Living Transport

• Awards
• Campaigns
• Development focus
  • New areas
  • Regeneration
• Policy and research
  • Guidance and best practice
  • International practice
  • Method & Appraisal
  • Shared cars
  • Strategic studies
• Streets
  • Street design
  • Traffic Calming
  • Traffic management
• Study Tours
• Transport focus
  • Air planning
  • Car clubs
  • Integrated transport
  • Public transport
  • Walking

• Accessibility
• Cycling
• Government and politics
• How much transport?
• Other
• Parking - the toughest topic?
• Public transport planning
  • Light rail, tram
• Street design
• Urban roads
• Urban structure and form
• Walking

• Articles
• Books
• Chapters in books
• Conference papers
• Letters
• Published Reports
• Reports

• Australia
  • Sydney
• China
• England
  • East Midlands
    • Louth
    • Nottingham
    • Wellingborough
  • East of England
    • Cambridge
    • Grantham
    • King's Lynn
    • Stevenage
  • Greater London
    • Ealing
    • London
  • North East England
  • North West England
    • Manchester
  • South East
    • Banbury
    • Chatham
    • East Grinstead
    • Milton Keynes
    • Reading
    • Redhill
    • Witney
  • South West England
    • Redruth, Camborne, Pool
    • Swindon
  • Thames Gateway sub-region
  • West Midlands
    • Birmingham
  • Yorkshire and Humberside
    • Doncaster
    • Howden
    • Leeds
• Europe
• Germany
  • Munich
• Ireland
  • Cork
• Japan
• Kazakhstan
  • Astana
• New Zealand
  • Auckland
• Northern Ireland
  • Belfast
  • Craigavon
  • Glengormly
  • Lisburn
  • Newtownards
  • Strabane
• Scotland
  • Dumbarton
  • Glasgow
• UK
  • East of England
    • Colchester
    • Ipswich
  • Greater London
    • London
  • South East
    • Havant
    • Tilbury
    • Winchester
  • West Midlands
    • Ross on Wye
• USA
• Wales
  • Maesteg

Abstract

This paper examines the case for investment in walking as a means of encouraging the use of public transport.

Without walking, buses, trams and trains would have no passengers. Without walking, journeys involving motorised travel could not be made. This paper takes a look at the requirements for ?seamless? quality when journeys involve more than one mode, and illustrates this with examples from practice. It argues that the walking component is too often neglected, and that poor quality access on foot to public transport stops and stations is a key barrier mode shift away from the car. It warns of the dangers of reliance on ?main mode? data on mode split, which draws attention away from the importance of walking as part of travel by public transport.

It is suggested that improved walking access to stops and stations could be more effective in increasing public transport use than investing in the public transport system itself. Such investment could include improved lighting and overlooking of paths to bus stops, provision of more direct and better quality paths, and better signing and information to make interchange more legible. The route to the stop is also often a neglected aspect of land use planning and building design, for example with building entrances facing car parks rather than streets with bus stops. Priority for public transport is not just about bus lanes, but about urban design that makes stops and station easily accessible on foot from the places where people want to go.

By reviewing examples of best practice guidelines and examples from projects undertaken by the author, the paper concludes that fragmented responsibilities are often the cause of poor quality pedestrian access between transport modes. In many parts of the UK, for example, responsibility for roads, land use planning and public transport are split between at least three agencies. International examples of good as well as poor practice are included.