Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Pedestrian and Bicycle facility planning for kochi city region, part 2  data collection
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Pedestrian and Bicycle facility planning for kochi city region, part 2 data collection


Published on

Pedestrian and Bicycle facility planning for kochi city region, part 2 data collection

Pedestrian and Bicycle facility planning for kochi city region, part 2 data collection

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 3. AIM & OBJECTIVES • AIM The aim of this study is to assess the level of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in Kochi city region and formulate strategies and plans for pedestrian and bicycle friendly urban transport for city region. To achieve this objectives, • • • • • • Asses existing condition of the roads Asses the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities Identify conflict points Understand the density of pedestrian movement. Asses the feasibility of introduction of bicycle facility in the city region. Asses the social economic and democratic profile on pedestrians and their travel characteristic. • Formulation of suitable proposals for improving pedestrian mobility. • Proposals to improve the safety of pedestrian movement, reduction of vehiclepedestrian conflicts and introduction of GPS driven bicycles.
  • 5. PEDESTRIAN FLOW CHARECTERISTICS Three main conditions influences the pedestrian flow characteristics such as, 1) Unidirectional flow and bidirectional flow 2) Restrained and normal flow condition 3) Exclusive and non-exclusive pedestrian facility SPEED – DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS As volume and density increase, pedestrian speed declines Unidirectional & bidirectional flow Restrained and normal flow Exclusive and non-exclusive (Source: European Transport Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 53, Paper n° 6, ISSN 1825-3997
  • 6. PEDESTRIAN FLOW CHARECTERISTICS FLOW – DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS Where, Qped= unit flow rate (p/min/m), Sped = pedestrian speed (m/min) Dped= pedestrian density (p/m2). Unidirectional & bidirectional flow Restrained and normal flow Exclusive and non-exclusive (Source: European Transport Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 53, Paper n° 6, ISSN 1825-3997
  • 7. PEDESTRIAN FLOW CHARECTERISTICS SPEED – FLOW RELATIONSHIPS When there are few pedestrians on a walkway (i.e., low flow levels); there is space available to choose higher walking speeds. As flow increases, speeds decline because of closer interactions among pedestrians. When a critical level of crowding occurs, movement becomes more difficult, and both flow and speed decline. Unidirectional & bidirectional flow Restrained and normal flow Exclusive and non-exclusive (Source: European Transport Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 53, Paper n° 6, ISSN 1825-3997
  • 8. PEDESTRIAN FLOW CHARECTERISTICS SPEED – FLOW RELATIONSHIPS At an average space of less than 1.5m2/p, even the slowest pedestrians cannot achieve their desired walking speeds. Faster pedestrians, who walk at speeds of up to 1.8 m/s, are not able to achieve that speed unless average space is 4.0 m2/p or more. Unidirectional & bidirectional flow Restrained and normal flow Exclusive and non-exclusive (Source: European Transport Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 53, Paper n° 6, ISSN 1825-3997
  • 9. CURRENT POLICIES 1. • • • • National Urban Transport Policy 2006 Integrated land use and transport policy Equitable distribution of road space between all road users Priority to the use of public transport Priority to non-motorized modes 2. Other Policies • Central Motor Vehicles rules (CMVR) 1989 Safety Rules states that motorists cannot enter pedestrian way and are liable to penalty. • Indian Penal Code (sec 283), sec 34 of Delhi Police Act -- Obstruction in public space punishable. • The National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009, approved by the Central government, recognizes street vendors (or micro-entrepreneurs) as “an integral and legitimate part of the urban retail trade and distribution system.” The national policy gives street vendors a legal status and aims at providing legitimate vending/hawking zones in city/town master or development plans. • Police Act provides for penalty for jaywalking. • Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 (Sec 44) recommends guidelines for the disabled persons.
  • 10. GUIDELINES FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES 1. Current IRC (103- 2012) guidelines • Pedestrian-vehicle conflicts • Inclusive Planning • Pedestrian Safety 2. Highway Capacity manual 2000 3. AASHTO Guide for Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian facilities AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) publishes two guides that address pedestrian and bicycle facilities: • Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, • Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 4. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) • Document issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) • Specify the standards by which traffic signs, road surface markings, and signals are designed, installed, and used. • Specifications include the shapes, colors, and fonts used in road markings and signs.
  • 11. BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES Pavement factor RCI index range Classification 0 to 3 Excellent 3 to 4 Good 4 to 5 Fair 5 or above Poor Location factor 0.50 = cracking 0.25 = patching 0.25 = weathering 0.25 – 0.50 = potholes depending on severity 0.25 – 0.50 = rough road edge depending on severity 0.25 = railroad crossing 0.50 = rough or angled railroad grade crossing 0.50 = drainage grates 0.75 = angle parking 0.25 = parallel parking 0.25 = right turn lane ( full length ) -0.50 = raised median ( solid ) -0.35 = raised median ( left turn bays ) -0.20 = center turn lane -0.75 = paved shoulder or bike lane 0.50 = severe grade 0.20 = moderate grade 0.35 = frequent horizontal curves 0.50 = restricted sight distance 0.25 = numerous driveways 0.25 = industrial land use 0.25 = commercial land use
  • 13. BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES Gainesville bicycle los performance measures • • Evaluate roadway corridors using a point system of 1 to 21 that results in LOS ratings from A - F. Involves the provision of basic facilities, conflicts, speed differential, motor vehicle LOS, maintenance, and provision of transportation demand management (TDM) programs CATEGORY CRITERIA Bicycle facility provided (max Outside lane 3.66m value = 10) Outside lane> 3.66m – 4.27m Outside lane > 4.27m Off street/ parallel alternative facility Conflicts Driveways & side streets (max value = 4) Barrier free No on-street parking Medians present Unrestricted sight distance Intersection implementation Speed differential >48 KPH ( >30 MPH) (max value = 2) 40 – 48 KPH (25 – 30 MPH) 24 – 32 KPH (15 - 20 MPH) Motor vehicle LOS LOS = E,F, or 6 or more travel lanes (max value = 2) LOS = D, and <6 travel lanes LOS = A,B,C and <6 travel lanes POINTS 0 5 6 4 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 1 2 0 1 2 Maintenance (max value = 2) -1 0 2 0 1 21 1 21 21 = LOS A TDM/ multimodal (max value = 1) Calculations Major or frequent problems Minor or infrequent problems No problems No support Support exists Segment score Segment weight Adjusted segment score Corridor score (Source: Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and StandardsTRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1538) LOS A (17 – 21). These roadways are generally safe and attractive to all bicyclists. LOS B (14 – 17). These roadways are adequate for all bicyclists. LOS C (11 – 14). These roadways are adequate for most bicyclists. LOS D (7 – 11) LOS E (3 – 7) Bicyclists can anticipate a high level of interaction with motor vehicle LOS F (≥ 3). These roadways do not provide any bicycle facilities.
  • 14. PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES Highway Capacity Manual 2000 LOS A Pedestrian Space> 5.6 m2/p. Flow Rate ≤ 16p/min/m pedestrian moves in desired paths without altering their movements in response to other pedestrian. Walking speeds are freely selected, and conflicts between pedestrian are unlikely. LOS B Pedestrian Space > 3.7- 5.6 m2/p. Flow Rate ≤16 - 23 p/min/m sufficient area for pedestrian to select walking speeds freely, to bypass other pedestrian, and to avoid crossing conflicts. At this level, pedestrian begin to be aware of other pedestrian, and to respond to their presence when selecting a walking path. LOS C Pedestrian Space > 2.2 – 3.7 m2/p. Flow Rate ≤ 23 - 33 p/min/m At LOS C, space is sufficient for normal walking speeds, and for bypassing other pedestrian in primarily unidirectional streams. Reverse-direction or crossing movements can cause minor conflicts, and speeds and flow rate are somewhat lower (source: HCM 2000)
  • 15. PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES LOS D Pedestrian Space > 1.4 – 2.2 m2/p. Flow Rate ≤ 33 - 49 p/min/m freedom to select individual walking speed and to bypass other pedestrian is restricted. Crossing or reverse-flow movements face a high probability of conflict,. LOS E Pedestrian Space > 0.75 – 1.4 m2/p. Flow Rate ≤ 49 - 75 p/min/m all pedestrian restrict their normal walking speed, frequently adjusting their gait. At the lower range, forward movement is possible only by shuffling. Cross--flow movements are possible only with extreme difficulties. Design volumes approach the limit of walkway capacity, with stoppages and interruption to flow. LOS F Pedestrian Space ≤ 0.75 m2/p. Flow Rate varies all walking speeds are severely restricted, and forward progress is made only by shuffling. Cross- and reverse-flow movements are virtually impossible. Flow is sporadic and unstable. Space is more characteristic of queued pedestrian than of moving pedestrian streams. (source: HCM 2000)
  • 16. PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES KHISTY’S METHOD Comfort Surface condition Sidewalk condition cleanliness Convenience Obstacle free sidewalks Barrier free facilities Lowered kerb Safety Width of carriage way Traffic light Police presecnce • Khisty‟s method is based upon factors that directly affect pedestrians Category Satisfaction level Points LOS A Economy Cost Delays in journey time 5 LOS B ≥ 60% 4 LOS C ≥ 45% 3 LOS D ≥ 30% 2 LOS E ≥ 15 % 1 LOS F System continuity Central island Parking restriction ≥ 85% < 15% 0 (Source: pedestrian facility plan for Trivandrum by Tessy Varkey, unpublished thesis report, 2012-23, page no-12)
  • 17. PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES Australian method Path Width Weight 4 Surface Quality 5 Obstructions (per km) Crossing Opportunities Support Facilities Connectivity Path Environment 2 Potential for Conflict Pedestrian Volume Mix of Users 3 Security 4 0 points No Path 1 point 0-1 m 2 points 1.1-1.5 m 3 points 1.6-2.0m 4 points Over 2.1m Poor Quality 3 Unsealed, many bumps Over 21 11 to 20 5 to 10 1 to 4 None 4 None, difficult Poorly Located adequate Dedicated crossings 2 Non-existent Adequate Many well located 4 Non-existent Few and far between Poor Some, but not enough Few and well located Reasonable Good Excellent 3 4 Moderate Quality Acceptable Quality Excellent Quality Unpleasant, close to Poor, less than vehicles 1m of road Acceptable Reasonable, Pleasant, over 3m within 1 or 2m within 2 or 3m of from road of road road Severe, over 25 per Poor, 16 to 25 Moderate, 10 to Reasonable 1 to No vehicle conflicts km per km 15 per km 10 per km Over 350 per day 226 to 250 per 151 to 225 per 81 to 150 per day Less than 80 per day day day Majority of non51 to 70% of 21 to 50% of Under 20% nonPedestrians only pedestrians non- pedestrians non- pedestrians pedestrians Unsafe Poor Reasonable Good Excellent (Source: pedestrian facility plan for Trivandrum by Tessy Varkey, unpublished thesis report, 2012-23, page no-12)
  • 19. PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES Gainesville Pedestrian LOS Performance Measures Category Criteria Points 0.5 Crossing width 18.3 m (60‟) or less Conflicts (Max. value = 10) 0 4 6 2 1 1 1 0.5 Reduced turn conflict implementation Pedestrian Facility (Max. value = 10) Not continuous or non-existent Continuous on one side Continuous on both sides Min. 1.53 m (5‟) wide & barrier free Sidewalk width >1.53 (5‟) Off-street/parallel alternative facility Driveways & side streets Ped. Signal delay 40 sec. or less 0.5 Posted speed Amenities (Max. value = 2) Medians present Buffer not less than 1m (3‟5”) Benches or pedestrian scale lighting Shade trees Motor Vehicle LOS (Max. value = 2) Maintenance (Max. value = 2) TDM/Multi Modal (Max. value = 1) calculations LOS = E, F, or 6+ travel lanes LOS = D, & < 6 travel lanes LOS = A, B, C, & < 6 travel lanes Major or frequent problems Minor or infrequent problems No problems No support Support exists Segment score Segment weight Adjusted segment score Corridor score 0.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 2 -1 0 2 0 1 21 • Evaluate roadway corridors using a point system of 1 to 21, results in LOS ratings from A - F LOS A (17 – 21). Highly pedestrian oriented and will tend to attract pedestrian trips. LOS B (14 – 17). Provide many pedestrian safety and comfort features. LOS C (11 – 14). Adequate for pedestrian use, but may not necessarily attract pedestrian trips. LOS D (7 – 11). Adequate for pedestrian use, but will not attract pedestrian trips. LOS E (3 – 7). Inadequate for pedestrian use LOS F (≥ 3). Inadequate for pedestrian use. These roadways do not provide any continuous pedestrian facilities 1 21 21= LOS A (Source: Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards- TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1538)
  • 20. PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES Comparison of Methodologies METHOD A B C D E F Space (sqm/Ped) >5.6 3.7-5.6 2.2 - 3.7 1.4 - 2.2 0.75 - 1.4 <0.75 Flow Rate (Ped/min/m) <16 16-23 23 - 33 33 - 49 49 - 75 varies Speed (m/s) >1.30 1.27 - 1.30 1.22 - 1.27 1.14 - 1.27 0.75 - 1.14 < 0.75 V/CRatio <0.21 >0.21 - 0.31 >0.31 - 0.44 >0.44 - 0.65 >0.65 - 1.0 varies Australian >132 101 - 131 69 - 100 37 - 68 <36 - Khisty >85% satisfaction >60% satisfaction >45% satisfaction >30% satisfaction >15% satisfaction <15% satisfaction Landis <1.5 >1.5 but <2.5 >2.5 but <3.5 >3.5 but <4.5 >4.5 but <5.5 >5.5 >17 >14-17 >11-14 >7-11 >3-7 3 or less. HCM 2000 Gainesville (Source: pedestrian facility plan for Trivandrum by Tessy Varkey, unpublished thesis report, 2012-23, page no-12) Features HCM 2000 Geometry Flow Path Y Y N Vehicle Conflicts N Security Support Facilities Quality of path Trip Quality Y N Y Khisty Australian Landis Gainesville N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y N Y N (Source: pedestrian facility plan for Trivandrum by Tessy Varkey, unpublished thesis report, 2012-23, page no-12)
  • 21. CASE STUDY
  • 22. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN South San Francisco city authority prepared a pedestrian master plan for the city. For the planning purpose the city was divided in to five zones according to the prevailing land use. Lindenville historic Downtown area • civic and commercial center of the City • industrial employment area The rest of the City area • comprised of industrial uses and office parks El Camino Real • diverse mix of land uses including hotels, restaurants, both small and large scale retail, the Medical Center, civic buildings, two BART stations and schools East of Hwy 101 • residential with localized commercial uses, schools, and parks spread throughout The majority of sidewalks in San Fransisco are 5 feet wide or less making walking difficult. Obstructions in the footpath and unauthorized parking on the footpath make the walking very difficult. Missing sidewalks curb ramps and crosswalks makes walking even more difficult in the city.
  • 23. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Recommended improvements in the master plan 1. Sidewalks • Fill in the gaps where sidewalks do not currently exist. • Improve existing sidewalks that do not meet ADA standards. • At locations where obstacles are blocking the sidewalk, the obstacles should either be removed, or the sidewalk should be widened to provide sufficient width for ADA access. 2. Intersection Crossing Treatments • Includes providing uniform crosswalk markings, providing high visibility crossing treatments at high risk un-signalized crossings, providing pedestrian countdowns at signalized intersections, and providing pedestrian islands or median tips. • High visibility crosswalks should be considered at unsignalized crossings. One uniform high visibility crossing treatment should be used throughout the City. Crossings near schools should be marked in yellow to designate that they are located in a school zone.
  • 24. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Recommended improvements in the master plan 3. ADA access • Pedestrian signals should be placed with guidance from the accessibility disability commission. • City‟s driveway standards should be reviewed and potentially updated to ensure that they meet ADA standards. 4. Speed Reduction Measures • Measures included in the traffic calming program are divided into three categories: education and enforcement, speed reducing tools, and cut-through traffic reducing tools. • Education and enforcement tools include neighborhood speed watch programs, neighborhood pace car programs, and targeted police enforcement. • Speed reducing tools include high visibility crosswalks, textured pavements, in-pavement flashers, signage, edge line striping, curb extensions, traffic circles, raised crosswalks and raised intersections. • Cut-through reduction tools include turn restrictions, median barriers, and channelizing barriers.
  • 25. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Site-Specific concept plans • Citywide sidewalk gap closure project Closure of sidewalk gaps throughout the city will provide basic pedestrian connectivity and create opportunities for pedestrian trips between existing and future destinations. This is especially effective in the near-term through areas with high pedestrian demand as the investment will be immediately relevant by providing pedestrian access between existing origins and destinations that may lead to a switch to pedestrian mode. • Neighborhood retail corridor A neighborhood retail corridor is proposed in Linden Avenue. This section is a key transit corridor and presents opportunities for increased commercial activity and pedestrian connection to nearby destinations. • Residential neighborhood traffic calming improvements. Traffic calming improvements are proposed in Sunshine Avenue and Spruce Avenue. By installing traffic calming treatments along collector streets.
  • 26. CITY OF MERCER ISLAND PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES PLAN • Mercer Island is a city in King County, Washington, United States . • The population was 22,720 at 2013 Estimate from Office of Financial Management. Located in the Seattle Metropolitan Area, it is the most populated island in a lake within the United States. Development of the City of Mercer Island‟s pedestrian and bicycle facilities has been guided by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities (PBF) Plan adopted in 1996. In 2007, the Mercer Island City Council directed that the PBF Plan be updated, identifying the following objectives: • Identify and resolve key policy issues relating to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and use; • Review and modify, if necessary, the existing Plan's goals, policies, project selection criteria and other recommendations; • Evaluate and update facility design criteria; • Evaluate demand (assess traffic generators) and identify facility improvement opportunities; • Update the Plan's project list, cost estimates and priorities; • Prepare an implementation strategy and procedures; • Identify ways the Plan can help achieve sustainability goals; • Coordinate Plan implementation with the annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) update process.
  • 27. CITY OF MERCER ISLAND PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES PLAN VISION • Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will provide safe and convenient connections among neighborhoods and key destinations • A variety of pedestrian and bicycle facility types will be provided, tailored to their primary functions and users, and compatible with their environmental setting and community values. • Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will provide recreational opportunities and integrate exercise into commute, shopping, school and other trips, contributing to a healthy lifestyle. Guiding Principles Connectivity The plan will provide a network of continuous links connecting employment, retail centers, schools, parks and other primary destinations with the Island‟s neighborhoods Sustainability The plan will increase the opportunity for sustainable transportation choices by Island residents by facilitating pedestrian and bicycle movement as an alternative to the automobile Safety Facilities provided by the plan shall be designed to reduce conflicts between autos, bicyclists and pedestrians, and provide a safe system of facilities for all user groups, especially for children on routes between neighborhoods and schools.
  • 28. CITY OF MERCER ISLAND PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES PLAN The main concerns/ priorities guiding the final plan are HIGHER PRIORITY • Provide more safe routes to school to encourage children to walk and bike to school. • Provide continuity in the most-used routes: Eliminate „disappearing shoulders‟ and reduce unnecessary crossings back and forth. • Complete/expand connectivity of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. • Provide more paths/trails for the exclusive use of pedestrians or sidewalks to and between destinations. • Reduce conflicts between pedestrians/bicycles and bicycles/vehicles – along streets, trails, and at intersections. MEDIUM PRIOROTY • Provide more maintenance of roadways and shoulders for bicycles and pedestrian use. • Enforce vehicular speed limit and enforce proper bicycle behavior on multi-use trails. • Provide more education of rules of the road and how to share the space available. • Promote sustainability by maximizing use of the facilities that currently exist. • Provide continuity in non-motorized facilities through Town Center. LOWER PRIORITY • Provide bicycle amenities at more destinations. • Improve way finding signage
  • 29. CITY OF MERCER ISLAND PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BICYCLE FACILITIES The guidelines seek to define the minimum dimensional criteria for development of safe facilities functioning under normal conditions. The guidelines address the following classifications of facilities: Signed Shared Roadways • Use of existing „standard‟ width lane on an existing road where traffic volumes, geometry, and design speeds allow safe bicycle use. Signage is provided that identifies these corridors as bike routes. • Certain adjustments in the route are made where feasible, to accommodate cyclists, such as: providing bicycle detectors at traffic control devices, reducing or eliminating parking in areas to improve sight distance or provide sufficient width, increase maintenance to clear road debris. Paved Shoulders • Expansion of the paved roadway surface, outside of the edge stripe that designates the edge of the travel lane, provides additional space for bicyclists to operate.. Bike Lanes • : Immediately adjacent to the travel lanes, bike lanes are one-way facilities designated by striping, marking, and/or signage for exclusive or preferential use by bicycles Shared Use Paths • exclusive rights of-way with minimal crossing of vehicular traffic, often referred to as trails, and accommodate multiple users including bicyclists, skaters, walkers, wheeled strollers, people walking dogs and runners,
  • 30. CITY OF MERCER ISLAND PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES PLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES The guidelines address the following classifications of facilities: Sidewalks: • Where one side of the street is undeveloped, sidewalks may be provided only on the developed side of the street. • To comply with ADA guidelines, newly constructed, reconstructed, or altered sidewalks must be accessible to persons with disabilities. Off-Road Paths • An off-road path, paved or unpaved, can be an appropriate facility in areas where sufficient right-of way is available. • separated, off-road paths for the exclusive use of pedestrians are the preferred pedestrian facility and should be provided where space in the right-of-way is available Shared Use Paths • : Where off-road paths are developed for use by both pedestrians and bicyclists, they are referred to as shared use paths. Shared Streets • Many local neighborhood streets are currently shared by automobiles, service vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles without physical separation among various users. Due to the low intensity of use, such naturally occurring „shared streets‟ serve a variety of users without the need for separated sidewalks, paths or even widened shoulders.
  • 31. MINNEAPOLIS PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN The plan was developed under the guidance of the City‟s Pedestrian Advisory Committee and contains detailed implementation strategies focused upon 7 goals for making Minneapolis a great walking city where people choose to walk for transportation, recreation, and health: Goal 1: A Well‐Connected Walkway System Goal 2: Accessibility for All Pedestrians Goal 3: Safe Streets and Crossings Goal 4: A Pedestrian Environment that Fosters Walking Goal 5: A Well‐Maintained Pedestrian System Goal 6: A Culture of Walking Goal 7: Funding, Tools and Leadership for Implementing Pedestrian Improvements
  • 32. MINNEAPOLIS PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Goal 1: A well‐connected walkway system Objective 1: Complete the Sidewalk Network • Establish sidewalks as standard infrastructure. • Investigate funding sources and legal mechanisms to fill sidewalk gaps. • Investigate and prioritize options to fill sidewalk gaps at parks, schools, cemeteries and railroad crossings. • Track sidewalk gaps. Objective 2: Maintain and Improve Pedestrian Network Connectivity • Add new pedestrian connections where possible. • Maintain existing pedestrian connections. Objective 3: Improve Skyway‐Sidewalk Connectivity • Improve skyways consistent with the recommendations in the Access Minneapolis Downtown Transportation Action Plan. • Evaluate existing skyway‐sidewalk connectivity. Objective 4: Improve Pedestrian Way finding Information • Implement pedestrian way finding improvements where needed and where maintenance responsibilities are established. • Develop citywide way finding signage guidelines.
  • 33. MINNEAPOLIS PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Goal 2: Accessibility for all pedestrians Objective 1: Identify & Remove Accessibility Barriers on Pedestrian Facilities • Prepare and maintain an updated Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan. • Inventory and prioritize corrections to accessibility barriers at curbs. • Inventory and prioritize corrections to accessibility barriers on sidewalk corridors. • Inventory and prioritize corrections to accessibility barriers on pedestrian bridges. Objective 2: Improve and Institutionalize Best Design Practices for Accessibility • Improve the curb ramp standard template. • Review and update the standard specifications for best practices in accessible design. • Establish regular staff training programs and materials on accessible design. • Update design standards and guidance as accessibility standards are improved.
  • 34. MINNEAPOLIS PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Goal 3: Safe streets and crossings Objective 1: Reduce Pedestrian‐Related Crashes • Investigate the cause of pedestrian‐related crashes at high crash intersections and corridors. • Review pedestrian‐related traffic crashes regularly. • Investigate improvements to pedestrian‐related crash reporting. Objective 2: Promote Safe Behaviour for Drivers, Bicyclists and Pedestrians • Educate pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists about rights and responsibilities. • Enforce traffic laws. Objective 3: Improve Pedestrian Safety for the Most Vulnerable Users • Continue to implement the School Pedestrian Safety Program. • Investigate creation of new focused pedestrian safety improvement programs for other vulnerable users. Objective 5: Improve Crosswalk Markings • Improve the visibility of crosswalk pavement markings. • Investigate potential improvements to the current crosswalk marking practice. Objective 4: Improve Traffic Signals for Pedestrians • Inventory and prioritize corrections to accessibility barriers at traffic signals. • Develop a plan for installing pedestrian countdown signals citywide. • Evaluate signal timing for pedestrians in all signal retiming efforts. • Inventory and prioritize corrections to accessibility barriers at signal push buttons. • Explore new technologies for pedestrian signal actuation and push buttons
  • 35. MINNEAPOLIS PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Goal 4: A pedestrian environment that fosters walking Objective 1: Design Streets with Sufficient Space for Pedestrian Needs • Design streets with sufficient sidewalk and boulevard width for all required uses of the Pedestrian Zone. Objective 4: Provide Street Furniture Appropriate for Pedestrian Needs • Implement a coordinated street furniture program. • Continue to provide trash receptacles for pedestrian use. • Continue to implement the Art in Public Places program and other arts partnerships that enhance the pedestrian environment. Objective 2: Design Bridges and Underpasses for Pedestrian Needs • Design bridges and underpasses for pedestrians. Objective 3: Provide Appropriate Street Lighting for Pedestrian Needs • Implement the street lighting policy. • Encourage private property owner participation in night‐time lighting efforts. Objective 5: Foster Vibrant Public Spaces for Street Life • Investigate innovative and practical ways to create vibrant public spaces for pedestrians. Objective 6: Foster Healthy Trees and Greening along Sidewalks • Develop tree and landscaping design guidelines.
  • 36. MINNEAPOLIS PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Goal 5: A well‐maintained pedestrian system Objective 1: Ensure Effective Snow and Ice Clearance for Pedestrians • • • • • Create a social norm of snow clearance through communications and education. Establish priorities for sidewalk snow clearance, including high pedestrian traffic areas. Improve enforcement and monitoring of private property owner responsibilities for snow clearance. Support property owners with snow and ice clearance assistance options. Explore reducing city snow clearance responsibilities on pedestrian facilities. Objective 2: Maintain Sidewalks in Good Repair • Inspect and repair sidewalks in an effective time frame. • Prioritize and implement improvements to sidewalks at railroad crossings. • Continue to coordinate the annual sidewalk repair program with repair of sidewalks adjacent to public property. Objective 3: Manage Encroachments on Sidewalks • • • • Enforce sidewalk café standards. Review and consider updates to the City‟s existing sidewalk café standards. Implement and enforce the news rack ordinance. Educate the public on requirements and best practices for maintaining the public right‐of way and reporting problems. Objective 4: Maintain Pedestrian Safety and Accessibility in Construction Zones • Develop guidelines for safety and accessibility in work zones. • Establish regular staff training programs and materials on the City‟s practices for safety and accessibility in work zones. • Re‐examine the City‟s existing policy and rate structure for sidewalk closures.
  • 37. MINNEAPOLIS PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Goal 6: A culture of walking Objective 1: Promote Walking for Youth • Implement the Minneapolis Safe Routes to Schools Plan. • Promote walking to youth events. Objective 2: Promote Walking for Adults • Promote walking for health purposes. • Promote walking to work. Objective 3: Showcase and Celebrate Great Walking Experiences • • • • Develop walking maps. Develop walking tours Promote/develop public walking celebrations. Foster positive public messaging about walking.
  • 38. MINNEAPOLIS PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Goal 7: Funding, tools and leadership for implementing pedestrian improvements Objective 1: Implement Best Practices for Pedestrian Facility Design • Utilize and improve the City‟s Design Guidelines for Streets and Sidewalks. Objective 2: Integrate Pedestrian Improvements into Capital Improvement Programs • Develop a pedestrian improvement program. • Evaluate all infrastructure projects for potential pedestrian improvement opportunities. • Coordinate the pedestrian improvement program with other improvement opportunities. Objective 3: Improve Tools to Identify, Plan, Design, & Evaluate Pedestrian Improvements • • • • Improve how Travel Demand Management Plans address pedestrian needs. Evaluate methods to quantify pedestrian needs. Measure pedestrian demand. Evaluate the effectiveness of pedestrian improvements. Objective 4: Foster Effective Pedestrian Advocacy and Stewardship • Continue and improve the Pedestrian Advisory Committee. • Encourage public reporting of pedestrian issues to 311. • Support neighbourhood advocacy for pedestrian improvements Objective 5: Pursue New Funding Tools for Pedestrian Facilities • Investigate increased use of public‐private partnerships. • Investigate cost‐sharing programs. • Investigate creation of broader improvement districts.
  • 39. PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES , NEW DELHI EXISTING SCENARIO • 34% of the population engages in” Walk-only” trips for their daily travels, needs or errands. • Only 14% population of Delhi rives private cars. • 40% of the total road length of Delhi has NO sidewalks • And the ones having sidewalks, lack in quality in terms of surface, width and geometrics. • Car-oriented design priority and discouragement of walking through inadequate design – has discouraged people from walking and in turn encouraged cardependency • Pollution levels in Delhi are almost double of Mumbai, a city more populated than Delhi.
  • 40. PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES , NEW DELHI GOAL 1: MOBILITY AND ACCCESSIBILITY Maximum number of people should be able to move fast, safely and conveniently through the city. GOAL 2: SAFETY AND COMFORT Make streets safe clean and walkable, create climate sensitive design. GOAL 3: ECOLOGY Reduce impact on the natural environment; and Reduce pressure on built infrastructure.
  • 41. PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES , NEW DELHI Mobility Goals: To ensure preferable transport use: public 1. To Retrofit Streets for equal or higher priority for Public Transit and Pedestrians. 2. Provide transit-oriented mixed land use patterns and re-densify city within 10 minutes walk of MRTS stops. 3. Provide dedicated lanes for HOVs (high occupancy vehicles) and carpool during peak hours.
  • 42. PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES , NEW DELHI Safety, Comfort Goals: 1. Create “eyes on the street” – by removing setbacks and boundary walls and building to the edge of the street ROW. 2. Require commercial facades to have minimum 30% transparency. 3. Provide adequate Street Lighting for pedestrians and bicycles. 4. Create commercial/ hawking zones at regular intervals (10 minute walk from every home in the city) to encourage walkability, increase street activity and provide safety.
  • 43. PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES , NEW DELHI Safety, Comfort Goals To ensure universal accessibility and amenities for all street users: 1. Provide at-grade crosswalks (and overpasses on highways) at maximum intervals of ~70-250 M, aligning with location of transit 2. stops, type of street / land use activities and neighbouring building entries and destinations. 3. Provide Dustbins, post-boxes, signage and other public amenities at street corners for high usability. 4. Provide Accessible Public Toilets at every 500 -800 M distance – preferably located close to bus stops for easy access by pedestrians and public transport users. 5. Follow universal accessibility design standards to make public streets & crosswalks fully navigable by the physically handicapped.
  • 44. PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES , NEW DELHI Ecological Goals: To reduce urban Heat Island Effect and aid natural storm water management: 1. Decrease impervious surfaces through permeable paving, tree planting zones, etc. to increase ground water infiltration & prevent seasonal flooding. 2. Integrate Natural Storm Water filtration and absorption into street design through bio-filtration beds, swales and detention ponds. 3. Decrease Heat Island Effect (HIE) by increasing greenery, planting trees, using reflective paving, etc.
  • 46. SURVEY PROCEDURE & DATA COLLECTION PRIMARY SURVEYS • Road inventory surveys • Inventory of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructures • Pedestrian traffic surveys • Opinion survey of pedestrians • Traffic volume surveys • Non-motorized transport survey FIELD SURVEY DATA TO COLLECT • · Roadway vehicle traffic volumes and speeds. • · Intersection design, roadway and road shoulder widths, and pavement conditions. • · Non-motorized traffic volumes and speeds, and available accident data. • · Special hazards to walking and cycling (potholes, dangerous drain grates on road shoulders and curb lanes, etc.). • · Crosswalk, sidewalk, and path conditions (width, surface condition, sight distance, etc.). • · Curb cuts, ramps and other universal access facilities. • · Lighting along streets and paths. • · Presence of parked cars adjacent to the traffic lane. • · Bicycle parking facilities, public washrooms, and other services along trails and bike routes • .· Security, cleanliness, vandalism, litter, and aesthetic conditions. • · Community demographics (age, income, etc.) • · Presence of activity centres that attract non-motorized travel (schools, colleges, resorts, etc.) • · Land use factors, including density and mix, street connectivity, and building site design. • · Topography and climate.
  • 47. METHODOLOGY Primary data - Pedestrian and vehicular volume count survey - Pedestrian speed survey - Opinion survey -Road inventory survey --user preference survey -Non motorized transport survey Identification issues Formulation of aim, objective and scope of study Secondary data - Land use maps - Traffic data Literature review and case studies - Parking data - Accident data Data collection Analysis Assessment Locating problem areas Pedestrian and bicycle network guidelines Proposals Identification of potential and constraints
  • 48. THANK YOU