2010 Mitchell Report

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    1/67

    UNDP Government of Malaysia

    Project

    Support for the development ofaccessible public transport in

    Penang

    Kit Mitchell

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    2/67

    Peninsula Malaysia

    Penang

    Island

    Rest of Pulau

    Pinang

    Thailand

    Singapore

    Viet Nam

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    3/67

    Penang Island

    George TownWorld HeritageSite

    Airport

    Industrial areas

    Tourist beacharea

    Mountain

    10 miles

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    4/67

    Penang Island

    Area 285 sq. km.Total population 500,000+

    Old George Town 220,000Greater urban area 400,000

    Mainland part of StateArea 753 sq. km.

    Population 800,000

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    5/67

    Old George Town is mainly low-rise

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    6/67

    Old George Town is mainly low-rise

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    7/67

    George Town is a World Heritage Site

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    8/67

    George Town is a World Heritage Site

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    9/67

    George Town is a World Heritage Site

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    10/67

    There was an excellent network of

    colonnaded pedestrian thoroughfares

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    11/67

    Pedestrian colonnades

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    12/67

    The 12-month project aims to

    support the development of a fully

    accessible public transport system

    for Penang State, as a pilot for the

    rest of Malaysia.

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    13/67

    The project focuses on access

    audits of public transport facilities,capacity building and awareness

    raising activities.

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    14/67

    In 2000, I felt that the main

    access problems were poor or nopedestrian footways, and elderly

    buses

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    15/67

    George Town street, 2000

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    16/67

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    17/67

    Some things are still the same in 2009

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    18/67

    But a new bus operator is very

    professional, using modern

    vehicles, has well-trained staff,

    and has a purpose built bus

    terminal in Georgetown.

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    19/67

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    20/67

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    21/67

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    22/67

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    23/67

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    24/67

    A number of accessible sections ofpedestrian footway have been built,

    and one street converted to spacesharing

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    25/67

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    26/67

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    27/67

    Existing accessible footways and crossings

    Bus and ferryterminal

    Existing accessible

    Road crossings

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    28/67

    The improvements are having an

    effect

    By December 2009, you could see

    wheelchairs and baby strollers incentral George Town

    Bus passengers have increasedfrom 1,100,000 to 1,800,000 per

    four week period

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    29/67

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    30/67

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    31/67

    But:- Accessible footways are not well

    connected or continuous;

    - Main bus and ferry terminals do notconnect to accessible footways;

    - Construction is often not to correctstandards;

    - Maintenance is sometimes poor;

    - Enforcement of traffic and parkingregulations is almost wholly lacking.

    Lack of contin it of accessible foot a at

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    32/67

    Lack of continuity of accessible footway atentrance to Government building

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    33/67

    Kerb ramp less than 70 cm wide

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    34/67

    Poor maintenance

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    35/67

    Kerb ramp blocked by incense burner

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    36/67

    Pedestrian colonnades blocked

    R bl k d b MPPP fl t

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    37/67

    Ramp blocked by MPPP flowerpot

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    38/67

    Footway and ramp blocked by parked vehicles

    M t l f ll i bli d d t i

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    39/67

    Motorcycle following a blind pedestrian

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    40/67

    From December 2009, cruise ships

    have been able to dock alongside

    in George Town

    There is no safe pedestrian link

    from the pier to the Heritage Site

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    41/67

    E it f i f i hi

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    42/67

    Exit from pier for cruise ships

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    43/67

    Improvements the UNDP study will

    recommend include:

    - Connectivity of footways;

    - Connect bus and ferry terminal tofootway network;

    - Pedestrian link to pier for cruise ships;

    - Start work on demonstration bus

    corridor.

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    44/67

    World Heritage Site: priorities

    for improvements to footways

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    45/67

    Improvements to footways and road crossings

    Existing accessible

    1st priority

    Road crossings

    Bus and ferryterminal

    Pier

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    46/67

    The first priority improvements

    (shown red) are estimated to cost

    814,000 MR (about $230,000 US)

    Work on improvements started in

    December 2009

    Installing kerb ramps (k b h i ht 12 i h )

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    47/67

    Installing kerb ramps (kerb height 12 inches)

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    48/67

    I now feel that providing accessible

    infrastructure and vehicles is relatively

    easy, but institutional problems are very

    difficult

    - When ramp kerbs are fitted,motorcycles ride along the footway;

    - Police do not enforce traffic and parking

    regulations;

    - Buses do not stop close to the kerb.

    Motorcycle behaviour

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    49/67

    Motorcycle behaviour

    Parking at bus stops

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    50/67

    Parking at bus stops

    Failing to stop close to the kerb

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    51/67

    Failing to stop close to the kerb

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    52/67

    Failing to stop close to the kerb

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    53/67

    Failing to stop close to the kerb

    Failing to stop close to the kerb

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    54/67

    Failing to stop close to the kerb

    Failing to stop close to the kerb

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    55/67

    Failing to stop close to the kerb

    Failing to stop close to the kerb

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    56/67

    Failing to stop close to the kerb

    The reasons bus drivers stop away

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    57/67

    - Stops are often blocked by parkedvehicles;

    - Stops have railings that preventpassengers boarding and alighting;

    - Geometry of stops in lay-bys makes it

    impossible for drivers to get close;

    - Bus stop shelter roofs overhang kerb.

    The reasons bus drivers stop awayfrom the kerb are:

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    58/67

    I have suggested the use of bus

    stop boarders (bus stop bulbs)

    without railings to make it easy for

    drivers to stop close to the kerb,

    and to prevent vehicles driving

    through the line of passengers

    Accessible bus stops

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    59/67

    Accessible bus stopsConsider using kerb extensions at bus stops

    (bus boarders)

    Bus boarder in Belfast

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    60/67

    Bus boarder in Belfast

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    61/67

    Because traffic does not stop at

    pedestrian crossings, I have

    suggested the use of median

    pedestrian refuges at crossings

    For lower priority pedestrian crossings

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    62/67

    For lower priority pedestrian crossings,median pedestrian refuges offer benefits

    Pedestrian refuge on 40mph (64kph) suburban road, Britain

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    63/67

    Perhaps most important, I am

    urging a long-term programme of

    institutional change, involving

    education and enforcement, to

    support the excellent engineering

    already in place

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    64/67

    This includes changes within the

    local authority, to encourage regular

    inspection and maintenance of

    footways, control of retail intrusiononto footways, and control of

    unapproved construction onfootways and blocking colonnades.

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    65/67

    Only time will tell whether theimprovements in accessibility can

    be protected from road userbehaviour, lack of enforcement and

    lack of inspection and maintenance.

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    66/67

    This project has made me realise that,

    as experts on accessibility, we are not

    paying enough attention to the social

    differences between countries, and theneed to design transport to be suitable

    for local situations.

  • 7/27/2019 2010 Mitchell Report

    67/67

    I hope this raises an issue for

    discussion.