View
32
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
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
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
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
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
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 Network integration (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 Residential density 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-Pedestrian street proportion 100 100 0,1429 0 100 1 0
(Source: Cambra, P. 2012) 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = �𝛼𝑖 × 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝐶𝐶𝑖𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑖𝐺𝐶 𝑖
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 Score Fundamental
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
020406080
100Street connectivity
Presence and coverage ofpublic transport
Network integration (pathdirectness)
Land Use Mix
Residential density
Presence and coverage ofessential activities (land use)
Availability of pedestrianinfrastructures
Presence and coverage ofconvivial points
Sense of place
Street traffic capacity
Pro-Pedestrian streetproportion
70,4 69,6
82
100
40
59,8
0,9 0
102030405060708090
100
Junctions vs. Crossings
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 Score Fundamental
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
020406080
100Street connectivity
Presence and coverage ofpublic transport
Network integration (pathdirectness)
Land Use Mix
Residential density
Presence and coverage ofessential activities (land use)
Availability of pedestrianinfrastructures
Presence and coverage ofconvivial points
Sense of place
Street traffic capacity
Pro-Pedestrian streetproportion
70,4 69,6
82
100
40
59,8
0,9 0
102030405060708090
100
High influence of non residential land uses
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 Score Fundamental
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
020406080
100Street connectivity
Presence and coverage ofpublic transport
Network integration (pathdirectness)
Land Use Mix
Residential density
Presence and coverage ofessential activities (land use)
Availability of pedestrianinfrastructures
Presence and coverage ofconvivial points
Sense of place
Street traffic capacity
Pro-Pedestrian streetproportion
70,4 69,6
82
100
40
59,8
0,9 0
102030405060708090
100
High influence of non residential land uses
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 Score Fundamental
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
020406080
100Street connectivity
Presence and coverage ofpublic transport
Network integration (pathdirectness)
Land Use Mix
Residential density
Presence and coverage ofessential activities (land use)
Availability of pedestrianinfrastructures
Presence and coverage ofconvivial points
Sense of place
Street traffic capacity
Pro-Pedestrian streetproportion
70,4 69,6
82
100
40
59,8
0,9 0
102030405060708090
100
Building's age and urban regeneration
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 Score Fundamental
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
020406080
100Street connectivity
Presence and coverage ofpublic transport
Network integration (pathdirectness)
Land Use Mix
Residential density
Presence and coverage ofessential activities (land use)
Availability of pedestrianinfrastructures
Presence and coverage ofconvivial points
Sense of place
Street traffic capacity
Pro-Pedestrian streetproportion
70,4 69,6
82
100
40
59,8
0,9 0
102030405060708090
100
Noise, pollution and safety
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 Score Fundamental
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
020406080
100Street connectivity
Presence and coverage ofpublic transport
Network integration (pathdirectness)
Land Use Mix
Residential density
Presence and coverage ofessential activities (land use)
Availability of pedestrianinfrastructures
Presence and coverage ofconvivial points
Sense of place
Street traffic capacity
Pro-Pedestrian streetproportion
70,4 69,6
82
100
40
59,8
0,9 0
102030405060708090
100
Absence of 30 km/h zones and pedestrian streets
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 ValueConnectivity Pedestrian network continuity (a) 100 100 0,1429 0 3Convenience Sidewalk Available width (b) 100 100 0,1429 0 5
Amenities (c) 25 0,0357 0 3Trees (d) 25 0,0357 0 4Climate Protection (e) 25 0,0357 0 3Lighting (f) 25 0,0357 0 3Fenced or walled building (g) 50 0,0714 0 3Building frontage transparency (h) 50 0,0714 0 3
Conspicuous Path enclosure (i) 100 100 0,1429 0 3Conflicts (j) 50 0,0714 0 3Sidewalk buffer width (k) 50 0,0714 0 4Maintenance (l) 50 0,0714 0 4Cleanliness (m) 50 0,0714 0 4
700 700 1
100
MICRO Scale Evaluation
TOTAL
Thersholds
Confort
Conviviality
Coexistence
Commitment
Weight
100
100
100
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = �𝛼𝑖 × 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝐶𝐶𝑖𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑖𝐺𝐶 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
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%
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara
Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management 29
Recommended