kensington gardens studio walk - home - the royal parks · gloucester road 10 minutes walk from...
TRANSCRIPT
Kensington Gardens Studio WalkMonitoring Summary Report for The Royal Parks
27 January 2012
2
Kensington Gardens Studio Walk
Atkins Job Number: 5097289 Document Reference: Kensington Gardens Studio Walk Monitoring Summary Report
Printing A3 Double Sided
Revision Purpose Description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date
1 Draft report for client review GS AC RH 14.12.2011
2 Final report GS AH 27.01.2012
This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for The Royal Parks’s information and use in relation to Kensington Gardens Studio Walk.
Atkins assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents.
327 January 2012
Kensington Gardens Studio WalkMonitoring Summary Report for The Royal Parks
27 January 2012
Table of Contents
Technical Report 5
Introduction 6
About Kensington Gardens 6
Summary of Findings 10
Evaluating Critical Success Factors 14
Conclusions 19
Appendix Observation Studies 21
Appendix Level of Service Assessment 27
4
Kensington Gardens Studio Walk
530 January 2012
Kensington Gardens Studio Walk
1Technical Report
6
Technical Report
P
P
P
P
P
P
70.94.148.390
70
27.28.5270.328.452
9.10.52 452
9.10.52 70.452
9.10.52.49 70.452
9.10.2728.49.328
27.28.5270.328.452
94.148274.390
70.360
46.94.148274.390
BUCKHILLLODGE
P
TELEPHONEBOXOO
DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES MEMORIAL FOUNTAIN
LUTYENSDRINKING FOUNTAITT N
HYDE PARK
BAYSWATER ROAD
KENSINGTONGARDENS
NORTH CARRIAGE DRIVE
NORTH RIDE
HY
DE
PA
RK
ST
RE
ET
CL
AR
EN
DO
N P
LA
CE
BR
OO
K S
T
SERPENTINEBRIDGE
CLARENDONGATAA E
ALBIONGATAA E
ALBERT APPROACH ROAD
KENSINGTON ROAD
SERPENTINE ROAD
BAYSWATER
EX
HIB
ITIO
N R
OA
D
RU
TL
AN
D G
AT
E
RU
TL
AN
D G
AR
DE
NS
HYDE PARK GARDENSSTANHOPE TERRA
LANCASTER GATE
LA
NC
AS
TE
R
GA
TE
LANCASTER GATE
BAYSWATER ROAD
CRA
VEN TERRA
CE
CRAVEN HILL
LE
INS
TE
R T
ER
RA
CE
PO
RC
HE
ST
ER
TE
RR
AC
E
QU
EE
NS
BO
RO
UG
H T
ER
RA
CE
INV
ER
NE
SS
TE
RR
AC
E
QU
EE
NS
WA
Y
OR
ME
CO
UR
TB
AR
K P
LA
CE
ST
PE
TE
RS
BU
RG
H M
EW
S
ST
PE
TE
RS
BU
RG
H P
LA
CE
PA
LA
CE
CO
UR
T
OS
SIN
GT
ON
ST
RE
ET
CL
AN
RIC
AR
DE
GD
NS
PEMBRIDGE
SQUARE
MOSCOW ROAD
KE
NSIN
GT
ON
PAL
AC
E G
AR
DE
NS
PALA
CE
GA
RD
EN
S TE
RR
AC
E
BR
UN
SWIC
K G
AR
DE
NS
KEN
SING
TO
N C
HU
RC
H ST
REET
NOT TING HILL GATE
HOLLAND STREET
PIT T STREET
ROUND POND
KENSINGTON HIGH STREET
KENSINGTON ROAD
DE
RR
Y S
TR
EE
T
YO
UN
G S
TR
EE
T
KE
NS
ING
TO
N C
OU
RT
VIC
TO
RIA
RO
AD
DE
VE
RE
GA
RD
EN
S
PA
LA
CE
GA
TE
HY
DE
PA
RK
GA
TE
HY
DE
PA
RK
GA
TE
QU
EE
NS
GA
TE
KENSINGTON
KNIGHTSBRIDGE
WR
IGH
T’S
LA
NE
BAYSWATER3 minutes walk fromKensington Gardens
PHYSICAL ENERGYSTATT TAA UE
QUEEN CAROLINE’STEMPLE
ORME SQUAREGATAA E
TH
E B
RO
AD
WA
LK
TH
E D
IAL
WA
LK
PA
LA
CE
AV
E
LA
NC
AS
TE
R W
AL
K
LA
NC
AS
TE
R W
AL
K
BUDGES WALK
NORTH FLOWER WALK
SPEKEMONUMENT
BANDSTATT ND
THE ALBERT MEMORIAL
THEFOUNTAIITT NNS
JENNERSJJ
TATT TAA UE
SUNKENGARDEN
STATT TAA EROOMS
KING WILLIAM IIISTATT TAA UE
ELFIN OAK
DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES MEMORIAL PLAYGROUND
CHRIST CHURCH
BLACK LIONGATAA E
PORCHESTER GATAA E
LANCASTER GATAA E
MARLBOROUGHRLGATAA E
WESTBOURNE GATAA EVICTORIAGATAA E
QUEENANNE’SALCOVE
VICTORIAGATAA E LODGE
QUEEN’SGATAA E
COALBROOKDALEGATAA E
ALEXANDRAGATAA E
ROYALGEOGRAPHICALSOCIETY
QUEENSWAY1 minute walk fromKensington Gardens
INVERNESS TERRACEGATAA E
NORTH WALK
NOTTING HILL GATE6 minutes walk fromKensington Gardens
MARBLE ARCH15 minutes walk fromKensington Gardens
HYDE PARK CORNER20 minutes walk fromKensington Gardens
HIGH STREET KENSINGTON6 minutes walk fromKensington Gardens
SOUTH KENSINGTON11 minutes walk from Kensington Gardens
SOUTH FLOWER WALK
PALACEGATAA E
ST. MARY ABBOT’S CHURCH
QUEENVICTORIA
STATT TAA UE
MOUNTGATAA E
LANCASTER GATE1 minute walk from Kensington Gardens
N.C.P. COACHPARKING
JUB
ILE
E W
AL
K
THE ORANGERY
TIME FLIESME F
NORTRR H SILVERTHIMBLE SHELTLL ER
SOUTH SILVERTHIMBLE SHELTLL ER
N.C.P. CARPARKING
GLOUCESTER ROAD10 minutes walk fromKensington Gardens
ST. GOVORS WELLTTDRINKING FOUNTAITT N
KENSINGTON GORE
PRINCE OF WALESLODGE WEST PRINCE OF WALES
LODGE EAST
BUCKHILLSHELTLL ER
MOUNT WALK
TWO BEARSFOUNTAITT N
PADDINGTON10 minutes walk fromKensington Gardens
BRIGGSSTABLES NYE
STABLES
NEW RIDE
MANÈGE
BLACK LION
LODGEORME SQUAREGATAA E LODGES
WHOLE FOODSMARKET
KING’SARMSGATAA E
VICTORIAROADGATAA E
HYDEHYDEPARKPARAGAGATAA E
QUEEN’SGATAA ELODGE
PETER PANSTATT TAA UE
PORTOBELLO MARKETSaturday & Sunday 7 minutes walk from Hyde Park
N.C.P. CARPARKING
MAINENTRANCE
STUDIOGATAA E
P
THE LIDO RESTAURANT
WES
T C
AR
RIA
GE
DR
IVE
AR
CA
R
LIDO SWIMMING
P
LIBERTY DRIVES
THE MAGAZINE
MAGAZINEGATAA E
THE HUDSONMEMORIAL(BIRD SANCTUARY)
TEMPLEGATAA E
BUCKHILL
PEACO
CK W
ALK
BU
CK
HIL
L W
AL
K
PUTTINGBOWLINGGREEN
JUNIORTENNIS
THEPAVILION
ALEXANDRA LODGE
9.10.52.452
9.10.52.452
PRINCE OF WALES GATAA E
9.10.52.452
EN
NIS
MO
RE
GA
RD
EN
S
9.10.52.452
9.10.52.452
ROT TEN ROW
THE ROYAL ALBERT HALL
9.10.52.452
T CEMETERY
WEST CARRIAGE DRIVE
RIVE
RIVE
ITALIANGARDENS
SCIENCE MUSEUM7 mins walk from Kensington Gardens
NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM10 mins walk from Kensington Gardens
VICTORIA & ALBERT (V&A) MUSEUM9 mins walk from Kensington Gardens
RUTLANDGATAA E
THE COCKPIT
94.148.274.390
94.148274.390
94.148.390
94.148.390
70
94.148.39070.94.148.390
70.94.148.390
70.94.148.390
70.94.148.390
KEN
SING
TO
N C
HU
RC
H ST
REET
9.10.2728.49.328
27.28.5270.328.452
49
9.10.52 70.452
709.10.52 452
70
CENTRALROYAL PARKS
NURSERY
TENNIS CENTRE
THE OLD FOOTBALL PITCHES(SITE OF THE GREAT EXAA HIBITION)
P
P
P
PP
P
49
THE SERPENTINE
TH
E LO
NG
WAT
ER
www.royalparks.org.uk
LOCAL LANDMARKSKENSINGTON PALACE was first adapted as a stylish royal residence in 1698 for William III and Mary II. Visit now to marvel at the magnificent State Apartments, the Royal Ceremonial Dress Collection, and dressesowned by Diana, Princess of Wales.Open daily: March to October 10am – 6pmNovember to February 10am – 5pmT: +44 (0)844 482 7777www.hrp.org.uk
THE ORANGERY designed for Queen Annein 1704, was once the setting for lavish court entertainment. Now it is a tranquil restaurant where you can enjoy leisurely lunches and afternoon teas.Open daily: March to October 10am – 6pmNovember to February 10am – 5pmT: +44 (0)844 482 7777www.hrp.org.uk
ROYAL COLLEGE OF ARYY TRR has a livelyprogramme of exhibitions featuring the work of its postgraduate students and lectures by leading figures from the worlds of art and design.Open daily:10am – 6pm Most exhibitions are free unless stated otherwise.T: +44 (0)20 7590 4444www.rca.ac.uk
THE ROYAL GARDEN HOTEL offers 396 beautifully appointed rooms, offeringstunning views of both Kensington Gardens and Kensington’s iconic high street. Why not visitone of our two restaurants and three bars for anything from a relaxing drink, quick snack, light lunch, afternoon tea or a superb dinner.T: +44 (0)20 7937 8000www.royalgardenhotel.co.uk
THE ROYAL LANCASTER HOTELWith Kensington Gardens & Hyde Park directly to the south and dramatic vistas eastto the City of London, guests all agree thepanoramic views are breathtaking. Travel iseasy with the Heathrow Express just minutesfrom the hotel, while Marble Arch and OxfordStreet, with their plethora of shops, are just aten-minute stroll away. This deluxe 4-star hotel is perfectly positioned in the very heart of thisvibrant metropolis.T: +44 (0)207 262 6737www.royallancaster.com
SERPENTINE GALLERY is one of London’s best-loved galleries for modern andcontemporary art. Its Exhibition, Architecture, Education and Public Programmes attractapproximately 750,000 visitors a year.Open daily: 10am – 6pm. Admission freeT: +44 (0)20 7402 6075www.serpentinegallery.org
MILES 1 2 3
KILOMETRES 2 3 4 5
THE ROYAL PARKSOF LONDON
RICHMONDPARK
BUSHYPARK
HYDEPARKKENSINGTON
GARDENS GREENPARK ST JAMES’S
PARK
GREENWICHPARK
REGENT’SPARK &
PRIMROSE HILL
1 QUEENSWAY 2 PADDINGTON 3 MARYLEBONE 4 LANCASTER GATE 5 MARBLE ARCH 6 BAKER STREET 7 REGENT’S PARK 8 ST JOHN’S WOOD 9 CHALK FARM10 MORNINGTON CRESCENT11 EUSTON12 ST PANCRAS13 KING’S CROSS14 HIGH STREET KENSINGTON
15 HYDE PARK CORNER16 GREEN PARK17 CHARING CROSS18 WESTMINSTER19 ST JAMES’S PARK20 VICTORIA21 HAMPTON22 TEDDINGTON23 HAMPTON WICK24 KINGSTON UPON THAMES25 HAMPTON COURT26 RICHMOND27 NORTH SHEEN28 MORTLAKE
29 BARNES30 EAST PUTNEY31 NORBITON32 CUTTY SARK33 GREENWICH34 BLACKHEATH35 MAZE HILL
RAILWAY STATION TUBE STATION DOCKLANDS LIGHT
RAILWAY
RAIL & TUBE STATIONS CLOSE TO THE ROYAL PARKS
DLR
DLR
BROMPTONCEMETERY
1
23
4 56
7
8
910
1112
13
14 15
1617
18
1920
21
22
2324
25
26 27 28 29
30
31
3233
34
35
Statue
Memorial
Fountain
Drinking Fountain
g
Telephone
Park features
Public access sites (openingperiods vary)
( p gp
Non public access sites
Pedestrian Crossing
UndergroundStation
g
Bus Stop
WALKING DISTANCE (APPROXIMATE MINUTES) 1 2
Diana Princessof WalesMemorial Walk
Cycling permitted
Café
Restaurant
Children’s Play Area
Public Toilets
Disabled toilets
CycleParking
yy
P CarParking
PDisabledCarParking
Jubilee Greenway
PARK MANAGEMENT
Tom Jarvis
The Old Police HouseHyde Park, London W2 2UH
T: +44 (0)20 7298 2000 F: +44 (0)20 7724 2826
METROPOLITAN POLICE
The Old Police HouseHyde Park, London W2 2UH
T: 999 for emergencies. T: +44 (0)20 7706 7272 for non-emergencies within the park. You can also report a crime online at www.online.met.police.co.uk
The park is open from 6am to dusk all year round. See notice boards or visit the web for further details.
Turnstile
EEEECECECECEACEACEACEACE
RACERACRARACRAC
RRACRRACRRARRARR
d, R
oge
r Stew
art & P
aul M
cEw
an | w
ww
.po
sterm
aps.co
.uk
Carto
graph
y by N
ick Gib
bard
Register for Royal Parks updates www.royalparks.org.uk/registerkensington
Introduction
About Kensington Gardens
Kensington Gardens covers 111 hectares in central London,
offering popular visitor attractions such as Kensington
Palace, the Albert Memorial, the Diana Memorial Playground
and the Serpentine Gallery. The park is a popular amenity
for local residents, an important public green space and a
key attraction for tourists in London.
The Park is defi ned to the east by the Longwater and West
Carriage Drive, which separate it from Hyde Park.
There are currently three permanent routes for cyclists in
Kensington Gardens (see Figure 1 on this page and Figure 2
on page 7):
• The Broad Walk – the main north-south route connecting
Bayswater Road and Kensington Road, running east-west
on the southern boundary of the Park.
• Mount Walk – a popular east-west route, connecting The
Broad Walk with West Carriage Drive.
• Albert Approach Road – running from Queen’s Gate to
West Carriage Drive.
Studio Walk is the continuation of Mount Walk to Studio
Gate, the western entrance to the park.
Figure 1 Map of Kensington Gardens, showing Studio Walk and the location of London Cycle Hire Docking Stations
London Cycle Hire Docking Stations
STUDIO STUDIO
WALK WALK
730 January 2012
Kensington Gardens Studio Walk
The Shared Use Trial
Studio Walk is a popular route in Kensington Gardens,
attracting a signifi cant number of tourists. It is situated at
the western end of the park connecting Mount Walk and
Kensington Palace Avenue and provides an alternative
east-west route to Bayswater Road. It is also one of few
paths running from the west of the park to the Broad Walk,
the key north-south route within the park. The location of
Studio Walk within the wider cycle network can be seen in
Figure 2 alongside.
The Royal Parks (TRP) launched a trial of a shared use
scheme on Studio Walk, Kensington Gardens. This started
on 2nd August 2010 and will end on 31st January 2012.
Funded by The Royal Parks in partnership with Transport for
London through the Cycling on Greenways scheme, the trial
aimed to encourage people to enjoy cycling in green spaces
and to test the suitability of Studio Walk as a permanent
cycling route.
Upon the opening of the path to cyclists, Atkins undertook
the fi rst stage of monitoring of the use of the shared path
by pedestrians and cyclists. A summary report issued in
December 20101 presented an analysis of fi ve critical success
factors, including a customer research survey, a shared use
study, and an interactions study, which were benchmarked
against fi ndings from comparable studies. The assessments
highlighted the success of the scheme, with all fi ve factors
falling within the agreed thresholds.
In September 2011, a second round of monitoring was
undertaken and confi rmed the success of the scheme. To
provide a direct comparison with previous results, park users
were observed and consulted using the same methods as
during the fi rst stage of monitoring.
Correspondence, including emails, letters and feedback
received at Considerate Cycling events, was collected
throughout the trial.
This report provides a summary of the two stages of
monitoring of the shared use over the trial period.
1 “Kensington Gardens Studio Walk Shared Use Trial Monitoring”,
Atkins, 7th December 2010Figure 2 The location of Studio Walk in the wider cycle network
BOND STREET
LANCASTER GATE
MARBLE ARCH
NOTTING HILL GATE
OX
QUEENSWAY
HIGH STREET KENSINGTON
BAYSWATER
PADDINGTON
GRE
HYDE PARK CORNER
KNIGHTSBRIDGE
VICTORUnderground
Signed for cyclists
Recommended by cyclists
Through parks for walking and cycling
Adjacent to busy roads.May be shared with pedestrians
Pedestrians only
Popular Cycling Routes
Kensington Gardens
The London Cycle Network (LCN)
Studio Walk
The Broad Walk
Mount Walk
Albert Approach Road
The London Cycle Hire scheme was introduced in July
2010 by Transport for London. Cycle hire bicycles can be
found in station areas within and immediately surrounding
Kensington Gardens and are shown with a red dot on the
map in Figure 1 on page 6.
To highlight potential differences in fl ow levels and
behaviours, the analyses presented in this report
differentiate between those using hired bicycles and cyclists
using their own bicycles.
It should be noted that at the time of the fi rst stage of
monitoring (September 2010) the London Cycle Hire scheme
was open to registered users only. In December 2010, the
use of London Cycle Hire bikes was extended to casual
non-members who could pay on a one-off basis with their
debit or credit cards. The level of activity and behaviours of
these users were observed as part of the second stage of
monitoring (September 2011).
The London Cycle Hire scheme
KENSINGTON GARDENS
HYDE PARK
GREEN PARK
8
Technical Report
Monitoring objectives
To ensure that the scheme is supported by all users, Atkins
has undertaken objective evidence-based research into
the level of activity and behaviour of park users following
the same methodology in both stages of the monitoring.
This includes surveys to fully understand and investigate
attitudes, behaviour, interactions and comfort of users at
the outset of the scheme and throughout the trial period.
All surveys have made use of agreed best-practice guidelines
and techniques, including guidance from Transport for
London (TfL)1, the Department for Transport2 3 and research
conducted by Atkins for TfL’s Cycling Walking Accessibility
Greenways programme.
Two stages of monitoring were undertaken during the
Studio Walk Shared Use Trial period:
• Stage 1 in September 2010; and
• Stage 2 in September 2011.
During the fi rst stage of the monitoring, the aim was to
present an initial objective evidence-based review of user
behaviours on Studio Walk.
The second stage of monitoring was undertaken before the
end of the trial scheme in January 2012. This specifi cally
aimed at understanding changes in activity and behaviours
after a year in place, observing how users familiarised
themselves with the scheme and assessing the performance
of Studio Walk as a permanent shared use pedestrian and
cycle route.
For both monitoring stages, video surveys were undertaken
to capture user activity and behavioural trends during peak
periods of the week. Questionnaire surveys were used to
benchmark user views and evaluate them against critical
success factors in order to support the decision making
process for the future of Studio Walk.
1 Transport for London, London Cycling Design Standards. 2005
2 Department for Transport, Cycling in Pedestrian Areas. 2005
3 Department for Transport, Cycle Infrastructure Design. 2008
Critical success factors
The Royal Parks defi ned the following fi ve critical success
factors4 benchmarked on previous research, which have
been monitored during the trial period and presented in
“Evaluating Critical Success Factors” on page 14:
Criterion 1: No fewer than 95% of users surveyed during
perception studies must rate the overall quality of the park
‘good’ or ‘excellent’.
Criterion 2: The level of comfort for pedestrians along
Studio Walk must not fall below A or B during peak user
activity (measured using Platoon Level of Service, a robust
methodology developed from standard pedestrian Level of
Service assessments5 6).
Criterion 3: Based on video surveys along Studio Walk more
than 96% of cycle journeys must not involve neither minor
confl ict nor major confl ict.
Criterion 4: 75% of pedestrians surveyed during perception
studies should be satisfi ed, comfortable or very comfortable
with cycling on Studio Walk. The data collected will be
further analysed with information on vulnerable users
(classifi ed and registered disabled, elderly and people with
children under fi ve years of age.) If there is a high proportion
of this group who are uncomfortable this will be further
assessed. Dog walkers will also be considered.
Criterion 5: 94% of cyclists surveyed during perception
studies should be satisfi ed, comfortable or very comfortable
with cycling on Studio Walk.
As in previous monitoring studied conducted by Atkins
for The Royal Parks, to assess criteria 4 and 5, surveys
used the following fi ve categories: very uncomfortable,
uncomfortable, satisfi ed, comfortable, very comfortable.
4 The Royal Parks, The Regent’s Park Broad Walk Shared-Use Cycle Project Summer
Trial Report and Extended Trial Criteria. August 2008
5 Fruin, John J. Pedestrian Planning and Design. New York: Metropolitan Association
of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners Inc. 1971
6 Pushkarev, Boris, and Jeffrey M. Zupan. Urban Space for Pedestrians: a Report of
the Regional Plan Association. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass. 1975
Figure 3 Studio Walk as seen looking west from The Broad Walk Figure 4 Shared path on The Broad Walk, Kensington Gardens
Figure 5 Open area outside Kensington Palace Entrance on Studio Walk
Figure 7 Studio Gate entrance to Kensington Gardens
Figure 6 Shared path on Mount Walk, Kensington Gardens
Figure 8 A no-cycling side path along Studio Walk
930 January 2012
Kensington Gardens Studio Walk
About the observation studies
The analysis presented in this report is based on two stages
of observation studies conducted in September 2010
(Stage 1) and September 2011 (Stage 2). Our assessment
of activity, behaviour and the effect on how people use the
shared route on Studio Walk is based on video footage.
User perception surveys are based on questionnaire surveys
undertaken in the same time periods as the video surveys
but on different days, to ensure the presence of observers
on site did not interfere with the video data collection
and affect subsequent analyses, and to ensure that
representative information was collected.
The surveys locations considered during the study are shown
in Figure 9. Examples of camera views are shown in the
snapshots in Figure 10 to Figure 12.
A summary of the observation studies’ dates and
weather conditions are shown in Table 1. Activity levels
and behaviours recorded on site were not likely to be
signifi cantly affected by the slight variations in the weather
conditions recorded across the different survey days.
The video footage captured on site informed a series of
assessments, including:
• Pedestrian and cycle fl ow counts;
• Cycling speed surveys;
• Data collection of user demographics and group sizes;
and
• Pedestrian and cycle fl ows interaction study.
Flow counts were undertaken for 15 minutes every half
hour of video footage for the whole duration of the surveys.
This was used to understand fl ow levels at peak periods of
activity and identify the pedestrian and cycle peak hours.
The other surveys - as well as continuos fl ow counts - were
then undertaken for the peak hour of activity.
For additional information on how we conducted the
assessments presented in this report please see “Appendix”
on page 21.
Figure 9 Survey locations on Studio Walk
Studio Gate
Palace Entrance
Studio Walk East
Figure 10 Example of camera view at Studio Walk East
Figure 11 Example of camera view at the Palace Entrance
Figure 12 Example of camera view at Studio Gate
All survey locations
Video footage Questionnaires
Monitoring Stage 1 Monitoring Stage 2 Monitoring Stage 1 Monitoring Stage 2
Date: 9th, 15th Sept 2010 7th September 2011 10th September 2010 8th September 2011
Day: Thursday, Wednesday Wednesday Friday Thursday
Times: 07:00-10:00 and
16:00-19:00
07:00-10:00 and
16:00-19:00
07:00-10:00 and
16:00-19:00
07:00-10:00 and
16:00-19:00
Total gates: 3 sample locations same 3 locations same 3 locations same 3 locations
Weather: Cloudy on 9th,
mostly cloudy or
drizzly on 15th.
Fine or partly cloudy Fine or partly cloudy Partly cloudy/drizzly
Table 1 Summary of information on the observation studies
10
Technical Report
200
250
300
350
400
0
50
100
150
Studio Gate Stage 1 Studio Walk East Stage1
Studio Gate Stage 2 Studio Walk East Stage2
Pedestrians Cyclists
The activity is higher on the eastern end of Studio Walk by The Broad Walk
The activity on Studio Walk by Studio Gate is generally lower
than at the eastern end of Studio Walk near The Broad
Walk (Studio Walk East), as shown in the graph in Figure 15
below. This is most likely due to people using Studio Walk to
reach the side paths leading to High Street Kensington and
tourists walking between The Broad Walk and Kensington
Palace Entrance. It was considered that activity at Studio
Walk East was most typical of fl ow levels and behaviours
taking place in the Park. The analysis presented in this report
therefore refers to the data collected on Studio Walk East.
Introduction
This section provides a summary of the use of Studio Walk
by cyclists and pedestrians observed during the Shared Use
Trial monitoring surveys. This assessment informs the critical
success factors presented on pages 14 to 18.
Notes on the methodology
The method used for this study is known as the ‘stationary
gate method’ whereby all pedestrians and cyclists who
cross an imaginary line are counted during fi xed periods.
Directionality is recorded as appropriate.
At each stage, a count of park users was undertaken for
15 minutes every half hour using the footage recorded on
weekdays at two key locations, namely Studio Walk East
and Studio Gate. From this survey a time profi le for the day
was obtained, which defi ned the peak hour of activity.
Subsequently, a continuous count of pedestrians and cyclists
was undertaken at Studio Walk East for the peak hour of
activity. This was also used to collect demographic data of
park users, which also indicates the number of users with
dogs and those with children. Cyclists using London Cycle
Hire bicycles were counted separately from those using their
own bicycle.
Pedestrian and cycling activity
Pedestrian and cycle activity, users’ behaviours and
interactions on the shared route have been assessed during
the morning and afternoon peak periods on a weekday
(7:00-10:00 and 16:00-19:00 respectively).
Studio Walk is a well used shared path where the majority of people are on foot
Studio Walk is well used by both pedestrians and cyclists,
as shown in the graph in Figure 14. Pedestrians make up
the vast majority of park users, with an average of four
pedestrians for every cyclist recorded during the entire
monitoring study at Studio Walk East (84% in September
2010 and 76% in September 2011).
The periods of peak activity differ for pedestrians and cyclists
The peak hour for pedestrian fl ow is observed between
9:00 and 10:00, when approximately 400 pedestrians use
the shared path. The highest number of pedestrians in the
afternoon was recorded from 17:00 to 18:00 in 2010 and
16:00 to 17:00 in 2011 (Figure 14). This refl ects the touristic
and recreational uses of the park and Kensington Palace.
These pedestrian peak hours differ from those observed for
the cycle fl ow. For the purpose of this study, a decision was
made to consider the cyclist AM and PM peak hours as peak
hours of overall activity, as these are more likely to capture
the highest interaction between cyclists and pedestrians on
Studio Walk. As the cycle fl ow recorded in 2010 between
17:00 and 18:00 was comparable to that between 18:00
and 19:00, the peak hour of activity was identifi ed based on
the overall fl ow (pedestrian and cycle). This resulted in the
identifi cation of “peak hours” of activity considered in this
report, which are listed below:
• AM peak: between 8:00 and 9:00;
• PM peak (Stage 1): between 17:00 and 18:00;
• PM peak (Stage 2): between 18:00 and 19:00.
Pedestrian and cycle fl ows recorded during these peak hours
are shown in Table 2. Figure 13 Dog walker on Studio Walk
400
600
800
0
200
400
600
800
0
200
07:00 08:00 09:00 16:00 17:00 18:00
stage 2 Eastbound stage 2 Westbound
stage 1 Eastbound stage 1 Westbound
pedestrians
cyclists
AM PM
Peak hours
People per hour (PPH)
Monitoring
StageMode
Weekday
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Stage 1
(Sept 2010)
Pedestrians 354 492
Cyclists (owned) 136 84
Cyclists (hired) 30 22
Stage 2
(Sept 2011)
Pedestrians 268 508
Cyclists (owned) 154 170
Cyclists (hired) 50 42
Table 2 Summary of activity at peak hours on the weekday
Summary of Findings
Studio Walk is a useful commuting route for cyclists
The graph in Figure 14 shows the direction of pedestrian
and cycle fl ows on Studio Walk. Pedestrian activity is equally
split between the two directions at all surveyed times. This
suggests a predominantly local and recreational use of the
path by those on foot.
The commuting nature of the route for cyclists is
highlighted by the directionality of the cycle fl ow, which is
predominantly eastbound towards Central London in the
morning and westbound in the evening (Figure 14).
Figure 14 Peak pedestrian and cycle activity on Studio Walk East
Figure 15 Comparison of users recorded on Studio Walk by Studio Gate
and on Studio Walk East between 8:00 and 9:00 on a weekday
1130 January 2012
Kensington Gardens Studio Walk
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
Stage 1 AM Stage 2 AM Stage 1 PM Stage 2 PM
Own Hired
1% 1%
18%
8%
60%
10%
Adult PedestrianAdult Pedestrian
Child Pedestrian
Jogger
Adult CyclistAdult Cyclist
Child Cyclist
Adult Cyclist Walking with bike
Child cyclist walking with bike
Adult Cyclist Hire
Child Cyclist Hire
Rollerblader/ Skater
Mobility Impaired
6%3%
7%
5%
54%
25%
No of Individuals
No of groups of 2g p
No of groups of 3
No of groups of 4
No of groups between 4 and 10
No of groups >10
The number of cyclists has increased during the trial
Across the trial period, the net number of cyclists - as well as
their proportion among all park users - has increased during
both the AM and the PM peak hours. In September 2010,
166 cyclists were recorded between 8:00 and 9:00 (Table 2
on page 10), corresponding to 32% of users. The survey
conducted a year later showed 194 cyclists used the path at
the same peak hour, corresponding to 41% of all users.
Overall fi gures show an increase in both privately owned
and hired bicycles recorded on Studio Walk.
This fi nding - along with the commuting nature of cycling
on Studio Walk - suggests that the route has become a
key part of the cycling network for commuters into Central
London.
The London Cycle Hire Scheme is used by commuters and visitors
On average during the monitoring study, one out of fi ve
bikes recorded on Studio Walk were hired using the London
Cycle Hire scheme (Table 3).
The proportion of cycle hire users rose from 19% to 24% of
all cyclists. This is partly due to the opening of the London
Cycle Hire scheme to non-registered users in December
2010.
Table 3 Total number of London Cycle Hire cycles and privately owned
cycles recorded during the monitoring surveys
Cycling speed
Speed is a key indicator of cyclist behaviour. It can vary with
several factors including the physical characteristics and
design of a route, its strategic importance on a transport
network, as well as user activity and individual choice.
Notes on the methodology
Cycling speed surveys were undertaken at Studio Walk East
during the morning and the afternoon peak hours. Cycling
speed at this location was a perceived concern due to the
high level of pedestrian and cycling fl ows, as well as the
presence of a level change which could increase the speed
of cyclists going towards Studio Gate.
A sample of 120 cyclists were observed during the
monitoring study, equally split between the AM and the
PM peak periods on weekdays. Privately owned and hired
bicycles were assessed separately to provide a comparison of
speed between the two, shown in Figure 18 below.
Cyclists commute through the park at a considerate speed
Despite Studio Walk being a well used commuting route
through the Park, the speed of a representative sample of
cyclists is considerate and measured between 10 and 11
mph (Figure 18). These speeds are comparable with those
recorded in previous studies in other Royal Parks.
Average cycling speeds are similar in the morning and in the
afternoon.
Cyclists on hired bikes travel more slowly
On average, London Cycle Hire bicycles are slower then
privately owned bicycles, with 9.7 mph and 11.7 mph
respectively.
average speed
10.7 mph
Demographics
A summary of overall demographic information recorded
during the PM peak hours is shown in Figure 16 below.
Most park users are adults (60%) or children on foot (10%).
Joggers account for about 8% of all users. Other users types
such as adults pushing their bikes, skaters and rollerbladers
were also recorded in small numbers.
Most pedestrians walk alone (54%) or in pairs (25%), as
shown in Figure 17, although larger groups were observed
throughout the day during both monitoring stages, more
typically at times outside of commuting periods.
Stage 1 Stage 2 Total
Cycles (owned) 464 (81%) 674 (76%) 1138 (78%)
Cycles (hired) 106 (19%) 208 (24%) 314 (22%)
Figure 16 Summary of demographic information during PM peak hours
Figure 17 Group sizes during PM peak hours
Figure 18 London Cycle Hire Bicycles 2011
12
Technical Report
Users behaviours
Understanding the behaviours of all park users is a key
element of the monitoring of the Studio Walk Shared Use
Trial. Surveys were conducted using video footage fi lmed
on a typical weekday during the PM peak hours, when the
path is shared by a number of user types, including walkers,
joggers, cyclists and people with dogs and/or children.
Cyclists on paths where cycling is not permitted
The map in Figure 19 shows cycle fl ows recorded on Studio
Walk and on the path immediately adjacent, where cycling
in not allowed. Some activity is observed, especially on the
diagonal path starting at the easternmost side of Studio
Walk, illustrated in Figure 22. A total of 6 cyclists in 2010
and 23 in 2011 were observed during the PM peak hour
using paths where cycling is not permitted (Figure 19). The
diagonal path by on The Broad Walk side of Studio Walk
shows a higher number of cyclists.
217 (106)
18 (2)213 (116)
210 (92)
3 (0)
0 (1)0 (1)
2 (2)
Figure 19 Direction split of cyclists at the junctions along Studio Walk during the PM peak hour (17:00 - 18:00 Stage 1; 18:00 - 19:00 Stage 2)
xx 2011 survey
(xx) 2010 survey
Along Studio Walk
Pedestrians use the whole length of Studio Walk, as well
as the side paths to the south-western gate towards High
Street Kensington. The wide space opposite Kensington
Palace Entrance was heavily used by tourists during the fi rst
stage of surveys, where people mostly stopped there to take
photographs opposite Kensington Palace.
At the time of the second stage of monitoring, the area was
temporarily fenced-off due to construction works, restricting
the path width to 7.4 m. People were observed reading
the messages on the fence, further restricting the width
available for cyclists and other pedestrians to pass (Figure
21).
The fence has since then been removed; pedestrians and
cyclists can use the total available space along Studio Walk
and opposite Kensington Palace Entrance.
At Studio Gate
A sign located on the guard railing just outside Studio Gate
indicates cyclists should dismount when exiting the Park.
The footage showed that cyclists generally slow down when
they approach the gate, probably due to the guard railing
(Figure 23), although only a few dismount from their bikes
(6% in 2010 and 4% in 2011 at PM peak hours).
It should be noted that there is no such sign on the other
side of the guard railing (Figure 20). The data suggests
that cyclists tend to slow down considerably while entering
Studio Gate. However, the presence of the guard railing
does create a pinchpoint for circulation of pedestrians and
cyclists. Some confl ict was observed in this area during both
stages of monitoring, as described in “Criterion 3: PASS” on
page 15 and shown in Table 5 on the same page.
Figure 20 Studio Gate as seen from Palace Avenue
Figure 21 Tourists standing by the fl owers and messages at Kensington
Palace Entrance (video still)
Figure 22 Cyclist using a side path off Studio Walk (video still)
Figure 23 Cyclist pushing his bike while entering Studio Gate (video still)
1330 January 2012
Kensington Gardens Studio Walk
User perceptions
As part of the monitoring surveys for the Studio Walk
Shared-use Trial, park users were asked to complete
questionnaires on site by trained staff along Studio Walk.
The questionnaire surveys were undertaken on 10th
September 2010 and 8th September 2011, on different
days from the video surveys to ensure that the staff did
not infl uence observed behaviour. The weather on the
survey days was mild and partly cloudy on both years with
occasional drizzle in 2011.
We provided people the opportunity to either fi ll out the
questionnaire on site or take it home and post it back free
of charge. The choice of completing the questionnaire
on-line was provided in 2010 but only 4 responses were
received. A decision was therefore made to not provide this
option again in the 2011 surveys.
The great majority of responses were completed on site
(Table 4). There was a higher number of total survey returns
(242) in this second stage of monitoring than in the fi rst
stage in 2010, during which a total of 207 responses were
collected.
The surveys informed the evaluation of the Success Factors
(Criteria 1, 4 and 5) presented on page 14 and following
pages. The results of the questionnaires also showed that
about two thirds of pedestrians are aware of the share use trial scheme (Figure 24). The awareness is even
higher amongst cyclists (82%).
For more information on the questionnaire surveys and the
form used during the on-site and the postal surveys, see
Appendix A “Observation Studies” on page 21.
Survey Date Type Responses
Stage 2 8th Sept
2011
On-site 189
Postal 53
TOTAL 242
Table 4 Survey responses
Survey Date Type Responses
Stage 1 10th Sept
2010
On-site 144
Postal / On-line 63
TOTAL 207
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
PedestriansStage 1
PedestriansStage 2
CyclistsStage 1
CyclistsStage 2
average
66%
average
82%
Interactions studies
Assessing the number of interactions and confl icts between
pedestrians and cyclists is key to determining the success of
the Shared Use Trial on Studio Walk. A study of interactions
amongst all park users was therefore conducted based on
the video footage collected on site, during both AM and PM
peaks hours in each stage of monitoring (September 2010
and September 2011).
Shared use routes raise the possibility of interactions
between pedestrians and cyclists, particularly as there are no
designated spaces for each user type to use. The interaction
studies provided an objective assessment of interactions
that highlighted potential issues with the site and, more
specifi cally, informed the evaluation presented in “Criterion
3: PASS” on page 15.
Typical user behaviour along cycling and walking routes can
vary depending on factors such as:
• The type of user;
• The design of the space, its proposed use and how it is
used in practice;
• The current activity levels and proportion of each user
type; and
• The individual circumstances.
In addition to what is considered typical behaviour, there
are three types of interactions and near-miss scenarios
categorised as potential confl icts:
• Minor confl ict;
• Major confl ict; and
• Collision.
A more detailed description of the methodology followed
to assess pedestrian/cycle interaction on Studio Walk can
be found in the Appendix in “Interactions study” on page
23.
Figure 24 Awareness of Shared Use Trial by pedestrians and cyclists
Figure 25 Shared use trial signage on Studio Walk
Figure 26 Undertaking an on-site questionnaire
14
Technical Report
Criterion 1: PASS
No fewer than 95% of users surveyed during perception studies must rate the overall quality of the Park ‘good’ or ‘excellent’.
“Based on customer research surveys, anything more
than a 2% drop in respondents fi nding the ‘quality of
their visit excellent or good’ with ‘cycling in the park’ as
a stated reason fails this criterion.” This is benchmarked
against customer research studies carried out in The
Regent’s Park by Synovate in 2005 & 2006 in which 97%
of respondents found the ‘quality of their visit excellent
or good.1
Main fi ndings:
Users’ opinions of the park are very high, with 97% of weekday users rating the overall quality of the park as good or excellent in 2011, and 99% in 2010 (Figure 27).
1 The Royal Parks, The Regent’s Park Broad Walk Shared-Use Cycle Project Summer
Trial Report and Extended Trial Criteria. August 2008
29%
3%
68%
36%
1% 0.5%
63%
Figure 27 Perception of the Park
Minimum Path Width Requirement
Shared-Use
path
ed
ge
cycl
ist
ed
ge z
on
e
0.5
m p
er
ed
ge (
0m
besi
de g
rass
)
ped
est
rian
ed
ge z
on
e
0.2
`m p
er
ed
ge (
0m
besi
de g
rass
)
path
ed
ge
ped
est
rian
/ c
yclis
t p
ass
ing
zo
ne
0.5
m p
er
ed
ge
4.5m
Minimum distance (excluding edge zones)
0.3m
Minimum distance
between group
0.6m0.6m
0.5m
Minimum distance
pass
ing
dis
tan
ce
1m 1m
Criterion 2: PASS
The level of comfort for pedestrians along Studio Walk must not fall below A or B (measured using the Platoon Level of Service methodology).
This criterion is equivalent to that used in the monitoring of
The Broad Walk Shared Use Trial Scheme, The Regent’s Park,
described as:
“The level of service for The Broad Walk must be B or
above for peak pedestrian/cycle fl ows based on video
footage and the physical attributes of the route.” This
is benchmarked against the Kensington Gardens Shared
Use Study carried out by Atkins in 2008. Levels are from
A (open movement) to F (jammed). The Level of Service
on the Broad Walk without cycling is Level of Service B.2
The design of a path can be important to encourage, or
hinder, responsible use by all users. In particular, the width
of a path and its capacity can be a key driver for successfully
sharing space. When assessing the capacity of a path and
its design it is important to take into account the level of
pedestrian and cycling activity, and how activity on the path
varies with time, i.e. during weekday commuting periods.
Using research conducted by Atkins for Transport for
London on shared use cycle routes, the Level of Service has
been calculated for pedestrians during Studio Walk Shared
Use trial. Level of Service is a standard measurement of
pedestrian capacity and level of comfort. In this context,
the methodology assesses the peak volume of pedestrian
fl ow activity and the amount of available, usable space for
pedestrians.
2 The Royal Parks, The Regent’s Park Broad Walk Shared-Use Cycle Project Summer
Trial Report and Extended Trial Criteria. August 2008
Main fi ndings:
Taking into account the effect of cyclists, the Platoon Level
of Service for pedestrians along the majority of Studio Walk
during the PM peak hour is calculated as A and B. This
accounts for the presence of obstructions such as street
furniture (e.g. benches and high fence) on the path.
Studio Walk is a straight, shared use path with a relatively
steep but short downhill gradient at the eastern end,
between 6% and 10% at its steepest point. This is only for
a distance of approximately 20m, and the western part of
the path is fl at. The surfacing is currently in good condition
and the path shows good sight lines. The street furniture is
consistently located on the southern side of the path, with a
high fence along the northern side.
This Level of Service assessment suggests that there is
suffi cient space along this route at weekday peak times to
accommodate a shared use facility with the current level of
user activity.
• The Level of Service of the path at Studio Walk East is calculated as A, with all pedestrians or one cyclist taken into account, and at B, with two cyclists taken into account.
• The Level of Service on Studio Walk by Studio Gate is calculated as A, with all pedestrians, one cyclist or two cyclists taken into account.
It should be noted that this route is likely to have a different
level of pedestrian activity at weekends. Therefore it is
recommended to monitor fl ows at weekends to ensure that
there is suffi cient capacity at peak times.
Information on the Level of Service can be found in the
Appendix “Level of Service Assessment” on page 27.
Figure 28 Desirable minimum path width recommended for unsegregated
shared use (active/high fl ows)
Stage 1 (2010) Stage 2 (2011)
Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Very Poor No Opinion
Evaluating Critical Success Factors
1530 January 2012
Kensington Gardens Studio Walk
Criterion 3: PASS
Based on video surveys along Studio Walk more than 95% of cycle journeys must involve neither minor confl ict nor major confl ict.
Minor confl ict is defi ned as when a ‘cyclist or pedestrian
has to brake or change direction but the movement is
calm and controlled within a 2m distance of each other’.
Major confl ict is defi ned as ‘cyclist or pedestrian has to
take emergency action, within 1m of each other, in what is
considered to be a near miss’.1
Assessing the number of confl icts between pedestrians
and cyclists is key to evaluating the success of the shared
use scheme. Typical user behaviour along cycling and
walking routes can vary depending on factors including,
but not limited to, current activity levels, the type of user,
proportions of each user group and the design of the space
(its proposed use and how it is used in practice).
The level of potential confl ict is sometimes perceived to
increase on unsegregated shared use routes, particularly as
there is no designated exclusive space for either pedestrians
or cyclists. However, unsegregated space can increase the
awareness of pedestrian priority amongst all users, and
support considerate cycling by the majority of cyclists.
1 The Royal Parks, The Regent’s Park Broad Walk Shared-Use Cycle
Project Summer Trial Report and Extended Trial Criteria. August 2008
Main fi ndings:
To understand the behaviours along Studio Walk, the
same three locations - shown in “Figure 9 Survey locations
on Studio Walk” on page 9 - were assessed in both
monitoring stages. All the interactions recorded on site
throughout the monitoring study are shown in Table 5.
During both stages of monitoring the percentage of cycle journeys not involving either minor or major confl ict was equal to or above 98%.
More specifi cally, in September 2010:
• On Studio Walk East - out of a total of 272 journeys, only one minor confl ict was highlighted.
• Palace Entrance, Studio Walk - two minor confl icts were observed during the survey out of a total of 250 cycle journeys.
• Studio Gate, Studio Walk - out of a total of 230 cycle journeys, fi ve minor confl icts were highlighted, accounting for 2% of cycle journeys.
In September 2011:
• On Studio Walk (east) - out of a total of 439 journeys, only one minor confl ict was highlighted.
• Palace Entrance, Studio Walk - no confl icts were observed during the survey out of a total of 410 cycle journeys.
• Studio Gate, Studio Walk - out of a total of 408 cycle journeys, one major confl ict and fi ve minor confl icts were highlighted, accounting for 1.5% of cycle journeys.
More information on the method and terminology used in
the interaction study for the assessment of Criterion 3 can
be found in the Appendix in “Interactions study” on page
23. This includes an illustration of the “major confl ict”
listed in Table 5 alongside.
Table 5 Summary of interactions at the three locations recorded during both stages of monitoring
Studio Walk East
2011 Studio Walk (east) Wednesday 08:56:20Minor
conflict
A pedestrian is walking along the
Broad Walk.
A cyclist is crossing the Broad Walk
going eastwards.
The pedestrian has to stop to avoid
the cyclist.Eastbound
Low (mostly
straight)No Normal <1
286 Euston RoadLondon NW1 3AT
Introduction Unexpected Action Response
2010 Studio Walk (east) Wednesday 17:22:17Minor
conflict
A group of 3 pedestrian stopped at
the entry to Studio Walk and a
cyclist is heading East towards The
Broad Walk.
Pedestrians do not see the cyclist,
whilst another pedestrian stops. Cyclist swerves. Eastbound
High (zig-
zagging)No Normal <1
Date TimeDayLocationInteraction
Grade
Indicative Passing Distance (metres)
Indicative Speed of Cyclist
Child Cyclist?Cyclist Direction
of TravelCyclist
Tortousity
Description
Palace Entrance
2011 Palace Entrance Wednesday8:00-9:00 and 18:00-
19:00
No user
discomfort
286 Euston RoadLondon NW1 3AT
Introduction Unexpected Action Response
2010 Palace entrance Wednesday 08:12:10Minor
conflict
A cyclist and a pedestrian in front
heading eastwards on Studio Walk.
Two joggers approaching from the
east. A lorry parked outside the
Palace entrance.
Cyclisted slowed down and wiggle
between pedestrian and joggers.
Pedestrian stopped as did not
noticed the cyclist closely behind to
go pass.
EastboundLow (mostly
straight)Yes Slow <1
2010 Palace entrance Wednesday 17:49:05Minor
conflict
A group of people walking
spreadout on Studio Wak heading
east. A cyclist with trailer
approaching them from the east.
A group of three pedestrians
unaware of the cyclist and walked
in front of the cyclist and stopped.
Cyclist slowed down, stopped and
wiggle through between them.
Child pedestrian was forced to walk
back to allow enough space for
cyclist to pass through
WestboundHigh (zig-
zagging)No Normal <1
Date TimeDayLocationInteraction
Grade
Indicative Passing Distance (metres)
Indicative Speed of Cyclist
Child Cyclist?Cyclist Direction
of TravelCyclist
Tortousity
Description
cyclist to pass through.
Studio Gate
2011 Studio Gate Wednesday 08:32:47Minor
conflictA pedestrian enters Studio Walk
A cyclist approaches the gate on
the same side.
The pedestrian has to stop for a
moment until cyclists passes on the
opposide side of the gate.
Westbound
Medium
(minor zig-
zagging)
No Normal <1
2011 Studio Gate Wednesday 08:32:55Minor
conflict
A pedestrian with a dog enters
Studio Walk
A cyclist approaches the gate on
the same side.
The pedestrian has to stop for a
moment until cyclists passes on the
opposide side of the gate.
Westbound
Medium
(minor zig-
zagging)
No Normal <1
2011 Studio Gate Wednesday 08:50:12Minor
conflict
A cyclist on cycle hire exits the gate
without dismountingA pedestrian enters the gate
The pedestrian has to stop to allow
the cyclist to turn to the other side
of the gate
Westbound
Medium
(minor zig-
zagging)
No Normal <1
2011 Studio Gate Wednesday 18:02:29Minor Cyclist exits the gate without
Three pedestrians enter Studio
Walk and another cyclist
The pedestrians stop to let cyclist
pass while the another cyclist cycles Eastbound
Medium
(minor zig- No Slow <12011 Studio Gate Wednesday 18:02:29conflict dismounting
Walk and another cyclist
approaches the gate behind them
pass, while the another cyclist cycles
through them from behind
Eastbound (minor zig-
zagging)
No Slow <1
2011 Studio Gate Wednesday 18:38:40Minor
conflictA pedestrian exits Studio Walk
Three cyclists enter the gate
without dismounting
The pedestrian has to stop abruptly
to let the cyclists inEastbound
High (zig-
zagging)No Normal <1
2011 Studio Gate Wednesday 18:45:28Major
conflictA jogger exits Studio Gate
A cyclist enters gate without
dismounting
Both have to stop abruptly to avoid
each other.Eastbound
Low (mostly
straight)No Slow <1
286 Euston RoadLondon NW1 3AT
Introduction Unexpected Action Response
2010 Studio Gate Wednesday 08:35:49Minor
conflict
Cyclist exiting Studio Walk and a
jogger entering.
Cyclist did not slow down or get off
the bike.
Both cyclist and jogger stopped at
entry gate to give way to jogger. Westbound
Very Low
(straight)No Normal/Fast <1
2010 Studio Gate Wednesday 08:37:42Minor
conflict
Both pedestrian and cyclist entering
Studio Walk
Pedestrian changed walking
direction to southwards and cyclist
continue towards the east.
Pedestrian stopped to let cyclist
continue. Eastbound
Very Low
(straight)No Slow 1-2
2010 Studio Gate Wednesday 08:40:15Minor
conflict
Child cyclist exiting Studio Walk and
an adult cyclist entering.
Child cyclist saw adult cyclist at the
entry gate
Child cyclist stopped at guardrail
and swerved to let adult cyclist
walked in on foot.
WestboundVery Low
(straight)Yes Normal <1
A pedestrian with a dog stopped at
Date TimeDayLocationInteraction
Grade
Indicative Passing Distance (metres)
Indicative Speed of Cyclist
Child Cyclist?Cyclist Direction
of TravelCyclist
Tortousity
Description
2010 Studio Gate Wednesday 08:49:40Minor
conflict
the western end of Studio Walk
and two cyclists entering Studio
Walk.
Two cyclists entering as normal and
swerved between the pedestrian.
Pedestrian stopped to let cyclists
pass before release his dog. Eastbound
Very Low
(straight)No Slow 1-2
2010 Studio Gate Wednesday 17:47:52Minor
conflict
Cyclist with trailer exiting Studio
Walk and a pedestrian approaching
Studio Walk
Pedestrian sees cyclist exiting
without dismounting the bike
Pedestrian stopped outside the
guardrail to give way for cyclist to
exit
WestboundVery Low
(straight)No Slow >2
16
Technical Report
Criterion 4: BORDERLINE PASS
75% of pedestrians surveyed during perception studies should be either satisfi ed, comfortable or very comfortable with cycling on Studio Walk.
“This is benchmarked against surveys in Kensington
Gardens in which 74% of pedestrians thought the cycle
routes worked OK, Well, or Very Well. The data collected
will be further analysed with information on vulnerable
users (classifi ed and registered disabled, elderly and
people with children under 5 years of age). If there is a
higher proportion of this group who are ‘uncomfortable’
with the scheme this will be a critical failure. Dog
walkers will also be considered in a separate category.
Further analysis will be carried out and considered if the
percentage falls between 95% and 75% (one in twenty
to one in four ‘uncomfortable’ with the trial).” 1
Main fi ndings:
78% of pedestrians were either satisfi ed, comfortable or very comfortable with the scheme in September 2010, and 74% in September 2011.
The second stage of monitoring found this criterion to be
at the borderline of the threshold set in the previous stage
of monitoring and other similar assessments for The Royal
Parks. However, it should be noted that construction works
were taking place on the day of the survey, which may have
affected the perception of the scheme by those experiencing
temporary discomfort on site (see note alongside).
Due to the number of responses received, a small number of
additional negative responses can result in markedly lower
percentages.
1 The Royal Parks, The Regent’s Park Broad Walk Shared-Use Cycle
Project Summer Trial Report and Extended Trial Criteria. August 2008
25%13%
7%
2%
38%
15%
13%
13%
11%
2%
Very comfortable
Comfortable
Satisfactory
Not comfortable
44%17%
Very uncomfortable
No experience/opinion
Figure 29 Pedestrians’ comfort with the scheme
Figure 30 Temporary fence at Kensington Palace Entrance on the survey day
for the second stage of monitoring (8th September 2011)
Stage 1 (2010) Stage 2 (2011)
Note on the site’s conditions
on the survey day
On the day of the on-site questionnaire surveys in
monitoring stage 2 (8th September 2011), the open
space opposite the entrance to Kensington Palace was
temporarily fenced off (Figure 30) whilst construction
works were being carried out along Studio Walk. This was
being undertaken as part of long term improvements to
Kensington Palace. It is probable that these works had a
detrimental impact on the results of the questionnaire,
and it likely overall satisfaction rates recorded during
construction works are lower than at other times.
A selection of comments on the Studio Walk Shared Use Trial scheme collected from park users during our perception surveys:
• “It’s fi ne”
• “Very happy about cycling on Studio Walk “
• “Good, safe, more signage could be useful”
• “It’s fi ne if everyone respects other users”
• “There should be clearer cycling signs”
• “There should be more speed restrictions”
• “There are some cyclists who go too fast and are
arrogant. This needs to be controlled. But do not have
a separate cycle lane. This is more dangerous as cyclists
believe they can do whatever they like in the lane. “
• “There should be a separate lane for cyclists“
• “There are issues with dogs, it is too dark at evening
time“
• “Studio Walk is popular for walkers and visitors. It is
dangerous - proven, from personal experience - to have
cyclists going at a speed“
1730 January 2012
Kensington Gardens Studio Walk
17%
17%33%
5%6%
22%
33%
34%
15%
10%
5%
1%
35%
5%
42%21%
16%
42%
16%
17%
11%
9%
Very comfortable
Comfortable
Satisfactory
Not comfortable
40%
23%
Very uncomfortable
No experience/opinion
27%
13%
9%
7%
3%
Very comfortable
Comfortable
Satisfactory
Not comfortable
41%
Very uncomfortable
No experience/opinion
21%
11%
4%14%
Very comfortable
Comfortable
Satisfactory
Not comfortable
Very uncomfortable
50%
Very uncomfortable
No experience/opinion
Figure 31 Overall comfort with the scheme
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%
10%
20%
Under 16 17-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 Over 55 Total
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
No experience/opinion
Very uncomfortable
Not comfortable
Satisfactory
Comfortable
Very comfortable
0%
10%
20%
Under 16 17-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 Over 55 Total
Positive overall perception of the Shared-use scheme
In total, 84% of all surveyed users who expressed an
opinion in 2010 were either satisfi ed, comfortable or very
comfortable with the Shared Use Trial (Figure 31). In 2011
the overall perception with the scheme was also very high
(81%).
High perception amongst park users with dogs
Of all park users walking a dog, 80% were either satisfi ed,
comfortable or very comfortable with the shared use trial
scheme in 2011, up from 53% in 2010 (Figure 32).
High perception amongst park users with children
The percentage of people with young children who are
either comfortable or very comfortable with the shared use
trial also increased during the trial (Figure 33), from 63% to
82%.
Figure 32 Dog walkers’ comfort with the scheme
Figure 33 People with children’s comfort with the scheme
Figure 34 Comfort of all weekday users by age
Stage 1 (2010)
Stage 1 (2010)Stage 1 (2010)
Stage 1 (2010)
Stage 2 (2011)
Stage 2 (2011)Stage 2 (2011)
Stage 2 (2011)
Breakdown of perceptions by age group
Of all respondents, perceived comfort tends to decrease
with age, as shown in Figure 34. About a third of
respondents over the age of 55 were recorded as not
comfortable or very uncomfortable with the shared use
trial in the 2011 survey. The graph in Figure 34 shows a
comparison of the results collected during the two stages of
monitoring.
Identify issues perceived by specifi c user types
The questionnaire surveys aimed to capture a diverse range
of park users, to highlight the use of the Park by all public
and identify any issues perceived by specifi c user types.
Despite a high range of user types and demographics
recorded during both series of surveys, no respondents
considered themselves to have disabilities in either stages of
monitoring.
18
Technical Report
Criterion 5: PASS
94% of cyclists surveyed during perception studies should be either satisfi ed, comfortable or very comfortable with cycling on Studio Walk.
“This is benchmarked against surveys in Kensington
Gardens in which 94% of cyclists thought the cycle
routes worked OK, Well, or Very Well).”1
Main fi ndings:
In 2010 all of the 55 cyclists who responded where either satisfi ed, comfortable or very comfortable with the shared use trial. In 2011, the rate was 95%, with
all positive responses with the exception of a single cyclist
rating the scheme “not comfortable” and three cyclists
answering “no experience/opinion”. See Figure 35 below.
Some people suggested a segregated path should be in
place, although research suggest this could increase cycling
speeds and potential confl ict with pedestrians.
1 The Royal Parks, The Regent’s Park Broad Walk Shared-Use Cycle
Project Summer Trial Report and Extended Trial Criteria. August 2008Figure 36 Shared use signage used on Studio Walk (road markings)
Regular maintenance of current signage required
A number of users suggested more effective shared use
signage should be in use. Research is inconclusive whether
any additional signage would provide any direct benefi t,
although the current provision of signage would benefi t
from regular maintenance should the decision be made
for the path to become a permanent shared use route.
The difference in the conditions of the surface markings
between the two monitoring stages in 2010 and 2011 is
shown in the example in Figure 36 below.
Figure 35 Cyclists’ comfort with the scheme
Comments recorded in 2010:
• “Very Positive. Cycle routes through Kensington
Gardens provide safe, enjoyable an sustainable means of
commuting into Central London, and should be strongly
supported”
• “it works well with Studio Walk now open for cycling”
• “opening this has shortened my journey and I can say I
have had no problem with pedestrians”
• “Very well, I use it as my commute”
• “Important that cyclists are respectful. Hope cycling
access remain in place”
• (“the shared paths should be marked, with one for bikes
and others for pedestrians, like Rotten Row”)
• (“A dedicated cycle lane would be better”)
• “As long as cyclists don’t speed, no problem”
Stage 1 (2010) Stage 2 (2011)
Comments recorded in 2011:
• “Great idea, supported by all people I know who live in
Kensington & Chelsea “
• “I cycle through every day to and from work”
• “It works very well as a shared surface. It would be
good to extend the shared route through the passage to
Kensington Church Street”
• “It makes sense. It is a much safer way to get to
Kensington High St or Church St and also to Holland
Park”
• “On weekends my kids also use Studio Walk for cycling”
• “I decrease the speed when crossing the park to avoid
accidents.”
• “Signage could be better, many pedestrian (often
tourists) seem unaware it is a shared path”
• (“Cyclists should use the path more carefully and be
slower”)
15%
58%27%
36%
4%1% 4%
Very comfortable
Comfortable
Satisfactory
Not comfortable
55%36%
Very uncomfortable
No experience/opinion
Stage 1 (2010) Stage 2 (2011)
Figure 37 Cyclists and pedestrians sharing the path on Studio Walk
1930 January 2012
Kensington Gardens Studio Walk
Kensington Gardens is a very important green space for
local residents and a key tourist attraction in London. The
Studio Walk Shared Use Trial encourages cycling in the park
and offers a more integrated east-west route to cyclists.
The research shows that the path is well used and the level
of confl ict between pedestrians and cyclists is low. Overall,
satisfaction levels of the trial were high, with most set
‘success factors’ falling within the agreed thresholds.
Correspondence received by The Royal Parks during the
trial period confi rmed high levels of satisfaction with the
scheme, with 24 out of 26 respondents in favour of the trial
route becoming permanent.
The key fi ndings of the second stage of monitoring are
shown in Figure 38 alongside.
Recommendations
It is recommended that Studio Walk be added to the Royal
Parks’ cycle route network but continues to be monitored by
the Park Managment team for changes in users’ behaviour
or occurrence of confl ict. It is also recommended that a
review of signage and markings is undertaken.
In particular:
• It is recommended that an additional review of users’
perception of the scheme is conducted in the upcoming
year following the conclusion of works to improve
Kensington Palace, alongside further informal monitoring
to be undertaken by the Park Management team.
• A number of users suggested more effective shared
use signage should be in use. Research is inconclusive
whether any additional signage would provide any direct
benefi t, although the current provision of signage would
benefi t from regular maintenance.
• The assessments were undertaken on a typical weekday
only. Weekend fl ow levels, interactions and behaviours
are likely to differ from those recorded on a weekday.
Therefore, any further monitoring and analysis could
include the weekend to reinforce the weekday
assessment and to ensure the high levels of satisfaction
and low level of confl ict remain during the peak leisure
fl ows. Figure 38 Map of key fi ndings on cycling and pedestrian movement on Studio Walk
Many cyclists slow down
but few dismount at Studio
Gate.
At the time of the 2011 surveys
the open space opposite
Kensington Palace Entrance was
temporarily fenced off; however
fencing has since been removed.
The capacity of the
path is suffi cient
to accommodate
pedestrian and cycle
fl ows at peak hours.
The capacity of the
path is suffi cient
to accommodate
pedestrian and cycle
fl ows at peak hours.
Average cycling
speeds are under
12mph for privately
owned bicycles and
10mph for hired
bikes.
Some cycling observed
on this path .
Very low numbers
of cyclists on these
non-cycle paths
were observed.
Studio Walk East
entrance to
Kensington
Palace
Studio
Gate
side path
side path
side pathSTUDIO WALK
STUDIO WALK
Conclusions
20
Technical Report
2127 January 2012
Kensington Gardens Studio Walk
a Appendix
Observation Studies
22
Introduction
This section provides details of our observation studies. All
assessments presented in this report are based on the video
and the questionnaire surveys described in the following
paragraphs.
About our video surveys
Our assessment of activity, behaviour and the effect on how
people use the shared route on Studio Walk is based on
video footage fi lmed on:
• Monitoring Stage 1: Thursday 9th September, 7:00-8:30;
• Monitoring Stage 1: Wednesday 15th September 2011,
7:00-10:00 and 16:00-19:00; and
• Monitoring Stage 2: 7th September 2011, 7:00-10:00
and 16:00-19:00.
Due to a technical fault during the fi rst stage of monitoring,
the assessment of Studio Walk East between 7:00 and 8:30
is based on footage fi lmed on 9th September 2010. The
assessment of all other time periods and locations are based
on footage fi lmed on 15th September 2010.
Figure 39 Survey locations on Studio Walk
Studio Gate
Palace Entrance
Studio Walk East
Surveys based on video
footage
Pedestrian and cycle fl ow counts
The method used for this study is known as the ‘stationary
gate method’ whereby all pedestrians and cyclists who
cross an imaginary line are counted during fi xed periods.
Directionality is recorded as appropriate.
At each stage, using video footage recorded on a weekday
(see table alongside) we undertook a count of all the
footage at two key locations (Studio Walk East and Studio
Gate), split into 15 minute time intervals. From this survey
we obtained a time profi le for the day and defi ned the peak
hour of activity (based on the highest cyclist activity).
Subsequently, a continuous count of pedestrians and cyclists
was undertaken at Studio Walk East for the peak hour of
activity. This was also used to collect demographic data of
the park’s users, which also indicate the number of park
users with dogs and those with children. Cyclists using Cycle
Hire Scheme bicycles were counted separately from cyclists
using their own bicycle.
Cycling speed surveys
Measurements of cycling speeds were undertaken at Studio
Walk (East) during the morning and the afternoon peak
hours. Cycling speed at this location was of concern due to
the high level of pedestrian and cycling fl ows, as well as the
presence of a level change which could increase the speed
of cyclist going towards Studio Gate.
A sample of 80 cyclists were observed, 40 in the AM
peak and 40 in the PM peak periods. An equal number of
privately own and hired bicycles were observed to provide a
comparison of speed between the two typologies.
About our questionnaire surveys
Statistics on users’ perception are based on questionnaire
surveys undertaken in the same periods and at the same
locations as the video surveys, on the dates listed below:
• Monitoring Stage 1: 10th September 2010, 7:00-10:00
and 16:00-19:00; and
• Monitoring Stage 2: 8th September 2011, 7:00-10:00
and 16:00-19:00.
The three locations along Studio Walk considered in this
study are shown on the map in Figure 39 below.Figure 40 Example of camera view at Studio Walk East
Figure 41 Example of camera view at the Palace Entrance
Figure 42 Example of camera view at Studio Gate
2327 January 2012
Kensington Gardens Studio Walk
Interactions study
Assessing the number of interactions and confl icts between
pedestrians and cyclists is key to determining the success of
the shared use trial on Studio Walk.
Typical user behaviour along cycling and walking routes can
vary depending on factors such as:
• The type of user;
• The design of the space, its proposed use and how it is
used in practice;
• The current activity levels and proportion of each user
type;
• The individual circumstance.
Shared use routes raise the possibility of interactions
between pedestrians and cyclists, particularly as there are no
designated spaces for each user type to use.
Following the same methodology as the previous stage of
monitoring, an analysis of interactions and confl icts between
cyclists and pedestrians was undertaken using video footage
at the three sections of Studio Walk, Kensington Gardens.
A full list of recorded confl icts can be found in “Criterion 3:
PASS” on page 15. Details provided include:
• A description of events;
• Time of day and date of the event;
• Indicative passing distance; and
• Indicative speed.
Surveys took place on a weekday at both AM and PM peak
hours during both stages of monitoring.
DEFINITIONS: types of interaction and confl ict
In addition to what is considered typical behaviour (no user’s
discomfort), there are three types of interactions and near-
miss scenarios categorised as potential confl icts:
Minor confl ict
In response to unexpected action, a cyclist or pedestrian
has to brake or change direction to avoid a collision, but
movement is generally calm and controlled. Factors that
affect a minor confl ict could include:
• At least one party may be unaware of the other’s
intended route (poor visibility on approach, high speed or
narrow passing distance).
• The rate of change in velocity needed to avoid collision is
low, and/or movement is calm and controlled.
• The perceived consequence of neither party taking action
could be a collision.
Major confl ict
In response to unexpected action, a cyclist or pedestrian has
to take emergency action in what is considered to be a near
miss.
Factors that affect a major confl ict could include:
• The rate of change in velocity needed to avoid collision is
high and/or movement is uncontrolled.
• At least one party is unaware of the other’s intended
route (poor visibility on approach, high speed and/ or
narrow passing distance).
• The perceived consequence of neither party taking action
could be a severe collision.
Collision
Actual physical contact, could be slight or severe.
• No collisions were observed or assessed along Studio
Walk during our survey.
1
3
2
4
jogger
approaching
the gatea cyclist enters from the right
side, the jogger moves to the left
a cyclist enters from the left,
the jogger and the cyclist have
to stop abruptly to avoid each other
both continue their
journeys after a short
pause
Figure 43 The only major confl ict highlighted during the survey
Illustration of a major confl ict
An example of confl ict recorded on Studio Walk during the
second stage of monitoring is shown below. This was the
only major confl ict recorded in the monitoring study during
the duration of the trial period.
24
Questionnaire Surveys
The results from the questionnaire surveys were complied
and analysed in a database. This provided a series of
assessments of the perception of the Park categorised by the
type of park user.
The photo in Figure 44 below shows an observer
undertaking a questionnaire survey on site.
To guarantee a consistent approach to the assessments, the
same questionnaire form was used in the two monitoring
stages. This can be seen in Figure 45 to Figure 47.
Atkins
Euston Tower
286 Euston Road
London NW1 3AT
www.atkinsglobal.com
Atkins Intelligent Space Partnership Limited Registered Office: Woodcote Grove Ashley Road Epsom Surrey KT18 5BW England Registered in England Company Number: 5609795
Studio Walk, Kensington Gardens
Thank you very much for taking this questionnaire. It should take no longer than five minutes to
complete. This survey is being carried out by Atkins on behalf of The Royal Parks.
A shared use cycle and pedestrian trial is running from 2 August 2010 to 31 January 2012 on Studio
Walk, Kensington Gardens. As part of the trial, Atkins is investigating the attitudes and opinions of
different users of Kensington Gardens towards the scheme.
We would be grateful if you could fill out the attached questionnaire regarding your visit to the park.
Please return the questionnaire to Atkins within two weeks using the postage-paid addressed envelope
provided.
The cycle trial aims to encourage people to enjoy cycling in green spaces and test the suitability of Studio
Walk as a permanent cycling route. Following the positive responses of the first monitoring stage, a
second and final assessment is taking place. Park users have been consulted throughout the monitoring
process.
If you have any specific queries about this questionnaire, or would prefer a copy in large print, please
contact our team on 0207 121 2551 or email us at [email protected]. If you have any
general queries about this survey, please contact The Royal Parks at [email protected].
Thanks again for sharing your views with us.
i What was the time of your visit when given this survey? please specify
We would like to know some information about your visit to the park
ii Were you cycling or walking? X Cyclist X Pedestrian
1 What was your main means of transport X Walk X Car
X Cycle (used Own Bicycle) X Taxi/minicab
X Cycle (used Cycle Hire) X Coach please specify
X Tube/Underground X Train please specify
please specify station X Other please specify
X Local Bus
2 How frequently do you visit / use X 5 times a week or more X yearly
Kensington Gardens? X 1 - 4 times a week X less than once a year
X monthly X first visit
3 In which season(s) do you visit / use the park? X All year round X Autumn
X Spring X Winter
X Summer
4a How long did your journey to the park take X Less than 5 minutes X 20 - 30 minutes
on this visit? X 5 - 10 minutes X more than 30 minutes
to the park on this visit?
Studio Walk, Kensington Gardens
Thank you very much for taking a questionnaire. It should take no longer than five minutes to complete. A shared use cycle and pedestrian trial route is running from 2 August 2010 to 31 January 2012 on Studio Walk, Kensington Gardens. As part of the trial, Atkins is investigating the attitudes and opinions of different users of the park on behalf of the Royal Parks.
on this visit? X 5 10 minutes X more than 30 minutes
X 10- 15 minutes X do not know / cannot remember
X 15 - 20 minutes
4b How far did you travel to reach the park today? X Less than 1 mile X 5 - 10 miles
X 1 -2 miles X more than 10 miles
X 2 - 5 miles X don't know / other
5 How long did you stay in the park during X 30 minutes or less X 3 - 4 hours
this visit? X 31 - 60 minutes X 4 - 5 hours
X 1 - 2 hours X More than 5 hours
X 2 - 3 hours X do not know / cannot remember
6 How would you rate the quality of X Excellent: go to q8 X Poor: go to q7
the park overall? X Good: go to q8 X Very poor: go to q7
X Satisfactory: go to q7 X No opinion: go to q8
7 What affected your enjoyment of the Park on your visit?
8 Are you aware of the current Pilot Scheme X Yes X No
whereby pedestrians and cyclists share the Studio Walk?
9a How do you feel about the current Pilot Scheme 5 very comfortable; no perception of conflict
whereby pedestrians and cyclists share the Studio Walk? 4 comfortable; perception that collisions/near misses are rare and mostly
without incident
3 satisfactory; interactions mostly without incident
2 not comfortable; perception that collisions/ near misses occur quite frequently
1 very uncomfortable; perception that collisions/ near misses very frequent
0 no opinion / no experience
9b Any additional comments?
Figure 44 Undertaking an on-site questionnaire Figure 45 Example Questionnaire (postal), Covering sheet Figure 46 Example Questionnaire (postal), page 1
2527 January 2012
Kensington Gardens Studio Walk
Figure 47 Example Questionnaire (postal), page 2
10 Overall how do you feel about cycling in Kensington Gardens?
11 Please write any other comments about cycling, walking or shared use on Studio Walk below
If you cycled on your visit to the Kensington Gardens
12a How often do you cycle on Studio Walk? X Daily X More than once a year
X More than once a week X less than once a year
X More than once a month X first time
12b For what reason were you using the park? X Leisure X Commuting
X Avoid busy roads X Other please specify
12c Do you ever cycle on other paths in Kensington X Yes X No
Gardens where cyclists are not allowed?
If you walked a dog on your visit to the Kensington Gardens
13a How many dogs did you walk? number
13b How often do you walk your dog/s X Daily X More than once a year
in Kensington Gardens? X More than once a week X less than once a year
X More than once a month X first time
If you visited the Kensington Gardens with young children
14a How many children did you have with you? number
14b How often do you bring your children to X Daily X More than once a year
the Kensington Gardens? X More than once a week X less than once a year
X More than once a month X first time
14c Do you ever use a push chair? X Yes X No
14d Do your children bring bicycles/ scooters? X Yes X No
It would be helpful if you could provide the following information. You are under no obligation to give it.
15 Do you consider yourself to have a disability that X Visual or hearing impaired
affects your use of the parks and open spaces? X Mobility impaired
X Other please specify
16a What gender are you? X Male X Female
16b What is your age? X under 16 X 17-25 X 26-35
X 36-45 X 46-55 X over 55
17 What is the first part of your postcode? E.g. W8
18 Do you belong to any organisation which has a particular interest in Kensington Gardens? If so, please give details.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Your help is much appreciated.
26
2727 January 2012
Kensington Gardens Studio Walk
Appendix
Level of Service Assessmentb
28
A Open
B Impeded
C Constrained
D Congested
E Crowded
F Jammed
Platoon LOS Description
Introduction
The design of a path can be important to encourage, or
hinder, responsible use by all users. In particular, the width
of a path and its capacity can be a key driver for successfully
sharing space.
When assessing the capacity of a path and its design it is
important to take into account the level of pedestrian and
cyclist activity, and how activity on the path varies with time.
This supports an understanding of how a path functions
during commuting periods or during busy weekend
afternoons, when capacity issues are signifi cant.
1m
Cyclist width
(DfT 2008)
0.5m
edge bounding
0m
beside grass
Cyclist edge zones
0.5m
Minimum distance
Width required by two cyclists
(DfT 2008)
pass
ing
dis
tance
1m 1m
0.6m
Person width
(Fruin)
0.1m
Minimum distance
between couple
Width required by two pedestrians
(Level of Service for London 2008)
0.6m0.6m
0.2m
edge bounding
0m
beside grass
Pedestrian edge zones
Our approach
Using the methodology followed in the previous
assessments for The Royal Parks and research conducted by
Atkins for Transport for London on shared use cycle routes,
we have assessed the Level of Service for pedestrians during
the Studio Walk Shared Use Trial.
Level of Service is a standard measurement of pedestrian
capacity and level of comfort. In this context, the
methodology assesses the peak volume of pedestrian fl ow
activity and the amount of available, usable space for users.
Platoon Level of Service
Level of Service is measured on a sliding scale to benchmark
the level of comfort of routes from A, with plenty of
available space to walk or cycle freely, through to F, where
the crowd and space available minimises the freedom of
movement. The scale is shown in Figure 48.
The Platoon Level of Service standard takes into account
grouping of pedestrians, whether voluntarily or involuntarily,
which tends to reduce the level of comfort for each user.
The Platoon Level of Service is therefore appropriate for
open space and park environments such as Studio Walk
where people often walk together.
Space requirements
Although the capacity of a shared use or segregated path
is dependent on the level of pedestrian and cyclist activity,
there are desirable minimum widths which accommodate a
rudimentary level of use.
User widths
Guidance on minimum and recommended widths for shared
and segregated cycling routes in open spaces is inconsistent.
Atkins made recommendations to TfL as part of guidance
for cycling and walking on London’s greenways, which in
part aimed to assess previous guidelines and clarify the
amount of space cyclists and pedestrians typically use.
Figure 49 shows the space requirements for cyclists and
pedestrians, as determined by ongoing evaluation of current
guidelines and fi ndings.
Cyclist widths are taken from DfT1 and pedestrian widths are
taken from guidance prepared by Atkins for TfL’s Pedestrian
Comfort Guidance for London.
The width of a pavement available for users tends to be less
than the actual width of the path. This is often due to a
combination of two reasons:
• Obstructions such as street furniture (e.g. bins, benches
and signs) will reduce the amount of width available for
users; and
• Users tend to leave space between themselves and the
path edge, which can be adjacent to a wall, fence or
other obstruction.
These edge zones for cyclists and pedestrians are also
shown in Figure 49 and have been taken into account in our
analysis.
1 Cycle Infrastructure Design, Local Transport Note 2/08, October 2008,
DfTFigure 48 Platoon Level of Service descriptions
Figure 49 Pedestrian and cyclist space requirements
2927 January 2012
Kensington Gardens Studio Walk
Minimum path width
Based on user widths, the recommended minimum width
of an unsegregated shared use route is a provided in Figure
50, which is based on low pedestrian and cyclist activity.
The minimum path width of 3.0m allows for one cyclist and
two pedestrians to pass side-by-side. Figure 51 provides
a desirable minimum path width for an unsegregated
route with active / high pedestrian and cyclist activity. The
minimum path width of 4.5m allows for two cyclists and
two pedestrians to pass side-by-side.
Unsegregated Shared-Use
path
edge
cycl
ist
edge z
one
0.5
m p
er
edge (0m
besi
de g
rass
)
pedest
rian e
dge z
one
0.2
`m p
er
edge (0m
besi
de g
rass
)
path
edge
1m
pedest
rian / c
yclis
t pass
ing z
one
0.5
m p
er
edge
3.0m
Minimum distance (excluding edge zones)
0.3m
Minimum distance
between group
0.6m0.6m
Figure 50 Minimum path width recommended for unsegregated shared use
(low activity)
Pedestrian Level of Service
Low cyclist activity: two cyclists passing
The assessment in Figure 52 shows the pedestrian Level of
Service, taking into account the minimum standard of space
required for two cyclist passing.
The Level of Service assessment suggests that there is
suffi cient space along most of the route at peak times to
accommodate a shared use facility with low levels of cyclist
activity.
A Open
B Impeded
C Constrained
D Congested
E Crowded
F Jammed
Level of Comfort
Los B (September 2010)
LoS B (Sept 2011)
Los B (September 2010)
LoS A (Sept 2011)
q
Shared-Use
path
edge
cycl
ist
edge z
one
0.5
m p
er
edge (0m
besi
de g
rass
)
pedest
rian e
dge z
one
0.2
`m p
er
edge (0m
besi
de g
rass
)
path
edge
pedest
rian / c
yclis
t pass
ing z
one
0.5
m p
er
edge
4.5m
Minimum distance (excluding edge zones)
0.3m
Minimum distance
between group
0.6m0.6m
0.5m
Minimum distance
pass
ing
dis
tan
ce
1m 1m
Measuring footway width
Pavement widths for Studio Walk were obtained from
on-site surveys by Atkins. The Level of Service calculation
is based on the ‘worst case scenario’ for pedestrian and
cyclist activity. For this reason, the minimum width of path
available for users (defi ned as the pinch point) was used in
the calculation, which takes into account the presence of
regular benches along the route.
Measuring pedestrian fl ow
Peak 15 minute fl ow (scaled to an equivalent fl ow per unit
time per unit width) have been used in all calculations.
Figure 51 Desirable minimum path width recommended for unsegregated
shared use (active/high activity)
Figure 52 Pedestrian Level of Service with two cyclists passing on a weekday
Unsegregated Shared-Use
Atkins
Euston Tower, 286 Euston Road
London NW1 3AT
www.atkinsglobal.com