Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara, Lisboa, Presentation part 3

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

Area of Study

• The study area is located in the parish of Alcântara, in the south western corner of Lisbon.

• Its population was about 13.943 inhabitants (2011), and it has a 4,44 square km area, which represents a density of approximately 3.140 inhabitants/sq.km.

• The study area has approximately 6.380 inhabitants, according to the 2011 data.


Master in Transport Planning and Operation – Urban Mobility Management

0-14 12% 15-24

8%

25-64 51%

65 or more 29%

% Population per Age

3

% Population per Sex

Socio-demographic characteristics

Source: INE – Carrilho et al. Lisbon projection of elderly/youth proportion



Radius 6 c/h/dir. 12 c/h/dir 30 c/h/dir

400 m 100% 76% 38%

250 m 60% 41% 22%

Public Transport Network • The public transport network has an excellent

coverage in the study area: 100% of the population is at less than 400 meters of a stop point with at least 6 circ./hour/direction (approximately 10/10 minutes).

• Even when considering only the stop with higher number of circulations, 38% of the population is covered in a 400 meters radius.

Carreiras/Paragem



Road network



• The parish of Alcântara doesn’t have paid parking one of the main reasons of road congestion in this area.

• Buses and pedestrians are particularly affected by illegal parking situations. • According to the ‘EMEL 2013 Satisfaction Survey’, 80% of the residents in this parish have

parking problems (Lisbon’s average is 62%). 35% of the inhabitants have their own parking lot. • Parking spots: 2127 places

Parking



Accident Data

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Accidents in the study area (type of injuries)

05

10152025303540

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Accidents in the study area (type of accidents)

020406080

100120140160180200

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Accidents in Lisbon (type of acident)

Crash

Collision

Run over

05

101520253035404550

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Accidents in Lisbon (type of injuries)

Light injuries

Severe Injuries

Deaths

Source: ANSR



Population Mobility (Census 2011)

• According to 2011 Census data, about 29% of the parish residents work or study in the Alcântara parish.

• There are about 18% of trips that are made on foot, while about 43% are held in private transport.

• However, the bus has a great share of 33% in this parish, which is the fourth largest in the city of Lisbon (the average is 19%).

29%

57%

14%

Work/study place of the Alcântara residents

Alcântara parish

Another parish ofLisbonAnother town

18%

32%

11%

33%

1% 1% 2% 1% 1%

Modal distribution of the Alcântara residents

On footCar (as driver)Car (as passenger)BusCompany transportSubwayTrainMotocycleOthers



Elderly movements: • Most visited: Day Centre and

Recreation Spots. • Occasionally visited: Medical

Post; Church. • Daily: Local Commerce

Public Consultation for the Elderly by CML

Primary Complaints: • Walking on the street due to illegal

parking on sidewalks • Lack of benches for rest • Insufficient number of crosswalks and

its locations • Lack of levelled sidewalks on crosswalks • Bad condition of conservation of

crosswalks (not visible) • Weak lighting • Driver’s behaviour towards crosswalks • Bad maintenance conditions • Dirty sidewalks

58% 15%

25%

1% 1%

What bothers you more when you walk on the street

Sidewalks

Traffic

Reduced Policepresence

Public Transports

Personal Factors

Source: Câmara Municipal de Lisboa



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

Main Problems Detected



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



MACRO Scale Threshold Local evaluation Evaluation with proposed changes Fundamental ViewPoints

Descriptor code Weight Elementary ViewPoints Base Value Goal

Value Local score

Normalized score Final score Local

score Normalized

score Final score

Connectivity MC1a 0,0476 Street connectivity 1 2,5 1,6 37,3 1,77 1,6 37,3 1,77 MC1b 0,0476 Presence and coverage of public transport 0 100 100,0 100,0 4,76 100,0 100,0 4,76 MC1c 0,0476 Network integration (path directness) 2 1 1,3 74,0 3,52 1,3 74,0 3,52

Convenience MC2a 0,0476 Land Use Mix 0 1 0,7 73,0 3,47 0,7 73,0 3,47 MC2b 0,0476 Residential density 40 200 101,5 35,9 1,71 101,5 35,9 1,71 MC2c 0,0476 Presence and coverage of essential activities (land use) 0 100 100,0 100,0 4,76 100,0 100,0 4,76

Confort MC3 0,1429 Availability of pedestrian infrastructures 50 100 91,0 82,0 11,72 100,0 100,0 14,29 Conviviality MC4 0,1429 Presence and coverage of convivial points 0 100 100,0 100,0 14,29 100,0 100,0 14,29 Conspicuous MC5 0,1429 Sense of place 1 0 0,6 40,0 5,72 0,6 40,0 5,72 Coexistence MC6 0,1429 Street traffic capacity 4 0 1,6 59,8 8,54 1,4 64,8 9,25 Commitment MC7 0,1429 Pro-Pedestrian street proportion 0 100 0,9 0,9 0,13 100,0 100,0 14,29 TOTAL - 1 - - - 499,2 702,9 60,39 607,1 825,0 77,84

70 70

82

100

40

60

1

70 70

100 100

40

65

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Connectivity Convenience Confort Conviviality Conspicuous Coexistence Commitment

Local evaluation Evaluation with proposed changes

12

MACRO Scale Commerce and local

services

0

20

40

60

80




Land Use Mix

Residential density

Presence and coverage ofessential activities (land…

Availability of pedestrianinfraestructures


Sense of place



Evaluation with proposed changes Local evaluation





Value Local score


score Normalized

score Final score




70 70

82

100

40

60

1

70 70

100 100

40

65

100

0

20

40

60

80

100



13

MACRO Scale

0

20

40

60

80




Land Use Mix

Residential density




Sense of place




Urban regeneration





Value Local score


score Normalized

score Final score




70 70

82

100

40

60

1

70 70

100 100

40

65

100

0

20

40

60

80

100



14

MACRO Scale

0

20

40

60

80




Land Use Mix

Residential density




Sense of place




New road and parking layout





Value Local score


score Normalized

score Final score




70 70

82

100

40

60

1

70 70

100 100

40

65

100

0

20

40

60

80

100



15

MACRO Scale

0

20

40

60

80




Land Use Mix

Residential density




Sense of place




Urban regeneration





Value Local score


score Normalized

score Final score




70 70

82

100

40

60

1

70 70

100 100

40

65

100

0

20

40

60

80

100



16

MACRO Scale

0

20

40

60

80




Land Use Mix

Residential density




Sense of place




New road and parking layout





Value Local score


score Normalized

score Final score




70 70

82

100

40

60

1

70 70

100 100

40

65

100

0

20

40

60

80

100



17

MACRO Scale

0

20

40

60

80




Land Use Mix

Residential density




Sense of place




30 km/h zones and friendly pedestrian streets



MICRO Scale Analysis Path 1 Path 2 Path 3

Path 4

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

71,1%

Path 5

77,7%



MICRO Scale Analysis Main Problems Detected and Solutions (I)

Lack of crosswalks Provide new crosswalks

to ensure pedestrian network continuity

Short sidewalk available width due to obstacles

Remove presence of obstacles. Ensure available width greater than 1 meter

Insufficient number and variety of amenities

Add value to the sidewalks (benches, fountains and

bins)

Climate Protection Provide shade and

protection from rain where possible

Weak public lighting Upgrade existing lighting structure



MICRO Scale Analysis Main Problems Detected and Solutions (II)

Walled Buildings

Building frontage transparency

Apply measures to encourage local commerce

Unexpected conflicts Identify and signalize

conflicts with appropriate signalling

Unprotected Pedestrian space

Provide a buffer zone between pedestrian and

motor zone

Sidewalks maintenance and cleaning

Improve maintenance and cleaning services in the

area.

Urban Image (urban requalification; replace

walls with fences)



MICRO Scale Analysis – Potential improvements Path 1 Path 2 Path 3

Path 4

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

71,1%

Path 5

77,7%

91,8% 86,1% 82,9%

86,4% 86,3%



DESIRED RESULTS

ACTION

OBJECTIVES

22

30 Kph Zone

Improve Walkability

Improve Urban Space Quality

Real estate market valorisation

Quality of life improvement Commercial and

Social attractiveness

Develop open public space, safe for

everyone

Reduce GGE, air and noise pollution



Establishment of 30 kph zones

Technical measures to change driver’s behavior, protecting street pedestrian users.

Vertical and horizontal signs

Fonte: IMTT (2011)






Decrease the curvature radios of the streets intersections and their

realignment Fonte: IMTT (2011)







realignment Decrease the width of the lane

Fonte: IMTT (2011)







realignment Decrease the width of the lane Even sidewalks to street level

Fonte: IMTT (2011)







realignment Decrease the width of the lane Even sidewalks to street level Discontinuing the streets axis

Fonte: IMTT (2011)



Short-Term measures

Vertical Signalling

Increase number of crosswalks

Increase parking enforcement

Improve Maintenance and Cleanning Services

Improve Lighting System

Long-term measures

New Street Layout

Sidewalk redesign

Crosswalks redesign

Encourage local commerce

Bus routes and equipment reorganisation



Stakeholders

Agents

Users

Third party

Pressure Groups

Infrastructure Direct Production Municipality Civil Parish Contractors

Parking Manager Managers and Supervisors

Regulator (IMTT) Transit Police

Other Providers ITS Providers

Bank & Financial Institutions Health Services



Stakeholders

Agents

Users

Third party

Pressure Groups

Residents Tenants Associations

Household Owners Associations Commerce and service Commerce Associations

Transport/Logistics Companies Private Drivers

Private Drivers Associations (ACP) Public Transport Passengers

Transports Unions



Stakeholders

Agents

Users

Third party

Pressure Groups

Pedestrian & Cyclists Schools

Parents Schools Associations Day Centers



Stakeholders

Agents

Users

Third party

Pressure Groups

Green Groups Residents Associations

Reduced Mobility Groups



Stakeholders

Agents

Users

Third party

Pressure Groups

Traffic Calming Measures

Social & Comercial Atractiveness

Real Estate Value

Walkability Improvements



'What is coming from there? You have three guesses’.

He said: ‘Well, a car!’

I said: ‘No, take your second guess.’

He looked and said: ‘A vehicle.’

I said: ‘No, and now you have your last chance.’

And he answered, angry with me: ‘An automobile.’

I still wonder when he will realize that what was coming was a person, inside a

metal case, and that there is no reason whatsoever for that person in the role of

a car driver to have priority over us standing on the sidewalk.

Eduardo A. Vasconcellos, Urban Transport, Environment and Equity (2001)

Engineering

Accessibility in an Urban Area: Alcântara, Lisboa, Presentation part 3