HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTCABINET PANEL

TUESDAY 6MARCH AT 10:00 AM

FOOTWAY STRATEGY CONSIDERATIONS INCLUDING REVIEW OF FOOTWAY

HIERARCHY ANDFOOTWAY NETWORK SURVEYS

Report of the Director Environment & Commercial Services

Authors: Simon Rothberg, Chris Allen-Smith: Tel: 01707 356573

Executive Member: Stuart Pile (Highways & Transport)

  1. Purpose of Report

1.1As requested by Highways and Transport Panel in November, to inform the Panel of on-going work to update and develop the strategy for the maintenance and management of Hertfordshire’s footways. This includes the main report on HCC’s footway hierarchy review and appendices detailing both the pedestrian footfall surveys undertaken and an update on the new FNS condition survey for footways.

  1. Summary

2.1As outlined to the panel in November 2011, Hertfordshire is in the process of reviewing the County’s footway hierarchy. The current hierarchy has been in place for over 10 years, has not been recently updated and does not align precisely with what is suggested in the national COP for highway maintenance. Members may wish to refer to the paper presented to the November meeting of the Panel for more background information on the topic. For convenience, the November paper is attached here at Appendix C.

2.2It is proposed that the new draft hierarchy is based upon footfall which is linked to a benefit-based risk management approach. By basing a new hierarchy more closely around the footfall on a particular footway, the services that depend on hierarchy will be focused more towards the busiest footways. This helps to manage risk (such as insurance claims) but also helps to ensure that as many people as possible benefit from footway maintenance works and the like.

2.3The review is now well advanced and has included looking at how the level of usage (pedestrian footfall) varies between different footway types in different areas. From analysing data collected during the footway review, we are seeking patterns that could be applied more generally and used to implement a revised footway hierarchy based on pedestrian usage.

2.4As there was little national research available on the typical pedestrian footfall found on different types of footway, HCC decided to commission their own pedestrian footfall surveys on a representative sample of different types of HCC footways

2.5Due to the extent of HCC’s large footway network (in excess of 5,000km) it was deemed unnecessary (as well as being unaffordable) to undertake footfall counts on every HCC footway. Instead sample surveys were undertaken within large, medium and small towns and villages across three geographical bands across the county, covering the north, central and southern sections. Sample footways were selected to represent high streets, commuter routes (or a combination), secondary routes/link footways, estate footways, cul-de-sac footways and rural footways.

2.6Data from the surveys has been used to build up a profile of pedestrian footfall by footway type and better understand how various factors can influence footfall. These factors include:

  • Location (e.g. town centre, route to a station, residential etc.)
  • Time of day (e.g. morning peak, lunchtime)
  • Settlement type (e.g. rural, small town, large town)
  • Geographical area (e.g. northern, central, southern Herts)

2.7Although pedestrian flows vary for footways of similar type, a clear pattern has emerged regarding the levels of pedestrian footfall that could be expected on different footways, regardless of their location.

2.8Not surprisingly the largest volume of pedestrian footfall can be found in the main high streets of the County’s large and medium sized towns, but the volume of footfall on the “main” high street of smaller towns is considerable lower.Large pedestrian flows were also found on main commuter routes, particular on routes leading to mainline railway stations and very low flows were recorded in most urban cul-de-sacs and rural footways

2.9As part of the hierarchy review a meeting was convened with key HCC stake holders in December to brief them about the footway hierarchy review, explain the proposed changes to the footway hierarchy and give them the opportunity to provide feedback to the asset management team.

2.10Once the proposed hierarchy has been approved we will progress with its implementation over the coming months. This will involve several key activities, including re-categorisation HCC’s footway network against the new hierarchy based on pedestrian footfall bandings and the production of guidance for undertaking this process.

2.11National Data on Pedestrian Footfall

2.12The limited national research available on footway pedestrian footfall levels, showed a large variation in the footfall values between each footway category. In particular, where summarised results were providedthese showed a large (10 fold) difference between the footfall figure for category 1 (primary walking routes like high streets) and category 2 (secondary walking / commuter routes).

2.13A summary of these national figures has been included in the table below:

Footway Category (COP) / Category Name / Nominal Flow – Pedestrians per day
1a / Prestige Walking Zone
1 / Primary Walking Route / 10,000
2 / Secondary Walking Route / 1,000
3 / Link Footway / 500
4 / Local Access Footway / 200

NB:1. Data taken from table B20 of TRL report 171: Development of a Risk

Analysis Model for Footways and Cycle Tracks

2. Hertfordshire does not have any footways classed as category;1a

“Prestige Walking Zones” (examples of these would include the likes

of Oxford Street in London)

2.14On reviewing the nationally provided figures, it was felt that the large variation in the footfall figure between category 1 and 2 footways and in particular the low footfall figure shown for category 2 footways was probably not representative of the footfall occurring on these categories of footways in HCC.

2.15Due to the limited nationally research available on pedestrian footfall for different types of footway, HCC decided to commission their own pedestrian footfall surveys on a representative sample of different types of HCC footways throughout the county

  1. Pedestrian Count Surveys

3.1Surveyors from the Herts Highways data team undertook pedestrian count surveys on 70 specific footway sites located in a number of differently sized towns spread throughoutthe county.

3.2The sites selected comprised the following footway types:

Footway Type / No of Sites / Perceived Usage
Main High Street / 14 / High
Secondary High Street / 5 /
Commuter Route / 17
Secondary/Link Footway / 6
Village High Street / 5
Estate Footways / 12 / Low
Cul-de-Sac / 6
Very Rural Footway / 5 / Very Low

3.3To obtain a true representative sample of HCC’s pedestrian footfall,

footway surveys were undertaken in a number of large, medium

and small towns spread throughout the county as shown in the table below:

Location / Size of Town / Name of Town / % HCC Population*
North / large / Stevenage / 7.8
Medium / Letchworth / 3.2
Hitchin / 3.0
Small / Baldock / 1.0
Rural / Cottered / 0.1
Central / large / Hemel Hempstead / 7.9
St Albans / 6.2
Medium / WelwynGarden City / 4.2
Hoddesdon / 3.0
Hertford / 2.3
South / Large / Watford / 8.8
Medium / Borehamwood / 3.1
Small / Rickmansworth / 1.4
Rural / Bedmond / 0.1
Sarratt / 0.1

NB * HCC Population statistics taken from HertsDirect

3.4The surveys were undertaken in two tranches. Tranche one comprised 44 sites located in northern and southern towns surveyed during the winter of 2010/11 in good weather. Following initial analysis of the data obtained from these surveys a second round of surveys, comprising a further 26 sites predominantly located in the middle of the county was undertaken during the late spring 2011 before the school holidays.

3.5For most footway sites, survey counts of 2 hours duration were undertaken at the expected peak flow period for the type of footway being surveyed, e.g.the lunch-time period for “high streets” and early morning period for “commuter routes”. These were supplemented by 9 hour survey counts (which included the 2 hour “peak period”) taken at selected sites representing each of the different footway types.

3.6The data collected comprised total number of pedestrians (broken down by adult, aged/disabled, child) and cyclists counted over the two or nine hour survey period for each footway section surveyed.

3.7The data collected from the surveys was collated, with 2 hour counts extrapolated to an equivalent 9 hour / typical day count using a ”multiplier” for each type of footway derived from the selected 9 hour counts. The data was analysed to identify typical counts per day for the range of footway types across the different HCC towns.

  1. Findings from Pedestrian Surveys

4.1A summary of the average count per day for the range of footway types and different sized towns is shown in the table below:

Footway Type / Size of Town / Large / Medium / Small / Village
Main High St / 9,000 / 6,500 / 1,900 / 200
Secondary High Street / 1,900 / 1,200 / 1,300 / -
Main Station Commuter Route / 1,000 / 1,100 / 800 / -
Secondary Commuter Route / 340 / 300 / 280 / -
Secondary Link / -
Estate / 50 / 90 / -
Cul-de-sac / 15 / 40 / 30 / -
Rural / 30 / 10 / 5 / 5

NB: Numbers constitute average count of pedestrians per typical day

4.2What the data shows is that:

  • Although pedestrian flows vary for footways of similar type, a clear pattern has emerged regarding the levels of pedestrian footfall that could be expected on different footways, regardless of their location.
  • Not surprisingly the largest volume of pedestrian footfallcan be found in the main high streets of the County’s large and medium sized towns.
  • The volume of footfall on the main high street of smaller towns is considerable lower.
  • Large pedestrian flows were also found on main commuter routes, particular on routes leading to mainline railway stations.
  • Typically very low flows were recorded in urban cul-de-sacs and rural footways
  1. Proposed Footway Hierarchy

5.1It is proposed that the new draft hierarchy is based upon footfall which is linked to a benefit-based risk management approach. By basing a new hierarchy more closely around the footfall on a particular footway, the services that depend on hierarchy will be focused more towards the busiest footways. This helps to manage risk (such as insurance claims) but also helps to ensure that as many people as possible benefit from footway maintenance works and the like.

5.2The table below outlines the proposed footway hierarchy based on bandings of pedestrian footfall.

Category / Name / Bandings of Pedestrian Footfall
(Pedestrians Numbers per typical day)
1 / Primary / Greater than 5,000 ppd
2 / Main / Between 1,000 to 5,000 ppd
3 / Moderate / Between 250 to 1,000 ppd
4 / Standard / Less than 250 ppd
5 / Rural (Low use) / Rural LocationandLess than 100 ppd

5.3The five footway categories proposed for the new hierarchy are similar to those currently in place, but will be primarily based on pedestrian footfall, i.e. the number of pedestrians per day (ppd) using the footway.

5.4The continued inclusion of a separate category 5 for rural footways acknowledges that these “low-use” paths could be categorised separately from urban footways. In this instance it is suggested that Rural (Low Use) paths would need to be both rural (very few fronting properties) and very low use (less than 100 ppd). Footways in villages or towns or those in rural areas with more than 100 ppd would fall into the ‘Standard’ category.

  1. Stakeholder Workshop

6.1As part of the footway hierarchy review a meeting was convened with key HCC stake holders. This meeting was held on 13th December and involved various representatives from HCC’s local area offices (ADMs), network management, insurance section, legal team, data management, rights of way, IWP scheme delivery, highway maintenance and asset management.

6.2The meeting’s main purpose was to brief the various stakeholders about the review, explain the proposed changes to the footway hierarchy and give them the opportunity to provide feedback to the asset management team.

6.3The key outcomes agreed at the meeting comprised:

  • The meeting agreed that it was a good idea for HCC to follow a risk based approach in basing its proposed future footway hierarchy on levels of (pedestrian) footfall.
  • Many could also see the benefits of using “flags” (attributes attached to a footway section) to provide additional data about that footway, but most felt that footway “flags” should be restricted to exceptional circumstances only such as indicating the presence of a shared footway/cycleway or “promoted route” and not be used to indicate the presence of care homes for the elderly or vulnerable users.

6.4As highlighted in the second bullet point above, a lot of the meeting’s discussion focused on the concept of introducing footway “flags”. There was concern raised that if these were introduced for identifying the location of care homes etc. their use could be open to subjectively and overly complicate the works identification and prioritisation process. It was also felt that by “flagging” these sites would not necessarily pick-up the majority of elderly or vulnerable footway users who live in their own homes. It was also suggested that these people were perhaps more likely than the residents of care homes to use the footway located outside their houses on a regular basis.

6.5Discussions also included the continued use of HCC’s footway category 5 for rural “low-use”. This category would be designed to cover rural footways with very low pedestrian footfall, where Members may want to review service priorities in the future (e.g. prioritising the cutting back of vegetation over the maintenance of a sealed surface). Although such considerations do not form part of this current review, it is important that any revised hierarchy should support such considerations to avoid the potential need for further changes in the future.Although many of these Rural (low use)footways would be located adjacent to roads where the speed limit is more than 40 mph, they would not include footways located in towns or villages.

  1. Next steps

7.1When applied across the HCC footway network it is anticipated that the proposed hierarchy and pedestrian footfall bandings will look like what is shown in the table below:

Footway Cat / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 Rural
Town Size / Primary / Main / Moderate / Standard / (Low Use)
Large / > 5,000 ppd / 1,000 to 5,000 ppd / 250 to 1,000 ppd / <250 ppd / <100 and rural
Medium
Small / -
Village / - / -

7.2It is possible that there may be a variance in footfall on similar footways in HCC towns of different sizes and in different areas. Any differences may be immaterial given that the footway hierarchy will consist of a number of bandings and small differences in pedestrian footfall between footways is unlikely to make a difference in the category selected for that footway.

7.3Once the proposed hierarchy has been approved we will progress with its implementation over the coming months. This will involve several key activities, including the re-categorisation of HCC’s whole footway network and production of guidance for undertaking this process.

7.4The guidance provided for the footway hierarchy re-categorisation process will allow all footways to be checked and reclassified in to one of the new bandings shown in the table above. It is envisaged that this will prove sufficient in virtually all cases.

7.5Where there are any exceptional situations, such as a very large variance in daily pedestrian footfall (e.g. outside a large sports venue such as Vicarage Road in Watford), areview of the hierarchy category allocated to that particular footway section will be undertaken. This could result in the footway’s category being elevated to the next level or a specific pedestrian count survey being undertaken at this location to confirm the correct categorisation.

9Access to Service Implications

9.1Revised Footway Hierarchy

9.2There are several potential service implications associated with a change in hierarchy and these are detailed below.

9.3Safety inspection frequencies depend on footway hierarchy. If the hierarchy changes then frequency may change for some footways.

9.4Scheme prioritisation also takes account of the footway hierarchy and any change within this section will potentially alter the priority of somefuture schemes.

9.5The walking strategy may need to reflect the change in footway hierarchy and may possibly be more aligned due to the basis of the proposed hierarchy being footfall based.

9.6The clearance of snow and ice from strategic footways will need to be managed as the proposed hierarchy may alter the number and location of these routes.

9.7The implications for these key services will be considered as part of any final recommendations. However, the aim of the revised hierarchy would be to improve transparency, fairness and objectivity so, while any change is likely to bring gains and losses, the overall impact should be a fairer system.

10Financial Implications

10.1Revised Footway Hierarchy

10.2The intention of the revised hierarchy is not to produce savings but to produce a more robust, objective and equitable hierarchy. It is possible, however, that the new hierarchy may have slightly fewer of the highest categories of footway, which would reduce the number of footways needing the most frequent inspections and, consequently could reduce the overall cost of safety inspections although any such savings would be very small.

10.3There will potentially be some additional one-off costs, mostly in terms of staff time, in applying a new hierarchy to the existing footway network.

10.4There are no ongoing additional costs associated with a change in hierarchy.

11Background Papers

  • Hertfordshire Documents: LTP3; TAMP; Walking Strategy; Winter Service Operational Plan.
  • Well Maintained Highways – A Code of Practice – UK Roads Board
  • UMPMS User Manual (Footway Network Survey)

12Summary of Appendices

Appendix A: Footway Footfall Count Surveys – methodology

Appendix B: Footway Network Surveys (FNS) – update on progress with these new condition surveys

Appendix C: Copy of the November report to H&TP reproduced for reference

Appendix A – Footway Footfall Count Surveys

A1.The first tranche of footway pedestrian count surveys were undertaken by surveyors from the Design Team’s data team during the winter of 2010/11 (in periods of good weather) and consisted of 44 sites spread across the county at the locations shown in the two tables below: