Planning healthy settlements in
the 21st century
Prof Hugh Barton
Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre
for healthy urban environments
University of the West of England
Climate change, inequity, obesity, loss of childhood
– all symptoms of a common malaise…
Freiburg: Vauban
Planning of streetcar lines
►
Example: “Rieselfeld”
New residential area (75 hectare) built under strict social and
ecological points of view.
The track of the streetcar
is the central axis of
mobility.
The new line was opened
in 1997 when only 1000
inhabitants lived there
New suburban trains
• Connecting city of Freiburg
and the counties
• Frequency: 30 minutes
• New organized bus lines
How does
Britain
compare?
Freiburg in context: modal split in
selected places – in %
Walk Cycle p.t.
car
Bristol
25
2
9
64
Bradley Stoke
16
1
3
80
Modal split in selected places – in %
Walk Cycle p.t.
car
Bristol
25
2
9
64
Bradley Stoke
16
1
3
80
London
31
2
26
39
Modal split in selected places – in %
Walk Cycle p.t.
car
Bristol
25
2
9
64
Bradley Stoke
16
1
3
80
London
31
2
26
39
Groningen
22
39
5
33
Freiburg
23
27
18
32
Modal split in selected places – in %
Walk Cycle p.t.
car
Bristol
25
2
9
64
Bradley Stoke
16
1
3
80
London
31
2
26
39
Groningen
22
39
5
33
Freiburg
23
27
18
32
Vauban
30
34
19
16
SOLUTIONS: sustainability of land use and
transport in outer city neighbourhoods
How do people use neighbourhoods? How much active travel?
12 neighbourhoods in four city regions:
• Bristol:
Bradley Stoke, Filton Avenue, Thornbury
• Cambridge:
Bar Hill, Cherry Hinton, Trumpington
• London:
Barking, Broxbourne, Harrow
• Newcastle
Backworth & Shiremoor, Cramlington,
Newcastle Great Park
Conducted in each neighbourhood:
• Survey of residents
– 1600 questionnaires returned
– 30% response rate
• Focus group
• Mapping (GIS) analysis
Total number of reported trips per week, by purpose
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
National travel survey
9.2
7.8
4.2
3.7
2 2.1
3.3
2.2 1.6
rip
s
O
th
er
t
Le
isu
re
in
g
Sh
op
p
n
Ed
uc
at
io
es
s
bu
sin
ut
in
g
an
d
lp
ur
po
se
s
Al
Solutions data
2.2
0
Co
m
m
Number of trips per week
19.9
2.50
2.08
2.00
1.50
1.03
1.02
1.00
0.74
0.50
0.59
0.48
0.47
0.44
Total num ber of households =1491
O
ut
do
or
re
cr
ea
tio
n
re
cr
ea
t io
n
ce
In
do
or
Po
st
of
fi
Ph
ar
m
ac
y
t
Ne
ws
ag
en
Ba
nk
ot
he
r
Fo
od
st
or
e
0.00
Su
pe
r
Mean number of trips per week per
household
Average number of trips per week to different facilities
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
28
34
32
12
71
64
55
42
6
48
60
76
Personal motorised
Public transport
6
Non motorised
51
47
36
21
O
ut
do
or
re
cr
ea
tio
Fo
n
od
N
=8
-o
69
th
er
N=
14
Sc
28
ho
Al
ol
lp
N
ur
=3
po
08
se
9
s
O
th
N=
er
13
se
28
rv
In
4
i
do
ce
s
or
N=
re
33
c
re
Fo
88
at
od
io
n
-s
N=
up
15
er
32
st
or
e
N
=2
97
9
% of trips
Mode of transport by purpose
Mode of transport by car ownership
100%
% of trips
80%
60%
29
47
9
54
63
Personal motorised
6
40%
Public transport
4
6
62
47
20%
42
31
0%
None
N=2184
One
N=4616
Two
N=5217
Three
N=1059
Number of cars owned by household
Non motorised
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
23
10
41
7
67
52
47
50
55
51
51
56
51
Personal motorised
2
51
7
43
5
5
40
44
3
46
4
3
40
Household income category (£)
Public transport
Non motorised
45
0
10
-9
,9
,0
99
00
N
-1
=7
4,
15
9
37
99
,0
00
N=
-1
10
9
20
,9
86
99
,0
00
N=
-2
10
9
30
,9
54
99
,0
00
N=
-3
21
9
40
,9
65
99
,0
00
N=
-5
21
9,
60
9
51
99
,0
00
N=
-7
22
9,
80
99
26
9
,0
00
N=
-9
10
9,
40
99
9
10
N=
0,
37
00
4
0+
N=
31
9
% of trips
Mode of transport by income category
Br
ox
bo
ur
Cr
ne
am
N=
li n
10
g
Br
to
89
ad
n
le
Ba
N
ys
=1
ck
to
28
wo
G
ke
8
re
rth
at
N
an
=9
Pa
d
78
rk
S
Al
hi
N
l tw
re
=1
m
el
30
oo
ve
Th
1
r
o
ar
rn
N=
ea
bu
64
st
ry
7
og
N
et
=
he
13
r
48
N=
11
Ba
59
rH
6
i
Ha ll N
=5
rro
Fi
03
l to
w
n
N
Av
=9
en
14
ue
Ba
N=
rk
95
Tr
i
4
u m ng
N
p
Ch
=7
ing
er
12
t
o
ry
n
Hi
N=
nt
85
on
5
N=
10
07
% of trips
Comparing modal split in twelve areas - arranged by car
dependency
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
48 45 39 39 37
55
57
58
60 60
4
81 73 72
2 17 5
9
3 7 4 5 13
53 43 57 59
43
38
38
37
34
32
19 25 27
Personal motorised
Public transport
Non motorised
48 45 44 43
80 77
7
2
12
45 55 53 45
42 38 35 32
2
2
3
24
55 62 63 66
76
10
Personal motorised
90
20 23
ra
m
li
Br ngto
ox
n
bo
N=
ur
10
ne
1
Al
H
N
lt
ar
=
w
Br
el
ad ro w 1 80
ve
le
N
ar
=1
ea y s t
ok
36
s
to
e
ge
N
=1
th
er
19
N
Ba
=1
rk
45
in
0
g
N
=
Th 123
G
re
or
Ba
at
n
ck
Pa bur
w
y
rk
Fi
or
l to
th
N
n
=1
an
Av
64
d
e
Sh
N
i re
=2
C
m
he
17
o
rr
o
r
y
H
N
in
=5
t
Tr
on
0
um
N
pi
ng =2 2
to
2
n
N
=4
0
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
C
% of trips
Comparing modal split for 'food other' trips in twelve
areas - arranged by car dependency
Public transport
Non motorised
C
ne
N
=1
ra
m
06
li n
gt
on
G
N
re
=1
at
29
Pa
rk
Ba
Br
N
ad
ck
=1
le
w
31
or
y
S
th
t
ok
an
Al
e
d
lt
N
Sh
w
=1
el
i
r
31
ve
em
ar
oo
ea
rN
s
=1
to
ge
06
th
er
N
=1
Th
49
or
0
nb
ur
y
N
=1
61
Ba
rH
i ll
Tr
N=
um
12
pi
1
ng
to
n
N
=1
H
25
ar
ro
w
C
N
he
=1
rr
05
y
H
in
to
Fi
n
l to
N
=1
n
Av
26
en
ue
N
=1
40
Ba
rk
in
g
N
=9
3
Br
ox
bo
ur
Average kilometres/household/ week
Average number of kilometres traveled by personal motorised means per
household, per week
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
48.7
39.2
31.8
29.2
26.9
24.5
23.2
18.3
16.6
15.2
14.7
14.2
13.3
10.0
0.0
20 -20
0 0m
40 - 40
0 0m
60 - 60
0 0m
80 - 80
0
0
10 - 1 m
00 00
0
12 - 1 m
00 20
0
14 - 14 m
00 00
16 - 1 m
00 60
0
20 - 2 m
00 00
0
24 - 24 m
00 00
28 - 2 m
00 80
0
32 - 3 m
00 20
0
48 - 48 m
00 00
-6 m
40
64 0m
00
m
+
100%
12 21
90%
27 31
80%
56
59
70%
69 63 75
76
77 77 81
60%
86
50% 100
88
8
2
40%
76
65
6
62
30%
7
3 11
20%
11
33
30
9
10%
20
19
12
7 4 2 13
0%
0
% of trips
Mode of transport by distance - Bristol
(Outdoor recreation trips omitted)
Personal motorised
Public transport
Cycling
Walking
Distance travelled to superstores, and travel mode
Bristol neighbourhoods
Transport mode to Superstores
Bristol: Consolidated
100%
2
80%
% of respondents
4
60%
14
12
11
74
129
5
14
49
8
2
40%
4
20%
2
1
2
1
7
0%
0 - 200
200 - 400
400 - 600
600- 800
4
2
1
3
3
1
800 -1000 1000 - 1500 1500- 2000 2000 - 2500 2500 - 3000 3000 - 3500 3500 - 4000 4000 - 4500
Distance class
Walk
Cycle
Public transport
Car
How the percentage of trips using non motorised means varies
for trips of different distance, differentiated by study area Bristol areas
90
80
70
All twelve areas together
60
Bradley Stoke
50
Filton Ave
40
Thornbury
30
20
10
0
0200m
200 400m
400 600m
600 800m
800 1000m
1000 1200m
1200 1400m
1400 1600m
1600 3200m
3200 4800m
4800 6400m
% of trips using non motorised
100
NB SMALL SCALE
Trip distance category
NB LARGER
SCALE
So, does design make a difference?
Tyne & Wear
Context
3 Study Areas
Tyne & Wear
Constraints
1.
2.
Great Park
3.
4.
Valued built heritage –
conservation areas and
listed buildings
Valued landscape
features – woodland,
green space, rivers and
wetland
Biodiversity –
recognised wildlife sites
Flood risk – Identified
area of flooding
Great Park Evaluation
2021
Criteria 1
Population
Assumption: 2.3 Persons per dwelling in 2007 (2.1ppd in 2021)
Criteria 2
Access to local schools
Percentage of the population with access
Criteria 3
Access to local centres / shops
Percentage of the population with access
Primary Schools
600m
Secondary Schools
1500m
800 m
PT Stops Excellent
Criteria 4
Access to local public transport - BUS
Percentage of the population with access
within 400m
PT Stops Good
PT Stops Mediocre
Criteria 5
Access to local public transport – TRAIN 800M, TRAM 600m
Criteria 6
Vitality of retail services, as population within defined catchment
Trend
Linear
Cells
6 000
14 000
9 000
20%
74%
67%
0%
84%
96%
17%
99%
87%
0%
0%
0%
0%
83%
65%
63%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1 000
14 000
8 000
Conclusions: the conditions for
success in healthy urban planning
• Tremendous leadership from the mayor and
chief planner
• Integrated vision, analysis and delivery
• Co-operation between planning, transport,
housing and commercial interests
• Substantial local autonomy
• Municipal purchase of development land
• Releasing and channelling community energy
• Nous
What is the secret of Freiburg?
“We have remade the world as we
would like it!”
(translation of the Vauban motto)