Gestão da Mobilidade Urbana, Mestrado de Planeamento e Operação de Transportes. Instituto Superior Téncico, Universidade de Lisboa, Nota do Trabalho 18 / 20. Nota final 17 / 20. Urban Mobility Management, MSc Transport Planning and Operation, Instituto Superior Tecnico, 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
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
 From last presentation: Main Problems and taken steps

3. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 3
Walkability dimensions forms – 7 C’s
(Source: Cambra, P. 2012)
Methodology:
Pedestrian Accessibility and Attractiveness
Indicators for Walkability Assessment
Master Thesis by Paulo Jorge Monteiro Cambra
MACRO Scale:
Neighbourhood Level
MICRO Scale:
Street Level

4. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 4
Benefits
Transport
Recreation or
Exercise
Walking
Advantage
F i r s t t h i n g a b a b y w a n t s t o d o a n d t h e l a s t
t h i n g a n o l d p e r s o n w i s h e s t o g i v e u p
Shopping
Meeting Family & Friends
Contemplation
Relaxing
Pleasure
Every trip begins and
ends with a walking
Reach destination
• Door-to-Door
• Connecting between modes
Access activities
• Work
• School
Economic perspective
- little cost associated.
- less energy and resources consumption
Environmental point of view walking
is a “green” mode of transport
- low environmental impact
- without air and noise pollution.
Distance
Time
Urban Context
Crowding
Noise
Traffic congestion
Community violence and crime
Promote Mental and Physical Health
Combating Sedentary Lifestyle
Most Equitable Mean
Limitation

5. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 5
 MACRO Scale
• Quantitative analysis;
• The observations values
(local score) are simplified by
a linear transformation to
generate a value function;
MACRO Scale Threshold Normalization
Fundamental
ViewPoints
Descriptor code Elementary ViewPoints Weight Base Value Goal Value mx b
Connectivity
MC1a Street connectivity
100
33,3 0,0476 1 2,5 66,7 -66,7
MC1b Presence and coverage of public transport 33,3 0,0476 0 100 1 0
MC1c Networkintegration (path directness) 33,3 0,0476 2 1 -100 200
Convenience
MC2a Land Use Mix
100
33,3 0,0476 0 1 100 0
MC2b Residentialdensity 33,3 0,0476 40 200 0,6 -25
MC2c Presence and coverage of essential activities(land use) 33,3 0,0476 0 100 1 0
Confort MC3 Availability of pedestrian infrastructures 100 100 0,1429 50 100 2 -100
Conviviality MC4 Presence and coverage of convivial points 100 100 0,1429 0 100 1 0
Conspicuous MC5 Sense of place 100 100 0,1429 1 0 -100 100
Coexistence MC6 Street traffic capacity 100 100 0,1429 4 0 -25 100
Commitment MC7 Pro-Pedestrianstreet proportion 100 100 0,1429 0 100 1 0
(Source: Cambra, P. 2012)
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = � 𝛼𝑖 × 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑖

6. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 6
 MACRO Scale
MACRO Scale Threshold
Local
Score
Normalized
Score
Final ScoreFundamental
ViewPoints
Descriptor
code
Weight ElementaryViewPoints 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 Availabilityof 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-Pedestrianstreet 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
Junctions vs. Crossings

7. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 7
 MACRO Scale
MACRO Scale Threshold
Local
Score
Normalized
Score
Final ScoreFundamental
ViewPoints
Descriptor
code
Weight ElementaryViewPoints 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 Availabilityof 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-Pedestrianstreet 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
High influence of non
residential land uses

8. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 8
 MACRO Scale
MACRO Scale Threshold
Local
Score
Normalized
Score
Final ScoreFundamental
ViewPoints
Descriptor
code
Weight ElementaryViewPoints 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 Availabilityof 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-Pedestrianstreet 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
High influence of non
residential land uses

9. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 9
 MACRO Scale
MACRO Scale Threshold
Local
Score
Normalized
Score
Final ScoreFundamental
ViewPoints
Descriptor
code
Weight ElementaryViewPoints 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 Availabilityof 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-Pedestrianstreet 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
Building's age and urban
regeneration

10. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 10
 MACRO Scale
MACRO Scale Threshold
Local
Score
Normalized
Score
Final ScoreFundamental
ViewPoints
Descriptor
code
Weight ElementaryViewPoints 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 Availabilityof 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-Pedestrianstreet 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
Noise, pollution and
safety

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 ElementaryViewPoints 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 Availabilityof 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-Pedestrianstreet 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
Absence of 30 km/h zones
and pedestrian streets

12. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 12
 MICRO Scale Analysis
Fundamental Viewpoints Elementary Viewpoints Base Value Goal Value
Connectivity Pedestrian network continuity (a) 100 100 0,1429 0 3
Convenience Sidewalk Available width (b) 100 100 0,1429 0 5
Amenities (c) 25 0,0357 0 3
Trees (d) 25 0,0357 0 4
Climate Protection (e) 25 0,0357 0 3
Lighting (f) 25 0,0357 0 3
Fenced or walled building (g) 50 0,0714 0 3
Building frontage transparency (h) 50 0,0714 0 3
Conspicuous Path enclosure (i) 100 100 0,1429 0 3
Conflicts (j) 50 0,0714 0 3
Sidewalk buffer width (k) 50 0,0714 0 4
Maintenance (l) 50 0,0714 0 4
Cleanliness (m) 50 0,0714 0 4
700 700 1
100
MICRO Scale Evaluation
TOTAL
Thersholds
Confort
Conviviality
Coexistence
Commitment
Weight
100
100
100
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = � 𝛼𝑖 × 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑖
(Source: Cambra, P. 2012)
• Characterization of the pedestrian conditions at
street level
• Qualitative analysis
• All values are simplified, by transforming them
into a 0 to 100 scale

13. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 13
 Local MICRO Scale Analysis
Path 1 Path 2 Path 3
Path 4
82,7% 69,3% 70,9%
71,1%
Path 5
77,7%

14. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 14
 Path 2
1
2
3
4
5
MICRO Scale
Evaluation
Segment 1 2 3 4 5 Score
Side 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Segment Score [%] 88,1 88,1 65,2 65,2 56,3 59,3 74,1 73,5 72,0 80,8 68,5 70,0
Segment Length [m] 125 125 136 136 260 260 180 180 50 50 69,3

15. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 15
MICRO Scale
Evaluation
Street Segment 1 2 3 4 5
Weight
Side 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Fundamental
Viewpoints
Elementary Viewpoints
Connectivity
Pedestrian network
continuity (a)
100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Convenience
Sidewalk Available width
(b)
100,0 100,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 80,0 0,1429
Confort
Amenities (c) 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0357
Trees (d) 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,0 25,0 0,0 25,0 0,0357
Climate Protection (e) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 0,0357
Lighting (f) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 0,0357
Conviviality
Fenced or walled building
(g)
100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 0,0714
Building frontage
transparency (h)
66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 33,3 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0714
Conspicuous Path enclosure (i) 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Coexistence
Conflicts (j) 100,0 100,0 33,3 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0714
Sidewalk buffer width (k) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Commitment
Maintenance (l) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 0,0714
Cleanliness (m) 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Segment Score (a+b+…+m) [%] 88,1 88,1 65,2 65,2 56,3 59,3 74,1 73,5 72,0 80,8 68,5 70,0
Segment Length [m] 125 125 136 136 260 260 180 180 50 50 69,3
 Path 2
Lack of Crosswalks
From this evaluation, we can start thinking about
how to improve the pedestrian mobility

16. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 16
MICRO Scale
Evaluation
Street Segment 1 2 3 4 5
Weight
Side 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Fundamental
Viewpoints
Elementary Viewpoints
Connectivity
Pedestrian network
continuity (a)
100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Convenience
Sidewalk Available width
(b)
100,0 100,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 80,0 0,1429
Confort
Amenities (c) 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0357
Trees (d) 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,0 25,0 0,0 25,0 0,0357
Climate Protection (e) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 0,0357
Lighting (f) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 0,0357
Conviviality
Fenced or walled building
(g)
100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 0,0714
Building frontage
transparency (h)
66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 33,3 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0714
Conspicuous Path enclosure (i) 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Coexistence
Conflicts (j) 100,0 100,0 33,3 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0714
Sidewalk buffer width (k) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Commitment
Maintenance (l) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 0,0714
Cleanliness (m) 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Segment Score (a+b+…+m) [%] 88,1 88,1 65,2 65,2 56,3 59,3 74,1 73,5 72,0 80,8 68,5 70,0
Segment Length [m] 125 125 136 136 260 260 180 180 50 50 69,3
 Path 2
Insufficient space
From this evaluation, we can start thinking about
how to improve the pedestrian mobility

17. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 17
MICRO Scale
Evaluation
Street Segment 1 2 3 4 5
Weight
Side 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Fundamental
Viewpoints
Elementary Viewpoints
Connectivity
Pedestrian network
continuity (a)
100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Convenience
Sidewalk Available width
(b)
100,0 100,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 80,0 0,1429
Confort
Amenities (c) 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0357
Trees (d) 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,0 25,0 0,0 25,0 0,0357
Climate Protection (e) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 0,0357
Lighting (f) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 0,0357
Conviviality
Fenced or walled building
(g)
100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 0,0714
Building frontage
transparency (h)
66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 33,3 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0714
Conspicuous Path enclosure (i) 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Coexistence
Conflicts (j) 100,0 100,0 33,3 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0714
Sidewalk buffer width (k) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Commitment
Maintenance (l) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 0,0714
Cleanliness (m) 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Segment Score (a+b+…+m) [%] 88,1 88,1 65,2 65,2 56,3 59,3 74,1 73,5 72,0 80,8 68,5 70,0
Segment Length [m] 125 125 136 136 260 260 180 180 50 50 69,3
 Path 2
Lack of Utilities
From this evaluation, we can start thinking about
how to improve the pedestrian mobility

18. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 18
MICRO Scale
Evaluation
Street Segment 1 2 3 4 5
Weight
Side 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Fundamental
Viewpoints
Elementary Viewpoints
Connectivity
Pedestrian network
continuity (a)
100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Convenience
Sidewalk Available width
(b)
100,0 100,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 80,0 0,1429
Confort
Amenities (c) 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0357
Trees (d) 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,0 25,0 0,0 25,0 0,0357
Climate Protection (e) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 0,0357
Lighting (f) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 0,0357
Conviviality
Fenced or walled building
(g)
100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 0,0714
Building frontage
transparency (h)
66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 33,3 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0714
Conspicuous Path enclosure (i) 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Coexistence
Conflicts (j) 100,0 100,0 33,3 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0714
Sidewalk buffer width (k) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Commitment
Maintenance (l) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 0,0714
Cleanliness (m) 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Segment Score (a+b+…+m) [%] 88,1 88,1 65,2 65,2 56,3 59,3 74,1 73,5 72,0 80,8 68,5 70,0
Segment Length [m] 125 125 136 136 260 260 180 180 50 50 69,3
 Path 2
No trees or trees in sight
From this evaluation, we can start thinking about
how to improve the pedestrian mobility

19. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 19
MICRO Scale
Evaluation
Street Segment 1 2 3 4 5
Weight
Side 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Fundamental
Viewpoints
Elementary Viewpoints
Connectivity
Pedestrian network
continuity (a)
100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Convenience
Sidewalk Available width
(b)
100,0 100,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 80,0 0,1429
Confort
Amenities (c) 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0357
Trees (d) 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,0 25,0 0,0 25,0 0,0357
Climate Protection (e) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 0,0357
Lighting (f) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 0,0357
Conviviality
Fenced or walled building
(g)
100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 0,0714
Building frontage
transparency (h)
66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 33,3 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0714
Conspicuous Path enclosure (i) 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Coexistence
Conflicts (j) 100,0 100,0 33,3 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0714
Sidewalk buffer width (k) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Commitment
Maintenance (l) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 0,0714
Cleanliness (m) 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Segment Score (a+b+…+m) [%] 88,1 88,1 65,2 65,2 56,3 59,3 74,1 73,5 72,0 80,8 68,5 70,0
Segment Length [m] 125 125 136 136 260 260 180 180 50 50 69,3
 Path 2
No protection for adverse
conditions
From this evaluation, we can start thinking about
how to improve the pedestrian mobility

20. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 20
MICRO Scale
Evaluation
Street Segment 1 2 3 4 5
Weight
Side 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Fundamental
Viewpoints
Elementary Viewpoints
Connectivity
Pedestrian network
continuity (a)
100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Convenience
Sidewalk Available width
(b)
100,0 100,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 80,0 0,1429
Confort
Amenities (c) 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0357
Trees (d) 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,0 25,0 0,0 25,0 0,0357
Climate Protection (e) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 0,0357
Lighting (f) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 0,0357
Conviviality
Fenced or walled building
(g)
100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 0,0714
Building frontage
transparency (h)
66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 33,3 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0714
Conspicuous Path enclosure (i) 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Coexistence
Conflicts (j) 100,0 100,0 33,3 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0714
Sidewalk buffer width (k) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Commitment
Maintenance (l) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 0,0714
Cleanliness (m) 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Segment Score (a+b+…+m) [%] 88,1 88,1 65,2 65,2 56,3 59,3 74,1 73,5 72,0 80,8 68,5 70,0
Segment Length [m] 125 125 136 136 260 260 180 180 50 50 69,3
 Path 2
Some dark areas
From this evaluation, we can start thinking about
how to improve the pedestrian mobility

21. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 21
MICRO Scale
Evaluation
Street Segment 1 2 3 4 5
Weight
Side 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Fundamental
Viewpoints
Elementary Viewpoints
Connectivity
Pedestrian network
continuity (a)
100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Convenience
Sidewalk Available width
(b)
100,0 100,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 80,0 0,1429
Confort
Amenities (c) 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0357
Trees (d) 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,0 25,0 0,0 25,0 0,0357
Climate Protection (e) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 0,0357
Lighting (f) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 0,0357
Conviviality
Fenced or walled building
(g)
100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 0,0714
Building frontage
transparency (h)
66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 33,3 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0714
Conspicuous Path enclosure (i) 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Coexistence
Conflicts (j) 100,0 100,0 33,3 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0714
Sidewalk buffer width (k) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Commitment
Maintenance (l) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 0,0714
Cleanliness (m) 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Segment Score (a+b+…+m) [%] 88,1 88,1 65,2 65,2 56,3 59,3 74,1 73,5 72,0 80,8 68,5 70,0
Segment Length [m] 125 125 136 136 260 260 180 180 50 50 69,3
 Path 2
Walled Buildings
From this evaluation, we can start thinking about
how to improve the pedestrian mobility

22. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 22
MICRO Scale
Evaluation
Street Segment 1 2 3 4 5
Weight
Side 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Fundamental
Viewpoints
Elementary Viewpoints
Connectivity
Pedestrian network
continuity (a)
100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Convenience
Sidewalk Available width
(b)
100,0 100,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 80,0 0,1429
Confort
Amenities (c) 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0357
Trees (d) 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,0 25,0 0,0 25,0 0,0357
Climate Protection (e) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 0,0357
Lighting (f) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 0,0357
Conviviality
Fenced or walled building
(g)
100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 0,0714
Building frontage
transparency (h)
66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 33,3 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0714
Conspicuous Path enclosure (i) 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Coexistence
Conflicts (j) 100,0 100,0 33,3 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0714
Sidewalk buffer width (k) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Commitment
Maintenance (l) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 0,0714
Cleanliness (m) 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Segment Score (a+b+…+m) [%] 88,1 88,1 65,2 65,2 56,3 59,3 74,1 73,5 72,0 80,8 68,5 70,0
Segment Length [m] 125 125 136 136 260 260 180 180 50 50 69,3
 Path 2
Small number of ground
level shops
From this evaluation, we can start thinking about
how to improve the pedestrian mobility

23. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 23
MICRO Scale
Evaluation
Street Segment 1 2 3 4 5
Weight
Side 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Fundamental
Viewpoints
Elementary Viewpoints
Connectivity
Pedestrian network
continuity (a)
100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Convenience
Sidewalk Available width
(b)
100,0 100,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 80,0 0,1429
Confort
Amenities (c) 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0357
Trees (d) 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,0 25,0 0,0 25,0 0,0357
Climate Protection (e) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 0,0357
Lighting (f) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 0,0357
Conviviality
Fenced or walled building
(g)
100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 0,0714
Building frontage
transparency (h)
66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 33,3 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0714
Conspicuous Path enclosure (i) 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Coexistence
Conflicts (j) 100,0 100,0 33,3 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0714
Sidewalk buffer width (k) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Commitment
Maintenance (l) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 0,0714
Cleanliness (m) 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Segment Score (a+b+…+m) [%] 88,1 88,1 65,2 65,2 56,3 59,3 74,1 73,5 72,0 80,8 68,5 70,0
Segment Length [m] 125 125 136 136 260 260 180 180 50 50 69,3
 Path 2
Small number of ground
level shops
From this evaluation, we can start thinking about
how to improve the pedestrian mobility

24. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 24
MICRO Scale
Evaluation
Street Segment 1 2 3 4 5
Weight
Side 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Fundamental
Viewpoints
Elementary Viewpoints
Connectivity
Pedestrian network
continuity (a)
100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Convenience
Sidewalk Available width
(b)
100,0 100,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 80,0 0,1429
Confort
Amenities (c) 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0357
Trees (d) 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,0 25,0 0,0 25,0 0,0357
Climate Protection (e) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 0,0357
Lighting (f) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 0,0357
Conviviality
Fenced or walled building
(g)
100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 0,0714
Building frontage
transparency (h)
66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 33,3 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0714
Conspicuous Path enclosure (i) 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Coexistence
Conflicts (j) 100,0 100,0 33,3 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0714
Sidewalk buffer width (k) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Commitment
Maintenance (l) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 0,0714
Cleanliness (m) 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Segment Score (a+b+…+m) [%] 88,1 88,1 65,2 65,2 56,3 59,3 74,1 73,5 72,0 80,8 68,5 70,0
Segment Length [m] 125 125 136 136 260 260 180 180 50 50 69,3
 Path 2
Unexpected conflicts
From this evaluation, we can start thinking about
how to improve the pedestrian mobility

25. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 25
MICRO Scale
Evaluation
Street Segment 1 2 3 4 5
Weight
Side 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Fundamental
Viewpoints
Elementary Viewpoints
Connectivity
Pedestrian network
continuity (a)
100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Convenience
Sidewalk Available width
(b)
100,0 100,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 80,0 0,1429
Confort
Amenities (c) 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0357
Trees (d) 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,0 25,0 0,0 25,0 0,0357
Climate Protection (e) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 0,0357
Lighting (f) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 0,0357
Conviviality
Fenced or walled building
(g)
100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 0,0714
Building frontage
transparency (h)
66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 33,3 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0714
Conspicuous Path enclosure (i) 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Coexistence
Conflicts (j) 100,0 100,0 33,3 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0714
Sidewalk buffer width (k) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Commitment
Maintenance (l) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 0,0714
Cleanliness (m) 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Segment Score (a+b+…+m) [%] 88,1 88,1 65,2 65,2 56,3 59,3 74,1 73,5 72,0 80,8 68,5 70,0
Segment Length [m] 125 125 136 136 260 260 180 180 50 50 69,3
 Path 2
Unexpected conflicts
From this evaluation, we can start thinking about
how to improve the pedestrian mobility

26. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 26
MICRO Scale
Evaluation
Street Segment 1 2 3 4 5
Weight
Side 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Fundamental
Viewpoints
Elementary Viewpoints
Connectivity
Pedestrian network
continuity (a)
100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Convenience
Sidewalk Available width
(b)
100,0 100,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 80,0 0,1429
Confort
Amenities (c) 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0357
Trees (d) 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,0 25,0 0,0 25,0 0,0357
Climate Protection (e) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 0,0357
Lighting (f) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 0,0357
Conviviality
Fenced or walled building
(g)
100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 0,0714
Building frontage
transparency (h)
66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 33,3 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0714
Conspicuous Path enclosure (i) 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Coexistence
Conflicts (j) 100,0 100,0 33,3 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0714
Sidewalk buffer width (k) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Commitment
Maintenance (l) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 0,0714
Cleanliness (m) 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Segment Score (a+b+…+m) [%] 88,1 88,1 65,2 65,2 56,3 59,3 74,1 73,5 72,0 80,8 68,5 70,0
Segment Length [m] 125 125 136 136 260 260 180 180 50 50 69,3
 Path 2
Pedestrian space
unprotected
From this evaluation, we can start thinking about
how to improve the pedestrian mobility

27. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 27
MICRO Scale
Evaluation
Street Segment 1 2 3 4 5
Weight
Side 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Fundamental
Viewpoints
Elementary Viewpoints
Connectivity
Pedestrian network
continuity (a)
100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Convenience
Sidewalk Available width
(b)
100,0 100,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 80,0 0,1429
Confort
Amenities (c) 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0357
Trees (d) 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,0 25,0 0,0 25,0 0,0357
Climate Protection (e) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 0,0357
Lighting (f) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 0,0357
Conviviality
Fenced or walled building
(g)
100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 0,0714
Building frontage
transparency (h)
66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 33,3 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0714
Conspicuous Path enclosure (i) 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Coexistence
Conflicts (j) 100,0 100,0 33,3 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0714
Sidewalk buffer width (k) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Commitment
Maintenance (l) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 0,0714
Cleanliness (m) 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Segment Score (a+b+…+m) [%] 88,1 88,1 65,2 65,2 56,3 59,3 74,1 73,5 72,0 80,8 68,5 70,0
Segment Length [m] 125 125 136 136 260 260 180 180 50 50 69,3
 Path 2
Irregular sidewalk
From this evaluation, we can start thinking about
how to improve the pedestrian mobility

28. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 28
MICRO Scale
Evaluation
Street Segment 1 2 3 4 5
Weight
Side 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Fundamental
Viewpoints
Elementary Viewpoints
Connectivity
Pedestrian network
continuity (a)
100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Convenience
Sidewalk Available width
(b)
100,0 100,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 40,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 80,0 0,1429
Confort
Amenities (c) 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0357
Trees (d) 100,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,0 25,0 0,0 25,0 0,0357
Climate Protection (e) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 0,0357
Lighting (f) 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 66,7 66,7 100,0 100,0 0,0357
Conviviality
Fenced or walled building
(g)
100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 66,7 66,7 66,7 100,0 0,0714
Building frontage
transparency (h)
66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0 0,0 33,3 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0714
Conspicuous Path enclosure (i) 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 0,1429
Coexistence
Conflicts (j) 100,0 100,0 33,3 33,3 33,3 33,3 66,7 66,7 66,7 66,7 0,0714
Sidewalk buffer width (k) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 75,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Commitment
Maintenance (l) 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 75,0 0,0714
Cleanliness (m) 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 50,0 0,0714
Segment Score (a+b+…+m) [%] 88,1 88,1 65,2 65,2 56,3 59,3 74,1 73,5 72,0 80,8 68,5 70,0
Segment Length [m] 125 125 136 136 260 260 180 180 50 50 69,3
 Path 2
Litter on the ground
From this evaluation, we can start thinking about
how to improve the pedestrian mobility

29. Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 29