pedestrian and bicycle facility planning for kochi city region, part 2 data collection

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITY PLANNING FOR KOCHI CITY REGIONARUN C BABU

12AR60R09

MCP 2ND YEAR

STUDY AREA

RAILWAY STATION

BOAT JETTY

KSRTC BUS STAND

PRIVATE BUS STAND

HIGH COURT

INTERNATIONAL STADIUM

MOBILITY HUB

PROPOSED METRO STATIONS

STUDY AREA

AIM & OBJECTIVES

• AIM The aim of this study is to assess the level of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in Kochi city region and formulate strategies and plans for pedestrian and bicycle friendly urban transport for city region.

To achieve this objectives,

• Asses existing condition of the roads• Asses the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities• Identify conflict points• Understand the density of pedestrian movement.• Asses the feasibility of introduction of bicycle facility in the city region.• Asses the social economic and democratic profile on pedestrians and their travel

characteristic.• Formulation of suitable proposals for improving pedestrian mobility.• Proposals to improve the safety of pedestrian movement, reduction of vehicle-

pedestrian conflicts and introduction of GPS driven bicycles.

LITERATURE STUDY

PEDESTRIAN FLOW CHARECTERISTICS

(Source: European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Year) Issue 53, Paper n° 6, ISSN 1825-3997

Three main conditions influences the pedestrian flow characteristics such as,1) Unidirectional flow and bidirectional flow2) Restrained and normal flow condition3) Exclusive and non-exclusive pedestrian facility

SPEED – DENSITY RELATIONSHIPSAs volume and density increase, pedestrian speed declines

Unidirectional & bidirectional flow Restrained and normal flow Exclusive and non-exclusive

FLOW – DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS

𝑸𝒑𝒆𝒅=𝑺𝒑𝒆𝒅 𝒙𝑫𝒑𝒆𝒅 ,

Where,Qped= unit flow rate (p/min/m),Sped = pedestrian speed (m/min)Dped= pedestrian density (p/m2).




SPEED – FLOW RELATIONSHIPS



When there are few pedestrians on a walkway (i.e., low flow levels); there is space available to choose higher walking speeds. As flow increases, speeds decline because of closer interactions among pedestrians. When a critical level of crowding occurs, movement becomes more difficult, and both flow and speed decline.


SPEED – FLOW RELATIONSHIPS



At an average space of less than 1.5m2/p, even the slowest pedestrians cannot achieve their desired walking speeds. Faster pedestrians, who walk at speeds of up to 1.8 m/s, are not able to achieve that speed unless average space is 4.0 m2/p or more.


1. National Urban Transport Policy 2006 • Integrated land use and transport policy• Equitable distribution of road space between all road users• Priority to the use of public transport• Priority to non-motorized modes

2. Other Policies • Central Motor Vehicles rules (CMVR) 1989 Safety Rules states that motorists

cannot enter pedestrian way and are liable to penalty.• Indian Penal Code (sec 283), sec 34 of Delhi Police Act -- Obstruction in public

space punishable.• The National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2009, approved by the Central

government, recognizes street vendors (or micro-entrepreneurs) as “an integral and legitimate part of the urban retail trade and distribution system.” The national policy gives street vendors a legal status and aims at providing legitimate vending/hawking zones in city/town master or development plans.

• Police Act provides for penalty for jaywalking.• Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 (Sec 44) recommends guidelines for the

disabled persons.

CURRENT POLICIES

1. Current IRC (103- 2012) guidelines • Pedestrian-vehicle conflicts• Inclusive Planning• Pedestrian Safety

2. Highway Capacity manual 2000

3. AASHTO Guide for Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian facilitiesAASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) publishes two guides that address pedestrian and bicycle facilities:• Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities,• Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities

4. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)• Document issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the United

States Department of Transportation (USDOT)• Specify the standards by which traffic signs, road surface markings, and signals are

designed, installed, and used. • Specifications include the shapes, colors, and fonts used in road markings and signs.

GUIDELINES FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES

1. Florida Roadway Condition Index (RCI)

Where, AADT – average annual daily bicycle traffic L – Number of travel lanesS – Speed limit (mi/h) PF – Pavement factorLF – Location factor

Pavement factor Location factor

0.50 = cracking0.25 = patching0.25 = weathering0.25 – 0.50 = potholes depending on severity0.25 – 0.50 = rough road edge depending on severity0.25 = railroad crossing0.50 = rough or angled railroad grade crossing0.50 = drainage grates

0.75 = angle parking0.25 = parallel parking0.25 = right turn lane ( full length )-0.50 = raised median ( solid )-0.35 = raised median ( left turn bays )-0.20 = center turn lane-0.75 = paved shoulder or bike lane0.50 = severe grade0.20 = moderate grade0.35 = frequent horizontal curves0.50 = restricted sight distance0.25 = numerous driveways0.25 = industrial land use0.25 = commercial land use

RCI index range Classification

0 to 3 Excellent

3 to 4 Good

4 to 5 Fair

5 or above Poor

BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES

2. Maryland bicycle LOS method

Where:Vol15 = Volume of directional traffic in 15 minute time period Where: ADT = Average Daily Traffic on the segment or link D = Directional Factor (assumed = 0.565) Kd = Peak to Daily Factor (assumed = 0.1) PHF = Peak Hour Factor (assumed = 1.0)Ln = Total number of directional through lanesSPt = Effective speed limit

HV = percentage of heavy vehicles (as defined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual)PR5 = FHWA’s five point pavement surface condition ratingWe = Average effective width of outside through lane:(a1 - a4) are coefficients established by the multi-variate regression analysis.


Gainesville bicycle los performance measures• Evaluate roadway corridors using a point system of 1 to 21 that results in LOS ratings from A - F.• Involves the provision of basic facilities, conflicts, speed differential, motor vehicle LOS,

maintenance, and provision of transportation demand management (TDM) programs CATEGORY CRITERIA POINTSBicycle facility provided (max value = 10)

Outside lane 3.66m 0Outside lane> 3.66m – 4.27m 5Outside lane > 4.27m 6Off street/ parallel alternative facility 4

Conflicts(max value = 4)

Driveways & side streets 1Barrier free 0.5No on-street parking 1Medians present 0.5Unrestricted sight distance 0.5Intersection implementation 0.5

Speed differential(max value = 2)

>48 KPH ( >30 MPH) 040 – 48 KPH (25 – 30 MPH) 124 – 32 KPH (15 - 20 MPH) 2

Motor vehicle LOS(max value = 2)

LOS = E,F, or 6 or more travel lanes 0LOS = D, and <6 travel lanes 1LOS = A,B,C and <6 travel lanes 2

Maintenance(max value = 2)

Major or frequent problems -1Minor or infrequent problems 0No problems 2

TDM/ multimodal(max value = 1)

No support 0Support exists 1

Calculations Segment score 21Segment weight 1Adjusted segment score 21Corridor score 21 = LOS A

LOS A (17 – 21). These roadways are generally safe and attractive to all bicyclists.LOS B (14 – 17). These roadways are adequate for all bicyclists.LOS C (11 – 14). These roadways are adequate for most bicyclists.LOS D (7 – 11)LOS E (3 – 7) Bicyclists can anticipate a high level of interaction with motor vehicleLOS F (≥ 3). These roadways do not provide any bicycle facilities.


(Source: Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards- TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1538)

PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES

Highway Capacity Manual 2000

LOS A

Pedestrian Space> 5.6 m2/p. Flow Rate ≤ 16p/min/m

pedestrian moves in desired paths without altering their

movements in response to other pedestrian. Walking speeds are

freely selected, and conflicts between pedestrian are unlikely.

LOS B

Pedestrian Space > 3.7- 5.6 m2/p. Flow Rate ≤16 - 23 p/min/m

sufficient area for pedestrian to select walking speeds freely, to

bypass other pedestrian, and to avoid crossing conflicts. At this

level, pedestrian begin to be aware of other pedestrian, and to

respond to their presence when selecting a walking path.

LOS C

Pedestrian Space > 2.2 – 3.7 m2/p. Flow Rate ≤ 23 - 33 p/min/m

At LOS C, space is sufficient for normal walking speeds, and for

bypassing other pedestrian in primarily unidirectional streams.

Reverse-direction or crossing movements can cause minor

conflicts, and speeds and flow rate are somewhat lower

(source: HCM 2000)

LOS D


freedom to select individual walking speed and to bypass other

pedestrian is restricted. Crossing or reverse-flow movements face a

high probability of conflict,.

LOS E


all pedestrian restrict their normal walking speed, frequently

adjusting their gait. At the lower range, forward movement is

possible only by shuffling. Cross--flow movements are possible only

with extreme difficulties. Design volumes approach the limit of

walkway capacity, with stoppages and interruption to flow.

LOS F

Pedestrian Space ≤ 0.75 m2/p. Flow Rate varies

all walking speeds are severely restricted, and forward progress is

made only by shuffling. Cross- and reverse-flow movements are

virtually impossible. Flow is sporadic and unstable. Space is more

characteristic of queued pedestrian than of moving pedestrian

streams.


(source: HCM 2000)

KH

IST

Y’S

ME

TH

OD

Comfort Surface condition

Sidewalk condition

cleanliness

Convenience Obstacle free sidewalks

Barrier free facilities

Lowered kerb

Safety Width of carriage way

Traffic light

Police presecnce

System continuityCentral island

Parking restriction

Economy Cost

Delays in journey time

Category Satisfaction level

Points

LOS A ≥ 85% 5

LOS B ≥ 60% 4

LOS C ≥ 45% 3

LOS D ≥ 30% 2

LOS E ≥ 15 % 1

LOS F < 15% 0

• Khisty’s method is based upon factors that directly affect pedestrians

(Source: pedestrian facility plan for Trivandrum by Tessy Varkey, unpublished thesis report, 2012-23, page no-12)


Australian method Weight 0 points 1 point 2 points 3 points 4 points

Path Width 4 No Path 0-1 m 1.1-1.5 m 1.6-2.0m Over 2.1m

Surface Quality 5 Unsealed, many bumps

Poor Quality Moderate Quality Acceptable Quality Excellent Quality

Obstructions (per km)

3 Over 21 11 to 20 5 to 10 1 to 4 None

Crossing Opportunities

4 None, difficult Poorly Located Some, but not enough

adequate Dedicated crossings

Support Facilities

2 Non-existent Few and far between

Few and well located

Adequate Many well located

Connectivity 4 Non-existent Poor Reasonable Good Excellent

Path Environment

2 Unpleasant, close to vehicles

Poor, less than 1m of road

Acceptable within 1 or 2m

of road

Reasonable, within 2 or 3m of

road

Pleasant, over 3m from road

Potential for Conflict

3 Severe, over 25 per km

Poor, 16 to 25 per km

Moderate, 10 to 15 per km

Reasonable 1 to 10 per km

No vehicle conflicts

Pedestrian Volume

3 Over 350 per day 226 to 250 per day

151 to 225 per day

81 to 150 per day Less than 80 per day

Mix of Users 4 Majority of non-pedestrians

51 to 70% of non- pedestrians

21 to 50% of non- pedestrians

Under 20% non- pedestrians

Pedestrians only

Security 4 Unsafe Poor Reasonable Good Excellent



Landis method• Concentrates on factors that significantly influence the safety and comfort of the

pedestrian users• Considers sidewalk capacity and the quality of the walking experience as measures of

quality of pedestrian facilities operation

Where, Ls = Lateral separation Wol = Outside lane width (feet) Wl = Shoulder or bike lane width (feet) fp = On-street parking coefficient = 0.20 %OSP = Percent of segment with on-street parking fb = Buffer area barrier coefficient = 5.37 for trees spaced 20 feet on center Wb = Buffer width between edge of pavement and sidewalk (feet) fsw = Sidewalk presence coefficient = 6 – 0.3 Ws Ws = Sidewalk width (feet) Vol15 = Average 15 min motor vehicle traffic L = Total number of through lanes for street SPD = Average running speed of motor vehicles (miles per hour)


Gainesville Pedestrian LOS Performance MeasuresCategory Criteria Points

Pedestrian Facility(Max. value = 10)

Not continuous or non-existent 0Continuous on one side 4

Continuous on both sides 6Min. 1.53 m (5’) wide & barrier free 2

Sidewalk width >1.53 (5’) 1Off-street/parallel alternative facility 1

Conflicts(Max. value = 10)

Driveways & side streets 1Ped. Signal delay 40 sec. or less 0.5

Reduced turn conflict implementation 0.5

Crossing width 18.3 m (60’) or less 0.5

Posted speed 0.5

Medians present 1Amenities

(Max. value = 2)Buffer not less than 1m (3’5”) 1

Benches or pedestrian scale lighting 0.5

Shade trees 0.5

Motor Vehicle LOS(Max. value = 2)

LOS = E, F, or 6+ travel lanes 0LOS = D, & < 6 travel lanes 1

LOS = A, B, C, & < 6 travel lanes 2Maintenance

(Max. value = 2)Major or frequent problems -1

Minor or infrequent problems 0No problems 2

TDM/Multi Modal(Max. value = 1)

No support 0Support exists 1

calculations Segment score 21

Segment weight 1Adjusted segment score 21Corridor score 21=

LOS A

(Source: Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards- TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1538)

LOS A (17 – 21). Highly pedestrian oriented and will tend to attract pedestrian trips. LOS B (14 – 17). Provide many pedestrian safety and comfort features. LOS C (11 – 14). Adequate for pedestrian use, but may not necessarily attract pedestrian trips.LOS D (7 – 11). Adequate for pedestrian use, but will not attract pedestrian trips. LOS E (3 – 7). Inadequate for pedestrian use LOS F (≥ 3). Inadequate for pedestrian use. These roadways do not provide any continuous pedestrian facilities

• Evaluate roadway corridors using a point system of 1 to 21, results in LOS ratings from A - F


Comparison of MethodologiesMETHOD A B C D E F

HCM 2000 Space (sqm/Ped)

>5.6 3.7-5.6 2.2 - 3.7 1.4 - 2.2 0.75 - 1.4 <0.75

Flow Rate (Ped/min/m)

<16 16-23 23 - 33 33 - 49 49 - 75 varies

Speed (m/s) >1.30 1.27 - 1.30 1.22 - 1.27 1.14 - 1.27 0.75 - 1.14 < 0.75

V/CRatio <0.21 >0.21 - 0.31 >0.31 - 0.44 >0.44 - 0.65 >0.65 - 1.0 varies

Australian >132 101 - 131 69 - 100 37 - 68 <36 -

Khisty >85% satisfaction

>60% satisfaction

>45% satisfaction

>30% satisfaction

>15% satisfaction

<15% satisfaction

Landis <1.5 >1.5 but <2.5 >2.5 but <3.5 >3.5 but <4.5 >4.5 but <5.5 >5.5

Gainesville >17 >14-17 >11-14 >7-11 >3-7 3 or less.

Features HCM 2000 Trip Quality

Khisty Australian Landis Gainesville

Geometry Y Y N Y Y YFlow Y N N Y Y YPath N Y Y Y Y Y

Vehicle Conflicts N N Y Y N Y

Security N Y Y Y N NSupport Facilities N N Y Y N Y

Quality of path N Y Y Y N Y




CASE STUDY

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

• civic and commercial center of the City Lindenville

• industrial employment areahistoric

Downtown area

• comprised of industrial uses and office parksThe rest of the

City area

• diverse mix of land uses including hotels, restaurants, both small and large scale retail, the Medical Center, civic buildings, two BART stations and schools

El Camino Real

• residential with localized commercial uses, schools, and parks spread throughout

East of Hwy 101

The majority of sidewalks in San Fransisco are 5 feet wide or less making walking difficult. Obstructions in the footpath and unauthorized parking on the footpath make the walking very difficult. Missing sidewalks curb ramps and crosswalks makes walking even more difficult in the city.

South San Francisco city authority prepared a pedestrian master plan for the city. For the planning purpose the city was divided in to five zones according to the prevailing land use.

Recommended improvements in the master plan

1. Sidewalks• Fill in the gaps where sidewalks do not currently exist.• Improve existing sidewalks that do not meet ADA

standards.• At locations where obstacles are blocking the sidewalk,

the obstacles should either be removed, or the sidewalk should be widened to provide sufficient width for ADA access.

2. Intersection Crossing Treatments• Includes providing uniform crosswalk markings,

providing high visibility crossing treatments at high risk un-signalized crossings, providing pedestrian countdowns at signalized intersections, and providing pedestrian islands or median tips.

• High visibility crosswalks should be considered at un-signalized crossings. One uniform high visibility crossing treatment should be used throughout the City. Crossings near schools should be marked in yellow to designate that they are located in a school zone.


3. ADA access• Pedestrian signals should be placed with guidance

from the accessibility disability commission.• City’s driveway standards should be reviewed and

potentially updated to ensure that they meet ADA standards.

4. Speed Reduction Measures• Measures included in the traffic calming program are

divided into three categories: education and enforcement, speed reducing tools, and cut-through traffic reducing tools.

• Education and enforcement tools include neighborhood speed watch programs, neighborhood pace car programs, and targeted police enforcement.

• Speed reducing tools include high visibility crosswalks, textured pavements, in-pavement flashers, signage, edge line striping, curb extensions, traffic circles, raised crosswalks and raised intersections.

• Cut-through reduction tools include turn restrictions, median barriers, and channelizing barriers.


Recommended improvements in the master plan


Site-Specific concept plans

• Citywide sidewalk gap closure projectClosure of sidewalk gaps throughout the city will provide basic pedestrian connectivity and create opportunities for pedestrian trips between existing and future destinations. This is especially effective in the near-term through areas with high pedestrian demand as the investment will be immediately relevant by providing pedestrian access between existing origins and destinations that may lead to a switch to pedestrian mode.

• Neighborhood retail corridorA neighborhood retail corridor is proposed in Linden Avenue. This section is a key transit corridor and presents opportunities for increased commercial activity and pedestrian connection to nearby destinations.

• Residential neighborhood traffic calming improvements.Traffic calming improvements are proposed in Sunshine Avenue and Spruce Avenue. By installing traffic calming treatments along collector streets.

CITY OF MERCER ISLAND PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES PLAN

• Mercer Island is a city in King County, Washington, United States .• The population was 22,720 at 2013 Estimate from Office of Financial

Management. Located in the Seattle Metropolitan Area, it is the most populated island in a lake within the United States.

Development of the City of Mercer Island’s pedestrian and bicycle facilities has been guided by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities (PBF) Plan adopted in 1996. In 2007, the Mercer Island City Council directed that the PBF Plan be updated, identifying the following objectives:

• Identify and resolve key policy issues relating to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and use;

• Review and modify, if necessary, the existing Plan's goals, policies, project selection criteria and other recommendations;

• Evaluate and update facility design criteria; • Evaluate demand (assess traffic generators) and identify facility improvement

opportunities; • Update the Plan's project list, cost estimates and priorities; • Prepare an implementation strategy and procedures; • Identify ways the Plan can help achieve sustainability goals; • Coordinate Plan implementation with the annual Transportation Improvement

Program (TIP) update process.


Guiding Principles

Connectivity

The plan will provide a network of continuous links connecting employment, retail centers, schools, parks and other primary destinations with the Island’s neighborhoods

Sustainability

The plan will increase the opportunity for sustainable transportation choices by Island residents by facilitating pedestrian and bicycle movement as an alternative to the automobile

Safety

Facilities provided by the plan shall be designed to reduce conflicts between autos, bicyclists and pedestrians, and provide a safe system of facilities for all user groups, especially for children on routes between neighborhoods and schools.

VISION• Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will provide safe and convenient connections among

neighborhoods and key destinations• A variety of pedestrian and bicycle facility types will be provided, tailored to their

primary functions and users, and compatible with their environmental setting and community values.

• Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will provide recreational opportunities and integrate exercise into commute, shopping, school and other trips, contributing to a healthy lifestyle.

The main concerns/ priorities guiding the final plan are


• Provide more safe routes to school to encourage children to walk and bike to school. • Provide continuity in the most-used routes: Eliminate ‘disappearing shoulders’ and reduce

unnecessary crossings back and forth. • Complete/expand connectivity of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. • Provide more paths/trails for the exclusive use of pedestrians or sidewalks to and between

destinations. • Reduce conflicts between pedestrians/bicycles and bicycles/vehicles – along streets, trails, and

at intersections.

HIGHER PRIORITY

• Provide more maintenance of roadways and shoulders for bicycles and pedestrian use. • Enforce vehicular speed limit and enforce proper bicycle behavior on multi-use trails. • Provide more education of rules of the road and how to share the space available. • Promote sustainability by maximizing use of the facilities that currently exist. • Provide continuity in non-motorized facilities through Town Center.

MEDIUM PRIOROTY

• Provide bicycle amenities at more destinations. • Improve way finding signage

LOWER PRIORITY


DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BICYCLE FACILITIESThe guidelines seek to define the minimum dimensional criteria for development of safe facilities functioning under normal conditions. The guidelines address the following classifications of facilities:

• Use of existing ‘standard’ width lane on an existing road where traffic volumes, geometry, and design speeds allow safe bicycle use. Signage is provided that identifies these corridors as bike routes.

• Certain adjustments in the route are made where feasible, to accommodate cyclists, such as: providing bicycle detectors at traffic control devices, reducing or eliminating parking in areas to improve sight distance or provide sufficient width, increase maintenance to clear road debris.

Signed Shared Roadways

• Expansion of the paved roadway surface, outside of the edge stripe that designates the edge of the travel lane, provides additional space for bicyclists to operate..

Paved Shoulders

• : Immediately adjacent to the travel lanes, bike lanes are one-way facilities designated by striping, marking, and/or signage for exclusive or preferential use by bicycles

Bike Lanes

• exclusive rights of-way with minimal crossing of vehicular traffic, often referred to as trails, and accommodate multiple users including bicyclists, skaters, walkers, wheeled strollers, people walking dogs and runners,

Shared Use Paths

DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PEDESTRIAN FACILITIESThe guidelines address the following classifications of facilities:


• Where one side of the street is undeveloped, sidewalks may be provided only on the developed side of the street.

• To comply with ADA guidelines, newly constructed, reconstructed, or altered sidewalks must be accessible to persons with disabilities.

Sidewalks:

• An off-road path, paved or unpaved, can be an appropriate facility in areas where sufficient right-of way is available.

• separated, off-road paths for the exclusive use of pedestrians are the preferred pedestrian facility and should be provided where space in the right-of-way is available

Off-Road Paths

• : Where off-road paths are developed for use by both pedestrians and bicyclists, they are referred to as shared use paths.

Shared Use Paths

• Many local neighborhood streets are currently shared by automobiles, service vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles without physical separation among various users. Due to the low intensity of use, such naturally occurring ‘shared streets’ serve a variety of users without the need for separated sidewalks, paths or even widened shoulders.

Shared Streets

The plan was developed under the guidance of the City’s Pedestrian Advisory Committee and contains detailed implementation strategies focused upon 7 goals for making Minneapolis a great walking city where people choose to walk for transportation, recreation, and health:

Goal 1: A Well‐Connected Walkway System

Goal 2: Accessibility for All Pedestrians

Goal 3: Safe Streets and Crossings

Goal 4: A Pedestrian Environment that Fosters Walking

Goal 5: A Well‐Maintained Pedestrian System

Goal 6: A Culture of Walking

Goal 7: Funding, Tools and Leadership for Implementing Pedestrian Improvements

MINNEAPOLIS PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN


Goal 1: A well‐connected walkway system

• Establish sidewalks as standard infrastructure.• Investigate funding sources and legal mechanisms to fill sidewalk gaps.• Investigate and prioritize options to fill sidewalk gaps at parks, schools, cemeteries and railroad

crossings.• Track sidewalk gaps.

Objective 1: Complete the Sidewalk Network

• Add new pedestrian connections where possible.• Maintain existing pedestrian connections.

Objective 2: Maintain and Improve Pedestrian Network Connectivity

• Improve skyways consistent with the recommendations in the Access Minneapolis Downtown Transportation Action Plan.

• Evaluate existing skyway‐sidewalk connectivity.

Objective 3: Improve Skyway‐Sidewalk Connectivity

• Implement pedestrian way finding improvements where needed and where maintenance responsibilities are established.

• Develop citywide way finding signage guidelines.

Objective 4: Improve Pedestrian Way finding Information


• Prepare and maintain an updated Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan.

• Inventory and prioritize corrections to accessibility barriers at curbs.• Inventory and prioritize corrections to accessibility barriers on sidewalk

corridors.• Inventory and prioritize corrections to accessibility barriers on pedestrian

bridges.

Objective 1: Identify & Remove Accessibility Barriers on Pedestrian Facilities

• Improve the curb ramp standard template.• Review and update the standard specifications for best practices in accessible

design.• Establish regular staff training programs and materials on accessible design.• Update design standards and guidance as accessibility standards are

improved.

Objective 2: Improve and Institutionalize Best Design Practices for Accessibility

Goal 2: Accessibility for all pedestrians


Goal 3: Safe streets and crossings

• Investigate the cause of pedestrian‐related crashes at high crash intersections and corridors.• Review pedestrian‐related traffic crashes regularly.• Investigate improvements to pedestrian‐related crash reporting.

Objective 1: Reduce Pedestrian‐Related Crashes

• Educate pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists about rights and responsibilities.• Enforce traffic laws.

Objective 2: Promote Safe Behaviour for Drivers, Bicyclists and Pedestrians

• Continue to implement the School Pedestrian Safety Program.• Investigate creation of new focused pedestrian safety improvement programs for other vulnerable

users.

Objective 3: Improve Pedestrian Safety for the Most Vulnerable Users

• Improve the visibility of crosswalk pavement markings.• Investigate potential improvements to the current crosswalk marking practice.

Objective 5: Improve Crosswalk Markings

• Inventory and prioritize corrections to accessibility barriers at traffic signals.• Develop a plan for installing pedestrian countdown signals citywide.• Evaluate signal timing for pedestrians in all signal retiming efforts.• Inventory and prioritize corrections to accessibility barriers at signal push buttons.• Explore new technologies for pedestrian signal actuation and push buttons

Objective 4: Improve Traffic Signals for Pedestrians


• Design streets with sufficient sidewalk and boulevard width for all required uses of the Pedestrian Zone.

Objective 1: Design Streets with Sufficient Space for Pedestrian Needs

• Implement a coordinated street furniture program.• Continue to provide trash receptacles for pedestrian use.• Continue to implement the Art in Public Places program and other arts partnerships that enhance the pedestrian

environment.

Objective 4: Provide Street Furniture Appropriate for Pedestrian Needs

• Design bridges and underpasses for pedestrians.

Objective 2: Design Bridges and Underpasses for Pedestrian Needs

• Implement the street lighting policy.• Encourage private property owner participation in night‐time lighting efforts.

Objective 3: Provide Appropriate Street Lighting for Pedestrian Needs

• Investigate innovative and practical ways to create vibrant public spaces for pedestrians.

Objective 5: Foster Vibrant Public Spaces for Street Life

• Develop tree and landscaping design guidelines.

Objective 6: Foster Healthy Trees and Greening along Sidewalks

Goal 4: A pedestrian environment that fosters walking


• Create a social norm of snow clearance through communications and education.• Establish priorities for sidewalk snow clearance, including high pedestrian traffic areas.• Improve enforcement and monitoring of private property owner responsibilities for snow clearance.• Support property owners with snow and ice clearance assistance options.• Explore reducing city snow clearance responsibilities on pedestrian facilities.

Objective 1: Ensure Effective Snow and Ice Clearance for Pedestrians

• Inspect and repair sidewalks in an effective time frame.• Prioritize and implement improvements to sidewalks at railroad crossings.• Continue to coordinate the annual sidewalk repair program with repair of sidewalks adjacent to public property.

Objective 2: Maintain Sidewalks in Good Repair

• Enforce sidewalk café standards.• Review and consider updates to the City’s existing sidewalk café standards.• Implement and enforce the news rack ordinance.• Educate the public on requirements and best practices for maintaining the public right‐of way and reporting

problems.

Objective 3: Manage Encroachments on Sidewalks

• Develop guidelines for safety and accessibility in work zones.• Establish regular staff training programs and materials on the City’s practices for safety and accessibility in work

zones.• Re‐examine the City’s existing policy and rate structure for sidewalk closures.

Objective 4: Maintain Pedestrian Safety and Accessibility in Construction Zones

Goal 5: A well‐maintained pedestrian system


• Implement the Minneapolis Safe Routes to Schools Plan.• Promote walking to youth events.

Objective 1: Promote Walking for Youth

• Promote walking for health purposes.• Promote walking to work.

Objective 2: Promote Walking for Adults

• Develop walking maps.• Develop walking tours• Promote/develop public walking celebrations.• Foster positive public messaging about walking.

Objective 3: Showcase and Celebrate Great Walking Experiences

Goal 6: A culture of walking


• Utilize and improve the City’s Design Guidelines for Streets and Sidewalks.

Objective 1: Implement Best Practices for Pedestrian Facility Design

• Develop a pedestrian improvement program.• Evaluate all infrastructure projects for potential pedestrian improvement opportunities.• Coordinate the pedestrian improvement program with other improvement opportunities.

Objective 2: Integrate Pedestrian Improvements into Capital Improvement Programs

• Improve how Travel Demand Management Plans address pedestrian needs.• Evaluate methods to quantify pedestrian needs.• Measure pedestrian demand.• Evaluate the effectiveness of pedestrian improvements.

Objective 3: Improve Tools to Identify, Plan, Design, & Evaluate Pedestrian Improvements

• Continue and improve the Pedestrian Advisory Committee.• Encourage public reporting of pedestrian issues to 311.• Support neighbourhood advocacy for pedestrian improvements

Objective 4: Foster Effective Pedestrian Advocacy and Stewardship

• Investigate increased use of public‐private partnerships.• Investigate cost‐sharing programs.• Investigate creation of broader improvement districts.

Objective 5: Pursue New Funding Tools for Pedestrian Facilities

Goal 7: Funding, tools and leadership for implementing pedestrian improvements

PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES , NEW DELHI

EXISTING SCENARIO

• 34% of the population engages in” Walk-only” trips for their daily travels, needs or errands.

• Only 14% population of Delhi rives private cars.

• 40% of the total road length of Delhi has NO sidewalks • And the ones having sidewalks, lack in quality in terms of surface, width and

geometrics.• Car-oriented design priority and discouragement of walking through inadequate

design – has discouraged people from walking and in turn encouraged car-dependency

• Pollution levels in Delhi are almost double of Mumbai, a city more populated than Delhi.


GOAL 1: MOBILITY AND ACCCESSIBILITY Maximum number of people should be able to move fast, safely and conveniently through the city.

GOAL 2: SAFETY AND COMFORT Make streets safe clean and walkable, create climate sensitive design.

GOAL 3: ECOLOGY Reduce impact on the natural environment; and Reduce pressure on built infrastructure.

Mobility Goals:To ensure preferable public transport use:

1. To Retrofit Streets for equal or higher priority for Public Transit and Pedestrians.

2. Provide transit-oriented mixed land use patterns and re-densify city within 10 minutes walk of MRTS stops.

3. Provide dedicated lanes for HOVs (high occupancy vehicles) and carpool during peak hours.


Safety, Comfort Goals:

1. Create “eyes on the street” – by removing setbacks and boundary walls and building to the edge of the street ROW.

2. Require commercial facades to have minimum 30% transparency.

3. Provide adequate Street Lighting for pedestrians and bicycles.

4. Create commercial/ hawking zones at regular intervals (10 minute walk from every home in the city) to encourage walkability, increase street activity and provide safety.


Safety, Comfort GoalsTo ensure universal accessibility and amenities for all street users:1. Provide at-grade crosswalks (and

overpasses on highways) at maximum intervals of ~70-250 M, aligning with location of transit

2. stops, type of street / land use activities and neighbouring building entries and destinations.

3. Provide Dustbins, post-boxes, signage and other public amenities at street corners for high usability.

4. Provide Accessible Public Toilets at every 500 -800 M distance – preferably located close to bus stops for easy access by pedestrians and public transport users.

5. Follow universal accessibility design standards to make public streets & crosswalks fully navigable by the physically handicapped.


Ecological Goals:To reduce urban Heat Island Effect and aid natural storm water management:

1. Decrease impervious surfaces through permeable paving, tree planting zones, etc. to increase ground water infiltration & prevent seasonal flooding.

2. Integrate Natural Storm Water filtration and absorption into street design through bio-filtration beds, swales and detention ponds.

3. Decrease Heat Island Effect (HIE) by increasing greenery, planting trees, using reflective paving, etc.


SURVEY PROCEDURE

SURVEY PROCEDURE & DATA COLLECTION

PRIMARY SURVEYS• Road inventory surveys • Inventory of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructures• Pedestrian traffic surveys• Opinion survey of pedestrians• Traffic volume surveys• Non-motorized transport survey

FIELD SURVEY DATA TO COLLECT • · Roadway vehicle traffic volumes and speeds.• · Intersection design, roadway and road shoulder widths, and pavement conditions.• · Non-motorized traffic volumes and speeds, and available accident data.• · Special hazards to walking and cycling (potholes, dangerous drain grates on road shoulders and curb lanes, etc.).• · Crosswalk, sidewalk, and path conditions (width, surface condition, sight distance, etc.).• · Curb cuts, ramps and other universal access facilities.• · Lighting along streets and paths.• · Presence of parked cars adjacent to the traffic lane.• · Bicycle parking facilities, public washrooms, and other services along trails and bike routes• .· Security, cleanliness, vandalism, litter, and aesthetic conditions.• · Community demographics (age, income, etc.)• · Presence of activity centres that attract non-motorized travel (schools, colleges, resorts, etc.)• · Land use factors, including density and mix, street connectivity, and building site design.• · Topography and climate.

Identification issues

Formulation of aim, objective and scope of study

Literature review and case studies

Data collection

Primary data

- Pedestrian and vehicular volume count survey

- Pedestrian speed survey

- Opinion survey-Road inventory survey--user preference survey-Non motorized transport survey

Secondary data

- Land use maps

- Traffic data

- Parking data

- Accident data

Analysis

AssessmentLocating problem

areasIdentification of

potential and constraints

Pedestrian and bicycle network guidelines

Proposals

METHODOLOGY

THANK YOU

pedestrian and bicycle facility planning for kochi city region, part 2 data collection

Education

level of pedestrian

pedestrian mobility

existing pedestrian

pedestrian way

density of pedestrian

pedestrian density pm2

safety of pedestrian

unidirectional flow