Welcome Pre-conference Workshop WALK21, The Hague, 16 November 2010 Measuring Walking (part IV): Data Collection Methods Daniel Sauter, Urban Mobility Research, Zurich, Switzerland Martin Wedderburn, Colin Buchanan, London, UK Tim Pharoah, Urban Transport and Planning Consultant, London, UK Program of today 9:00 start Welcome and introduction Standardising process: where are we? what are issues? State-of-the-art: input about 3 methods Brainstorming: discussing requirements for methods 13:00 Lunch ( 1 hr) Trying to find common ground for methodol. standards Outlook: research needs / projects and next steps 16.00 end => in between coffee break
Idea and objective of the day This year s focus on methods Discuss & find recommendations for use of 3 methods as a basis for minimal standardisation (i.e. use in diverse contexts, worldwide possible): 1) Pedestrian flow and presence (counts/observations) 2) Sojourning activities (observations/surveys) 3) Trip data (travel surveys) Problem Background Walking data often not collected Single issues / arbitrarily measured, unclear validity Methods often not adequate to measure walking => comparisons difficult or impossible Promising changes Increasing interest to measure walking, changing attitudes New evaluation methods, technologies etc. developed => Window of opportunity
Objective Establishing a set of international guidelines for the collection, analysis and dissemination of quantitative and qualitative techniques for measuring walking. (WALK21 conference conclusions Melbourne 2006) Joint project by: Process similar to the International Charter for Walking (adopted in Melbourne 2006)
Pre-conference workshops on Measuring Walking 2007: Toronto: Relevant dimensions (part I) what and how walking could and should be measured. => principal agreement on a list of dimensions 2008: Barcelona: Counting pedestrians (part II)...bringing together users and producers of automatic counting equipment to exchange experiences => building momentum in a crucial area 2009: New York: Performance indicators (part III) assemble relevant indicators to measure walking and public space => draft basis of what should be measured 2010: The Hague: Data collection methods (part IV) discuss adequate methods, define requirements, make recommend. => draft basis of how it should be measured See: www.measuring-walking.org Conclusions so far Measuring walking is or needs to be 1. Important: crucial to measure as input and assessment 2. Comprehensive: all relevant aspects to be covered 3. Adequate: based on characteristics ( system properties ) 4. Standardised: minimal international requirements => set priorities: neither necessary nor desirable to standardise everything => gradual process: many discussions to reach broad support => build on existing standards and experiences => create conceptual basis (not provision of every detail)
Importance: Why measure walking? Measuring walking Assessments of walking & public realm quality Data collection as input for and assessment of policies, planning and promotion Institutional framework Policies, strategies, laws, norms, procedures, financing etc. Infrastructure design Planning, building, maintaining public spaces and walking facilities Image & perception Promotion of walking; communication in the media, the public and political arena Characteristics of walking and sojourning Needs, abilities and longings of pedestrians Comprehensiveness: Main dimensions of Measuring Walking (based on Toronto workshop) How much? What is the quality? What are the perceptions? What are the institutional conditions? www.measuring-walking.org
Comprehensiveness: Assessment Model for Measuring Walking (based on New York workshop) Monitoring / Evaluation Institutional framework Leadership Strategies & policies Resources Research & Training Co-operation & partnerships (Institutional) products & activities Land use & accessibility, modal integration Infrastructure & public realm: features, qualities, ( walkability ) Information, promotion & education / enforcement Performance, behaviour & perceptions Walking activity, mode share pedestrian volumes & activity in public realm Accidents (vehicles & stumbling) & threats (security) Atmosphere & experience of space, sociability & culture of human interaction Perceptions, satisfaction, motivations, attitudes & wishes Bottom-line effects (benefits) Economic effects Ecological effects Social effects Transportation effects Health effects INPUT OUTPUT OUTCOME IMPACT Adapted from report: Cycling benchmarking assessment matrix, New Zealand Version: January 2010 Comprehensiveness: Key performance indicators: examples (draft based on New York workshop) Institutional framework Main Criteria Leadership Strategies & Policies Key performance indicators (or elements for creating them) Politicians and (senior) officials Extent to which politicians and (senior) officials take a lead and direction in supporting walking and public space improvements Sensitivity and awareness of walking and public space issues Content and form of communication about walking and public space Walking strategy & integration of walking in other strategies Presence and quality (content) of a walking and public space strategy Presence and quality of strategies/policies closely related to walking e.g. land-use, health, transport/mobility, social integration, environment => Degree of integration between these different strategies/policies: coherence, conflicts Policy principles supporting walking (e.g. polluter pays, true cost approaches, complete streets, vision zero etc.) Implementation procedures Type of implementation programmes / action plans Type and degree of integration within Input level, i.e. between policies and resources Legal framework Laws, norms & regulations; supportiveness of legal framework for implementation
Adequateness: Characteristics: a few examples Easy transitions between walking and sojourning Walking as very communicative and social activity Walking happens everywhere, anytime Adequateness: Characteristics: a few examples Importance as own mode and as link between modes Multiplicity of motivations, purposes and route choices Flexible and small scale movements
Adequateness: Example Seefeldstrasse, Zurich 1'200 160 Anzahl FussgängerInnen 1'000 800 600 400 200 Anzahl Velos 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 Zeit Pedestrians Zeit Bicycles Engineer.C. Evening (17-18) January Urban M.: Evening (17-18) September Difference Urban M. Noon (12-13) September Difference Pedestrians 1 600 2 450 + 54% 3 170 + 99% Bicycles 4 130 + 3 150% 110 + 2 625% Motor vehicl. 676 680 + 1% 527-22% Sojourners n.e. 67 + 6 700% 52 + 5 200% Adequateness: Stages, trips, distance, time (Swiss data 2005) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 3% 3% 4% 1% 37% 41% 51% 69% 12% 11% 5% 12% 5% 6% 40% 45% 20% 28% 2% 6% distance trips (main modes) time spent number of stages walking cycling public transport motorized transport other
Standardisation: Double objective Issue / challenge Use of methods depends on purpose, context, time and space - we want to give room for this but we also need some standards Requires first a collection of relevant methods and then a choice of which ones should be standardised and how Similar to indicators 1 Common ground for understanding & using methodologies Provide recommendations & overview of adequate methodologies Different purposes, individually adaptable, descriptive, experiences 2 Standardisation of outcome Suggest some minimal standards to make data comparable Requires relatively fixed procedures & definitions, 3 quality levels Standardisation: Next steps and possible products Indicators Methods List of indicators based on model => Relational databank Sets of core indicators => Grouped according to field of application & users Data collection methods for indicators => Standards for comparisons Overview of relevant methods => Recommendations: how, when Walking & Urban Life Account Public Realm & Walkability Assessment WAPAD (Walking Policy Audit) Community Street Audit Making Walking Count (=> PAICE) => For each set: define indicators & methods
Walking & Urban Life Account Objective: Comparisons between towns and cities Bicycle Account Copenhagen: www.kk.dk/english.aspx => city of cyclists Benchmarking in the USA: www.peoplepoweredmovement.org Public Realm & Walkability Assessment Objective: Comparison of (single) street / public spaces: quality, use & perceptions Project for Public Spaces: www.pps.org Gehl Architects: www.gehlarchitects.dk European ASI project (Assess Implementations): Forward, Kaufmann & Risser 2005 or Martincigh 2009 Active Living Research: www.activelivingresearch.org Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS): www.trl.co.uk Walkscore: www.walkscore.com Walkshed: www.walkshed.org
WAPAD : Walking Policy Audit Objective: Comparison of institutional framework conditions (strategies, policies, resources) BYPAD Bicycle Policy Audit: www.bypad.org New Zealand Transport Agency (2009): Walking and Cycling Benchmarking Tool Community Street Audit Objective: Comparisons of quality assessments by users and other stakeholders (residents, shop keepers et cetera) Living Streets: www.livingstreets.org.uk Fussverkehr Schweiz: www.fussverkehr.ch Project for Public Spaces: www.pps.org TRL: rate my street: www.ratemystreet.co.uk Community Street Review NZ: www.levelofservice.com
Making Walking Count Objective: Benchmarking of towns and cities based on population survey (phone): walking activity, accessibility, motivations, barriers & perceptions Walk21: www.walk21.com => Possible issues for debate in the afternoon For more information: PQN Final Report Part B4 Contact: Daniel Sauter, Urban Mobility Research daniel.sauter@urban-mobility.ch
Input presentations Pedestrian Flow and Presence: Tim Pharoah Urban Transport and Planning Consultant, London, U.K. Sojourn Activities in Public Space: Martin Wedderburn Colin Buchanan, London, U.K. Trip Data (travel surveys): Daniel Sauter Urban Mobility Research, Zurich, Switzerland Thank you! www.measuring-walking.org Daniel Sauter Urban Mobility Research Switzerland