Pedestrian and Bicycle facility planning for kochi city region, part 2 data collection

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE
FACILITY PLANNING FOR
KOCHI CITY REGION
ARUN C BABU
12AR60R09
MCP 2ND YEAR

STUDY AREA

RAILWAY STATION
BOAT JETTY
KSRTC BUS STAND
PRIVATE BUS STAND
HIGH COURT
INTERNATIONAL
STADIUM
MOBILITY HUB

STUDY AREA

PROPOSED METRO
STATIONS

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 vehiclepedestrian conflicts and introduction of GPS driven bicycles.

PEDESTRIAN FLOW CHARECTERISTICS

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

SPEED – DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS
As volume and density increase, pedestrian speed declines
Unidirectional & bidirectional flow

Restrained and normal flow

Exclusive and non-exclusive

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


FLOW – DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS
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.




CURRENT POLICIES
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.

GUIDELINES FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
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 facilities
AASHTO (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.

BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES

Pavement factor

RCI index range

Classification

0 to 3

Excellent

3 to 4

Good

4 to 5

Fair

5 or above

Poor

Location factor

0.50 = cracking
0.25 = patching
0.25 = weathering
0.25 – 0.50 = potholes depending on
severity
0.25 – 0.50 = rough road edge
depending on severity
0.25 = railroad crossing
0.50 = rough or angled railroad grade
crossing
0.50 = drainage grates

0.75 = angle parking
0.25 = parallel parking
0.25 = 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 lane
0.50 = severe grade
0.20 = moderate grade
0.35 = frequent horizontal curves
0.50 = restricted sight distance
0.25 = numerous driveways
0.25 = industrial land use
0.25 = commercial land use

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
Bicycle facility provided (max Outside lane 3.66m
value = 10)
Outside lane> 3.66m – 4.27m
Outside lane > 4.27m
Off street/ parallel alternative facility
Conflicts
Driveways & side streets
(max value = 4)
Barrier free
No on-street parking
Medians present
Unrestricted sight distance
Intersection implementation
Speed differential
>48 KPH ( >30 MPH)
(max value = 2)
40 – 48 KPH (25 – 30 MPH)
24 – 32 KPH (15 - 20 MPH)
Motor vehicle LOS
LOS = E,F, or 6 or more travel lanes
(max value = 2)
LOS = D, and <6 travel lanes
LOS = A,B,C and <6 travel lanes

POINTS
0
5
6
4
1
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
1
2
0
1
2

Maintenance
(max value = 2)

-1
0
2
0
1
21
1
21
21 = LOS A

TDM/ multimodal
(max value = 1)
Calculations

Major or frequent problems
Minor or infrequent problems
No problems
No support
Support exists
Segment score
Segment weight
Adjusted segment score
Corridor score

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

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 vehicle
LOS F (≥ 3). These roadways
do not provide any bicycle
facilities.

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)


KHISTY’S METHOD

Comfort

Surface condition
Sidewalk condition
cleanliness

Convenience

Obstacle free sidewalks
Barrier free facilities
Lowered kerb

Safety

Width of carriage way
Traffic light
Police presecnce

• Khisty‟s method is based
upon factors that directly
affect pedestrians
Category Satisfaction
level

Points

LOS A

Economy

Cost
Delays in journey time

5

LOS B

≥ 60%

4

LOS C

≥ 45%

3

LOS D

≥ 30%

2

LOS E

≥ 15 %

1

LOS F

System continuity

Central island
Parking restriction

≥ 85%

< 15%

0

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

Australian method
Path Width

Weight
4

Surface Quality

5

Obstructions
(per km)
Crossing
Opportunities
Support
Facilities
Connectivity
Path
Environment

2

Potential for
Conflict
Pedestrian
Volume
Mix of Users

3

Security

4

0 points
No Path

1 point
0-1 m

2 points
1.1-1.5 m

3 points
1.6-2.0m

4 points
Over 2.1m

Poor Quality

3

Unsealed, many
bumps
Over 21

11 to 20

5 to 10

1 to 4

None

4

None, difficult

Poorly Located

adequate

Dedicated crossings

2

Non-existent

Adequate

Many well located

4

Non-existent

Few and far
between
Poor

Some, but not
enough
Few and well
located
Reasonable

Good

Excellent

3
4

Moderate Quality Acceptable Quality Excellent Quality

Unpleasant, close to Poor, less than
vehicles
1m of road

Acceptable
Reasonable,
Pleasant, over 3m
within 1 or 2m within 2 or 3m of
from road
of road
road
Severe, over 25 per Poor, 16 to 25 Moderate, 10 to Reasonable 1 to No vehicle conflicts
km
per km
15 per km
10 per km
Over 350 per day 226 to 250 per 151 to 225 per 81 to 150 per day Less than 80 per day
day
day
Majority of non51 to 70% of
21 to 50% of
Under 20% nonPedestrians only
pedestrians
nonpedestrians nonpedestrians
pedestrians
Unsafe

Poor

Reasonable

Good

Excellent

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

Gainesville Pedestrian LOS Performance Measures
Category

Criteria

Points

0.5

Crossing width 18.3 m (60‟) or less

Conflicts
(Max. value = 10)

0
4
6
2
1
1
1
0.5

Reduced turn conflict implementation

Pedestrian Facility
(Max. value = 10)

Not continuous or non-existent
Continuous on one side
Continuous on both sides
Min. 1.53 m (5‟) wide & barrier free
Sidewalk width >1.53 (5‟)
Off-street/parallel alternative facility
Driveways & side streets
Ped. Signal delay 40 sec. or less

0.5

Posted speed
Amenities
(Max. value = 2)

Medians present
Buffer not less than 1m (3‟5”)
Benches or pedestrian scale lighting
Shade trees

Motor Vehicle LOS
(Max. value = 2)
Maintenance
(Max. value = 2)
TDM/Multi Modal
(Max. value = 1)
calculations

LOS = E, F, or 6+ travel lanes
LOS = D, & < 6 travel lanes
LOS = A, B, C, & < 6 travel lanes
Major or frequent problems
Minor or infrequent problems
No problems
No support
Support exists
Segment score
Segment weight
Adjusted segment score
Corridor score

0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
1
2
-1
0
2
0
1
21

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

1
21
21=
LOS
A
(Source: Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards- TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1538)

Comparison of Methodologies
METHOD

A

B

C

D

E

F

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

>17

>14-17

>11-14

>7-11

>3-7

3 or less.

HCM 2000

Gainesville


Features

HCM 2000

Geometry
Flow
Path

Y
Y
N

Vehicle Conflicts

N

Security
Support Facilities
Quality of path

Trip
Quality
Y
N
Y

Khisty

Australian

Landis

Gainesville

N
N
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

N
N

Y
N

Y
Y

Y
Y

N
N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N


SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
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.
Lindenville

historic
Downtown area

• civic and commercial center of the City

• industrial employment area

The rest of the
City area

• comprised of industrial uses and office parks

El Camino Real

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

East of Hwy 101

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

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.

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 unsignalized 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.

Recommended improvements in the master plan
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.

Site-Specific concept plans

• Citywide sidewalk gap closure project
Closure 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 corridor
A 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.


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.

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.


The main concerns/ priorities guiding the final plan are
HIGHER PRIORITY
• 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.

MEDIUM PRIOROTY
• 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.
LOWER PRIORITY
• Provide bicycle amenities at more destinations.
• Improve way finding signage


DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BICYCLE FACILITIES
The 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:
Signed Shared Roadways
• 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.
Paved Shoulders
• 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..
Bike Lanes
• : 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
Shared Use Paths
• 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,


DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The guidelines address the following classifications of facilities:
Sidewalks:
• 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.
Off-Road Paths
• 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
Shared Use Paths
• : Where off-road paths are developed for use by both pedestrians and
bicyclists, they are referred to as shared use paths.
Shared Streets
• 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.

MINNEAPOLIS PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

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


Goal 1: A well‐connected walkway system
Objective 1: Complete the Sidewalk Network
• 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 2: Maintain and Improve Pedestrian Network Connectivity
• Add new pedestrian connections where possible.
• Maintain existing pedestrian connections.
Objective 3: Improve Skyway‐Sidewalk Connectivity
• Improve skyways consistent with the recommendations in the Access Minneapolis Downtown
Transportation Action Plan.
• Evaluate existing skyway‐sidewalk connectivity.
Objective 4: Improve Pedestrian Way finding Information
• Implement pedestrian way finding improvements where needed and where maintenance
responsibilities are established.
• Develop citywide way finding signage guidelines.


Goal 2: Accessibility for all pedestrians
Objective 1: Identify & Remove Accessibility Barriers on
Pedestrian Facilities
• 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 2: Improve and Institutionalize Best Design
Practices for Accessibility
• 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.


Goal 3: Safe streets and crossings
Objective 1: Reduce Pedestrian‐Related Crashes
• 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 2: Promote Safe Behaviour for Drivers, Bicyclists and
Pedestrians
• Educate pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists about rights and responsibilities.
• Enforce traffic laws.
Objective 3: Improve Pedestrian Safety for the Most Vulnerable Users
• Continue to implement the School Pedestrian Safety Program.
• Investigate creation of new focused pedestrian safety improvement programs for other vulnerable
users.
Objective 5: Improve Crosswalk Markings
• Improve the visibility of crosswalk pavement markings.
• Investigate potential improvements to the current crosswalk marking practice.
Objective 4: Improve Traffic Signals for Pedestrians
• 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


Goal 4: A pedestrian environment that fosters walking
Objective 1: Design Streets with Sufficient Space for Pedestrian Needs

• Design streets with sufficient sidewalk and boulevard width for all required uses of the Pedestrian Zone.
Objective 4: Provide Street Furniture Appropriate 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 2: Design Bridges and Underpasses for Pedestrian Needs
• Design bridges and underpasses for pedestrians.
Objective 3: Provide Appropriate Street Lighting for Pedestrian Needs
• Implement the street lighting policy.
• Encourage private property owner participation in night‐time lighting efforts.
Objective 5: Foster Vibrant Public Spaces for Street Life
• Investigate innovative and practical ways to create vibrant public spaces for pedestrians.
Objective 6: Foster Healthy Trees and Greening along Sidewalks
• Develop tree and landscaping design guidelines.


Goal 5: A well‐maintained pedestrian system
Objective 1: Ensure Effective Snow and Ice Clearance for Pedestrians
•
•
•
•
•

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 2: Maintain Sidewalks in Good Repair
• 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 3: Manage Encroachments on Sidewalks
•
•
•
•

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 4: Maintain Pedestrian Safety and Accessibility in Construction Zones
• 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.


Goal 6: A culture of walking
Objective 1: Promote Walking for Youth

• Implement the Minneapolis Safe Routes to Schools Plan.
• Promote walking to youth events.
Objective 2: Promote Walking for Adults

• Promote walking for health purposes.
• Promote walking to work.
Objective 3: Showcase and Celebrate Great Walking
Experiences
•
•
•
•

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


Goal 7: Funding, tools and leadership for implementing pedestrian improvements
Objective 1: Implement Best Practices for Pedestrian Facility Design
• Utilize and improve the City‟s Design Guidelines for Streets and Sidewalks.
Objective 2: Integrate Pedestrian Improvements into Capital Improvement
Programs
• Develop a pedestrian improvement program.
• Evaluate all infrastructure projects for potential pedestrian improvement opportunities.
• Coordinate the pedestrian improvement program with other improvement opportunities.
Objective 3: Improve Tools to Identify, Plan, Design, & Evaluate Pedestrian
Improvements
•
•
•
•

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 4: Foster Effective Pedestrian Advocacy and Stewardship
• Continue and improve the Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
• Encourage public reporting of pedestrian issues to 311.
• Support neighbourhood advocacy for pedestrian improvements
Objective 5: Pursue New Funding Tools for Pedestrian Facilities
• Investigate increased use of public‐private partnerships.
• Investigate cost‐sharing programs.
• Investigate creation of broader improvement districts.

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 cardependency
• 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
transport use:

public

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 Goals
To 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 & 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.

METHODOLOGY

Primary data
- Pedestrian and
vehicular volume count
survey
- Pedestrian speed
survey
- Opinion survey
-Road inventory survey
--user preference survey
-Non motorized transport
survey

Identification issues

Formulation of aim, objective and
scope of study

Secondary data
- Land use maps
- Traffic data

Literature review and case studies

- Parking data
- Accident data

Data collection
Analysis

Assessment

Locating problem
areas

Pedestrian and bicycle
network guidelines
Proposals

Identification of
potential and
constraints

Pedestrian and Bicycle facility planning for kochi city region, part 2 data collection

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Pedestrian and Bicycle facility planning for kochi city region, part 2 data collection

Semelhante a Pedestrian and Bicycle facility planning for kochi city region, part 2 data collection (20)

Mais de Arun Chandra Babu

Mais de Arun Chandra Babu (9)

Último

Último (20)

Pedestrian and Bicycle facility planning for kochi city region, part 2 data collection