By Dr. Purnima Parida, Scientist, CRRI (New Delhi, India)

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

2. Planning for Whom ???????

3. Vexed Pedestrians

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

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

9. Qualitative Level of Service A (Excellent)

10. Qualitative Level of Service E ( Poor)

12. Footpath Surface

13. Footpath Width

14. Obstruction

15. Encroachment

16. Potential for Vehicle Conflict

17. Continuity

18. Pedestrian Volume

19. Safety

20. Comfort

21. Walking Environment

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

23. VIDEOGRAPHIC SURVEY QUALITATIVE EVALUATION SURVEY LOCATION

24. Locations for Primary Survey

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

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

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

34. Importance Levels of Attributes by Pedestrians Cannaught Place ISBT

35. CRRI AIIMS

36. Azadpu r Ashram

37. Janakpuri ITO

38. Hauz Khas Vivek Vihar

39. Rohin i Shahdara

40. Satisfaction Rating of Attributes by Pedestrians ISBT Connaught Place

41. CRRI AIIMS

42. Azadpur Ashram

43. Janakpuri ITO

44. Hauz Khas Vivek Vihar

45. Rohini Shahdara

46. Quantification of Mean Relative Weights for Sidewalk Attributes

47. Computation of Cumulative Weights

48. Computation of Cumulative Weights

49. Computation of Cumulative Weights

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

51. Allocation of Qualitative LOS

52. Distribution of Locations using Qualitative LOS Criteria

53. Comparison of Quantitative & Qualitative LOS for Sidewalks

55. Assessment of Level of Service

56. Assessment of Level of Service

57. Assessment of Level of Service

58. Assessment of Level of Service

59. Assessment of Level of Service

60. Level of Service at sample locations Under Do Nothing Scenario

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

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

63. Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Obstruction) on Walkability

64. Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Encroachment) on Walkability

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

66. Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Continuity) on Walkability

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

68. Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Safety) on Walkability

69. Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Comfort) on Walkability

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

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

72. THANK YOU