What puts a pep in the step: Fundamental qualities of pedestrian access to public transport
With more than 80% of the population in most European cities having access to public transport within walking distance[1], improving access to public transport makes a lot of things better:
- Increased public transport ridership
- Improved congestion and reduce carbon emissions
- Promotion of economic activity
- Increased personal freedoms and improve quality of life[2]
Access to public transport starts with pedestrian access, and the reasons for embracing it in public transport planning are clear: People are willing to walk up to seventy percent (70%) farther in pedestrian-oriented environments. In other words, walking-friendly environments can triple the size of public transport catchment areas – in theory, tripling potential public transport ridership[3]. But what defines a walking-friendly environment?
Quality criteria of pedestrian access to public transport
Drawing from international literature, Jehle et al. (2022) developed a helpful quality criterion that informs people’s decision whether to walk to access transport not[4]. Public transport planners can use these six qualities to evaluate fundamental pedestrian access to public transport and inform policy and investment priorities.
- Comfort – How comfortable is to walk depends largely on quality of the footpath. This is especially important for people with limited mobility and pushing strollers, luggage, or carts. When evaluating the quality of footpaths, consider:
- Footpath surface – Footpaths should be even and smooth.
- Barriers – Footpaths should be without potholes or cracks. (Spoiler: Underpasses and overpasses are barriers. Keep reading to learn why.)
Footpath width – The appropriate width for a footpath depends on its use and context. Wider average footpath widths are key to increasing the attractiveness of a walking route[1].
- Security – How safe someone feels while walking can immediately impact someone’s decision whether to use public transport. For example, when a woman is planning her day ahead and she knows she must attend a social function after work that goes past dark, she may choose to drive to work that day instead of using public transport, because she feels it is unsafe to walk home in the dark. This is just one example. Perceptions of security are impacted by:
- Liveliness of streets – This goes back to the concept “eyes on the street,” coined by Jane Jacobs, referring to the daily activities taking place on the street that increase social cohesion and, along with it, perceived security.
- Cleanliness and appearance – Sidewalk cleanliness and visual interest along a street (interesting shop windows, street cafés, etc.) have been shown to impact walking[2].
- Lighting – Well-lit areas contribute to perceptions of security.
- Visibility of footpaths – Low visibility, such as from underpasses, overpasses, and dense vegetation decrease perceived security.
- Directness – The actual distance someone must walk to public transport contributes to directness. While the directness of walking to public transport was discussed earlier, some other things to consider are presence of:
- Large thoroughfares – Heavily trafficked streets create “barrier effects,” which can reduce walking distances by 10 percent with one crossing to 20 percent with two[3].
- Fences
- Railway tracks, etc.
- Simplicity – How easy is it to walk. This quality can be impacted by:
- Delays at traffic lights – Crossing one busy street at traffic lights or informally has been found to lengthen the duration of a 2.5-minute walk to a public transport stop on average by 10 to 11 percent[4].
- Signposting – Consistent signposting can reinforce the decision to walk by clarifying walking distances.
- Lines of sight – Lines of sight toward well-known buildings can improve orientation.
- Traffic safety – Traffic safety considerations include:
- Availability of footpaths – The availability of footpaths, as well as the buffer space between them and streets
- Driver behaviors – This includes crash history and observed driver behaviors.
- Joint use of footpaths – Bicycling or riding electric scooters on footpaths can create safety hazard.
- Pedestrian visibility – Obstructed visibility—including cars parked in crosswalks—can impact traffic safety.
Not so fast! Imposter pedestrian infrastructure
Do you think an underpass under a large thoroughfare will help people walk? Not so fast! Pedestrian underpasses and overpasses hardly support pedestrian accessibility. In fact, they introduce a new barrier to walking: stairs or ramps.
How so? Stairs and ramps:
- Increase the energy expenditure during the walk
- Create new accessibility issues for people using walking aids or wheelchairs or pushing strollers
While underpasses and overpasses are commonly referred to as pedestrian infrastructure, they are often only imposters. When their primary function is to allow motorized traffic to flow freely without the interruption of signalized pedestrian crossings, they are automobile infrastructure. Underpasses and overpasses are only legitimate pedestrian infrastructure when, for example, they are used in places where their height difference reduces the height difference that the person walking would otherwise need to overcome[1].
People walking are keen to notice the imposters – that’s why underpasses and overpasses are just disliked. They are so disliked that England-based research found that the average person is willing to walk an additional 2.4 and 5.3 minutes to avoid using footbridges and underpasses[2] and adding five minutes to a walking trip? Public opinion is clear.
[1] Poelman et al., “How many people can you reach by public transport, bicycle or on foot in European cities? Measuring urban accessibility for low-carbon modes,” 6. [2] Walker, “Basics: Access, Or the Wall Around Your Life.” [3] Hillnhütter, “Pedestrian access to public transport,” 38 – 39. [4] Jehle et al., “Connecting people and places: Analysis of perceived pedestrian accessibility to railway stations by Bavarian case studies,” 4 – 6. [1] Guo, “Does the pedestrian environment affect the utility of walking? A case of path choice in downtown Boston,” 349. [2] Golan et al., “Gendered walkability: Building a daytime walkability index for women,” 512. [3] Hillnhütter, “Pedestrian access to public transport,” 172. [4] Hillnhütter, “Pedestrian access to public transport,” 181.[1] Berg, “Gestaltung von Zugängen zu den Haltestellen von Bahnhöfen,” 28. [2] Anciaes, Paulo Rui, and Peter Jones. “Estimating preferences for different types of pedestrian crossing facilities,” 222.
