Gestão da Mobilidade Urbana. Mestrado de Planeamento e Operação de Transportes, Instituto Supeiror Téncico, Universidade de Lisboa. Nota de Trabalho 18 / 20. Nota Final 17/ 20. Urban Mobility Management, MSc Transport Planning and Operation, Instituto Superior Tencico, Lisbon University. Project course grade 18 / 20. Final Grade 17 / 20

1. Master in Transport Planning and Operation
2nd Semester 2012/13
Urban Mobility Management
Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Students
André Ramos – 76819
André Filipe Saraiva – 74780
Duarte Amorim da Cunha – 50982
Luís Neto – 74776
Faculty
Prof.ª Rosário Macário
Prof. Filipe Moura
Prof. Vasco Reis
Prof.ª Camila Garcia

2. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 2
 Area of Study
• The study area is located in the
parish of Alcântara, in the south
western corner of Lisbon.
• Its population was about 13.943
inhabitants (2011), and it has a 4,44
square km area, which represents a
density of approximately 3.140
inhabitants/sq.km.
• The study area has approximately
6.380 inhabitants, according to the
2011 data.

3. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management
0-14
12%
15-24
8%
25-64
51%
65 or more
29%
% Population per Age
3
% Population per Sex
 Socio-demographic characteristics
Source: INE – Carrilho et al.Lisbon projection of elderly/youth proportion

4. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 4
Radius 6 c/h/dir. 12 c/h/dir 30 c/h/dir
400 m 100% 76% 38%
250 m 60% 41% 22%
 Public Transport Network
• The public transport network has an excellent
coverage in the study area: 100% of the population is
at less than 400 meters of a stop point with at least 6
circ./hour/direction (approximately 10/10 minutes).
• Even when considering only the stop with higher
number of circulations, 38% of the population is
covered in a 400 meters radius.
Carreiras/Paragem

5. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 5
 Road network

6. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 6
• The parish of Alcântara doesn’t have paid parking one of the main reasons of road congestion
in this area.
• Buses and pedestrians are particularly affected by illegal parking situations.
• According to the ‘EMEL 2013 Satisfaction Survey’, 80% of the residents in this parish have
parking problems (Lisbon’s average is 62%). 35% of the inhabitants have their own parking lot.
• Parking spots: 2127 places
 Parking

7. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 7
 Accident Data
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Accidents in the study area (type of
injuries)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Accidents in the study area (type of
accidents)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Accidents in Lisbon (type of acident)
Crash
Collision
Run over
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Accidents in Lisbon (type of injuries)
Light injuries
Severe Injuries
Deaths
Source: ANSR

8. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 8
 Population Mobility (Census 2011)
• According to 2011 Census data, about 29% of the parish residents work or study in the Alcântara
parish.
• There are about 18% of trips that are made on foot, while about 43% are held in private transport.
• However, the bus has a great share of 33% in this parish, which is the fourth largest in the city of
Lisbon (the average is 19%).
29%
57%
14%
Work/study place of the Alcântara
residents
Alcântara parish
Another parish of
Lisbon
Another town
18%
32%
11%
33%
1% 1% 2% 1% 1%
Modal distribution of the Alcântara residents
On foot
Car (as driver)
Car (as passenger)
Bus
Company transport
Subway
Train
Motocycle
Others

9. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 9
Elderly movements:
• Most visited: Day Centre and
Recreation Spots.
• Occasionally visited: Medical
Post; Church.
• Daily: Local Commerce
 Public Consultation for the Elderly by CML
Primary Complaints:
• Walking on the street due to illegal
parking on sidewalks
• Lack of benches for rest
• Insufficient number of crosswalks and
its locations
• Lack of levelled sidewalks on crosswalks
• Bad condition of conservation of
crosswalks (not visible)
• Weak lighting
• Driver’s behaviour towards crosswalks
• Bad maintenance conditions
• Dirty sidewalks 58%
15%
25%
1% 1%
What bothers you more when you
walk on the street
Sidewalks
Traffic
Reduced Police
presence
Public Transports
Personal Factors
Source: Câmara Municipal de Lisboa

10. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 10
Main Problems Next Steps
Elderly population Evaluate pedestrian mobility
Unfavorable terrain Evaluate pedestrian mobility
Inadequacy of the road network Study changes in the traffic circulation
Ilegal parking What are the impacts on pedestrian mobility?
Accident Improve the pedestrian safety
 Main Problems Detected

11. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 11
 MACRO Scale
MACRO Scale Threshold
Local
Score
Normalized
Score
Final ScoreFundamental
ViewPoints
Descriptor
code
Weight Elementary ViewPoints Base Value
Goal
Value
Connectivity
MC1a 0,0476 Street connectivity 1 2,5 1,6 37,3 1,77
MC1b 0,0476 Presence and coverage of public transport 0 100 100,0 100,0 4,76
MC1c 0,0476 Network integration (path directness) 2 1 1,3 74,0 3,52
Convenience
MC2a 0,0476 Land Use Mix 0 1 0,7 73,0 3,47
MC2b 0,0476 Residential density 40 200 101,5 35,9 1,71
MC2c 0,0476
Presence and coverage of essential activities
(land use)
0 100 100,0 100,0 4,76
Comfort MC3 0,1429 Availability of pedestrian infrastructures 50 100 91,0 82,0 11,72
Conviviality MC4 0,1429 Presence and coverage of convivial points 0 100 100,0 100,0 14,29
Conspicuous MC5 0,1429 Sense of place 1 0 0,6 40,0 5,72
Coexistence MC6 0,1429 Street traffic capacity 4 0 1,6 59,8 8,54
Commitment MC7 0,1429 Pro-Pedestrian street proportion 0 100 0,9 0,9 0,13
TOTAL 1 499,20 702,9 60,39
0
20
40
60
80
100
Street connectivity
Presence and coverage of
public transport
Network integration (path
directness)
Land Use Mix
Residential density
Presence and coverage of
essential activities (land use)
Availability of pedestrian
infrastructures
Presence and coverage of
convivial points
Sense of place
Street traffic capacity
Pro-Pedestrian street
proportion
70,4 69,6
82
100
40
59,8
0,9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

12. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management
MACRO Scale Threshold Local evaluation Evaluation with proposed changes
Fundamental
ViewPoints
Descriptor
code
Weight Elementary ViewPoints Base Value
Goal
Value
Local
score
Normalized
score
Final score
Local
score
Normalized
score
Final score
Connectivity
MC1a 0,0476 Street connectivity 1 2,5 1,6 37,3 1,77 1,6 37,3 1,77
MC1b 0,0476 Presence and coverage of public transport 0 100 100,0 100,0 4,76 100,0 100,0 4,76
MC1c 0,0476 Network integration (path directness) 2 1 1,3 74,0 3,52 1,3 74,0 3,52
Convenience
MC2a 0,0476 Land Use Mix 0 1 0,7 73,0 3,47 0,7 73,0 3,47
MC2b 0,0476 Residential density 40 200 101,5 35,9 1,71 101,5 35,9 1,71
MC2c 0,0476 Presence and coverage of essential activities (land use) 0 100 100,0 100,0 4,76 100,0 100,0 4,76
Confort MC3 0,1429 Availability of pedestrian infrastructures 50 100 91,0 82,0 11,72 100,0 100,0 14,29
Conviviality MC4 0,1429 Presence and coverage of convivial points 0 100 100,0 100,0 14,29 100,0 100,0 14,29
Conspicuous MC5 0,1429 Sense of place 1 0 0,6 40,0 5,72 0,6 40,0 5,72
Coexistence MC6 0,1429 Street traffic capacity 4 0 1,6 59,8 8,54 1,4 64,8 9,25
Commitment MC7 0,1429 Pro-Pedestrian street proportion 0 100 0,9 0,9 0,13 100,0 100,0 14,29
TOTAL - 1 - - - 499,2 702,9 60,39 607,1 825,0 77,84
70 70
82
100
40
60
1
70 70
100 100
40
65
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
Connectivity Convenience Confort Conviviality Conspicuous Coexistence Commitment
Local evaluation Evaluation with proposed changes
12
 MACRO Scale
Commerce and local
services
0
20
40
60
80
100
Street connectivity
Presence and coverage of
public transport
Network integration (path
directness)
Land Use Mix
Residential density
Presence and coverage of
essential activities (land…
Availability of pedestrian
infraestructures
Presence and coverage of
convivial points
Sense of place
Street traffic capacity
Pro-Pedestrian street
proportion
Evaluation with proposed changes Local evaluation

13. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management
MACRO Scale Threshold Local evaluation Evaluation with proposed changes
Fundamental
ViewPoints
Descriptor
code
Weight Elementary ViewPoints Base Value
Goal
Value
Local
score
Normalized
score
Final score
Local
score
Normalized
score
Final score
Connectivity
MC1a 0,0476 Street connectivity 1 2,5 1,6 37,3 1,77 1,6 37,3 1,77
MC1b 0,0476 Presence and coverage of public transport 0 100 100,0 100,0 4,76 100,0 100,0 4,76
MC1c 0,0476 Network integration (path directness) 2 1 1,3 74,0 3,52 1,3 74,0 3,52
Convenience
MC2a 0,0476 Land Use Mix 0 1 0,7 73,0 3,47 0,7 73,0 3,47
MC2b 0,0476 Residential density 40 200 101,5 35,9 1,71 101,5 35,9 1,71
MC2c 0,0476 Presence and coverage of essential activities (land use) 0 100 100,0 100,0 4,76 100,0 100,0 4,76
Confort MC3 0,1429 Availability of pedestrian infrastructures 50 100 91,0 82,0 11,72 100,0 100,0 14,29
Conviviality MC4 0,1429 Presence and coverage of convivial points 0 100 100,0 100,0 14,29 100,0 100,0 14,29
Conspicuous MC5 0,1429 Sense of place 1 0 0,6 40,0 5,72 0,6 40,0 5,72
Coexistence MC6 0,1429 Street traffic capacity 4 0 1,6 59,8 8,54 1,4 64,8 9,25
Commitment MC7 0,1429 Pro-Pedestrian street proportion 0 100 0,9 0,9 0,13 100,0 100,0 14,29
TOTAL - 1 - - - 499,2 702,9 60,39 607,1 825,0 77,84
70 70
82
100
40
60
1
70 70
100 100
40
65
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
Connectivity Convenience Confort Conviviality Conspicuous Coexistence Commitment
Local evaluation Evaluation with proposed changes
13
 MACRO Scale
0
20
40
60
80
100
Street connectivity
Presence and coverage of
public transport
Network integration (path
directness)
Land Use Mix
Residential density
Presence and coverage of
essential activities (land…
Availability of pedestrian
infraestructures
Presence and coverage of
convivial points
Sense of place
Street traffic capacity
Pro-Pedestrian street
proportion
Evaluation with proposed changes Local evaluation
Urban regeneration

14. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management
MACRO Scale Threshold Local evaluation Evaluation with proposed changes
Fundamental
ViewPoints
Descriptor
code
Weight Elementary ViewPoints Base Value
Goal
Value
Local
score
Normalized
score
Final score
Local
score
Normalized
score
Final score
Connectivity
MC1a 0,0476 Street connectivity 1 2,5 1,6 37,3 1,77 1,6 37,3 1,77
MC1b 0,0476 Presence and coverage of public transport 0 100 100,0 100,0 4,76 100,0 100,0 4,76
MC1c 0,0476 Network integration (path directness) 2 1 1,3 74,0 3,52 1,3 74,0 3,52
Convenience
MC2a 0,0476 Land Use Mix 0 1 0,7 73,0 3,47 0,7 73,0 3,47
MC2b 0,0476 Residential density 40 200 101,5 35,9 1,71 101,5 35,9 1,71
MC2c 0,0476 Presence and coverage of essential activities (land use) 0 100 100,0 100,0 4,76 100,0 100,0 4,76
Confort MC3 0,1429 Availability of pedestrian infrastructures 50 100 91,0 82,0 11,72 100,0 100,0 14,29
Conviviality MC4 0,1429 Presence and coverage of convivial points 0 100 100,0 100,0 14,29 100,0 100,0 14,29
Conspicuous MC5 0,1429 Sense of place 1 0 0,6 40,0 5,72 0,6 40,0 5,72
Coexistence MC6 0,1429 Street traffic capacity 4 0 1,6 59,8 8,54 1,4 64,8 9,25
Commitment MC7 0,1429 Pro-Pedestrian street proportion 0 100 0,9 0,9 0,13 100,0 100,0 14,29
TOTAL - 1 - - - 499,2 702,9 60,39 607,1 825,0 77,84
70 70
82
100
40
60
1
70 70
100 100
40
65
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
Connectivity Convenience Confort Conviviality Conspicuous Coexistence Commitment
Local evaluation Evaluation with proposed changes
14
 MACRO Scale
0
20
40
60
80
100
Street connectivity
Presence and coverage of
public transport
Network integration (path
directness)
Land Use Mix
Residential density
Presence and coverage of
essential activities (land…
Availability of pedestrian
infraestructures
Presence and coverage of
convivial points
Sense of place
Street traffic capacity
Pro-Pedestrian street
proportion
Evaluation with proposed changes Local evaluation
New road and parking
layout

15. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management
MACRO Scale Threshold Local evaluation Evaluation with proposed changes
Fundamental
ViewPoints
Descriptor
code
Weight Elementary ViewPoints Base Value
Goal
Value
Local
score
Normalized
score
Final score
Local
score
Normalized
score
Final score
Connectivity
MC1a 0,0476 Street connectivity 1 2,5 1,6 37,3 1,77 1,6 37,3 1,77
MC1b 0,0476 Presence and coverage of public transport 0 100 100,0 100,0 4,76 100,0 100,0 4,76
MC1c 0,0476 Network integration (path directness) 2 1 1,3 74,0 3,52 1,3 74,0 3,52
Convenience
MC2a 0,0476 Land Use Mix 0 1 0,7 73,0 3,47 0,7 73,0 3,47
MC2b 0,0476 Residential density 40 200 101,5 35,9 1,71 101,5 35,9 1,71
MC2c 0,0476 Presence and coverage of essential activities (land use) 0 100 100,0 100,0 4,76 100,0 100,0 4,76
Confort MC3 0,1429 Availability of pedestrian infrastructures 50 100 91,0 82,0 11,72 100,0 100,0 14,29
Conviviality MC4 0,1429 Presence and coverage of convivial points 0 100 100,0 100,0 14,29 100,0 100,0 14,29
Conspicuous MC5 0,1429 Sense of place 1 0 0,6 40,0 5,72 0,6 40,0 5,72
Coexistence MC6 0,1429 Street traffic capacity 4 0 1,6 59,8 8,54 1,4 64,8 9,25
Commitment MC7 0,1429 Pro-Pedestrian street proportion 0 100 0,9 0,9 0,13 100,0 100,0 14,29
TOTAL - 1 - - - 499,2 702,9 60,39 607,1 825,0 77,84
70 70
82
100
40
60
1
70 70
100 100
40
65
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
Connectivity Convenience Confort Conviviality Conspicuous Coexistence Commitment
Local evaluation Evaluation with proposed changes
15
 MACRO Scale
0
20
40
60
80
100
Street connectivity
Presence and coverage of
public transport
Network integration (path
directness)
Land Use Mix
Residential density
Presence and coverage of
essential activities (land…
Availability of pedestrian
infraestructures
Presence and coverage of
convivial points
Sense of place
Street traffic capacity
Pro-Pedestrian street
proportion
Evaluation with proposed changes Local evaluation
Urban regeneration

16. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management
MACRO Scale Threshold Local evaluation Evaluation with proposed changes
Fundamental
ViewPoints
Descriptor
code
Weight Elementary ViewPoints Base Value
Goal
Value
Local
score
Normalized
score
Final score
Local
score
Normalized
score
Final score
Connectivity
MC1a 0,0476 Street connectivity 1 2,5 1,6 37,3 1,77 1,6 37,3 1,77
MC1b 0,0476 Presence and coverage of public transport 0 100 100,0 100,0 4,76 100,0 100,0 4,76
MC1c 0,0476 Network integration (path directness) 2 1 1,3 74,0 3,52 1,3 74,0 3,52
Convenience
MC2a 0,0476 Land Use Mix 0 1 0,7 73,0 3,47 0,7 73,0 3,47
MC2b 0,0476 Residential density 40 200 101,5 35,9 1,71 101,5 35,9 1,71
MC2c 0,0476 Presence and coverage of essential activities (land use) 0 100 100,0 100,0 4,76 100,0 100,0 4,76
Confort MC3 0,1429 Availability of pedestrian infrastructures 50 100 91,0 82,0 11,72 100,0 100,0 14,29
Conviviality MC4 0,1429 Presence and coverage of convivial points 0 100 100,0 100,0 14,29 100,0 100,0 14,29
Conspicuous MC5 0,1429 Sense of place 1 0 0,6 40,0 5,72 0,6 40,0 5,72
Coexistence MC6 0,1429 Street traffic capacity 4 0 1,6 59,8 8,54 1,4 64,8 9,25
Commitment MC7 0,1429 Pro-Pedestrian street proportion 0 100 0,9 0,9 0,13 100,0 100,0 14,29
TOTAL - 1 - - - 499,2 702,9 60,39 607,1 825,0 77,84
70 70
82
100
40
60
1
70 70
100 100
40
65
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
Connectivity Convenience Confort Conviviality Conspicuous Coexistence Commitment
Local evaluation Evaluation with proposed changes
16
 MACRO Scale
0
20
40
60
80
100
Street connectivity
Presence and coverage of
public transport
Network integration (path
directness)
Land Use Mix
Residential density
Presence and coverage of
essential activities (land…
Availability of pedestrian
infraestructures
Presence and coverage of
convivial points
Sense of place
Street traffic capacity
Pro-Pedestrian street
proportion
Evaluation with proposed changes Local evaluation
New road and parking
layout

17. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management
MACRO Scale Threshold Local evaluation Evaluation with proposed changes
Fundamental
ViewPoints
Descriptor
code
Weight Elementary ViewPoints Base Value
Goal
Value
Local
score
Normalized
score
Final score
Local
score
Normalized
score
Final score
Connectivity
MC1a 0,0476 Street connectivity 1 2,5 1,6 37,3 1,77 1,6 37,3 1,77
MC1b 0,0476 Presence and coverage of public transport 0 100 100,0 100,0 4,76 100,0 100,0 4,76
MC1c 0,0476 Network integration (path directness) 2 1 1,3 74,0 3,52 1,3 74,0 3,52
Convenience
MC2a 0,0476 Land Use Mix 0 1 0,7 73,0 3,47 0,7 73,0 3,47
MC2b 0,0476 Residential density 40 200 101,5 35,9 1,71 101,5 35,9 1,71
MC2c 0,0476 Presence and coverage of essential activities (land use) 0 100 100,0 100,0 4,76 100,0 100,0 4,76
Confort MC3 0,1429 Availability of pedestrian infrastructures 50 100 91,0 82,0 11,72 100,0 100,0 14,29
Conviviality MC4 0,1429 Presence and coverage of convivial points 0 100 100,0 100,0 14,29 100,0 100,0 14,29
Conspicuous MC5 0,1429 Sense of place 1 0 0,6 40,0 5,72 0,6 40,0 5,72
Coexistence MC6 0,1429 Street traffic capacity 4 0 1,6 59,8 8,54 1,4 64,8 9,25
Commitment MC7 0,1429 Pro-Pedestrian street proportion 0 100 0,9 0,9 0,13 100,0 100,0 14,29
TOTAL - 1 - - - 499,2 702,9 60,39 607,1 825,0 77,84
70 70
82
100
40
60
1
70 70
100 100
40
65
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
Connectivity Convenience Confort Conviviality Conspicuous Coexistence Commitment
Local evaluation Evaluation with proposed changes
17
 MACRO Scale
0
20
40
60
80
100
Street connectivity
Presence and coverage of
public transport
Network integration (path
directness)
Land Use Mix
Residential density
Presence and coverage of
essential activities (land…
Availability of pedestrian
infraestructures
Presence and coverage of
convivial points
Sense of place
Street traffic capacity
Pro-Pedestrian street
proportion
Evaluation with proposed changes Local evaluation
30 km/h zones and friendly
pedestrian streets

18. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 18
 MICRO Scale Analysis
Path 1 Path 2 Path 3
Path 4
82,7% 69,3% 70,9%
71,1%
Path 5
77,7%

19. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 19
 MICRO Scale Analysis
Main Problems Detected and Solutions (I)
Lack of crosswalks
Provide new crosswalks
to ensure pedestrian
network continuity
Short sidewalk available
width due to obstacles
Remove presence of
obstacles. Ensure available
width greater than 1 meter
Insufficient number and
variety of amenities
Add value to the sidewalks
(benches, fountains and
bins)
Climate Protection
Provide shade and
protection from rain where
possible
Weak public lighting
Upgrade existing
lighting structure

20. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 20
 MICRO Scale Analysis
Main Problems Detected and Solutions (II)
Walled Buildings
Building frontage
transparency
Apply measures to
encourage local commerce
Unexpected conflicts
Identify and signalize
conflicts with appropriate
signalling
Unprotected Pedestrian
space
Provide a buffer zone
between pedestrian and
motor zone
Sidewalks maintenance
and cleaning
Improve maintenance and
cleaning services in the
area.
Urban Image (urban
requalification; replace
walls with fences)

21. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 21
 MICRO Scale Analysis – Potential improvements
Path 1 Path 2 Path 3
Path 4
82,7% 69,3% 70,9%
71,1%
Path 5
77,7%
91,8% 86,1% 82,9%
86,4% 86,3%

22. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management
DESIRED RESULTS
ACTION
OBJECTIVES
22
30 Kph Zone
Improve Walkability
Improve Urban Space
Quality
Real estate market
valorisation
Quality of life
improvement Commercial and
Social
attractiveness
Develop open public
space, safe for
everyone
Reduce GGE, air and
noise pollution

23. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 23
 Establishment of 30 kph zones
Technical measures to change driver’s behavior, protecting street pedestrian
users.
Vertical and
horizontal signs
Fonte: IMTT (2011)

24. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 24
 Establishment of 30 kph zones
Technical measures to change driver’s behavior, protecting street pedestrian
users.
Vertical and
horizontal signs
Decrease the curvature radios of
the streets intersections and their
realignment Fonte: IMTT (2011)

25. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 25
 Establishment of 30 kph zones
Technical measures to change driver’s behavior, protecting street pedestrian
users.
Vertical and
horizontal signs
Decrease the curvature radios of
the streets intersections and their
realignment
Decrease the width of the lane
Fonte: IMTT (2011)

26. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 26
 Establishment of 30 kph zones
Technical measures to change driver’s behavior, protecting street pedestrian
users.
Vertical and
horizontal signs
Decrease the curvature radios of
the streets intersections and their
realignment
Decrease the width of the laneEven sidewalks to street level
Fonte: IMTT (2011)

27. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 27
 Establishment of 30 kph zones
Technical measures to change driver’s behavior, protecting street pedestrian
users.
Vertical and
horizontal signs
Decrease the curvature radios of
the streets intersections and their
realignment
Decrease the width of the laneEven sidewalks to street levelDiscontinuing the streets axis
Fonte: IMTT (2011)

28. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 28
Short-Term measures
Vertical
Signalling
Increase number of
crosswalks
Increase parking
enforcement
Improve Maintenance and
Cleanning Services
Improve Lighting System
Long-term measures
New Street Layout
Sidewalk redesign
Crosswalks redesign
Encourage local commerce
Bus routes and equipment
reorganisation

29. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 29
 Stakeholders
Agents
Users
Third party
Pressure
Groups
Infrastructure Direct Production
Municipality
Civil Parish
Contractors
Parking Manager
Managers and Supervisors
Regulator (IMTT)
Transit Police
Other Providers
ITS Providers
Bank & Financial Institutions
Health Services

30. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 30
 Stakeholders
Agents
Users
Third party
Pressure
Groups
Residents
Tenants Associations
Household Owners Associations
Commerce and service
Commerce Associations
Transport/Logistics Companies
Private Drivers
Private Drivers Associations (ACP)
Public Transport Passengers
Transports Unions

31. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 31
 Stakeholders
Agents
Users
Third party
Pressure
Groups
Pedestrian & Cyclists
Schools
Parents Schools Associations
Day Centers

32. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 32
 Stakeholders
Agents
Users
Third party
Pressure
Groups
Green Groups
Residents Associations
Reduced Mobility Groups

33. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 33
 Stakeholders
Agents
Users
Third party
Pressure
Groups
Traffic Calming
Measures
Social & Comercial
Atractiveness
Real Estate
Value
Walkability
Improvements

34. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 34
'What is coming from there? You have three guesses’.
He said: ‘Well, a car!’
I said: ‘No, take your second guess.’
He looked and said: ‘A vehicle.’
I said: ‘No, and now you have your last chance.’
And he answered, angry with me: ‘An automobile.’
I still wonder when he will realize that what was coming was a person, inside a
metal case, and that there is no reason whatsoever for that person in the role of
a car driver to have priority over us standing on the sidewalk.
Eduardo A. Vasconcellos, Urban Transport, Environment and Equity (2001)