Campaign For Better Transport
Unit 407
164/180 Union Street,
Waterloo,
London,
SE1 0LH
These stages cover the user’s walk, wheel or other forms of travel to the bus and onwards travel. It includes wayfinding to the stop and navigating the immediate streetscape.
Key passenger questions may include
Long walking distances and steep inclines present difficulties for people with reduced stamina, walking difficulties, or reliance on mobility aids to access services.
In urban areas, the vast majority of households should have access to a bus stop within 400m walking distance. In dense city and town centres and areas with high concentrations of older residents, a shorter distance of 200m will be appropriate. Between 200-400m is also the standard spacing between stops on a route.19 Stop spacing should also account for gradients; a suggested standard is to reduce the maximum distance by 10 metres for every 1 metre of rise or fall.20
Wayfinding and navigation posts or totems should be provided directing passengers to the bus stop, particularly for larger stops, multi-bay stations and interchanges. Graphics should be standardised to ensure legibility, with Transport for London providing a useful guide into clear and coherent graphics for bus stop signage.21 DfT guidance suggests that incorporating a capital letter “B” on a bus stop flag (1m from the ground) will help vision impaired people.22
Three quarters (75%) of disabled people identify the poor quality of pavements as a significant issue.23 Uneven and poorly maintained pavements, potholes, drainage, and temporary obstructions such as roadworks, pavement parking, shared e-mobility vehicles (scooters, bikes), autonomous delivery robots, bins, advertising boards, or overhanging vegetation create trip hazards and can make wheeling or walking difficult.24 Technical assessments of footway quality identify a deterioration in footway quality over time.25
Over 43% of disabled people report pavement obstructions, such as bins, poles, advertising boards, and poorly placed street furniture, to be a major barrier to access, frequently forcing them onto the road.26 Narrow pavements and clutter significantly restrict space for wheelchair users, mobility scooter users, parents with pushchairs, and people walking side by side with carers.
Local authorities should regularly survey pavement quality and implement a structured programme of pavement resurfacing.
Living Streets advises local transport authorities and their partners to conduct a walkability audit with residents to test how accessible a journey to a bus stop is. It enables authorities to identify challenges such as pavement unevenness, broken lighting or litter. Living Streets’ guide to walkability audits provides information on how to contact relevant stakeholders, how to promote the audit and how to record results, with useful case studies.27
The Highway Code specifies that pavements are primarily for pedestrians, wheelchair and mobility scooter users, while cyclists must not ride on the pavement and vehicles must not park partially or wholly on the pavement unless signs explicitly permit it. However, 65% of drivers admit to parking on the pavement, leading to 52% of pedestrians with visual impairments changing their route.28 Parking regulations for shared micromobility (bikes and e-scooters) and their enforcement have also created challenges for disabled individuals.29
Local authorities can issue a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to prevent pavement parking; however, many have found the process cumbersome and costly.30 In January 2026, the government announced plans to allow councils in England to tackle pavement parking by enforcing against “unnecessary obstruction”, with new legislation and guidance expected later in 2026.31 While this approach falls short of the consistency a national ban would have enabled, local transport authorities should make use of these new powers when introduced.
Improved regulation of micromobility parking is also important, and the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act sets out a new regulatory framework for on-street micromobility, enabling greater local control of how shared, smaller vehicles are deployed and used. Local authorities should consider the impact on disabled pedestrians when determining what micromobility parking model to implement (docked, geofenced, freefloating).
Lack of dropped kerbs and tactile paving make it harder for people with reduced mobility or sensory impairments to reach bus stops safely. Half (50%) of disabled people report struggling to navigate with lack of dropped kerbs.32 Issues with crossings, including lack of zebra crossings or traffic lights, complex multi-stage crossings, poorly timed traffic signals or crossing detectors which do not reliably identify slower-moving or inconsistently-moving people, also act as barriers. Gradients of pathways and the entrance to a bus stop also affect wheelchair users.
Consistency across networks is vital. A level entry via dropped kerbs and tactile paving should be provided at all pedestrian crossing points leading to bus stops to enable access for wheelchair users and visually impaired people.
Dropped kerbs should be flush with the carriageway, with a maximum 6mm tolerance.33
DfT guidance suggests that gradients should not be steeper than 1 in 20, with level sections at regular intervals.34
Ruils Independent Living (a charity supporting disabled people to live independently) advocates for the default installation of zebra crossings on side roads in high-footfall and town-centre areas.
During roadworks or temporary diversions, replacement paths and temporary bus stops are often unsuitable for wheelchair users and visually impaired passengers, leaving some with no viable route to the bus stop.
Bus stops should be clearly signposted indicating diversions, alternative routes or temporary bus stops too.
Local authorities should inform passengers ahead of any planned maintenance, disruption and temporary relocation of bus stops, and coordinate where necessary with local organisations supporting disabled individuals. Operators can inform passengers via RTPI and journey planning apps.
Interaction between pedestrians and cyclists at bus stop bypasses (also known as floating bus stops) can be a barrier for disabled passengers, particularly those with visual impairments.
Floating bus stops should be avoided, if possible, particularly in areas where bus passenger and pedestrian volumes are high. Where this is not possible, authorities should follow the new DfT statutory guidance document, which makes recommendations for safe and accessible design of floating bus stops.35 Further work to supplement the guidance is ongoing.
Appropriate signage, highway markings and tactile paving to alert and slow cycle traffic are paramount.
It is critical to engage, and gain input from, accessibility user groups from the outset of the design process for such intersections and shared pedestrian and cycle space.
19. Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation (2021), Buses in Urban Developments (back to text)
20. DfT (2021) (back to text)
21. Transport for London (2021), Bus stop graphics standard: Issue 2 (back to text)
22. DfT (2021) (back to text)
23. Transport for All (2023) (back to text)
24. ncat & Designability (2025), Bus stop accessibility (back to text)
25. Gaist (2021), Healthy pavements: 2021 national assessment of footways (back to text)
26. ncat (2024) (back to text)
27. Living Streets (2019), Bus stop walkability audit: a toolkit (back to text)
28. Guide Dogs (2024), Written evidence on pavement parking (PPA0350) (back to text)
29. Local Government Association (2023), Shared micromobility within the UK (back to text)
30. Guide Dogs (2024) (back to text)
31. DfT (2026), Pavement parking options for change: government response (back to text)
32. Transport for All (2023) (back to text)
33. DfT (2021) (back to text)
34. Ibid. (back to text)
35. DfT (2026), Statutory guidance: Floating bus stops provision and design (back to text)
Unit 407
164/180 Union Street,
Waterloo,
London,
SE1 0LH