google-site-verification: google1e91099aa2fb5988.html
top of page

The Westport Accessibility Audit

The built environment in our towns provides the context in which people engage in a range of occupations that they want to do, need to do, or must do. This engagement can happen in many different places –in workplaces, public spaces, shops, banks, and a variety of locations where economic, social, and cultural events occur. To support and enable an equality of opportunity, the public realm in our towns need to be accessible to people with a wide range of differing abilities to be considered inclusive and enabling.

Poorly designed and fragmented streetscapes coupled with an apparent lack of disability awareness by some individuals continue to frustrate, hinder, block, and prevent a significant number of disabled people to carry out normal, expected activities and occupations of daily living. “Almost 50% of people living with a physical disability experience difficulty when going outside the home alone” (Disability Federation of Ireland 2017 https://www.disability-federation.ie/publications/general-disability-the-facts/).

The purpose of this Occupational Therapy accessibility audit of the urban areas of Westport is to identify resources, possibilities, and barriers in the built environment that might either enable or prevent disabled people from participating and engaging in life.

Information for this audit has been collect from two sources:

  1. The lived experience of several Westport residents and visitors to the town who have disability or support a disabled family member, and,

  2. By carrying out a detailed Occupational Therapy based environmental assessment of the public realm areas of Westport, focusing primarily on wheelchair accessibility.

Several common environmental barriers emerged during this audit process, namely:

  1. No continuous wheelchair accessible footways between common destination nodes (e.g., the Post Office, banks, supermarkets & shops, Churches, Schools, the bus stops and the train station).

  2. Narrow poor surface quality footways (pavements) often with excessive crossfalls (towards traffic) and/or steep gradients.

  3. Open drainage channels across footways, on pedestrian road crossings and beside accessible parking bays.

  4. Poorly designed pedestrian road crossings that renders them inaccessible or dangerous for wheelchair users and those with reduced mobility.

  5. Blocked footways – parked cars encroaching onto the footpath, cars/vans blocking road crossings, advertising boards preventing free flowing movement along the pavement and creating a falls/injury risk to some pedestrians, euro bins outside businesses forcing wheelchair users to the footpath margins and outdoor dining furniture and customers creating “no go areas” in the centre of the town. Most of the local individuals with the lived experience of a long-term disability identified two other issues that they felt significantly impacted on their ability to freely participate in independent activities outside their immediate home environment. The lack of general disability awareness in Westport, and, the lack of information and provision of accessible facilities. Finally, this accessibility audit should be seen as a starting point rather than a definitive statement on the state of accessibility to the public realm in Westport. The audit represents one way of viewing the issues of Occupational Justice and Equality of Opportunity for all users of the public realm spaces in Westport. Different voices and viewpoints need and should be heard to develop a continuous dynamic plan to improve and maintain access for all in the town of Westport.

Brief:

      To promote occupational rights and equality of opportunity by exploring ways to improve access for       disabled people to the public built environment of Westport.

Why an Accessibility Audit?

  1. So that all people can have equal access to participate in everything that Westport has to offer.

  2. To identify the physical barriers and obstructions in the public realm impact on disabled people the most.

Why an Occupational Therapist led accessibility audit?

The central role of Occupational Therapy is to assist, and support disabled and marginalised people to work towards an equality of opportunity and occupation – in other words supporting an individual’s occupational rights. Furthermore, Occupational Therapists understand that the denial occupational justice disproportionately affects those individuals who encounter barriers due to impairments or disabilities, particularly when it comes to the built environment in our towns and cities.

Therefore, an Occupational Therapist led accessibility audit is likely to undercover more occupationally relevant person-centred issues and solutions than an audit carried out by another non-Occupational Therapist auditor.

SECTION 1

  1. Layout of the audit

This accessibility assessment audit has generated significant amounts of data and photographic evidence regarding the barriers and issues faced by disabled people in Westport when they attempt to participate in normal activities of daily living. However, far from this being a wholly negative report, most of the individuals who participated in this audit identified an infectious optimism for the future based on greater user participation in the design of the public realm.

Based on the premise that this accessibility audit is only a starting point in a process to improve the access to the public realm in Westport to support access for all, the report will present the street audit information in a Hub and Spokes format where the hub are the high pedestrian activity streets/areas of Westport and the Spokes, the pivotal routes into the centre of Westport. This approach allows a degree of report brevity whilst at the same time presenting a format that can be taken forward into the development of an Access Plan for Westport (an access improvement programme).

 

 

1.2   Learning from the past.

In 2007 an access audit of Westport’s external environment was carried out by RPS for Mayo County Council. Its stated aim was “to assess the external environment accessibility and to report on accessibility issues of the town of Westport”. The audit standard which the external environment was measured against was the 2004 NDA publications “Building for Everyone”. There was no information in the audit report as to the qualifications or experience of disability the auditors had or whether qualitative testimony was collected from town residents in deciding what issues needed to be highlighted. The audit report made 347 recommendations split into three priority levels.

No explanation was given in the report as to how this priority rating scale was decided on (i.e., from whose viewpoint) and fourteen years on the bulk of these recommendations remain to be carried out.

To reduce the risk of this accessibility audit from being “shelved” as the 2007 audit was, this accessibility audit has been set up in a different way in that it has actively sort out the views of individuals with the lived experience of disability. These views have then been incorporated into deciding the focus and audit standards used.

As mentioned earlier, this accessibility audit should not be seen as an endpoint, but rather the start of a multi stakeholder access improvement programme that places the active participation of disabled persons at the centre.

1.3   The Audit standards selected for this project

The audit standards used in this accessibility audit are based on:

  1. Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government Part M - Access and Use (2010) (Sets current legal compliance standards all new building projects).

  2. Dept of Transport, Tourism and Sport (2019) Traffic Signs Manual. https://efb66ec2-0a40-4ea6- a27b34f2730c3c34.filesusr.com/ugd/f378bf_0cd7a78eea674871a6ec550dd5b9e654.pdf

  3. Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government (2019) Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets https://assets.gov.ie/111277/bfd64bd6-bde7-4fc7-946e-626d486202ba.pdf

  4. Irish Wheelchair Association (2020) Best Practice Access Guidelines: Designing Accessible Environments (4th Edition). https://www.iwa.ie/access-guidelines/best-practice-access-guidelines-4/.

  5. National Disability Authority - Universal Design - http://universaldesign.ie/Built-Environment/Building-for-Everyone/

  6. National Council for the Blind of Ireland - Clear our Paths Campaign - https://www.ncbi.ie/policy-advocacy/latest-campaigns/clear- our-paths/

The audit focus has been developed by taking the narrative testimony of several individuals with the lived experience of having a disability as to what assists or hinders them from having the opportunity to access the external built environment in Westport. These individuals were able to describe what features make the town accessible/useable (or not) for them. In some cases, the audit standard is based on a best fit accessibility criteria based on good practice guidelines that exceed current Part M – Access and Use standards to promote real life useability.

SECTION 2

Getting to/from Westport

  1. accessible parking for cars and wheelchair accessible vehicles

  2. train station

  3. bus stops

  4. taxi and public set down and pick up point that are wheelchair accessible

 

2.1.0 - Accessible Parking

Summary – Not all designated parking for disabled people is accessible. Since 2010 there has been clear minimum standards provided in the Part M 2010 – Access and Use document regarding the size, layout, and location of designated parking (disabled parking).

 

It is therefore hard to understand why, eleven years on, these standards have not been applied to the designated parking places provided within the public realm in Westport.

 

The publicization of the type and location of these designated parking bays online would allow people to plan their trip to Westport, so that drivers can make informed decisions about where to park based on accurate information.

 

Unfortunately, the bulk of the parking bays that are designated as being for disabled people remain, in practice, not fully accessible. Here are some examples.

Ref.:2.1.1             

Location:  Shop Street (outside SPAR) 

   

Type: On street Parallel Parking Bay

Observation/Issue:  

Size of bay too small. No access zone to one side or at rear. No dropped kerb to access footpath without going onto the road.

(NB. there are several other examples of this type of parking bay in Westport).

Recommendation:  Replace with accessible parking bay that at least meets Building Regulations Technical Guidance Document M 2010 standard (p. 36).

Replace with accessible parking bay that at least meets Building

 

Picture2.jpg

Location Shop Street (outside AIB).

 

Type: On street Parallel Parking Bay

Size of bay too small. No access zone to one side or at rear. No dropped kerb to access footpath without going onto the road.

 

Recommendation: Regulations Technical Guidance Document M 2010 standard (p. 36).

Picture2.png

Location:  Octagon (nr Desmond’s)

 

Type: Perpendicula r Parking Bay

Size of bay too small. No dropped kerb providing direct footpath access from bay.

Recommendation: Replace with accessible parking bay that at least meets Building Regulations Technical Guidance Document M 2010 standard.

Location: Octagon (Town Hall)

 

Type: Perpendicula r Parking Bay

No accessible dropped kerb providing direct footpath access from bay. No hatched access zone to left or rear of this parking bay.

Recommendation: Replace with accessible parking bay that at least meets Building Regulations Technical Guidance

Town Hall&Carpark.png

location:  Mill Street Car Park

Type: Perpendicula r Parking Bay

No side or rear access zone. Parking bay located on sloping ground well in excess of maximum crossfall.

Recommendation: Document M 2010 standard.

 Relocate and replace with accessible parking bay that at least meets Building Regulations Technical Guidance Document M 2010 standard.

Location:  High Street Car Park

 

Type: Accessible Parking Bay with access zones

Poor parking bay surface with loose gravel and indentations. Crossfall steeper than 1:40. Also ground surface to nearest footpath not suitable for people experiencing mobility difficulties (loose gravel, not flat with some indentations).

Recommendation: Relocate parking bay closer to pedestrian alleyway to Mill Street. Create flat even parking bay surface that meets accessible parking bay size guidelines in Building Regulations Technical Guidance Document M 2010 standard.

Picture4.png

Location:  Mill Street Car Park

 

Type: Perpendicula r Parking Bay

Size of bay too small. Access zones not indicated.

Crossfall steeper than 1:40

Recommendation: Replace with accessible parking bay that meets Building Regulations Technical Guidance Document M 2010 standard

Picture5.jpg

location:  North Mall (nr. Post Office)

 

Type: On- street Parallel Parking Bay.

Size of bay too small. No access zone to one side or at rear. Limited access to footpath due to position of dropped kerb and parking bay being too small.

Recommendation: Replace with accessible parking bay that at least meets Building Regulations Technical Guidance Document M 2010 standard

Picture6jpg.jpg

Location: Westport Library

 

Type: Accessible Parking

Size of bays too small. No access zone to side or at rear. Incorrect signage.

Recommendations: Replace with accessible parking bay that at least meets Building Regulations Technical Guidance Document M 2010 standard

Location: Altamont Street

 

Type: On- street Parallel Parking Bay.

Size of bay too small and in fact narrower than the neighbouring standard street parking bays. No access zone to one side or at rear. Limited access to footpath due to position of dropped kerb and parking bay being too small.

Recommendation: Replace with accessible parking bay that at least meets Building Regulations Technical Guidance Document M 2010 standard

Picture6.png

Location: Tubber Hill

 

Type: On- street Parallel Parking Bay.

Size of bay too small. No access zone to one side or at rear. Limited access to footpath due to position of dropped kerb and parking bay being too small. On steep slope.

Recommendation: Replace with accessible parking bay that at least meets Building Regulations Technical Guidance Document M 2010 standard

Railway station.png

location: Railway Station (Altamount Street)

Issue: No continuous wheelchair accessible footpath to Westport Town Centre 

Recommendation: Establish a 2000mm width footway with a crossfall of no more than 1:50 along the whole length of this pivotal pedestrian link between Westport Railway Station and the town.

Picture7.jpg

Location: Railway Station – Bottom of ramp up to Booking Hall

Issue: No level area at where bottom of the ramp meets the footpath.

Variable slopes recorded at bottom of ramp to edge of kerb varying from 3.6 ° (1:16)

to 8.4 ° (1:7).

Recommendations: 

Redesign the area at the bottom of the booking hall ramp to provide a level platform that connects booking hall with car parking, footpath toward town and to pedestrian entrance to the off-road station parking.

Ramp platform should meet at least meet Part M – Access and Use (2010) specifications (p. 23) (at least 1800 mm long x 1800 mm) or the IWA Good Practice Guidelines p. 73 (A clear flat unobstructed turning circle of

1800mm diameter)

Picture8.jpg

Location: Railway Station - Bottom of ramp to booking hall.

Issue: Poor signage/ visibility of automatic door opening control at bottom of booking hall ramp.

Recommendation: Improve visibility of automatic door opening switch.

Picture9.jpg

location:    Railway Station – Booking Hall to Platform Door 

Issue: Poor signage/ visibility of automatic door opening control. No wheelchair accessible setting down/picking up point.

Recommendation:  Improve visibility of automatic door opening switch.

Picture10.jpg

Location: Railway Station – Booking Hall – Toilet facilities and WC provision.

Issue: No wheelchair accessible toilet. The WC (1900mm x 1450mm) reported to be a wheelchair accessible WC only meets the size requirements to be classified as an “Enlarged Ambulant WC Cubicle”.

Toilet not equipped with Part M – Access and Use (2010) stipulated that there needs to be grab rails around the WC pan - a horizontal and vertical grab rail adjacent to the WC pan, a vertical grab rail on the rear wall adjacent to the side of the cistern furthest away

from the wall with the horizontal grab

rail.

Recommendations: 

Consider redesigning layout of railway station public toilet provision to fit a wheelchair accessible unisex WC (with 1800mm x 1800mm turning circle) in accordance with at least Part M – Access and Use (2010) p. 68.

 Clarify on Irish Rail website and IE Access help desk information for Westport that the toilet is not wheelchair accessible.

If option to provide a wheelchair accessible unisex WC not feasible, then the Part M – Access and Use (2010) stipulations for an Enlarged Ambulant WC Cubicle should be adhered to - a horizontal and vertical grab rail should be provided adjacent to the WC bowl. A vertical grab rail should be provided on the rear wall adjacent to the side of the cistern that is furthest away from the side wall where the horizontal rail is located.

Bus Stop – Mill Street - Expressway and Regional Services

Picture11.jpg

location:  Bus Stops – Mill Street

Issue:  Bus stop not wheelchair accessible. Footpath too narrow to allow required 1800mm turning circle.  No directional signs to the bus stops and poor visual information differentiating between east and west bound bus stops.

Recommendations: 

Bus Eireann/Mayo County Council/ National Transport Authority need to make Westport a wheelchair accessible bus destination as soon as possible.

Bus Eireann/Mayo County Council to consider pedestrian directional signs to bus stop from town centre.

 Bus Eireann to provide signs that indicate Eastbound and Westbound bus stops..

Picture12.png

Location:  Bus Stop West and Eastbound– Mill Street

Issue:  Poor presentation of bus timetable information at both bus stops.

 

Recommendation: Bus Eireann to provide easy to read accessible bus timetable information at the bus stop.

Picture13.png

Location: Bus Stop West and Eastbound– Mill Street

Issue: No marked pedestrian crossing between bus stops. Nearest pedestrian crossings more than 50 metres away.  No bus shelters beside bus stops. Exist bus shelter located in the Mill Street Car Park is situated more than 25m away from both bus stops and there is no direct line of sight either.

Recommendations:  

The construction of a level pedestrian crossing between the bus stops.

The provision of an on-street bus shelter(s) that have direct line of vision with bus stops.

Wheelchair accessible Taxi or Public setting down and picking up points

Location: Westport Town Centre and Westport Railway Station

 

Issue: There are no Wheelchair accessible Taxi or Public setting down and picking up points.

Recommendations: 

Consider creating a Wheelchair accessible setting down and picking up point that can be

used by taxis or the public to set down/pick up disabled or wheelchair using passengers.

Irish Rail consider creating a Wheelchair accessible setting down and picking up point that can be used by taxis or the public to set down/pick up disabled or wheelchair using passengers.

Section 3

Location: Bridge Street – both sides of the street.

Issue: Footway surfaces uneven surfaces caused by numerous inspection/manhole

 covers and gaps on the footpath that are concaved or slight elevated. These issues pose a trip/tip risk for individuals with reduced mobility or balance, and maneuverability difficulties for wheelchair users.

Recommendation: 

Improve surface quality of footways to ensure level, smooth and slip-resistant, pavement surfaces with no obstacles located within the clear width of the circulation route or desire line of pedestrian

travel.

Picture14.jpg
Picture15.jpg

location: Bridge Street – both sides of the street.

Issue: Effective footway widths too narrow for amount of pedestrian activity.

The maximum effective clear width on parts of the footpath falls to below 1400mm due to fixed signage and street furniture and temporary

seating and advertising boards.

 

No passing places available due to outdoor dining tables. 

The lack of effective footway width makes it problematic for wheelchair users and those with mobility difficulties to use the Bridge Street footways, particularly during peak tourism times.

 

Examples include: Clear path on footway reduced by retail spread. This creates trip

risk and disruption to the “desire line” of travel.

 

Advertising boards disrupting and obstructing the ‘desire line’ of pedestrian travel.

The lack of effective footway width makes it problematic for wheelchair users and those with mobility difficulties to use the Bridge Street footways, particularly during peak tourism times.

 

Examples include: Clear path on footway reduced by retail spread. This creates trip

risk and disruption to the “desire line” of travel.

 

Advertising boards disrupting and obstructing the ‘desire line’ of pedestrian travel.

 

Combination of tables being place opposite fixed street furniture reducing footway below 1500mm. It also disrupts the ‘desire line’ of travel and pushes pedestrians towards the lamp posts, kerbs, and cars.

No warning signs at crossing places before this footway obstruction that reduced effective clear pavement width below 1000mm.

Recommendations: 

Work to widen the effective clear width available on all the Bridge Street footways/pavements.

 

A detailed assessment needs to be undertaken to determine what the ideal width the footways of Bridge Street should be/could be with street furniture (fixed or temporary) removed.

For the purposes of this audit report, the effective footway width needs to have a sufficient usable width for all anticipated

wheeled and mobility aid assisted pedestrian activity.

 

To put the lack of Bridge Street footway/pavement width into perspective, the IWA (2020) provides a useful space requirement diagram (p. 44) specifying expected widths of a variety of means of mobility (assisted and unassisted).

 

The minimum acceptable footway/pavement width for high pedestrian activity areas ranges between wider than 2000mm in “busy urban/town centre locations and in any location where groups of people congregate” and 4000mm effective clear width of high pedestrian activity footpaths “to allow people to pass each other in larger groups” 

 

Although the actual width of most of the Bridge Street footways/pavements are approximately 1800mm, the effective clear width available for pedestrians is often under 1400mm due to lampposts, road

signage poles, advertising

boards, temporary street furniture, uneven footpath surfaces and the volume of pedestrians, particularly in the peak summer months.

Picture16.jpg
Picture18.jpg
Picture17.jpg
Picture19.png

Location: Bridge Street – both sides of the street.

Issue: Poor provision of accessible parking. There are two parallel parking bays that are designated as being for disabled drivers. All these parking bays fall short of the standards outlined in Part M – Access and Use (2010), IWA 2020,

and DTTAS 2019

Reccomendation: Replace with accessible parking bay that at least meets Part M – Access and Use (2010)

Picture20.jpg
Shop Street - Footway/Footpaths

Location: Shop Street – nr. Christy’s Cafe

Issue: Reduced footway width due to outdoor dining tables/chairs along inside edge of pavement resulting in variable effective clear footway width.

Recommendation:  Café ensures that there is always a clear footway width of at least 1500mm on the pavement’s pedestrian “desire line” of travel.

 Care needs to be taken to ensure that pedestrians are not being forced to use the uneven areas of the footway as this poses a significant trip/tip risk for individuals with reduced mobility.

Picture21.jpg

Location; Shop Street

Issue: Footway obstruction. Parking on footway crossover to unload/load. No advisory signs placed at neighbouring crossing to advise of pavement restriction.

Recommendation: Business/delivery drivers need to take necessary steps to prevent obstruction of pedestrian pavement/footways.

Picture22.jpg

Location: Shop Street – outside AIB and SPAR – designated “Disabled Parking” bays.

Issue: Undersized designated parking bays. There are two parallel parking bays that are designated as being for disabled drivers. Both parking bays fall short of the standards outlined in Part M – Access and Use (2010), IWA 2020, p.58 and DTTAS 2019

Recommendations: 

Replace with accessible designated parking bays that at least meets Part M – Access and Use 2010 standards (p. 36), ensuring that both parking bays allow –

1)  direct access to the adjacent pavement without needing to go on road to access crossing ramp onto pavement, and,

2)  space for rear and side of vehicle wheelchair access.

Picture23.jpg
Shop Street 2.png

Location; Shop Street – AIB

pavement crossover to AIB Staff parking.

Excessive pavement crossfall [1:12.5 (4.6°)] due to vehicle crossover to “Staff Parking Only” provision.

 

Issue: Excessive footway crossfalls can make it difficult for pedestrians with reduced mobility and wheelchair users to safely navigate (trip or veer towards roadway).

 

Recommendation: Vehicle access to commercial property must not disrupt the continuity or level of the footway. At least 1500mm wide evenly graded walking zone with minimal crossfall needs to be maintained.

Shop Street outside spar jpg.jpg

Location: Shop Street – Disabled Parking Bay outside SPAR.

Issue: Road sign pole blocking the opening of passenger side car doors.

 

Recommendation: Relocate road sign to allow full pavement side accessibility to vehicles using this parking bay.

The Octagon outside GINO's.jpg

Location: The Octagon – nr. Gino’s

Reduction of clear effective width on footway along the ‘desire line’ of pedestrian travel. Lived experience report whereby café staff requested visually impaired person being guided by another person to leave pavement and use the road crossing approach apron to walk around outdoor diners when abled bodied pedestrians did not receive this direction.

 

Issue: Clear footway width of at least 1800mm (minimum) needs to be maintained for all pedestrians on the normal designated footway/pavement.

 

Recommendation: Mayo County Council/Westport Chamber of Commerce/Accessibility Group need to devise a footway/pavement code whereby an agreed minimum accessible clear width of footway/pavement outside businesses are always maintained on day-to-day basis.

The Octagon, ocees and an file_edited.jpg

Location: The Octagon – nr. O’Cees and Hoban’s Pub.

Issue: Reduction of clear effective width on footway along the ‘desire line’ of pedestrian travel.

Recommendations: Clear footway width of at least 1800mm (minimum) is maintained on this section of the footpath (IWA 2020 – Good Practice Guidelines).

Location: The Octagon – nr. An File

Issue: Reduction of clear effective width on footway along the ‘desire line’ of pedestrian travel.

 

Recommendations:  Clear footway width of at least 1800mm (minimum) should be maintained on this section of the footpath. 

 

An File jpg.jpg

Location: The Octagon – nr. An File

Issue: Advertising board and fixed street furniture preventing desire line of travel on the footway.

 

Street furniture (bins and A-Boards) in high activity areas should be moved to allow a clear footway width of at least 1800mm (minimum) to be always maintained.

 

Recommendation: Consider the enforcing the Advertising board ban on footways/ pavements.

The Octagon bikes.jpg

Location; The Octagon – from plaza towards the Wyatt Hotel and Kelly’s

Issue: No clear crossing line created or indicated to far side of road. This can cause way finding difficulties for some pedestrians with mobility and sensory disabilities.

 

Recommendation: Explore how visual and sensory wayfinding in this area might be improved.

Location: The Octagon - plaza

 

Issue: Dished drainage channel incorporated in Octagon paving reducing accessibility options on approach to road crossing and across this pedestrianised space.

 

Recommendations: Consider covering over drainage channels with grates to create a flush surface.

Dished channels should not be incorporated within an access route as they increase the risk of tripping. 

The Octagon Bikes 2.png
Octagon Desmomds and asleigh crafts png.png

Location: The Octagon – Outside Desmond’s and Ash- Ling Crafts

Issue: Undersized designated parking bays.

 

Recommendation: Redesign and if necessary, relocate to provide accessible designated parking spaces that at least meet Part M – Access and Use 2010 standards (p. 36), ensuring that both parking bays allow 1) direct access to the adjacent pavement without needing to go on road to access crossing ramp onto pavement and

2) space for rear and side of vehicle wheelchair access.

Location: The Octagon – outside Town Hall

Issue: Failure to provide temporary safe pedestrian route around event barriers. No ramp access to kerb on temporary route. No signage advising pedestrians of alternative route(s).

 

Recommendation: Event organisers need to take responsibility to provide a safe route for pedestrians that should include access to adjacent buildings, properties, and public areas where necessary. This route must consider the needs of those with small children, pushchairs, and those with reduced mobility, including visually impaired people and people using wheelchairs or mobility scooters.

Octagon footpath png.png
Picture11.png

Location: The Octagon – footway outside the Wyatt Hotel and the old Wyatt Theatre.

Issue: Footway blocked by outdoor dining tables and chairs.

 

Recommendation: Restore clear footway width of at least 1800mm (minimum).

Picture11.png

Location: The Octagon – public realm areas

Issue: No wheelchair accessible County Council sponsored picnic tables provided.

 

Recommendation: Consider providing wheelchair accessible tables.

James Street - Footway/FootpathsHeading 4

Location: James Street – Vehicle crossover of footway to Westport Leisure Centre and car parking.

No tactile paving on edge of crossover.

 

Issue: Decide on uniform approach to how vehicle crossovers on footways are dealt with. Some vehicle crossovers have tactile paving fitted on onside or both sides, or as in this instance not at all.

 

Recommendation: Consider using tactile paving to alert pedestrians that there is a busy vehicle crossover on footway.

James Street 1 png.png

Location: James Street – near entrance to the Citizen’s Advice Office/old Tommy Nolan’s pub.

Issue: Undersized on-street parallel designated parking bays.

 

Recommendation: Redesign to provide accessible designated parking spaces that at least meets Part M – Access and Use 2010 standards (p. 36), ensuring that both parking bays allow 1) direct access to the adjacent pavement without needing to go on road to access crossing ramp onto pavement and

2) space for rear and side of vehicle wheelchair access.

Location: James Street – Controlled pedestrian crossing in front of the Old Garda Barracks.

Issues:

  1. Steep 1:10 (6°) pavement crossfall along desire line of travel.

  2. 1:10.5 (5.4°) slope on the tactile paving to pedestrian crossing.

  3. No flat platform for pedestrians to wait on before crossing road.

 

Recommendations: Redesign the approach to this crossing to improve safe access for all pedestrians.

 

Excessive footway crossfalls can make it difficult for pedestrians with reduced mobility and wheelchair users to safely navigate (trip or veer towards roadway).

James street 2.png

Location: James Street – beside Bike Shop

Issue: Excessive footway gradient. No warning signs.

 

Recommendation: Explore options to reduce footway gradient. Use signage to indicate presence of steep footway gradient to give opportunity for pedestrians to use footway on opposite side of road.

Location: James Street – nr the Tucker Bag

Issue: Combination of permanent street furniture (water pump) and outdoor dining provision hindering desire line travel.

 

Recommendation: Consider relocating water pump to margin of footway and/or relocate position of temporary outdoor dining furniture to allow clear footway width of 1500mm along desire line.

James Street 3.png

Location: James Street – between the Doris Brothers Bridge and the Bike Shop.

Reports of people cycling along footway to/from the Bike Shop.

 

Issue: This poses a significant pedestrian risk of injury.

 

Recommendation: Consider using no cycling signs to reduce any ambiguity as to local bylaws, raising awareness of problem with cycle hire firm(s), and enforcing penalties on cyclists for infringements.

South Mall - Footway/Footpaths

Location: South Mall – opposite St. Mary's Church. 

Issue:Street furniture, both permanent and temporary hindering access along riverside footway.

 

Recommendation: Consider establishing a priority clear route on this footway free of street furniture.

South Mall 1.jpg

Location: South Mall – outside St. Mary's Church.

Issue: No seating provided. Pedestrians observed to be resting on car bonnets while waiting to be picked up after attending the church.

 

Recommendation: Consider providing accessible public realm seating/resting places for pedestrians/church visitors.

Out side church jpg.jpg

Location: South Mall – outside St. Mary's Church.

Issue: Poorly designed designated parking. Undersized with no dropped kerb.

 

Recommendation: Replace with standard compliant (at least Part M – Access and Use 2010) designated parking bay.

South Mall 2 .jpg

Location: South Mall – outside the West Bar.

Issue: Narrow clear footway width. Maximum footway width at narrowest point between lamppost and the West’s outdoor dining structure - 1151mm.

Too narrow for visually impaired person being guided

 

Recommendation: Consider relocating the fixed street furniture (lamppost/road sign) to widen footway width at this point to 2000mm as per IWA minimum pavement width in “busy urban/town centre locations and in any location where groups of people congregate” 

South Mall 3jpg.jpg

Location: South Mall – transition onto N59 bridge (west side)

Issue: Steep footway transition gradient off bridge of 1:9. Too steep for some pedestrians and wheelchair users.

 

Recommendation: Redesign of pavement/footway to reduce gradient of footway to 1:20.

South Mall 4 jpg.jpg

Location: South Mall – transition onto N59 bridge (east side) - opposite McGreevy’s

Issue: Steep footway transition gradient of 1:6.5 coming off the bridge. Too steep for some pedestrians and most wheelchair users. 

 

Recommendation: Redesign of pavement/footway to reduce gradient of footway to 1:20.

South Mall 5.jpg

Location: South Mall – pedestrian crossing between McGreevy’s and Mall side footway.

Issue: Approach to crossing can be hindered by:

  1. Business deliveries remaining on the footway.

  2. Position of occasional market stall on Mall side approach forcing pedestrians to kerb edge of footway.

 

Recommendation: Consider establish priority footway route where temporary/permanent obstructions are prohibited along optimum desire line of travel.

South Mall6 .png

Location: South Mall (East) – riverside footway.

Issue: Uneven paving.

 

Recommendation: Replace with smooth nonslip level footway surface.

bottom of page