The potential of low traffic measures for healthy active ageing

Figures & data

Table 1. Case study sites.

Neighbourhood type	Area	Streets	Type of street	SIMD decile
Low traffic neighbourhood	Dennistoun, Glasgow	Whitehill Street	Residential (connected to main road)	5/6
		Armadale Street
		Craigielea Street
		Meadowpark Street
High traffic neighbourhood	Slateford, Edinburgh	Hutchison Avenue	Residential	6
		Hutchison Medway
		Hutchison Road	Residential (connected to retail park)
		Hutchison Crossway	Residential (connected to main road)
		Moat Street
		Moat Drive
	Musselburgh, East Lothian	Inveresk Road	Main road	3
		Dalrymple Loan
		Mansfield Road	Residential (connected to main road)
		Mansfield Avenue
		Mansfield Place
	Camelon, Falkirk	Baird Street	Residential	2
		Brown Street
		Stark Avenue
		Carmuirs Avenue
		Carmuirs Street	Residential (connected to main road)
		Maisonhouse Road
		Watling Street
	East Kilbride, South Lanarkshire	Windward Road	Residential (connects two main roads)	4/5
		Dunedin Drive

SIMD = Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation; lower deciles represent more deprived areas.

Table 2. Focus group participant sample demographics.

Variable	N (%)	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Female	16 (80)
Male	4 (20)
Age		74	8.3	60	91
Driver status
Yes	10 (50)
No	10 (50)
Level of mobility
Fair	4 (20)
Good	5 (25)
Excellent	11 (55)
Identified mobility impairment	3 (15)

Table 3. Walking interview sample demographics.

Variable	N (%)	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Female	6 (100)
Age		71	6.1	62	80
Driver status
Yes	3 (50)
No	3 (50)
Level of mobility
Good	4 (67)
Excellent	2 (33)
Identified mobility impairment	1 (17)

Table 4. Focus group details by area.

Traffic level	Area	Type of session	Number of participants	Length of session
High traffic	Slateford, Edinburgh	Focus group	10	1 hour 35 minutes
	Musselburgh, East Lothian	One-to-one interview	1	1 hour
	Camelon, Falkirk	One-to-one interview	1	38 minutes
	East Kilbride, South Lanarkshire	Small group	2	1 hour 25 minutes
Low traffic	Dennistoun, Glasgow	Small group	2	1 hour 18 minutes
	Dennistoun, Glasgow	Focus group	4	1 hour

Table 5. Participant identifier label abbreviations.

Area	Abbreviation
Slateford	SF (e.g. SF1-FG or SF1-WI)
Musselburgh	MB (e.g. MB1-FG)
Camelon	CM (e.g. CM1-FG)
East Kilbride	EK (e.g. EK1-FG)
Dennistoun	DN (e.g. DN1-FG or DN1-WI)

Table 6. Key themes and sub-themes.

Theme	Sub-themes	Description
Staying active in later life	Walking for leisure	Some participants incorporated walking for leisure into their daily routine, as a way of maintaining their mobility.
	Walking for purpose	The majority expressed that they often walk for purpose, either for travel or out of necessity, like walking their dog.
	Importance of staying active in later life	Staying active was essential for many, who highlighted physical, mental and social benefits. For others, staying active was less of a priority.
Enablers to staying active in later life	Accessibility	Access to green space as well as good public transport were identified as key enablers.
	Access to car	Whilst the car was seen as a luxury for some, others argued that they could not live without out, particularly in poorly connected areas. Those who lacked independence were seen to be at a disadvantage.
Barriers to staying active in later life	Physical environment	Poor maintenance of the environment, e.g. potholes, pavements, drains, made walking particularly stressful.
	Lack of pedestrian infrastructure	Poor street design makes navigating traffic difficult and unsafe. Sharing streetspaces with cyclists represents another issue.
	Age	Age-related mobility issues limited participants’ level of activity.
	Impact of Covid	Covid-19 lockdown had a significant impact on available services, as well as levels of confidence.
	Poor accessibility	In some areas, lack of public transport and facilities made getting out difficult, particularly for those without a car.
	Feeling unsafe	Lack of street lighting made going out at night particularly frightening. In one area, participants did not go out at night, through fear of harm from others.
Perceived impacts of traffic	Traffic levels	High levels of traffic were identified in all areas. Lack of consideration from drivers made navigating this traffic particularly stressful.
	Parking	Overcrowding was seen as result of increased reliance on cars. Inconsiderate parking created significant issues for access, particularly for those with mobility issues.
Older adults’ concerns about low traffic measures	Impact of low traffic measures on traffic levels	Many argued that traffic would not be reduced but simply shifted to another area. Drivers suggested that these measures would negatively impact them.
	Reaction from drivers	There was a sense that drivers do not adhere to current restrictions, so low traffic measures would not be effective. Changing behaviour would require a complete change of mindset.
	Lack of consideration for older people	Some argued that active travel does not benefit older people, particularly those with poor mobility.
Maximising effectiveness of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods	Low impact measures	Any support for low traffic measures focused on lower impact measures such as one-way streets and bus gates. It was argued that these measures need to be put in place with monitoring devices such as cameras in order to make them effective.
	Improved active travel infrastructure	Improved pedestrian infrastructure and investment in public transport was seen as essential to promoting staying active.
	Importance of planning and consultation	Existing measures were said to be poorly planned, so engagement with the public was considered key.

Figure 1. A poorly maintained pavement regularly used by pedestrians.

Figure 2. A poorly maintained pavement regularly used by pedestrians (2).

Figure 3. A pedestrian crossing island midway point.

Figure 4. A parked van blocking pavement access in a busy area.

Figure 5. Cars parked on the pavement in a busy area, restricting access for pedestrians.