1

Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Asian CitiesSameera Kumar AnthapurTransport Researcher

Sudhir GotaTechnical Manager

Transed 2012New Delhi20 September 2012

How walkable are our cities?

2

“improving walkability entails improvement not only in the physical infrastructure but equally in the minds of people”

Lanzhou3

Davao4

Jakarta5

Ho Chi Minh City6

Hyderabad 7

Manila

8

How people travel in Asian cities is changing

9

cities which has more than 75% of  trips by bus, metro, cycles and walking

cities which have 50 to 75% of trips by bus, metro, cycle and walking.

cities with 50% of trips by private modes such as two wheelers, cars, taxis etc.http://transport-solutions.blogspot.com/2010/07/trip-mode-share-in-asia-what-does.html

CAI-Asia, 2011

Walkability surveys in Asia – 23 cities

10

Walkability Assessment - residential, educational, commercial, public transport terminals• Field Walkability Surveys (modified Global Walkability Index)

• Pre-identified routes• 9 Parameters - Walking Path Modal Conflict, Availability of Walking Paths,

Availability of Crossings , Grade Crossing Safety, Motorist Behavior, Amenities, Disability Infrastructure , Obstructions, Security from Crime

• Pedestrian Preference Interview Surveys• Profile of the respondents – travel behavior• Preference of the respondents on walkability and pedestrian

facilities improvements• Survey on Policies and Guidelines & Stakeholder survey

Walkability Assessment Methodology

11

12

Walkability Results

Field Walkability Assessment Results (1)

13Walking environment varies significantly depending upon the location

Bhubanesh

warCeb

u

Chennai

ColomboDava

oHan

oiHCMC HK

Indore

Jakart

a

Kathman

du

Karachi

Kota

Lanzhou

Manila

PuneRajk

otSu

rat

Ulaanbaa

tar -

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

"Waiting To walk"

"Pleasure to walk"

"Walk at your own risk"

Field Walkability Assessments Results (2)

14

Cebu ColomboDavao

Hanoi

HCM

Hong Kong

Jakarta

Karachi

KathmanduLanzhouManilaMale

Ulaanbataar

Bangalore

Bhubaneshwar

Chennai

Indore

Pune

RajkotSurat

0

50

100

Residential Educational

Public Transport Terminals Commercial

Residential

Educational

Public Transport Terminals

Commercial

0 20 40 60

51

48

41

47

56

57

54

61

Other Asian Cites AverageIndia Average

Field Walkability Assessment Results (3)

15

1. Walking Path Modal Conflict

2. Availability Of Walking Paths

3. Availability Of Crossings

4. Grade Crossing Safety

5. Motorist Behavior

6. Amenities

7. Disability Infrastructure

8. Obstructions

9. Security from Crime

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

52

45

53

47

48

36

29

52

60

65

58

68

60

58

49

39

56

63

80

74

73

68

72

56

61

75

73

Average Hong KongAverage Other Asian CityAverage Indian city

Pedestrian Preference Survey Results (1)

16

People Interviewed in 19cities > 6,500

1. 30% of people interviewed came from households without motorized vehicles2. Majority of people (61%) were in the age group 15-30 years3. Walking constitutes 40% of trip mode share.4. 67% of all trips are less than 30 minutes and less than 6 km

Cebu; 301 Chennai; 300

Colombo; 170

Davao; 287

Hanoi; 500

HCM; 500

Hong Kong; 1,029 Indore; 300

Jakarta; 250 Karachi; 272

Kathmandu; 305

Kota; 256

Lanzhou; 204

Manila; 304

Pune; 309

Rajkot; 370

Surat; 337 Ulaanbaatar; 266

• 42 % - the pedestrian environment is “bad” or “very bad”• 15% - facilities are “good” or “very good”• Respondents top priority:

1. Wider, level and clean sidewalks/ footpaths2. Reduced/slower traffic on the road3. Removal of obstacles/ parked cars from sidewalks/ footpaths

• Crossings• 47% prefer at-grade crossings and 33% skywalks• 74% prefer crossings that are within 100 meters

Pedestrian Preference Survey Results (2)

17

Pedestrian Preference Survey Results (3)

18

No, I will not shift; 25%

Cycle; 13%

Bus/Microvans; 15%Tempo; 7%

Car/Taxi; 24%

Motorcycle; 16%

Without improvements in pedestrian facilities, 75% of respondents would shift from walking to other modes when affordable

Policies and Guidelines - Sri Lanka 10% of urban road space for NMT - Action Plan for Traffic Management in Greater Colombo (2008)

Policies and Guidelines - Traffic and Road Transport Act of Indonesia

If a pedestrian crossing does not exist, pedestrians must take care of their own safety when crossing the road and people with disabilities must wear special signs that are visible to motorists

Policies, Institutions and Guidelines Survey Results (1)

19

Policies and Guidelines: Indian Road Congress • Footpath separated with carriageway with an insurmountable kerb• Pedestrian crossings at mid block only when the distance between

intersections is minimum of 300m. • Provision of controlled crossings at mid blocks when peak hour

volumes of pedestrians and vehicles are such that PV2 > 1 million (Undivided carriageway), PV2> 2 million (divided carriageway) , Stream speed of greater than 65 kph

City Development Plans • The trend is towards building few pedestrian

overpasses and improving few kilometers of footpath. Majority of the emphasis is on the public transport and increase in road space.

Policies, Institutions and Guidelines Survey Results (3)

20

Dedicated Institutions • Lack of dedicated institutional responsibility and legal

and financial resources in support of pedestrian needs

• Multiple agencies but who owns the footpaths?• Political support is barrier in promoting improvement

of pedestrian facilities considering the significant number of pedestrians and public transport commuters

Policies, Institutions and Guidelines Survey Results (4)

21

Allocation of Resources• Most cities do not allocate sufficient resources for pedestrian

facility improvement or these are not relevant to pedestrian 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)

Policies, Institutions and Guidelines Survey Results (5)

22

Walkability surveys to measure success of the project

23

Effective Media Strategy

24

Over 40 news articles, with potential readership of 4.4 million

Walkabilityasia.org - Home Page

Over 4000 hits in 90 days !25

Walkabilityasia.org - Facebook page

26Over 140 ‘likes’ and growing

Boon or bane?

27

Using the same money required for constructing 1 km metro, one can, on average, construct 350 km of new quality sidewalks !!

Is it lack of resources? No space ? No demand? Lack of expertise?

Times of India - 16 Apr 2010

Acknowledgments

28

• Lanzhou, China: Shan Huang from CAI-Asia China Office, and Prof. Yongping Bai and his students at the Northwest Normal University in Lanzhou, China

• Karachi, Pakistan: Arif Pervaiz from Karachi and his students, Aatika Khan, Kanwal Fatima, Sadia Mehmood, Al Amin Nathani, Owais Hasan, Obeda Mehmood, and Rida Kamran

• Jakarta, Indonesia: Dollaris Suhadi, Mariana Sam and Anthony Octaviano from Swisscontact Indonesia• Kota, India: Harjinder Parwana and Vipul Sharma from CAI-Asia India Office• Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia: Prof. Sereeter Lodoysamba and his students at the National University of Mongolia• Cebu and Manila, Philippines: Ernesto Abaya from the College of Engineering and the National Center for Transportation Studies of the

University of the Philippines,, and Paul Villarete, Delight Baratbate and other staff of the Cebu City Government Planning Office• Ha Noi and Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam: Phan Quynh Nhu from Vietnam Clean Air Partnership (CAI-Asia Country Network) , and Khuat Viet

Hung and Nguyen Thanh Hoa from the Institute of Transport Planning and Management, University of Transport and Communication • Chennai – RajCherubal, Shreya and Chris Kost (ITDP), Prof Madhav Badami (Mcgill University), Prof Sudhir Chella Rajan,

Manjari,Preshant,Gayathri and Oviya Govindan (IIT Madras)• Bhubaneshwar – Vipul Sharma (IUCN), Piyush Ranjan Raut (City Managers Association Orrisa), Choudhury Rudra Charan Mohanty (UNCRD)• Pune – Ashok Sreenivas, Robert Obenaus, kittykanchan and Ranjit Gadgil (Parisar), Nitin Warrier (ITDP)• Bangalore – Bharat Kumar ( Vijaya College)Special thanks to Fredkorpset Norway for co-funding the conduct of walkability surveys under the Blue Skies Exchange Program in partnership

with CAI-Asia Center and: • Hong Kong SAR, PRC: Prof Wing-tat Hung from Hong Kong Polytechnic University, host to Sampath Aravinda Ranasinghe and Anjila

Manandhar• Kathmandu, Nepal: Gopal Joshi from Clean Air Network Nepal and Clean Energy Nepal, host to Charina Cabrido• Colombo, Sri Lanka:Thusitha Sugathapala from Clean Air Sri Lanka host to Joy Bailey• Davao, Philippines: CAI-Asia Center, host to Vu Tat Dat• Holly Krambeck, and Jitu Shah• CAI Asia Center Collegues• Sustran, CAI Asia COP members

Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation

center@cai-asia.orgUnit 3505 Robinsons-Equitable Tower

ADB Avenue, Pasig CityMetro Manila 1605

Philippines

CAI-Asia Center

cpo@cai-asia.org901A Reignwood Building,

No. 8 YongAnDongLi Jianguomenwai Avenue Beijing

China

CAI-Asia China Officeindia@cai-asia.org

Building no.4, 1st floor, Near Thygaraj StadiumLodhi Colony , New Delhi

India

CAI-Asia India Office

CAI-Asia Country NetworksChina . India . Indonesia . Nepal . Pakistan . Philippines . Sri Lanka . Vietnam

29

CAI-Asia Center Members 231 CAI-Asia Partnership Members

• 45 Cities• 19 Environment ministries• 13 Other Government agencies• 17 Development agencies & foundations• 67 NGOs• 37 Academic and research institutes• 33 Private sector companies

Donors in 2012Asian Development Bank Cities Development Initiative for Asia

ClimateWorks Foundation DHL/IKEA/UPS Energy Foundation Fredskorpset Norway Fu Tak Iam Foundation German International Cooperation (GIZ) Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) Institute for Transport Policy Studies Institute for Transportation and Development Policy International Union for Conservation of Nature MAHA Rockefeller Brothers Fund United Nations Environment Program Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles (UNEP PCFV) Veolia World Bank

For more information: www.cleanairinitiative.org