Download this briefing as a Word document

Download this briefing as a pdf

Key principle: Everyone should have safe, accessible transport options that they can use to make the local journeys they want and need to make.

1            Hierarchy of design accessibility for all Disabled people on bus routes

Bus stop bypasses are presently an essential part of inclusive active travel networks that enable (pan-impairment) Disabled people to make journeys. Bans or excessive restrictions on bus stop bypass creation would prevent development of safe, accessible active travel networks and result in formal or de facto shared space between cyclists and pedestrians at bus stops. Banning bus stop bypasses would cause ongoing exclusion of Disabled people from active travel and bus use, and additional deaths/injuries in motor vehicle collisions.

1. On-carriageway amplified mobility: Motor vehicle movements must be minimised to maximise accessibility for walking/wheeling, cycling and amplified mobility use. On bus routes, max <2000 vehicles/day and <200 vehicles/peak hour and vehicle speeds <20mph enable relatively inclusive carriageway, use usually avoiding need for bus stop bypasses.
2. Separate routes: Where motor vehicle volumes and speeds cannot be sufficiently reduced, protected cycle routes are required. In some locations, it is possible to provide socially safe, prioritised and direct routes for cycling on parallel roads or paths to bus routes. Walking-speed cycling on footways must be permitted for Disabled cyclists to reach destinations.
3. Bus stops on opposite side of road from cycle tracks: On streets with bus stops on one side only, two-way cycle tracks can be placed on the opposite side of the road from the bus stops, avoiding the need for bypasses. Controlled pedestrian crossings will need to cross the cycle tracks and carriageway. Controlled cycle/mobility crossings will be needed.
4. Bus moves over cycle track to stop at pavement kerb: At low bus frequency and low cycle track use locations, can remove need for bus stop bypasses. Will cause unacceptable risk of injury/death to cycle track users and bus passengers at higher-use locations.
5. Bus stop bypass: Where other solutions are not possible, we believe best practice bus stop bypasses are the most accessible available option for pan-impairment, pan-modal Disabled users. Bypasses are always less accessible for bus users than moving directly from bus to pavement, due to the extra crossings needed. May reduce injury risk for bus passengers.

We do not consider bus stop boarders to be accessible unless there is an effective way to stop all cycle track movement while buses are present. This is due to lack of inter-visibility between users.

2            Maximising accessibility for all where bus stop bypasses are needed

1. For non-bus-using walking/wheeling, continuous footway meeting TfL Pedestrian Comfort Guidance will be the pan-impairment most accessible option.
2. For bus-using walking/wheeling, consistent bypass and island design with accessible swept paths such that Disabled bus users can move safely onto and around the island at busy times, on-bus announcements that the stop has a bypass, designated tactile crossings on desire lines with raised tables to emphasise pedestrian priority, measures to ensure Blind/VI and other Disabled pedestrians can identify that crossings lead to a bypass and use them safely, clear colour contrast between footway and cycle track, audio and visual bus arrival information, bus shelters with seating and for busy bypasses, crossing controls.
3. For cycle/amplified mobility users, safe distance from side street crossings, clear sight lines, no objects near cycle track edges, forgiving kerbs, full accessible surface widths, clear colour contrast and minimised clutter improve accessibility and help ensure cycle track users are aware of pedestrians. Measures such as high kerbs, speed bumps and “chicane” turns make spaces inaccessible to many Disabled users, are unlikely to slow fast cyclists, and will require attention to navigate, potentially increasing risk of collisions.
4. For all public realm schemes: significantly improved provision of habilitation training and support for Disabled people using all modes is needed, especially where changes are made to infrastructure or new infrastructure is created.

3            Rationale: Principles for accessible journey-making

1. The Equality Act (2010) requires service providers to make anticipatory reasonable adjustments for Disabled people “to approximate the access enjoyed by disabled people to that enjoyed by the rest of the public.”
2. Some Disabled people need to use walking/wheeling and buses/public transport to make essential journeys, and cannot make these journeys other ways.
3. Some Disabled people need to use cycling, mobility scooters and other above-walking-speed mobility options (amplified mobility) to make essential journeys, and cannot make these journeys other ways.
4. Some Disabled people need to use private motor vehicles (including taxis and private hire vehicles) to make journeys, and cannot make these journeys other ways.
5. Presently, poor accessibility of all travel modes in the UK unfairly disadvantages many Disabled people. Poor safety and accessibility of infrastructure and vehicles, poor access to mobility aids (including cycles) and vehicles, and disabling societal attitudes are all factors worsening Disabled people’s access to journey-making.
6. Both measures taken and measures not taken to improve accessibility for some groups of Disabled people using some travel modes can worsen access for others. For example, a decision not to install modal filters on one entrance to a street because some Disabled people using motor vehicles may be excluded from making trips by longer driving routes, will exclude some Disabled people walking/wheeling, cycling and using amplified mobility due to the risk of being injured or killed in collisions with motor vehicles. Collaborative working with pan-impairment Disabled experts is needed to negotiate best practice solutions to access frictions.
7. Reducing private motor vehicle use by non-disabled people is necessary to achieve mobility justice within an equitably accessible and safe transport system. This applies whether the vehicles are combustion engine driven, electric, owner-driven, private hire, human-controlled or autonomous: All contribute to excessive hazard to Disabled people, inaccessibility of public spaces and environmental harm including climate damage, which disproportionately affects Disabled people.
8. Systems including legislation, funding, guidance, enforcement and infrastructure must facilitate and prioritise journey-making using travel modes that cause the least harm and most benefit to individuals, wider society and the environment, that are also accessible for the person or people making the journey.

We consider that dangerous and illegal e-cycle and e-motorcycle use by gig economy riders needs to be urgently but separately addressed by measures to make the companies commissioning the services of these riders responsible for their riders’ devices and behaviour.