Triangulated Evaluation of Urban Street Safety and Inclusivity: Insights from Users, Experts, and Street Audits

Urban streets are increasingly framed within sustainable mobility agendas as inclusive public spaces for vulnerable road users (VRUs). Yet, prevailing assessments of safety and inclusivity tend to rely either on technical compliance-based audits or on user perception surveys conducted in isolation. Few empirical studies integrate user priorities, expert judgement, and objectively observed infrastructure conditions within a unified analytical framework, and even fewer examine how these dimensions align across street hierarchies in rapidly urbanising cities. Consequently, the relationship between lived experience, professional standards, and measurable street performance remains insufficiently theorised and empirically tested. This study develops an integrated multi-source evaluation framework to assess inclusive street performance across local, collector, and sub-arterial streets in Delhi, India. Based on literature synthesis and urban design guidelines, 28 indicators were identified under five theoretical constructs: Accessibility and Connectivity; Safety and Security; Comfort and Streetscape; Urban Vibrancy; and Usability. Following street-intercept surveys and a two-round Delphi process, 22 indicators were retained. Construct priorities were estimated using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and convergent indicators were operationalised through structured perception assessments and parallel street audits. Results reveal strong convergence between users and experts regarding the primacy of safety and security, and accessibility and connectivity. However, divergences emerged in operational interpretation: experts prioritised regulatory compliance and network coherence, while users emphasised perceptible safety and everyday usability. Street-type analysis highlights systematic variation, demonstrating that inclusive performance is co-produced by infrastructure provision and lived experience, rather than geometric adequacy alone.