Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara, Lisboa, Presentation part 2

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


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



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



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



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



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




Local Score





Convenience




TOTAL 1 499,20 702,9 60,39

020406080




Land Use Mix

Residential density




Sense of place



70,4 69,6

82

100

40

59,8

0,9 0

102030405060708090

100

High influence of non residential land uses




Local Score





Convenience




TOTAL 1 499,20 702,9 60,39

020406080




Land Use Mix

Residential density




Sense of place



70,4 69,6

82

100

40

59,8

0,9 0

102030405060708090

100

High influence of non residential land uses




Local Score





Convenience




TOTAL 1 499,20 702,9 60,39

020406080




Land Use Mix

Residential density




Sense of place



70,4 69,6

82

100

40

59,8

0,9 0

102030405060708090

100

Building's age and urban regeneration




Local Score





Convenience




TOTAL 1 499,20 702,9 60,39

020406080




Land Use Mix

Residential density




Sense of place



70,4 69,6

82

100

40

59,8

0,9 0

102030405060708090

100

Noise, pollution and safety




Local Score





Convenience




TOTAL 1 499,20 702,9 60,39

020406080




Land Use Mix

Residential density




Sense of place



70,4 69,6

82

100

40

59,8

0,9 0

102030405060708090

100

Absence of 30 km/h zones and pedestrian streets



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



Local MICRO Scale Analysis Path 1 Path 2 Path 3

Path 4

82,7% 69,3% 70,9%

71,1%

Path 5

77,7%



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




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







Confort



Conviviality







Path 2

Insufficient space








Confort



Conviviality







Path 2

Lack of Utilities








Confort



Conviviality







Path 2

No trees or trees in sight








Confort



Conviviality







Path 2

No protection for adverse conditions








Confort



Conviviality







Path 2

Some dark areas








Confort



Conviviality







Path 2

Walled Buildings








Confort



Conviviality







Path 2

Small number of ground level shops








Confort



Conviviality







Path 2

Small number of ground level shops








Confort



Conviviality







Path 2

Unexpected conflicts








Confort



Conviviality







Path 2

Unexpected conflicts








Confort



Conviviality







Path 2

Pedestrian space unprotected








Confort



Conviviality







Path 2

Irregular sidewalk








Confort



Conviviality







Path 2

Litter on the ground




Engineering

Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara, Lisboa, Presentation part 2