< Promoting change of mode in transport

summary

results

 Summary

Past and current practice in evaluating traffic calming schemes have concentrated on the assessment of individual objectives in isolation, usually based on economic efficiency and accident reduction.  Although much material exists on the technical side of evaluating calming schemes, there is undoubtedly a neglect of a more qualitative social approach to evaluation of such schemes.

This research contains a comparative study of the attitudes regarding traffic calming schemes in two areas of Leeds. One of these areas has had a recent traffic-calming scheme implemented in it (Hyde Park), the other area (Woodhouse) has no such calming scheme.  The research mainly uses evidence from opinion surveys of local residents, but group discussions and semi-structured pilot household interviews also generated feedback.  The major aim was to find which groups of the population would be more or less amenable to the introduction of calming measures, and from this help develop schemes to become more socially acceptable.

The main part of the theses analyses the results of the survey in both case study areas, discussing any significant similarities or differences between areas or population sub-groups. The research does not conclude that the two areas are sufficiently different in their responses, with differences centring on engineering dynamics such as parking allocation, and local environmental impacts.  It was concluded that the social values and judgements of street purpose, and what traffic calming can achieve engendered similar support in both areas.
 

Results

• The principle of traffic calming in residential streets had been well supported by the majority of all respondents regardless of area, or population sub-group.  With respect to specific groups of age, presence of children, and income there was found only limited relationships (not statistically significant), to their attitudes to the principle of traffic calming and the consultation process. In specific groups of gender, car ownership, [and proximity to calming measures] there was a greater polarisation of opinion with statistically significant differences of above 95% probability.
• Differences between car ownership resulted from the fact that car owners were affected by calming measures the most, and hence would have a greater interest in the scheme and in any consultation surrounding it.
• Differences borne from proximity to measures were less significant than for gender and car ownership, but no less significant, with residents in the direct vicinity of measures having their “personal space” invaded, thus having a greater vested interest in consultation on the scheme.
• Traffic calming schemes have an array of objectives and should not only be judged on achieving the scheme’s designated objectives but also on its acceptability towards residents. This is a very subjective area based on individual’s knowledge, and how the local authority has publicised the scheme.
• On the whole the research must conclude that no unexpected differences between the two communities of Woodhouse and Hyde Park were found. With differences centring on engineering dynamics such as parking allocation, and environmental impacts. It can be concluded that the social values and judgements of street purpose, and what traffic calming can achieve engendered similar support in both areas.
• To achieve the overall objectives of traffic calming there is a necessity to reduce motorist’s freedom, this is likely to engender opposition unless the motorist can be convinced of the greater benefits traffic calming delivers. To achieve this a consultation process needs to respond to all identified population sub-groups, and be willing to compromise initial ideas and pursue a vision suitable for all.