Development of Qualitative Walkability Measures for Pedestrian Facilities in Delhi by Dr. Purnima Parida Scientist, Central Road Research Institute New Delhi, India Prof.. M. Parida, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India Transforming Transportation 15 th Jan 2009

Planning for Whom ???????

Vexed Pedestrians

Pedestrians & Road Accidents Fatalities 15,000 in 1971 increased to 1,00,000 in 2004 Economic loss of Rs. 5,000 crore per annum 15,000 fatalities on urban roads 50 per cent of road victims are pedestrians, 30% two wheeler riders, & remaining 20% occupants of 4 wheelers. Pedestrians are vulnerable

Pedestrians & Road Accidents

Fatalities 15,000 in 1971 increased

to 1,00,000 in 2004

Economic loss of Rs. 5,000 crore per annum

15,000 fatalities on urban roads

50 per cent of road victims are pedestrians, 30% two wheeler riders, & remaining 20% occupants of 4 wheelers.

Pedestrians are vulnerable

Reasons to Support Walking Economy Health Availability Cognition Environment Protection Sustainable Transportation

Economy

Health

Availability

Cognition

Environment Protection

Capacity of Sidewalks Source: Indian Road Congress, 103 :1988

Level of Service Level of service for pedestrian flow is defined as an overall measure of walking conditions on a facility. LOS characterize the quality of traffic flow at various fractions of capacity. Quantitative criteria includes space per pedestrian, speeds, flow rates. Qualitative criteria includes comfort, safety, convenience on the basis of pedestrian perception.

Level of service for pedestrian flow is defined as an overall measure of walking conditions on a facility.

LOS characterize the quality of traffic flow at various fractions of capacity.

Quantitative criteria includes space per pedestrian, speeds, flow rates.

Qualitative criteria includes comfort, safety, convenience on the basis of pedestrian perception.

Qualitative LOS Grades LOS A is a pedestrian environment where ideal pedestrian conditions exist and no factors that negatively affect pedestrian LOS are minimal LOS B Reasonable pedestrian conditions exist but a small number of factors impact on pedestrian safety and comfort. LOS A is ideal, LOS B is acceptable . LOS C Basic pedestrian conditions exist but a significant number of factors affect on safety and comfort. LOS D Poor pedestrian conditions exist. LOS E Pedestrian environment is unsuitable .

Qualitative Level of Service A (Excellent)

Qualitative Level of Service E ( Poor)

Design From Pedestrian Perspective Footpath surface Footpath width Obstruction Encroachment Potential for Vehicle Conflict Continuity Pedestrian volume Safety Comfort Walk environment

Footpath surface

Footpath width

Obstruction

Encroachment

Potential for Vehicle Conflict

Continuity

Pedestrian volume

Safety

Comfort

Walk environment

Footpath Surface

Footpath Width

Obstruction

Encroachment

Potential for Vehicle Conflict

Continuity

Pedestrian Volume

Safety

Comfort

Walking Environment

Stages of LOS Model Development Identification of LOS Factors Primary Surveys Self Onsite Assessment Estimation of Weights Frequency Distribution of Cumulative Weights Estimation of Satisfaction Rating Development of Qualitative Level of Service Computation of Cumulative Weights

VIDEOGRAPHIC SURVEY QUALITATIVE EVALUATION SURVEY LOCATION

Locations for Primary Survey

Parameters Weights Excellent Very good Good Satisfactory Poor Code Footpath surface Foot path width Obstructions Encroachment Potential for veh. Conflict Continuity

PART – C USER FACTORS Parameters Weights Excellent Very good Good Satisfactory Poor Code Pedestrian Volume Safety Comfort Walk environment

Parameters Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Poor 1 Footpath width 3m. + wide 2m to 3 m. 1m to 2 m 0.1 – 1 m No footpath 2 Footpath surface Smooth surface with no cracks or bumps Reasonable quality. Walking is comfortable Moderate quality, with few bumps and cracks Very bad condition. Lots of bumps and cracks. no raised footpath 3 Obstruction No obstruction. ( trees, hoardings, poles) very few few many Cant walk on the footpath 4 Encroachment No encroachment No problem to walk Slightly difficult to walk Very difficult to walk Cannot walk 5 Potential for veh. Conflict Well protected Raised footpath , guard rails not continuous Raised footpath but no guard rails Footpath not sufficiently raised and no guard rails Very unsafe 6 Continuity Continuous 1-2 ups and downs Few ups and downs Frequent ups and downs Non existent 7 Walk environment Very pleasant good acceptable poor Intolerable 8 Pedestrian volume Very low low moderate high Very high 9 safety Very safe Slightly unsafe during night Safe during day only Slightly unsafe during day Totally unsafe 10 Comfort Very comfortable ( protection from sun, rain and mountable curb) comfortable Slightly uncomfortable Uncomfortable No comfort

Importance Levels of Attributes by Pedestrians Cannaught Place ISBT

CRRI AIIMS

Azadpu r Ashram

Janakpuri ITO

Hauz Khas Vivek Vihar

Rohin i Shahdara

Satisfaction Rating of Attributes by Pedestrians ISBT Connaught Place

CRRI AIIMS

Azadpur Ashram

Janakpuri ITO

Hauz Khas Vivek Vihar

Rohini Shahdara

Quantification of Mean Relative Weights for Sidewalk Attributes

Computation of Cumulative Weights

Computation of Cumulative Weights

Computation of Cumulative Weights

Frequency Distribution of Cumulative Weights Mean = 114, SD = 25

Allocation of Qualitative LOS

Distribution of Locations using Qualitative LOS Criteria

Comparison of Quantitative & Qualitative LOS for Sidewalks

Application of the Qualitative LOS Models Evaluation of a sidewalk facility For evaluating alternate design

Evaluation of a sidewalk facility

For evaluating alternate design

Assessment of Level of Service

Assessment of Level of Service

Assessment of Level of Service

Assessment of Level of Service

Assessment of Level of Service

Level of Service at sample locations Under Do Nothing Scenario

Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Footpath Surface) on Walkability

Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Footpath Width) on Walkability

Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Obstruction) on Walkability

Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Encroachment) on Walkability

Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Potential for Veh. Conflict) on Walkability

Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Continuity) on Walkability

Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Pedestrian Vol.) on Walkability

Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Safety) on Walkability

Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Comfort) on Walkability

Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Walk Environment) on Walkability

Level of service model developed through qualitative analysis designates a sidewalk in terms of a walkability score depending on the ten identified attributes. Walkability assessment of pedestrian infrastructure need to be a modeled as a composite function of both design factors and user perception. Application of this model can be explained by studying the effect of change in sidewalk attributes on the walkability scores. This model shall be useful to evaluate existing pedestrian infrastructure along with evolving ALTERNATIVES for improving pedestrian facilities. Epilogue

THANK YOU