Melbourne pedestrian behaviour: Problems and safety solutions

The purpose of the Desire lines user behaviour: Initial research project was to study the route choice behaviour of Melbourne pedestrians and their attitudes towards desire lines around public transport interchanges. The outcomes of this research will assist infrastructure designers to provide better outcomes with respect to pedestrian routes at public transport interchanges.

The research was carried out by the University of NSW’ Research Centre for Integrated Transport Innovation (rCITI) for the Department of Transport Victoria.

Background

Over the last decade, Melbourne has experienced significant population growth, and changes in the manner in which people travel to and around the city. It is estimated that the 17 million trips per day that are made now across all modes of transport in Melbourne will increase to more than 30 million by 2050.

Since 2001, the number of vehicles entering the city centre has decreased by 14% and the share of car trips to work has been reduced by 25%. In addition to increased public transport use, cycling to and around the city has increased, as has pedestrian activity. Car dependence is expected to continue to decrease as the Victorian government increased investment in public transport infrastructure.

The city’s future transport strategies therefore will have to take into account the transport needs of pedestrians and active transport use. Alongside this is the fact that statistics show that Melbourne has the highest pedestrian road trauma rate in Victoria.

“Pedestrians may use the most direct route or so-called desire lines to switch modes of transport, some of which may not be the safest. Desire lines are defined as the most direct and shortest walking route between modes of transport, but not necessarily the safest option. Where the provided safer route is longer and deviates from the desire line, then a proportion of users may not use it, electing instead to take the shortest route. In these circumstances, control measures are enforced on desire lines, such as fences or plants, to actively dissuade or prevent usage.”

The twin objectives of this project were:

1. Identify the behavioural and socio-demographic factors affecting the choice of desire lines versus the designated pedestrian routes at the PT stations and level crossing interchanges; and
2. Recommend the pedestrian connector design requirements based on the in-field behavioural evidence and the literature review.

From the literature review: Potential influence factors

From numerous studies around the world, this is the compiled list of factors that can influence a person’s path choice:

Pedestrian-related factors

• Gender
• Age
• Walking style
• Group size and herd behaviour
• Crowd avoidance
• Trip purpose
• Distraction
• Clothing type
• Carrying bags, prams, or walking with kids
• Group behavioural influence
• Safety perception

Traffic-related factors

• Volume of road traffic
• Speed of vehicles
• Presence of on-street parking
• Public transport service gaps and frequencies
• Safety perception of driverless operations

Location-specific factors

• Availability of central refuge islands
• Line marking and road signage
• Traffic lights and signal cycle time
• Pedestrian countdown signals
• Length of crosswalks
• Street illumination

Weather and time-of-day factors

• Weather conditions
• Time of day (peak, off-peak, day, night)

Built environment factors

• Nearby land use types
• Walkability width, slope, and level of service
• Public transport station facility accessibility
• Familiarity (or using mobile phone mapping app)
• Path attractiveness

Data collection

In order to see what specific factors were influencing Melbourne pedestrians, a survey was conducted for a 1-week period at two public transport stations:

1. Queensbridge at Crown
2. The junction of Russell Street and Bourke Street

The duration of the survey on each day was 7 hours and took place in AM peak hour (7-9 am), AM off-peak (9-11 am), PM peak hour (4-6 pm), and late evening (7-8 pm).

The data collection was via two methods: field observation and intercept surveys. All up more than 4,500 field observations were recorded, and 424 intercept survey responses.

Results

According to the field observation, in both the Crown and Russell sites, on average around 67% of PT users used the designated safe path while the remaining 33% used desire lines. Unsafe behaviour was higher in the afternoon than the morning, due to pedestrians being more likely to use desire lines during peak hours and when being in a hurry to reach their destination.

Another factor that drives desire line use is inclement weather. Across gender and age groups, male pedestrians are more likely to choose an unsafe path compared to female pedestrians, while senior pedestrians are less likely to choose an unsafe path compared to younger pedestrians.

Those pedestrians who are carrying a pram, trolley, a heavy bag or walking with small children are less likely to choose an unsafe path compared to those who are not. Similarly, less unsafe crossing behaviour was observed among people who are dressed in business attire.

Perhaps unexpectedly, pedestrians in a distracted state, walking in a group or using a mobile phone, were less likely to use the unsafe desire line path.

Design implications and insights

Ongoing, transport managers and policymakers can develop effective interventions to promote safer pedestrian behaviour and reduce the risk of accidents and injuries by taking these insights and more into account.

• Clear and highly visible road markings and signage, wide footpaths and pedestrian crossings, and pedestrian signal countdowns
• Conducting an audit of public transport stations to identify areas that require enhancement of infrastructure and signage.
• Traditionally traffic signal timings are optimised based on the directional vehicle traffic, and the pedestrian flow may not be not taken into account. Therefore, the traffic signals at the intersections often give priority to vehicles and ignore the number of pedestrians, in particular where public transport users board/alight vehicles. One mitigating strategy could be installing passenger counters (or sensors) at the tram, bus doors or stations, predicting the pedestrian traffic at the intersections and adapting the signal timing accordingly.
• Coordination of the pedestrian green signal with approaching public transport services.
• Installation of pedestrian signal countdowns could mitigate the impulsivity and risky behaviours of passengers at intersections with high traffic volume and long traffic cycles.
• Pedestrian-friendly design aspects can be considered such as shaded crosswalks, coloured pavements, or artistic pavement marking on the pedestrian pathways, adding pleasing elements like greenery, ensuring clear signage, and creating a user-friendly layout.
• Police presence in crowded CBD intersections in rush hours reinforces correct crossing behaviour.
• Designers should ensure that safe paths are accessible to all pedestrians, which can be accomplished through the incorporation of ramps, elevators, and other accessibility features.
• Looking a little further ahead, the installation of 5G and infrastructure-to-vehicle (I2V) communication technologies for pedestrian interaction with autonomous vehicles.

Conclusions

The results of this work revealed that some active and passive controlling measures may be effective in encouraging pedestrians to use an unsafe pathway or desire line, while others may prevent them.

While the research was conducted at two specific Melbourne locations, the researchers feel that many of the insights generated at those spots can be applied elsewhere.

That said, they stress the need to continue to conduct experimental research to examine nudge strategies and various interventions and to identify effective design solutions that are tailored to the needs of diverse communities, people, or different built environments.

Expected project impacts

The NCTPM Pilot provides government and the sector with a robust, evidence-based foundation for reform. With careful implementation support, including training, IT integration, and workforce investment, the model could underpin a more equitable and sustainable future for community transport in Australia.

The ultimate purpose is basically setting up some recommendations for designers … so if you make the designated safe path more attractive … it may prompt people to use those safe paths.

Dr. Elli Irannezhad, Senior Lecturer, University of NSW

Download the report

Download your copy of the final report, Desire Lines User Behaviour Research: Initial Scoping and Feasibility, by clicking the button below.

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT