Accessibility fail for Network Rail
Just a quick thing...
I have chosen not to use adverts, pop-ups, mailing lists, or mandatory subscriptions, but it means there is an ongoing cost for me in researching and writing content, and generally advocating for active travel - time spent not working! If you can throw a few pounds my way to help out, your support is gratefully received! Thank you!
In an attempt to reduce instances of flytipping on its land, Network Rail has installed a new locked gate on Stoney Road, Nuneaton – part of National Cycle Network Route 52. However, while there is a gap to the side of the new barrier, it does not comply with current accessibility guidelines.
The obstruction was installed on 28 June 2023 after flytipping was reported earlier in the year. However, despite the route being part of the National Cycle Network and Network Rail being informed of accessibility requirements present in the likes of LTN 1/20 (the current design guidelines for cycle routes), Network Rail has confirmed that it did not consult with Sustrans, it did not refer to any design guidelines, and did not conduct an equality impact assessment prior to the installation. The company also confirmed that it did not consult the local Cycle Forum, Warwickshire County Council, or local councillors as they had no requirement to do and the barrier is on Network Rail land.
On a visit to the site in September 2023, I measured the available space as about 82-83cm (kerb to gate), or 129-130cm (fence to gate). In either case, this is below the minimum width of 150cm unobstructed space. This is stated in LTN 1/20‘s section on access controls (8.3) and also covered in Sustrans’ guidance which not only restates the need for 150cm clear space (9.1.3) but indicates width requirements for people walking, wheeling and cycling (6.1.5).
When reporting the flytipping issue at the start of June, I suggested the benefit of securing the route whilst ensuring it remains fully accessible to walking, wheeling, and cycling. This has been ignored.
We need bollards (LTN 1/20 compliant) installed to protect the space against flytippers and other unauthorised motor vehicle access, as well as improved surfacing, drainage, and lighting to make the space passable year-round regardless of cycle/rider type.
Extract from my email to Network Rail on 01 June 2023.
Network Rail also confirmed that they did not conduct an equality impact assessment, on the assumption that because the newly installed gate is of similar design to an older installation nearer the top of the road, the new barrier would be unlikely to affect accessibility. This is despite the fact that Network Rail was explicitly told that the old gate was non-compliant and inaccessible when closed.
In fact, the new barrier is worse for accessibility as it is more likely to be found locked, being further down the road, away from a row of houses. The old barrier could quite often be found left open.
[With] regard to access restrictions for motor vehicles, while I’m pleased to see this is being looked at, I am concerned about your suggestion that this will be a gate. I need to stress that restrictions must fully comply with the requirements of the latest cycling design guidance (LTN 1/20) to ensure that the route is accessible to all legal users. If a gate is used, it must include a compliant bypass that provides a minimum 1.5m effective width for straight-on passage. Otherwise, simple bollards spaced with a minimum gap of 1.5m would also be sufficient. This should be taken as an opportunity to remove the existing non-compliant gate that is present where Stoney Road meets with Midland Road, which when closed presents as inaccessible. Given Stoney Road also forms part of the National Cycle Network, you should also liaise with Sustrans who will be able to advise on compliant access restrictions.
Extract from my follow-up to Network Rail on 09 June 2023.
It is clear that a number of failures have occurred by Network Rail here – they have ignored cycle design guidelines and seemingly the Equality Act 2010 which could make the gate unlawful; they have failed to consult or liaise with the body that oversees the National Cycle Network, and/or the local cycle forum; they have ignored comments specifically directing them to accessibiliy guidance; they have made assumptions around accessibility that do not apply, based on an aged installation.
I have written to Network Rail and asked for explanations around their failures, what will be done to fix the gate, and a timetable for resolution.
Have you found this content interesting or useful? If so, and if you are able to, any contributions are greatly appreciated! Thank you! Oh, and do please share with others!
