The Planning for Walking Toolkit Consultation Report - February 2020

Ccle Superhighway 1  Response to Consultation 1

Contents Executive summary ...... 3 1. About the proposals ...... 4 1.1 Introduction ...... 4 1.2 Purpose ...... 4 1.3 Detailed description ...... 5 2. About the consultation ...... 7 2.1 Purpose ...... 7 2.2 Outcome of the consultation ...... 7 2.3 Who we consulted ...... 7 2.4 Dates and duration ...... 7 2.5 What we asked ...... 8 2.6 Methods of responding ...... 8 2.7 Consultation materials and publicity ...... 8 2.8 Analysis of consultation responses ...... 9 3. About the respondents ...... 10 3.1 Number of respondents ...... 10 3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation ...... 10 3.3 Profile of respondents ...... 10 4. Summary of all consultation responses ...... 12 5. Summary of stakeholder responses ...... 18 6. Next steps ...... 21 7. Response to issues raised ...... 22 Appendix A: Stakeholder List ...... 27 Appendix B: Stakeholder Email ...... 30 Appendix C: Code frame ...... 31

2

Executive summary

Between 11 July 2019 and 22 August 2019, we consulted on The Planning for Walking Toolkit. The toolkit was designed to bridge the gap between high level aspirations in our Walking Action Plan, which set our strategic initiatives, and our technical design guidance (Streetscape Guidance) which covers design standards and infrastructure details. We wanted to know whether the document helps give clarity regarding the wealth of tools available for developing a design brief. We also wanted to know what consultee’s experience was of using these, or other tools, and any suggestions for how they can most effectively be applied. These tools are designed to contribute towards the Mayor of ’s plan for Healthy Streets - a vision to enable more people to walk, cycle and use public transport by making London’s streets healthier, safer and more welcoming.

This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation.

We received 27 responses to the consultation. The main themes are highlighted below, with detailed analysis in Section 4.

Summary of issues raised during consultation Most respondents had generally positive feedback about the toolkit and their experience of using it. Some examples of positive feedback included that: the toolkit is logically structured and well referenced throughout and that it is a useful document for signposting practitioners to the relevant information.

Some respondents expressed their dissatisfaction with aspects of the toolkit including concerns about its length and lack of a definition of connectivity. There were a number of requests for content in certain areas such as green infrastructure and walking routes that are not on streets. There were also calls for clarity on pedestrian/cycling hierarchy, suggestions for specific infrastructure features, as well as suggestions to improve the functionality of the document.

We considered all the feedback received and updated sections of the toolkit as appropriate. The full summary of comments raised can be found in section 4 and the response to issues raised report can be found in section 6.

3 1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction

Getting people walking is vital for the future health of our city. We need to ensure that the streets we are designing make walking the most attractive choice for short, as well as connected journeys. Every day in London there are six million walk-all-the- way trips and seven million walked journey stages of over five minutes. However the proportion of people choosing to walk has been relatively constant for several years.

We need to tackle the over dependency on private car use by breaking down the barriers to walking. Planning for walking is complex and no one approach fits all situations – good planning requires an appreciation of how our whole urban system needs to be designed to better facilitate walking: our streets and open spaces; the buildings that front onto these and the transport hubs that support onward movement. With the Mayor’s plan for London to become the ‘world’s most walkable city’, we need to work collaboratively with our stakeholders and the boroughs to plan and design streets that encourage walking across London. This means that there is a clear need for guidance that encourages designers to specifically plan and design for walking in the schemes they work on.

1.2 Purpose

The Planning for Walking Toolkit – what is it and why is it needed?

With the above in mind, we have developed The Planning for Walking Toolkit. This handbook has been designed to bridge the gap between high level aspirations in our Walking Action Plan, which set our strategic initiatives, and our technical design guidance (Streetscape Guidance) which covers design standards and infrastructure details.

Read The Planning for Walking Toolkit document (PDF 5.95MB)

It has become apparent through engagement across TfL and with interest groups, that there is a need to provide guidance that links the range of recent planning and design tools developed by TfL, particularly in relation to ensuring high quality facilities are provided for people walking.

The aim of this toolkit therefore is to provide planners and designers with a document that brings together a range of recommended tools and resources for

4 planning and designing good walking environments. This includes acknowledging the importance of the inclusive design process, while introducing a series of pedestrian network design principles.

It is not expected that most users will read the whole document from cover to cover so we have designed it to allow readers to dip into sections where they are looking for specific recommendations.

1.3 Detailed description

The document is laid out into four main chapters:

Policy Context in London - to link various related policies and ensure a coordinated spatial approach

Planning & Design Principles – setting out the importance of an inclusive design approach and network design principles

Planning & Design Tools – listing a wider range of available tools and how these can be applied to ensure a good understanding of issues relating to walking

Case studies – highlighting where good practice has been applied successfully

While some users may feel that particular sections are more relevant for their everyday role than others, some familiarity of each chapter is recommended to understand the wider context for good planning and design for walking.

We anticipate that once planners have used this document to identify key issues for walking, planned where to target improvements and written a project and design brief, they will next refer to the Streetscape Guidance for detailed technical guidance for use in design planning.

As part of this consultation, we sought stakeholder views on whether the document helps give clarity regarding the wealth of tools available for developing a design brief that can positively impact on the pedestrian network.

The overarching principles have already been presented to a broad range of interest groups at Living Streets’ annual walking conference and high level feedback was consistent in suggesting there is a need to bring together an approach for applying the range of tools that are currently available to practitioners. Accessibility Forum events were also held on 26 November 2018 and 4 September 2019 where we collected comments from people representing those with protected characteristics and this helped to shape sections on engagement and inclusive design.

5 We invited stakeholders to give us their comments on the content, structure and design approach set out in the toolkit so that we can ensure the document is as useful to users as possible.

6 2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose The objectives of the consultation were:

• To understand the level of support or opposition for the toolkit

• To understand any issues that might affect the content, structure or approach of the toolkit of which we were not previously aware

• To understand concerns and objections

• To allow respondents to make suggestions

• To understand whether the document helps give clarity regarding the wealth of tools available for developing a design brief that can positively impact on the pedestrian network

• To understand your experience in using the listed tools, or other tools, and any suggestions for how they can most effectively be applied

2.2 Outcome of the consultation The draft Planning for Walking Toolkit document was updated to reflect stakeholder comments as per the Response to Issues Raised section of this report. This included providing additional clarity on the scope of the document, inclusion of technical comments and incorporation of additional best practice tools where appropriate and within scope.

2.3 Who we consulted We wrote to boroughs and interest groups, accessibility forums and charities. A list of the stakeholders consulted can be found in Appendix A.

2.4 Dates and duration The consultation was open for eight weeks between 11 July and 22 August 2019.

This followed a pre-engagement email sent to the same group of stakeholders in December 2018, which included a draft contents page circulated for comment, with the feedback helping to shape the structure of the document.

7 2.5 What we asked The questionnaire asked six questions (listed below) about the proposals and 13 questions relating to the respondent including equalities information:

• Based on your review of this draft, do you expect that you or a colleague would use this toolkit? Which sections would you expect to use the most? • Which tools listed in the guidance do you currently use in your work? • Which tools do you think you would use in your work after reviewing the guidance? • Are there any other tools or approaches you would like to see covered in future iterations? • Is the document structured appropriately and pitched satisfactorily? • Do you have any additional suggestions on how this toolkit could be made more relevant for your role or organisation?

2.6 Methods of responding People were invited to respond to the consultation using a variety of methods. They could respond by accessing the online questionnaire; by using our freepost address at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS; or by emailing [email protected].

2.7 Consultation materials and publicity A copy of the letter that was sent to stakeholders can be found in Appendix B.

2.7.1 Website The consultation was available on our consultation website https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/walking/toolkit/

2.7.2 Meetings with stakeholders Presentations were given to the Accessibility Forum – Nov 2018 and September 2019; the first meeting to identify key points in relation to people with protected characteristics; the second meeting to report back on the proposed structure and content of the document. The content of the document was presented at the Living Streets Walking Conference, February 2019 and at Urban Design London, September 2019 – to borough officers and interest groups, both featuring a Q&A session and an opportunity for follow-up questions and feedback.

8 2.8 Analysis of consultation responses We analysed the responses in-house. We carried out the following tasks:

• Thematic coding and analysis of the open-ended questions; • Production of a consultation report and a response to Issues raised peport (RTIR)

There were seven “open” questions; six seeking comments about the proposals and one on the quality of the consultation. A draft coding frame was developed for responses to these questions. This code frame can be seen on Appendix C.

9 3. About the respondents

This section contains a profile of the responses.

We received 27 responses. Of the 27 responses, 14 were received online, with 13 received by email.

3.1 Number of respondents

Respondents No. of respondents

Online responses 14 Email responses 13 Total 27

3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation The majority stated that they heard about the consultation through receiving an email from TfL. The breakdown is as follows:

Option No. of comments 22 Received an email from TfL 2 Saw it on the TfL website 1 Social Media 2 Other 27 Total

3.3 Profile of respondents The following organisations provided responses:

London Boroughs

• • London Borough of Islington • London Borough of Redbridge • Richmond and Wandsworth Council • Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

10 • Westminster City Council

Politicians

• Caroline Russell AM (Green Party)

Transport and Road User Groups

• London Travel Watch • London Living Streets • Living Streets (Sutton Group) • Sustrans London • Long Distance Walkers Association

Other

• Atmos Ltd • Space Syntax • London Wildlife Trust • Canal and River Trust

11 4. Summary of all consultation responses

We received 27 responses in total. The responses are set out in sections 4.1 and 4.2. 13 of the 27 responses were received via email rather than the online survey. Written responses from stakeholder organisations have been summarised in section 5.

4.1 Summary of responses

Question 1 asked, “Based on your review of this draft, do you expect that you or a colleague would use this toolkit? Which sections would you expect to use the most?”

The responses were grouped and coded into different themes as shown in the table below:

Negative comments or issues raised Toolkit does not cover enough aspects of our sector to be useful (Wildlife Trust) Toolkit too long and text heavy No - wouldn't use it Positive comments raised Reviews of existing walking improvements are very good Network analysis Good streetscape/infrastructure/frontage mapping methodologies covered Informal crossing surveys Pedestrian comfort and walking catchment analysis Pedestrian desire lines and directness analysis Tools for plotting desire lines & mapping severances to walking will be useful for when conducting site visits Toolkit very useful Toolkit will be useful for Living Streets work/ activities Toolkit would Improve the pedestrian experience Generally positive What respondents said they would use the toolkit for: Directness analysis Informal crossing surveys Pedestrian comfort analysis Pedestrian desire lines Simple network analysis to pedestrian movement Stationary activity Various streetscape/infrastructure/frontage mapping methodologies to inform schemes Walking catchment analysis For general consulting

12 To encourage walking hence reducing road safety risks, air pollution (especially outside schools) To find evidence to support future application for planning permission To improve the pedestrian experience To reduce road safety risks and air pollution To support development of schemes that aim to encourage walking & cycling Would use it when working with local authorities and others in the early stages of planning To look for evidence of our concerns about any future application for planning permission Sections that would be used most Individual tools and analytical approaches and techniques sections Part C – Planning & Design Tools would be used the most Seven Pedestrian Network Design Principles

Question 2 asked “Which tools listed in the guidance do you currently use in your work?”

The responses are listed below:

Which tools listed in the guidance do you currently use in your work? City Planner Footway boundaries Healthy Streets London context London’s Street Types Mapping pedestrian surfaces Most of them (non-specific) None Pedestrian Comfort Guidance Pedestrian Environment Review System Pedestrian surveys Plotting desire lines The public transport accessibility level (PTAL)

Question 3 asked, “Which tools do you think you would use in your work after reviewing the guidance?”

The responses are presented below:

Which tools do you think you would use in your work after reviewing the guidance? None Any/ most of them Boundary features and visibility City Planner

13 Desire lines guide Equality Impact Assessments Footway interruptions Guide to indicators Healthy Streets Check Local street scale mapping tool Mapping pedestrian surfaces Most of them Pedestrian Comfort Guidance Pedestrian delay tool Public Transport Access Level Stationary activity analysis Strategic Walking Analysis Walking environment condition assessments

Question 4 asked “Are there any other tools or approaches you would like to see covered in future iterations”. The responses are listed below:

Suggestions Traffic speed and volume surveys Section 7.1 Project Prioritisation - areas that have high numbers of walkers should be protected. A scheme overview document Biometherological indices (UTCI, PET) Climate Comfort (combined effect of sunlight, wind velocity, air temperature & humidity Examples of community engagement practises and material used Guidance on design for older people List successes of past guides List the shortcomings of past guides Measure connectivity using tools such as the Space Syntax Toolkit More guidance on facilities for blind people and those in wheelchairs New barriers to walking, or new footway interruptions New severances of continuity of footways PEQ Index Pictorial charts, colour coded sections etc. Other suggestions made

Would be useful to have reference to biodiversity and green-infrastructure tools and documentation, examples below: > Green Infrastructure Guidance > Green capital () > Urban Green Infrastructure Planning (Green Surge) > Benefits of Green Infrastructure Break down into smaller sections - with guides in colour Provide paper copies as document too large for screen/ phone reading

14 Section 6.1 - Ensure honest appraisal of conditions on and off footways based on actual on-street assessments Sections could benefit from a skip logic approach Use 'other modes of transport' instead of 'other modes of motorised transport'

Question 5 “Is the toolkit structured appropriately and pitched satisfactorily?” The respondents gave the following comments:

Question 5: Is the document structured appropriately and pitched satisfactorily? Negative comments Hard to follow and navigate Lacks key information/references Language too technical No Too wordy/ long Lack of links to any tools on how best to deliver green infrastructure or value offered Toolkit lacks a more sophisticated understanding of ‘connectivity’ Toolkit lacks references to green infrastructure & its importance in urban street design Positive comments Partially Yes Logically structured & well to referenced throughout without the need for the user to bounce around the document too much Pitch is well delivered with its focus on the co-production and multi-functionality of places and the need for all-inclusive designs Suggestions A Website would be easier to navigate/more interactive Be consistent - Pg.63, table contains ‘People from all walks of life’ but the diagram contains ‘Pedestrians from all walks of life’ On page 85, the bottom two paragraphs may fit better nearer the beginning of the entire document? Page 59, move ‘Assessing how comfortable it is to have a conversation’ section, to 7.2.4 Human Scale Analysis

Question 6 “Do you have any additional suggestions on how the toolkit could be made more relevant for your role or organisation?” The respondents gave the following comments:

Issues raised Cyclists favoured over pedestrians On page 49, the town centre isn’t included in the key of the map Positive comments mentioned Toolkit will encourage more walking

15 Useful document to signpost practitioners to the relevant information Suggestions A project roadmap/workflow diagram/decision tree would be useful A quick glance/ visual tool would be useful as toolkit too detailed Begin with a list of recommended tools to address a particular principle that has been highlighted as a key issue Directly reference between the tools and the specific (or combined) aspects of the Pedestrian Network Design Principle Glossary or list of key considerations for each tool or section Include further information to support good planning for walking: e.g. from Sustrans Active Travel Toolbox On Page 86, with School Streets on the rise, perhaps trialling them under an Experimental Traffic Order On page.83, attitudinal surveys table should include use in collecting information on perceived safety & what influences this Toolkit must include biodiversity and green infrastructure and fit within the vision of the London Environment Strategy Include a detailed approach to assessing impact of physiological comfort, beyond oversimplifying it to sunlight/ wind assessments Nothing in the plan should compromise the Zero Action Plan, Principles and Healthy Streets Indicators Vital to first & foremost protect pedestrians if the Mayor's Vision Zero Action Plan is to be met

4.2 Comments on the consultation

Respondents were asked: ‘What do you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.)?’

The graph overleaf is based on responses from 14 respondents who answered via our online portal. The table is a summary of the key issues the respondents raised.

16 What do you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.)? 100% 7% 14% 90% 21% 21% 29% 14% 80% 36% 36% 7% 7% 7% 70% 7% 14% 60% 36% 7% 43% 29% 50% 29% 29% 40% 21% 30% 57% 57% 36% 20% 29% 21% 21% 14% 10% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 0% Website structure Maps, Written Online Website Events & Promotio & ease of images & informatio survey accessibil drop-in nal finding related n format ity sessions material what you diagrams needed" Very good 3 4 5 3 5 1 0 Good 6 4 4 5 4 2 2 Adequate 4 5 3 3 3 1 1 Poor 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 Very poor 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 Not applicable 1 1 0 0 1 8 8

Negative comments Images idealised when depicting footways e.g. no images of cyclists, or crowded footways No provision in online survey available to raise comments about the contents of many sections Consultation should have been better publicised Document too long to view/ read on screen Large document which includes several repetitions Some of the standard questions devised for specific schemes are not really appropriate here

Positive comment Appreciate receiving a hard copy as disabled

17 5. Summary of stakeholder responses

This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholder organisations by email. The full stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes.

Stakeholder Comments Canal and The Canal and River Trust made a number of suggestions including: River Trust Borough and local area walking plans - Local walking plans setting out area based policies “maximising the connectivity and quality of local open green spaces” should also include towpaths/water space, as well as green spaces. The toolkit should also encourage planners and designers to fully make use of canal towpaths as attractive traffic-free environments for walking and cycling.

Pedestrian Network Design Principles - Wayfinding provision should include legible and obvious links to and from the towpath as well as along it, incorporating the towpath fully in the wider walking network. New developments should facilitate access to the canal towpath and support improvements to the towpath.

Planning & Design Tools - Canal towpaths, if not currently included should be part of CityPlanner tool and the Strategic Walking Analysis. Long Distance They were concerned that the Toolkit seems to be aimed almost entirely at Walkers walking on streets. If this is the intention then they felt it should be followed by a Association separate document about planning for walking away from streets (i.e. in parks, beside rivers and canals or along trails and walkways).

They suggested walking should have its own roundel in the TfL family and that walking for leisure should play a substantial role in planning, and TfL should be devoting a much greater proportion of its budget and resources to it. London Generally supportive of the Toolkit & look forward to seeing the next iteration and Borough of providing further feedback as necessary. Bexley

London London TravelWatch welcomed the focus on the design of streets and public Travelwatch spaces. They would encourage the inclusion of a ‘Fine City for Walking’ as it covers the issue of walking and public spaces, which they suggest could be better recognised in the toolkit.

They would like to see the needs of disabled users better recognised in the transport hierarchy and that conflict between modes is better addressed. They made a number of specific infrastructure suggestions to improve conditions for pedestrians, as well as highlighting the importance of good way finding, and called on TfL to encourage better street management to ensure streets are accessible, safe and pleasant to walk on. They would also welcome a programme of public space creation and enhancement as part of the plan. London Living Were concerned that the Toolkit maintains the status quo around motor vehicle Streets dominated streets and would like to see a definitive statement or commitment to reduce the volume and speed of motor traffic in London. They feel the lack of ambition is exemplified by more than one reference to a 2m footway width for pedestrians and 2.4m as a crossing width, and informal crossings at 100m intervals.

They would like to see more ambition for footway widths, reducing traffic speeds to under 15mph in residential and shopping areas, reducing on-street car parking space and replacing with community space - greening, resting, playing and socialising spaces. They also felt the need for shade and shelter should be given

18 more prominence (implied but not explicit). This is likely to become increasingly important given climate change

Living Streets They warmly welcome the publication of Transport for London’s Planning for Walking Toolkit. From an inclusive design perspective, the list of essential features to create streets that are safe, inclusive, comfortable, direct, legible, connected and attractive for all pedestrians is very useful. They felt this is a document they would be happy to use and to promote through their work.

Sustrans Sustrans stated that it was useful to see all of the guidance and information pulled into one documents for practitioners to follow. They however commented that the toolkit could be a bit more ambitious in ensuring good planning for walking. They commented that the concept of delay to vehicles was well established but for pedestrians it was always overlooked and does not go far enough in outlining that is unacceptable for pedestrian wait time to be compromised in order to retain traffic capacity. Pedestrians should be prioritised.

They proposed that the toolkit should make more reference to Sustrans’ Active Travel Toolbox.

Sustrans commented that the toolkit did not explain how the construction of physical barriers can prevent walkers and those using mobility aids from accessing public space.

They advised that the document should outline some of the potential benefits of continuous footways in prioritising walkers over motor vehicles. Richmond and They broadly support the toolkit as a useful additional resource for practitioners. Wandsworth Council They felt the toolkit will be most useful if it is not over-prescriptive; local issues and circumstances often call for site-specific schemes.

They made some general points for consideration in the final version of the toolkit are:

• Paved carriageways such as that illustrated on page 79 do not tend to last on busy roads and junctions, especially where there are heavy vehicles such as buses. • They hope that the toolkit will be used by TfL on TLRN roads in Wandsworth so that improvements can be delivered to the benefit of people walking in these neighbourhoods, including those accessing public transport services. • If the aspirations set out in the document are to be met there will need to be sufficient funding to deliver the type of improvements suggested. Islington Islington strongly supports the design principles contained in the Planning for Council Walking Toolkit which mirror many of the principles already used by Islington. The structure of the toolkit bridges the gap between detailed technical design standards and higher level strategic documents and overall the content of the Toolkit is appropriate. However, they felt there are some areas of the Toolkit that should be given further consideration and could be expanded upon in the final published version of the Toolkit.

Islington Council also made the following observations: • the Toolkit should recognise that the PTAL data does not incorporate any information on accessibility, an essential consideration for scheme design • the Toolkit should also highlight that a PERS audit does not obtain views from local accessibility users and can therefore miss an essential component in understanding an area • users of the Toolkit should be advised that a better accessibility outcome can be achieved through engagement with local people

19 • bus stop by-passes (also referred to as floating bus stops) are not referenced in the Toolkit. Islington highlighted the potential risk of conflict with pedestrians • TfL should include bus stop by-passes in the final Toolkit

Caroline Welcomes the Planning for Walking Toolkit as a valuable step in giving walking Russell AM the right focus and in using the guidance to push for better conditions for walking. However, she is concerned that the document has not been ambitious enough especially about tackling the barrier that is caused by the impact of motor traffic. Guidance for walking should support traffic reduction and explain how it can improve conditions for walking.

Caroline Russell calls for TfL to champion techniques such as – tightening geometry at junctions, using raised crossings including Copenhagen crossings or continuous footways and the simple zebra crossing. She also calls for TfL to move away from a design culture that embeds pedestrian delay with signals and towards one of pedestrian priority, following desire lines. She would also like us to consider trials within designing for walking. Parklets provide a great way to repurpose parking or other road space into valuable spaces for communities – helping to green and activate local streets. Similarly, school streets provide ways of changing the behaviour of users of a street when it is most busy, at the start and end of a school day. Given the likely audience of the Toolkit it would be sensible to consider ways of supporting developers in conducting such trials.

She would like to TfL to ensure that the guidance takes into account electric vehicle charging infrastructure - to help reinforce the need to avoid clutter from street furniture worsening conditions for walking.

20 6. Next steps

We considered all the feedback received and updated sections of the toolkit as appropriate in the drafting of the final document. We intend to launch the Planning for Walking Toolkit alongside the Strategic Walking Analysis later this Spring.

21 7. Response to issues raised

Below are our responses to the key issues raised during the consultation.

Requests for additional content

More reference to biodiversity and green-infrastructure tools and documentation Enhancing green infrastructure is an important aspect of making urban areas more appealing for walking. This is set out within one of the key network design principles; under how to make a location more ‘attractive’. Throughout the document there is reference to the importance of linking to and through green spaces and providing improvements on streets which capitalise on opportunities to improve the quality and quantity of green assets. Multi criteria assessments, such as the Healthy Streets Check for Designers tool which includes consideration of green assets, are already included in the document.

Since the publication of the draft consultation document, the GLA’s Green Infrastructure Focus Map tool has been added to the document to provide an additional tool which offers an opportunity to collate data that helps build an understanding of key opportunities and issues for walking in London.

Does not cover enough aspects of our sector to be useful (Wildlife Trust) This document focuses on tools that directly measure provision for walking and many of the multi-criteria tools listed such as walking environment audits, reference green infrastructure as an important consideration. Specific GI and biodiversity targets are an important part of city-making, but these are considered to be beyond the scope of this document, which is focused directly on improving facilities for people walking.

Mention ‘Canal towpaths’ Canal towpaths are now mentioned in two sections – under the Connectivity network principle and in borough walking plans. They are included in the CityPlanner tool and are considered an important part of the walking network.

Toolkit seems to be aimed almost entirely at walking on streets. Greater emphasis has been placed on walking across all areas of public realm as part of the redraft to address this comment. This has included a new section on walking for leisure, greater reference to parks, paths and towpaths, and the replacement of ‘streets’ for ‘public realm’ where appropriate.

22 Walking for leisure is undertaken much more than walking for travel and should be recognised in the toolkit The document now mentions that half of all walked trips in London are made for leisure and shopping purposes. This document looks to highlight how to plan for these trips through the importance of understanding the range of trip attractors and land uses across an area, not just transport hubs. The emphasis on creating social spaces to encourage greater dwell times highlights the importance of supporting walking for leisure and this is a key aspect of this document.

A programme of public space creation and enhancement should be part of the toolkit The scope of the document is to offer a framework for identifying key issues in the urban realm that impact on walking. The tools are designed to highlight where public space creation and improvements would be most beneficial, but in itself the intention is not to set out a programme of public space creation.

TfL should encourage Street management activities if London streets are to be accessible and pleasant to walk on. This document does not constitute a management plan; however it does identify ways in which these issues can be flagged up and incorporated within the scope of a project.

Toolkit needs to tackle domination of motor vehicle on London’s streets The document highlights the adverse impact of motor traffic volumes and speeds on the walking environment. The document references policy which aims to address these issues including the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and Vision Zero Action Plan. The document is defined to help project teams define individual project briefs and reflect these wider policy documents.

Infrastructure Specific Issues

The carriageway should be raised to pavement level, with appropriate tactile paving It may not always be appropriate to raise the carriageway to pavement level, for example this can impact on bus passenger comfort and safety, and so the local context needs to be considered. Tactile paving is noted as a key infrastructure component within the toolkit, but it is outside the scope of the document to go into the details of what constitutes appropriate tactile paving design.

It is disappointing that pedestrian refuges are being lost to cycling infrastructure This document has been produced to encourage planners and designers to carefully consider the implications of design decisions that adversely impact on pedestrians

23 and to justify it accordingly. The document highlights the benefits of pedestrian refuges for supporting pedestrian crossing movements.

This comment relates to project specific decisions which cannot be commented on without additional detail being provided.

Footway widths – Suggestion to encourage 2.5m as a social footway width The document is not a design policy document and so it is not appropriate to redefine standards. The document references Pedestrian Comfort Guidance which is the process for ensuring greater footway widths are provided where needed, often resulting in footways being provided well in excess of this social width.

Reducing traffic speeds to under 15mph in residential and shopping areas, as in the initiative The document highlights the importance of reducing traffic speeds for pedestrian safety but is not a policy document or a plan, and so does not set out actions to redefine speed limits.

Flush kerbs to be constructed at not more than 6mm in height Additional details have been included in the document to ensure that this item is referenced.

Physical Barriers to Walking and mobility aids The document now mentions that some gates and access arrangements can act as a physical barrier for some people including those using mobility aids from accessing public space.

Paved carriageways (such as that illustrated on the last page) should not be promoted on busy roads and junctions – issues with maintenance This visualisation has been removed from the document as it was not communicating the desired principles in a clear manner.

Pedestrian/Cycling Hierarchy

TfL’s focus on cycling outweighs that of walking / pedestrian safety and care should be paramount This is not a policy document but it does aim to positively shape how sponsors, project managers and designers think about planning for pedestrians when designing public realm. The document itself highlights TfL’s commitment to enhancing provision for people walking, cycling and accessing public transport, as part of the Healthy Streets approach. Safety is listed as the first network design

24 principle and the document highlights the importance of traffic calming and motor vehicle flow reduction for maximising pedestrian safety.

TfL is committed to providing improvements for walking across the city and the Walking Action Plan highlights the strategy for making these changes. Infrastructure for cycling may be more apparent as it is often introduced where no dedicated infrastructure has been provided previously. Walking improvements however, such as footway widening or signal retiming, may not always be as visually noticeable. The role of this document is to make sure that walking improvements are planned across different scales, prioritising and tackling key issues in a manner that secures the best possible Healthy Street outcomes across an area.

In the transport hierarchy the access needs of disabled users should be especially recognized (for example visually impaired users cannot use bus stops where cycles are routed through the waiting, boarding and alighting area and they fear sharing the pavement with cycles)

There is no transport hierarchy set out within this document; however the pedestrian network design principles include a dedicated principle to being inclusive for all. This is not a policy document and so it is not within the scope of the document to specify whether particular infrastructure layouts are appropriate or not. It does however gives planners and designers the tools to appraise proposed designs, such as the example given here of a shared use bus boarder, should be appraised using the seven pedestrian network design principles: safe, inclusive, comfortable, direct, legible, connected, attractive; to decide to what extent each principle is impacted on for pedestrians when comparing different design options and to weigh that up with the benefits and disbenefits for other road users.

Toolkit Functionality

A Website would be easier to navigate/more interactive The scope of the project is to produce a pdf document and while a website could be considered as a long term option; the priority is to produce a document that is consistent with the Healthy Streets suite of documents.

Break down into smaller sections - with guides in colour: The document will be worked up into a more attractive glossy version following consultation and will include clear dividers between sections. Use of colour to distinguish between sections was trialed but was found to create a document that lacked visual continuity and created additional confusion, so a simple colour scheme will be applied.

25 Funding

Funding - if the aspirations set out in the document are to be met there will need to be sufficient funding to deliver the type of improvements suggested.

The Mayor and TfL are committed to delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and help meet mode shift targets through investment in high quality public realm. The £115m Liveable Neighbourhoods programme for example is transforming public realm throughout London, with continued investment to 2024. This document is about making sure that design briefs are better targeted on key issues for walking, so that designs are more effective at maximising resources to enable positive change.

Other

Walking should have its own roundel in the TfL family This is beyond the scope of this document.

Lack of free public toilets The document is not a design policy document and so it is not appropriate to set out recommendations of this nature. However, the general lack of public toilets has now been added to two sections of the document: as a frequently cited issue and as a barrier to making places more inclusive.

26 Appendix A: Stakeholder List

Local Authorities London Borough of Haringey Barnet Council Camden Council London Borough of City of London London Borough of Havering County Council London Borough of Hillingdon Haringey Council London Borough of Hounslow London Borough of Barking & Dagenham London Borough of Islington London Borough of Lambeth London Borough of Bexley London Borough of Lewisham London Borough of Bromley London Borough of Redbridge London Borough of Richmond-Upon- London Borough of Croydon Thames and Wandsworth London Borough of Southwark London Borough of Enfield London Borough of Hackney London Borough of Tower Hamlets London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough of Waltham Forest London Borough of Wandsworth and Royal Borough of Kingston Upon London Borough of Richmond Thames Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Council Royal Borough of Greenwich Alliance Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Transport groups London Cycling Campaign East Finchley Bus Watch Living Streets Orpington District Transport Users Association London TravelWatch Merton Community Transport (MCT) Mitcham Confederation of Passenger Transport Brent Community Transport Bus Watch West Haringey Havering Community Transport Limited Clapham Transport Users Group Southwark Travellers' Action Group Community Transport Group Hounslow Enfield Community Transport (ECT) Islington Transport Aware Barnet Community Transport Westway Community Transport Sutton Rail Users' Forum Croydon Accessible Transport (CAT) West Hampstead Amenity and Transport Hackney Community Transport HCT Brentwood Community Transport Bexley Community Transport Scheme (BATS) Ealing Community Transport (ECT Charity) Greenwich Cycling Group Lewisham community Transport group

27

Accessibility Groups and Charities Access in London Inclusion London Action Disability Kensington & Chelsea Independent Disability Advisory Group Action on Disability and Work UK Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People (JCMD) Action on Hearing Loss (RNID) Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS) Age Concern London Joint Mobility Unit Age UK Learning Disabled service User All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group Leonard Cheshire Disability Alzheimer's Society Living Streets Alzheimer's Society Waltham Forest London Gypsies & Travellers Ann Frye London Older People's Strategy Group Anxiety Alliance London Region National Pensioners Convention Anxiety UK London Vision) Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance London Visual Impairment Forum Aspire London Wildlfe Trust Better Transport Look Ahead Brains Trust Lupus UK British Dyslexia Association MIND British Land MS Society Campaign for Better Transport National Autistic Society Canal & River Trust London No Panic Carers First Organisation of Blind Afro Caribbeans (OBAC) Carers Information Service Pan-London Dementia Alliance City of London Access Group Parkinson's UK Connect RNIB CTC Roadpeace DABD (UK) Royal London Society for Blind People Dbrief Monthly Royal Parks Disability Alliance Royal Society of Blind Children Disability Network Hounslow Scope Disability Rights UK SeLVIS Disabled Go Sense Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Sight Centre in Bromley Committee Disablement Association Barking and Sixty Plus Dagenham (DABD) Dogs for Good South East London Vision DPTAC South Mobility Forum Croydon East London Vision Stay Safe Edmonton CLP Strategic Access Panel Ehlers Danlos Support UK Stroke Association European Dysmelia Reference Information Sustrans

28 Centre Friends of Capital Transport Sutton Centre for Voluntary Sector Friends of the Earth The Advocacy Project Future Inclusion The Association of Guide Dogs for the Blind Forum for Older People The British Dyslexia Association Greater London Forum for the Elderly The Canal & River Trust Guide Dogs for the Blind Association The Clubhouse Harrow Association for Disabled People (HAD) Thomas Pocklington Trust Harrow Macular Disease Society Thomas Pocklington Trust Health Poverty Action Trailblazers, Muscular Dystrophy UK Hearing Dogs UK Transport for All IDAG Valuing People (TfL's learning disability group) Vision 2020 Waltham Forest Vision Walk London Wheels for Wellbeing Waltham Forest Dementia Action Alliance Whizz-Kidz

29 Appendix B: Stakeholder Email

Dear Stakeholder

I am writing to seek your views on our draft of The Planning for Walking Toolkit.

As you are probably aware, planning for walking is complex and no one approach fits all situations – good planning requires an appreciation of how our whole urban system needs to be designed to better facilitate walking: our streets and open spaces; the buildings that front onto these and the transport hubs that support onward movement. With the Mayor’s plan for London to become the ‘world’s most walkable city’, we need to work collaboratively with our stakeholders and the boroughs to plan and design streets that encourage walking across London. This means that there is a clear need for guidance that encourages designers to specifically plan and design for walking in the schemes they work on.

With the above in mind, we have developed The Planning for Walking Toolkit. This handbook has been designed to bridge the gap between high level aspirations in our Walking Action Plan, which sets our strategic initiatives, and our technical design guidance (Streetscape Guidance).

We are seeking your views on whether our draft toolkit provides clarity regarding the wealth of tools available for developing a project brief that can positively impact on the pedestrian network. We would also like to know what your experience is of using these, or other tools, and any suggestions for how they can most effectively be applied.

To read a copy of our draft of The Planning for Walking Toolkit, for further details and to have your say, please visit our website: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/walking/toolkit

The closing date for comments is 21 August 2019.

Yours faithfully

Florence Muikia

30 Appendix C: Code frame

Based on your review of this draft, do you expect that you or a colleague would use this toolkit? Which sections would you expect to use the most? - Comments

Would use it: Generally supportive Would use it: For consulting Would use it: Would use it to look for evidence of our concerns about any future application for planning permission Would use it: To find evidence to support future application for planning permission Would use it: To support development of schemes that aim to encourage walking & cycling Would use it: To reduce road safety risks and air pollution Would use: Individual tools and analytical approaches and techniques sections Would use: Seven Pedestrian Network Design Principles Would use: Part C – Planning & Design Tools would be used the most Would use it: When working with local authorities and others in the early stages of planning Positive: Tools for plotting desire lines & mapping severances to walking will be useful for when conducting site visits Positive: Reviews of existing walking improvements are very good Positive: Very useful Positive: Simple network analysis Positive: Informal crossing surveys Positive: Pedestrian desire lines and directness analysis Positive: Pedestrian comfort and walking catchment analysis Positive: Good streetscape/infrastructure/frontage mapping methodologies Positive: Would Improve the pedestrian experience Negative: Too long and text heavy Negative: Does not cover enough aspects of our sector to be useful (Wildlife Trust) Suggestion: Break down into smaller sections - with guides in colour Suggestion: Provide paper copies as document too for screen/ phone reading

Which tools listed in the guidance do you currently use in your work? - Comments London context None Most of them (non-specific) City Planner Mapping pedestrian surfaces Footway boundaries Pedestrian surveys Plotting desire lines London’s Street Types Healthy Streets Pedestrian Comfort Guidance

31 street types PTAL Negative: No biodiversity or green infrastructure tools listed in the guidance

Which tools do you think you would use in your work after reviewing the guidance? - Comments None Would use: Any/ most of them Would use: When reviewing Planning Applications Would use: Local street scale mapping tool Would use: Pedestrian Comfort Guidance Would use: Healthy Streets Check Would use: Guide to indicators Would use: Walking environment condition assessments Would use: Desire lines guide Would use: Pedestrian delay tool Would use: City Planner Would use: Strategic Walking Analysis Would use: Public Transport Access Level Would use: Equality Impact Assessments Would use: Mapping pedestrian surfaces Would use: Footway interruptions Would use: Boundary features and visibility Positive comment Positive: Useful as it puts references to all the existing sources of information in one place Suggestions Suggestion: Would be useful to have reference to biodiversity and green-infrastructure tools and documentation Suggestion: Make reference to Green Infrastructure Guidance (Natural ) Suggestion: Green capital Suggestion: Urban Green Infrastructure Planning Suggestion: Benefits of Green Infrastructure

Are there any other tools or approaches you would like to see covered in future iterations? - Comments Suggestions Suggestion: More guidance on facilities for blind people and those in wheelchairs Suggestion: Guidance on design for older people Suggestion: List the shortcomings of past guides Suggestion: List successes of past guides Suggestion: Pictorial charts, colour coded sections etc. Suggestion: Measure connectivity using tools such as the Space Syntax Toolkit Suggestion: Traffic speed and volume surveys Suggestion: Examples of community engagement practises and material used Suggestion: PEQ index

32 Suggestion: Biometherological indices (UTCI, PET) Negative comments Negative: Toolkit lacks references to green infrastructure & its importance in urban street design Negative: Lack of links to any tools on how best to deliver green infrastructure or value offered No

Is the document structured appropriately and pitched satisfactorily? - Comments

Yes Language too technical Partially Lacks key information/references No Hard to follow and navigate Too wordy Suggestion: Pg.59, move ‘Assessing how comfortable it is to have a conversation’ section, to 7.2.4 Human Scale Analysis Suggestion: A Website would be easier to navigate/more interactive Positive: The toolkit is structured logically and does well to reference different relevant sections throughout, without the need for the user to bounce around the document too much Positive: Pitch is well delivered with its focus on the co-production and multi-functionality of places and the need for all-inclusive designs Suggestion: Be consistent - Pg.63, table contains ‘People from all walks of life’ but the diagram contains ‘Pedestrians from all walks of life’

Do you have any additional suggestions on how this toolkit could be made more relevant for your role or organisation? - Comments Negative: Cyclists favoured over pedestrians Positive: Toolkit will encourage more walking Positive: Useful document to signpost practitioners to the relevant information Suggestion: Toolkit must include biodiversity and green infrastructure and fit within the vision of the London Environment Strategy Suggestion: Directly reference between the tools and the specific (or combined) aspects of the Pedestrian Network Design Principle Suggestion: Begin with a list of recommended tools to address a particular principle that has been highlighted as a key issue Suggestion: Glossary or list of key considerations for each tool or section Suggestion: On Page 86, with School Streets on the rise, perhaps trialling them under an Experimental Traffic Order Suggestion: Pg.83, attitudinal surveys table should include use in collecting information on perceived safety & what influences this Negative: On page 49, the town centre isn’t included in the key of the map Suggestion: A project roadmap/workflow diagram/decision tree would be useful

33 Suggestion: A quick glance/ visual tool would be useful as toolkit too detailed Suggestion: Include further information to support good planning for walking: e.g. from Sustrans Active Travel Toolbox Include a detailed approach to assessing impact of physiological comfort, beyond oversimplifying it to sunlight/ wind assessments

What do you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.)? - Do you have any further comments about the quality of the consultation material?

Negative: Some of the standard questions devised for specific schemes are not really appropriate here Positive: Appreciate received a hard copy as disabled Negative: Consultation should have been better publicised Negative: Large document which includes several repetitions Negative: Images idealised when depicting footways e.g. no images of cyclists, or crowded footways Negative: No provison in online survey available to raise comments about the contents of many sections Suggestion: There should be an overarching principle that pedestrians should be protected and their conditions improved Comment: Vital to first & foremost protect pedestrians if the Mayor's Vision Zero Action Plan is to be met Suggestion: Nothing on the plan should compromise the Zero Action Plan, Principles and Healthy Streets Indicators

34