Walkability and Pedestrian
Facilities in Asian Cities
Sameera Kumar Anthapur
Transport Researcher
Sudhir Gota
Technical Manager
Transed 2012
New Delhi
20 September 2012
1
How walkable are our cities?
“improving walkability entails improvement not only in the physical
infrastructure but equally in the minds of people”
2
Lanzhou
3
Davao
4
Jakarta
5
Ho Chi Minh City
6
Hyderabad
7
Manila
8
How people travel in Asian cities is
changing
cities which has more than 75% of trips by bus, metro, cycles and walking
CAI-Asia, 2011
cities which have 50 to 75% of trips by bus, metro, cycle and walking.
cities with 50% of trips by private modes such as two wheelers, cars, taxis etc.
http://transport-solutions.blogspot.com/2010/07/trip-mode-share-in-asia-what-does.html
9
Walkability surveys in Asia – 23 cities
10
Walkability Assessment Methodology
Walkability Assessment - residential, educational, commercial, public
transport terminals
• Field Walkability Surveys (modified Global Walkability Index)
•
•
Pre-identified routes
9 Parameters - Walking Path Modal Conflict, Availability of Walking Paths,
Availability of Crossings , Grade Crossing Safety, Motorist Behavior,
Amenities, Disability Infrastructure , Obstructions, Security from Crime
• Pedestrian Preference Interview Surveys
• Profile of the respondents – travel behavior
• Preference of the respondents on walkability and pedestrian
facilities improvements
• Survey on Policies and Guidelines & Stakeholder survey
11
Walkability Results
12
Field Walkability Assessment Results (1)
100
90
"Pleasure to walk"
80
70
60
"Waiting To walk"
50
40
30
"Walk at your own risk"
20
10
-
Walking environment varies significantly depending upon the location
13
Field Walkability Assessments Results (2)
Cebu
Surat 80
Rajkot
60
Pune
Colombo
Davao
61
Commercial
47
Hanoi
40
Indore
20
Chennai
HCM
Jakarta
Bangalore
41
Other Asian Cites
Average
Hong Kong
0
Bhubaneshwar
54
Public Transport
Terminals
India Average
57
Educational
48
Karachi
Ulaanbataar
Kathmandu
Lanzhou
Male
56
Residential
51
Manila
Residential
Educational
Public Transport Terminals
Commercial
0
20
40
60
80
14
Field Walkability Assessment Results (3)
9. Security from Crime
60
8. Obstructions
61
39
29
6. Amenities
75
56
52
7. Disability Infrastructure
56
49
36
5. Motorist Behavior
3. Availability Of Crossings
Average Other Asian City
68
60
47
68
53
2. Availability Of Walking Paths
1. Walking Path Modal Conflict
10
20
30
40
50
73
80
65
52
0
Average Indian city
74
58
45
Average Hong Kong
72
58
48
4. Grade Crossing Safety
73
63
60
70
80
90
15
Pedestrian Preference Survey Results (1)
Ulaanbaatar,
266
Cebu, 301
Surat, 337
Chennai, 300
Colombo, 170
Rajkot, 370
Davao, 287
Pune, 309
Hanoi, 500
Manila, 304
Lanzhou, 204
HCM, 500
Kota, 256
Kathmandu,
305
Karachi, 272
Jakarta, 250
Indore, 300
Hong Kong,
1,029
People Interviewed in 19cities > 6,500
1.
2.
3.
4.
30% of people interviewed came from households without motorized vehicles
Majority of people (61%) were in the age group 15-30 years
Walking constitutes 40% of trip mode share.
67% of all trips are less than 30 minutes and less than 6 km
16
Pedestrian Preference Survey Results (2)
• 42 % - the pedestrian environment is “bad” or “very bad”
• 15% - facilities are “good” or “very good”
• Respondents top priority:
1. Wider, level and clean sidewalks/ footpaths
2. Reduced/slower traffic on the road
3. Removal of obstacles/ parked cars from sidewalks/ footpaths
• Crossings
• 47% prefer at-grade crossings and 33% skywalks
• 74% prefer crossings that are within 100 meters
17
Pedestrian Preference Survey Results (3)
Motorcycle,
16%
Car/Taxi, 24%
Tempo, 7%
No, I will not
shift, 25%
Cycle, 13%
Bus/Microvans,
15%
Without improvements in pedestrian facilities, 75% of respondents
would shift from walking to other modes when affordable
18
Policies, Institutions and Guidelines
Survey Results (1)
Policies and Guidelines - Sri Lanka
10% of urban road space for NMT - Action Plan for Traffic
Management in Greater Colombo (2008)
Policies and Guidelines - Traffic and Road Transport Act of
Indonesia
If a pedestrian crossing does not exist, pedestrians must take
care of their own safety when crossing the road and people
with disabilities must wear special signs that are visible to
motorists
19
Policies, Institutions and Guidelines
Survey Results (3)
Policies and Guidelines: Indian Road Congress
• Footpath separated with carriageway with an insurmountable kerb
• Pedestrian crossings at mid block only when the distance between
intersections is minimum of 300m.
• Provision of controlled crossings at mid blocks when peak hour
volumes of pedestrians and vehicles are such that PV2 > 1 million
(Undivided carriageway), PV2> 2 million (divided carriageway) ,
Stream speed of greater than 65 kph
City Development Plans
• The trend is towards building few pedestrian overpasses and
improving few kilometers of footpath. Majority of the emphasis is
on the public transport and increase in road space.
20
Policies, Institutions and Guidelines
Survey Results (4)
Dedicated Institutions
• Lack of dedicated institutional responsibility and
legal and financial resources in support of pedestrian
needs
• Multiple agencies but who owns the footpaths?
• Political support is barrier in promoting improvement
of pedestrian facilities considering the significant
number of pedestrians and public transport
commuters
21
Policies, Institutions and Guidelines
Survey Results (5)
Allocation of Resources
• Most cities do not allocate sufficient resources for pedestrian
facility improvement or these are not relevant to pedestrian needs
• Bangladesh (Dhaka)
• 0.24% of the municipal budget to pedestrian facilities for next
20 years
• India (Bangalore)
• 0.6% of total budget for next 20 years
• Future vision/target – Pedestrian trip mode share to be 20%
after 20 years
• Ratio of investment on footpaths and on "skywalks" = 25 to 75%
- Bangalore Pedestrian Policy, BMLTA (2009)
22
Walkability surveys to measure success of the
project
23
Effective Media Strategy
Over 40 news articles, with potential readership of 4.4 million
24
Walkabilityasia.org - Home Page
Over 4000 hits in 90 days !
25
Walkabilityasia.org - Facebook page
Over 140 ‘likes’ and growing
26
Boon or bane?
Using the same money required for
constructing 1 km metro, one can, on
average, construct 350 km of new
quality sidewalks !!
Is it lack of resources?
No space ?
No demand?
Lack of expertise?
Times of India - 16 Apr 2010
27
Acknowledgments
Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation
• Lanzhou, China: Shan Huang from CAI-Asia China Office, and Prof. Yongping Bai and his students at the Northwest Normal University in
Lanzhou, China
• Karachi, Pakistan: Arif Pervaiz from Karachi and his students, Aatika Khan, Kanwal Fatima, Sadia Mehmood, Al Amin Nathani, Owais Hasan,
Obeda Mehmood, and Rida Kamran
• Jakarta, Indonesia: Dollaris Suhadi, Mariana Sam and Anthony Octaviano from Swisscontact Indonesia
• Kota, India: Harjinder Parwana and Vipul Sharma from CAI-Asia India Office
• Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia: Prof. Sereeter Lodoysamba and his students at the National University of Mongolia
• Cebu and Manila, Philippines: Ernesto Abaya from the College of Engineering and the National Center for Transportation Studies of the
University of the Philippines,, and Paul Villarete, Delight Baratbate and other staff of the Cebu City Government Planning Office
• Ha Noi and Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam: Phan Quynh Nhu from Vietnam Clean Air Partnership (CAI-Asia Country Network) , and Khuat Viet
Hung and Nguyen Thanh Hoa from the Institute of Transport Planning and Management, University of Transport and Communication
• Chennai – RajCherubal, Shreya and Chris Kost (ITDP), Prof Madhav Badami (Mcgill University), Prof Sudhir Chella Rajan,
Manjari,Preshant,Gayathri and Oviya Govindan (IIT Madras)
• Bhubaneshwar – Vipul Sharma (IUCN), Piyush Ranjan Raut (City Managers Association Orrisa), Choudhury Rudra Charan Mohanty (UNCRD)
• Pune – Ashok Sreenivas, Robert Obenaus, kittykanchan and Ranjit Gadgil (Parisar), Nitin Warrier (ITDP)
• Bangalore – Bharat Kumar ( Vijaya College)
Special thanks to Fredkorpset Norway for co-funding the conduct of walkability surveys under the Blue Skies Exchange Program in partnership
with CAI-Asia Center and:
• Hong Kong SAR, PRC: Prof Wing-tat Hung from Hong Kong Polytechnic University, host to Sampath Aravinda Ranasinghe and Anjila
Manandhar
• Kathmandu, Nepal: Gopal Joshi from Clean Air Network Nepal and Clean Energy Nepal, host to Charina Cabrido
• Colombo, Sri Lanka:Thusitha Sugathapala from Clean Air Sri Lanka host to Joy Bailey
• Davao, Philippines: CAI-Asia Center, host to Vu Tat Dat
• Holly Krambeck, and Jitu Shah
28
• CAI Asia Center Collegues
• Sustran, CAI Asia COP members
For more information:
www.cleanairinitiative.org
CAI-Asia Center
center@cai-asia.org
Unit 3505 Robinsons-Equitable Tower
ADB Avenue, Pasig City
Metro Manila 1605
Philippines
CAI-Asia China Office
CAI-Asia India Office
cpo@cai-asia.org
901A Reignwood Building,
No. 8 YongAnDongLi
Jianguomenwai Avenue Beijing
China
india@cai-asia.org
Building no.4, 1st floor,
Near Thygaraj Stadium
Lodhi Colony , New Delhi
India
CAI-Asia Country Networks
China
. India . Indonesia . Nepal . Pakistan . Philippines . Sri Lanka . Vietnam
231 CAI-Asia Partnership Members
CAI-Asia Center Members
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
45 Cities
19 Environment ministries
13 Other Government agencies
17 Development agencies & foundations
67 NGOs
37 Academic and research institutes
33 Private sector companies
Donors in 2012
Asian Development Bank  Cities Development Initiative for Asia 
ClimateWorks Foundation  DHL/IKEA/UPS  Energy Foundation 
Fredskorpset Norway  Fu Tak Iam Foundation  German International
Cooperation (GIZ)  Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) 
Institute for Transport Policy Studies  Institute for Transportation and
Development Policy  International Union for Conservation of Nature 
MAHA  Rockefeller Brothers Fund  United Nations Environment Program
Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles (UNEP PCFV)  Veolia  World
Bank
29