Pedestrianisation is a hot topic all over the world at the moment, with some people for the scheme and others against the idea all together.
It can be seen as a complex and sometimes controversial subject, as research shows it can have both positive and negative aspects to it.
Pedestrianisation can be defined as the process of removing or restricting vehicle access to a street or public area, which is then prioritised exclusively, or mainly, for the use of pedestrians.
Pedestrianisation can be broken down into three different types or categories – full-time, part-time and traffic calming zones.
On full-time streets, vehicles, except for the emergency services, are completely forbidden from entering the area. Meanwhile, on part-time streets, vehicles are granted access during specific hours or days of the week.
On traffic calming streets, footpaths are widened and parking spaces are reduced to lower the dominance and speed of road vehicles. They may also feature traffic calming measures, from speed bumps to narrower lanes.
An example of a hugely popular worldwide pedestrianised street is Times Square in New York, which saw an increase of 11% in activity and a drop of 63% in accidents involving vehicles.
Research has shown that the pedestrianisation of streets in town and city centres can have safety, environmental and economic benefits, contributing to lower levels of noise and air pollution and promoting walking by making experiences for visitors and residents more enjoyable.
On the other hand, it has also been argued that there are also some downsides to pedestrianisation, as it may cause disruption as permanent schemes can cause traffic build-up in the short-term, put pressure onto public transport operators and could event isolate key businesses relying on vehicle access, such as delivery drivers, various haulage companies or taxis.
It has been said that the Netherlands ‘transformed’ its cities with pedestrianisation by improving access for not only pedestrians, but cyclists too. This led to a 97% decrease in child fatalities caused by car accidents and hugely reduced carbon emissions, according to research.
Although, it has also been suggested that pedestrianisation can limit accessibility to businesses in specified areas of different towns of cities, which could deter certain customers away from visiting.
Councillors in one UK town, Bridgend in Wales, have suggested removing pedestrianised streets, which were put in place in the early 2000s, as businesses in the town claim there has been a decline in footfall and a reverse in the scheme could support improvements in trading.
In some areas it has resulted in an increase in customer retail. For example, on Oxford Circus in London, pedestrianisation led to a 25% increase in turnover for the businesses in the area.
Meanwhile, in Greenwich back in 2009, a proposal was put forward to pedestrianise the area. But, it was argued that this may ‘devastate’ bus services due to disruption as some services would no longer be able to access the town centre.
Looking at current research on the topic, it’s clear that there are both pros and cons to pedestrianisation, but there is opportunity for it to be successful through cautious, thorough and substantial planning. It shows that when pedestrianisation works well its usually in line with good public transport options, such as park & ride schemes, Boris bikes, world class public realm and substantial infrastructure.
If you have any feedback to share on our latest BID Blog, please email our team on info@harrogatebid.co.uk