Demographics – Whitby and Esk Valley Active Travel

Whitby & Esk Valley Demographics

It is essential to understand the population in the area to be able to provide for them in terms of active travel facilities and get active.

Age Demographic

Whitby and the Esk Valley has a typically aging population, with falling school subscription rates. The age demographics of representative parish council areas are shown graphically below (only some parish councils are shown, for clarity purposes). As seen, the district is below average for the percentage of younger people, and above average for elderly age groups. The data is taken from the 2021 Census.

In tabular form, with actual population figures and for all parishes in the district, the data shown above is represented as

Parish		0-19 Years	20-29 Years	30-39 Years	40-49 Years	50-59 Years	60-69 Years	70+ Years	Total
Whitby	number	2372	1181	1420	1431	2017	2123	2610	13154
	%	18	9	11	11	15	16	20
Eskdaleside	number	334	153	178	192	366	436	603	2262
	%	15	7	8	8	16	19	27
Hinderwell	number	329	150	159	170	291	285	400	1784
	%	18	8	9	10	16	16	22
Danby Group	number	220	127	147	142	245	284	362	1527
	%	14	8	10	9	16	19	24
Fylingdales	number	227	71	98	109	185	245	313	1248
	%	18	6	8	9	15	20	25
Glaisdale	number	168	71	92	89	195	169	199	983
	%	17	7	9	9	20	17	20
Hawsker-cum-Stainsacre	number	114	49	61	72	134	100	174	704
	%	16	7	9	10	19	14	25
Egton	number	101	30	44	63	83	71	72	464
	%	22	6	9	14	18	15	16
Goathland	number	31	25	20	39	69	84	106	374
	%	8	7	5	10	18	22	28
Lythe	number	40	22	22	30	66	72	92	344
	%	12	6	6	9	19	21	27
Grosmont	number	30	25	17	27	52	75	69	295
	%	10	8	6	9	18	25	23
Mickleby Group	number	46	12	13	32	42	45	65	255
	%	18	5	5	13	16	18	25
Aislaby	number	29	18	21	24	46	61	46	245
	%	12	7	9	10	19	25	19
Ugthorpe Group	number	50	25	25	26	45	44	30	245
	%	20	10	10	11	18	18	12
Roxby Group	number	31	16	14	24	38	37	37	197
	%	16	8	7	12	19	19	19
Newholm-cum-Dunsley	number	32	19	11	22	34	37	39	194
	%	16	10	6	11	18	19	20
Sneaton	number	30	13	26	24	26	30	45	194
	%	15	7	13	12	13	15	23
England (average)	%	23	12	14	13	14	11	13

In accordance with our data transparency policy, this table is downloadable in spreadsheet format.

Activity Levels

Activity levels in the Whitby and the Esk Valley area are not as high as they could be. The below maps show walking and cycling levels from the Active Lives Survey of 2020. Walking levels are average for the county, and indeed country. Cycling levels, on the other hand, are significantly below average, largely due to the presence of very little infrastructure.

If we look in general at the possible reasons behind these activity levels

Walking – many parts of district not pedestrian-friendly – crossings providing priority for pedestrians are required in many places.
Cycling – very little infrastructure and consequently the risk perception on roads takes over.
Geography – hills put people off. The e-bike alleviates this for cyclists.
Road Traffic Levels – volume of cars, car sizes/speeds.
Risk Perception – puts people off using a bike or even walking when infrastructure is lacking.
Disability Barriers – access prevented in some places. Steep access to CinderTrack puts off disabled.
Ageing Population – reduced perception of speed, increased risk.

We will now look in detail at the walking and cycling levels.

Walking Levels

In terms of walking, the numbers for Scarborough borough from this survey are more respectable relative to other boroughs in the council area, and around the average nationally, though still leaving plenty of room for improvement. As said, the borough has some of the best walks around, so infrastructure is seemingly not the limiting factor, maybe the lack of prioritisation for pedestrians is a factor in that with a lack of road crossing infrastructure in particular.

%age of adults walking	Once/month	Once/week	Three/week	Five/week
North Yorkshire (average)	78.4	70.7	47	35.6
Craven	85.1	76.9	53.5	42.7
Ryedale	79.5	72.1	50.2	39.4
Harrogate	78.8	68.9	45.6	34.8
Hambleton	78.7	72.4	44.8	38.1
Selby	77.8	71	45.1	29.5
Richmondshire	75.4	67.3	46.9	35.1
Scarborough	75.4	69.5	47.4	34.3

In accordance with our data transparency policy, this table is downloadable in spreadsheet format.

Cycling Levels

This survey showed, of all of the borough councils within North Yorkshire Council (NYC) area, the Scarborough borough has the lowest proportion of adults cycling once per week.

%age of adults cycling	Once/month	Once/week	Three/week	Five/week
North Yorkshire (average)	16	11.6	4.9	2.6
Selby	19.6	14.2	7.6	3.1
Harrogate	17.3	12.7	6	2.9
Ryedale	16.8	12	5.4	2.7
Richmondshire	15.2	11.2	2	0.9
Hambleton	14.9	11.8	4.3	2.8
Craven	14.8	10.7	1.7	1.2
Scarborough	12.5	8.3	4.8	2.9

In accordance with our data transparency policy, this table is downloadable in spreadsheet format.

It would be desirable to drill down to particular towns within the Scarborough borough to identify whether the problem is specific to certain towns. While there are no town-centric statistics in that survey, we can look at the amount of cycle infrastructure within the two largest towns in that borough.

kms of cycle path	Scarborough	Whitby
Dedicated Cycle Path	0	0
On-Road Cycle Lane	7.4	0
Shared Path (CinderTrack)	3.4 (10)	2.5 (1)
Shared Path (Non-CinderTrack)	6	0
Total	16.8	2.5

In accordance with our data transparency policy, this table is downloadable in spreadsheet format.

The numbers above for Scarborough urban area were obtained from a FOI request of NYC in March 2022 (nb further infrastructure has been provisioned since this date in Scarborough, so the gap is now larger), whilst the numbers for Whitby urban area we generated ourselves from knowledge of our town. The numbers in brackets for the CinderTrack are the number of safe-cycling access-points; namely that Whitby has just 1 in the urban area, and that being a steep ramp in a relatively inaccessible part of town! The Larpool Lane link to the CinderTrack in Whitby is not included here due to it being a dangerous road and not meeting the remit of “safe cycling”. Bear in mind also that the CinderTrack in Scarborough is now on to its second surface having had a surface for many years, whereas the Whitby end only finally gained a surface in 2021. It is clear that Whitby (urban area) has a far lower quantity (kms) of cycle path than Scarborough (urban area); it would be reasonable to conclude that the proportion of adults cycling at least once per week in Whitby is noticeably lower than in Scarborough, and that the cycling numbers for Whitby are amongst the lowest of any town in the NYC area.

We also have to draw a distinction here between someone using a bike as a leisure activity (once a week, say), and using it as a form of transport; the figures suggest that very few are in the latter category.

Vehicle Noise/Pollution Map

Please note also the road noise map for the largest urban population in the area, Whitby (Source: DEFRA/DfT, 2017, 24hr averaged road noise). This highlights the significant problem around the primary arterial roads and the impact of road traffic on the lives of residents in those areas. Note that this map is also indicatory of the levels of road particulates. Noise and particulates have direct and indirect linkage to physical and mental health of people in those areas. This is something that increased active travel (and reduced vehicular travel) can make a massive impact on. When designing an active travel network, the priority has to be around either avoiding the areas with high road noise, or implementing measures to reduce the noise.