CAI Walk Ability Kamayan Forum Sept 2010

8/3/2019 CAI Walk Ability Kamayan Forum Sept 2010

1/73

Walkability in Asian cities:state and issues

Alvin MejiaClean Air Initiative for Asian Cities Center

Kamayan ForumManila, Philippines

17 September 2010


2/73

Why walking is important in Asian cities Walkability Study

Methodology

Results

Field Walkability Survey Results

Pedestrian Preference Results

Pedestrian-oriented Policies/ Institutional Issues and Guidelines

Summary and Recommendations

Outline

2


3/73

3

First and foremost, man is a pedestrian


4/73

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Pondicherry,India,2008

Dongguan,China,2006

Urumqi,China,2006

Nanchang,China,2003

Jaipur,India,2005

Nanchang,China,2002

Weihai,China,2006

Nanchang,China,2001

Ghangzhou,China,2003

Bikaner,India,2008

Chennai,India,2002

Mysore,India,2005

Lanzhou,China,2001

Shenzhen,China,2005

Surat,India,2005

Gangtok,India,2008

Shimla,India,2008

Zhuzhou,China,2000

Haiphong,Vietnam,2007

Dhaka,Bangladesh,1999

Chongqing,China,2002

Mode Share %

Asian Cities: Traditional Cities of Walkers

4

High urban density

Relatively lowermotorization rates

Short trip lengths andmixed land use

Many people especiallyurban poor rely on

walking as majortransport mode


5/73

Diminishing Share of Walking Trips

5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Bangalore,1984&2007

Bangkok,1984&2003

Beijing,2000&2004

Changzhou,1986&2006

Chennai,2002&2008

Delhi,2002&2008

Dhaka,1993&2009

Hyderabad,2002&2008

Mumbai,2005&2008

Nanchang,2001&2005

Nanjing,1986&2004

Shanghai,1986&2004

Xi'an,2002&2006

% Walking Trip mode share

After Before


6/73

Whats happening?

6

Increasing income

across developing Asia

Lack of / poor public

transport facilities

Culture


7/73

The total number of vehicles in the Philippines isprojected to increase by 5.27 times from 2005 to 2035

The number of passenger cars will exceed the totalnumber of motorcycles in 2035. Light commercial

vehicles will have the highest increase : 4.37 times from2005 to 2035

Philippines Vehicle Number Projections

7


8/73

Roadside areas, such as thosealong EDSA are found to havehigh concentrations ofparticulate matter. People inthese areas are found to be 17%

more susceptible to asthma and6.5% more susceptible tobronchitis. World Bank. Philippines EnvironmentMonitor, 2007:28

Other Pull Factors

8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Bangladesh

Brunei

Combodia

China

India

Indonesia

Japan

Malaysia

Mauritius

Myanmar

Philippines

Singapore

Srilanka

Thailand

Bandung,2001

Bangalore,2007

Delhi,2007

Kolkata,2007

Mumbai,2007

Pedestr ian Fatality Share (%)

Accidents and deaths

Air Pollution

Source: WHO Road Safety Data


9/73

9

In the age of carbon footprints, let usnot forget human footprints

-Sudhir Gota


10/73

How walkable are our cities?

10

Ulaanbaatar

Jakarta

Hong Kong

Cebu


11/73

A walkability study was conducted by CAI-Asia in 13Asian Cities (2010).

Supported by the Asian Development Bank and FKNorway

Collaborated with local partners in thecities/countries involved

Composed of three components:

Field Walkability Survey

Pedestrian Preference Interviews

Policy assessment/ stakeholder interviews

Walkability Study in Asian Cities

11


12/73

The extent to which walking is readily available to the

consumer as a safe, connected, accessible and pleasant

activity Transport for London (2004)

A measure of the urban form and the quality and availability

of pedestrian infrastructure within a defined area. Seilo

(2004)

The idea of quantifying the safety and desirability of the

walking routes Center for Disease Control (2009)

The extent to which the built environment is walking friendly

New Zealand Transport Agency (2009)

Describes and measures the connectivity and quality of

walkways, footpaths, or sidewalks in cities

Defining Walkability

12


13/73

Based on the Walkability Index developed by the World Bank

Surveys for 13 cities with ADB and CAI-Asia/ FK support - Cebu

(Philippines), Colombo (Sri Lanka), Davao (Philippines), Hanoi (Viet

Nam), Ho Chi Minh City (Viet Nam), Hong Kong SAR (PRC), Jakarta

(Indonesia), Karachi (Pakistan), Kathmandu (Nepal), Kota (India),

Lanzhou (PRC), Manila (Philippines) Ulaanbaatar (Mongolia)

Walkability Assessment Methodology

13

Hong Kong: ResidentialWhampoa Garden Site 3 Blk 8

0.8 km

10 mins

Davao: Commercial Center(San Pedro Street, Quirino St., Father Selga Avenue)

1.7 km


14/73

1. Walking Path Modal Conflict

2. Availability of Walking Paths3. Availability of Crossings

4. Grade Crossing Safety

5. Motorist Behavior

6. Amenities

7. Disability Infrastructure

8. Obstructions9. Security from Crime

Parameters and Types of Areas

14

Commercial

Educational

Public Transport Terminal

Residential


15/73


15

1 Significant conflict that makes walking impossible


16/73


16

2 Significant conflict that makes walking possible, butdangerous and inconvenient.


17/73


17

3 Some conflict walking is possible, but not convenient


18/73


18

4 Minimal conflict, mostly between pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles


19/73


19

5 No conflict between pedestrians and other modes


20/73

2. Availability of Walking Paths (withMaintenance an Cleanliness)

20

1 Pedestrian Walkways required but not available


21/73


21

2 Pedestrians Walkways available but highly congested , badlymaintained and not clean


22/73


22

3 Pedestrians Walkways available but congested , needsbetter maintenance and cleanliness


23/73


23

4 Pedestrians Walkways available which are sometimescongested and are clean and well maintained

2 il bili f lki h ( i h


24/73


24

5 Walkways not required as people can safely walk on roads


25/73

3. Availability of Crossings

25

1 Average distance of controlled crossings is greater than500m and average speed is high


26/73


26

2 Average distance of controlled crossings is between500-300m and average speed is around 40 Kmph


27/73


27

3 Average distance of controlled crossings is between200-300m and average speed is 20-40 Kmph


28/73


28

4 Average distance of controlled crossings is between100-200m and average speed is 20-40 Kmph


29/73


29

5 There is no need of controlled crossings as pedestrians are safe tocross wherever they like and vehicles and pedestrians co-exist


30/73


30

1 Very high Probability of Accident with very long crossing time


31/73


31

2 Dangerous- pedestrian faces some risk of being hurt by othermodes and crossing time is long


32/73


32

3 Difficult to ascertain dangers posed to pedestrians but the timeavailable for crossing is less and people have to hurry


33/73


33

4 Safe

pedestrian is mostly safe from accident with other modesand exposure time is less and time available for crossing more.


34/73


34

4 Very safe

no present danger to pedestrians


35/73


35

1 High disrespect to pedestrians


36/73


36

2 Disrespect is present and rarely pedestrians get priority


37/73


37

3 Motorists sometimes yield


38/73


38

4 Motorists usually obey traffic laws and usually yield to pedestrians


39/73


39

5 Motorists obey traffic laws and yield to pedestrians


40/73

6. Amenities

40

1 No Amenities


41/73

6. Amenities

41

2 Little Amenities at some locations


42/73

6. Amenities

42

3 Limited number of provisions for pedestrians


43/73

6. Amenities

43

4 Pedestrians provided some good amenities for major length


44/73

6. Amenities

44

5 Pedestrians have excellent amenities making walking a pleasantexperience


45/73


45

1 No infrastructure for disabled people is available


46/73


46

2 Limited infrastructure for disabled persons is available, but isnot in usable condition.


47/73


47

3 Infrastructure for disabled persons is present but in poor conditionand not well placed


48/73


48

4 Infrastructure for disabled persons is present, in good condition,but poorly placed.


49/73


49

5 Infrastructure for disabled persons is present, in good condition,and well placed.


50/73

8. Obstructions

50

1 Pedestrian infrastructure is completely blocked by permanentobstructions


51/73

8. Obstructions

51

2 Pedestrians are significantly inconvenienced. Effective width


52/73

8. Obstructions

52

3 Pedestrian traffic is mildly inconvenienced; effective width is < or =1 meter.

8 Ob t ti


53/73

8. Obstructions

53

4 Obstacle presents minor inconvenience.

8 Ob t ti


54/73

8. Obstructions

54

5 There are no obstructions

9 S it f C i


55/73

Rating Subjective Description

1Environment feels very dangerous pedestrians are highly susceptible to c

rime

2 Environment feels dangerous pedestrians are at some risk of crime

3 Difficult to ascertain perceived degree of security for pedestrians

4 Environment feels secure pedestrians at minimal crime risk

5 Environment feels very secure pedestrians at virtually no risk of crime

9. Security from Crime

55

Fi ld W lk bilit A t R lt


56/73

Field Walkability Assessment Results

56

The walking environment varies significantly

depending upon the location

7065 62 60 60 59 59 58 57 57

48 47 45

0

10

2030

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

HongKong

Metro

Manila

Ulaanbaatar

Davao

HCMC

Cebu

Kota

Colombo

Hanoi

L

anzhou

Karachi

Kath

mandu

Jakarta

Highest

Lowest

Average



57/73

0

20

40

60

80

100CebuColombo

Davao

Hanoi

HCM

Hong Kong

Jakarta

Karachi

Kota

Kathmandu

Lanzhou

MetroManila

Ulaanbataar

AverageResidential

Educational

Public Transport Terminals

Commercial

Field Walkability Assessments Results

57

Commercial areas

provide better

walkability and

locations near the

public transportterminals provides

worst infrastructure



58/73

Field Walkability Assessment Results

58

All the cities except Hong Kong give low scores for the accessibility for transport-

disadvantaged people

Highest Lowest Average City-Highest City- Lowest

1. Walking Path Modal Conflict 80 53 65 Hong Kong Karachi

2. Availability of Walking Paths 74 48 58 Hong Kong Kathmandu

3. Availability of Crossings 87 53 69 Kota Kathmandu

4. Grade Crossing Safety 76 45 60 Manila Hanoi5. Motorist Behavior 72 41 58 Hong Kong Jakarta

6. Amenities 85 32 49 Hanoi Kathmandu

7. Disability Infrastructure 61 21 39 Hong Kong Kathmandu

8. Obstructions 75 33 56 Hong Kong Jakarta

9. Security from Crime 77 44 63 Kota Jakarta

Walkability Score 70 45 58 Hong Kong Jakarta

P d t i P f S


59/73

Pedestrian Preference Survey

59

40%

7%18%

18%

4%

13%

walk

cycle

bus/train

IPT

car/taxi

two-wheeler

Mode share

28%

33%

28%

7%4%

< 15 mins

15-30 mins

31-60 mins

61-90 mins

> 90 mins

Average Travel Time

35%

24%

16%

14%

11%

15 km

Average Trip Length

Travel Characteristics

Profile and travel behavior

More than 4000 people were interviewed in13 cities

51% of respondents said that their

households had no vehicles

About 67% of trips are within 30 minutes

About 30% trips are less than 3 km

P d t i P f S R lt


60/73

Respondent rating of pedestrian facilities

About 36% consider walkability in the bad or very bad

category while only 17% consider walkability as either good

or very good

Davao (36%) and Hong Kong (27%) respondents considered

their walkways are good or best

Kathmandu (78%), Jakarta (71%), Kota (69%) considers their

walkways as bad or worse

About 40% of respondents consider that they are most

exposed to air pollution while walking

Pedestrian Preference Survey Results

60

P d t i P f S R lt (2)


61/73

Preference of Respondents

Respondents top priority is to provide Wider, level and

clean sidewalks/ footpaths followed by removal of

obstacles/ parked cars from sidewalks/ footpaths

About 49% prefer at-grade crossings and 36% skywalks About 45% prefer pedestrian crossings to be within every

50m while 33% can walk to 100m

If there are no improvements in pedestrian facilities, 82%

of respondents says that they would shift to motorizedmodes of transport

Pedestrian Preference Survey Results (2)

61


62/73

62

Considering the deterioration of facilities and migration of people to motorized modes, it woube apt to say that pedestrians are victims of policy neglect. In fact, a recent study conducted

the World Health Organization (WHO, 2009) on global road safety concluded that 68% ofcountries in the world dont have national or local level policies that promote walking and cycling

Policies


63/73

The main challenge identified by the public agenciessurveyed in this study is the lack of concretepolicies and political support that cater to theneeds of pedestrians

it is evident that the challenge lies in making certainthat national policies are translated into local

ones and that these are ultimately implemented

with support from city officials.

Policies

63


64/73

Policies


65/73

Bangladeshs National Land Transport Policy more footways will be built in urban areas and a greater

emphasis placed on pedestrian crossing facilities, especially thedevelopment of safe at-grade crossings.

Bhutans Tenth Five-Year Plan (2008-2013)

encourage non-motorized transport such as cycling andwalking.

National Transport Strategy for Mongolia provision a functional transport system that is efficient, cost-

effective, and safe for all users, including identification of the

road hierarchy within urban areas, clear definition of priorities atintersections and improved facilities for pedestrian traffic.

Policies

65

Guidelines


66/73

Comprehensive/ integrative pedestrian facility

guidelines are needed Currently available guidelines include:

India :

Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities

Delhi Pedestrian Design Guidelines

Hongkong :

Hong Kong Planning and Design Guidelines

Universal Accessibility : Best Practices and Guidelines

Design Manual: Barrier Free Access 1997

Transport Planning and Design Manual

Abu Dhabi Urban Street Design Manual

Guidelines

66

Snapshots from the Abu Dhabi Manual


67/73

Snapshots from the Abu Dhabi Manual

67

Institutions


68/73

Dedicated Institutions

Dedicated institutions having legal and financial resources that

supports pedestrians needs are lacking

Political support has also been identified as one of the barriers in

promoting improvement of pedestrian facilities considering the

significant number of pedestrians and public transport commuters

Institutions

68

Resources


69/73

Allocation of Resources

Most cities do not sufficiently allocate resources for pedestrian

facility improvement

In cases where there is allocated resources, it may not be relevant

to pedestrians needs

Bangladesh (Dhaka)

0.24% of the municipal budget to pedestrian facilities for next 20

years

India (Bangalore)

0.6% of total budget for next 20 years

Future vision/target Pedestrian trip mode share to be 20% after

20 years

Ratio of investment on footpaths and on "skywalks" = 25 to 75% -

Bangalore Pedestrian Policy, BMLTA (2009)

Resources

69

Summary


70/73

Asian cities have high pedestrian mode shares but declining due to

inadequate pedestrian facilities, high number of pedestrianaccidents and exposure to air pollution

Walkability assessment surveys, especially in high pedestrian areas,are needed in order to better understand the behavior andpreference of pedestrians and plan for their needs

Most Asian cities have insufficient policies that prioritizespedestrians and current guidelines for pedestrian facilities are notcomprehensive enough to address pedestrians needs

Insufficient resources are allocated for pedestrian facilities

Unclear institutional and legal mandates and uncoordinated

activities in improving walkability and pedestrian facilities in manycities

Summary

70

Recommendations


71/73

Develop pedestrian-oriented policies and guidelines

Comprehensive national and city policies focusing on pedestriansincluding pedestrianized streets and open spaces

Setting reduction targets on pedestrian accidents

Conduct regular walkability assessment surveys

Develop monitoring system for pedestrian policy and guidelines

implementation

Create institutions for NMT and allocate more resources

NMT units in city government

Increase investments on relevant pedestrian facilities

Integrate in urban transport plans and projects

Review design guidelines for urban transport and pedestrian facilities

including facilities for transport-disadvantaged people

Mandate inclusion of pedestrian plans in transport projects

Recommendations

71


72/73

72

Look back in order to move

forward

CAI A i C t


73/73

73

CAI-Asia Centerwww.cleanairinitiative.org

Sophie Punte, Executive [email protected]

Bert Fabian, Transport Program [email protected]

Sudhir Gota, Transport [email protected]

Alvin Mejia, Environment [email protected]

Unit 3510, 35th floor

Robinsons-Equitable TowerADB Avenue, Pasig City

Metro Manila 1605Philippines
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	alvin-mejia
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

CAI Walk Ability Kamayan Forum Sept 2010

Documents