Improving walking, cycling and accessibility on the seafront (A259)
Consultation report February 2021
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Questionnaire Survey Results
a. Summary Questionnaire Results
b. Methodology
c. Full Results
3. Summary of Open Days Feedback
4. Summary of Stakeholder Feedback
Introduction
At the July 2021, Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee it was agreed to consult on proposals to improve walking, cycling and disabled access on A259 Kingsway from Fourth Avenue to Wharf Road. Proposals include improvements and extensions to pavements, extending the on-street cycle lane and improving accessibility of the area.
Headline consultation survey results[1]
Q1
Q2
Overall, 50.6% of respondents agree with proposals to widen pavements in the area and 66.8% agree with the improvement of pedestrian crossing points.
Q3
For cycling proposals:
· When considering improved cycle routes, 46% of respondents agree with proposals, compared to 2.1% neither agree or disagree, and 51.7% disagree
· For improved cycle crossing points, 48.9% agree with proposals, compared to 12.3% neither agree not disagree / don’t know, and 38.8% disagree
· For increased cycle parking, 52.2% of respondents agree with proposals, compared to 16.1% neither agree or disagree / don’t know, and 31.6% disagree
Q4
Overall, there is a high level of agreement that there should be more public space outside businesses (56.2%) and more provision of disabled parking bays (53.8%) than for more or improved loading bays (37.1%). However in regard to the loading bay 39.8% said they nether agree nor disagree.
Q5
The highest single numbers of responses to this question are that proposals will improve safety for pedestrians (47.1%), cyclists (45.6%) and people with disabilities (41.9%), with high numbers of ‘not sure’ responses for all options.
Q6
Of all respondents, 369 (41%) people would be encouraged to use the new cycle lane, 375 (42%) would be encouraged to visit business and local amenities in the area and 374 (42%) would be encouraged to visit the beach/seafront.
1. Full Questionnaire Results
Methodology
An information pack, including plans was sent to 8149 addresses (residential and business properties) in the immediate vicinity of the proposed improvements. People were invited to go online to give their views on proposals. Paper copies of the questionnaire were also available on request together with a freepost envelope.
The consultation was also promoted through the council’s social media channels, stakeholder meetings and two drop-in sessions where residents and local businesses could see and comment on the plans. These were held at the King Alfred centre, Kingsway on Saturday 4 December from 10am to 4pm and Tuesday 7 December from 12 noon to 7pm.
The consultation ran from 29 November 2021 to 16 January 2022.
A total of 897 responses were received from 842 households, with multiple members of some households making individual submissions.
342 responses were received from within the mailout area giving a response rate of 4.2%[2]. The response rate is calculated using the number of individual valid responses[3] received from households who had been sent information about the scheme.
Of the 342 respondents from within the mailout area, 261 (76.3%) said that they heard about the consultation via the information that they had received. The highest single response from all respondents was that 47.2% of respondents became aware of the consultation via social media. Social media is fast becoming the most popular way of hearing about consultations as details are easily shared and promoted. Due to the location of the scheme proposed, there is likely to be high levels of interest in the area from non-residents eg those who live elsewhere in the city and visit this popular part of the seafront area.
Q How did you hear about the survey?
|
No. |
%[4] |
I received an information leaflet |
276 |
30.8 |
I read about it on the council’s website |
70 |
7.8 |
I read about it on social media |
423 |
47.2 |
I attended an event |
17 |
1.9 |
I heard about it by word of mouth |
123 |
0.1 |
I read about it in the local press |
87 |
9.7 |
Other includes: From my local councillor, through work, from a group I am a member of, from friends or family, local neighbourhood group or residents’ association
|
31 |
3.5 |
Several businesses and members of organisations also responded to the consultation and their responses were combined with those from individuals. Detailed submissions from key stakeholders were removed to be analysed alongside comments given in stakeholder workshops, which are presented in section 4 of this report.
Q How are you responding to this survey?
|
No. |
% |
As an individual |
884 |
98.7 |
As a representative of a business, organisation or group |
12 |
1.3 |
143 invalid responses were removed from the final results: 15 were duplicate responses ie submitted twice or more by the same person and 125 were removed as they provided an incomplete or incorrect name and/or address which was stated as a requirement within the survey.
Responses were received from across the city as follows:
854 responses (95.2%) were from city residents and 4.8% 43 responses (4.8%) from residents in other, mostly neighbouring, authorities. We can see from the larger circles that higher numbers of respondents live in the vicinity of the proposals, however as noted above there is likely to be high interest in this area from across the city and beyond due to its location on the seafront and the importance of the local visitor economy.
Results
Q1 How often do you use these forms of transport in the area?
|
Every day, or nearly every day |
2-3 days a week |
Once a week |
Less often but at least once a month |
Less than once a month |
Never |
||||||
|
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
Walk |
411 |
48.1 |
178 |
20.8 |
99 |
11.6 |
83 |
9.7 |
46 |
5.4 |
38 |
4.4 |
Cycle[5] |
107 |
12.6 |
203 |
23.9 |
90 |
10.6 |
97 |
11.4 |
107 |
12.6 |
246 |
28.9 |
Bus |
9 |
1.1 |
74 |
9.0 |
99 |
12.1 |
164 |
20.0 |
227 |
27.8 |
245 |
30.0 |
Car/ van as driver [6] |
193 |
22.5 |
253 |
29.5 |
128 |
14.9 |
82 |
9.5 |
66 |
7.7 |
137 |
15.9 |
Car/ van as passenger |
32 |
4.2 |
89 |
11.6 |
128 |
16.8 |
110 |
14.4 |
183 |
24.0 |
222 |
29.1 |
Motorcycle/ moped |
7 |
0.9 |
10 |
1.3 |
9 |
1.2 |
8 |
1.0 |
15 |
2.0 |
717 |
93.6 |
Wheelchair/ mobility scooter |
5 |
0.7 |
5 |
0.7 |
7 |
0.9 |
4 |
0.5 |
4 |
0.5 |
739 |
96.7 |
Taxi/ Private Hire |
3 |
0.4 |
16 |
2.0 |
47 |
6.0 |
108 |
13.7 |
300 |
38.1 |
313 |
39.8 |
Community Transport[7] |
1 |
0.1 |
2 |
0.3 |
4 |
0.5 |
4 |
0.5 |
11 |
1.4 |
742 |
97.1 |
Other |
10 |
1.6 |
6 |
1.0 |
3 |
0.5 |
6 |
1.0 |
11 |
1.8 |
580 |
94.2 |
Other includes electric scooter, running or jogging, roller-skating or skateboarding, adapted disability vehicles or blue badge vehicles, patient transport services and trains in the surrounding area. The graphs below show differences between those who eg cycle regularly and not so regularly.[8]
688 respondents (80.5%) walk in the area on a regular basis, compared to 574 (66.8%) regular car drivers and 400 (47.1%) cyclists.
Q2 To what extent do you agree with these proposals that aim to improve walking and moving around the area?
The following question asks about proposals that aim to provide improvements for walking and moving around the area. Results are given for all respondents and then by mode used.
|
Strongly agree |
Agree |
Neither agree or disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly disagree |
Don’t know |
||||||
|
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
Widen pavements |
321 |
36.0 |
130 |
14.6 |
96 |
10.8 |
94 |
10.5 |
247 |
27.7 |
4 |
0.4 |
Improve pedestrian crossing points |
342 |
38.6 |
250 |
28.2 |
114 |
12.9 |
61 |
6.9 |
114 |
12.9 |
6 |
0.7 |
Overall, 50.6% of respondents agree[9] with proposals to widen pavements in the area while 66.8% agree with the improvement of pedestrian crossing points.
Q2a Proposals to improve walking and moving around the area by main mode used
Widen Pavements:
Mode |
Frequency |
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neither agree or disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
Don't know |
||||||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
||
Walk |
Once a week or more |
256 |
37.4 |
98 |
14.3 |
77 |
11.3 |
66 |
9.6 |
183 |
26.8 |
4 |
0.6 |
Less often |
48 |
37.2 |
16 |
12.4 |
12 |
9.3 |
20 |
15.5 |
33 |
25.6 |
0 |
0 |
|
Never |
3 |
7.9 |
6 |
15.8 |
2 |
5.3 |
5 |
13.2 |
22 |
57.9 |
0 |
0 |
|
Cycle |
Once a week or more |
238 |
59.6 |
60 |
15.0 |
23 |
5.8 |
20 |
5.0 |
57 |
14.3 |
1 |
0.3 |
Less often |
56 |
27.7 |
27 |
13.4 |
20 |
9.9 |
22 |
10.9 |
77 |
38.1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Never |
23 |
9.4 |
29 |
11.9 |
43 |
17.6 |
47 |
19.3 |
100 |
41 |
2 |
0.8 |
|
Car (as driver) |
Once a week or more |
130 |
22.8 |
82 |
14.4 |
67 |
11.8 |
76 |
13.3 |
212 |
37.2 |
3 |
0.5 |
Less often |
85 |
57.4 |
21 |
14.2 |
13 |
8.8 |
10 |
6.8 |
19 |
12.8 |
0 |
0 |
|
Never |
89 |
65.4 |
20 |
14.7 |
11 |
8.1 |
7 |
5.1 |
9 |
6.6 |
0 |
0 |
|
Bus |
Once a week or more |
63 |
34.6 |
22 |
12.1 |
25 |
13.7 |
16 |
8.8 |
55 |
30.2 |
1 |
0.5 |
Less often |
146 |
37.5 |
66 |
17.0 |
37 |
9.5 |
39 |
10.0 |
100 |
25.7 |
1 |
0.3 |
|
Never |
112 |
35.0 |
42 |
13.1 |
34 |
10.6 |
39 |
12.2 |
91 |
28.4 |
2 |
0.6 |
Respondents who say they walk regularly in the area tend to agree with proposals to widen pavements (over 53%), rising to 74.6% of regular cyclists. 37.2% of regular drivers agree that pavements should be widened, with 11.8% unsure.
Improved pedestrian crossing points by main mode used
Mode |
Frequency |
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neither agree or disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
Don't know |
||||||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
||
Walk |
Once a week or more |
267 |
39.3 |
193 |
28.4 |
88 |
13 |
45 |
6.6 |
82 |
12.1 |
4 |
0.6 |
Less often |
56 |
43.4 |
33 |
25.6 |
15 |
11.6 |
9 |
7 |
16 |
12.4 |
0 |
0 |
|
Never |
5 |
13.2 |
12 |
31.6 |
5 |
13.2 |
3 |
7.9 |
12 |
31.6 |
1 |
2.6 |
|
Cycle |
Once a week or more |
230 |
57.9 |
86 |
21.7 |
33 |
8.3 |
14 |
3.5 |
31 |
7.8 |
3 |
0.8 |
Less often |
54 |
26.9 |
66 |
32.8 |
26 |
12.9 |
22 |
10.9 |
32 |
15.9 |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Never |
48 |
19.8 |
79 |
32.6 |
46 |
19 |
21 |
8.7 |
47 |
19.4 |
1 |
0.4 |
|
Car (as driver) |
Once a week or more |
146 |
25.8 |
175 |
31 |
92 |
16.3 |
50 |
8.8 |
98 |
17.3 |
4 |
0.7 |
Less often |
84 |
57.1 |
38 |
25.9 |
10 |
6.8 |
4 |
2.7 |
10 |
6.8 |
1 |
0.7 |
|
Never |
95 |
69.3 |
26 |
19 |
8 |
5.8 |
4 |
2.9 |
3 |
2.2 |
1 |
0.7 |
|
Bus |
Once a week or more |
71 |
39.2 |
46 |
25.4 |
28 |
15.5 |
8 |
4.4 |
27 |
14.9 |
1 |
0.6 |
Less often |
147 |
38.1 |
126 |
32.6 |
50 |
13.0 |
25 |
6.5 |
36 |
9.3 |
2 |
0.5 |
|
Never |
124 |
38.9 |
78 |
24.5 |
36 |
11.3 |
28 |
8.8 |
50 |
15.7 |
3 |
0.9 |
Respondents who regularly walk (67.7%) or cycle (79.6%) agree with the proposal to improve pedestrian crossing points. Regular drivers also agree with this proposal (55.8%).
Q3 To what extent do you agree with these proposals that aim to improve cycling in the area?
|
Strongly agree |
Agree |
Neither agree or disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly disagree |
Don’t know |
||||||
|
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
Improved cycle routes |
348 |
39.1 |
61 |
6.9 |
19 |
2.1 |
77 |
8.7 |
383 |
43.0 |
2 |
0.2 |
Improved cycle crossing points |
332 |
37.5 |
101 |
11.4 |
96 |
10.8 |
69 |
7.8 |
274 |
31.0 |
13 |
1.5 |
Increased cycle parking |
287 |
32.4 |
175 |
19.8 |
132 |
14.9 |
54 |
6.1 |
226 |
25.5 |
11 |
1.2 |
For cycling proposals:
· When considering improved cycle routes, 46% of respondents agree with proposals, compared to 2.1% neither agree or disagree, and 51.7% disagree
· For improved cycle crossing points, 48.9% agree with proposals, compared to 12.3% neither agree not disagree / don’t know, and 38.8% disagree
· For increased cycle parking, 52.2% of respondents agree with proposals, compared to 16.1% neither agree or disagree / don’t know, and 31.6% disagree
Reactions to these proposals for cycling improvements were also explored to determine levels of agreement for proposals by different transport modes used in the area (Q3a), by disability (Q3b) and by gender (Q3c).
Q3a proposals that aim to improve cycling in the area by main mode used
Improved cycle routes by main mode used:
Mode |
Frequency |
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neither agree or disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
Don't know |
||||||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
||
Walk |
Once a week or more |
273 |
40.1 |
46 |
6.8 |
13 |
1.9 |
57 |
8.4 |
290 |
42.6 |
2 |
0.3 |
Less often |
55 |
42.6 |
11 |
8.5 |
3 |
2.3 |
10 |
7.8 |
50 |
38.8 |
0 |
0 |
|
Never |
3 |
7.9 |
1 |
2.6 |
1 |
2.6 |
6 |
15.8 |
27 |
71.1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Cycle |
Once a week or more |
273 |
68.6 |
29 |
7.3 |
4 |
1 |
14 |
3.5 |
78 |
19.6 |
0 |
0 |
Less often |
60 |
29.9 |
15 |
7.5 |
2 |
1 |
17 |
8.5 |
107 |
53.2 |
0 |
0 |
|
Never |
11 |
4.5 |
12 |
4.9 |
9 |
3.7 |
40 |
16.4 |
170 |
69.7 |
2 |
0.8 |
|
Car (as driver) |
Once a week or more |
136 |
24.0 |
40 |
7.1 |
16 |
2.8 |
55 |
9.7 |
320 |
56.4 |
0 |
0 |
Less often |
100 |
67.6 |
10 |
6.8 |
1 |
0.7 |
13 |
8.8 |
24 |
16.2 |
0 |
0 |
|
Never |
96 |
70.1 |
9 |
6.6 |
1 |
0.7 |
6 |
4.4 |
23 |
16.8 |
2 |
1.5 |
|
Bus |
Once a week or more |
58 |
32.0 |
17 |
9.4 |
4 |
2.2 |
18 |
9.9 |
84 |
46.4 |
0 |
0 |
Less often |
166 |
42.7 |
28 |
7.2 |
8 |
2.1 |
33 |
8.5 |
153 |
39.3 |
1 |
0.3 |
|
Never |
124 |
38.9 |
16 |
5.0 |
7 |
2.2 |
26 |
8.2 |
145 |
45.5 |
1 |
0.3 |
319 (46.9%) respondents that walk regularly in the area agree with the proposals to improve cycle routes, along with to 302 (75.9%) respondents that cycle regularly in the area. . In terms of respondents that drive regularly in the area, this is 31.1% (176 respondents)
Improved cycle crossing points by main mode used
Mode |
Frequency |
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neither agree or disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
Don't know |
||||||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
||
Walk |
Once a week or more |
263 |
38.8 |
78 |
11.5 |
77 |
11.4 |
45 |
6.6 |
202 |
29.8 |
12 |
1.8 |
Less often |
50 |
38.8 |
16 |
12.4 |
14 |
10.9 |
12 |
9.3 |
37 |
28.7 |
0 |
0 |
|
Never |
3 |
8.1 |
2 |
5.4 |
1 |
2.7 |
7 |
18.9 |
24 |
64.9 |
0 |
0 |
|
Cycle |
Once a week or more |
258 |
65.2 |
53 |
13.4 |
19 |
4.8 |
11 |
2.8 |
53 |
13.4 |
2 |
0.5 |
Less often |
56 |
28 |
19 |
9.5 |
29 |
14.5 |
24 |
12 |
70 |
35 |
2 |
1 |
|
Never |
13 |
5.4 |
20 |
8.3 |
40 |
16.5 |
30 |
12.4 |
131 |
54.1 |
8 |
3.3 |
|
Car (as driver) |
Once a week or more |
126 |
22.4 |
71 |
12.6 |
72 |
12.8 |
54 |
9.6 |
230 |
40.9 |
10 |
1.8 |
Less often |
95 |
64.6 |
14 |
9.5 |
12 |
8.2 |
9 |
6.1 |
17 |
11.6 |
0 |
0 |
|
Never |
95 |
69.3 |
12 |
8.8 |
8 |
5.8 |
4 |
2.9 |
15 |
10.9 |
3 |
2.2 |
|
Bus |
Once a week or more |
57 |
31.7 |
24 |
13.3 |
18 |
10.0 |
12 |
6.7 |
68 |
37.8 |
1 |
0.6 |
Less often |
154 |
40.0 |
54 |
14.0 |
46 |
11.9 |
31 |
8.1 |
93 |
24.2 |
7 |
1.8 |
|
Never |
121 |
37.9 |
23 |
7.2 |
32 |
10.0 |
26 |
8.2 |
112 |
35.1 |
5 |
1.6 |
When respondents are split by frequency of mode usage results are as follows
· 311 (78.6%) regular cyclists agree with proposals to improve cycle crossing points
· For those regularly walking in the area 50.3% (341 respondents) agree with proposals to improve cycle crossings, compared to 13.2% neither agree or disagree / don’t know, and 36.4% disagree
· For regular car drivers35% (197 respondents) agree with proposals to improve cycle crossings, with 14.6% neither agree or disagree / don’t know, and 50.5% disagree
Increase cycle parking by main mode used:
Mode |
Frequency |
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neither agree or disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
Don't know |
||||||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
||
Walk |
Once a week or more |
232 |
34.3 |
131 |
19.4 |
109 |
16.1 |
35 |
5.2 |
161 |
23.8 |
8 |
1.2 |
Less often |
42 |
32.6 |
29 |
22.5 |
17 |
13.2 |
8 |
6.2 |
32 |
24.8 |
1 |
0.8 |
|
Never |
1 |
2.6 |
4 |
10.5 |
3 |
7.9 |
6 |
15.8 |
23 |
60.5 |
1 |
2.6 |
|
Cycle |
Once a week or more |
224 |
56.7 |
82 |
20.8 |
37 |
9.4 |
8 |
2.0 |
38 |
9.6 |
6 |
1.5 |
Less often |
47 |
23.5 |
46 |
23.0 |
32 |
16.0 |
19 |
9.5 |
55 |
27.5 |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Never |
12 |
4.9 |
34 |
13.9 |
55 |
22.5 |
23 |
9.4 |
117 |
48.0 |
3 |
1.2 |
|
Car (as driver) |
Once a week or more |
115 |
20.4 |
101 |
17.9 |
107 |
19.0 |
41 |
7.3 |
193 |
34.2 |
7 |
1.2 |
Less often |
83 |
56.5 |
30 |
20.4 |
14 |
9.5 |
6 |
4.1 |
13 |
8.8 |
1 |
0.7 |
|
Never |
74 |
54.0 |
36 |
26.3 |
7 |
5.1 |
5 |
3.6 |
12 |
8.8 |
3 |
2.2 |
|
Bus |
Once a week or more |
50 |
27.8 |
45 |
25.0 |
27 |
15.0 |
7 |
3.9 |
50 |
27.8 |
1 |
0.6 |
Less often |
142 |
36.9 |
75 |
19.5 |
62 |
16.1 |
25 |
6.5 |
76 |
19.7 |
5 |
1.3 |
|
Never |
95 |
29.8 |
55 |
17.2 |
43 |
13.5 |
22 |
6.9 |
99 |
31.0 |
5 |
1.6 |
When looking at respondents by frequency of mode use, views on the proposals to increase cycle parking are as follows:
· 306 (77.5%) regular cyclists agree, compared to10.9% neither agree or disagree / don't know and 11.6% disagree
· For regular walkers 363 respondents (53.7%) agree with this proposal, compared to 17.3% neither agree or disagree / don't know and 29% disagree
· 216 (38.3%) of regular car drivers agree with the proposal to increase cycle parking, with 20.2% neither agree or disagree / don't know and 41.3% disagree
Q4 To what extent do you agree with these proposals that aim to improve access to and within the area?
|
Strongly agree |
Agree |
Neither agree or disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly disagree |
Don’t know |
||||||
|
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
More provision of disabled parking bays |
217 |
24.4 |
261 |
29.4 |
228 |
25.6 |
56 |
6.3 |
100 |
11.2 |
27 |
3.0 |
More/ improved loading bays |
105 |
11.9 |
223 |
25.2 |
352 |
39.8 |
82 |
9.3 |
92 |
10.4 |
31 |
3.5 |
More public space outside businesses (eg for seating) |
243 |
27.4 |
256 |
28.8 |
163 |
18.4 |
97 |
10.9 |
115 |
13.0 |
14 |
1.6 |
Overall, there is a high level of agreement that there should be more public space outside businesses (56.2%) and more provision of disabled parking bays (53.8%) than for more or improved loading bays (37.1%). However in regard to the loading bay 39.8% said they nether agree nor disagree.
Q4a Proposals that aim to improve access to and within the area by main mode used
More provision of disabled bays by main mode used
Mode |
Frequency |
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neither agree or disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
Don't know |
||||||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
||
Walk |
Once a week or more |
159 |
23.3 |
194 |
28.4 |
189 |
27.7 |
45 |
6.6 |
75 |
11 |
20 |
2.9 |
Less often |
30 |
23.6 |
43 |
33.9 |
27 |
21.3 |
9 |
7.1 |
12 |
9.4 |
6 |
4.7 |
|
Never |
16 |
42.1 |
7 |
18.4 |
5 |
13.2 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
26.3 |
0 |
0 |
|
Cycle |
Once a week or more |
118 |
29.6 |
115 |
28.8 |
113 |
28.3 |
17 |
4.3 |
24 |
6 |
12 |
3 |
Less often |
32 |
16 |
57 |
28.5 |
58 |
29 |
14 |
7 |
30 |
15 |
9 |
4.5 |
|
Never |
49 |
20.2 |
72 |
29.6 |
53 |
21.8 |
23 |
9.5 |
42 |
17.3 |
4 |
1.6 |
|
Car (as driver) |
Once a week or more |
95 |
16.7 |
161 |
28.3 |
160 |
28.2 |
50 |
8.8 |
87 |
15.3 |
15 |
2.6 |
Less often |
54 |
37 |
48 |
32.9 |
29 |
19.9 |
5 |
3.4 |
6 |
4.1 |
4 |
2.7 |
|
Never |
56 |
40.9 |
37 |
27 |
33 |
24.1 |
1 |
0.7 |
2 |
1.5 |
8 |
5.8 |
|
Bus |
Once a week or more |
41 |
22.8 |
54 |
30 |
46 |
25.6 |
9 |
5 |
20 |
11.1 |
10 |
5.6 |
Less often |
99 |
25.6 |
118 |
30.5 |
99 |
25.6 |
24 |
6.2 |
36 |
9.3 |
11 |
2.8 |
|
Never |
77 |
24 |
89 |
27.7 |
83 |
25.9 |
23 |
7.2 |
43 |
13.4 |
6 |
1.9 |
256 regular car drivers (45%) agree with the proposal to provide more disabled bays and to 233 regular cyclists (58.4%) and 353 (57.5%) regular pedestrians. Across all regular mode users there are high levels of neither agree or disagree / don't know responses (30.6% of regular walkers, 31.3% of regular cyclists and 30.8% of regular drivers).
More/ improved loading bays by main mode used
Mode |
Frequency |
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neither agree or disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
Don't know |
||||||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
||
Walk |
Once a week or more |
76 |
11.2 |
168 |
24.8 |
274 |
40.0 |
64 |
9.4 |
72 |
10.6 |
24 |
3.5 |
Less often |
15 |
11.7 |
35 |
27.3 |
52 |
40.6 |
10 |
7.8 |
10 |
7.8 |
6 |
4.7 |
|
Never |
2 |
5.3 |
8 |
21.1 |
15 |
39.5 |
5 |
13.2 |
8 |
21.1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Cycle |
Once a week or more |
63 |
15.8 |
105 |
26.4 |
158 |
39.7 |
31 |
7.8 |
29 |
7.3 |
12 |
3.0 |
Less often |
17 |
8.6 |
44 |
22.2 |
86 |
43.4 |
19 |
9.6 |
24 |
12.1 |
8 |
4.0 |
|
Never |
17 |
7 |
56 |
23 |
96 |
39.5 |
30 |
12.3 |
36 |
14.8 |
8 |
3.3 |
|
Car (as driver) |
Once a week or more |
42 |
7.4 |
136 |
24.1 |
225 |
39.8 |
68 |
12.0 |
78 |
13.8 |
16 |
2.8 |
Less often |
29 |
19.7 |
39 |
26.5 |
59 |
40.1 |
7 |
4.8 |
8 |
5.4 |
5 |
3.4 |
|
Never |
29 |
21.3 |
35 |
25.7 |
52 |
38.2 |
6 |
4.4 |
4 |
2.9 |
10 |
7.4 |
|
Bus |
Once a week or more |
23 |
12.8 |
39 |
21.8 |
79 |
44.1 |
9 |
5.0 |
21 |
11.7 |
8 |
4.5 |
Less often |
46 |
11.9 |
112 |
29.0 |
149 |
38.6 |
35 |
9.1 |
33 |
8.5 |
11 |
2.8 |
|
Never |
36 |
11.3 |
72 |
22.6 |
124 |
38.9 |
38 |
11.9 |
37 |
11.6 |
12 |
3.8 |
As with the previous proposal for more provision of disabled bays, there are high levels of neither agree nor disagree / don't know responses for increasing or improving loading bays, and this is true across all frequent mode users (43.5% of regular pedestrians, 42.7% of regular cyclists and 42.6% of regular car drivers).
Aside from these figures levels of agreement are higher than levels of disagreement for this proposal; 36% of regular pedestrians, 42.2% of regular cyclists and 31.5% regular car drivers agree
More public space outside businesses (eg for seating) by main mode used
Mode |
Frequency |
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neither agree or disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
Don't know |
||||||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
||
Walk |
Once a week or more |
193 |
28.4 |
199 |
29.3 |
118 |
17.4 |
70 |
10.3 |
90 |
13.2 |
10 |
1.5 |
Less often |
35 |
27.1 |
40 |
31 |
24 |
18.6 |
13 |
10.1 |
14 |
10.9 |
3 |
2.3 |
|
Never |
2 |
5.3 |
9 |
23.7 |
11 |
28.9 |
7 |
18.4 |
9 |
23.7 |
0 |
0 |
|
Cycle |
Once a week or more |
167 |
42 |
125 |
31.4 |
47 |
11.8 |
22 |
5.5 |
30 |
7.5 |
7 |
1.8 |
Less often |
42 |
20.9 |
55 |
27.4 |
42 |
20.9 |
24 |
11.9 |
35 |
17.4 |
3 |
1.5 |
|
Never |
29 |
11.9 |
62 |
25.5 |
60 |
24.7 |
44 |
18.1 |
45 |
18.5 |
3 |
1.2 |
|
Car (as driver) |
Once a week or more |
110 |
19.5 |
157 |
27.8 |
118 |
20.9 |
72 |
12.7 |
102 |
18.1 |
6 |
1.1 |
Less often |
58 |
39.2 |
47 |
31.8 |
23 |
15.5 |
10 |
6.8 |
7 |
4.7 |
3 |
2 |
|
Never |
62 |
45.3 |
42 |
30.7 |
15 |
10.9 |
10 |
7.3 |
3 |
2.2 |
5 |
3.6 |
|
Bus |
Once a week or more |
46 |
25.4 |
60 |
33.1 |
28 |
15.5 |
17 |
9.4 |
24 |
13.3 |
6 |
3.3 |
Less often |
115 |
29.7 |
116 |
30.0 |
68 |
17.6 |
41 |
10.6 |
44 |
11.4 |
3 |
0.8 |
|
Never |
82 |
25.7 |
80 |
25.1 |
67 |
21.0 |
39 |
12.2 |
46 |
14.4 |
5 |
1.6 |
When looking at respondents by frequency of mode use, views on the proposal to provide more public space are as follows, in all instances the highest proportion of responses agree with this proposal.
· 292 (73.4%) regular cyclists agree, compared to 13.6% neither agree or disagree / don't know and 13.0% disagree
· For regular walkers 392 respondents (57.7%) agree with this proposal, compared to 18.9% neither agree or disagree / don't know and 23.5% disagree
· 267 (47.3%) regular car drivers agree with the proposal to increase public space, with 22% neither agree or disagree / don't know and 30.8% disagree
Q4b Proposals that aim to improve access to and within the area by disability
Disability |
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Neither agree or disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
Don't know |
|||||||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
||
Disabled Parking Bays |
Yes, a little |
25 |
28.4 |
23 |
26.1 |
15 |
17 |
5 |
5.7 |
18 |
20.5 |
2 |
2.3 |
Yes, a lot |
30 |
56.6 |
8 |
15.1 |
6 |
11.3 |
2 |
3.8 |
5 |
9.4 |
2 |
3.8 |
|
All Disability |
55 |
39.0 |
31 |
22.0 |
21 |
14.9 |
7 |
5.0 |
23 |
16.3 |
4 |
2.8 |
|
No |
153 |
22.5 |
208 |
30.6 |
189 |
27.8 |
43 |
6.3 |
64 |
9.4 |
22 |
3.2 |
|
More / Improved Loading Bays |
Yes, a little |
11 |
12.6 |
18 |
20.7 |
31 |
35.6 |
8 |
9.2 |
16 |
18.4 |
3 |
3.4 |
Yes, a lot |
6 |
11.3 |
9 |
17 |
24 |
45.3 |
4 |
7.5 |
6 |
11.3 |
4 |
7.5 |
|
All Disability |
17 |
12.1 |
27 |
19.3 |
55 |
39.3 |
12 |
8.6 |
22 |
15.7 |
7 |
5.0 |
|
No |
85 |
12.6 |
182 |
26.9 |
268 |
39.6 |
61 |
9 |
58 |
8.6 |
22 |
3.3 |
|
More Public Space Outside Businesses |
Yes, a little |
20 |
23 |
18 |
20.7 |
19 |
21.8 |
14 |
16.1 |
15 |
17.2 |
1 |
1.1 |
Yes, a lot |
8 |
15.1 |
19 |
35.8 |
16 |
30.2 |
6 |
11.3 |
3 |
5.7 |
1 |
1.9 |
|
All Disability |
28 |
20.0 |
37 |
26.4 |
35 |
25.0 |
20 |
14.3 |
18 |
12.9 |
2 |
1.4 |
|
No |
210 |
31 |
207 |
30.5 |
112 |
16.5 |
64 |
9.4 |
75 |
11.1 |
10 |
1.5 |
86 (61%) respondents with a disability agree with the proposal aim to increase provision of disabled parking bays, 30 (21.3%) disagree. 44 (31.4%) respondents with a disability agree with the proposal of more provision/improved loading bays, and 34 (24.3%) disagree and 62 (44.3%) neither agree nor disagree/ are not sure.
65 (46.4%) respondents with a disability agree with the proposal to create more public space outside businesses, 38 (27.2%) Disagree and 35 (25%) nether agree nor disagree.
Those respondents with disabilities are supportive of increased disabled parking bays than those without (over 70% for those with more severe disabilities). Over 50% of respondents without a disability are in favour of this proposal. Respondents without a disability are also supportive of increased public space and improved provision of loading bays.
Q5 Do you think these proposals will improve safety for:
|
Yes |
No |
Not sure |
|||
|
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
Pedestrians |
419 |
47.1 |
377 |
42.4 |
94 |
10.6 |
Cyclists |
404 |
45.6 |
370 |
41.8 |
112 |
12.6 |
People with disabilities |
370 |
41.9 |
293 |
33.1 |
221 |
25.0 |
The highest single numbers of responses to this question are that proposals will improve safety for pedestrians (47.1%), cyclists (45.6%) and people with disabilities (41.9%), with high numbers of ‘not sure’ responses for all options.
Q5a Do you think these proposals will make it safer - by main transport modes used
Safety for pedestrians by main mode used
Mode |
Frequency |
Yes |
No |
Not Sure |
|||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
||
Walk |
Once a week or more |
326 |
47.8 |
294 |
43.1 |
62 |
9.1 |
Less often |
63 |
49.2 |
43 |
33.6 |
22 |
17.2 |
|
Never |
6 |
15.8 |
27 |
71.1 |
5 |
13.2 |
|
Cycle |
Once a week or more |
290 |
72.9 |
85 |
21.4 |
23 |
5.8 |
Less often |
77 |
38.3 |
102 |
50.7 |
22 |
10.9 |
|
Never |
38 |
15.5 |
164 |
66.9 |
43 |
17.6 |
|
Car (as driver) |
Once a week or more |
180 |
31.7 |
309 |
54.4 |
79 |
13.9 |
Less often |
111 |
75.0 |
32 |
21.6 |
5 |
3.4 |
|
Never |
109 |
79.6 |
22 |
16.1 |
6 |
4.4 |
|
Bus |
Once a week or more |
77 |
43.0% |
84 |
46.9% |
18 |
10.1% |
Less often |
190 |
48.8% |
153 |
39.3% |
46 |
11.8% |
|
Never |
152 |
47.4% |
139 |
43.3% |
30 |
9.3% |
72.9% of regular cyclists and 47.8% of regular pedestrians (the highest single number of responses for these groups) state that they feel that the proposals will improve safety for pedestrians.
Safety for cyclists by main mode used:
Type of group |
Disability |
Yes |
No |
Not Sure |
|||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
||
Walk |
Once a week or more |
318 |
47.0 |
276 |
40.8 |
83 |
12.3 |
Less often |
61 |
47.3 |
49 |
38.0 |
19 |
14.7 |
|
Never |
5 |
13.2 |
27 |
71.1 |
6 |
15.8 |
|
Cycle |
Once a week or more |
283 |
71. |
94 |