Pedestrian Areas and Routes first principles assessment

Pedestrian Areas and Routes

First principles assessment

Why introduce Pedestrian Areas and Routes?

Walking is an essential element of life. With the current emphasis on urban renewal and regeneration, pedestrianisation schemes are intended to focus support on urban revitalisation, as well as inducing longer term behavioural change (especially in the case of pedestrianised routes) by reclaiming back the streets from the cars. Today, walking is comonly restricted by obstacles and hostile conditions, and consequently the health and safety of those who continue to choose to walk are threatened through an increased risk. The desire to remove conflicting traffic from the roads has further invigorated efforts aimed at understanding and promoting walking (as well as cycling) as a mode of transport (IHT, 1997). With regard to pedestrian routes, the objectives of this are generally to support and encourage reductions in car use to help tackle Climate Change, and improve social inclusion by allowing those without access to a car, the ability to access destinations in a safe manner.

Encouraging walking can therefore also form part of the social agenda for improving the quality of life of the population and in planned ways needs to become a specific policy objective.. On the same theme of health, sustainable mobility (e.g. Banister, 2008) (including modes such as walking and cycling) offers improvements in individual health as well as a cleaner and healthier environment (Woodcock et al, 2007). This recognition has therefore spurred current efforts to reallocate road space from vehicles to pedestrians (and cyclists).

More generally, separate provision for pedestrians reduces their risk of accidents, and their exposure to local pollution (IHT, 1997).

Finally, it is argued (Tolley, 2003) that public transport services rely on a supportive walking environment. The location of stops, the quality of waiting places and the safety of passengers at their stops and on their journeys to/from stops are important. Increasing public transport use benefits all the transport objectives highlighted above.

Demand impacts

Responses and situations

Response	Impact on vehicle kilometres by car	Expected in situations
		This is unlikely to occur, except in the case of time-limited deliveries.
		Pedestrians are likely to be encouraged to use improved areas and routes. Vehicles will have to re-route to bypass pedestrian areas.
		Car users might find the city centre inaccessible by car and hence visit alternative retail and leisure facilities. This is the argument for retailers sometimes opposing pedestrianisation schemes. However, the evidence seems to suggest that pedestrianisation makes the city centre more attractive to car users (who will also need to walk anyway). Additionally good quality pedestrian routes can link inner suburbs to city centres in general and other destinations throughout the city could prompt more use of those places (and walking to them), i.e., changes in destination that reduce car kms.
		Yes, if the pedestrian routes provide enhanced access to amenities on foot.
		Yes if pedestrian routes improve catchment to the public transport network.
	-	This is unlikely to occur.
		Pedestrian areas which include residential accommodation can prove popular places to live.

	= Weakest possible response,		= strongest possible positive response
	= Weakest possible negative response,		= strongest possible negative response

= No response

Short and long run demand responses

Demand responses

Response		1st year	2-4 years	5 years	10+ years
	-



	-
	-

	= Weakest possible response,		= strongest possible positive response
	= Weakest possible negative response,		= strongest possible negative response

Supply impacts

The supply of road space will be reduced as part of a pedestrianisation strategy for a city centre. In the case of pedestrian routes, road space might be reduced and reallocated to vulnerable road users (e.g. pedestrians/cyclists and wheelchair users) to allow them to utilise the wider pavements. To encourage use of the pedestrian areas and routes and reduce feelings amongst pedestrians of vulnerability, a carefully devised traffic management strategy would account for the reduction in road space and provide suitable diversion routes around the pedestrianised area.

Financing requirements

While the simple process of removing traffic is relatively inexpensive, high quality pedestrianisation can be expensive to implement. It is acknowledged that financial, technical and political factors may affect what can be achieved at any particular location or time.

The cost will vary depending on the associated facilities provided and the engineering specifications of the design. The use of high quality materials and the provision of landscaping will add to the cost. Maintenance of the surfaces, furniture and landscaping will impose a significant continuing cost.

Expected impact on key policy objectives

Contribution to objectives

Objective	Scale of contribution	Comment
		Traffic will be diverted to other routes, adding to travel time and potentially congestion. This is unlikely to be offset by any reduction in traffic resulting from modal change.
		By reducing community severance and encouraging intermingling of social activities.
		The local environment will be improved. Pollution may increase on diversion routes, but these will typically have fewer people at risk.
		By encouraging walking and providing access for those without cars.
		By removing conflicts between pedestrians and traffic, it can help in reducing the number and seriousness of accidents. A well designed pedestrian route also reduces accidents in that the safety of the pedestrian is emphasized and convenient walking paths are provided.
		Town centre pedestrianisation strategies have been successful in encouraging more people to shop in town centres and improve economic viability.
		Pedestrianisation is not a particularly costly measure to implement compared to other forms of traffic management schemes.

	= Weakest possible positive contribution,		= strongest possible positive contribution
	= Weakest possible negative contribution		= strongest possible negative contribution

= No contribution

Expected impact on problems

Contribution to alleviation of key problems

Problem	Scale of contribution	Comment
Congestion-related delay		By reducing traffic volumes within the pedestrian core but might increase it through rerouting especially at the edges of the zone.
Community impacts / severance		By reducing traffic volumes within the pedestrian core but might increase it through rerouting especially at the edges of the zone. Providing an increased number of amenities for visitors and residents will encourage the vitality of the city centre and should be seen as part of the design of pedestrianisation zones.
Environmental damage	/	By reducing traffic-related CO2 emissions around the local area but diversions and rerouting might increase pollution elsewhere. By reducing emissions of NOx, particulates and other local pollutants around the local area but diversions and rerouting might increase pollution elsewhere. By reducing traffic volumes within the pedestrian core but might increase it through rerouting especially at the edges of the zone. One of the design features of pedestrianisation is to increase the amount of green space available to users.
Poor accessibility for those without a car and those with mobility impairments		Walking and public transport would be a mode heavily used by and pedestrianisation improves the environment for them.
Social and geographical disadvantage		Walking is a mode heavily used by those on lower incomes and pedestrianisation improves the environment for them and reduces inequity.
Number, severity and risk of accidents		By reducing traffic volumes and separating pedestrians from traffic.
Economic growth / Suppression of the potential for economic activity in the area		By encouraging foot traffic. However this may simply be transfer of commercial activity from elsewhere.

	= Weakest possible positive contribution,		= strongest possible positive contribution
	= Weakest possible negative contribution		= strongest possible negative contribution

Expected winners and losers

Winners and losers

Group	Winners / losers	Comment
Large scale freight and commercial traffic		In general, they would have to seek alternative routes. If they are destined for the pedestrianised city centre core, their accessibility could potentially be reduced, unless servicing traffic is permitted.
Small businesses		These have been shown to substantially benefit from increased footfall arising from pedestrianisation. However this may come at the expense of shops outside the zone.
High income car-users		If travelling by private car, they would have to seek alternative routes. If they are destined for the pedestrianised city centre core, their accessibility could potentially be reduced as they would have to park further away and walk.
Low income car-users with poor access to public transport		Walking is a mode heavily used by those on lower incomes and pedestrianisation improves the environment for them and reduces inequity.
All existing public transport users		If public transport vehicles are routed through the pedestrianised area, they are likely to benefit.
People living adjacent to the area targeted		They may be worse off due to rerouting of vehicles around the pedestrianised zone and the associated increase in pollution and noise level. Nevertheless, living in the proximity of a pedestrianised area is an added value for them.
Cyclists including children		They would benefit from the car-free, less polluted area.
People at higher risk of health problems exacerbated by poor air quality		By reducing emissions of NOx, particulates and other local pollutants. The level of emissions might be increased in the areas around the pedestrianised zone.
People making high value, important journeys		If travelling by private car, they would have to seek alternative bypass routes. If they are destined for the pedestrianised area, their accessibility could potentially be reduced as they would have to park further away if travelling by car.
The average car user		The average car user might find that their accessibility to the city centre may be reduced. However given that they will need to walk to a final destination, improving pedestrian routes will improve the walking environment for them.

	= weakest possible benefit,		= strongest benefit
	= weakest possible disbenefit,		= strongest possible disbenefit

= neither wins nor loses

Barriers to implementation

Scale of barriers

Barrier		Scale	Comment
Legal			Pedestrianisation schemes require changes to traffic regulations, though these should be straightforward. Providing pedestrian routes is generally much easier.
Finance			While the simple process of removing traffic is relatively inexpensive, high quality pedestrianisation can be expensive to implement. It must be borne in mind that funding arrangements must be sought for maintenance of the infrastructure and any street furniture/landscaping provided.
Governance			Most pedestrian schemes fall within one city’s jurisdiction, but liaison will be needed with private landowners.
Political acceptability			The main barrier politically generally comes from small businesses and traders who may oppose the scheme. It is vital to get them involved in the scheme design at the earliest opportunity.
Public and stakeholder acceptability			Businesses and drivers may oppose the scheme. Other members of the public are likely to be supportive.
Technical feasibility			Pedestrianisation has been introduced since the mid 1970s and hence it has been demonstrated that this is technically feasible.
	= minimal barrier,			= most significant barrier

= No contribution