Public Inquiry THE STATEMENTS OF PEMBROKESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL INDEX Page Statement of Ian Westley 3 - 12 Statement of Geoffrey Sutton 13 - 18 Appendix – Notes for Guidance on Access to Walled Town 19 - 24 Statement of Raymond Greenwood 25 - 27 Appendix – Tenby Walled Town Pedestrianisation July & August 2004 Report on the results of the Surveys undertaken by Pembrokeshire County Council During the Spring and Summer of 2004 28 - 41 Appendix – Tenby Walled Town Pedestrianisation July & August 2005 Report 2 on the results of the Surveys undertaken by Pembrokeshire County Council During the Spring and Summer of 2005 42 - 140 Letter from M Leahy 141 - 144 In the Matter of a Public Inquiry to consider a proposed Order under Section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 STATEMENT OF MR IAN WESTLEY I, IAN WESTLEY of Pembrokeshire County Council, County Hall, Haverfordwest, SA61 1TP the Director of Transportation and Environment, STATE AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Statement is intended as an overview of the history of Pedestrianisation in Tenby. 2. Minutes of Cabinet meetings and decisions relating to Pedestrianisation together with my report to Cabinet on this issue can be found in the bundle of documents entitled ‘Public Inquiry, Walled Town Tenby Prohibition of Motor Vehicles, Cabinet Reports & Minutes, Officer Notes regarding Key Representative Organisation Meetings’. My report gives an overview of the results of the evaluations carried out after each experimental scheme except that conducted after the 2005 experiment where the evaluation process is yet to be concluded. 3. Local traffic management schemes represent large investments for Local Authorities and have the potential to significantly impact on the quality of amenity, public health and the environment. Their design and successful implementation is therefore of considerable importance and the failure to gain public support includes possible economic, social and environmental costs. 4. Successive Local Authorities in the Pembrokeshire area have worked intermittently for forty years in pursuit of a solution to increasing traffic management issues within the mediaeval walled town at Tenby, Pembrokeshire. On 24 June, 1960, a local newspaper recorded that if ‘steps are not taken very soon, Tenby will become a resort to be avoided’. 5. Tenby is a major tourist attraction within the only coastal National Park in the UK, and the historic walled town is of international importance, bounded on two sides by the town walls and on the other by the sea. The historic core still has a mediaeval layout with narrow cobbled streets (many constructed over underground cellars); dozens of listed buildings and is a designated conservation area of national importance. 6. The majority of shops and commercial premises are within the walled town and co-exist with some major tourist attractions including the harbour, Harbour Beach and Castle Beach which are all accessed via roads within the Walled Town. Many of the town’s former hotels and guesthouses have returned to residential use, in many cases multi occupancy use. This trend is continuing thereby increasing the demands on the highway infrastructure, vehicular access and parking provision. 7. More than 500 residences and 300 commercial properties exist within the Walled Town and, the resident population of the wider Tenby community is estimated to increase tenfold during summer months from 5,000 to 50,000. 8. Clearly the pressures of competing residential and commercial interest and the impact of tourists create significant environmental and transportation issues. To this end the Local Authority has, over many years, liaised with communities in and around the town to seek to find solutions. As a result of community engagement over many years, the emerging key issues can be summarised as:- • Risk to pedestrians • Damage to historic buildings • Inconvenience and delay to visitors and residents • Adverse affect on the diversity and character of the town • Adverse affect on quiet enjoyment of the town • Limited opportunity to enjoy and appreciate the historic and architectural value of the town. Subsequent to the recent pedestrianisation experiments, parking and access to premises have also become key issues. 9. In order to address these issues, Pembrokeshire County Council has devised and managed experimental pedestrianisation schemes in recent summers in order to test the principle and gauge public reaction. In March 2005, I recommended to the Cabinet of Pembrokeshire County Council that procedures be put in hand to consider introducing a permanent Order based on the 2004 Pedestrianisation Experiment. The Pembrokeshire County Council Cabinet was advised that this approach might lead to receipt of some formal objections and the possible need for a Public Inquiry. My recommendations to proceed in this manner were informed by previous recent experiments since 2002 and the subsequent evaluations of each scheme. The aim of the Council was to devise a scheme which would address the key issues described in paragraph 6 of this Statement but which would take into account the views and opinions of the various groups who would inevitably be affected by any scheme that was introduced. 10. Clearly to address the key issues and achieve pedestrianisation (which the majority of those who responded to questionnaires supported) it would be necessary to review the hitherto unrestricted vehicle access to premises (subject of course to existing parking restrictions) enjoyed by residents and the proprietors of businesses within the proposed restricted areas. It was understandable that any restriction would generate some opposition. 11. The first scheme in 2002 restricted the movement of all traffic (with a few exceptions, such as emergency vehicles etc) between the hours of 12 noon to 4 pm in August only. Having considered the results of the evaluation of that scheme, subsequent schemes were amended to try and address the legitimate concerns of those affected. The Council carried out a balancing act, on the one hand to achieve resolution of the key areas of concern and on the other hand to minimise the adverse impact of the scheme to those most affected by it. 12. It was as a consequence of this balancing act that the proposed permanent scheme evolved. 13. The Council has the power to make the proposed order under section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to facilitate avoidance of danger to persons or other traffic, for facilitating the passage of any class of traffic including pedestrians, or for preserving or improving the amenities of the area. 14. Indeed under section 122(1) of the 1984 Act the Council has a duty so to exercise the functions conferred by the Act (so far as practicable having regard to the matters set out in subsection (2)), to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway. 15. The matters set out in subsection (2), are the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises, the effect on local amenities, the importance of facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and of securing the safety and convenience of persons using or desiring to use such vehicles, and any other matter appearing to the Council to be relevant. 16. The importance there attached by the Act to the reasonable access to premises is again emphasised in section 3(1)(b), which provides that such an order shall not be made which would have the effect of preventing more than 8 hours in any period of 24 hours access for vehicles of any class to any premises situated on or adjacent to the road or to any premises accessible by pedestrians. 17. Since my involvement with the concept of pedestrianisation of Tenby’s Walled Town, I have attempted to take the considerations of Section 122 of the Act especially and balance them accordingly. I have paid particular regard to the desirability of maintaining access to premises through the provision of concessions to the order and in order to establish what reasonable access would entail, have asked those concerned. The evaluation of the 2005 scheme confirms that the vast majority of those expressing an opinion are satisfied within the current arrangements regarding access. The balancing act referred to earlier suggests that it would be highly unlikely to reach a position that satisfied all of those affected regarding adequate access whilst addressing other shared concerns associated with the safe passage of traffic including pedestrians and presenting or improving the amenities of the area 18. By allowing one vehicle journey each day between the restricted hours for those with off street parking and by authorising other journeys through the use of specifically trained staff at a dedicated call centre it is considered that a proportionate response to the concerns of objectors had been achieved without diluting the scheme to such an extent that it failed to meet the key concerns. Overall the Council believes that the proposed scheme provides great benefit to the public without restricting unnecessarily the right of businesses and residents to gain vehicular access to their properties during the period of restriction. 19. Following publication of the Notice indicating the Council’s intention to proceed to a permanent pedestrianisation scheme, sixty-three letters of objection were received. These facts were reported to the Cabinet on 27 June 2005, and the Cabinet resolved to proceed with a Public Inquiry. Background to Pedestrianisation 20. The recent history of pedestrianisation in Tenby arises from the Tenby Traffic Working Party which in November 1998, considered an eight hour survey carried out in August 1998, when 3,791 vehicles entered the Walled Town, 48% of which left within 10 minutes and two thirds of which left within 30 minutes. This unexpected result was interpreted to mean that the great majority of those who left within 10 minutes were lost and had not intended to enter the Walled Town and those who left after 30 minutes had come into the town for a specific limited purpose such as banking etc. A previous permit scheme (1987 – 1993) had been abandoned due to abuse and a high administrative burden. The abuse of the permit scheme was of vehicles entering High Street without a permit. If this access was staffed with a Traffic Warden then secondary abuse of access occurred at Imperial Arch. A survey in 1992 showed that 83% of vehicles entering Imperial Arch did so without a permit. This matter was reported to the Highways Committee on 21.01.99. The Working Party looked to alternatives to the then current no entry except for access. Clearly that scheme had not prevented the level of vehicles seen in August. The alternative agreed was a vehicular ban during most of the day during weekdays. 21. It should be noted that similar abuse of the current scheme was recorded via automatic and manual traffic counts at Belmont Arch which is not monitored by CCTV, where inbound traffic flows were recorded as higher for the six hours of pedestrianisation than for the remaining six hour period within the standard 12 hour (7am – 7pm) count period. The average inbound flow measured was 79 and average outbound was 64. On 30 August, 2006, a manual count was undertaken by a surveyor in high visibility clothing. During the hours of pedestrianisation, 21 vehicles were counted in and 14 vehicles were counted out. The presence of a surveyor was seen as a deterrent to those otherwise gaining illicit entry via an area not covered by CCTV. 22. A County Council instigated review of traffic and parking followed and in January 2002, the Director confirmed the increases in the resident population during summer months stating that the majority arrive in the area by car. This report confirmed that issues exist around risks to pedestrian safety, congestion, damage to historic buildings, inconvenience and delays, adverse affect on amenity character and quiet enjoyment of the town and lost opportunity to appreciate the historical and architectural value of the town. These issues are matters to which the Council should properly have regard under Section 1 of the 1984 Act in deciding whether it is expedient to make the proposed permanent Order. Following a public exhibition of proposals in January 2002, the Highways and Transportation Committee of Pembrokeshire County Council agreed in March 2002, to consult with the community on progressing short-term proposals. These proposals were more precisely defined by the Policy and Resources Committee on 25 April 2002, as the exclusion of all vehicles from the Walled Town between 12.00 noon and 4.00 pm during July and August. 23. On the 28 June 2002, Cabinet considered the views of representative groups including Tenby Town Council, Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Association, Tenby 2020, Pembrokeshire Access Group, Civic Society, Chamber of Trade and Tourism, Townswomen’s Guild, Fire Authority, Commercial Ratepayers Association, Police and three individuals. A decision was taken to proceed with an experimental Traffic Order running from Saturday 3 August to 31 August 2002. 24. On 2 December 2002, Cabinet reviewed this experiment. It was noted that a letter drop had been made in early July to residents and businesses within the Walled Town with a brochure providing information on how to seek an authorised journey on health and safety reasons. A helpline had been established by the Council and a second Park and Ride bus service introduced to complement the principle of pedestrianisation. Meetings had taken place between the County Council and community representative groups for the duration of the scheme. 25. The 2002 experiment was evaluated via questionnaires following which it was agreed to proceed in 2003, with a proposal for a restriction of traffic movements during July and August from 11.00 am – 5.00 pm. The exclusion of heavy goods vehicles was also to be considered for change from 10.00 am – 11.00 am to allow more delivery time before the restriction period. The results of the evaluation are contained in the Directors report to the Cabinet. 26. On 23 June 2003, Cabinet received objections to these proposals from Tenby Walled Town Residents Association, Caldey Island Estates Company, Licensed Victualers Association, Commercial Ratepayers Association, Civic Society and various individuals. Cabinet resolved to proceed with the experimental Order as prescribed, despite some adverse comments. 27. On 9 February 2004, Cabinet reviewed the 2003 experiment. It was resolved to proceed with a further experiment in 2004 but with concessions for access of residents and businesses within the Walled Town that had access to off street parking. It was also agreed that evaluation of the 2004 experiment should be on the basis of questionnaires in a format agreed with community representative groups in an attempt to encourage joint ownership of the evaluation. 28. On 7 March 2005, Cabinet reviewed the 2004 experiment and in the light of the overwhelming support for the scheme resolved to pursue a permanent traffic order in the same form as the 2004 experimental scheme. 29. The Permanent Order was advertised and as a consequence 63 letters of objection were received which are set out in Section of the document bundle. 30. On 27 June 2005 and in the light of these objections the Cabinet resolved to proceed to a Public Inquiry. 31. In July and August 2005, the experimental scheme of 2004 was run and an evaluation report was issued to interested parties in March 2006. Signed ………………………………… Dated ………………………………….. Ian Westley Director of Environment and Transportation Pembrokeshire County Council In the matter of a Public Inquiry to consider a proposed Order under Section 1 of The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Statement of Mr Geoffrey Sutton. I, GEOFFREY SUTTON of Pembrokeshire County Council, County Hall, Haverfordwest Pembrokeshire SA61 1TP the Senior Traffic Engineer STATE AS FOLLOWS: This statement is intended as an overview of the Tenby pedestrianisation scheme and its practical application and is my proof of evidence for the Public Inquiry. 1) In 2001 Council decided that strategic reviews of traffic management should be undertaken in all the major towns in Pembrokeshire and that the review process should begin with Tenby. The Traffic Management section was tasked with co-ordinating that review. Consultations had already begun in preparation for a revised traffic order consolidating various waiting restrictions orders (25No) introduced over the previous 30 years. 2) Key groups and organisations were identified; meetings were held and a public exhibition staged in February 2002 to identify traffic problems and possible solutions. Arising from these consultations came the concept of pedestrianisation of the Walled Town by prohibiting vehicular traffic movements during the summer months to relieve traffic congestion. The proposal to pedestrianise the town centre between the hours of 12 noon and 4.00pm for the month of August was agreed by Council and implemented by an experimental traffic order under Section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. During this period (3rd – 31st August 2002) all vehicles were prohibited from entering or moving within the Walled Town, covering the area delineated on the attached plan. Exceptions were made for emergency service vehicles and for health & safety reasons. Additional loading bays and disabled parking were provided adjacent to the town wall and a Park & Ride bus service was introduced from North Beach car park. Enforcement of the restriction was undertaken by officers of Dyfed Powys Police and teams of officers drawn from various sections of the Transportation and Technical Services Directorate undertook the day to day management of the scheme. As a consequence less than 10 vehicles a day entered the town. 3) During the experiment face to face surveys were undertaken with visitors and questionnaires given to Park & Ride bus passengers to ascertain visitors’ views on the scheme. Questionnaires were distributed in September to residents and businesses in Tenby and the surrounding communities to evaluate the scheme. Further meetings were held with the key organisations from the community. It was subsequently agreed by Cabinet that the scheme should be continued and extended. 4) As a consequence in the summer of 2003 the pedestrianisation scheme was implemented during July and August between the hours of 11.00am and 5.00pm. In 2004 a further experiment was run with the same hours and duration but with a concession that one return trip was permitted for residents or businesses with access to an off street parking place and also to registered boat users from the harbour. On each occasion an experimental traffic order was implemented under Section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Again during and following each experiment considerable consultations were undertaken to ascertain public support for and to evaluate the scheme. 5) Following evaluation of the 2004 scheme Cabinet resolved in March 2005 to pursue a permanent vehicle prohibition for each July/August period in subsequent years between the hours of 11.00am and 5.00pm with concessions for certain residents, businesses and harbour users. The traffic order was advertised in accordance with the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and 63 objections were received. Council resolved that these objections should be considered at a public inquiry before attempting to proceed with the making of an order. The 2004 Experimental Order, which was valid for a period of up to 18 months, was continued in force to allow the Pedestrianisation scheme to be implemented in July and August 2005. An additional concession was introduced to allow Caldey Island residents to make one return journey in/out of the town. 6) To publicise and implement the restriction a number of measures were undertaken :- • Guidance notes, copy enclosed, on the effects of the scheme were drafted and distributed to over 700 properties in Tenby in advance of the commencement date of 2nd July. Copies were also sent to other organisations, property letting agencies and absent property owners. • Signage was provided to inform of the restriction, to mark the prohibition, to warn of the suspension of on street parking and to direct traffic to car parks and the Park & Ride service. Signs were designed in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and installed in excess of the minimum requirements of the Traffic Signs Manuals. Staff met with the Town Council and Walled Town Residents Association to agree on their siting. • Applications were received and vetted from residents and businesses who qualified for an access concession by virtue of having an off street parking place. Databases were established of these residents (152) plus registered harbour users (69). • Databases were also drawn up of the vehicles that would be permitted entry for health and safety reasons i.e. Lifeboat personnel, Coastguard personnel, Police emergency response vehicle, Royal Mail collection vehicles, delivery/collection of perishable goods, medical grounds etc. • Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and CCTV cameras were used to maintain checks on authorised vehicular journeys and monitor traffic movements. Police Officers or Traffic Wardens were used to enforce the prohibition. The Council made a financial contribution towards the cost of employing an additional Traffic Warden to ensure that there would be a continued presence. • County Council Contact Centre staff dealt with initial enquiries on the scheme from the public and were authorised to grant entry to motorists who satisfied qualifying criteria. They were given training by myself prior to the scheme commencing and visited Tenby to be familiar with the geography of the town. Records of their contacts were reviewed on a daily basis and additional support was given by the Traffic Section. • Special authorisations and appeals were dealt with by myself with the Traffic Manager and Director available for further referral. In addition the Council’s Occupational Health Advisor was available for referral where a resident/visitor did not wish to disclose confidential medical information. • A Council officer was located at Tenby Police Station on a daily basis throughout the period of the scheme. Three temporary employees undertook this role on a part time basis and were given training by myself. They were responsible for monitoring CCTV and ANPR, liaising with Contact Centre and Traffic Staff and coordinating actions of other officers working in the Town. • Two Park and Ride bus schemes were put into operation for the duration of the scheme. Hours of operation were 10.00am to 6.00pm. Details of the schemes were publicised by the distribution of the attached brochure. • Additional Car Park Attendants were employed to manage the 6 Council run car parks. In addition to their car parks enforcement responsibilities they also provided advice and information to visitors. Parking places were set aside in both North Beach (8) and Multi-Storey (19) car parks to allow free parking for walled town residents with off street parking places. An additional car park was available in reserve for times when traffic was at its peak. • A radio communication system was introduced throughout the period to enable staff to remain in contact with each other and to respond to problems as they arose. Radios were issued to car park attendants, bus drivers, harbour staff, traffic wardens and police officers. • Planning consent had previously been obtained to allow public houses, cafι’s and restaurants to set up tables and chairs on the footways and highway within the walled town during the hours of the scheme. Some 30 premises were licensed for this Cafι Culture. Staff from the Streetcare Section vetted the applications and periodic inspections to ensure compliance with conditions were undertaken. 7) The scheme concluded on 31st August 2005 when all measures were withdrawn. Traffic survey data and customer questionnaires are currently being evaluated. A meeting of all staff involved in implementing the scheme has recently taken place to review its effects. The evaluations and the evidence that has been obtained from the results obtained from them will be available to the Public Inquiry. Signed …………………………………………………… Dated ……………………………………………………… Geoffrey Sutton Senior Traffic Engineer Pembrokeshire County Council TENBY PEDESTRIANISATION SCHEME NOTES FOR GUIDANCE ON ACCESS TO THE WALLED TOWN SCOPE OF THE GUIDANCE The scheme relates to all streets within the walled town which are normally accessed by vehicles at White Lion Corner and the Belmont or Imperial Arch at The Paragon. Outside the pedestrianised periods vehicles may also leave the walled town via Upper Frog Street. The scheme prohibits entry to, and driving within the walled town between 11.00am and 5.00pm during July and August for 2005. The prohibition of driving will relate to the period commencing of the first Saturday of July (2nd July 2005) and terminating on the last day of August (31st August 2005). PRINCIPLES UNDERPINNING THE GUIDANCE In July and August 2003 an experiment was conducted involving the pedestrianisation of the walled town area of Tenby between 11.00 am and 5.00 pm daily. Following extensive feedback, mostly positive, from residents, businesses and visitors, the County Council had resolved to implement a similar pedestrianisation to take place throughout July and August 2004 and this will be continued in 2005. It is recognised that pedestrianisation has implications on both residents and businesses located within the walls and on Caldey Island. However, to allow vehicles to travel within the town centre during the pedestrianisation periods increases the risk to pedestrians and particularly visitors to the town who expect pedestrianisation to mean no vehicle movements at all and therefore many will allow their children some freedom to wander. In those circumstances vehicles moving around in the walled town represent a safety risk. These guidelines have therefore been drawn up in a way that allow some limited travel within the town primarily where there is a health and safety risk. In addition access permits are proposed for those residents and businesses with off road parking facility within the Walled Town and Caldey Island residents. AUTHORISATION OF JOURNEYS Nothing in this guidance should be read as giving automatic authorisation to enter, leave or travel within the pedestrianised area without prior authorisation. However, where journeys need to be made for medical or other emergencies without delay then this should be done and authorisation obtained later. The following guidelines are an indication of who may travel in the town centre and for what purposes. (a) Access by emergency vehicles including coastguard and lifeboat personnel responding to an emergency event (b) Access by doctors responding to medical emergencies (c) Access by the two Park and Ride buses operating from the North Beach Car Park to the Harbour (d) Access by electric vehicle for collection of litter and refuse (e) Weddings: Access will be authorised for up to 3 (more in exceptional circumstances) vehicles transporting bride and principal/disabled guests at the wedding. Vehicular access for other guests will not be authorised unless there is age or infirmity which would require transport close to the Church. Vehicular access may be authorised to a professional photographer who has to transport several items of photographic equipment. (f) Funerals: Access will be authorised for a cortege of funeral cars and the vehicles of close relatives. Access by other mourners is expected to be by foot from parking areas outside the town walls unless there are reasons of age or infirmity which would require transport close to the Church. (g) Harbour Issues: Access will generally be authorised for particular groups where there is a need to meet tidally controlled embarkation and disembarkation. Examples would be: • Visitors arriving in Tenby by train with luggage with a holiday booked on Caldey Island using a taxi to gain access to the Harbour. Elderly and infirm visitors to Caldey will also be allowed by taxi. The Park & Ride service will be available to others to access the Harbour area. • The delivery or collection from the Harbour of bulky or perishable goods in transit to/from Caldey Island. • The landing of substantial amounts of fish or other marine catches which cannot reasonably wait for collection until 5.00pm. • The transport to the Harbour of large volumes of fuel for tidal sailings where there is inadequate alternative fuel storage available. • Phased access to the Harbour for major planned events in order to avoid heavy congestion in the Harbour. • Access via the Harbour to beaches for approved mobile sales vans otherwise restricted for access for more than two hours by the tides. Exit from the Harbour area of mobile sales vans should weather conditions change and the beaches are largely devoid of customers. All access to the Harbour will be via Crackwell Street and vehicles will have to follow the Park and Ride bus and observe the maximum 10mph speed restriction. (h) Access Permits: Permits are to be issued to residents, business people and Caldey Island residents who own or control an off road parking facility. The permit would be issued to a specific vehicle provided that there is evidence of entitlement to park within the Walled Town off the public highway. The Harbour Car Park is to be designated as a pay and display car park for Harbour Users only. If a Harbour User has a permit to park in that car park then an access permit to the Walled Town can also be obtained. Holiday visitors may obtain an Access Permit provided the accommodation has off road parking for the use of that visitor. The permit will allow a single journey to and from the parking facility during the period 11.00 am – 5.00 pm whilst the Pedestrianisation Scheme is in force. A registration number will be required to be associated with the access permit so that the Automatic Number Plate Reader at the Police Station can monitor usage of the permits. Any request to access the Walled Town on a second occasion would require the applicant to seek prior authorisation from the Call Centre based on other criteria contained in these guidance notes. An access permit would allow driving within the Walled Town on the shortest route available from either White Lion Corner or Imperial Arch to and from the parking space. The permit will not allow driving in Tudor Square or the section of High Street from Tudor Square to the junction with Crackwell Street. GENERAL • Access will be authorised to tradesmen with heavy equipment or materials to effect emergency repairs in respect of water/gas leaks, electrical faults or loss of security/weather proofing of dwellings. Planned work on properties will not be granted access. • Access for equipment to clear blocked sewers, drains and gullies will be authorised. • Disabled access will not be authorised for all blue badge holders, disabled parking is provided on the streets immediately outside the town walls. Journey authorisation may be provided to resident (temporary or permanent) disabled persons requiring transport for medical needs and treatment, for returning prematurely to their residence through changes in the weather or for personal medical reasons, for formal religious services, for connecting with public transport services, or for other special or unforeseen circumstances. • Access by approved meals on wheels providers will be authorised. • Access by carers in vehicles will be authorised where the person receiving care is to be transported out of town for rehabilitation or recreation. • Access will generally be authorised for tow vehicles or repair vehicles, to attend broken down vehicles in town to achieve their removal. • Access will not generally be authorised for deliveries except in very exceptional circumstances e.g. delayed by mechanical breakdown of delivery vehicle or exceptional road conditions e.g. road blocked by accident. Delivery vehicles are expected to allow themselves sufficient time for their needs recognising the volume of traffic and normal delays that occur in the area during July and August. • Access to, or exit from, the restricted area will be authorised for house furniture removal vehicles where there is an inability to complete furniture removals outside the 11.00 am – 5.00 pm period ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS Where journeys are authorised to or from the Harbour area access is to be via White Lion Corner, High Street (to Crackwell Street only) and Crackwell Street. Travel on Crackwell Street is to be in convoy with authorised vehicle to follow Park and Ride bus on Crackwell Street to ensure no opposing flows on this single lane road. Any other access routes will be provided as part of the authorisation of journeys. All authorised access will require driver to travel at not more than 10 mph, to give way to pedestrian traffic and to follow any other travel condition specified. REQUESTING AN AUTHORISATION Where a person considers the intended journey satisfies the above criteria they may seek authorisation by phoning 01437 764551 or by writing to The Director of Transportation and Environment, County Hall, Haverfordwest, SA61 1TP providing details of the journey purpose, reason for the assumed qualification to enter, time of entry/exit vehicle details and destination within the Walled Town. ALTERNATIVE PARKING ARRANGEMENTS It has been agreed to set aside spaces in the Multi Storey Car Park, North Beach Car Park and Salterns Car Park for use by those residents/businesses within the Walled Town that have off street parking facilities. Attached is an application form for a vehicle badge to identify the vehicles and to provide authority to use one of the set aside spaces where available. APPLICATION FOR IDENTIFICATION BADGE – RESIDENTS OF WALLED TOWN A badge will be provided to a resident/business person who has an off road parking area within the Walled Town. The badge will be available for use in the Multi Storey, North Beach and Salterns Car Park within the designated set aside bays. There is no guarantee that a space will be available in a specific car park nor will the Badge provide a dedicated space in one of the car parks. The badge will also assist the Police/Traffic Warden to check vehicles within town are exercising the agreed entitlement to make one journey a day to and from the off road space. Name of Applicant: ……………………………………………………… Address: ……………………………………………………… ……..…………………………………………….... ……..…………………………………………….... Car Reg. ……………………………………………………… Vehicle Make & Model ……………………………………………………… Contact Tel. Nos. …………………………………………………….... Location of off road space ……………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………… Address to which badge is to be Sent if different from above ……………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………… I hereby request a Badge for use in one of the three nominated car parks in one of the set aside bays as available. I confirm that an off road space is currently exclusively available to me within the Walled Town Tenby Signature ……………………… Date …………….……. Name in Capital Letters ………………………………………………………….. REGISTRATION OF OFF ROAD PARKING SPACE – HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATION PROVIDERS During July and August overnight resident visitors will be permitted to enter the Walled Town between 11.00 am and 5.00 pm to access or depart from an off road parking space. In order to approve requests from visitors it will be necessary to draw up a list of off road parking spaces available to those visitors. The concession on access will not permit driving on Tudor Square or that section of High Street from the junction with Tudor Square to the junction with Crackwell Street. Location of off road parking space(s) ………………………………………………. ………………………………………………. Number of parking spaces used by resident/owner of property ………………. Number of parking spaces available to overnight stay visitors ………………. Name of owner of off road parking space(s) …………………………………………………. Address if different from above …………………………………………………. …………………………………………………. …………………………………………………. Contact Telephone Number ………………………………. As an accommodation provider you need to make your visitors aware that they may make one journey to and from a dedicated off road space between 11.00 am and 5.00 pm during July and August. Those journeys need to be approved via the Contact Centre, Telephone 01437 764551. The visitor will need to indicate the day(s) of travel, vehicle number and location of the off road space. The approval may only be effected if the off road space(s) have been registered and checked for availability for use by resident visitors. In the Matter of a Public Inquiry to consider a proposed Order under Section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 STATEMENT OF MR RAYMOND GREENWOOD I, Raymond Greenwood, Transportation Planner with Pembrokeshire County Council, County Hall, Haverfordwest SA61 1TP. State as follows:- 1. My main duties as a Transportation Planner are to:- • Help develop transport strategies, policies and programmes. • Undertake feasibility studies and prepare economic, environmental, road safety and operational analysis. • Represent the team, division, department and council at meetings, presentations, inquiries and as required. • Act as lead officer on several projects. • Undertake the audit of transport assessments for new developments. • Supervision, updating and maintenance of the county traffic model. 2. My remit with respect to the Tenby Pedestrianisation Experiment for both 2004 and 2005 were twofold • To agree and undertake traffic surveys in relation to the Pedestrianisation Experiment.. • To prepare reports of the Pembrokeshire County Council surveys relating to the Pedestrianisation Experiment for both 2004 and 2005. 3. For 2004 the format of the surveys were agreed with the representative groups and in conjunction with ADL consultants acting on behalf of TWTRA. This included responding to ADL Consultants requests for surveys and agreeing the extent and details of the surveys. It included a site visit with ADL Consultants’ Mr Mendelsohn and Pembrokeshire County Council Traffic Manager, John Price to discuss and agree survey locations and requirements. It involved supplying data. It included agreeing the design of the Roadside Interview Form. In all there was an ongoing correspondence, mainly undertaken by e-mail. 4. The surveys for both 2004 and 2005 were reported in the respective reports ‘Report on the results of the surveys undertaken by Pembrokeshire County Council during the Spring and Summer of 2004(5)’. 5. I was responsible for undertaking the traffic surveys in both 2004 and 2005. That is, I was responsible for and managed the roadside interview surveys undertaken on Bank Holiday 31st May and Tuesday 22nd June 2004 and their analysis. I was also responsible for the automatic and manual counts undertaken in 2004 and 2005 which were managed by an assistant. I undertook the night time parking survey of Thursday 27th 2004 between 0200 – 0330 with Richard Walker of TWTRA. Discussion of the traffic surveys are included in the ‘Report on the results of the Surveys undertaken by Pembrokeshire County Council During the Spring and Summer of 2004’ and in the ‘Report on the results of the Surveys undertaken by Pembrokeshire County Council During the Spring and Summer of 2005’. 6. The householder and business questionnaire were undertaken separately from myself by the Pembrokeshire County Council Marketing Section. The bus surveys were organised by Pembrokeshire County Council Public Transport Section, and the face to face surveys were undertaken jointly by the Traffic Management Section and Marketing Section. 7. In both 2004 and 2005 I produced a Report of Surveys which included a summary of the results of all the surveys undertaken by Pembrokeshire County Council related to Tenby Walled Town Pedestrianisation. The results of the surveys were detailed in the appendices in each case. 8. The conclusions of both the 2004 and 2005 survey reports were that there was general support for pedestrianisation and the Park and Ride Service. Signed …………………………………………………… Dated ……………………………………………………… Ray Greenwood Transportation Planner Pembrokeshire County Council TENBY WALLED TOWN PEDESTRIANISATION JULY & AUGUST 2004 Report on the results of the Surveys undertaken by Pembrokeshire County Council During the Spring and Summer of 2004 Contents 1. Introduction 2. Pedestrian Surveys 3. Park & Ride Surveys 4. Residents and Businesses Surveys 5. Traffic Surveys (including Parking Survey) 6. Conclusions The Appendices are in separate document 1. Introduction This report has been prepared to inform Representative Groups of the results of the surveys to determine the success or otherwise of the pedestrianisation of Tenby Walled Town during July and August 2004. A number of surveys were undertaken in and around Tenby Walled Town from May to November 2004. These have been undertaken to assess the value of the pedestrianisation scheme, to determine the merits of its continuation and to aid in the consideration of its development. They are comprehensive in that residents, visitors and businesses were surveyed. They show there was much support for the scheme. The format of the surveys was agreed with the Representative Groups through meetings and correspondence and in conjunction with ADL consultants acting on behalf of TWTRA, the Harbour Users and residents of Caldey Island. The percentages quoted in the Pedestrian, Park & Ride, and Residents and Businesses Surveys below relate to those answering the questions. That is, the numbers not answering the questions are excluded from the percentages but are included in the appendices. 2 Pedestrian Surveys Face to face pedestrian surveys were undertaken on Friday 6th August and Monday 23rd August 2004. The adult survey respondents were spread through the age range, and roughly equally divided by gender overall (though relatively more females were interviewed on 6th August and relatively more males on 23 August). Twenty interviews were undertaken in each of St. Mary’s Street, Cresswell Street, Crackwell Street, Paragon, and Lower Frog Street on both interview days. A total of two hundred people were interviewed altogether with the main findings being: ? Similar numbers who were interviewed were residents (30%), day visitors (37%) and overnight visitors (33%). ? Over half of those answering were on holiday (56%), over a third were shopping (39%) and most of the rest were there to work or on business (18%- the total is over 100% because multi-purpose trips are included). ? Most (78%) got to Tenby by car, with about 8% by each of bus and walking. ? A large majority (84%) supported pedestrianisation with 14% objecting. ? Awareness of the Park and Ride Services was 71%. ? Just over half thought the signage to the Park and Ride Car Parks was average or good but nearly half thought they were either poor or had not seen them. The majority of interviewees came by car but it appears many did not see the signing to the Park & Ride, so they can not be expected to use it. A third 33% were not aware of the Park & Ride which includes many of the visitors (residents could be expected to be aware of it). The success of traffic management in Tenby depends upon the most pertinent information being appropriated by visitor drivers. The results of this survey suggests that a review of signing for the Park & Ride with a view to making it more prominent is required. There was widespread support for pedestrianisation reflected in the survey and some of the comments. As would be expected (in a scheme that prevents vehicular access when previously this has been allowed) there were some comments of concern including: • The danger to children at 5.00 pm when the pedestrianisation ceases with the introduction of traffic. • The danger to pedestrians of allowing any vehicles between 11.00 am and 5.00 pm. • Problem of a disabled person and of an ill child needing to vacate the walled town to access powered transport. • Parking problems. The support for pedestrianisation is conditional, reflecting individual needs and desires. Although there is strong overall public support for pedestrianisation there are particular people who object, or who object to aspects of it. 3. Park & Ride Surveys Two park & ride services were run to and from Tenby walled town during July and August 2004. The “Green” service was supported by Pembrokeshire County Council, from North Beach Car Park. The “Blue” service from Salterns Car Park was supported by Pembrokeshire Coast National Park. Of those who attempted the questionnaires 72% were from the “Blue” service and 26% were from the “Green” service. Questionnaire surveys were undertaken on the Park and Ride buses which ran from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. during the months of pedestrianisation of the walled town. A total of 519 interviews were undertaken with 87% of participants being visitors of which 13% were day visitors. 89% arrived in Tenby by car. Most (62%) came from the north (A478). The most frequent stated reasons for using Park & Ride were ‘exploring the town’ (73%) ‘going to the harbour’ (45%) ‘shopping’ (45%) and ‘going to the beach’ (34%). 87% considered the bus seating adequate and only 2% considered the luggage space inadequate. 67% had less than 5 minutes to wait for a bus. Most were satisfied with the time the services started, a fifth thought the service should start earlier, and 44% thought the services should finish later. In fact during the first two weeks the service started at 8.30 a.m. on an experimental basis but there was very little take up during that first 90 minutes so the early start was abandoned. The questions about the quality of the service elicited positive responses with the following aspects rated excellent by the stated percentage: • The driver : 87% excellent • Ease of access onto bus : 79% excellent • Cleanliness of bus : 71% excellent • Frequency of the service : 68% excellent • Convenience of the service : 79% excellent • Highway signage : 46% excellent • Signage to the Park & Ride car parks : 48% excellent To the specific question on pedestrianisation of the walled town 96% expressed support and just 2% objected. 62% supported extending the hours of pedestrianisation as opposed to 9% objecting. Just 7% wanted the hours of pedestrianisation reduced. 55% supported the extension of pedestrianisation to other months of the year. 97% found the scheme satisfactory as opposed to 3% finding it unsatisfactory. All the above show a high level of customer satisfaction with the Park & Ride Scheme, with the exception of signing which was further commented on in the pedestrian surveys. The results of the Park & Ride Surveys (of people who are also pedestrians) support the results of the Pedestrian surveys viz. that there is overwhelming support for pedestrianisation during the summer months from pedestrians. The Park & Ride surveys also show strong support for extending the period of pedestrianisation. Of those suggesting an earlier start to pedestrianisation most said 8am-9am and the mean of those suggesting a later finish was 8pm. The last question asked for other comments which elicited a response rate of twenty two positive comments for every one negative comment. (See last page of Appendix 4) 4 Residents and Business Surveys Questionnaires were sent out in October 2004 to 3510 households and 347 businesses with 933 (26.6%) replies from residents and 70 (20.2%) replies from businesses. The following extract from the data indicates the strongest response to respective questions. (a) Householders 1. The experiment made no difference to the number of visits made 426 (46%). 2. The experiment did not affect the time of day when visiting the town in 563 (61%) of the replies. 3.a Car Park facilities were regarded as unsatisfactory 375 (40%) 3.b Signage to Car Parks was satisfactory 357 (39%) 3.c Park and Ride was satisfactory 409 (44%) 3.d Signage for Park and Ride was satisfactory 362 (39%) 3.e Signage for the Pedestrian Experiment was satisfactory 394 (43%) 4. Information on the experiment was good 331 (36%) average 272 (29%) 5. The County Council Helpline was not known by 435 (47%) 5.a The Helpline was used by 57 (6%) with difficulty experienced by 23 (2%) and unsatisfactory outcome 18 (2%) 6.a Tables and chairs did not hinder movement Agree 358 (39%) 6.b Pedestrianisation helped movement in the town 682 (73%) 6.c Pedestrianisation helped create a relaxed atmosphere 718 (77%) 6.d Pedestrianisation helped create a ‘cafι culture’ 604 (71%) 6.e Pedestrianisation increased drinking culture Agree 340 (36%) Disagree 353 (38%) 7.a Traffic Control using a form of Pedestrianisation was favoured (as opposed to other measures instead of pedestrianisation) 608 (66%) 7.b Repeating the same hours was favoured 373 (40%) 7.c Repeating a scheme with the same number of weeks 289(31%) 13% reduce 7.c Repeating a scheme with an increase in the number of weeks 293 (32%) 7.d Repeating a scheme with the same area 594 (64%) 7.e Provide unrestricted access to residents 320 (35%) 7.f Provide unrestricted access to business 575 (62%) 7.f Allow tradesmen and taxis access to carry out their work 433 (46%) 10. Visiting/staying in town was enhanced 409 (44%) 11. Pedestrianisation had no effect in most households 387 (42%) 13. Pedestrianisation had a positive effect on Tenby 397 (43%) (b) Businesses 1. Is your business situated within the Walled Town 61% yes, 39% No. 2. Information on the scheme was good 29 (41%) 3. Aware of the Helpline 46 (66%) 3.a Did not use the Helpline 45 (64%) 3.b The enquiry was unsatisfactory dealt with 3 (4%) 3.g Difficulty was experienced 6 (9%) 4.c Pedestrianisation helped in the creation of a relaxed atmosphere within the town 52 (75%) 8. The same number of people visited businesses 27 (39%) 10. The experiment had no effect on business deliveries 23 (33%) 11.a Traffic control using Pedestrianisation was favoured 47 (67%) 11.b Repeating a scheme with the same hours was favoured 25 (36%) 11.c Repeating a scheme with the same number of weeks 22 (31%) 11.c Repeating a scheme with an increase in the number of weeks 20 (29%) 11.d Repeating a scheme with the same area 43 (61%) 11.e Provide unrestricted access to residents 23 (33%) 11.f Provide unrestricted access to businesses and tradesmen 48 (69%) 11.f Provide unrestricted access to taxis and tradesmen 32 (48%) 12. There was no effect on the business 23 (33%) 13. Pedestrianisation had a positive effect on Tenby 30 (43%) As can be seen, particularly in response to question 4.c, there is positive feedback from pedestrianisation. Residents of Tenby Pedestrianisation did not significantly alter the overall frequency of Tenby resident’s visits to the walled town with 47% saying it made no difference to the frequency of visits. Similarly most (69%) said it made no change to the time of day they visited the walled town. 43% thought the car parking facilities were unsatisfactory. Just 13% thought that the information made available by PCC was poor or very poor though 51% were not aware of the help line. About a third (32%) thought tables and chairs on the street hindered pedestrian movement. 79% agreed that pedestrianisation helped the movement of people around the town with 17% disagreeing and similar proportions agreeing that a more relaxed atmosphere resulted (82%) and ‘cafι culture’ was helped (75%). Opinion of pedestrianisations effect on ‘drinking culture’ was mixed. For 2005 most (70%) wanted to continue with an improved pedestrianisation scheme. Just over half expressing an opinion said that the hours of pedestrianisation should remain the same though more wanted an increase in the hours than a decrease. Slightly more of those expressing an opinion (44%) wanted the months of pedestrianisation extended than kept the same (42%). Most wanted the area of pedestrianisation to remain the same. 45% of respondent residents wanted to be allowed a one way round trip or less, with 44% wanting unrestricted access. 20% wanted to allow businesses unrestricted access to their premises to load and unload. Half of those expressing an opinion thought pedestrianisation enhanced their experience of visiting the walled town and most thought it had a positive impact on Tenby. Residents of Tenby Walled Town Of the 122 residents responding out of the 552 residences in Tenby Walled Town 66% of those expressing an opinion agreed that pedestrianisation helped people to move around the town, 76% that the atmosphere was more relaxed, and 62% that ‘cafι culture’ was helped. Most (60%) residents of the walled town expressing an opinion want the current pedestrian scheme continued with improvements. Overall the responses generally reflected those of Tenby residents as a whole. More (52%) thought that the pedestrian experiment had a positive than a negative effect (38%). 44% said it had a negative effect on their household with 41% saying it detracted from their experience in the Walled Town. Businesses The survey results for the 70 businesses responding out of the 347 in Tenby showed general support for the pedestrianisation scheme despite some inconvenience for particular business operations. The same is true of the 43 businesses within the Walled Town who responded. 66% of those expressing an opinion thought pedestrianisation had a positive effect on Tenby with 29% thinking it had a negative effect. 5. Traffic Surveys (including Parking Survey) (a) Traffic Survey programme The survey programme was agreed based upon requests by Mr Mendelsohn (ADL). The agreed survey programme was based upon addressing the following requests: 1. Number of vehicles entering the walled town by classification and purpose. 2. Automatic traffic count data including for the weeks of the survey in 1. 3. Parking surveys at night. Further to the submission of the report on the preliminary results of the road interview surveys undertaken on Bank Holiday Monday 31st May 2004 the following was requested. 1. That automatic traffic count data from May onwards be included in the appendices to the report. 2. A table showing the comparison between manual and automatic counts are included in the report. 3. That the manual classified counts be provided in 15 minute intervals. (Note: the surveys were undertaken in 30 minute intervals so the 15 minute intervals were not possible). 4. The roadside interviews per hour be presented in a table (by half hour) which are compared to the traffic flow. 5. A copy of the questionnaire to be included in the appendices. 6. Clarification of needless trips. 7. All the data collected can be viewed by arrangement. (b) Automatic Traffic Counts Automatic traffic counts were undertaken at each of High Street, Upper Frog Street and Belmont Arch beginning in May 2004 and extending, with breaks, to September. The change in the type of counter used and breaks in surveys occurred for the following reasons. • A report of a child tripping on the count tube on Upper Frog Street in early June led to a review by a P.C.C. Safety Manager and the removal of the tubes. • Low vehicle speeds had made the accuracy of the tube counters suspect which means the data collected before July needs to be treated with caution. • New SDR (Speed Detection Radar) equipment was subsequently purchased by P.C.C. for this study. This equipment does not require tubes but there has been interruptions to counts because of problems of calibration and downloading due to unfamiliarity. The automatic traffic count results are summarised below. The figures are shown as 24 hour daily, 12 hour 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. (i.e. a standard Department for Transport daytime count), or 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. (corresponding to the hours of pedestrianisation). High Street Traffic Volumes Into Walled Town Out of Walled Town 31 May 12 hour (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) 1615 vehicles 1360 vehicles 24 hour 2252 “ 1878 “ 11am – 5pm 813 “ 753 “ 1-15 June Weekday Average 12 hr 1732 “ 1420 “ Average 24 hr 2258 “ 1826 “ 11am – 5pm 896 “ 871 “ 8-27 September Weekday Average 12 hr 1662 “ 1163 “ 24 hr 2071 “ 1470 “ During Pedestrianisation (SDR) : 8th July to 26th July weekday average 12 hr 910 “ 1116 “ average 24 hr 1381 “ 1764 “ 11am – 5pm 148 “ 132 “ Speeds 30.4.04. to 9.6.04. average 14.2 mph 13.3 mph 85th percentile 17.7 mph 16.1 mph (approx) 8.7.04. to 26.7.04. (SDR) average 18.0 mph 17.8 mph 85th percentile 23.9 mph 23.6 mph Vehicle Types 30.4.04. to 9.6.04. cars & vans 97.4% 96.7% Bus; 2,3,4 axle HGV 1.6% 2.5% 4 axle articulated HGV+ 1.0% 0.8% Upper Frog Street Traffic Volumes Vehicles out of walled town 31st May 12 hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) 444 24 hours 797 11 am – 5pm 212 12.5 to 9.6.04. Weekday Average 12 hr 462 24 hr 737 8.7 to 19.7.04. 12 hr 292 24 hr 544 11am – 5pm 79 Week beginning 19.8.04. Average 12 hr 358 24 hr 716 11am – 5pm 115 Week beginning 26.8.04. Average 12 hr 414 24 hr 600 11am – 5pm 236 Speeds 12.5 to 9.6.04. Average 14.4 mph 85th percentile 18.0 mph 8.7 to 19.7.04. (SDR) Average 12.0 mph 85th percentile 19.2 mph Vehicle Types 12.5.04 to 9.6.04 cars & vans 94.2% bus, 2,3,4 arch HGV 4.3% 4 arch articulated HGV+ 1.5% Belmont Arch Into Walled Town Out of Walled Town Traffic Volumes 5.5.04 to 9.6.04. week day average 12hr (7am-7pm) 265 144 week day average 24 hr 384 207 week day average 11am – 5pm 131 69 31st May 12 hr 219 135 24 hr 368 211 11am – 5pm 104 65 Week beginning 6th Aug 04 average weekday (SDR) 12 hr 493 6 24 hr 633 8 11am – 5pm 211 3 Vehicle Proportions 31st May 04 cars & vans 93.5% 99.5% bus; 2,3,4 arch HGV 5.2% 0.5% 4 arch articulated HGV+ 1.3% 0% Speeds 5.5.04. – 9.6.04. average 85th percentile not given 12.8 mph 12.8 mph Week beginning 6.8.04 (SDR) Average 17.3 mph approx 10 mph 85th percentile 21.0 mph n/a Total 24 hour flows into and out of the Walled Town are summarised below: inbound outbound 31st May (Tube) High Street 2252 1878 Upper Frog Street N/A 797 * Belmont Arch 384 207 Total 2636 2882 July/August (SDR) High Street 1381 1764 Upper Frog Street N/A 544 Belmont Arch 633 8 Total 2014 2316 ** * The count using tubes at Belmont Arch is particularly unreliable because of the very low speeds of vehicles crossing them (tubes are calibrated for use at sites with normal vehicle speeds). ** The discrepancy between inbound and outbound flows are due primarily to the counts for each site being for different periods within July/August. This means that the totals inbound and outbound would not be expected to equate exactly. The relatively large flow into the Walled Town via Belmont Arch during pedestrianisation may be due to that entrance not being covered by C.C.T.V. The automatic counters were operational during the period of the manual counts between 11am – 5pm on 31st May. Below is a comparison of the figures. High Street Upper Frog Street inbound outbound Outbound Counter Automatic Manual Automatic Manual Automatic Manual 11am-12 noon 137 174 134 164 31 29 12-1pm 136 182 127 168 29 32 1-2pm 130 250 118 224 33 33 2-3pm 116 194 109 168 33 46 3-4pm 142 124 138 135 36 48 4-5pm 152 153 127 151 50 52 Total 11am – 5pm 813 1077 753 1010 212 240 As can be seen the automatic count data differs from the manual count reflecting problems with the tube count already stated. (c) Manual Classified Counts Manual classified counts were undertaken between 11 am – 5 pm on High Street and Upper Frog Street on 31st May 2004 (Bank Holiday Monday) and Tuesday, 22nd June 2004 to coincide with the roadside interviews. The purpose for using these two days is that the Bank Holiday count is representative of summer holiday traffic if there was no pedestrianisation; the 22nd June represents a normal working and school day in the summer. The results are summarised below: Total Traffic flows 11 am – 5 pm High Street (in) High Street (out) Upper Frog Street (out) Total Vehicles HGV Total Vehicles HGV Total Vehicles HGV 31 May 2004 1077 11 1010 9 240 2 22 June 2004 1053 6 920 7 337 2 During both days the weather was inclement, but more so on May Bank Holiday Monday. Belmont (otherwise known as Imperial) Arch is the other entry point to the walled town. An automatic counter there showed the following for 11 am – 6 pm on: Imperial Arch Walled Town Total Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound 31 May 2004 104 65 1181 1315 22 June 2004 139 87 (based on 226 two-way) 1192 1344 These flows show greater outbound than inbound movements which corresponds to people entering the Walled Town before 11.00 am and leaving between 11.00 am and 5.00 pm. Outbound interviews were not undertaken at Belmont Arch as egress is not permitted beyond the adjacent Imperial Hotel car park. It should be borne in mind that on both these survey days the weather was unusually inclement which resulted in reduced activity in the town centre. (d) Roadside Interviews These were conducted on High Street and Upper Frog Street outbound movements on Bank Holiday Monday 31st May and Tuesday 22nd June between 11 am and 5 pm. The number of completed surveys and sample size are as follows: High Street Upper Frog Street No. of Completed Surveys Count Sample Size No. of Completed Surveys Count Sample Size 31 May 2004 452 996 45.4% 226 239 94.6% 22 June 2004 393 904 43.5% 192 334 57.5% Note: The interview surveys of 22nd June started late due to the Police Officers being required at an incident. The journey purpose (origin) in the Walled Town were as follows: 31 May 2004 22 June 2004 High Street Upper Frog Street High Street Upper Frog Street Home 5.5 9.3 4.3 9.4 Work 13.7 19.5 31.0 33.3 Harbour 2.9 0.4 1.0 0.5 Caldey Resident 0.2 0.4 0.3 0 Caldey Visitor 0.9 0 0 0.5 Rec/Tourist 33.6 18.6 19.1 10.4 Holiday Home 3.8 5.3 1.8 2.6 Shopping 28.3 21.7 12.2 13.5 Personal Business 7.7 15.5 26.2 26.0 Servicing a Resident 0.2 0.4 0 0 Social 2.2 8.4 2.5 3.7 Other 0.9 0.4 1.5 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 The proportion of leisure and trips are, as would be suspected, higher on May Bank Holiday than on the June weekday, and work related trips lower. The distribution of trips by origin are as follows: Tenby Walled Town Zone List 31 May 2004 22 June 2004 High Street Upper Frog Street High Street Upper Frog Street Not known 40 12 3 5 Looking to park car 108 5 34 0 Tudor Square 282 53 454 105 Harbour 157 10 137 10 Caldey Island 7 1 10 0 St Julian Street 30 1 73 9 Tenby Walled Town Zone List 31 May 2004 22 June 2004 High Street Upper Frog Street High Street Upper Frog Street Bridge Street 10 0 5 0 Penniless Cove (including Car Park) 0 0 0 0 Pier and Pier Hill 0 0 8 0 Castle Square 0 0 6 0 St Catherine’s Terrace 0 0 0 0 St Julians Terrace 18 1 3 0 Crackwell Street 17 0 16 2 High Street 161 29 56 32 Upper Frog Street 0 26 6 47 Lower Frog Street 0 27 18 68 St Mary’s Street 12 2 4 2 Paragon 2 1 15 0 Cresswell Street 15 1 6 0 St George’s Street/ Church Street 11 10 7 17 Tor Lane/Cobb Lane 5 0 0 0 Did not Stop 60 44 17 13 Lost 38 4 16 6 Out of the Walled Town 23 12 10 18 996 239 904 334 The dominant origin zone was Tudor Square followed by those who did not have a good reason for being in the walled town. This latter group is made up of those who did not know where they had come from, in the Walled Town those looking for a car park, those who did not stop, out of walled town and those who were lost. The interviewers were asked to try and tease out the origins from the interviewed, many of whom would not have known the geography of the walled town. The percentages from the main origins are as follows: 31 May 2004 22 June 2004 High Street Upper Frog Street All Trips (Weighted) High Street Upper Frog Street All Trips (Weighted) Not known 4.0 5.0 0.3 1.5 Looking to park car 10.8 2.1 3.8 0 Did not stop 6.0 18.4 1.9 3.9 31 May 2004 22 June 2004 High Street Upper Frog Street All Trips (Weighted) High Street Upper Frog Street All Trips (Weighted) Out of Walled Town 2.3 5.0 1.1 1.8 ‘Needless’ trips 26.9% 22.2% 26.0% 8.9% 12.6% 9.9% Tudor Square 28.3% 22.2% 27.1% 50.2% 31.4% 45.1% Harbour 15.8% 4.2% 13.5% 15.2% 2.3% 11.7% High Street 16.2% 12.1% 15.4% 6.2% 9.5% 7.1% Other 12.8% 39.3% 17.9% 19.5% 44.2% 26.2% The proportion of “needless” trips into the walled town (i e the weighted average of High Street and Upper Frog Street trips) is 26% for 31 May. This is less than the 40% suggested in the preliminary report dated 23 June. This is because the original zone coding was undertaken by an office worker, purely from the interview forms, who had no experience of this type of work. It was done to determine some preliminary indicators for a TWTRA meeting. More detailed analysis of the forms has subsequently taken place by experienced interviewer/coders with a good geographic knowledge of the Walled Town. The proportion of “needless” trips was lower on the 22 June at 9.9% reflecting the lower level of visitor trips than on May Bank Holiday Monday. The highest proportion of trips that had an origin in Tudor Square, followed by The Harbour and High Street. Amongst the category “Other” St Julian Street was the origin with the largest trips (2.5% and 6.6% for 31 May and 22 June respectively). The proportion of origins from the High Street/Tudor Square/St Julian Street corridor is 47.5% and 77.9% of trips (64.2%) and 86.5%, excluding “needless” trips) for 31 May and 22 June respectively. Showing the dominance of this corridor within the walled town. The weather will have materially affected the above results. It is likely that good weather would attract more speculative trips. 6. Conclusions The main conclusions of the surveys are that: ? There is overwhelming support for pedestrianisation reflected in the separate surveys in the walled town and on the Park and Ride buses. ? While most trips on the bank holiday are leisure based but during a normal working day a majority have work or personal business purposes. ? Most vehicular trips have origins within the vicinity of Tudor Square but, in the holiday periods, around a quarter are “needless”. ? The park and ride received widespread approval. • There was general support for restricting vehicular access though concessions for businesses and residents of the walled town were supported by some (i.e. 13 of the 43 businesses responding and 52 (43%) of the 122 residents responding said their particular group should have unrestricted access). RG/MMB/SF TENBY WALLED TOWN PEDESTRIANISATION JULY AND AUGUST 2005 TENBY WALLED TOWN PEDESTRIANISATION JULY & AUGUST 2005 Report 2 on the results of the Surveys undertaken by Pembrokeshire County Council During the Spring and Summer of 2005 (Format as per 2004 Report of Surveys) Contents 7. Introduction 8. Pedestrian Surveys 9. Park & Ride Surveys 10. Residents and Businesses Surveys 11. Traffic Surveys (including Parking Survey) 12. Conclusions Appendices: Tenby Walled Town Pedestrianisation Questionnaire Results 2. Introduction This report has been prepared to inform Representative Groups of the results of the surveys to determine the success or otherwise of the pedestrianisation of Tenby Walled Town during July and August 2005. A number of surveys were undertaken in and around Tenby Walled Town from May to November 2005. These have been undertaken to assess the value of the pedestrianisation scheme, to determine the merits of its continuation and to aid in the consideration of its development. They are comprehensive in that residents, visitors and businesses were surveyed. They show there was much support for the scheme. The format of the surveys was agreed with the Representative Groups through meetings and correspondence. 2 Pedestrian Surveys Face to face pedestrian surveys were undertaken on Friday 12th August, Tuesday 16th August, and Friday 26th August 2005. The adult survey respondents were spread through the age range though those from the middle and upper age range were predominant. Three percent more males than females were interviewed. Interviews were undertaken in each of St. Mary’s Street (5), Cresswell Street (34), Crackwell Street (128), Paragon (76), and Lower Frog Street (10) on each interview day. The main findings from the 254 interviewed were: ? Most people interviewed were visitors (81%). In the 2004 surveys there were more residents interviewed (30%). ? Most of those answering were on holiday (70% of interviewees or 87% of those answering). ? Over half, (57% of those answering) travelled to Tenby by car, with a third (35% of those answering) travelling by foot. In 2004 78% said they travelled to Tenby by car. ? A large majority (87% of those answering) supported pedestrianisation with 10% objecting. In 2004 84% supported pedestrianisation. ? Overall 89% of those answering thought that the street they were being interviewed on should continue to form part of the pedestrianised area. For each street an overwhelming majority (of all interviewees) were in favour of that street forming part of the pedestrianised area. ? As in 2004 71% of those answering were aware of the Park and Ride Services. ? Half of those answering thought the signage to the Park and Ride Car Parks was average or good but an equal number thought the signage either poor or they had not seen the signage. This is similar to the results in 2004. There was widespread support for pedestrianisation reflected in the survey results. The proportion of respondents in favour of pedestrianisation at 87% is nearly the same as in 2004 when it was 84%. However, there were some expressions of concern. The most frequent one was for improved signage (‘more signs needed’). There were also a number of comments to the effect that there should be more or less restriction on vehicular access, and that pedestrianisation should be extended or reduced. At 65% a slightly smaller proportion of people were aware of Park and Ride services in 2005 than in 2004. This may be due, in part, to there being a smaller proportion of local people interviewed in 2005 than in 2004 (local people would be expected to know of the Park & Ride). It can be expected that as Park and Ride becomes an established part of the summer experience of Tenby it will become more universally known, aided by continued marketing, improved signage and repeat visitors. The half who had not seen the Park and Ride signage or thought it was poor, reflects a similar proportion in 2004. The signage is under constant review given the conflicting objectives of avoiding clutter, improving other signage, financial and legislative/administrative constraints. In general, the face to face surveys of pedestrians for 2005 (as in 2004) showed overwhelming support for pedestrianisation of Tenby Walled Town in the summer months. 3. Park & Ride Surveys Two park & ride services were run to and from Tenby Walled Town during July and August 2004. The “Green” service was supported by Pembrokeshire County Council, from North Beach Car Park. The “Blue” service from Salterns Car Park was supported by Pembrokeshire Coast National Park. Of those who attempted the questionnaires 177 (45%) were from the “Blue” service and 219 (55%) were from the “Green” service. Questionnaire surveys were undertaken on the Park and Ride buses which ran from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. during the months of July and August. A total of 396 interviews were undertaken with 82% of participants being visitors of which 17% were day visitors. 85% arrived in Tenby by car. Most (75%) came from the north (A478). The most frequent stated reasons for using Park & Ride were ‘exploring the town’ (63%) ‘going to the harbour’ (46%) ‘shopping’ (45%) and ‘going to the beach’ (35%). 4% considered the luggage space inadequate. 65% had less than 5 minutes to wait for a bus. Most were satisfied with the time the services started, a fifth thought the service should start earlier, and 39% thought the services should finish later. In 2004 during the first two weeks the service started at 8.30 a.m. on an experimental basis but there was very little take up during that first 90 minutes so the early start was abandoned. The questions about the quality of the service elicited positive responses with the following aspects rated excellent by the stated percentage: • The driver : 75% excellent • Ease of access onto bus : 69% excellent • Cleanliness of bus : 67% excellent • Frequency of the service : 63% excellent • Convenience of the service : 69% excellent • Highway signage : 45% excellent • Signage to the Park & Ride car parks : 48% excellent To the specific question on pedestrianisation of the Walled Town 85% expressed support and 6% objected. 53% supported extending the hours of pedestrianisation as opposed to 21% objecting. 17% wanted the hours of pedestrianisation reduced. 51% supported the extension of pedestrianisation to other months of the year. 89% found the scheme satisfactory as opposed to 11% finding it unsatisfactory. All the above show a high level of customer satisfaction with the Park & Ride Scheme, with the exception of signing which was further commented on in the pedestrian surveys. The results of the Park & Ride Surveys (of people who are also pedestrians) support the results of the Pedestrian surveys viz. that there is overwhelming support for pedestrianisation during the summer months from pedestrians. The Park & Ride surveys also show support for extending the period of pedestrianisation. Of those suggesting an earlier start to pedestrianisation most said around 9am and many of the suggestions for a later finish were around 8pm. The last question asked for other comments which elicited a preponderance of positive comments. 5 Residents and Business Surveys Questionnaires were sent out in October 2005 to 3307 households and 377 businesses with 964 (29.1%) replies from residents and 93 (24.7%) replies from businesses. The following extract from the data indicates the strongest response to respective questions. The responses are recorded in more detail in the following appendices. (c) Householders 3. The experiment made no difference to the number of visits made 422 (44%). 4. The experiment did not affect the time of day when visiting the town in 573 (59%) of the replies. 3.a Car Park facilities were regarded as unsatisfactory 368 (38%) 3.b Signage to Car Parks was satisfactory 435 (45%) 3.c Park and Ride was satisfactory 447 (46%) 3.d Signage for Park and Ride was satisfactory 417 (43%) 3.e Signage for the Pedestrian Experiment was satisfactory 479 (50%) 4. Information on the experiment was good 359 (37%)or average267 (28%) 5. The County Council Helpline was not known by 490 (51%) 5.a The Helpline was used by 46 (5%) with difficulty experienced by 28 (3%) 6.a Tables and chairs did not hinder movement Agree 537 (56%) 6.b Pedestrianisation helped movement in the town 686 (71%) 6.c Pedestrianisation helped create a relaxed atmosphere 725 (75%) 6.d Pedestrianisation helped create a ‘cafι culture’ 656 (68%) 6.e Pedestrianisation increased drinking culture Agree 225 (24%) Disagree 423 (44%) 7.a Traffic Control using a form of Pedestrianisation was favoured (as opposed to other measures instead of pedestrianisation) 629 (65%) 7.b Repeating the same hours was favoured 297 (31%) 7.c Repeating a scheme with the same number of weeks 261 (27%) 7.c Repeating a scheme with an increase in the number of weeks 276 (29%) 7.d Repeating a scheme with the same area 517 (54%) 7.e Provide unrestricted access to residents 263 (27%) 7.f Provide unrestricted access to business 154 (16%) 7.f Allow tradesmen and taxis access to carry out their work 372 (39%) 8 How many return journeys a day are required? The majority did not answer 862 (89%) One or less a day 67 (7%) More than one a day 34 (4%) 10. Visiting/staying in town was enhanced 416 (43%) 11. Pedestrianisation had no effect in most households 390 (40%) 13. Pedestrianisation had a positive effect on Tenby 582 (61%) (d) Businesses 1. Is your business situated within the Walled Town 44% yes, 54% No. 2. Information on the scheme was good 48 (51%) 3. Aware of the Helpline 50 (54%) 3.a Did not use the Helpline 51 (55%) 3.b The enquiry was unsatisfactory dealt with 3 (3%) 3.c Difficulty was experienced 3 (3%) 4.c Pedestrianisation helped in the creation of a relaxed atmosphere within the town 70 (75%) 8. The same number of people visited businesses 39 (42%) 10. The experiment had no effect on business deliveries 26 (28%) 11.a Traffic control using Pedestrianisation was favoured 53 (57%) 11.b Repeating a scheme with the same hours was favoured 19 (20%) 11.b Extend the hours of Pedestrianisation 23 (25%) 11.c Repeating a scheme with the same number of weeks 23 (25%) 11.c Repeating a scheme with an increase in the number of weeks 17 (18%) 11.d Repeating a scheme with the same area 40 (43%) 11.e Provide unrestricted access to residents 21 (23%) 11.f Provide unrestricted access to businesses or tradesmen 32 (34%) 11.f Provide unrestricted access to taxis or tradesmen 31 (33%) 13. There was no effect on the business 27 (29%) 14. Pedestrianisation had a positive effect on Tenby 45 (48%) As can be seen, particularly in response to question 4.c, there is positive feedback from pedestrianisation. Residents of Tenby Pedestrianisation did not significantly alter the overall frequency of Tenby resident’s visits to the Walled Town with 50% saying it made no difference to the frequency of visits. Similarly most (61%) said it made no change to the time of day they visited the Walled Town. 40% thought the car parking facilities were unsatisfactory. Just 15% thought that the information made available by PCC was poor or very poor though 53% were not aware of the help line. About a third (35%) thought tables and chairs on the street hindered pedestrian movement. 75% agreed that pedestrianisation helped the movement of people around the town with 20% disagreeing and similar proportions agreeing that a more relaxed atmosphere resulted (80%) and ‘cafι culture’ was helped (72%). Opinion of pedestrianisations effect on ‘drinking culture’ was mixed. For 2005 most (56%) wanted to continue with an improved pedestrianisation scheme. Nearly a half expressing an opinion (46%) said that the hours of pedestrianisation should remain the same though a third wanted an increase in the hours (35%). Slightly more of those expressing an opinion (44%) wanted the months of pedestrianisation extended than kept the same (41%). Most wanted the area of pedestrianisation to remain the same. 40% of respondent residents wanted to be allowed a one way round trip or less, with 42% wanting unrestricted access. 18% wanted to allow businesses unrestricted access to their premises to load and unload. Nearly half of those expressing an opinion thought pedestrianisation enhanced their experience of visiting the Walled Town (46%) and most thought it had a positive impact on Tenby (67%). Residents of Tenby Walled Town 113 responses were received. This represents approximately 20% of the Walled Town residences. Of the 113 residents responding out of the 552 residences in Tenby Walled Town 66% of those expressing an opinion agreed that pedestrianisation helped people to move around the town, 64% that the atmosphere was more relaxed, and 53% that ‘cafι culture’ was helped. Most (61%) residents of the Walled Town expressing an opinion want the current pedestrian scheme to continue, with many wanting it improved. Overall the responses generally reflected those of Tenby residents as a whole. More (45%) thought that the pedestrian experiment had a positive than a negative effect (39%). 49% said it had a negative effect on their household with 47% saying it detracted from their experience in the Walled Town. Of those who answered the question regarding the degree of access required, 60 people required one or less return journeys per day, 27 people required two or three return journeys per day, and 6 required four or more return journeys per day. 20 people did not answer the question. Businesses The survey results for the 93 businesses responding out of the 377 in Tenby showed general support for the pedestrianisation scheme despite some inconvenience for particular business operations. The same is true of the 41 businesses within the Walled Town who responded. 71% of those expressing an opinion thought pedestrianisation had a positive effect on Tenby with 19% thinking it had a negative effect. Of the Walled Town businesses responding to the question regarding the degree of access required, 24 required one or less return journeys per day, 6 required two or three return journeys per day, and 6 required four or more return journeys per day. 5 did not answer the question. 5. Traffic Surveys Automatic and manual traffic counts were undertaken on High Street, Upper Frog Street and Belmont Arch, Tenby during July and August 2005. In addition, data was made available from the police camera for the last week of August 2005. During pedestrianisation the daily traffic flows in and out of the Walled Town on the High Street were of the order of a hundred vehicles in each direction for the 6 hours 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., or less than 3 vehicles every 10 minutes. The daily count for Upper Frog Street averages 13 for the 6 hours of pedestrianisation. However, the flow for Belmont Arch averages 79 inbound and 64 outbound. It is notable that the Belmont Arch inbound flows are higher for the 6 hours of pedestrianisation than the 6 hours outside pedestrianisation (7am – 11am and 5pm – 7pm) within the standard 12 hour (7am – 7pm) count period. This did not apply on the 30 August when the manual count on Belmont Arch was undertaken. During the 6 hours of pedestrianisation on that day, 21 vehicles were counted in and 14 vehicles were counted out. The survey was undertaken on the site by adults in high visibility clothing and could be taken as a deterrent to the practice of gaining illicit access to the Walled Town via an entry not covered by CCTV. Data was available from the Police Camera records for 26 to 31 August 2005. This showed daily 6 hour (11am – 5pm) flows averaging 153 or about 4 vehicles every 10 minutes. This is a similar order of movements as indicated by the automatic and manual counting. The police camera showed that, on average during pedestrianisation, out of 153 vehicular movements: 68 were bus, 16 residents, 19 harbour users, 14 permits and 36 others. Overall the volumes of traffic during pedestrianisation appear to be lower than they were in 2004. 6. Conclusions As with 2004 there continues to be widespread support from all sections of Tenby’s Summer community for pedestrianisation notwithstanding some concerns. Respondents to the questionnaires feel safer in an improved environment as expressed through responses to questions on pedestrian movement, creation of a relaxed environment, and creation of a Cafι Culture. The majority of Walled Town Residents responding expressed a preference for the existing pedestrianisation scheme to continue. The majority of Businesses within the Walled Town responding thought that pedestrianisation had a positive effect on Tenby. The majority of Walled Town Residents and businesses are satisfied with one or less return journeys per day. Pedestrianisation has allowed the better control of traffic within Tenby Walled Town with access from the main peripheral car parks provided by Park & Ride. However, there continued to be some concern about the sufficiency of signage and this is under constant review. The Park and Ride received widespread approval as in 2004. There was general support for restricting vehicular access though concessions for businesses and residents of the Walled Town were supported by some. 2 (5%) of the 41 businesses responding said that they should have unrestricted access, and 36 (32%) of the 113 residents responding said that they should have unrestricted access. Only 33 of the 113 Walled Town residents responding, expressed a need for more than one return journey per day to/from the pedestrianised area with 60 requiring no more than one return journeys per day. Twenty residents did not answer. Only 12 of the 41 Walled Town businesses responding, expressed a need for more than one return journey per day to/from the pedestrianised area with 24 requiring no more than one return journey per day. 5 businesses did not answer. RG 24/04/2006 APPENDICES Tenby Walled Town Pedestrianisation Questionnaire Results TENBY PEDESTRIAN EXPERIMENT HOUSEHOLDER SURVEY 2005 Total Number of Responses: 964 (including 16 responses that do not indicate inside or outside of walled town) (COMBINED INSIDE AND OUTSIDE WALLED TOWN) LOCATION: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 16 2 Inside Town Walls 113 12 Outside Town Walls 835 87 Total 964 100 1. Which of the following statements best describes how the pedestrian experiment affected the number of visits YOU made to the Walled Town? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 124 13 I visited the walled town MORE frequently as a result of the experiment 240 25 I visited the walled town LESS frequently as a result of the experiment 157 16 The experiment made no difference to the number of visits I made to the walled town 422 44 I did not visit the walled town during the experiment 21 2 Total 964 100 2. Did the pedestrianisation experiment affect the time of day you visited the walled town? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 21 2 Yes 370 38 No 573 59 Total 964 100 If YES, how did it change? Please See Appendix One 3. Please give your views on the following: a. Car parking facilities: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 39 4 Satisfactory 303 31 Unsatisfactory 368 38 Didn’t Use/No Opinion 254 26 Total 964 100 b. Signage for car parking: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 97 10 Satisfactory 435 45 Unsatisfactory 183 19 Didn’t Use/No Opinion 249 26 Total 964 100 c. Park & Ride facilities: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 82 9 Satisfactory 447 46 Unsatisfactory 60 6 Didn’t Use/No Opinion 375 39 Total 964 100 d. Signage for Park & Ride: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 97 10 Satisfactory 417 43 Unsatisfactory 127 13 Didn’t Use/No Opinion 323 34 Total 964 100 e. Signage about the pedestrian experiment: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 88 9 Satisfactory 479 50 Unsatisfactory 209 22 Didn’t Use/No Opinion 188 20 Total 964 100 4. How would you rate the information made available by the County Council about the pedestrianisation experiment? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 20 2 Excellent 92 10 Good 359 37 Average 267 28 Poor 98 10 Very Poor 47 5 Don’t Know/No Opinion 81 8 Total 964 100 5. Were you aware of the County Council helpline during the pedestrian experiment? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 40 4 Yes 434 45 No 490 51 Total 964 100 5a. Did you use the helpline? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 422 44 Yes 46 5 No 496 51 Total 964 100 5a1. If YES, did you experience any difficulties? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 891 92 Yes 28 3 No 45 5 Total 964 100 5b. How was your query dealt with? Please See Appendix Two 5c. Do you have any other comments to make regarding the helpline? Please See Appendix Three 6. Please respond to each of the following statements about the 2005 pedestrianisation experiment in Tenby: a. Tables and chairs on the street seem to hinder pedestrian movement: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 54 6 Strongly Agree 143 15 Agree 176 18 Disagree 365 38 Strongly Disagree 172 18 No Opinion/Don’t Know 54 6 Total 964 100 b. Pedestrianisation seems to help the movement of residents and visitors around the town: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 57 6 Strongly Agree 272 28 Agree 414 43 Disagree 123 13 Strongly Disagree 54 6 No Opinion/Don’t Know 44 5 Total 964 100 c. Pedestrianisation helped in the creation of a relaxed atmosphere within the town: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 56 6 Strongly Agree 361 37 Agree 364 38 Disagree 107 11 Strongly Disagree 40 4 No Opinion/Don’t Know 36 4 Total 964 100 d. Pedestrianisation helped to create a Cafι Culture on the streets: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 54 6 Strongly Agree 277 29 Agree 379 39 Disagree 122 13 Strongly Disagree 64 7 No Opinion/Don’t Know 68 7 Total 964 100 e. Pedestrianisation seemed to increase problems relating to alcohol and drinking within the town: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 89 6 Strongly Agree 112 12 Agree 113 12 Disagree 297 31 Strongly Disagree 126 13 No Opinion/Don’t Know 257 27 Total 964 100 f. Would you like to make any further comments regarding the issues raised in the previous questions? Please See Appendix Four 7. In order to plan for traffic management in Tenby in the summer of 2006, please indicate which of the following statements best describes what you would like to see happening in Tenby next year: a. Traffic Control: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 61 6 Instead of pedestrianisation consider further traffic regulations to restrict the amount of traffic in the walled town at all times 104 11 Instead of pedestrianisation consider stricter enforcement of current traffic regulations 130 13 Continue to improve and develop the current pedestrianisation scheme 509 53 Continue with 2005 scheme without alteration 120 12 No opinion 40 4 Total 964 100 b. Hours: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 324 34 Repeat the same hours of pedestrianisation 11.00am – 5.00pm 297 31 Extend the hours of pedestrianisation 226 23 Reduce the hours of pedestrianisation 91 9 No opinion 26 3 Total 964 100 c. Weeks: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 333 35 Repeat the same number of weeks the experiment runs (First week of July to last week of August) 261 27 Increase the number of weeks the experiment runs 276 29 Reduce the number of weeks the experiment runs 68 7 No opinion 26 3 Total 964 100 d. Area: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 341 35 Reduce the area covered by the experiment 58 6 Repeat the same area covered by the experiment 517 54 No opinion 48 5 Total 964 100 e. Vehicular access for residents: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 334 35 Allow no access to residents as in 2003 experiment 44 5 Allow only one round trip per day to residents with off road parking as in 2005 experiment 250 26 Allow residents unrestricted access to their homes to load and unload 263 27 No opinion 73 8 Total 964 100 f. Vehicular access for others: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 378 39 Allow business unrestricted access to their premises to load and unload 154 16 Allow tradesmen access to carry out their work 372 39 Allow taxis access to carry out their work 172 18 No opinion 148 15 Total 1224 127 8. As a resident of the walled town, on average, how many return journeys in and out of the walled town do you need during the pedestrianisation period? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 862 89 None 25 3 One return journey per day (one journey in and one journey out of the walled town) 24 2 Between two and three journeys per day (up to three journeys in and three journeys out of the walled town) 27 3 Four or more return journeys per day 7 1 Within one week – up to five return journeys (less than one a day) 19 2 Total 964 100 9. If you have any comments to make regarding any aspect of the implementation of the pedestrianisation scheme, please write in: Please See Appendix Five 10. We would be pleased to welcome your comments on alternative approaches to reducing congestion, improving safety and enhancing the environment in the town during the busy summer months: Please See Appendix Six 11. Overall, the pedestrianisation experiment has: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 66 7 Enhanced my experience of going to/staying/living in the walled town 416 43 Detracted from my experience of going to/staying/living in the walled town 204 21 Had no effect on my experience of going to/staying/living in the walled town 278 29 Total 964 100 12. Overall, how has the pedestrian experiment affected your household? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 60 6 Strong negative effect 68 7 Negative effect 138 14 No effect 390 40 Positive effect 226 23 Strong positive effect 82 9 Total 964 100 13a. What were the main positive aspects? Please See Appendix Seven 13b. What were the main negative aspects? Please See Appendix Eight 14. Overall, in your opinion how has the pedestrian experiment affected Tenby? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 97 10 Strong negative effect 63 7 Negative effect 133 14 No effect 89 9 Positive effect 430 45 Strong positive effect 152 16 Total 964 100 14a. What were the main positive aspects? Please See Appendix Nine 14b. What were the main negative aspects? Please See Appendix Ten 15. Do you have any other comments about the pedestrianisation experiment in Tenby? Please See Appendix Eleven 16. Where is your home located? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 91 9 Tenby 653 68 New Hedges area (St.Mary out Liberty) 82 9 Penally area 130 13 Other 8 1 Total 964 100 Other: Please See Appendix Twelve 17. Is this address your: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 34 4 Permanent residence 826 86 Holiday/Second Home 86 9 Temporary Accommodation 6 1 Property used or holiday rental 9 1 Other 3 0 Total 964 100 Other: Please See Appendix Thirteen 18. Do you or anyone in your household have any long standing illness, disability or infirmity, including problems associated with old age? (Long standing means anything that has troubled you over a period of time or that is likely to affect you over a period of time? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 93 10 Yes 303 31 No 568 59 Total 964 100 NAME/ADDRESS: Please See Appendix Fourteen TENBY PEDESTRIAN EXPERIMENT HOUSEHOLDER SURVEY 2005 OUTSIDE WALLED TOWN Total Number of Responses: 835 LOCATION: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 0 0 Inside Town Walls 0 0 Outside Town Walls 835 100 Total 835 100 1. Which of the following statements best describes how the pedestrian experiment affected the number of visits YOU made to the Walled Town? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 11 1 I visited the walled town MORE frequently as a result of the experiment 238 29 I visited the walled town LESS frequently as a result of the experiment 154 18 The experiment made no difference to the number of visits I made to the walled town 414 50 I did not visit the walled town during the experiment 18 2 Total 835 100 2. Did the pedestrianisation experiment affect the time of day you visited the walled town? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 15 2 Yes 298 36 No 522 63 Total 835 100 If YES, how did it change? Please See Appendix One 3. Please give your views on the following: a. Car parking facilities: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 32 4 Satisfactory 261 31 Unsatisfactory 317 38 Didn’t Use/No Opinion 225 27 Total 835 100 b. Signage for car parking: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 87 10 Satisfactory 387 46 Unsatisfactory 142 17 Didn’t Use/No Opinion 219 26 Total 835 100 c. Park & Ride facilities: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 74 9 Satisfactory 375 45 Unsatisfactory 45 5 Didn’t Use/No Opinion 341 41 Total 835 100 d. Signage for Park & Ride: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 86 10 Satisfactory 358 43 Unsatisfactory 99 12 Didn’t Use/No Opinion 292 35 Total 835 100 e. Signage about the pedestrian experiment: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 80 10 Satisfactory 418 50 Unsatisfactory 167 20 Didn’t Use/No Opinion 170 20 Total 835 100 4. How would you rate the information made available by the County Council about the pedestrianisation experiment? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 14 2 Excellent 77 9 Good 321 38 Average 235 28 Poor 75 9 Very Poor 35 4 Don’t Know/No Opinion 78 9 Total 835 100 5. Were you aware of the County Council helpline during the pedestrian experiment? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 33 4 Yes 338 40 No 464 56 Total 835 100 5a. Did you use the helpline? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 397 48 Yes 23 3 No 415 50 Total 835 100 5a1. If YES, did you experience any difficulties? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 786 94 Yes 14 2 No 35 4 Total 835 100 5b. How was your query dealt with? Please See Appendix Two 5c. Do you have any other comments to make regarding the helpline? Please See Appendix Three 6. Please respond to each of the following statements about the 2005 pedestrianisation experiment in Tenby: a. Tables and chairs on the street seem to hinder pedestrian movement: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 36 4 Strongly Agree 117 14 Agree 149 18 Disagree 333 40 Strongly Disagree 152 18 No Opinion/Don’t Know 48 6 Total 835 100 b. Pedestrianisation seems to help the movement of residents and visitors around the town: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 40 5 Strongly Agree 248 30 Agree 362 43 Disagree 107 13 Strongly Disagree 40 5 No Opinion/Don’t Know 38 5 Total 835 100 c. Pedestrianisation helped in the creation of a relaxed atmosphere within the town: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 40 5 Strongly Agree 331 40 Agree 322 39 Disagree 79 9 Strongly Disagree 31 4 No Opinion/Don’t Know 32 4 Total 835 100 d. Pedestrianisation helped to create a Cafι Culture on the streets: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 38 5 Strongly Agree 253 30 Agree 342 41 Disagree 95 11 Strongly Disagree 47 6 No Opinion/Don’t Know 60 7 Total 835 100 e. Pedestrianisation seemed to increase problems relating to alcohol and drinking within the town: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 43 5 Strongly Agree 86 10 Agree 91 11 Disagree 273 33 Strongly Disagree 107 13 No Opinion/Don’t Know 235 28 Total 835 100 f. Would you like to make any further comments regarding the issues raised in the previous questions? Please See Appendix Four 7. In order to plan for traffic management in Tenby in the summer of 2006, please indicate which of the following statements best describes what you would like to see happening in Tenby next year: a. Traffic Control: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 54 6 Instead of pedestrianisation consider further traffic regulations to restrict the amount of traffic in the walled town at all times 84 10 Instead of pedestrianisation consider stricter enforcement of current traffic regulations 104 12 Continue to improve and develop the current pedestrianisation scheme 456 55 Continue with 2005 scheme without alteration 99 12 No opinion 38 5 Total 835 100 b. Hours: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 268 32 Repeat the same hours of pedestrianisation 11.00am – 5.00pm 265 32 Extend the hours of pedestrianisation 210 25 Reduce the hours of pedestrianisation 70 8 No opinion 22 3 Total 835 100 c. Weeks: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 278 33 Repeat the same number of weeks the experiment runs (First week of July to last week of August) 227 27 Increase the number of weeks the experiment runs 258 31 Reduce the number of weeks the experiment runs 49 6 No opinion 23 3 Total 835 100 d. Area: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 286 34 Reduce the area covered by the experiment 39 5 Repeat the same area covered by the experiment 467 56 No opinion 43 5 Total 835 100 e. Vehicular access for residents: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 280 34 Allow no access to residents as in 2003 experiment 38 5 Allow only one round trip per day to residents with off road parking as in 2005 experiment 224 27 Allow residents unrestricted access to their homes to load and unload 225 27 No opinion 68 8 Total 835 100 f. Vehicular access for others: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 318 38 Allow business unrestricted access to their premises to load and unload 128 15 Allow tradesmen access to carry out their work 317 38 Allow taxis access to carry out their work 142 17 No opinion 138 17 Total 1043 125 8. As a resident of the walled town, on average, how many return journeys in and out of the walled town do you need during the pedestrianisation period? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 827 99 None 7 1 One return journey per day (one journey in and one journey out of the walled town) 0 0 Between two and three journeys per day (up to three journeys in and three journeys out of the walled town) 0 0 Four or more return journeys per day 1 0 Within one week – up to five return journeys (less than one a day) 0 0 Total 835 100 9. If you have any comments to make regarding any aspect of the implementation of the pedestrianisation scheme, please write in: Please See Appendix Five 10. We would be pleased to welcome your comments on alternative approaches to reducing congestion, improving safety and enhancing the environment in the town during the busy summer months: Please See Appendix Six 11. Overall, the pedestrianisation experiment has: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 58 7 Enhanced my experience of going to/staying/living in the walled town 378 45 Detracted from my experience of going to/staying/living in the walled town 146 17 Had no effect on my experience of going to/staying/living in the walled town 253 30 Total 835 100 12. Overall, how has the pedestrian experiment affected your household? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 54 6 Strong negative effect 41 5 Negative effect 106 13 No effect 362 43 Positive effect 198 24 Strong positive effect 74 9 Total 835 100 13a. What were the main positive aspects? Please See Appendix Seven 13b. What were the main negative aspects? Please See Appendix Eight 14. Overall, in your opinion how has the pedestrian experiment affected Tenby? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 82 10 Strong negative effect 44 5 Negative effect 103 12 No effect 81 10 Positive effect 392 47 Strong positive effect 133 16 Total 835 100 14a. What were the main positive aspects? Please See Appendix Nine 14b. What were the main negative aspects? Please See Appendix Ten 15. Do you have any other comments about the pedestrianisation experiment in Tenby? Please See Appendix Eleven 16. Where is your home located? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 19 2 Tenby 603 72 New Hedges area (St.Mary out Liberty) 80 10 Penally area 125 15 Other 8 1 Total 835 100 Other: Please See Appendix Twelve 17. Is this address your: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 24 3 Permanent residence 743 89 Holiday/Second Home 59 7 Temporary Accommodation 3 0 Property used or holiday rental 3 0 Other 3 0 Total 835 100 Other: Please See Appendix Thirteen 18. Do you or anyone in your household have any long standing illness, disability or infirmity, including problems associated with old age? (Long standing means anything that has troubled you over a period of time or that is likely to affect you over a period of time? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 70 8 Yes 260 31 No 505 60 Total 835 100 NAME/ADDRESS: Please See Appendix Fourteen TENBY PEDESTRIAN EXPERIMENT HOUSEHOLDER SURVEY 2005 WITHIN WALLED TOWN Total Number of Responses: 113 LOCATION: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 0 0 Inside Town Walls 113 100 Outside Town Walls 0 0 Total 113 100 1. Which of the following statements best describes how the pedestrian experiment affected the number of visits YOU made to the Walled Town? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 110 97 I visited the walled town MORE frequently as a result of the experiment 1 1 I visited the walled town LESS frequently as a result of the experiment 1 1 The experiment made no difference to the number of visits I made to the walled town 1 1 I did not visit the walled town during the experiment 0 0 Total 113 100 2. Did the pedestrianisation experiment affect the time of day you visited the walled town? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 3 3 Yes 66 58 No 44 39 Total 113 100 If YES, how did it change? Please See Appendix One 3. Please give your views on the following: a. Car parking facilities: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 4 4 Satisfactory 40 35 Unsatisfactory 43 38 Didn’t Use/No Opinion 26 23 Total 113 100 b. Signage for car parking: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 5 4 Satisfactory 44 39 Unsatisfactory 37 33 Didn’t Use/No Opinion 27 24 Total 113 100 c. Park & Ride facilities: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 3 3 Satisfactory 67 59 Unsatisfactory 14 12 Didn’t Use/No Opinion 29 26 Total 113 100 d. Signage for Park & Ride: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 6 5 Satisfactory 55 49 Unsatisfactory 26 23 Didn’t Use/No Opinion 26 23 Total 113 100 e. Signage about the pedestrian experiment: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 3 3 Satisfactory 56 50 Unsatisfactory 38 34 Didn’t Use/No Opinion 16 14 Total 113 100 4. How would you rate the information made available by the County Council about the pedestrianisation experiment? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 3 3 Excellent 15 13 Good 34 30 Average 27 24 Poor 21 19 Very Poor 10 9 Don’t Know/No Opinion 3 3 Total 113 100 5. Were you aware of the County Council helpline during the pedestrian experiment? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 3 3 Yes 87 77 No 23 20 Total 113 100 5a. Did you use the helpline? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 19 17 Yes 23 20 No 71 63 Total 113 100 5a1. If YES, did you experience any difficulties? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 89 79 Yes 14 12 No 10 9 Total 113 100 5b. How was your query dealt with? Please See Appendix Two 5c. Do you have any other comments to make regarding the helpline? Please See Appendix Three 6. Please respond to each of the following statements about the 2005 pedestrianisation experiment in Tenby: a. Tables and chairs on the street seem to hinder pedestrian movement: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 15 13 Strongly Agree 21 19 Agree 25 22 Disagree 30 27 Strongly Disagree 18 16 No Opinion/Don’t Know 4 4 Total 113 100 b. Pedestrianisation seems to help the movement of residents and visitors around the town: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 14 12 Strongly Agree 21 19 Agree 45 40 Disagree 13 12 Strongly Disagree 14 12 No Opinion/Don’t Know 6 5 Total 113 100 c. Pedestrianisation helped in the creation of a relaxed atmosphere within the town: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 13 12 Strongly Agree 26 23 Agree 38 34 Disagree 25 22 Strongly Disagree 8 7 No Opinion/Don’t Know 3 3 Total 113 100 d. Pedestrianisation helped to create a Cafι Culture on the streets: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 13 12 Strongly Agree 20 18 Agree 33 29 Disagree 24 21 Strongly Disagree 16 14 No Opinion/Don’t Know 7 6 Total 113 100 e. Pedestrianisation seemed to increase problems relating to alcohol and drinking within the town: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 13 12 Strongly Agree 23 20 Agree 20 18 Disagree 21 19 Strongly Disagree 16 14 No Opinion/Don’t Know 20 18 Total 113 100 f. Would you like to make any further comments regarding the issues raised in the previous questions? Please See Appendix Four 7. In order to plan for traffic management in Tenby in the summer of 2006, please indicate which of the following statements best describes what you would like to see happening in Tenby next year: a. Traffic Control: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 4 4 Instead of pedestrianisation consider further traffic regulations to restrict the amount of traffic in the walled town at all times 18 16 Instead of pedestrianisation consider stricter enforcement of current traffic regulations 23 20 Continue to improve and develop the current pedestrianisation scheme 48 42 Continue with 2005 scheme without alteration 19 17 No opinion 1 1 Total 113 100 b. Hours: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 47 42 Repeat the same hours of pedestrianisation 11.00am – 5.00pm 30 27 Extend the hours of pedestrianisation 13 12 Reduce the hours of pedestrianisation 21 19 No opinion 2 2 Total 113 100 c. Weeks: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 46 41 Repeat the same number of weeks the experiment runs (First week of July to last week of August) 31 27 Increase the number of weeks the experiment runs 15 13 Reduce the number of weeks the experiment runs 19 17 No opinion 2 2 Total 113 100 d. Area: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 46 41 Reduce the area covered by the experiment 19 17 Repeat the same area covered by the experiment 44 39 No opinion 4 4 Total 113 100 e. Vehicular access for residents: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 45 40 Allow no access to residents as in 2003 experiment 6 5 Allow only one round trip per day to residents with off road parking as in 2005 experiment 22 19 Allow residents unrestricted access to their homes to load and unload 36 32 No opinion 4 4 Total 113 100 f. Vehicular access for others: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 51 45 Allow business unrestricted access to their premises to load and unload 25 22 Allow tradesmen access to carry out their work 50 44 Allow taxis access to carry out their work 29 26 No opinion 9 8 Total 164 145 8. As a resident of the walled town, on average, how many return journeys in and out of the walled town do you need during the pedestrianisation period? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 20 18 None 18 16 One return journey per day (one journey in and one journey out of the walled town) 23 20 Between two and three journeys per day (up to three journeys in and three journeys out of the walled town) 27 24 Four or more return journeys per day 6 5 Within one week – up to five return journeys (less than one a day) 19 17 Total 113 100 9. If you have any comments to make regarding any aspect of the implementation of the pedestrianisation scheme, please write in: Please See Appendix Five 10. We would be pleased to welcome your comments on alternative approaches to reducing congestion, improving safety and enhancing the environment in the town during the busy summer months: Please See Appendix Six 11. Overall, the pedestrianisation experiment has: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 5 4 Enhanced my experience of going to/staying/living in the walled town 33 29 Detracted from my experience of going to/staying/living in the walled town 53 47 Had no effect on my experience of going to/staying/living in the walled town 22 19 Total 113 100 12. Overall, how has the pedestrian experiment affected your household? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 3 3 Strong negative effect 25 22 Negative effect 31 27 No effect 23 20 Positive effect 23 20 Strong positive effect 8 7 Total 113 100 13a. What were the main positive aspects? Please See Appendix Seven 13b. What were the main negative aspects? Please See Appendix Eight 14. Overall, in your opinion how has the pedestrian experiment affected Tenby? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 12 11 Strong negative effect 17 15 Negative effect 27 24 No effect 6 5 Positive effect 32 28 Strong positive effect 19 17 Total 113 100 14a. What were the main positive aspects? Please See Appendix Nine 14b. What were the main negative aspects? Please See Appendix Ten 15. Do you have any other comments about the pedestrianisation experiment in Tenby? Please See Appendix Eleven 16. Where is your home located? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 68 60 Tenby 45 40 New Hedges area (St.Mary out Liberty) 0 0 Penally area 0 0 Other 0 0 Total 113 100 Other: Please See Appendix Twelve 17. Is this address your: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 6 5 Permanent residence 72 64 Holiday/Second Home 26 23 Temporary Accommodation 3 3 Property used or holiday rental 6 5 Other 0 0 Total 113 100 Other: Please See Appendix Thirteen 18. Do you or anyone in your household have any long standing illness, disability or infirmity, including problems associated with old age? (Long standing means anything that has troubled you over a period of time or that is likely to affect you over a period of time? Frequency Percentage Not Answered 20 18 Yes 39 35 No 54 48 Total 113 100 NAME/ADDRESS: Please See Appendix Fourteen TENBY PEDESTRIAN EXPERIMENT BUSINESS SURVEY 2005 Total Number of Responses: 93 (including 2 responses that do not include inside or outside of walled town) COMBINED BUSINESS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE WALLED TOWN) LOCATION OF BUSINESS: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 2 2 Inside Town Walls 41 44 Outside Town Walls 50 54 Total 93 100 1. How would you rate the information made available by the County Council about the pedestrianisation experiment? Q1 Frequency Percentage Not Answered 2 2 Excellent 5 5 Good 43 46 Average 29 31 Poor 9 10 Very Poor 3 3 Don’t know/No Opinion 2 2 Total 93 100 2. Were you aware of the County Council Helpline during the pedestrian experiment? Q2 Frequency Percentage Not Answered 2 2 Yes 50 54 No 41 44 Total 93 100 3a. Did you use the helpline? Q3A Frequency Percentage Not Answered 35 38 Yes 7 8 No 51 55 Total 93 100 3b. How was your query dealt with? Q3B Frequency Percentage Not Answered 85 91 Satisfactorily 5 5 Unsatisfactorily 3 3 Total 93 100 3c. Did you experience any difficulties? Q3C Frequency Percentage Not Answered 86 92 Yes 3 3 No 4 4 Total 93 100 3d. If you have any comments to make regarding any difficulties with the helpline, the level of service or otherwise, please write in: Please see Appendix Q3D 4. Please respond to each of the following statements about the 2005 pedestrianisation experiment in Tenby: 4a. Tables and chairs on the street seem to hinder pedestrian movement Q4A Frequency Percentage Not Answered 4 4 Strongly Agree 13 14 Agree 17 18 Disagree 32 34 Strongly Disagree 25 27 No opinion/don’t know 2 2 Total 93 100 4b. Pedestrianisation seems to help the movement of residents and visitors around the town Q4B Frequency Percentage Not Answered 5 5 Strongly Agree 19 20 Agree 41 44 Disagree 18 19 Strongly Disagree 6 6 No opinion/don’t know 4 4 Total 93 100 4c. Pedestrianisation helped in the creation of a relaxed atmosphere within the town Q4C Frequency Percentage Not Answered 4 4 Strongly Agree 25 27 Agree 45 48 Disagree 10 11 Strongly Disagree 6 6 No opinion/don’t know 3 3 Total 93 100 4d. Pedestrianisation helped to create a Cafι Culture on the streets Q4D Frequency Percentage Not Answered 4 4 Strongly Agree 24 26 Agree 38 41 Disagree 14 15 Strongly Disagree 7 8 No opinion/don’t know 6 6 Total 93 100 4e. Pedestrianisation seemed to increase problems relating to alcohol and drinking within the town Q4E Frequency Percentage Not Answered 3 3 Strongly Agree 11 12 Agree 10 11 Disagree 32 34 Strongly Disagree 18 19 No opinion/don’t know 19 20 Total 93 100 5. Would you like to make any further comments regarding the issues raised above? Please see Appendix Q5 6. Do you own a cafι, bar or restaurant within the walled town? Q6 Frequency Percentage Not Answered 6 6 Yes 25 27 N0 62 67 Total 93 100 7. Did you use the pedestrianisation period as an opportunity to place tables and chairs on the street? Q7 Frequency Percentage Not Answered 47 51 Yes 17 18 N0 29 31 Total 93 100 8. Which one of the following statements best describes how the pedestrian experiment affected your business during the summer of 2005? Q8 Frequency Percentage Not Answered 10 11 More people visited my business 10 11 Fewer people visited my business 19 20 The same number of people visited my business 39 42 Don’t know 15 16 Total 93 100 9. Does your business receive or make deliveries? Q9 Frequency Percentage Not Answered 12 13 Yes 64 69 No 17 18 Total 93 100 10. Which of the following statements best describes the effect on your deliveries during the pedestrian experiment? Q10 Frequency Percentage Not Answered 18 19 The pedestrian experiment caused major problems to my business deliveries 22 24 The pedestrian experiment caused minor disruption to my business deliveries 25 27 The pedestrian experiment had no significant effect on my business deliveries 26 28 Don’t know/No opinion 2 2 Total 93 100 11. In order to plan for traffic management in Tenby in the summer of 2006, please indicate which of the following statements best describes what you would like to see happening in Tenby next year: a) Traffic Control Q11A Frequency Percentage Not Answered 11 12 Instead of pedestrianisation consider further traffic regulations to restrict the amount of traffic in the walled town at all times 17 18 Instead of pedestrianisation consider stricter enforcement of current traffic regulations 12 13 Continue to improve and develop the current pedestrianisation scheme 45 48 Continue with 2005 scheme without alteration 8 9 No opinion 0 0 Total 93 100 b) Hours Q11B Frequency Percentage Not Answered 42 45 Repeat the same hours of pedestrianisation 11.00 am – 5.00 pm 19 20 Extend the hours of pedestrianisation 23 25 Reduce the hours of pedestrianisation 8 9 No opinion 1 1 Total 93 100 c) Weeks Q11C Frequency Percentage Not Answered 43 46 Repeat the same number of weeks the experiment runs (First week of July to last week of August) 23 25 Increase the number of the weeks the experiment runs 17 18 Reduce the number of weeks the experiment runs 8 9 No opinion 2 2 Total 93 100 d) Area Q11D Frequency Percentage Not Answered 44 47 Reduce the area covered by the experiment 6 6 Repeat the same area covered by the experiment 40 43 No opinion 3 3 Total 93 100 e) Vehicular access for residents Q11E Frequency Percentage Not Answered 45 48 Allow no access to residents as in 2003 experiment 3 3 Allow only one round trip per day to residents with off road parking as in 2005 experiment 20 22 Allow residents unrestricted access to their homes to load and unload 21 23 No opinion 4 4 Total 93 100 f) Vehicular access for others Q11F Frequency Percentage Not Answered 50 54 Allow businesses unrestricted access to their premises to load and unload 5 5 Allow tradesmen access to carry out their work 27 29 Allow taxis access to carry out their work 4 4 No opinion 7 8 Total 93 100 12. As a business located within the walled town, on average, how many return journeys in and out of the walled town does your business need to make during the pedestrianisation period? Q12 Frequency Percentage Not Answered 52 56 None 14 15 One return journey per day (one journey in and one journey out of the walled town) 6 6 Between two and three journeys per day (up to three journeys in and three journeys out of the walled town) 7 8 Four or more return journeys per day 8 9 Within one week – up to five return journeys (less than one a day) 6 6 Total 93 100 13. Overall, how has the pedestrian experiment affected your business? Q13 Frequency Percentage Not Answered 8 9 Strong positive effect 4 4 Positive effect 20 22 No effect at all 27 29 Negative effect 20 22 Strong negative effect 7 8 Don’t know/No opinion 7 8 Total 93 100 13a. What were the main positive aspects? Please see Appendix Q13A 13b. What were the main negative aspects? Please see Appendix Q13B 14. Overall, how has the pedestrian experiment affected Tenby? Q14 Frequency Percentage (Not answered) 13 14 Strong positive effect 6 6 Positive effect 39 42 No effect at all 4 4 Negative effect 15 16 Strong negative effect 6 6 Don’t know/No opinion 10 11 Total 93 100 14a What were the main positive aspects? 14b. What were the main negative aspects? 15. If you have any comments to make, or would like to pass on feedback from your customers regarding any aspect of the implementation of the pedestrianisation scheme, please write in: Please see Appendix Q15 16. We would be pleased to receive your comments on alternative approaches to reducing congestion improving safety and enhancing the environment in the town during the busy summer months, please state: Please see Appendix Q16 Your name: Please see Appendix Name Position: Please see Appendix Position Name and address of business: Please see Appendix Name & Address of Bus TENBY PEDESTRIAN EXPERIMENT BUSINESS SURVEY 2005 OUTSIDE TOWN WALLS Total Number of Responses: 50 LOCATION OF BUSINESS: Frequency Percentage Not Answered 0 0 Inside Town Walls 0 0 Outside Town Walls 50 0 Total 50 100 3. How would you rate the information made available by the County Council about the pedestrianisation experiment? Q1 Frequency Percentage Not Answered 0 0 Excellent 3 6 Good 20 40 Average 16 32 Poor 6 12 Very Poor 3 6 Don’t know/No Opinion 2 4 Total 50 100 4. Were you aware of the County Council Helpline during the pedestrian experiment? Q2 Frequency Percentage Not Answered 0 0 Yes 21 42 No 29 58 Total 50 100 3a. Did you use the helpline? Q3A Frequency Percentage Not Answered 22 44 Yes 0 0 No 28 56 Total 50 100 3b. How was your query dealt with? Q3B Frequency Percentage Not Answered 49 98 Satisfactorily 1 2 Unsatisfactorily 0 0 Total 50 100 3c. Did you experience any difficulties? Q3C Frequency Percentage Not Answered 50 100 Yes 0 0 No 0 0 Total 50 100 3d. If you have any comments to make regarding any difficulties with the helpline, the level of service or otherwise, please write in: Please see Appendix Q3D 17. Please respond to each of the following statements about the 2005 pedestrianisation experiment in Tenby: 4a. Tables and chairs on the street seem to hinder pedestrian movement Q4A Frequency Percentage Not Answered 2 5 Strongly Agree 9 18 Agree 9 18 Disagree 21 42 Strongly Disagree 10 20 No opinion/don’t know 1 2 Total 50 100 4b. Pedestrianisation seems to help the movement of residents and visitors around the town Q4B Frequency Percentage Not Answered 0 0 Strongly Agree 8 16 Agree 24 48 Disagree 12 24 Strongly Disagree 3 6 No opinion/don’t know 3 6 Total 50 100 4c. Pedestrianisation helped in the creation of a relaxed atmosphere within the town Q4C Frequency Percentage Not Answered 0 0 Strongly Agree 13 26 Agree 24 48 Disagree 9 18 Strongly Disagree 2 4 No opinion/don’t know 2 4 Total 50 100 4d. Pedestrianisation helped to create a Cafι Culture on the streets Q4D Frequency Percentage Not Answered 0 0 Strongly Agree 13 26 Agree 20 40 Disagree 11 22 Strongly Disagree 4 8 No opinion/don’t know 2 4 Total 50 100 4e. Pedestrianisation seemed to increase problems relating to alcohol and drinking within the town Q4E Frequency Percentage Not Answered 0 0 Strongly Agree 7 14 Agree 7 14 Disagree 21 42 Strongly Disagree 3 6 No opinion/don’t know 12 24 Total 50 100 18. Would you like to make any further comments regarding the issues raised above? Please see Appendix Q5 19. Do you own a cafι, bar or restaurant within the walled town? Q6 Frequency Percentage Not Answered 2 4 Yes 4 8 N0 44 88 Total 50 100 20. Did you use the pedestrianisation period as an opportunity to place tables and chairs on the street? Q7 Frequency Percentage Not Answered 34 68 Yes 2 4 N0 14 28 Total 50 100 21. Which one of the following statements best describes how the pedestrian experiment affected your business during the summer of 2005? Q8 Frequency Percentage Not Answered 6 12 More people visited my business 2 4 Fewer people visited my business 7 14 The same number of people visited my business 26 52 Don’t know 9 18 Total 50 100 22. Does your business receive or make deliveries? Q9 Frequency Percentage Not Answered 7 14 Yes 29 58 No 14 28 Total 50 100 23. Which of the following statements best describes the effect on your deliveries during the pedestrian experiment? Q10 Frequency Percentage Not Answered 11 22 The pedestrian experiment caused major problems to my business deliveries 9 18 The pedestrian experiment caused minor disruption to my business deliveries 11 22 The pedestrian experiment had no significant effect on my business deliveries 17 34 Don’t know/No opinion 2 4 Total 50 100 24. In order to plan for traffic management in Tenby in the summer of 2006, please indicate which of the following statements best describes what you would like to see happening in Tenby next year: g) Traffic Control Q11A Frequency Percentage Not Answered 3 6 Instead of pedestrianisation consider further traffic regulations to restrict the amount of traffic in the walled town at all times 10 20 Instead of pedestrianisation consider stricter enforcement of current traffic regulations 7 14 Continue to improve and develop the current pedestrianisation scheme 25 50 Continue