Street segment audit, 180 segments, six suburbs

Urban planning research poster example

A walkability poster that reports a suburb score is reporting at the level where nothing can be fixed. This board works at the segment instead: 180 block faces across six Australian suburbs, scored on 22 items by two auditors, with 76 segments named as lacking a continuous footpath.

Create a poster with OneCraftA0 Landscape, printed at 1189 by 841 millimetres

The whole board

The poster at full size, exactly as it prints. Every number, citation and caption on it was written for this example, so the layout is being judged on real content.

What stops people walking here? A 22 item audit of 180 street segments across six suburbs

H. Quinlivan ¹, A. Bediako ¹, M. Trethowan ²

1 Urban Planning Research Unit, Gleneagle University · 2 Centre for Transport and Place, Gleneagle University

The question

Walkability is usually reported as a single score for a suburb, which is the level at which nothing can be fixed. A council paves a segment, plants a street tree in a verge and builds a crossing at an intersection, so the segment is the unit where a budget meets the ground. This audit was commissioned to answer a question the suburb score cannot: across six suburbs chosen for their different street ages and subdivision patterns, which specific items fail, how often, and are the failures spread evenly or concentrated in particular streets? The 22 item tool used here was built from three existing instruments and cut down to items that a trained auditor can judge from the footpath without a measuring wheel or a traffic count.

WHAT WE DID

Sample. 180 street segments, 30 in each of six suburbs, drawn at random from the residential street network of each suburb.

Segment. One block face between intersections, median length 180 metres. Both sides audited and scored as one segment.

Tool. 22 binary items across footpath condition, width, continuity, kerb ramps, crossings, shade, lighting and obstruction.

Auditors. Two trained auditors walked every segment independently. Item level agreement was 0.89 and disagreements were resolved on site.

Timing. All fieldwork between 9am and 3pm on weekdays in autumn, so shade was measured with foliage on the trees.

What changed

Of 180 segments, 104 had a continuous footpath on at least one side and 76 did not, which is 42.2%. Shade covering more than half the segment was present on 70, so 110 segments lacked it, 61.1%. A crossing within 200 metres was available on 79 segments, and the mean spacing between formal crossings across the whole sample was 410 metres. Kerb ramps at both ends were present on 88 segments, footpath width of at least 1.5 metres on 128 and street lighting on 113. Mean items passed per suburb, out of 22: Kellmont 14.2, Brayside 12.8, Nardoo 11.6, Tarwin Park 10.4, Ellersley 9.7 and Woodhaven 8.9, on 30 segments each. The sample mean is 11.3 of 22, and the gap between the best and worst suburb is 5.3 items.

Segments passing

Figure 1. Segments passing each of six audit items, out of 180. Items are continuous footpath, footpath width, kerb ramps at both ends, shade over half the length, street lighting and a crossing within 200 metres.

Source: 180 segments, six suburbs, 22 item audit, 2026.

Discussion

The failures are not spread evenly. The gap between the best and worst suburb is 5.3 items out of 22, and it tracks subdivision age almost exactly: the two suburbs subdivided before 1960 score lowest, because their streets were built with a kerb and no footpath and have been patched rather than completed since. That points at a programme rather than a maintenance budget. Shade is the second finding worth acting on, because 110 segments without it is a larger number than any footpath problem here and a street tree is the cheapest item on the list. The crossing result is the one the audit is least confident about. Spacing of 410 metres is a mean over segments of very different lengths, and a formal crossing is not the only safe place to cross a quiet residential street, so the number describes provision rather than need. What it does establish is that the six suburbs differ far less on crossings than on footpaths and shade.

REFERENCES

1.Radcliffe, J. and Nkemelu, C. (2025) Segment level walkability audits and what a suburb score hides. Australian Planner Review, 31(2), 140 to 161.

2.Sturgess, P. (2024) Inter rater agreement in footpath audit instruments. Journal of Active Transport Research, 10(4), 302 to 318.

3.Trethowan, M. (2026) Subdivision age as a predictor of footpath completion. Gleneagle Transport and Place Papers, 8(1), 25 to 44.

76 of 180

segments with no continuous footpath

42.2% across six suburbs, 30 segments each

Conclusions

A segment level audit found that 42.2% of segments lack a continuous footpath and 61.1% lack shade over half their length, that formal crossings sit 410 metres apart on average, and that the six suburbs differ by 5.3 items out of 22 in a pattern that follows subdivision age. The practical recommendation is to treat footpath completion in the pre 1960 suburbs as a capital programme with a segment list attached, and to treat shade as a separate and much cheaper programme that can start anywhere. The segment list is the deliverable here rather than the score, because a council can cost 76 named block faces and cannot cost a suburb average. Two limits belong on the board: the tool records presence and not condition, so a cracked footpath and a new one both pass the continuity item, and autumn fieldwork measures shade at its annual best.

180 segments audited, 30 in each of six suburbs

42.2% of segments had no continuous footpath

61.1% lacked shade over half the segment length

Formal crossings sit 410 metres apart on average

Block by block

What each block on the board is for, in the order a reader walks it.

Title band and three authors: The title asks what stops people walking and names the 22 item tool, the 180 segments and the six suburbs, so the scale is settled before the first column.
The question, with its icon: Why a suburb score cannot be acted on, what a segment is in this study, and how the 22 item tool was cut down from three existing instruments to items an auditor can judge from the footpath.
What we did, with its icon: Five labelled entries: the 30 segments in each of six suburbs, the block face definition and its median length of 180 metres, the 22 binary items, the two auditors and their 0.89 agreement, and autumn weekday fieldwork.
What changed, with its icon: The headline counts: 104 segments with a continuous footpath and 76 without, 70 with shade over half their length, 79 with a crossing within 200 metres, and the six suburb means out of 22.
Figure 1, segments passing each item: Six bars out of 180 for continuous footpath, width, kerb ramps, shade, lighting and crossing proximity, with one word tick labels and the full item wording in the caption.
Headline number: The stat block carries 76 of 180, the segments with no continuous footpath, with the percentage, the suburb count and the sample per suburb underneath.
Discussion: Why the failures cluster rather than spread, how the 5.3 item gap tracks subdivision age, why shade is the cheapest item on the list, and why the crossing spacing figure describes provision rather than need.
Conclusions, four key points and references: The recommendation to treat footpath completion as a capital programme with a segment list attached, a four item checked list carrying the headline numbers, and three numbered references.

What makes this board work

The unit is the segment, and it says so

A council paves a block face, plants a tree in a verge and builds a crossing at an intersection, so the segment is where a budget meets the ground. Reporting 76 named segments rather than a suburb average is what makes the board costable.

Six items, one bar each, all out of 180

The figure plots how many of the 180 segments passed each of six items, so every bar shares a denominator and the reader compares heights without converting anything. Six short one word labels keep the tick row clear of the legend band.

The pattern is explained, not just shown

The suburb means run from 14.2 to 8.9 items out of 22, and the discussion ties the gap to subdivision age: streets built before 1960 with a kerb and no footpath. That turns a ranking into a capital programme argument.

Questions people ask

What goes on an urban planning research poster?

The unit of analysis and why it was chosen, the sampling frame, the audit instrument with its item count, who collected the data and how well they agreed, the results by item and by area, and what the numbers cannot support. A poster that reports only an index leaves a council nothing to cost.

Why audit segments rather than suburbs?

Because a suburb score cannot be acted on. Works happen on a block face, so the segment is the unit where a budget meets the ground. This board reports 76 segments without a continuous footpath, which a council can list and price, rather than a single walkability index for each of six suburbs.

How do I show inter rater agreement on a poster?

Put it in the methods block with the resolution rule. This board reports item level agreement of 0.89 between two auditors who walked every segment independently, and says disagreements were resolved on site. Without both parts a reader cannot tell whether the tool or the auditors produced the variation.

Should an Australian planning poster name the suburbs?

Name them if the audience can act on them, and this board does: six suburb means from 14.2 down to 8.9 items out of 22, on 30 segments each. The discussion then ties the ranking to subdivision age, which matters more than the names because it identifies the streets to look at elsewhere.

What do the icons on this layout do?

This design carries three small icon slots, one beside each of the first three sections, and they are markers rather than content. The four key points a brief like this usually calls for go in the checked list at the foot instead, which holds exactly four items on every poster design that has one.

What does an A0 landscape poster export at?

The working canvas is 2,340 by 1,656 pixels and the export captures at twice that, so 4,680 by 3,312 pixels, roughly 100 dots per inch at full A0 size. Exports are RGB with no bleed setting, no crop marks and no CMYK conversion, so a print shop needing them will prepare them.

Build your own in about a minute

The button below opens the generator with this use case already described. Change the wording to match your own, generate, then edit anything you like.

Make one like this

Sources

Written and checked by the OneCraft team. Last checked 20 September 2026.