Results

Introduction

This section presents the results of the household survey. First, the respondent sample is described along demographic lines (Section 4.2). Then, in Section 4.3, perceptions of area transport issues across the sample are summarised.

In Section 4.4, average relative speed estimates are compared across six demographic categories and statistically significant differences are noted.

About the Sample

Gender

The gender split of the survey respondents was relatively even, with 50% identifying as female and 49% as male. The remaining 1% either identify in another way or indicated they preferred not to provide this information.

Age

72% of the total respondents were between ages 55 and 84, with the relative majority in the 65-74 age range. There were only 17 respondents aged 25-34 and 1 aged 18-24.

Number of Years Living at Residence

Respondents skewed toward long or short tenancies in their residences. The highest percentage (28%) of respondents reported that they had lived in their home for less than five years; 22% reported living there for over 25 years.

Household description

Almost half (48%) of all respondents reported being retired, with 20% living in an immediate family group.

Disability

When asked if they consider themselves to have any disability or other long-term health problems that may limit their mobility in any way, the majority of respondents (72%) responded that they did not. The remaining 28% considered themselves to have some sort of disability or long-term illness impacting their mobility.

Vehicle Ownership

Participants were asked about the number of vehicles in their households. 89% of the respondents owned at least one vehicle, with 34% of them having two or more vehicles. 11% of respondents had no vehicle in the household.

Frequency of Contact with Neighbours

The majority of respondents reported (78%) meeting or seeing their neighbour(s) at least once a week.

Pet Ownership

63% of the respondents did not have any pets, while the remaining 37% owned at least one pet.

Perceptions of Area Transport Issues

Speed Estimate

Participants were asked to estimate what speed they thought most traffic was travelling through their local area. This perceived speed was compared to the actual 85th percentile speed (captured over a 4-day period within two weeks of the study), and the speed limit for the section, as shown in Figure 4-1.

As illustrated in Figure 4-1, residents’ perceived traffic speed (39.8 mph) was higher than the actual 85th percentile speed (32.2 mph); both are higher than the average posted speed limit across all road sections (30.7 mph). This suggests that traffic is travelling through these settlements at speeds above the speed limit, but not to the extent that residents are perceiving.

Figure 4-1 – Speeds Comparison, as described in text above
Figure 4-1 – Speeds Comparison

Time of Issue Estimate

Respondents were also asked to indicate what time issues most frequently occurred or were most severe on their local trunk road. As shown in Figure 4-2 below, traffic issues were considered most problematic and morning and late afternoon peaks, but with continuing difficulties throughout the day.

Figure 4-2 – Times Issues Occur, as described in text above
Figure 4-2 – Times Issues Occur

Waiting Times Estimate

To identify a proxy measure for pedestrian suitability, respondents were asked to estimate how long it took to cross the road within their local area. As illustrated in Figure 4-3, the majority of respondents reported waiting at least a minute to cross the road, with a significant number of people reporting waiting over three minutes.

Figure 4-3 - Road Crossing Waiting Times, as described in text above
Figure 4-3 - Road Crossing Waiting Times

Figure 4-4 below illustrates the number of respondents who stated that each factor ‘Often’ or ‘Always’ impacted their ability to walk or cycle within the study area. With the exception of lighting and signalised crossing times, each factor was scored as ‘Often’ or ‘Always’ impacting active travel. Speed of traffic (89%), volume of traffic (87%) and noise pollution (78%) were cited most commonly as impacting factors.

Figure 4-4 – Factors Impacting Study Area, as described in text above
Figure 4-4 – Factors Impacting Study Area

The responses regarding the wider area, shown in Figure 4-5, followed a similar trend, with all factors, with the exception of lighting and crossing times at signalised crossing, also returning over 50% for ‘Often’ or ‘Always’ impacting active travel. However, for each of the factors the percentage of responses returning as ‘Often’ or ‘Always’ was slightly lower than for the trunk road, suggesting whilst still a problem the problem is more prominent on the trunk road itself than within the wider area.

Figure 4-5 – Factors Impacting Wider Area, as described in text above
Figure 4-5 – Factors Impacting Wider Area

Demographic Analysis

Two sample t-tests were performed to compare the relative speed estimate across five demographic groups. The results of these tests are summarised in brief below.

To facilitate interpretation of statistical results, a brief explanation of all abbreviated variables is located in table 4-1 below.

Table 4-1 – Glossary of statistical abbreviations
Abbreviation Term Notes
M Arithmetic mean (average) None
SD Standard deviation Measures variability within the sample
t Indicates a 't-test, comparing two averages across different groups The t-test is customarily followed by the degrees of freedom in brackets.
p Probability of outcome occurring by chance For this study, we have considered an outcome 'statistically significant' if there is less than a 10% chance of it occurring by chance (p < 0.1)
R2 A goodness-of-fit measure for linear regression models. This statistic indicates the percentage of the variance in the dependent variable that the independent variables explain collectively.
F Fit of independent variables to data. In essence, this statistic tests if the regression model as a whole is useful.
β Coefficient describing a linear/exponential relationship between the variables In a linear regression, this is the slope of a line.
S.E. Standard error Standard deviation of the estimated population distribution
T statistic Coefficient divided by its standard error. None
95% CI 95% confidence interval It is 95% likely that the actual coefficient falls between the two listed numbers.

Gender

There was not a significant difference in relative speed estimate between male respondents (M = 7.29, SD = 6.60) and female respondents (M = 7.66, SD = 6.85); t(534) = 0.63, p = 0.528.

Disability

The 149 respondents who said they had a disability which limited their day to day movement (M = 8.52, SD = 6.44), compared to respondents who said they did not have a disability (M = 7.06, SD = 6.76), recorded significantly higher relative speed estimates, t(279) = 2.31, p = 0.021.

Vehicle in Household

There was not a significant difference in relative speed estimate between respondents with one or more vehicles in the household (M = 7.49, SD = 6.59) and respondents with no vehicles in the household (M = 7.07, SD = 7.50); t(78) = 0.43, p = 0.334.

Children in Household

There was not a significant difference in relative speed estimate between respondents with children in the household (M = 7.96, SD = 7.43) and respondents with no children in the household (M = 7.36, SD = 6.58); t(93) = 0.66, p = 0.514.

Dog or Cat in Household

The 197 respondents with a cat and/or dog in the household (M = 8.23, SD = 6.99), compared to respondents who with no cat/dog (M = 6.96, SD = 6.45) recorded significantly higher relative speed estimates, t(381) = 2.09, p = 0.037.

Age

A linear regression model found no statistically significant relationship between age and relative speed estimate (p = 0.683)

Multiple Linear Regression Model

Multiple linear regression was used to test if the research variables in Table 4-2 below significantly predicted the relative speed estimate.

The reduced, fitted regression model was:

Relative Speed Estimate = 5.63 + 0.59*(Disability Asgt.) + 1.02 (Pets Asgt.) – 1.56*(Volume of Traffic in 10k’s).

The overall regression was statistically significant (R2 = 0.02, F(3, 551) = 4.68, p = 0.003).

In the fitted model, the three variables were found to significantly predict Relative Speed Estimates:

  • Disability Category Assignment (β = 1.39, p = 0.018);
  • Pets Category Assignment (β = 1.020, p = 0.064); and
  • Volume of Traffic (10k’s) (β = -1.560, p = 0.015)

The full results of the linear regression model and all included independent variables, before model fitting, are detailed in Table 4-2 below.

Table 4-2 – Results of multiple linear regression between Relative Speed Estimate and all included independent variables, ordered by statistical significance
Independent Variables Coefficient (β) Standard Error T-statistic Significance (p-value)
Disability Assignment 1.566 0.640 2.449 0.015**
Volume of Traffic (10k's) 0.000 0.000 -2.142 0.033**
85th Percentile Speed -0.199 0.117 -1.699 0.090*
Pets (Assignment) 1.005 0.613 1.639 0.102
Width of Road -0.546 0.339 -1.608 0.108
School near the section 0.864 0.780 1.107 0.269
Years lived at current address 0.021 0.022 0.956 0.339
Presence of bus stop(s) 0.749 0.859 0.872 0.383
Footway width -0.231 0.310 -0.744 0.457
Land Use 0.630 0.982 0.641 0.522
Frequency of meeting with neighbours -0.176 0.288 -0.610 0.542
Children in Household 0.556 0.955 0.583 0.560
Age -0.011 0.023 -0.461 0.645
Gender 0.165 0.527 0.313 0.754
Vehicles in household 0.145 0.492 0.294 0.769
Pedestrian crossing in road section -0.073 0.404 -0.181 0.856
Footway presence -0.111 1.015 -0.110 0.913

(Note: In all tables in this and the following section, levels of significance below the following alpha values are denoted as follows: p < .10*, p < .05**, p < .01***)

Logistic Regression Model

Multiple logistic regression was used to analyse the relationship between the research variables and the relative speed estimate being above either the 5mph or 10mph threshold (5+mph / 10+mph).

5mph Threshold

As summarised in Table 4-3 below, it was found that, holding all other factors constant, the likelihood of the Relative Speed Estimate being 5+mph increased by:

  • 208% (95% CI [1.50, 6.35]) for people with children in the household;
  • 57% (95% CI [0.93, 2.65]) for each increase in the ‘commercial’ index utilised.
  • 36% (95% CI [1.01, 1.83]) for each vehicle in the household (up to 2);
  • 1% (95% CI [1.00, 1.03]) for each additional year of living in the residence; and

The odds decreased by 84% (95% CI [0.71, 1.00]) for each additional meter of road width beyond the sample’s mean road width.

Table 4-3 – Results of fitted logistic regression model between 5+mph Relative Speed Estimate and included independent variables, ordered by statistical significance.
Independent Variables Coefficient (β) Standard Error Significance (p-value) Odd Ratio
Children in Household 1.126 0.369 0.002*** 3.082
Vehicles 0.307 0.153 0.045** 1.359
Width of Road -0.174 0.088 0.049** 0.840
Time lived at current address 0.012 0.007 0.080* 1.012
Land Use 0.449 0.268 0.093* 1.567

The full results of the logistic regression between a 5+mph Relative Speed Estimate and all included independent variables, prior to model fitting, are detailed in Table 4-4 below.

Table 4-4 – Results of logistic regression between 5+mph Relative Speed Estimate and all included independent variables, ordered by statistical significance
Independent Variables Coefficient (β) Standard Error Significance (p-value) Odd Ratio
Children in Household 1.023 0.396 0.010** 2.782
Time lived at current address 0.015 0.008 0.047** 1.015
Disability 0.402 0.220 0.068* 1.495
Vehicles in household 0.304 0.168 0.071* 1.355
Pedestrian crossing in road section -0.237 0.140 0.091* 0.789
Land Use 0.514 0.329 0.118 1.672
Width of Road -0.175 0.116 0.132 0.840
Age -0.010 0.008 0.194 0.990
Barrier between footway and traffic 0.447 0.347 0.198 1.564
School near the section 0.359 0.296 0.225 1.432
Footway presence 0.362 0.349 0.300 1.436
Presence of bus stop(s) -0.292 0.305 0.338 0.747
Footway width -0.053 0.112 0.639 0.949
Gender -0.054 0.181 0.768 0.948
Volume of Traffic (10k's) -0.084 0.287 0.769 0.919
Pets 0.049 0.212 0.819 1.050

10mph Threshold

As summarised in Table 4-5 below, it was found that, holding all other factors constant, the odds of the Relative Speed Estimate being 10+mph increased by:

  • 114% (95% CI [1.37, 3.32]) for road sections with a barrier between the footway and traffic;
  • 101% (95% CI [1.05, 4.19]) for each increase in the ‘commercial’ index utilised.
  • 86% (95% CI [1.27, 2.72]) for each additional year of living in the residence; and
  • 72% (95% CI [1.02, 2.93]) for people with children in the household;
  • 68% (95% CI [1.17, 2.42]) for people with a cat and/or dog in the household;

The odds of the Relative Speed Estimate being more than 10+mph decreased by

  • 89% (95% CI [0.82, 0.95]) for each additional mph; and
  • 77% (95% CI [0.62, 0.95]) for each additional meter of road width;
  • 64% (95% CI [0.39, 1.05]) for each additional 10,000 vehicles using the road per day
Table 4-5 – Results of logistic regression between 10+mph Relative Speed Estimate and all included independent variables, ordered by statistical significance
Independent Variables Coefficient (β) Standard Error Significance (p-value) Odd Ratio
Barrier between footway and traffic 0.758 0.225 0.001*** 2.135
85th Percentile Speed -0.121 0.037 0.001*** 0.886
Disability Assignment 0.619 0.196 0.002*** 1.857
Pets 0.520 0.186 0.005*** 1.683
Width of Road -0.264 0.107 0.014** 0.768
Land Use 0.743 0.352 0.035** 2.102
Children in Household 0.546 0.270 0.043** 1.726
Volume of Traffic (10k's) -0.444 0.252 0.078* 0.641

The full results of the logistic regression between a 10+mph Relative Speed Estimate and all included independent variables are detailed in Table 4-6 below.

Table 4-6 – Results of logistic regression between 10+mph Relative Speed Estimate and all included independent variables, ordered by statistical significance
Independent Variables Coefficient (β) Standard Error Significance (p-value) Odd Ratio
Pets 0.596 0.204 0.003*** 1.814
Disability 0.589 0.212 0.005*** 1.802
Width of Road -0.273 0.113 0.016** 0.761
85th Percentile Speed -0.102 0.045 0.023** 0.903
Children in Household 0.613 0.311 0.049** 1.846
Barrier between footway and traffic 0.543 0.324 0.094* 1.722
Footway 0.567 0.346 0.101 1.763
Volume of Traffic (10k's) -0.441 0.279 0.114 0.643
Land Use 0.540 0.378 0.153 1.716
Gender Assignment 0.180 0.176 0.306 1.197
Footway width -0.102 0.102 0.317 0.903
Frequency of meeting with neighbours -0.093 0.097 0.336 0.911
Vehicle in household -0.158 0.166 0.340 0.854
School near the section 0.212 0.280 0.449 1.236
Pedestrian crossing in road section 0.075 0.132 0.570 1.078