(TfL) - 2008 - Walking in London Report - May 2008

7/29/2019 (TfL) - 2008 - Walking in London Report - May 2008

1/57

WALKING IN LONDON

Report

May 2008

Prepared for:

Transport for London


2/57


3/57

Contents

Contents Page

Confidentiality 3

1. INTRODUCTION 5

2. POLICY CONTEXT 63. WALKING PATTERNS 8

Summary 8

Walking mode shares 8

Purpose 13

4. ATTITUDES TOWARDS WALKING 14

Summary 14

Perceptions of walking 14

5. BARRIERS TO WALKING 17

Summary 17

Context 17

Time constraints 18

Personal safety and security 20

Information 21

Encumbrances 23

Improving the environment for walkers 236. MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE WALKING 24

Summary 24

Introduction 24

Legible London 24

Home Zones 26

Personalised Travel Planning 28

7. WALKING TO WORK 29

Summary 29

Key facts 29

Reasons for not walking to work 30

8. WALKING TO SCHOOL 31

Summary 31

Walking and children 31

Travel to school 32

Barriers to walking to school 35


4/57

2

Incentives and Travel Plans 37

9. WALKING AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 39

Summary 39

Priorities for highway improvements 39

FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Mode shares and trip distance (2001) 8

Figure 3.2 Penetration of walking by age (2006/7) 9

Figure 3.3 Walk Mode share by age & gender (2006/7) 10

Figure 3.4 Age and gender share of walk trips (2006/7) 10

Figure 3.5 Walk Mode share by working status (2006/7) 11

Figure 3.6 Walk Mode share by ethnicity (2006/7) 11

Figure 3.7 Walk Mode share and disability (2006/7) 12

Figure 3.8 Walk Mode and car ownership (2006/7) 12

Figure 3.9 Purpose share of walk trips (2006/7) 13

Figure 4.1 Attitudes to walking (2007) 15

Figure 4.2 Appeal of walking relative to other modes (2005) 16

Figure 5.1 factors considered when thinking about walking (2006) 19

Figure 5.2 Perceptions of walking speed (2007) 20

Figure 5.3 Perceptions of safety (2007) 21

Figure 5.4 Wayfinding tools (2006) 22

Figure 6.1 prototype wayfinding information 25

Figure 6.2 London home zone examples 26

Figure 6.3 Lessons learnt 27

Figure 7.1 Distance walked by main mode (2001) 29

Figure 7.2 Reasons for not walking (2007) (unprompted) 30

Figure 8.1: Mode shares for travel to school (2006) 32


5/57

Contents

Figure 8.2: Mode shares by Distance from school (2006) 33

Figure 8.3: Mode shares for travel to school by age and gender (2006) 34

Figure 8.4: Travel to school by Location type (2006) 35

Figure 8.5: Barriers to Walking to school (2003) 36

Figure 9.1: Relative priorities for highway improvements (2007) 40

Figure 9.2: Relative priorities for highway improvements for wheelchairusers (2007) 41

APPENDICES

A: Sources

Confidentiality

Please note that the copyright in the attached report is owned by TfL and theprovision of information under Freedom of Information Act does not give therecipient a right to re-use the information in a way that would infringe copyright(for example, by publishing and issuing copies to the public).

Brief extracts of the material may be reproduced under the fair dealingprovisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 for the purposes ofresearch for non-commercial purposes, private study, criticism, review andnews reporting.

Details of the arrangements for reusing the material owned by TfL for any otherpurpose can be obtained by contacting us at [email protected].

Please also note that any opinions expressed in this report are those of theauthors and not necessarily those of TfL.


6/57


7/57

1

WALKING IN LONDON: SUMMARY

Introduction

This summary highlights key findings from a review of well over sixty studies

connected with walking, ranging from qualitative research to large scaletravel surveys such as the LTDS (London Travel Demand Survey).

The numbered references (e.g. [1]) refer to the source document or dataset,a full list of which is included in an Appendix within the full report. Selectedkey sources are identified at the end of this summary.

Policy context

Increasing the level of walking activity inLondon is seen as an integral part ofmaintaining Londons economiccompetitiveness and improving the quality oflife for Londoners. To underpin the policy ofencouraging walking, a target has been setin The Transport 2025 Plan (T2025) toincrease walking trips by 10% by 2015 [119].

Travel patterns and trends

31% of trips in London are made on foot[1].

People without easy access to a car aremore likely to walk, particularly inouter London (in outer London, thewalk share of trips is 64% higher forpeople without a car in the householdthan for people with at least one car inthe household [3]).

82% of these are less than half a kilometre in length [134].

Although walking dominates where trips are less than half a kilometre,for trips which are between half and two kilometres (which account for37% of all trips in London), the walk mode share is just 29% with half ofthese trips being made in a car [134].


8/57

2

Mode shares and trip distance [134]

53%

20%

4% 1% 1%

82%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Less than

0.5km

0.5km to

1.0km

1 to 2km 3 to 5km 6 to 9km 10km or

more

Modeshare

Private

Publictransport

Cycle

Walk

Women aged between 25 and 44, people who are not in work and BAMEgroups (particularly those of Bangladeshi and Black ethnicity) tend towalk most [1].

Walking to school trips has the highest walk mode share (55%) of anyjourney purpose in London [125].

Three-quarters of walk trips are for travelling to a leisure, personalbusiness or shopping destination. Although only 13% are for work as amain mode [1], walking is also an important secondary mode for worktrips, especially where the main mode is rail or Underground [134].

Although 92% of Londoners walk at least once a week, two-fifths of thoseaged over 45 walk do not walk every day (five days a week) [3].

Attitudes to walking

Attitudes to walking are generally positive, with walking being regarded asthe most appealing means of travelling around London [44]. It is widely

seen as enjoyable, a good way to get fit, quick for short journeys, and goodfor the environment [57].

On the other hand, there are some aspects of walking in London where thereis more mixed opinion and some room for improvement, such as traffic fumes,dirt, and vandalism. Overall, while the majority of Londoners agree thatLondon is a city for walking, a significant minority (28%) do not [57].

While walking is seen as good for very short trips, inaccurate perceptions ofdistances and speeds, combined with the importance of time as a rarecommodity means that it is not always considered as an option for slightly

longer trips, with people feeling they cant afford the time to walk [33].


9/57

3

Barriers to walking

The barriers to walking can be considered in terms of soft image factors andhard infrastructure factors, as summarised below:

Image InfrastructureKnowledge Perceived distance

Perceived speed of walking/ time it takes to walk

Convenience of car

Not knowing location

Not able/willing to rely onmaps

Lack of at a glanceconsistent directionalwayfinding information

Too few landmarks

Lack of informationrelating totime/distance on maps

Safety Fear of attack (at night/in

the dark)

Fear of abduction(children)

Fear of traffic

Poor lighting

Litter, graffiti

Poor maintenance ofpavements

Lack of safe places tocross the road

Other Habitual nature of mosttravel behaviour

Importance of time andusing time efficiently

Walking is not seen as amode in itself, but a meansof accessing other modes

Practical and emotionalbenefits of car

Bad weather

Pollution

Need to carry heavyobjects

Need to trip chain

Overcoming the barriers

Overcoming these barriers requires addressing both the image andinfrastructure factors through a combination of soft and hard measures. Softmeasures may be successful in encouraging people to try walking as analternative, but if their experience is poor, they are likely to revert to theirprevious behaviour. Similarly, introducing hard measures on their own maynot have much impact if car and public transport users never even consider ortry out the walking option.

The measures that have been used to overcome these barriers include:

Walking and information strategies to improve on street signage and the

availability and consistency of relevant walking information [119, 98, 28];


10/57

4

Home Zones to reduce traffic speeds and increase perceptions of safety[106]; and

Personalised Travel Planning which can challenge some of the image andperception gaps, and build on the growing awareness of health andobesity issues [133].

They are now also being tackled through Streets of Gold programme.


11/57

5

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report presents a summary of our current state of knowledgeabout walking in London. It is based on a review of well over 60reports, covering a wide range of types of research, ranging from

small scale qualitative research to the latest travel data from theLTDS (the London Travel Demand Survey).

1.2 It is structured around six topic-based chapters covering differentaspects of walking. However, before examining the facts aboutwalking in London we briefly review the existing policy context,drawing particularly on the Transport 2025 transport visiondocument. Our understanding of walking behaviour is examined inChapter Three, including trends in the volume of walk trips.

1.3 The examination of hard facts is followed by a chapter looking at

attitudes, including the motivations for walking and the barriers towalking more often. The measures that have been employed toovercome these barriers and increase the volume of walking arecovered in Chapter 6.

1.4 Chapters 7 and 8 then review evidence relating to two key marketsegments, as defined by journey purpose: commuting to work andtravel to school.

1.5 In Appendix A we list the sources obtained and reviewed for thisstudy.

1.6 While the bulk of the evidence used is from research reports, it doesinclude some new analysis of the LATS and LTDS London travel surveydatabases, primarily to provide as clear a picture as possible ofwalking patterns.


12/57

6

2. POLICY CONTEXT

2.1 In February 2004 a plan was published: Making London a walkablecity [98]. This included objectives for improving street conditions,promoting walking, and improving safety and security for pedestrians.

It points out that the benefits of walking include:

greater use of public transport;

a better environment;

social inclusion;

healthier lifestyles; and

an improved economy.

2.2 Specific measures identified in the plan include Home Zones, areaimprovements based on Streets-for-People, a London Walking website,

awareness campaigns to promote the benefits of walking andencourage more walking for short trips and longer public transporttrips.

2.3 In the 2025 vision document: Transport 2025 Transport Vision for agrowing world city a target is set to increase the number of walkingtrips per person by 10% by 2015 [119]. This is to be achieved by:

2.4 A series of London-wide initiatives:

new crossings;

better pedestrian signals;

reducing street clutter;

improving the street scene;

better signage and lighting;

building informal crossings such asislands and refuges;

replacing subways and footbridgeswith surface level protectedcrossings;

exploring new route and way-findingtechnology.

2.5 Plus some major projects including:

the 100 Public Spaces initiative toimprove the urban realm in keyareas of London;

a network of strategic walkingroutes;

developing plans for a pan-London walking way-finding concept


13/57

7

called Legible London to encourage more people to walk for shortdistances.

2.6 TfL will also continue to work with the boroughs on a programme toimprove the urban environment. This includes ensuring all projects

follow clear design principles to support the creation of:

convenient connections so that people can access the places theywant to get to by the most direct way;

clear and easy to understand routes and spaces so that people canfind their way around easily;

streets and spaces for everyone so that all users have enoughspace to use the street in comfort; and

active and engaging spaces so that people are happy to walk, sit,shop, eat, reflect and enjoy the space.

2.7 More recently still, a major programme of investment in walking hasbeen initiated. Two specific strands of the programme are:

Legible London, a comprehensive pedestrian way-finding systemto help people navigate London; and

the Streets of Gold programme which will combine improvedinfrastructure and design for pedestrians with regenerationmeasures to promote walking in small catchment areas in innerand outer London, linking key local destinations such as stations,schools and shops.


14/57

8

3. WALKING PATTERNS

Summary

Walk mode share reduces from 82% for trips of less than

kilometre, down to 1% for trips over 6km [134]. For trips which are between half and two kilometres (and

therefore a reasonable walking distance), the walk mode share isjust 29% with half of these trips being made in a car [134].

Those that tend to walk more include women aged 25-44, thosenot in work, and the Black Other and Bangladeshi ethnic groups[1].

Around a quarter of walk trips are for work or education relatedjourneys, and three quarters are for getting to a leisure activity,shopping and personal business purposes [1].

While children are more likely than adults to walk, they tend towalk shorter distances (see also Chapter 8 for more on childrenand walking)

Walking mode shares

3.1 Overall, 31% of London trips are by foot [1]. This proportion is higherin Inner and Central London than Outer London [134].

3.2 The extent to which people walk is clearly very closely tied to triplength and this relationship is illustrated in Figure 3.1 below. It is

interesting to see that even for trips which are between half and onekilometre, nearly half are made by non-walk modes, including 39% byprivate transport (mainly car) [134].

FIGURE 3.1 MODE SHARES AND TRIP DISTANCE (2001)

53%

20%

4% 1% 1%

82%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Less than

0.5km

0.5km to

1.0km

1 to 2km 3 to 5km 6 to 9km 10km or

more

Modeshar

e

Private

Public

transport

Cycle

Walk

Source: LATS [134]


15/57

9

3.3 Looking overall at the 0.5km to 2km distance bands (a reasonabledistance for walking, being up to around 30 minutes, and accountingfor 37% of all trips), the walk share is 29%, while half the trips aremade by car, and 13% by bus [134].

3.4 In terms of the proportion of Londoners who walk (the penetration),92% walk once a week or more, and 69% walk daily (5+ days a week)[3]. There is a strong relationship between walking and age, asillustrated in Figure 3.2 which shows the % within each age bandwalking on a daily basis. While 84% of children (5 to 16) walk daily,after age 45 this declines quite rapidly (62% age 45-64, then 45% aged75-84 and just 24% aged 85+) [3].

FIGURE 3.2 PENETRATION OF WALKING BY AGE (2006/7)

84.2%

74.2%70.4%

62.2% 60.1%

45.0%

24.0%

0%

10%20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

05-16 17-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75-84 85+

Walk

atleast5daysaweek(%)

Source: LTDS [3]

3.5 The following charts compare the walk mode shares for different

groups within the population, starting with age and gender. Thisshows that the groups which walk the most are children, females aged25-44, and males aged 75+ [1].

3.6 It is interesting to examine the 25-44 age group and compare men andwomen: the walk share for men is 24%, but for women it is 35%. Onereason for this is that in one-car households it is often the woman whomanages without a car and walks and uses public transport more[131].

3.7 Overall, women aged 25-44 account for 27% of all walk trips (Figure

3.4 [1].

Overall=69%


16/57

10

FIGURE 3.3 WALK MODE SHARE BY AGE & GENDER (2006/7)

44.3

28.9

23.9

25.5

30.7

34.6

37.3

42.5

30.2

35.2

28.4

30.4

31.1

28.9

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0

05-16

17-24

25-44

45-64

65-74

75-84

85+

05-16

17-24

25-44

45-64

65-74

75-84

85+

Male

Female

Walk mode share (%)

Source: LTDS [1]

FIGURE 3.4 AGE AND GENDER SHARE OF WALK TRIPS (2006/7)

Males 25-44,

15%

Males 45+,15%

Males under

25, 14%

Females under

25, 13%Females 25-

44, 27%

Females 45+,

16%

Source: LTDS [1]


17/57

11

3.8 In terms of working status (Figure 3.5) it is those not working whohave the highest walk share, and those in full time work the lowest[1]. While being in work increases the total number of trips made, thisis not sufficient to offset this difference in mode shares, so those notin work do make more trips per person on foot than any of the other

working status groups.

FIGURE 3.5 WALK MODE SHARE BY WORKING STATUS (2006/7)

23.0

30.0

30.2

45.4

31.6

0 10 20 30 40 50

Full time

Part time

Student

Not Working

Retired

Walk mode share (%)

Source: LTDS [1]

3.9 The Black other and Bangladeshi ethnic groups make substantiallymore trips by foot, and conversely fewer by car (Figure 3.6) [1].

FIGURE 3.6 WALK MODE SHARE BY ETHNICITY (2006/7)

31.5

34.7

31.7

25.4

52.2

28.2

25.3

51.2

28.0

29.3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

White

Mixed

Black Caribbean

Black African

Black Other

Indian

Pakistani

Bangladeshi

Chinese

Other

Walk mode share (%)

Source: LTDS [1]


18/57

12

3.10 Curiously, those classified as having walking difficulties have a higherwalk mode share than those without a disability (Figure 3.7), thoughbecause they make fewer trips overall, those with a walking difficultydo make fewer walking trips per person.

FIGURE 3.7 WALK MODE SHARE AND DISABILITY (2006/7)

31.1

20.0

34.2

38.3

0 10 20 30 40 50

No disability

Wheelchair

user

Walking

difficulties

Other disability

Walk mode share (%)

Source: LTDS [1]

3.11 There is a significant effect of car ownership on walking as shown inFigure 3.8 which compares walk mode shares for people in householdswith zero, one and two or more cars. This pattern for the walk mode

share is mirrored quite closely by the number of walk trips made,although those without a car do also make fewer trips in total (arounda quarter less) [3].

3.12 It is also the case that those on very low incomes (under 5k pa.)make a high proportion of their trips by foot (approaching half), atleast in part because they cannot afford a car.

FIGURE 3.8 WALK MODE AND CAR OWNERSHIP (2006/7)

42.7

28.4

20.9

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

1

2+

Carsinh/hold

Walk mode share (%)

Source: LTDS [3]


19/57

13

Purpose

3.13 Shopping and personal business is the largest journey purposecategory for walk trips, slightly ahead of getting to a leisure activityand other. These two account for 74% of all walk trips, with the

remainder equally split between work and education [1].

3.14 In comparison with other modes, walking is less likely to be for travelto work with commuting accounting for around 30% of all tripscompared with just 13% of walk trips [1].

FIGURE 3.9 PURPOSE SHARE OF WALK TRIPS (2006/7)

Education,

13%Shopping and

Personal

Business,

38%

Commuting

and in course

of work, 13%

Leisure and

Other, 35%

Source: LTDS [1]


20/57

14

4. ATTITUDES TOWARDS WALKING

Summary

Of all the modes available to Londoners, walking is regarded as

the most appealing (89% of users say it is appealing, which ishigher than the equivalent figure for any other mode) [44].

Key positives for walking include it helping to keep fit, providingtime to think, setting a good example for children, and beingquicker for short journeys [33,57].

On the other hand, the negatives (explored further in thefollowing chapter on barriers) include the time it is perceived totake, vandalism, pollution, and the convenience and emotionalbenefits of car [33,57].

Perceptions of walking

4.1 The perceptions of walking are largely positive, with the greatmajority of Londoners agreeing that its enjoyable, healthy, helps theenvironment, sets a good example to children and is convenient(Figure 4.1) [57].

4.2 The least positive perception is that traffic fumes discourage walking,though dirt and vandalism and personal safety are issues.

4.3 Overall, 72% agreed that London is a city for walking, leaving 28% whodid not agree [57]. By way of comparison, 29% agree that London is acity for cycling [57].

4.4 In fact, of all modes, walking is the most appealing with 89% of thosethat walk (the great majority) and 73% of those that rarely walkholding the view that walking is an appealing way to travel [44] seeFigure 4.2.

4.5 Walking has also been identified as the most likely alternative to car

for short journeys (under 5 miles / 8 kilometres), along with bus[141].


21/57

15

FIGURE 4.1 ATTITUDES TO WALKING (2007)

13

21

63

71

72

73

77

78

83

85

89

89

89

89

91

93

0 20 40 60 80 100

Walking is an unpleasant experience

Don't feel safe walking

Traffic fumes discourage walking

Makes me feel more relaxed

London is a city for walking

Dirt & vandalism discourages walking

Good for rush hour journeys

Method would want to be seen using

An interesting way to travel

Convenient

Quicker for short journeys

Good example to children

Gives me time to think

Helps the environment

It's enjoyable

It's a good way to get fit

% agreeing

Source: Attitudes to walking 2007 [57]


22/57

16

FIGURE 4.2 APPEAL OF WALKING RELATIVE TO OTHER MODES(2005)

89 88

8174 72

61

73

48

63 6157

48

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Walk Cycling Car Train Bus Tube

%

users of mode non-users

Source: Cycling omnibus survey [44]

4.6 However, for many people the car has many perceived practical andemotional benefits over walking [33,135]:

speed;

ability to carry more;

safety;

protection from the weather and pollution;

provides a sense of freedom, personal space and enjoyment;

is a symbol of success and an outward expression of onespersonality.

4.7 Perceptions of the relative speed of walking are a particular issuebecause of the pace of modern life. Thus, time a commodity in short

supply which many people cannot readily spare[33].

4.8 On the other hand, for those that do walk, time spent walking can beseen in a more positive light, providing [33]:

time for your thoughts, for de-stressing;

a way of appreciating the world around you;

mild exercise, helping to keep you in shape; and

for parents doing the right thing for your kids and providingquality time to play and talk.


23/57

17

5. BARRIERS TO WALKING

Summary

5.1 The main barriers to walking for short trips can be regarded as being a

combination of soft (image) and hard (infrastructure) factors:

Image Infrastructure

Knowledge Perceived distance

Perceived speed of walking/ time it takes to walk

Convenience of car

Not knowing location

Not able/willing to rely on

maps

Lack of at a glanceconsistent directionalwayfinding information

Too few landmarks

Lack of informationrelating to

time/distance on maps

Safety Fear of attack (at night/inthe dark)

Fear of abduction(children)

Fear of traffic

Poor lighting

Litter, graffiti

Poor maintenance ofpavements

Lack of safe places tocross the road

Other Habitual nature of mosttravel behaviour

Importance of time andusing time efficiently

Walking is not seen a modein itself, but a means ofaccessing other modes

Practical and emotionalbenefits of car

Bad weather

Pollution Need to carry heavy

objects

Need to trip chain

Context

5.2 There is significant potential for more trips in London to be madeentirely by waking. The LATS 2001 survey identified that 23% of busjourneys and over 32% of car trips were less than a mile (1.6 km) inlength. However, other than for leisure purposes walking is notgenerally considered a mode but as a means of travelling shortdistances in conjunction with other modes [80].


24/57

18

Time constraints

5.3 The main barriers to walking are related to distance and timeconstraints and can be addressed by increasing understanding abouthow long it takes to walk to a particular destination and which is the

best route to take. However most people use a pick and mixapproach to wayfinding meaning that one source (e.g. a map) isinsufficient to meet the constant need for reassurance of precisionlocation information throughout the whole journey.

5.4 In 2007 qualitative research [33] identified that the objective forcommuters is to get to work as quickly as possible and that walking asa mode of transport was immediately rejected for this reason. Beyondtime constraints, participants were simply unaware of potential routesto use other than the main roads which a bus or car would use andwhich were therefore felt to be polluted and unappealing.

5.5 Focus groups with mainly car and public transport users alsohighlighted time constraints as the main reason for not walking more.People with hectic lifestyles perceived walking as a slower way to getaround requiring more effort as well as lifestyle changes:

Theres no way Im sacrificing even five minutes in bedto walk in the morning

Wed have to get the kids out of the house beforehand,its hard enough as it is

5.6 Qualitative research with actual and potential walkers [41] identifiedthe main drawbacks as the weather, danger (personal security) andpollution. Distance and personal security were the main reasons forselecting modes other than walking and potential walkers also lackedinformation. For people who were already walking, pollution,weather, narrow pavements, the amount of traffic en-route, baddriving by motorists and whether or not they were carrying heavy bagsimpacted on the journey quality.

5.7 A lack of knowledge about how long it will take to walk and which

route to take underlies the distance barrier. The chart belowillustrates which factors are taken into account when planning towalk. This highlights the point that how far a person is willing to walkis the least considered factor, suggesting that the distance people areprepared to walk is flexible and does in fact vary depending on theother factors [95].


25/57

19

FIGURE 5.1 FACTORS CONSIDERED WHEN THINKING ABOUTWALKING (2006)

43%

60%

64%

80%

82%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Decide how far willing to walk

Look up route before leaving

Decide whether walking is quicker than other

modes

Weather

Whether already know route

Source: Walking and Wayfinding [95]

5.8 Although often cited environmental factors such as the weather arenot able to be controlled, realistically these are only likely to affectwalking in extreme conditions such as heavy rain or snow.

5.9 The study goes on to identify the main barriers to walking as:

A feeling of lethargy from the perception that walking requirestoo much effort;

Distance and not knowing location; and

Having trouble estimating how long it will take to walk to a givendestination.

5.10 Perceptions of the distance barrier are therefore distorted by twofactors: uncertainty over distances (it is possible that in central

London distances are influenced by a mental map based on the classicTube map, which stretches space in the central area); andmisperceptions of walking speeds.

5.11 The latter issue is highlighted in Figure 5.2 which shows thedistribution of times people thought it would take (an able bodiedperson) to walk a mile. Given that a typical walking pace is 3.5 to 4mph (15 to 17 minutes for one mile/1.6 km), there is a sizeableminority of around one-fifth who appear to seriously over (and indeedunder) estimate the time required [57].


26/57

20

FIGURE 5.2 PERCEPTIONS OF WALKING SPEED (2007)


Personal safety and security

5.12 Walking is considered an extremely safe daytime mode of transport inLondon [4]. However fear of walking when it is dark is a key barrier

for both males and females. Whereas most areas in central Londonare felt to be safe during the day other areas within Zone 1 arethought to be unsafe at night [95]. Workshops with residents inCamden identified fear of youths and bad lighting as the mainbarriers to walking at night [80].

5.13 Cleanliness (closely correlated with safety) and lighting were also highon the list of pedestrian improvements in a stated preference surveycarried out on Londons Jubilee walkway, Thames path and Capitalring compared to (willingness to pay for) other improvements such asevenness of pavements, information panels, signs and benches [32].

2%

21%

30% 29%

13%

5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

less than 5 5 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 30 over 30

Minutes to walk 1 mile

Actual based

on 3.5 to 4mph


27/57

21

FIGURE 5.3 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY (2007)

15%

25%

27%

35%

43%

24%

37%

50%

53%

56%

51%

4%

13%

15%

21%

25%

50%

39%

32%

29%

30%

38%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

MotorbikeBicycle

Tram

DLR

Minicab

Black Cab

Car

Train

Tube

Bus

Walking

Quite safe Very safe

Source: Safety and security when travelling in London[4]

5.14 Safety related to traffic, is one of the key concerns for childrenwalking more often. Research carried out by Banardos and Transport2000 reported that traffic prevented many children from feeling safeenough to play outdoors or walk and cycle in the streets where theylive [104]. In another study which identified reasons for not walking toschool, fear of abduction, having to cross busy roads and fear of roadaccidents were felt to be barriers to walking by parents who drovetheir children to school.

5.15 The age of the child is also a key barrier. In a survey of 500 parentswho drove their children to school, less than half thought children

aged 13 were safe to walk alone and just 11% thought 10 year oldswere safe to walk alone [43].

Information

5.16 The scope for addressing the knowledge gap regarding walking hasbeen studied as it would seem that, by providing people withinformation about routes and times taken to walk, some of the keybarriers to walking can be overcome. However, most people do notseem overly concerned about the lack of wayfinding material andindeed there seems to be some aversion to using maps on route.


28/57

22

5.17 In a representative sample of Londoners 84% agreed that it is easyto find their way around London on foot and have little concern aboutgetting lost. Although maps were needed - most people use maps (A-Z, pocket maps, fixed point maps) to a higher degree for unplannedjourneys rather than planned journeys a high number of people

claim to ask other members of the public and shop keepers and have apick and mix approach to wayfinding [95].

FIGURE 5.4 WAYFINDING TOOLS (2006)

Source: Walking and Wayfinding [95]

5.18 Some consistency of information and wayfinding was suggested toallow pedestrians to walk confidently from one location to another.The provision of information relating the approximate time taken for

various walking commutes would seem to go some way towardsreassuring some commuters that they could walk more than they do atpresent [95].

06-0455 13

Way finding tools (2)

Most are adept at finding theirway around including findingnew locations

People will be resourceful anduse whatever tools are availableto them at the time e.g. lookingat a map on a bus stop whenthere is no-one to ask

As a result they pick and mixfrom a variety of available toolse.g. looking at the AtoZ beforeleaving the house, checking amap at the tube station and thenasking directions en route

Most top of mind

Least top of mind

AtoZ, Tube Map

Landmarks (largely subconscious)

Internet sites

Asking for directions

Phone a friend (mobile)

Others maps at tube stations/busstops etc.

Signage (least top of mind but usedby most in some form or another)

ImplicationImplication

New way finding tools will fit intoexisting repertoire of tools ratherthan replace them outright


29/57

23

5.19 The apparent lack of willingness to use a map is an interesting insighthighlighted in another study involving accompanied walks in centralLondon. In many cases the actual use of the map was the problem.This was because having to produce a map in front of other people,therefore giving off a signal that

they were lost, made somerespondents feel vulnerable,especially after dark. In othercases, crowds of shoppers made itvery difficult for users to stop andread the maps, or even toorientate them so they were facingin the right direction [28]. Thiswas largely due to the area itselfrather than the map, althoughseveral respondents did comment

that (in this case) the fold-out mapwas rather large to be opened upand read on the street.

5.20 This highlights the fact that a mapitself is not the ideal solution andpeople still need to check othersources along the way. Howeversome information relating to time/distance to walk on a map wouldhelp encourage walking [95]

Encumbrances

5.21 A key reason for respondents not walking was that of being burdenedby having to carry heavy shopping bags. Although not mentioned asfrequently, it is seen as an insurmountable barrier to even short trips,particularly for shopping [28].

Improving the environment for walkers

5.22 Improving air quality and cleanliness, reducing traffic, improving theevenness of pavements and making places easily accessible for people

with disabilities would encourage walking by making London a betterplace for walking [32].

5.23 Creating a more pedestrian friendly urban environment is theunderlying idea behind the HomeZone and 20mph zone conceptswhich aim to give greater priority to non motorised modes and enablechildren to play safely outside their homes [106]. However, a study bythe DfT on urban street activity in 20mph zones found that themajority of residents did not think the streets were safe enoughplaces for their children to play in and although residents said theywould be willing to cycle or walk more, there was no evidence of anincrease [107].


30/57

24

6. MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE WALKING

Summary

The Legible London project aims to encourage walking by

making journey planning easier, improving en-route informationand starting to break down some of the mental barriers resultingfrom a rather fragmented view many people have of London [28].

Home Zones have been employed to encourage walking andchildrens play in residential areas by using street design to givegreater priority to pedestrians and cyclists. They have had somesuccess in reducing traffic speeds, increasing children playing in ornear the street, and creating a stronger sense of community[106].

Personalised Travel Planning encourages travel behaviour changeby initiating conversations with people and providing relevantinformation on more sustainable modes. It has been shown that itcan be successful in encouraging more walking, and less car use[133].

Introduction

6.1 In this chapter we summarise the research available on the followingmeasures to encourage walking:

Legible London project;

Home Zones; and Personalised Travel Planning.

Legible London

6.2 The 2008 research report into the walking information strategy,Legible London [28] states that there is a need to address thefragmented view of London and encourage people to walk acrossmental boundaries. For journey planning, people need to be able tosee at a glance wherever they are (at home/work or at tube/bus stop)the suitability of roads to walk along, that is:

is there a route going my way?

is there a pleasant and safe option to walk?

what is the approximate walking time or distance?

are there steps?

how wide is the pavement (for those encumbered)?

6.3 Other points made are that:

there should be one central official source of the maps for

planning;


31/57

25

on-street signage must go beyond the immediate vicinity of maininterchange and Underground stations;

on-street signage needs to be visually consistent and at regularintervals or predictably located to enhance visibility, as well aseasily connecting to mapping information;

any carry-with-you / reminder map products must be walletsize;

any maps should be visually simple and clear with moderate use of3D, inclusion of mundane landmarks (such as pubs) and anindication of walking times; grid and index information;

some walkers will always prefer to use directions provided by aperson and confirmation provided by landmarks.

6.4 In this report [28], a recommendation is made to develop the BondStreet prototype mapping system into a London-wide walking map

solution (Figure 6.1 illustrates key elements of this prototype).

FIGURE 6.1 PROTOTYPE WAYFINDING INFORMATION

Source: Legible London [28]


32/57

26

Home Zones

6.5 Home Zones is one of the measures which are being deployed toencourage walking and this section summarises outputs from the DfTreport Home Zones: challenging the future of our streets [106]. It

covers evidence of the effect of Home Zones, and key lessons learntso far.

6.6 The effects of well executed Home Zones are:

to reduce traffic speeds by between 10 and 15 mph;

in some cases (depending on the circumstances and schemedesign) a reduction in traffic flow, and specifically rat-running;

to create stronger sense of community;

to support regeneration and renewal;

an improved sense of security (indications are that they can alsocut crime levels);

an increase in children playing safely on or near the street;

an increase in property values (anecdotally, they can increasehouse prices by around 10-20%).

FIGURE 6.2 LONDON HOME ZONE EXAMPLES

Source: Home Zones: challenging the future of our streets [106]


33/57

27

FIGURE 6.3 LESSONS LEARNT

Home Zones work best when areas arecontained within a defined homogeneousarea with a clear focus for thecommunity.

Allow an extensive period to involve thecommunity and build that into a realistictimetable. Residents will expect decisions,once consulted upon, to be enacted

quickly. A few early wins are useful.

It is important to identify and build on theexisting activities within an area. HomeZones are not just about the physicalchanges but also about socialengineering.

It is extremely resource intensive to fullyengage the community in the process butis absolutely necessary to achieve asuccessful scheme.

Active involvement within a clearlydefined community is vitally important toachieve consensus and belief within thecommunity.

It is vital that a single person leads andchampions the scheme from start to finish.This champion can come from anydiscipline, but has to have a broad grasp

of issues beyond their professionalbackground.

It is important to identify all the localconcerns at the outset. Issues that mayseem irrelevant to the main aim of theHome Zone can be fundamental to local

residents and need to be addressed.

Continuity is essential. Residents canbecome frustrated at constant officerchanges and the scheme can losemomentum.

Planning needs to be realistic both in itsdetail and in its expectations.

It is important to involve all stakeholdersfrom an early stage, particularly theemergency services.

Schemes always take longer thananticipated.

This needs to be planned for andcommunicated at the start in order to getthe widest support.

It is important to have community buildingevents such as fun days, barbeques etc.As well as having a fun time andencouraging neighbours to get to knowone another, it is important to gatherinformation on what residents feel are theproblems and issues that requireattention.

Involve the emergency services andutility companies from the start of theprocess and keep them informed as theschemes develop.

Be careful not to raise the communitysexpectations beyond that which canrealistically be delivered.

The design process requires involvementof all parties to ensure the agreedconcept is delivered successfully.

Incorporating good quality design andunique environmental/arts features isworth the extra effort

Constrained vehicle paths are bestachieved through physical trials with localvehicles.

Be prepared for difficult times. Sometimespeople resist change and are often onlyconcerned with single issues such asparking or access.

Source: Home Zones: challenging the future of our streets [106]


34/57

28

Personalised Travel Planning

6.7 Personalised Travel Planning is a technique for encouraging travelbehaviour change through initiating conversations with peopleabout how they travel, and providing information on more sustainable

modes like walking.

6.8 This section draws on work done on reviewing the impact of theDarlington Sustainable Travel Town Local Motion project, andspecifically, the Personalised Travel Planning / Individualised TravelMarketing work [133].

6.9 The headline result of the Darlington programme is a 11% reduction incar driver trips, the great majority of which can be accounted for by a25% increase in walking [133] (note that while this result cannot bedirectly applied to London because of the very different contexts of

Darlington and London, the importance of walking is likely to be truefor London).

6.10 Research using a technique called protocol analysis was used tounderstand and explain this change in behaviour, and key findingsfrom this were:

the great majority of trips (at least 8 out of 10) are made on thebasis of habitual behaviour, that is, no conscious consideration atall;

where there is change, this is usually as a consequence of a

change in circumstances or lifestyle, with the most commontrigger factors being a change in:

where you live;

where you work;

who you live with;

what activities you undertake and where;

financial circumstances; and

physical health.

6.11 This is backed up by the Car Dependency research for TfL [8] which, ina lifestyle survey of Londoners found that of those who had changedthe way they travel around half put this primarily down to a change injobs or homes, and a further one in five or so to other lifestyle typechanges (as listed above), with just 10% mentioning a transportrelated factor.

6.12 While the Personalised Travel Planning had a direct impact in a fewcases (and in some of these cases it was quite a dramatic impact onthat individuals travel behaviour), more often its influence wasapparently more subtle, and was to facilitate an increase in walking

on the back of one of these life events.


35/57

29

7. WALKING TO WORK

Summary

Travel to work accounts for a quarter of all journeys for men, and

17% for women [3]. While only 11% use walk as their main mode for travel to work,

when walking as a secondary mode is taken into account, 80% walkfor at least five minutes [57,134].

The main reasons given for not walking are to do with distanceand lack of time [127].

Key facts

7.1 Travel to work accounts for a quarter of all journeys for men, and 17%for women. Journeys in the course of work (company business)

account for another 10% for men, and 4% for women [3].

7.2 11% of people walk to work as the sole means of transport, butwalking to work is also an important secondary mode where the mainmode is rail or Underground (see Figure 7.1). So, even for those whosemain mode is not walk, around half do walk, and nearly one-in fivewalk more than 1km, including two in five rail / Undergroundcommuters [134].

FIGURE 7.1 DISTANCE WALKED BY MAIN MODE (2001)

0%

10%

20%30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Rail Underground Bus Car driver Car

passenger

All

3+ km

2-3 km

1-2 km


36/57

30

7.3 Overall, around 80% walk for more than five minutes as part of theirjourney to work, and a third walk for more than 15 minutes [57].

7.4 Of commuters (to work or college) whose journey to work is less than2 km, just 8% walk. Of those who do not, 27% said they would either

be very or quite likely to walk in the future [57].

Reasons for not walking to work

7.5 The reasons people say they do not walk to work are shown below[127]. Apart from distance, there is no dominant factor which peoplementioned

FIGURE 7.2 REASONS FOR NOT WALKING (2007)(UNPROMPTED)

6%

10%

10%

12%

13%

18%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Personal safety

A physical condition

Weather

Convenience

Lack of time

Distance

% mentioning



37/57

31

8. WALKING TO SCHOOL

Summary

Walking to school is quite prevalent amongst both primary and

secondary pupils, with trends showing this has been relativelysteady over the past few years [125].

The majority of trips to school of less than 1 mile (1.6 km) arewalked, and increased distance relates directly to reduced walkmode share [124].

Distance is the main barrier to walking, although the need toaccompany children/ allowing them to cross the road also affectswhether children are allowed to walk to school [124, 125].

Walking and children

8.1 For children aged 16 and under, around a third (34%) of their trips aremade on foot. Over half of all their trips are in cars (as passengers)[125].

8.2 Looking at all trips, children travel less distance annually (in miles)than any other age group, except over 70s, despite making more trips.The proportion of trips which are walked is the highest of all agegroups [125].

8.3 The trips made by children tend to be shorter on average; 26% ofunder 17s make walk trip longer than 20 minutes. This proportion islower than all other age groups except over 70s [125].

8.4 The distance walked in a year by children aged 16 and under isaffected by the presence of a car in the household. In a householdwith at least 1 car the distance walked by children is 198 miles (319km) / year, compared to 309 miles (497 km) per year in householdswith no car [122].

8.5 Overall, education trips have the highest walk mode share of any

journey purpose [125].


38/57

32

Travel to school

8.6 Walking accounts for around half of all trips to/from school by primarypupils (52%), and for a slightly lower proportion of secondary pupils(41%) [124]. Girls are also more likely to walk to school than boys (54%

vs. 49%) [64].

FIGURE 8.1: MODE SHARES FOR TRAVEL TO SCHOOL (2006)

1% 3%

52%41%

5%31%

4%41%

20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

primary secondary

car/van

other

bus

walk

bicycle

Source: Travel to school factsheet [124]

8.7 For trips of less than a mile (1.6 km), walking accounts for 81% of tripsto/from primary school, and 92% of secondary school trips. Walkingthen drops off steeply as distance increases, so that trips of over 2miles (3.2 km) are rarely made by foot (Figure 8.2) [124].


39/57

33

FIGURE 8.2: MODE SHARES BY DISTANCE FROM SCHOOL (2006)

1% 2% 1% 5% 5% 4%

81%

29%

2%

92%

61%

17%

3%

7%

13% 19%24%

1%

12%

35%60%

66%

2%

2%

9%

1%

3%

4%9%

18%

62%

83% 79%

67%

6%

22%

40%29%

24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

under1 mile

1-2miles

2-3miles

3-5miles

5+miles

under1 mile

1-2miles

2-3miles

3-5miles

5+miles

primary secondary

car

other

bus

walk

bicycle

Source: Travel to school factsheet [124]

8.8 The chart below (Figure 8.3) shows the trends in mode share for travelto school between 1995/7 and 2006. Comparing proportions walking

in 2006 with 1995/7 shows that levels of walking to school havechanged little at both primary and secondary school age, despitechanges in use of other modes. Car use for travel to primary schoolhas increased from 38% to 41%, and a decline is seen in bus use atsecondary level (33% to 31%) [125].

8.9 The larger proportion of primary pupils walking to school reflects thefact that the distance of the journey from home to school is shorteron average for primary pupils compared to secondary. 51% of primarypupils live within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the school, whereas only 29% ofsecondary pupils live within 1 mile of the school [64]. The averageschool journey is 1.5 miles (2.4 km) for primary pupils and 3.4 miles(5.5 km) for secondary school pupils [124].


40/57

34

FIGURE 8.3: MODE SHARES FOR TRAVEL TO SCHOOL BY AGE ANDGENDER (2006)

53% 56% 51% 51% 49% 49%52%

42% 43%38% 40%

43% 44% 41%

38%37%

41% 41%43% 43%

41%

20% 20%24% 23%

22% 22%20%

3%3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 2%

7% 7% 8%9%

7% 9%

7%

4%3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3%

26% 24% 25% 23% 22%20%

24%

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1995-

7

1998-

2000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1995-

7

1998-

2000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

All children aged 5-10 All children aged 11-16

Other

Rail

Local bus

Privatebus

Car/van

Bicycle

Walk

Source: Transport statistics bulletin, NTS 2006 [125]

8.10 Also from this data it appears that primary pupils will walk up to 3miles (3.8 km) to school, and secondary pupils will walk up to 5 miles(8.0 km), which as well as being a function of distance of schools, willalso be related to other issues such as safety and independence.

8.11 Distance of travel to school is not usually the primary concern in theschool selection process, as standards of education come first:

If all schools were as good as each other, they could go to thelocal school. [43]

8.12 Not getting a place at the first choice school can affect this evenmore, as journey lengths are often increased, and the likelihood ofwalking to school thus reduced.

8.13 The previous data has been based on the whole of the UK, andpatterns in London are slightly different. Mode shares for travel toschool vary slightly depending on the type of area the school islocated in, as seen in the chart below.


41/57

35

FIGURE 8.4: TRAVEL TO SCHOOL BY LOCATION TYPE (2006)

55% 54%

44%37%

33%

46%41%

14%

32%41%

48%

50%

20%

23%

15%

23%

11%4%

4%10%

40%

24%36%

56%

1% 1% 3% 2%7% 7% 8% 7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

London Large

urban

Small

urban

Rural London Large

urban

Small

urban

Rural

Primary Secondary

other

bus

car/van

walk

Source: Transport statistics bulletin, NTS 2006 [125]

8.14 For primary pupils, the proportion who walk is similar to other largeurban areas (with a population of more than 250,000), and higher thanfor smaller urban and rural areas. At the secondary level, pupils areless likely to walk to school than in large or small urban areas, butstill more than twice as likely to walk as those in rural areas.

Barriers to walking to school

8.15 The main barriers to walking to school are a strong culture of car use,fear and dislike of local environments, children as responsibletransport users and parental responsibilities for their children [84].

8.16 In a quantitative study of parents who drove their child to school, thetop mentioned reason for their child not walking to school was livingtoo far from school (63%), followed by too slow/ not enough time(20%). The top mentions above 3% are shown in Figure 8.5 below [43].


42/57

36

FIGURE 8.5: BARRIERS TO WALKING TO SCHOOL (2003)

63%

20%

10%

9%

8%

8%

5%

4%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

live too far from school

too slow/not enough time

fear of abduction

too young to walk

have to cross busy roads

fear road accidents

fear child will be bullied

Children like being driven

Not a pleasant route

Source: Understanding school run car use [43]

8.17 Mentions under 3% included drive to ensure they get to school,children have heavy bags, pollution, children go to more than oneschool, child has disability, pass school en-route to work, work at

same school as child, weather too bad and have other children tooyoung to walk.

8.18 These reasons generally fit into the four themes mentionedpreviously. It is also seen that fitting in travel to the patterns offamily life, and managing school day mornings is important in thedecision of how to travel, as car is often seen as easier:

Focus groups revealed that in some households morningsare quite rushed and it is not uncommon for breakfast tobe eaten/finished off in the car.

In large families, mornings can be quite fraught,particularly if siblings are going to be in different places.Parents find the easiest solution is simply to pile them intothe car and drive them [43]

8.19 Road safety is an important issue, as are fears for the welfare of thechild such as a fear of abduction, molestation or bullying.

8.20 Those who express fear regarding abduction, road accidents or busyroads generally agree, later in their interview, with the statement,My child would walk to school if the route were more pleasant [43].


43/57

37

8.21 However it is not felt that improvements to the walking environmentwould encourage parents of younger pupils to allow them to walk.The use of crossing patrols and footbridges, for example, may improvethe environment. However, since about half of all parents who citefear of road accidents, crossing busy roads or unpleasant routes as a

reason for their children not walking to school also drive directly towork after dropping off their children, this is a behaviour which isunlikely to be changed [43].

8.22 Although walking levels are lower amongst secondary school pupils,parents are less concerned about teenagers crossing busy roads [43].This is well founded, as RoSPA claim that children under 8 lack thenecessary skills to interact with traffic safely [117].

8.23 The proportion of primary school pupils who travel to school alone hasdecreased from 21% in 1985/6 to 8% in 2003. At secondary level, the

drop was smaller from 46% to 40% [105]. The main reasons for this areconvenience (the main reason for secondary pupils), traffic danger(the main reason for primary school pupils), fear of assault/molestation and the school being too far away [124].

8.24 In addition, only 14% of children aged 7-10 were usually allowed tocross roads alone, according to their parents. Around half were neverallowed to and the rest were sometimes allowed. A smallerproportion were allowed to cross main roads alone, (a fifth of thosewho were usually or sometimes allowed to cross the road). Amongstslightly older children (aged 11-13) only 6% were not allowed to cross

roads alone. For both age groups, the proportions allowed to crossalone have dropped between 2002 and 2006 [125].

Incentives and Travel Plans

8.25 When parents who drive their children to school were asked, about40% said there was nothing which could stop them taking their child toschool by car [43]. However there is an interest in change fromchildren themselves: when asking children who are taken to school by

car, 17% would prefer to walk all the way to school [69].

8.26 A higher proportion of children who walked also liked their currentmode compared to those going by car (57% vs. 43%) [69].

8.27 The Greater London Assembly in its State of Londons ChildrenReport stated that Transport for London will:

create improved conditions for walking and cycling so thatchildren and young people can have safer and more convenientaccess to schools and training facilities, leisure, sport and

recreational facilities and town centres [78].


44/57

38

8.28 School travel planning is now widespread across London, with morethan 1600 schools taking part so far (as of 2007) and with an aim forall schools to have a plan by 2009 [128]... School travel plans haveoften included measures to increase walking to school, includingtaking part in walking initiatives such as walk to school week or

walk on Wednesdays.

8.29 Walking Buses1 are another popular way of encouraging pupils to walkto school: 0.4% of parents who drive their child to school at least oncea week said that they were already using a walking bus, and interestwas high with 35% saying they were definitely likely to use, and 25%were probably likely to use [43].

8.30 One of the main reasons for not using a walking bus is a shortage ofadult volunteers to maintain the initiative, with a feeling that it willfall on the same few parents who are involved in every initiative.

Other reasons are that children want to be independent and do notlike being seen with adults (despite these children being driven toschool), parents not wanting to take responsibility for someone elseschildren, safety concerns, not practical/ no-one lives in same road,children too young and the school is nearby [43].

8.31 Interest is growing in the health benefits of walking, as awareness ofthe child obesity agenda increases. Walking to school may be animportant area for physical activity, as on average children gain 9% oftheir daily physical activity travelling to and from school. A typicalone way trip to school by car (18 activity calories) gives less than half

the amount of physical activity of travelling on foot (48 activitycalories) [69].

1A walking bus is a group of schoolchildren accompanied by two adults who walk to school in much

the same way a school bus would drive them to school. Walking buses have a fixed route withdesignated "bus stops" and "pick up times" enabling children to join the bus at different points in thejourney.


45/57

39

9. WALKING AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

Summary

The top priorities for highway improvements for people with adisability are smoother and more even pavements with fewercracks, islands, flatter kerb edges, wider pavements andhandrails.

However, priorities do vary between disability groups so, forexample, beeping at crossings is a higher priority for those with avisual disability.

By far the largest disability group, accounting for around 80% ofwalk trips, is the non-wheelchair mobility impaired group.

Priorities for highway improvements

9.1 TfL commissioned research to identify priorities for highwayimprovement schemes so that the maximum benefit can be providedfor disabled users of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN).This research [31] included accompanied journeys and a StatedPreference (SP) survey and provides relative weights for a wide rangeof improvements. An important general finding was that the needs ofdisabled travellers can vary a great deal depending on individualcircumstances. In an attempt to control for this, priorities have beenidentified for:

visual Impairment;

mobility Impairment (Wheelchair User);

mobility Impairment (Non-wheelchair user);

hearing impairment (only included in the SP research as asecondary disability).

9.2 The relative priorities for improvements are provided in Figures 9.1and 9.2. Some of the key points to highlight are:

a smooth, even pavements is a high priority, irrespective of the

type of disability;

islands in the middle of roads at crossing points and handrailswere a top priority for the non-wheelchair mobility impaired, butless of a priority for other groups;

having a beeping at a crossing is primarily relevant for thosewith a visual disability;

tactile pavings are good for those with a visual disability, butunhelpful for those with a non-wheelchair mobility impairment;

less clutter on the pavements are not a major priority, but are

still a benefit to all disabled travellers.


46/57

40

9.3 When looking at these results it is worth bearing in mind that around80% of walk trips made by disabled people are in the mobility non-wheelchair category and 12% in the visual category [3]. It may also bethat the priorities for the non-wheelchair mobility impaired group aresimilar to some other mobility impaired travellers such as those with

young children and pushchairs.

FIGURE 9.1: RELATIVE PRIORITIES FOR HIGHWAYIMPROVEMENTS (2007)

0

3

2

3

3

2

3

11

5

4

5

12

7

12

-1

2

3

2

2

3

3

4

4

3

11

7

8

9

11

14

3

1

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

tactile paving at roadside

reflective markings

landings

red/yellow paving at crossing

benches

shorter steps

ramp

smaller gaps

fewer bins / posts on pavement

beeping at crossing

handrail

wider pavement

almost flat at kerb edge

fewer cracked slabs

island

smooth, even pavement

Relative value

Mobility (non wheelchair)

Visual

Prioritising Highway Improvements [31]

Notes: the relative value is based on the share of all the attributesvalued, so they sum to 100; in the SP research, all these attributeswere described with the help of visual images; only one level ofeach attribute has been shown whereas in some cases more than onewas included in the research, for example, the value shown for islandsis that for a small island the report on the SP survey should bereferred to for full results


47/57

41

FIGURE 9.2: RELATIVE PRIORITIES FOR HIGHWAYIMPROVEMENTS FOR WHEELCHAIR USERS (2007)

2

2

4

4

5

7

10

10

14

14

1

1

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

reflective markings

benches

red/yellow paving at crossing

tactile paving at roadside

fewer bins / posts on pavement

smaller gaps

beeping at crossing

island

fewer cracked slabs

smooth, even pavementwider pavement

almost flat at kerb edge

Relative value

Wheelchair

Prioritising Highway Improvements [31]

Notes: as Figure 9.1, also note that wheelchair users were not askedto value some of the attributes such as ramps and short rather thanmedium steps


48/57


49/57

Appendix

APPENDIX A: SOURCES


50/57


51/57

Appendix


52/57

Appendix


53/57

Appendix


54/57

Appendix


55/57

Appendix


56/57

Appendix


57/57

CONTROL SHEET

Project/Proposal Name: WALKING IN LONDON

Document Title:

Client Contract/ProjectNumber:

Project/Proposal Number: 207959

ISSUE HISTORY

REVIEW

Originator: Tony Duckenfield

Other Contributors: Jo Kemp, Jo Hickes, Nigel Shepherd, Ros West

DISTRIBUTION

Clients: Clara Barrington

Issue No.5 Date: 20/6/8 Details: Final

Documents

(TfL) - 2008 - Walking in London Report - May 2008