WALKING IN LONDON

Report May 2008

Prepared for: Transport for London

Contents Confidentiality 1. 2. 3. INTRODUCTION POLICY CONTEXT WALKING PATTERNS Summary Walking mode shares Purpose 4. ATTITUDES TOWARDS WALKING Summary Perceptions of walking 5. BARRIERS TO WALKING Summary Context Time constraints Personal safety and security Information Encumbrances Improving the environment for walkers 6. MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE WALKING Summary Introduction Legible London Home Zones Personalised Travel Planning 7. WALKING TO WORK Summary Key facts Reasons for not walking to work 8. WALKING TO SCHOOL Summary Walking and children Travel to school Barriers to walking to school

Page 3 5 6 8 8 8 13 14 14 14 17 17 17 18 20 21 23 23 24 24 24 24 26 28 29 29 29 30 31 31 31 32 35

Contents

Incentives and Travel Plans 9. WALKING AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES Summary Priorities for highway improvements

37 39 39 39

FIGURES Figure 3.1 Mode shares and trip distance (2001) Figure 3.2 Penetration of walking by age (2006/7) Figure 3.3 Walk Mode share by age & gender (2006/7) Figure 3.4 Age and gender share of walk trips (2006/7) Figure 3.5 Walk Mode share by working status (2006/7) Figure 3.6 Walk Mode share by ethnicity (2006/7) Figure 3.7 Walk Mode share and disability (2006/7) Figure 3.8 Walk Mode and car ownership (2006/7) Figure 3.9 Purpose share of walk trips (2006/7) Figure 4.1 Attitudes to walking (2007) Figure 4.2 Appeal of walking relative to other modes (2005) Figure 5.1 factors considered when thinking about walking (2006) Figure 5.2 Perceptions of walking speed (2007) Figure 5.3 Perceptions of safety (2007) Figure 5.4 Wayfinding tools (2006) Figure 6.1 prototype wayfinding information Figure 6.2 London home zone examples Figure 6.3 Lessons learnt Figure 7.1 Distance walked by main mode (2001) Figure 7.2 Reasons for not walking (2007) (unprompted) Figure 8.1: Mode shares for travel to school (2006) 8 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 15 16 19 20 21 22 25 26 27 29 30 32

Figure 8.2: Mode shares by Distance from school (2006) Figure 8.3: Mode shares for travel to school by age and gender (2006) Figure 8.4: Travel to school by Location type (2006) Figure 8.5: Barriers to Walking to school (2003) Figure 9.1: Relative priorities for highway improvements (2007) Figure 9.2: Relative priorities for highway improvements for wheelchair users (2007)

33 34 35 36 40 41

APPENDICES A: Sources

Confidentiality Please note that the copyright in the attached report is owned by TfL and the provision of information under Freedom of Information Act does not give the recipient 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 dealing provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 for the purposes of research for non-commercial purposes, private study, criticism, review and news reporting. Details of the arrangements for reusing the material owned by TfL for any other purpose can be obtained by contacting us at enquire@tfl.gov.uk. Please also note that any opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and not necessarily those of TfL.

Contents

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 scale travel 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. Selected key sources are identified at the end of this summary.

Policy context Increasing the level of walking activity in London is seen as an integral part of maintaining Londons economic competitiveness and improving the quality of life for Londoners. To underpin the policy of encouraging walking, a target has been set in The Transport 2025 Plan (T2025) to increase 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 are more likely to walk, particularly in outer London (in outer London, the walk share of trips is 64% higher for people without a car in the household than for people with at least one car in the 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 for 37% of all trips in London), the walk mode share is just 29% with half of these trips being made in a car [134].

Mode shares and trip distance [134]

100% 90% 80% 70% Mode share 60% 50% 40% 82% 30% 20% 10% 0% Less than 0.5km to 0.5km 1.0km
20% 4% 1% 1% 53%

Private

Public transport Cycle

Walk

1 to 2km

3 to 5km

6 to 9km

10km or more

Women aged between 25 and 44, people who are not in work and BAME groups (particularly those of Bangladeshi and Black ethnicity) tend to walk most [1]. Walking to school trips has the highest walk mode share (55%) of any journey purpose in London [125]. Three-quarters of walk trips are for travelling to a leisure, personal business or shopping destination. Although only 13% are for work as a main mode [1], walking is also an important secondary mode for work trips, especially where the main mode is rail or Underground [134]. Although 92% of Londoners walk at least once a week, two-fifths of those aged 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 as the 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 good for the environment [57]. On the other hand, there are some aspects of walking in London where there is more mixed opinion and some room for improvement, such as traffic fumes, dirt, and vandalism. Overall, while the majority of Londoners agree that London is a city for walking, a significant minority (28%) do not [57]. While walking is seen as good for very short trips, inaccurate perceptions of distances and speeds, combined with the importance of time as a rare commodity 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].

Barriers to walking The barriers to walking can be considered in terms of soft image factors and hard infrastructure factors, as summarised below: Image 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 Fear of attack (at night/in the dark) Fear of abduction (children) Fear of traffic Habitual nature of most travel behaviour Importance of time and using time efficiently Walking is not seen as a mode in itself, but a means of accessing other modes Practical and emotional benefits of car Infrastructure Lack of at a glance consistent directional wayfinding information Too few landmarks Lack of information relating to time/distance on maps Poor lighting Litter, graffiti Poor maintenance of pavements Lack of safe places to cross the road Bad weather Pollution Need to carry heavy objects Need to trip chain

Safety

Other

Overcoming the barriers Overcoming these barriers requires addressing both the image and infrastructure factors through a combination of soft and hard measures. Soft measures may be successful in encouraging people to try walking as an alternative, but if their experience is poor, they are likely to revert to their previous behaviour. Similarly, introducing hard measures on their own may not have much impact if car and public transport users never even consider or try 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];

Home Zones to reduce traffic speeds and increase perceptions of safety [106]; and Personalised Travel Planning which can challenge some of the image and perception gaps, and build on the growing awareness of health and obesity issues [133].

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

1. 1.1

INTRODUCTION This report presents a summary of our current state of knowledge about walking in London. It is based on a review of well over 60 reports, covering a wide range of types of research, ranging from small scale qualitative research to the latest travel data from the LTDS (the London Travel Demand Survey). It is structured around six topic-based chapters covering different aspects of walking. However, before examining the facts about walking in London we briefly review the existing policy context, drawing particularly on the Transport 2025 transport vision document. Our understanding of walking behaviour is examined in Chapter Three, including trends in the volume of walk trips. The examination of hard facts is followed by a chapter looking at attitudes, including the motivations for walking and the barriers to walking more often. The measures that have been employed to overcome these barriers and increase the volume of walking are covered in Chapter 6. Chapters 7 and 8 then review evidence relating to two key market segments, as defined by journey purpose: commuting to work and travel to school. In Appendix A we list the sources obtained and reviewed for this study. While the bulk of the evidence used is from research reports, it does include some new analysis of the LATS and LTDS London travel survey databases, primarily to provide as clear a picture as possible of walking patterns.

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5 1.6

2. 2.1

POLICY CONTEXT In February 2004 a plan was published: Making London a walkable city [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, area improvements based on Streets-for-People, a London Walking website, awareness campaigns to promote the benefits of walking and encourage more walking for short trips and longer public transport trips. In the 2025 vision document: Transport 2025 Transport Vision for a growing world city a target is set to increase the number of walking trips per person by 10% by 2015 [119]. This is to be achieved by: 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 as islands and refuges; replacing subways and footbridges with surface level protected crossings; exploring new route and way-finding technology.

2.3

2.4

2.5

Plus some major projects including: the 100 Public Spaces initiative to improve the urban realm in key areas of London; a network of strategic walking routes; developing plans for a pan-London walking way-finding concept

called Legible London to encourage more people to walk for short distances. 2.6 TfL will also continue to work with the boroughs on a programme to improve the urban environment. This includes ensuring all projects follow clear design principles to support the creation of: 2.7 convenient connections so that people can access the places they want to get to by the most direct way; clear and easy to understand routes and spaces so that people can find their way around easily; streets and spaces for everyone so that all users have enough space 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.

More recently still, a major programme of investment in walking has been initiated. Two specific strands of the programme are: Legible London, a comprehensive pedestrian way-finding system to help people navigate London; and the Streets of Gold programme which will combine improved infrastructure and design for pedestrians with regeneration measures to promote walking in small catchment areas in inner and outer London, linking key local destinations such as stations, schools and shops.

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 is just 29% with half of these trips being made in a car [134]. Those that tend to walk more include women aged 25-44, those not in work, and the Black Other and Bangladeshi ethnic groups [1]. Around a quarter of walk trips are for work or education related journeys, 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 to walk shorter distances (see also Chapter 8 for more on children and walking)

Walking mode shares 3.1 3.2 Overall, 31% of London trips are by foot [1]. This proportion is higher in Inner and Central London than Outer London [134]. The extent to which people walk is clearly very closely tied to trip length and this relationship is illustrated in Figure 3.1 below. It is interesting to see that even for trips which are between half and one kilometre, nearly half are made by non-walk modes, including 39% by private transport (mainly car) [134]. FIGURE 3.1 MODE SHARES AND TRIP DISTANCE (2001)
100% 90% 80% 70% Mode share 60% 50% 40% 82% 30% 20% 10% 0% Less than 0.5km to 0.5km 1.0km
20% 4% 1% 1% 53%

Private

Public transport Cycle

Walk

1 to 2km

3 to 5km

6 to 9km

10km or more

Source: LATS [134]

3.3

Looking overall at the 0.5km to 2km distance bands (a reasonable distance for walking, being up to around 30 minutes, and accounting for 37% of all trips), the walk share is 29%, while half the trips are made by car, and 13% by bus [134]. 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, as illustrated in Figure 3.2 which shows the % within each age band walking 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% aged 75-84 and just 24% aged 85+) [3].

3.4

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

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Walk at least 5 days a week (%)

84.2% 74.2% 70.4% 62.2% 60.1% 45.0% 24.0%

Overall=69%

05-16

17-24

25-44

45-64

65-74

75-84

85+

Source: LTDS [3]

3.5

The following charts compare the walk mode shares for different groups within the population, starting with age and gender. This shows that the groups which walk the most are children, females aged 25-44, and males aged 75+ [1]. It is interesting to examine the 25-44 age group and compare men and women: the walk share for men is 24%, but for women it is 35%. One reason for this is that in one-car households it is often the woman who manages without a car and walks and uses public transport more [131]. Overall, women aged 25-44 account for 27% of all walk trips (Figure 3.4 [1].

3.6

3.7

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

85+ 75-84 Female 65-74 45-64 25-44 17-24 05-16
30.2 42.5 28.9 31.1 30.4 28.4 35.2

85+ 75-84 Male 65-74 45-64 25-44 17-24 05-16 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0
25.5 23.9 28.9 30.7

37.3 34.6

44.3

40.0

50.0

Walk mode share (%)

Source: LTDS [1] FIGURE 3.4 AGE AND GENDER SHARE OF WALK TRIPS (2006/7)
Females under 25, 13% Females 2544, 27%

Males 45+, 15%

Males 25-44, 15% Males under 25, 14%

Females 45+, 16%

Source: LTDS [1]

10

3.8

In terms of working status (Figure 3.5) it is those not working who have the highest walk share, and those in full time work the lowest [1]. While being in work increases the total number of trips made, this is not sufficient to offset this difference in mode shares, so those not in 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)
Retired Not Working Student Part time Full time 0 10 20
23.0 30.2 30.0 31.6 45.4

30

40

50

Walk mode share (%)

Source: LTDS [1] 3.9 The Black other and Bangladeshi ethnic groups make substantially more trips by foot, and conversely fewer by car (Figure 3.6) [1]. FIGURE 3.6 WALK MODE SHARE BY ETHNICITY (2006/7)
Other Chinese Bangladeshi Pakistani Indian Black Other Black African Black Caribbean Mixed White 0 10
25.4 31.7 34.7 31.5 25.3 28.2 52.2 29.3 28.0 51.2

20 30 40 Walk mode share (%)

50

60

Source: LTDS [1]

11

3.10

Curiously, those classified as having walking difficulties have a higher walk mode share than those without a disability (Figure 3.7), though because they make fewer trips overall, those with a walking difficulty do make fewer walking trips per person. FIGURE 3.7 WALK MODE SHARE AND DISABILITY (2006/7)

Other disability Walking difficulties Wheelchair user No disability 0 10 20 30

20.0 31.1 34.2

38.3

40

50

Walk mode share (%)

Source: LTDS [1]

3.11

There is a significant effect of car ownership on walking as shown in Figure 3.8 which compares walk mode shares for people in households with 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 (around a quarter less) [3]. 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), at least in part because they cannot afford a car. FIGURE 3.8 WALK MODE AND CAR OWNERSHIP (2006/7)

3.12

Cars in h/hold

2+

20.9

28.4

0 0 10 20 30 Walk mode share (%) 40

42.7

50

Source: LTDS [3]

12

Purpose 3.13 Shopping and personal business is the largest journey purpose category for walk trips, slightly ahead of getting to a leisure activity and other. These two account for 74% of all walk trips, with the remainder equally split between work and education [1]. In comparison with other modes, walking is less likely to be for travel to work with commuting accounting for around 30% of all trips compared with just 13% of walk trips [1]. FIGURE 3.9 PURPOSE SHARE OF WALK TRIPS (2006/7)

3.14

Leisure and Other, 35%

Commuting and in course of work, 13%

Shopping and Personal Business, 38%

Education, 13%

Source: LTDS [1]

13

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 is higher than the equivalent figure for any other mode) [44]. Key positives for walking include it helping to keep fit, providing time to think, setting a good example for children, and being quicker for short journeys [33,57]. On the other hand, the negatives (explored further in the following chapter on barriers) include the time it is perceived to take, vandalism, pollution, and the convenience and emotional benefits of car [33,57].

Perceptions of walking 4.1 The perceptions of walking are largely positive, with the great majority of Londoners agreeing that its enjoyable, healthy, helps the environment, sets a good example to children and is convenient (Figure 4.1) [57]. The least positive perception is that traffic fumes discourage walking, though dirt and vandalism and personal safety are issues. Overall, 72% agreed that London is a city for walking, leaving 28% who did not agree [57]. By way of comparison, 29% agree that London is a city for cycling [57]. In fact, of all modes, walking is the most appealing with 89% of those that walk (the great majority) and 73% of those that rarely walk holding the view that walking is an appealing way to travel [44] see Figure 4.2. Walking has also been identified as the most likely alternative to car for short journeys (under 5 miles / 8 kilometres), along with bus [141].

4.2 4.3

4.4

4.5

14

FIGURE 4.1 ATTITUDES TO WALKING (2007)

It's a good way to get fit It's enjoyable Helps the environment Gives me time to think Good example to children Quicker for short journeys Convenient An interesting way to travel Method would want to be seen using Good for rush hour journeys Dirt & vandalism discourages walking London is a city for walking Makes me feel more relaxed Traffic fumes discourage walking Don't feel safe walking Walking is an unpleasant experience 13 21 63

93 91 89 89 89 89 85 83 78 77 73 72 71

20

40

60

80

100

% agreeing

Source: Attitudes to walking 2007 [57]

15

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

100 90 80 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 Walk Cycling Car Train
non-users

89 73

88 81 74 63 48 61 72 57 61 48

Bus

Tube

users of mode

Source: Cycling omnibus survey [44] 4.6 However, for many people the car has many perceived practical and emotional benefits over walking [33,135]: 4.7 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 ones personality.

Perceptions of the relative speed of walking are a particular issue because of the pace of modern life. Thus, time a commodity in short supply which many people cannot readily spare [33]. On the other hand, for those that do walk, time spent walking can be seen 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 providing quality time to play and talk.

4.8

16

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 Lack of at a glance consistent directional wayfinding information Too few landmarks Lack of information relating to time/distance on maps Poor lighting Litter, graffiti Poor maintenance of pavements Lack of safe places to cross the road Bad weather Pollution Need to carry heavy objects Need to trip chain

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 Fear of attack (at night/in the dark) Fear of abduction (children) Fear of traffic Habitual nature of most travel behaviour Importance of time and using time efficiently Walking is not seen a mode in itself, but a means of accessing other modes Practical and emotional benefits of car

Safety

Other

Context 5.2 There is significant potential for more trips in London to be made entirely by waking. The LATS 2001 survey identified that 23% of bus journeys and over 32% of car trips were less than a mile (1.6 km) in length. However, other than for leisure purposes walking is not generally considered a mode but as a means of travelling short distances in conjunction with other modes [80].

17

Time constraints 5.3 The main barriers to walking are related to distance and time constraints and can be addressed by increasing understanding about how long it takes to walk to a particular destination and which is the best route to take. However most people use a pick and mix approach to wayfinding meaning that one source (e.g. a map) is insufficient to meet the constant need for reassurance of precision location information throughout the whole journey. In 2007 qualitative research [33] identified that the objective for commuters is to get to work as quickly as possible and that walking as a mode of transport was immediately rejected for this reason. Beyond time constraints, participants were simply unaware of potential routes to use other than the main roads which a bus or car would use and which were therefore felt to be polluted and unappealing. Focus groups with mainly car and public transport users also highlighted time constraints as the main reason for not walking more. People with hectic lifestyles perceived walking as a slower way to get around requiring more effort as well as lifestyle changes: Theres no way Im sacrificing even five minutes in bed to 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] identified the main drawbacks as the weather, danger (personal security) and pollution. Distance and personal security were the main reasons for selecting modes other than walking and potential walkers also lacked information. For people who were already walking, pollution, weather, narrow pavements, the amount of traffic en-route, bad driving by motorists and whether or not they were carrying heavy bags impacted on the journey quality. A lack of knowledge about how long it will take to walk and which route to take underlies the distance barrier. The chart below illustrates which factors are taken into account when planning to walk. This highlights the point that how far a person is willing to walk is the least considered factor, suggesting that the distance people are prepared to walk is flexible and does in fact vary depending on the other factors [95].

5.4

5.5

5.7

18

FIGURE 5.1 FACTORS CONSIDERED WHEN THINKING ABOUT WALKING (2006)

Whether already know route

82%

Weather Decide whether walking is quicker than other modes Look up route before leaving

80%

64%

60%

Decide how far willing to walk

43%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Source: Walking and Wayfinding [95]

5.8

Although often cited environmental factors such as the weather are not able to be controlled, realistically these are only likely to affect walking in extreme conditions such as heavy rain or snow. The study goes on to identify the main barriers to walking as: A feeling of lethargy from the perception that walking requires too much effort; Distance and not knowing location; and Having trouble estimating how long it will take to walk to a given destination.

5.9

5.10

Perceptions of the distance barrier are therefore distorted by two factors: uncertainty over distances (it is possible that in central London distances are influenced by a mental map based on the classic Tube map, which stretches space in the central area); and misperceptions of walking speeds. The latter issue is highlighted in Figure 5.2 which shows the distribution of times people thought it would take (an able bodied person) to walk a mile. Given that a typical walking pace is 3.5 to 4 mph (15 to 17 minutes for one mile/1.6 km), there is a sizeable minority of around one-fifth who appear to seriously over (and indeed under) estimate the time required [57].

5.11

19

FIGURE 5.2 PERCEPTIONS OF WALKING SPEED (2007)

35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% less than 5 5 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 Minutes to walk 1 mile 21 to 30 over 30
2% 13% 5% 21% 30% 29%
Actual based on 3.5 to 4mph

Source: Attitudes to walking 2007 [57]

Personal safety and security 5.12 Walking is considered an extremely safe daytime mode of transport in London [4]. However fear of walking when it is dark is a key barrier for both males and females. Whereas most areas in central London are felt to be safe during the day other areas within Zone 1 are thought to be unsafe at night [95]. Workshops with residents in Camden identified fear of youths and bad lighting as the main barriers to walking at night [80]. Cleanliness (closely correlated with safety) and lighting were also high on the list of pedestrian improvements in a stated preference survey carried out on Londons Jubilee walkway, Thames path and Capital ring compared to (willingness to pay for) other improvements such as evenness of pavements, information panels, signs and benches [32].

5.13

20

FIGURE 5.3 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY (2007)

Walking Bus Tube Train Car Black Cab Minicab DLR Tram Bicycle Motorbike 0%
27% 25% 15% 4% 24% 37%

51% 56% 53% 50% 39% 50% 43% 35% 15% 13% 21% 25%

38% 30% 29% 32%

20%

40%

60%

80% Very safe

100%

Quite safe

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

5.14

Safety related to traffic, is one of the key concerns for children walking more often. Research carried out by Banardos and Transport 2000 reported that traffic prevented many children from feeling safe enough to play outdoors or walk and cycle in the streets where they live [104]. In another study which identified reasons for not walking to school, fear of abduction, having to cross busy roads and fear of road accidents were felt to be barriers to walking by parents who drove their children to school. The age of the child is also a key barrier. In a survey of 500 parents who drove their children to school, less than half thought children aged 13 were safe to walk alone and just 11% thought 10 year olds were safe to walk alone [43]. Information

5.15

5.16

The scope for addressing the knowledge gap regarding walking has been studied as it would seem that, by providing people with information about routes and times taken to walk, some of the key barriers to walking can be overcome. However, most people do not seem overly concerned about the lack of wayfinding material and indeed there seems to be some aversion to using maps on route.

21

5.17

In a representative sample of Londoners 84% agreed that it is easy to find their way around London on foot and have little concern about getting lost. Although maps were needed - most people use maps (AZ, pocket maps, fixed point maps) to a higher degree for unplanned journeys rather than planned journeys a high number of people claim to ask other members of the public and shop keepers and have a pick and mix approach to wayfinding [95]. FIGURE 5.4 WAYFINDING TOOLS (2006)

Way finding tools (2)

Most top of mind AtoZ, Tube Map Landmarks (largely subconscious) Asking for directions Internet sites Phone a friend (mobile) Most are adept at finding their way around including finding new locations People will be resourceful and use whatever tools are available to them at the time e.g. looking at a map on a bus stop when there is no-one to ask As a result they pick and mix from a variety of available tools e.g. looking at the AtoZ before leaving the house, checking a map at the tube station and then asking directions en route

Others maps at tube stations/bus stops etc. Signage (least top of mind but used by most in some form or another) Implication New way finding tools will fit into existing repertoire of tools rather than replace them outright

Least top of mind

06-0455 13

Source: Walking and Wayfinding [95]

5.18

Some consistency of information and wayfinding was suggested to allow 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 towards reassuring some commuters that they could walk more than they do at present [95].

22

5.19

The apparent lack of willingness to use a map is an interesting insight highlighted in another study involving accompanied walks in central London. 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 some respondents feel vulnerable, especially after dark. In other cases, crowds of shoppers made it very difficult for users to stop and read the maps, or even to orientate them so they were facing in the right direction [28]. This was largely due to the area itself rather than the map, although several respondents did comment that (in this case) the fold-out map was rather large to be opened up and read on the street. This highlights the fact that a map itself is not the ideal solution and people still need to check other sources along the way. However some information relating to time/distance to walk on a map would help encourage walking [95] Encumbrances

5.20

5.21

A key reason for respondents not walking was that of being burdened by having to carry heavy shopping bags. Although not mentioned as frequently, 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 the evenness of pavements and making places easily accessible for people with disabilities would encourage walking by making London a better place for walking [32]. Creating a more pedestrian friendly urban environment is the underlying idea behind the HomeZone and 20mph zone concepts which aim to give greater priority to non motorised modes and enable children to play safely outside their homes [106]. However, a study by the DfT on urban street activity in 20mph zones found that the majority of residents did not think the streets were safe enough places for their children to play in and although residents said they would be willing to cycle or walk more, there was no evidence of an increase [107].

5.23

23

6.

MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE WALKING Summary The Legible London project aims to encourage walking by making journey planning easier, improving en-route information and starting to break down some of the mental barriers resulting from a rather fragmented view many people have of London [28]. Home Zones have been employed to encourage walking and childrens play in residential areas by using street design to give greater priority to pedestrians and cyclists. They have had some success in reducing traffic speeds, increasing children playing in or near the street, and creating a stronger sense of community [106]. Personalised Travel Planning encourages travel behaviour change by initiating conversations with people and providing relevant information on more sustainable modes. It has been shown that it can be successful in encouraging more walking, and less car use [133].

Introduction 6.1 In this chapter we summarise the research available on the following measures 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 the fragmented view of London and encourage people to walk across mental boundaries. For journey planning, people need to be able to see at a glance wherever they are (at home/work or at tube/bus stop) the suitability of roads to walk along, that is: 6.3 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)?

Other points made are that: there should be one central official source of the maps for planning;

24

 6.4

on-street signage must go beyond the immediate vicinity of main interchange and Underground stations; on-street signage needs to be visually consistent and at regular intervals or predictably located to enhance visibility, as well as easily connecting to mapping information; any carry-with-you / reminder map products must be wallet size; any maps should be visually simple and clear with moderate use of 3D, inclusion of mundane landmarks (such as pubs) and an indication of walking times; grid and index information; some walkers will always prefer to use directions provided by a person and confirmation provided by landmarks.

In this report [28], a recommendation is made to develop the Bond Street 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]

25

Home Zones 6.5 Home Zones is one of the measures which are being deployed to encourage walking and this section summarises outputs from the DfT report Home Zones: challenging the future of our streets [106]. It covers evidence of the effect of Home Zones, and key lessons learnt so far. 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 scheme design) 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 also cut crime levels); an increase in children playing safely on or near the street; an increase in property values (anecdotally, they can increase house prices by around 10-20%).

6.6

FIGURE 6.2 LONDON HOME ZONE EXAMPLES

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

26

FIGURE 6.3

LESSONS LEARNT
Allow an extensive period to involve the community and build that into a realistic timetable. Residents will expect decisions, once consulted upon, to be enacted quickly. A few early wins are useful. It is extremely resource intensive to fully engage the community in the process but is absolutely necessary to achieve a successful scheme. It is vital that a single person leads and champions the scheme from start to finish. This champion can come from any discipline, but has to have a broad grasp of issues beyond their professional background. Continuity is essential. Residents can become frustrated at constant officer changes and the scheme can lose momentum. It is important to involve all stakeholders from an early stage, particularly the emergency services. It is important to have community building events such as fun days, barbeques etc. As well as having a fun time and encouraging neighbours to get to know one another, it is important to gather information on what residents feel are the problems and issues that require attention. Be careful not to raise the communitys expectations beyond that which can realistically be delivered. Incorporating good quality design and unique environmental/arts features is worth the extra effort

Home Zones work best when areas are contained within a defined homogeneous area with a clear focus for the community. It is important to identify and build on the existing activities within an area. Home Zones are not just about the physical changes but also about social engineering. Active involvement within a clearly defined community is vitally important to achieve consensus and belief within the community.

It is important to identify all the local concerns at the outset. Issues that may seem irrelevant to the main aim of the Home Zone can be fundamental to local residents and need to be addressed. Planning needs to be realistic both in its detail and in its expectations. Schemes always take longer than anticipated. This needs to be planned for and communicated at the start in order to get the widest support.

Involve the emergency services and utility companies from the start of the process and keep them informed as the schemes develop. The design process requires involvement of all parties to ensure the agreed concept is delivered successfully.

Be prepared for difficult times. Sometimes Constrained vehicle paths are best achieved through physical trials with local people resist change and are often only concerned with single issues such as vehicles. parking or access.

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

27

Personalised Travel Planning 6.7 Personalised Travel Planning is a technique for encouraging travel behaviour change through initiating conversations with people about how they travel, and providing information on more sustainable modes like walking. This section draws on work done on reviewing the impact of the Darlington Sustainable Travel Town Local Motion project, and specifically, the Personalised Travel Planning / Individualised Travel Marketing work [133]. The headline result of the Darlington programme is a 11% reduction in car driver trips, the great majority of which can be accounted for by a 25% increase in walking [133] (note that while this result cannot be directly applied to London because of the very different contexts of Darlington and London, the importance of walking is likely to be true for London). Research using a technique called protocol analysis was used to understand and explain this change in behaviour, and key findings from this were: the great majority of trips (at least 8 out of 10) are made on the basis of habitual behaviour, that is, no conscious consideration at all; where there is change, this is usually as a consequence of a change in circumstances or lifestyle, with the most common trigger 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.

6.8

6.9

6.10

6.11

This is backed up by the Car Dependency research for TfL [8] which, in a lifestyle survey of Londoners found that of those who had changed the way they travel around half put this primarily down to a change in jobs or homes, and a further one in five or so to other lifestyle type changes (as listed above), with just 10% mentioning a transport related factor. While the Personalised Travel Planning had a direct impact in a few cases (and in some of these cases it was quite a dramatic impact on that individuals travel behaviour), more often its influence was apparently more subtle, and was to facilitate an increase in walking on the back of one of these life events.

6.12

28

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% walk for at least five minutes [57,134]. The main reasons given for not walking are to do with distance and 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]. 11% of people walk to work as the sole means of transport, but walking to work is also an important secondary mode where the main mode is rail or Underground (see Figure 7.1). So, even for those whose main mode is not walk, around half do walk, and nearly one-in five walk more than 1km, including two in five rail / Underground commuters [134].

7.2

FIGURE 7.1 DISTANCE WALKED BY MAIN MODE (2001)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Rail Underground Bus Car driver Car passenger All 0 <1km 1-2 km 2-3 km 3+ km

Source: LATS [134]

29

7.3 7.4

Overall, around 80% walk for more than five minutes as part of their journey to work, and a third walk for more than 15 minutes [57]. Of commuters (to work or college) whose journey to work is less than 2 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 people mentioned FIGURE 7.2 REASONS FOR NOT WALKING (2007) (UNPROMPTED)
Distance Lack of time Convenience Weather A physical condition Personal safety 0% 5%
6% 10% 10% 13% 12% 18%

10% % mentioning

15%

20%

Source: Attitudes to walking 2007 [127]

30

8.

WALKING TO SCHOOL Summary Walking to school is quite prevalent amongst both primary and secondary pupils, with trends showing this has been relatively steady over the past few years [125]. The majority of trips to school of less than 1 mile (1.6 km) are walked, and increased distance relates directly to reduced walk mode share [124]. Distance is the main barrier to walking, although the need to accompany children/ allowing them to cross the road also affects whether 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 are made on foot. Over half of all their trips are in cars (as passengers) [125]. 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 age groups [125]. The trips made by children tend to be shorter on average; 26% of under 17s make walk trip longer than 20 minutes. This proportion is lower than all other age groups except over 70s [125]. The distance walked in a year by children aged 16 and under is affected by the presence of a car in the household. In a household with at least 1 car the distance walked by children is 198 miles (319 km) / year, compared to 309 miles (497 km) per year in households with no car [122]. Overall, education trips have the highest walk mode share of any journey purpose [125].

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

31

Travel to school 8.6 Walking accounts for around half of all trips to/from school by primary pupils (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)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
1% 3% 31% 5%

20% 41% 4%

car/van

other

bus

52%

walk 41% bicycle

primary

secondary

Source: Travel to school factsheet [124]

8.7

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

32

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

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
1% 2%
29%
2% 2%

18%

6% 1%

22%
1%

29% 40%
4% 3%

24%

car other bus

62% 83% 79%

12% 67%

9%

92% 81% 7%
9%

35% 61%

60%

66%

walk bicycle

13% 2%

19%

24%

17%

1%

5%

5%

4%

3%

under 1-2 2-3 3-5 5+ under 1-2 2-3 3-5 5+ 1 mile miles miles miles miles 1 mile miles miles miles miles primary secondary

Source: Travel to school factsheet [124]

8.8

The chart below (Figure 8.3) shows the trends in mode share for travel to school between 1995/7 and 2006. Comparing proportions walking in 2006 with 1995/7 shows that levels of walking to school have changed little at both primary and secondary school age, despite changes in use of other modes. Car use for travel to primary school has increased from 38% to 41%, and a decline is seen in bus use at secondary level (33% to 31%) [125]. The larger proportion of primary pupils walking to school reflects the fact that the distance of the journey from home to school is shorter on average for primary pupils compared to secondary. 51% of primary pupils live within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the school, whereas only 29% of secondary pupils live within 1 mile of the school [64]. The average school journey is 1.5 miles (2.4 km) for primary pupils and 3.4 miles (5.5 km) for secondary school pupils [124].

8.9

33

FIGURE 8.3: MODE SHARES FOR TRAVEL TO SCHOOL BY AGE AND GENDER (2006)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60%
20% 20% 24% 23% 38% 37% 41% 41% 43% 43% 41% 7% 7% 8% 9% 7% 9% 7%
2

4% 3%

3% 3%

1 2% 4%

3% 3%

3% 4%

3% 3%

3% 2%

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

Rail

Local bus

22%

22%

20%

50% 40% 30%

53%

Private bus Car/van

56%

51%

51%

49%

49%

52% 42% 43% 38% 40% 43% 44% 41%

Bicycle

20% 10% 0%

Walk

1995- 1998- 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1995- 1998- 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 7 2000 7 2000 All children aged 5-10 All children aged 11-16

Source: Transport statistics bulletin, NTS 2006 [125]

8.10

Also from this data it appears that primary pupils will walk up to 3 miles (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, will also be related to other issues such as safety and independence. Distance of travel to school is not usually the primary concern in the school selection process, as standards of education come first: If all schools were as good as each other, they could go to the local school. [43]

8.11

8.12

Not getting a place at the first choice school can affect this even more, as journey lengths are often increased, and the likelihood of walking to school thus reduced. The previous data has been based on the whole of the UK, and patterns in London are slightly different. Mode shares for travel to school vary slightly depending on the type of area the school is located in, as seen in the chart below.

8.13

34

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

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% London Large urban Small urban Rural London Large urban Small urban Rural
55% 54% 44% 37% 33% 46% 41% 20% 32% 41% 48% 50% 23% 15% 56% 40% 1% 11% 1% 4% 3% 4% 2% 10% 24% 36%

7%

7%

8%

7%

other

bus

car/van
23%

walk
14%

Primary

Secondary

Source: Transport statistics bulletin, NTS 2006 [125]

8.14

For primary pupils, the proportion who walk is similar to other large urban areas (with a population of more than 250,000), and higher than for smaller urban and rural areas. At the secondary level, pupils are less likely to walk to school than in large or small urban areas, but still 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 responsible transport users and parental responsibilities for their children [84]. In a quantitative study of parents who drove their child to school, the top mentioned reason for their child not walking to school was living too 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].

8.16

35

FIGURE 8.5: BARRIERS TO WALKING TO SCHOOL (2003)

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
0% 5% 10% 20% 63%

9%

8%

8%

4%

4% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

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 one school, child has disability, pass school en-route to work, work at same school as child, weather too bad and have other children too young to walk. These reasons generally fit into the four themes mentioned previously. It is also seen that fitting in travel to the patterns of family life, and managing school day mornings is important in the decision of how to travel, as car is often seen as easier: Focus groups revealed that in some households mornings are quite rushed and it is not uncommon for breakfast to be 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 into the car and drive them [43]

8.18

8.19 8.20

Road safety is an important issue, as are fears for the welfare of the child such as a fear of abduction, molestation or bullying. Those who express fear regarding abduction, road accidents or busy roads generally agree, later in their interview, with the statement, My child would walk to school if the route were more pleasant [43].

36

8.21

However it is not felt that improvements to the walking environment would encourage parents of younger pupils to allow them to walk. The use of crossing patrols and footbridges, for example, may improve the environment. However, since about half of all parents who cite fear of road accidents, crossing busy roads or unpleasant routes as a reason for their children not walking to school also drive directly to work after dropping off their children, this is a behaviour which is unlikely to be changed [43]. 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 the necessary skills to interact with traffic safely [117]. The proportion of primary school pupils who travel to school alone has decreased 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 are convenience (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]. In addition, only 14% of children aged 7-10 were usually allowed to cross roads alone, according to their parents. Around half were never allowed to and the rest were sometimes allowed. A smaller proportion were allowed to cross main roads alone, (a fifth of those who were usually or sometimes allowed to cross the road). Amongst slightly older children (aged 11-13) only 6% were not allowed to cross roads alone. For both age groups, the proportions allowed to cross alone have dropped between 2002 and 2006 [125].

8.22

8.23

8.24

Incentives and Travel Plans 8.25 When parents who drive their children to school were asked, about 40% said there was nothing which could stop them taking their child to school by car [43]. However there is an interest in change from children themselves: when asking children who are taken to school by car, 17% would prefer to walk all the way to school [69]. A higher proportion of children who walked also liked their current mode compared to those going by car (57% vs. 43%) [69]. The Greater London Assembly in its State of Londons Children Report stated that Transport for London will: create improved conditions for walking and cycling so that children and young people can have safer and more convenient access to schools and training facilities, leisure, sport and recreational facilities and town centres [78].

8.26 8.27

37

8.28

School travel planning is now widespread across London, with more than 1600 schools taking part so far (as of 2007) and with an aim for all schools to have a plan by 2009 [128]... School travel plans have often included measures to increase walking to school, including taking part in walking initiatives such as walk to school week or walk on Wednesdays. Walking Buses1 are another popular way of encouraging pupils to walk to school: 0.4% of parents who drive their child to school at least once a week said that they were already using a walking bus, and interest was high with 35% saying they were definitely likely to use, and 25% were probably likely to use [43]. One of the main reasons for not using a walking bus is a shortage of adult volunteers to maintain the initiative, with a feeling that it will fall on the same few parents who are involved in every initiative. Other reasons are that children want to be independent and do not like being seen with adults (despite these children being driven to school), parents not wanting to take responsibility for someone elses children, safety concerns, not practical/ no-one lives in same road, children too young and the school is nearby [43]. Interest is growing in the health benefits of walking, as awareness of the child obesity agenda increases. Walking to school may be an important area for physical activity, as on average children gain 9% of their daily physical activity travelling to and from school. A typical one way trip to school by car (18 activity calories) gives less than half the amount of physical activity of travelling on foot (48 activity calories) [69].

8.29

8.30

8.31

A 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 with designated "bus stops" and "pick up times" enabling children to join the bus at different points in the journey.

38

9.

WALKING AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES Summary The top priorities for highway improvements for people with a disability are smoother and more even pavements with fewer cracks, islands, flatter kerb edges, wider pavements and handrails. However, priorities do vary between disability groups so, for example, beeping at crossings is a higher priority for those with a visual disability. By far the largest disability group, accounting for around 80% of walk trips, is the non-wheelchair mobility impaired group.

Priorities for highway improvements 9.1 TfL commissioned research to identify priorities for highway improvement schemes so that the maximum benefit can be provided for disabled users of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). This research [31] included accompanied journeys and a Stated Preference (SP) survey and provides relative weights for a wide range of improvements. An important general finding was that the needs of disabled travellers can vary a great deal depending on individual circumstances. In an attempt to control for this, priorities have been identified for: 9.2 visual Impairment; mobility Impairment (Wheelchair User); mobility Impairment (Non-wheelchair user); hearing impairment (only included in the SP research as a secondary disability).

The relative priorities for improvements are provided in Figures 9.1 and 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 handrails were a top priority for the non-wheelchair mobility impaired, but less of a priority for other groups; having a beeping at a crossing is primarily relevant for those with a visual disability; tactile pavings are good for those with a visual disability, but unhelpful 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.

39

9.3

When looking at these results it is worth bearing in mind that around 80% of walk trips made by disabled people are in the mobility nonwheelchair category and 12% in the visual category [3]. It may also be that the priorities for the non-wheelchair mobility impaired group are similar to some other mobility impaired travellers such as those with young children and pushchairs.

FIGURE 9.1: RELATIVE PRIORITIES FOR HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS (2007)

smooth, even pavement island fewer cracked slabs almost flat at kerb edge wider pavement handrail beeping at crossing fewer bins / posts on pavement smaller gaps ramp shorter steps benches red/yellow paving at crossing landings reflective markings tactile paving at roadside
-1 0 2 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 11 4 5 7 4 11 5 11 7 9 12 8 14 12

Mobility (non wheelchair) Visual

-2

6 8 10 Relative value

12

14

16

Prioritising Highway Improvements [31] Notes: the relative value is based on the share of all the attributes valued, so they sum to 100; in the SP research, all these attributes were described with the help of visual images; only one level of each attribute has been shown whereas in some cases more than one was included in the research, for example, the value shown for islands is that for a small island the report on the SP survey should be referred to for full results

40

FIGURE 9.2: RELATIVE PRIORITIES FOR HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR WHEELCHAIR USERS (2007)

almost flat at kerb edge wider pavement smooth, even pavement fewer cracked slabs island beeping at crossing smaller gaps fewer bins / posts on pavement tactile paving at roadside red/yellow paving at crossing benches reflective markings -2 0

14 14 10 10 7 5 4 4 2 2 1 1

Wheelchair

6 8 10 Relative value

12

14

16

Prioritising Highway Improvements [31] Notes: as Figure 9.1, also note that wheelchair users were not asked to value some of the attributes such as ramps and short rather than medium steps

41

APPENDIX A: SOURCES

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

CONTROL SHEET

Project/Proposal Name: Document Title: Client Number: Contract/Project

WALKING IN LONDON

Project/Proposal Number:

207959 ISSUE HISTORY

Issue No.5

Date: 20/6/8

Details: Final REVIEW

Originator: Other Contributors:

Tony Duckenfield Jo Kemp, Jo Hickes, Nigel Shepherd, Ros West

DISTRIBUTION Clients: Clara Barrington

P:\Projects\7900s\7959\Outputs\Reports\finals\walking in London_FINAL_tfl.doc

Control Sheet