Notes on the Front

The recent study by the Dublin Transport Office surveying the effects of LUAS on traffic flows should make for sober, if unsurprising reading. It shows that in areas serving the LUAS line there was only a 2% decline in car usage. The greater number of LUAS users were previously Dublin Bus customers. Of course, when comparing it with areas not served by LUAS which experienced a 4% increase in car usage, it is an improvement. But at that rate, you would need to build a lot of LUAS lines to make a substantial dent in traffic congestion, it at all. That’s a lot of money.

In terms of strategies to get people out of their cars and thus reduce congestion and carbon emissions there are a number of alternatives: fixed rail, bus, cycling. But the one alternative that never gets mentioned – even though it is the cheapest, healthiest form with an infrastructure already in place – is walking.

The CSO has released preliminary ‘travel to work’ statistics from the 2006 Census. Not surprisingly, it shows that 74% of us use motorised transport (65% car and the remainder lorries or vans). Next come bus and train. Cycling is a mere 2%. However, traveling by foot comes in at a little over 12% or one-in-eight. While we will have to wait until November when full breakdowns of the travel-to-work results will be published, it is still valid to look at some of the 2002 breakdowns (walking only declined fractionally in the four years at a national level). And this show that in urban areas, nearly 16% of us walked to work. This is more than use public transport and yet there is not one discussion document or departmental strategy devoted to pedestrian traffic (Frank McDonald has made the point that in the Government’s Transport 21, there is not a single reference to either walking or cycling).

Of course, there are limitations to walking – namely distance. No one walks to work beyond 10 kilometres. But for smaller distances, walking plays a significant role. For distances of 1 kilometre or less, 56% of people walk to work. In the 2-4 kilometre range, 20% walk. Even in the 5-9 kilometre range there are a few hardy souls – 2% – who hoof it to work.

Let’s take this critical 4 kilometre or less range. Using the 2002 figures (a problem since they are in miles) we can estimate that in urban areas well over a quarter people live within 4 kilometres of work. Walking and driving are the predominant modes of transport – public transport only features in substantial numbers beyond this distance. 32% walk. 48% drive. In this range reducing congestion need not primarily rely on high-tech fixed rail lines or bus routes. It can be done by the simple measure of getting people to walk (cycling has its own problem since a new infrastructure of safe and secure cycle lanes are needed – something Dublin does not have).

Another aspect of this is travel-to-school figures. Everyone knows that when school is out, urban congestion eases. 57% of national school students live within 4 kilometres of school. The vast majority are driven. Even in the 1 kilometre or less range, 40% are driven. 40% of secondary students live within 4 kilometres of school with 37% of them being driven. While you can’t necessarily add this to the travel to work volume (many parents drop their children off on their way to work), it does add considerably to car traffic in this critical range. In many countries walking is the ‘new jogging’.

In many countries walking is seen as the ‘new jogging’.  Local authorities are seeing the value of walking not only in terms of reducing congestion, air and noise pollution and carbon emissions. It also has a valuable role to play in health – especially in these more sedentary life-style times.

Imaginative efforts are being used to get people out to walk. In Buckinghamshire, England the local authority experienced a 60% increase in its employees walking to work after a campaign involving the free distribution of pedometers. In Western Australia, pedestrians are invited to fill out e-forms to send to the local authority to inform them of pavement and walking improvements (if this were done in some Irish local authorities the server would probably collapse). Copenhagen even has a full-time pedestrian unit to promote pedestrian strategies. For children, schemes to promote ‘safe routes’ to make crossing of major streets less hazardous while ‘school trains’ are being employed (our DTO ran pilot schemes a few years back).

Not all these pedestrian strategies are work or school related. They include recreational and tourist pedestrian measures. But the idea is that the more people walk – weekend strolls, etc. – the more they might consider walking as weekday activity.

Most importantly, what all these have in common is that local strategies are being promoted by strong local authorities which have considerable influence over transport in their areas (e.g. the Greater London Council and public transport). They have the budgets and the administrative tools to actively re-organise travel habits. This is all the more important when one considers how localised these strategies are. For instance, I live in the Dublin North Inner City. The CSO’s Small Area Statistics can define the extent in my local area of the distance and mode of transport to work. On that basis, a local authority – whether the Dublin City Council or a Dublin Transport Authority – could hone strategies tailored to my areas and hundreds of others in a more targeted way.

But this assumes local authority control over transport – public, road building, etc. – which they do not have in our emaciated local government system. It also requires a ‘bottom-up’ attitude. Different problems need different solutions and they all must work in a co-ordinated way. Walking is not the answer to everything but neither is more fixed rail and certainly not more cars. And with walking, one could combine that with greater access to public transport for greater travel distances.

Here’s a small taster: if only we could convince only one-in-ten who currently drive 4 kilometres or less to work, to walk then we could achieve the same reduction in overall car usage as the LUAS did. While we desperately need more public transport infrastructure – both buses and trains – it will always be the case that distributing free pedometers is a lot cheaper.

Now that’s ‘value for money’.