1 walkability and pedestrian facilities in asian cities sameera kumar anthapur transport researcher...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Asian Cities
Sameera Kumar AnthapurTransport Researcher
Sudhir GotaTechnical Manager
Transed 2012New Delhi20 September 2012
How walkable are our cities?
2
“improving walkability entails improvement not only in the physical infrastructure but equally in the minds of people”
Lanzhou3
Davao4
Jakarta5
Ho Chi Minh City6
Hyderabad 7
Manila
8
How people travel in Asian cities is changing
9
cities which has more than 75% of trips by bus, metro, cycles and walking
cities which have 50 to 75% of trips by bus, metro, cycle and walking.
cities with 50% of trips by private modes such as two wheelers, cars, taxis etc.
http://transport-solutions.blogspot.com/2010/07/trip-mode-share-in-asia-what-does.html
CAI-Asia, 2011
Walkability surveys in Asia – 23 cities
10
Walkability Assessment - residential, educational, commercial, public transport terminals• Field Walkability Surveys (modified Global Walkability Index)
• Pre-identified routes• 9 Parameters - Walking Path Modal Conflict, Availability of Walking Paths,
Availability of Crossings , Grade Crossing Safety, Motorist Behavior, Amenities, Disability Infrastructure , Obstructions, Security from Crime
• Pedestrian Preference Interview Surveys• Profile of the respondents – travel behavior• Preference of the respondents on walkability and pedestrian
facilities improvements• Survey on Policies and Guidelines & Stakeholder survey
Walkability Assessment Methodology
11
12
Walkability Results
Field Walkability Assessment Results (1)
13Walking environment varies significantly depending upon the location
Bhubanesh
warCeb
u
Chennai
ColomboDav
aoHan
oi
HCMC HKIndore
Jakart
a
Kathman
du
Karach
iKota
Lanzh
ou
Manila
PuneRajk
otSu
rat
Ulaanbaa
tar -
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
"Waiting To walk"
"Pleasure to walk"
"Walk at your own risk"
Field Walkability Assessments Results (2)
14
Cebu ColomboDavao
Hanoi
HCM
Hong Kong
Jakarta
Karachi
KathmanduLanzhouManilaMale
Ulaanbataar
Bangalore
Bhubaneshwar
Chennai
Indore
Pune
RajkotSurat
0
50
100
Residential Educational
Public Transport Terminals Commercial
Residential
Educational
Public Transport Terminals
Commercial
0 20 40 60
51
48
41
47
56
57
54
61
Other Asian Cites AverageIndia Average
Field Walkability Assessment Results (3)
15
1. Walking Path Modal Conflict
2. Availability Of Walking Paths
3. Availability Of Crossings
4. Grade Crossing Safety
5. Motorist Behavior
6. Amenities
7. Disability Infrastructure
8. Obstructions
9. Security from Crime
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
52
45
53
47
48
36
29
52
60
65
58
68
60
58
49
39
56
63
80
74
73
68
72
56
61
75
73
Average Hong KongAverage Other Asian CityAverage Indian city
Pedestrian Preference Survey Results (1)
16
People Interviewed in 19cities > 6,500
1. 30% of people interviewed came from households without motorized vehicles2. Majority of people (61%) were in the age group 15-30 years3. Walking constitutes 40% of trip mode share.4. 67% of all trips are less than 30 minutes and less than 6 km
Cebu; 301 Chennai; 300
Colombo; 170
Davao; 287
Hanoi; 500
HCM; 500
Hong Kong; 1,029 Indore; 300
Jakarta; 250 Karachi; 272
Kathmandu; 305
Kota; 256
Lanzhou; 204
Manila; 304
Pune; 309
Rajkot; 370
Surat; 337 Ulaanbaatar; 266
• 42 % - the pedestrian environment is “bad” or “very bad”• 15% - facilities are “good” or “very good”• Respondents top priority:
1. Wider, level and clean sidewalks/ footpaths2. Reduced/slower traffic on the road3. Removal of obstacles/ parked cars from sidewalks/ footpaths
• Crossings• 47% prefer at-grade crossings and 33% skywalks• 74% prefer crossings that are within 100 meters
Pedestrian Preference Survey Results (2)
17
Pedestrian Preference Survey Results (3)
18
No, I will not shift; 25%
Cycle; 13%
Bus/Microvans; 15%Tempo; 7%
Car/Taxi; 24%
Motorcycle; 16%
Without improvements in pedestrian facilities, 75% of respondents would shift from walking to other modes when affordable
Policies and Guidelines - Sri Lanka 10% of urban road space for NMT - Action Plan for Traffic Management in Greater Colombo (2008)
Policies and Guidelines - Traffic and Road Transport Act of Indonesia
If a pedestrian crossing does not exist, pedestrians must take care of their own safety when crossing the road and people with disabilities must wear special signs that are visible to motorists
Policies, Institutions and Guidelines Survey Results (1)
19
Policies and Guidelines: Indian Road Congress • Footpath separated with carriageway with an insurmountable kerb• Pedestrian crossings at mid block only when the distance between
intersections is minimum of 300m. • Provision of controlled crossings at mid blocks when peak hour
volumes of pedestrians and vehicles are such that PV2 > 1 million (Undivided carriageway), PV2> 2 million (divided carriageway) , Stream speed of greater than 65 kph
City Development Plans • The trend is towards building few pedestrian
overpasses and improving few kilometers of footpath. Majority of the emphasis is on the public transport and increase in road space.
Policies, Institutions and Guidelines Survey Results (3)
20
Dedicated Institutions • Lack of dedicated institutional responsibility and legal
and financial resources in support of pedestrian needs
• Multiple agencies but who owns the footpaths?• Political support is barrier in promoting improvement
of pedestrian facilities considering the significant number of pedestrians and public transport commuters
Policies, Institutions and Guidelines Survey Results (4)
21
Allocation of Resources• Most cities do not allocate sufficient resources for pedestrian
facility improvement or these are not relevant to pedestrian needs • Bangladesh (Dhaka)
• 0.24% of the municipal budget to pedestrian facilities for next 20 years
• India (Bangalore) • 0.6% of total budget for next 20 years • Future vision/target – Pedestrian trip mode share to be 20%
after 20 years • Ratio of investment on footpaths and on "skywalks" = 25 to 75%
- Bangalore Pedestrian Policy, BMLTA (2009)
Policies, Institutions and Guidelines Survey Results (5)
22
Walkability surveys to measure success of the project
23
Effective Media Strategy
24
Over 40 news articles, with potential readership of 4.4 million
Walkabilityasia.org - Home Page
Over 4000 hits in 90 days !25
Walkabilityasia.org - Facebook page
26Over 140 ‘likes’ and growing
Boon or bane?
27
Using the same money required for constructing 1 km metro, one can, on average, construct 350 km of new quality sidewalks !!
Is it lack of resources? No space ? No demand? Lack of expertise?
Times of India - 16 Apr 2010
Acknowledgments
28
• Lanzhou, China: Shan Huang from CAI-Asia China Office, and Prof. Yongping Bai and his students at the Northwest Normal University in Lanzhou, China
• Karachi, Pakistan: Arif Pervaiz from Karachi and his students, Aatika Khan, Kanwal Fatima, Sadia Mehmood, Al Amin Nathani, Owais Hasan, Obeda Mehmood, and Rida Kamran
• Jakarta, Indonesia: Dollaris Suhadi, Mariana Sam and Anthony Octaviano from Swisscontact Indonesia• Kota, India: Harjinder Parwana and Vipul Sharma from CAI-Asia India Office• Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia: Prof. Sereeter Lodoysamba and his students at the National University of Mongolia• Cebu and Manila, Philippines: Ernesto Abaya from the College of Engineering and the National Center for Transportation Studies of the
University of the Philippines,, and Paul Villarete, Delight Baratbate and other staff of the Cebu City Government Planning Office• Ha Noi and Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam: Phan Quynh Nhu from Vietnam Clean Air Partnership (CAI-Asia Country Network) , and Khuat Viet
Hung and Nguyen Thanh Hoa from the Institute of Transport Planning and Management, University of Transport and Communication • Chennai – RajCherubal, Shreya and Chris Kost (ITDP), Prof Madhav Badami (Mcgill University), Prof Sudhir Chella Rajan,
Manjari,Preshant,Gayathri and Oviya Govindan (IIT Madras)• Bhubaneshwar – Vipul Sharma (IUCN), Piyush Ranjan Raut (City Managers Association Orrisa), Choudhury Rudra Charan Mohanty (UNCRD)• Pune – Ashok Sreenivas, Robert Obenaus, kittykanchan and Ranjit Gadgil (Parisar), Nitin Warrier (ITDP)• Bangalore – Bharat Kumar ( Vijaya College)Special thanks to Fredkorpset Norway for co-funding the conduct of walkability surveys under the Blue Skies Exchange Program in partnership
with CAI-Asia Center and: • Hong Kong SAR, PRC: Prof Wing-tat Hung from Hong Kong Polytechnic University, host to Sampath Aravinda Ranasinghe and Anjila
Manandhar• Kathmandu, Nepal: Gopal Joshi from Clean Air Network Nepal and Clean Energy Nepal, host to Charina Cabrido• Colombo, Sri Lanka:Thusitha Sugathapala from Clean Air Sri Lanka host to Joy Bailey• Davao, Philippines: CAI-Asia Center, host to Vu Tat Dat• Holly Krambeck, and Jitu Shah• CAI Asia Center Collegues• Sustran, CAI Asia COP members
Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation
[email protected] 3505 Robinsons-Equitable Tower
ADB Avenue, Pasig CityMetro Manila 1605
Philippines
CAI-Asia Center
[email protected] Reignwood Building,
No. 8 YongAnDongLi Jianguomenwai Avenue Beijing
China
CAI-Asia China [email protected]
Building no.4, 1st floor, Near Thygaraj StadiumLodhi Colony , New Delhi
India
CAI-Asia India Office
CAI-Asia Country NetworksChina . India . Indonesia . Nepal . Pakistan . Philippines . Sri Lanka . Vietnam
29
CAI-Asia Center Members 231 CAI-Asia Partnership Members
• 45 Cities• 19 Environment ministries• 13 Other Government agencies• 17 Development agencies & foundations• 67 NGOs• 37 Academic and research institutes• 33 Private sector companies
Donors in 2012Asian Development Bank Cities Development Initiative for Asia
ClimateWorks Foundation DHL/IKEA/UPS Energy Foundation Fredskorpset Norway Fu Tak Iam Foundation German International Cooperation (GIZ) Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) Institute for Transport Policy Studies Institute for Transportation and Development Policy International Union for Conservation of Nature MAHA Rockefeller Brothers Fund United Nations Environment Program Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles (UNEP PCFV) Veolia World Bank
For more information: www.cleanairinitiative.org