indicated that residents' parking is reducing the width of the pedestrian pathway and creating potential trip hazards.

Figure 10.2: Some poorly parked vehicles encroach on the pedestrian pathway

Vegetation
Five participants indicated that they were having problems with vegetation in the Home Zone. This included mulch overflowing from planters creating a trip hazard (mentioned by a person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user)) and over hanging foliage and hedges creating a collision hazard (mentioned by a person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user), two DHH permanent wheelchair users, a DHH person and a partially sighted hard of hearing person).

10.4 Safety statistics

There was one casualty in the 5 year period before implementation, which involved a car that was travelling east on Sunningdale Road and was in a collision with a 10 year old male pedestrian who entered the road from the driver's offside, and was concealed by parked cars. There have been no casualties since completion of the Home Zone up to the end of 2005 (Hampshire County Council, 2006).

10.5 User levels statistics

Just over half of users (52%) had changed their driving/parking behaviour but 48% had not. Just under a half (48%) thought that traffic speeds were slower compared with 23% who thought they were not slower, 28% thought that there was no change. A total of 15% had mobility problems and 62% of those with a mobility problem thought that it was not easier to use the streets (Hampshire County Council, 2005; Hampshire County Council, 2006).

11. Outline of Findings at Duke of Edinburgh Way Home Zone, Worcestershire

11.1 Participant sample at the Duke of Edinburgh Way Home Zone

Of the ten participants at the Duke of Edinburgh Way Home Zone in Worcestershire, six were female and four were male (a 60% female / 40% male split):

• Four participants were Blind or partially sighted
• Three were Deaf hard of hearing
• One person had a learning disability and reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user)
• One person was blind and had reduced mobility; and
• One person was blind and hard of hearing.

The ten participants testing the Duke of Edinburgh Way Home Zone made 95 positive statements about the Home Zone and 141 negative statements.

11.2 Positive statements about the Duke of Edinburgh Way Home Zone

Using shared surfaces
Three participants (all DHH people) indicated that they had no problems using the shared surfaces in the Home Zone and that they liked the level surface which is easier to use push chairs on.

Two participants indicated that they could use delineation on the shared surface to navigate, this included using a line of bollards to detect a route (mentioned by a BPS person) and using the colour contrast of dark paving that crosses the vehicle path to wayfind (mentioned by a blind and hard of hearing person).

Crossing the space
Six participants indicated that they could cross the space using various cues. These included using a speed bump to cross the vehicle path (mentioned by a blind and hard of hearing person), using tactile paving to know when to cross (BPS people) and three DHH people indicated that they were very happy to use the crossing point as they could see vehicles approaching.

11.3 Negative statements about the Duke of Edinburgh Way Home Zone

Shared surface areas
Three people indicated that they had problems and concerns using shared surface areas. This included not wanting to mix with vehicles, guide dogs being unaware that they are walking into the vehicle path, not knowing what area you should be in as a pedestrian and above ground obstacles such as bollards not being enough of a delineator (all mentioned by BPS people).

Orientation cues
Two people (both BPS people) mentioned that they experienced problems with the lack of a kerb and "surface lips" in the Home Zone. This included a preference for a change in level and guide dogs not being able to detect a lip.

"Because the lip is so low I am not able to feel the dog step up as I would with a kerb so its not as easy to tell when they are out of the 'danger area.'" Comments from a blind partially sighted person

Figure 11.1: Participant and guide dog testing the Home Zone

Gateways to the site
Six people mentioned that they had problems identifying that they were in a Home Zone. This included not understanding what the Home Zone sign meant (mentioned by a BPS person and three DHH people) and suggesting that more signage was needed to slow vehicles down (mentioned by three DHH people).

11.4 Safety statistics

There were no casualties in the before or after periods of the implementation of the Home Zone at Duke of Edinburgh Way (TRL, 2006).

12. Outline of Findings at Morice Town Home Zone, Plymouth

12.1 Participant sample at Morice Town Home Zone

Of the seven participants at the Morice Town Home Zone in Plymouth, three were female and four were male (a 43% female / 57% male split):

• Two participants were Blind or partially sighted
• Two were Deaf hard of hearing; and
• Three people had reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user).

The seven participants testing the Morice Town Home Zone made 34 positive statements about the Home Zone and 83 negative statements.

12.2 Positive statements about the Morice Town Home Zone

Using shared surface areas
Two permanent wheelchair users were aware that they were in a space where vehicles were and that they were happy to move around within it. Two permanent wheelchair users indicated that they preferred to use areas that were "protected" from vehicles by bollards.

Figure 12.1: Shared surface area at the Morice Town Home Zone

Pedestrian pathway
Three permanent wheelchair users made positive comments about the good width and smooth surface of the pedestrian pathway.

12.3 Negative statements about the Morice Town Home Zone

Problems using shared surface areas
Six people mentioned that they had problems using shared surface areas in the Home Zone. This included problems with:

• above ground obstacles (intermittent) - one DHH person indicated that they did not know what the bollards signified;
• several users mentioned that they were avoiding shared surface areas because they did not feel safe in areas where vehicles could be (mentioned by two permanent wheelchair users and a BPS person);
• one BPS person mentioned that they did not know where the vehicle path was or if they were in it.

Interacting with vehicles
Three people had concerns about interacting with vehicles in the Home Zone, this included having vehicles approach from behind but not being aware of them, assuming that the area was pedestrianised and safety concerns about vehicle speeds (mentioned by two DHH people). In addition, one BPS person was concerned about the reversing behaviour of vehicles in the Home Zone.

Figure 12.2: Morice Town Home Zone

Parking
One permanent wheelchair user mentioned that car parking reduced their crossing options.

12.4 Safety statistics

There were seven casualties in the before period of eight years (0.88/year) which involved two pedestrians, one pedal cyclist and four other casualties. In the period after implementation there was one casualty (0.36/year) on Charlotte Street where a car pulled out, forcing a motorcycle to brake and collide. The motorcyclist was slightly hurt.

It was reported in TRL 640 (TRL, 2005) that a pedestrian mentioned that they had tripped over the pavement on Pentamar Street causing an injury of unknown severity. The actual location and circumstances of this incident were unknown. It was also reported that there appeared to be more incidents mentioned by the respondents in the period after implementation, however this could have been due to more incidents being recounted rather than a real increase in incidents.

A total of 12 damage-only collisions were recorded in the 3 year period after the Home Zone was implemented from 1/1/2003 to 31/12/2005.

Of these 12 casualties, four involved loss of control as follows:

• Police pursuit, offender lost control and hit wall (Charlotte Street).
• Motorcycle lost control and hit car. (Charlotte Street).
• Abandoned vehicle found crashed in concrete flower bed (Herbert Place/Cross Hill).
• Goods vehicle negotiating a chicane, lost control and hit fence (Pentamer Street).

Three involved negligent reversing as follows:

• Car reversed into parked car.
• Police vehicle reversed to pull out of junction and reversed into parked car (Kemyell Place).
• Lorry reversed into a bollard (Keat Street).

Two involved damage to parked cars:

• A parked car rolled back overnight into another parked car due to the handbrake not being on properly (Garden Street).
• Damage to parked car, no witnesses to damage (Charlotte Street).

Three involved negligent manoeuvres:

• Shunt involving three cars (Ross Street).
• Door opened into oncoming car (Atherton Place).
• Car pulled out and hit oncoming car (Herbert Street).

(Plymouth City Council, 2006; Wheeler, Tilly, Webster, Rajesparen and Buttress, 2005).

12.5 User levels statistics

Respondents thought that motorists were more considerate to adult and child road users in the period after implementation. They were also less bothered about speeding and the amount of traffic. This supports the measured speed results which were all reduced. Most respondents spent the same amount of time outside their home when the weather was reasonable. The introduction of the zone did not appear to affect the overall frequency of walking trips. (Plymouth City Council, 2006; Wheeler, Tilly, Webster, Rajesparen and Buttress, 2005).

13. Outline of Findings at Maryatt Avenue Home Zone, London Borough of Harrow

13.1 Participant sample at Maryatt Avenue Home Zone

Of the seven participants at the Maryatt Avenue Home Zone in the London Borough of Harrow, five were female and two were male (a 71% female / 29% male split):

• Two participants were Blind or partially sighted
• Three had a learning disability and reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user)
• One person had reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user); and
• One blind and hard of hearing person.

The seven participants testing the Maryatt Avenue Home Zone made 52 positive statements about the Home Zone and 91 negative statements.

13.2 Positive statements about the Maryatt Avenue Home Zone

Using shared surfaces
Five people made positive statements about using the shared surface areas in the Home Zone. This included a guide dog being able to adapt to areas with little delineation (mentioned by a BPS person), a BPS person being able to detect the brick paving along the footway with their cane and knowing what area to walk in to avoid vehicles (mentioned by a person with a learning disability and reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user).

Using the building line as an orientation cue
Two people mentioned that they were using the building line as an orientation cue to help them navigate (mentioned by a BPS person and a blind and hard of hearing person).

Figure 13.1: Shared surface area in the Maryatt Avenue Home Zone

13.3 Negative statements about the Maryatt Avenue Home Zone

Using the guidance path
Three people (two BPS people and a blind and hard of hearing person) indicated that they were having problems using the guidance path in the Home Zone. This included not being able to detect the guidance path, and it not being distinctive enough.

"Unless I came to something distinctive I would not be able to tell it was there as I am moving very quickly - there is not sufficient provision underfoot." Comment from a blind and hard of hearing person

Crossing the space
Three people with a learning disability and reduced mobility (non-wheelchair users) mentioned that they didn't want to cross where cars are parked as they couldn't see if vehicles are approaching.

Above ground obstacles
Five people made negative statements about using above ground obstacles that are intermittent such as bollards, giant concrete balls and wheelie bins. One BPS person indicated that the wheelie bins were poorly contrasted and the giant concrete balls gave poor contrast against the colour of the footway surface. Three people with a learning disability and reduced mobility (non-wheelchair users) mentioned that bollards should be higher to avoid becoming a collision hazard.

Figure 13.2: Concrete balls at the Maryatt Avenue Home Zone

13.4 Safety statistics

There was one casualty in the period before implementation of five years which involved two cars that collided. There were no casualties after implementation up to the end of 2004 (TRL, 2006).

14. Outline of Findings at Magor Village Home Zone, Monmouthshire

14.1 Participant sample at Magor Village Home Zone

Of the seven participants at the Magor Village Home Zone in Monmouthshire, two were female and five were male (a 29% female / 71% male split):

• One participant was Blind or partially sighted
• One person had a reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user)
• One person had reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user)
• One person was deaf hard of hearing with reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user)
• One person was partially sighted with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user)
• One person with a learning disability and reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user); and
• One deaf person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user).

The seven participants testing the Magor Village Home Zone made 31 positive statements about the Home Zone and 112 negative statements.

14.2 Positive statements about the Magor Village Home Zone

Using shared surface areas
Two participants made positive statements about using shared surface areas in the Home Zone, this included being able to identify the pedestrian pathway because of slab paving surface texture as mentioned by a BPS person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) and a guide dog adapting to the space (mentioned by a BPS person).

"The dog chose a path around the edge of the square, if she hears cars she takes me to the nearest footway." Comments from a blind partially sighted person

Figure 14.1: Shared surface area in the Magor Village Home Zone

Crossing the space
A DHH permanent wheelchair user mentioned that they liked the fact that they could cross at any point because of the lack of kerbs.

14.3 Negative statements about the Magor Village Home Zone

Gateways to the site
Four people indicated that they hadn't seen any Home Zone signs (mentioned by a person with a learning disability and permanent wheelchair user, a partially sighted person and a DHH permanent wheelchair user), a person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) indicated that they didn't know what the signs meant and suggested that more were needed.

Pedestrian pathways
Three people (a BPS person, permanent wheelchair user and a BPS person with reduced mobility (non-wheelchair user) made negative comments about the width of the pedestrian pathway).

Figure 14.2: Paved area at the Magor Village Home Zone

Surface materials
Two permanent wheelchair users (one of whom has a learning disability) indicated that travelling across the paved areas was very uncomfortable and jolted them around.

14.4 Safety statistics

There was one slight casualty in the period of seven years before implementation which involved a car and a motorcycle. In the period after implemention there were two casualties. One involved a car and an 8 year old female pedestrian and the other involved a car and a 17 year old male pedal cyclist. Both casualties were slight and located at the northern end just inside the Home Zone. Mean speeds close to this location were about 12 mph. In general speeds were relatively low before the Home Zone and overall speeds were reduced by about 2 mph to about 14 mph. Traffic flows were changed due to the road through the Square being turned into one-way streets (TRL, 2006; Layfield, Webster and Buttress, 2005).

14.5 User level statistics

Respondents indicated that there was little change in the amount of time that residents spent outside, but walking within the Home Zone was more pleasant. Most respondents said that the Home Zone had made no difference to how often they drove on streets within the Home Zone. It was thought that drivers were less considerate to children and adults walking or crossing the road or cycling (Layfield, Webster and Buttress, 2005).

15. Outline of Findings at Darcy Gardens, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

15.1 Participant sample at Darcy Gardens

Of the three participants at Darcy Gardens in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, none were female and three were male (a 0% female / 100% male split):

• One participant was deaf hard of hearing and had reduced mobility (part-time wheelchair user)
• One person was blind partially sighted; and
• One person had reduced mobility (permanent wheelchair user) and had no speech.

The three participants testing Darcy Gardens made 3 positive statements about the area and 74 negative statements.

15.2 Positive statements about Darcy Gardens

Using the shared surface
One DHH part-time wheelchair user made positive comments about using the shared surface as it allows them to move around freely and cross the space at any point.

Figure 15.1: Darcy Gardens

15.2 Negative statements about Darcy Gardens

Problems using orientation cues
Two people indicated that they were having problems using orientation cues in Darcy Gardens. This included the lack of a kerb to aid navigation mentioned by a permanent wheelchair user and losing the building line because of parked cars (mentioned by a BPS person).

"User started off along the building edge (front gardens) till he went around a parked car. At this point he lost his sense of direction and diagonally crossed the road. Auditor had to correct him and tell him to turn left at the end of the road. If auditor hadn't intervened he would have ended up in somebody's front garden." Comments about a Blind partially sighted person

Problems with parking
Two participants made negative comments about parking. These included cars parking on both sides of the road and forcing the user into an area where they cannot avoid vehicles (mentioned by a DHH part-time wheelchair user) and worries that cars can park anywhere and so create a confusing environment (mentioned by a permanent wheelchair user).

Drainage and gradient
Two participants indicated that the steep gradient for drainage was causing them some difficulty, this included making wheelchair users feel unstable and uncomfortable (mentioned by a permanent wheelchair user and DHH part-time wheelchair user).

"Steep cambers designed to channel water into drains are a problem - wheelchair users feel unstable. I would prefer drains on both sides of area in order that steepness of cambers could be reduced." Comments from a permanent wheelchair user

15.3 Safety statistics

There were no casualties in the period before or after implementation of the shared surface (Dagenham Street Management, 2006).

16. Analysis of Questionnaire on General Issues and Experience

The questionnaire on general issues and experience obtained participants' more generalised views about navigation and safety within the Home Zone. It also gained participants' suggestions for improvement and how participants thought the Home Zone compared to the traditional street environment.

16.1 Ease of undertaking navigation and wayfinding

Participants were asked "How easy did you find undertaking the navigation task in the Home Zone?" Over two thirds said that the task was either very easy or easy (see Figure 16.1), while 30% thought it was either difficult or very difficult.

Four people (5%) commented that they liked the freedom of movement that the Home Zone enabled, while 2 people (3%) made negative comments about using the shared surface. Six people (8%) indicated that if they were more familiar with the area then they would find it easier to use, while 3 people mentioned that being unfamiliar with the area made it more difficult to navigate. Ten people (14%) indicated that they experienced problems with street furniture in the Home Zone and 4 people (5%) were concerned about interacting with vehicles.

Figure 16.1: How easy did you find undertaking the navigation task in the Home Zone?

Figure 16.2: How easy did you find undertaking the navigation task in the Home Zone? - number of participants

Figure 16.3: How easy did you find undertaking the navigation task in the Home Zone? - percentage of participants

16.2 Problems navigating a route

Participants were asked "Did you have any problems with navigating along the route?" Over a third said that they had no problems navigating a route (see Figure 16.4), while over a half indicated that they experienced a few problems and just over 10% had many problems or too many problems.

Four people (5%) indicated that they were experiencing problems because they were unfamiliar with the site. Seven people (10%) mentioned that the lack of a footway with a kerb was causing them problems navigating the route.

Figure 16.4: Did you have any problems with navigating along the route?

Figure 16.5: Did you have any problems with navigating along the route? - number of participants

Figure 16.6: Did you have any problems with navigating along the route? - percentage of participants

16.3 Ease of navigation at night

Participants were asked "Do you think you would find any difference in ease of navigation in the day or at night?" Sixty percent thought there would be a difference in ease of navigation in the day or at night (see Figure 16.7), while just under 30% thought there would be no difference.

Nineteen people (26%) mentioned that better street lighting was needed to aid night-time navigation. Three people (4%) indicated that the reduction in colour contrast at night might reduce their ability to navigate and twelve people (16%) mentioned that they would be concerned about colliding with street furniture such as bollards at night, several participants suggested more illumination was needed.

Figure 16.7: Do you think you would find any difference in ease of navigation in the day or at night?

Figure 16.8: Do you think you would find any difference in ease of navigation in the day or at night? - number of participants

Figure 16.9: Do you think you would find any difference in ease of navigation in the day or at night? - percentage of participants

16.4 Perceptions of safety

Participants were asked "How safe do you feel navigating around this area?" Over half of participants indicated that they felt either very safe or safe (see Figure 16.10), while just over a third felt either unsafe or very unsafe navigating around the Home Zones.

Three participants (4%) indicated that the reduced speed of vehicles enhanced their feelings of safety, while six participants (8%) mentioned that they felt unsafe because of the speed of vehicles. Nine people (12%) expressed concerns for their safety because of driver behaviour in the Home Zones. Eleven people (15%) made negative statements about their feelings of safety when using the shared surface and the lack of a footway with a kerb. Eleven people (15%) also expressed concerns about avoiding vehicles in the Home Zone environment.

Figure 16.10: How safe do you feel navigating around this area?

Figure 16.11: How safe do you feel navigating around this area? - number of participants

Figure 16.12: How safe do you feel navigating around this area? - percentage of participants

16.5 Comparing Home Zones to traditional streets for navigation

Participants were asked "Do you feel this Home Zone street environment is better or worse than a traditional residential street environment in terms of overall navigation?" Almost half of participants thought that the Home Zone environment was better than a traditional street for navigation (see Figure 16.13), while just over a third thought that it was worse and 19% didn't know or refused to answer.

Ten people (14%) mentioned that they liked using the shared surface in Home Zones because it improved their freedom of movement and meant that they didn't have to negotiate kerbs. However 7 people (10%) indicated that they didn't like using non-delineated shared surface in Home Zones when compared to the traditional street environment.

Figure 16.13: Do you feel this Home Zone street environment is better or worse than a traditional residential street environment in terms of overall navigation?

Figure 16.14: Do you feel this Home Zone street environment is better or worse than a traditional residential street environment in terms of overall navigation? - number of participants

Figure 16.15: Do you feel this Home Zone street environment is better or worse than a traditional residential street environment in terms of overall navigation? - percentage of participants

16.6 Comparing Home Zones to traditional streets for safety

Participants were asked "Do you feel this Home Zone street environment is better or worse than a traditional residential street environment in terms of overall safety?" Just over a third of participants thought that the Home Zone environment was better than a traditional street in terms of safety (see Figure 16.16), slightly more people (37%) thought that it was worse and 29% didn't know or refused to answer.

Sixteen people (22%) indicated that they felt safer in Home Zones because of the reduced speed and volume of vehicles. However 5 people (7%) indicated that because of increased vehicle speeds they felt less safe in a Home Zone. Ten people (14%) expressed concerns about interacting with vehicles in the Home Zones and felt that this reduced their safety. Four people (5%) felt that the lack of delineation meant that Home Zones were less safe than the traditional street environment.

Figure 16.16: Do you feel this Home Zone street environment is better or worse than a traditional residential street environment in terms of overall safety?

Figure 16.17: Do you feel this Home Zone street environment is better or worse than a traditional residential street environment in terms of overall safety? -number of participants

Figure 16.18: Do you feel this Home Zone street environment is better or worse than a traditional residential street environment in terms of overall safety? - percentage of participants

References

Bristol City Council (2006) Casualty (STATS 19) and speed data.

Camden Council (2004) Home Zone review - Lupton Street, Raveley Street and part of Ospringe Road, URN ENV/2004/17.

The Centre for Transport & Society, UWE (forthcoming) Southville Home Zone: An Independent Evaluation, University of the West of England, Bristol.

Cope, M. (2003) 'Coding transcripts and diaries' in Clifford, N. J. and Valentine, G. (eds) Key Methods in Geography, London: Sage Publications Limited.

Dagenham Street Management (2006) Casualty data (STATS 19) for Dagenham, London.

Gateshead Council (2006) Casualty (STATS 19) and speed data.

Government Chief Social Researchers Office (2004) 'Chapter 8: Qualitative Research and Evaluation' in The Magenta Book: Guidance Notes for Policy Evaluation and Analysis, London: Cabinet Office.

Hampshire County Council (2005) Analysis of Home Zone questionnaire 2005.

Hampshire County Council (2006) Casualty data (STATS 19).

Layfield R, Webster D and Buttress S (2005) Pilot Home Zone schemes: Evaluation of Magor village, Monmouthshire. TRL Report 633. Crowthorne: TRL Limited.

Plymouth City Council (2006) Casualty data (STATS 19).

Scottish Executive (2006) Resident survey of the Dundee Home Zone. Social Research.

TRL (2006) Casualty data (STATS 19), TRL Limited.

Wheeler A, Tilly A, Webster D, Rajesparen Y and Buttress S (2005). Pilot Home Zone schemes: Evaluation of Morice Town, Plymouth. TRL Report 640. Crowthorne: TRL Limited.

• Personal mobility
• Top of page