Nota Teknik (Jalan) 18/97
Basic Guidelines on
Pedestrian Facilities
7.0m
5.0m
Roads Branch
Public Works Department Malaysia
Jalan Sultan Salahuddin
50582 Kuala Lumpur
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities
Introduction
Pedestrians are highly vulnerable road users and they form the second largest group of road users
killed on Malaysian roads. In 1995, there were 5286 pedestrian casualties in traffic accidents, of
which 711 were deaths. The majority of these (67%) involved people crossing roads, whereas
about 33% involved people walking along (or working on) the road.
Cawangan Jalan, Ibu Pejabat JKR, K.L
Page 1
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities
PROVIDING FOR PEDESTRIANS
Existing Facilities For Pedestrians
Crossing Roads
The current facilities provided in Malaysia to
assist pedestrians in crossing busy roads
include:
Š
Š
Š
Š
Š
Pedestrian Bridges and Subways,
Signalised Pedestrian Crossings,
Pedestrian (`Zebra') Crossings,
School Children's Crossings,
Combined `Zebra' and Signalised Pedestrian
Crossings.
In respect to pedestrian bridges and subways,
there is strong evidence that the majority of
those which have been built across non-expressway routes have poor utilisation. For example a
study of 10 pedestrian bridges in and around
Kuantan Pahang, showed utilisation at some
sites was less than 10 %. although at few sites
utilisation was higher than 80%. A similar study
of a Pedestrian Subway under Jalan SS l 64 (in
the Bandar Utama area) had less than 20% utilisation.
In respect to 'Zebra' type pedestrian crossings,
there is considerable confusion about the obligations of vehicle drivers and pedestrians at this
type of crossing. There is generally poor observance of the `give -way' obligation by vehicle
drivers when pedestrians enter the crossing and
there appears,to be little or no enforcement of
this obligation by the police.
In respect to signalised pedestrian crossings,
while these offer a higher degree of safety for
pedestrians, they are often not adopted on
Federal Routes because (it is argued) it would
interrupt the "free flow" of traffic on these
routes.
School Children's Crossings have been marked
in various ways in different areas of Malaysia
and none of them have any legal or regulatory
backing. This poses a serious legal problem for
road authorities such as JKR in the event of any
Cawangan Jalan, Ibu Pejabat JKR, K.L
court action which may arise out of an accident
at such sites.
At many signalised intersections, a combination
of `white and black' Zebra crossing markings
have been installed in direct contradiction of the
current Road Traffic Rules. These pose considerable risk to pedestrians because of the confusion between pedestrians and vehicle drivers as
to who has `right of way'. Quite recently,
`Yellow and Black' Zebra crossing markings
have been introduced in conjunction with traffic
signals. These are equally confusing to pedestrians and motorists.
The provisions for pedestrians to walk along
roads varies greatly even in urban and `built-up'
areas. In town and city centres, footpaths are
generally provided as part of building (shop)
development, but in many cases these are
severely obstructed by business activity, street
furniture, motorcycle parking and even vehicle
parking. In addition to this, most footpaths are
`unfriendly' to pedestrians particularly the elderly and those who are `disabled'. The cutting of
the footpath at driveways, the excessive height
of the kerbs, the lack of `ramps' at intersections
and driveways, the common use of steps instead
of ramps to cater for changes in level and the
common presence of deep uncovered (and often
smelly) drains, is a significant discouragement
to pedestrians using the footpath and as a result
even where footpaths are provided pedestrians
find it more convenient to walk along the roadway.
Guidelines On Facilities For
Pedestrians To Cross Roads
It is universally accepted that pedestrians need
to be provided with safe and convenient facilities, to cross busy roads. The choice of type of
treatment is not always clear cut and may be
influenced by economics and other factors.
Page 2
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
General Factors To Be Considered:
The provision of pedestrian facilities at a particular site needs to take into account factors
such as:
Š the number and characteristics of pedestrians
wishing to cross the road at a given location.
Questions which need to be considered are :
are the pedestrians predominantly school
children? age? are there disabled pedestrians
who need to use the crossing? etc..
Š the functional classification of the road, eg
Expressway, Major Arterial, collector Road ,
Local street,
Š the speed, volume and composition of vehicular traffic,
Š the width of the road. the number of traffic
lanes and is it operating two-way or oneway?
Š the character of the locality, eg urban, rural,
residential , commercial, industrial etc.
Consideration of these factors in most developed countries has resulted in a range of different types of treatments to meet the needs of
pedestrians at a variety of sites and local conditions in the most cost effective way. The selection of the most appropriate treatment is often a
matter of judgement, but this is assisted by the
development of, and use of, warrants and guides
which are aimed at achieving uniformity in dealing with similar conditions and ensuring cost
effective treatments.
The ability of pedestrians to cross roads 'atgrade' anywhere is very dependent on traffic
volume (or `flow rate') and traffic speed. As traffic flow rate increases, the availability of `gaps',
sufficient for pedestrians to cross the road safely
between vehicle arrivals at the site, decreases
and pedestrians are delayed. At high traffic flow
rates pedestrian delays can become very large
and in some cases impatient pedestrians may
make risky crossings in short gaps in the traffic
flow. This situation invariably results in the
occurrence of traffic accidents involving pedestrians. In this situation the ability of pedestrians
to cross can be enhanced by measures such as:
Š narrowing the vehicular roadway (maintaining only just sufficient width to meet vehicu-
Cawangan Jalan, Ibu Pejabat JKR, K.L
Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities
lar traffic capacity requirements). This shortens the distance pedestrians have to cross
when exposed to traffic, and also helps to
reduce traffic speed.
Š by providing pedestrian refuge islands so
that pedestrians can cross the road in stages,
eg placing a central refuge in a `two way'
traffic stream allows pedestrians to cross one
direction of flow at a time.
Š by reducing vehicle speeds and reducing the
variability of vehicle speeds. This makes gap
selection by pedestrians less subject to errors
of judgement.
The Importance Of Speed Control
In respect to traffic speed, this is closely related
to the class of road, the road alignment and the
nature of the locality. With the exception of
expressways, where at-grade crossings are not
acceptable, reducing traffic speed in the vicinity
of a pedestrian crossing, on all other classes of
road will greatly enhance pedestrian safety, both
for crossing roads and for walking along roads.
However speed control, particularly on high
standard arterial roads is not easy to achieve.
The imposition of unreasonably low speed limits, which require continual `heavy' enforcement
by police, is rarely if ever effective. However,
the setting of realistic speed limits (even if they
are higher than may be desired for pedestrian
safety), is desirable as this tends to reduce the
variability of vehicle speeds.
The use of `Speed Humps' and other `vertical
displacement' devices are not favoured on `arterial' roads because of the severe effect these
have on heavy trucks and busses, but they are
applicable and quite effective on `collector' and
`local streets' in urban areas. Thus `Speed
Humps' and `raised platform' areas, which may
be used in conjunction with other `Local Area
Traffic Management (LATM) Devices and
`Traffic Calming' techniques can also be used
in combination with pedestrian crossing facilities at appropriate locations.
Types Of Pedestrian Crossing
Facilities
Pedestrian crossing facilities can be categorised
into three distinct types as follows:
Page 3
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
Š Uncontrolled Crossings
Š Controlled Crossings
Š Grade Separated Crossings
Guidelines for the selection and use of these
types of pedestrian crossings follow:
A. Uncontrolled Crossings:
Uncontrolled crossing tend to occur by default at
any location where pedestrians find it convenient to cross a road. They become more formal
where pedestrian movements are concentrated
such as at intersections, near bus stops etc. In
general these uncontrolled crossings are simply
provided with nothing more than ramps at
kerblines to bring the footpath down to
explicit warrants are not necessary.
Where the number of pedestrians wishing to
cross a road is significant and where the traffic
flows are high, to the extent that pedestrians
have difficulty finding a `safe gap' in traffic (eg
on a two-way road), the provision of a pedestrian refuge island may be justified. No numeric
warrants have been adopted for the provision of
refuge islands and each case should be treated
on its merits taking into account the volume of
traffic, the number of pedestrians, the type of
pedestrians (eg children, elderly) , the speed of
traffic, the sight distance available etc.
B. Controlled Crossings:
At some sites with high traffic flow rates, the
above `un-controlled crossing' treatments may
not provide adequate safety, or capacity (for
heavy pedestrian demands), and some form of
"Spacial (Grade) Separation" or some form of
"Time Separation" of the pedestrian - vehicle
conflict is necessary.
`Time Separation' treatments, which are the
most common form of pedestrian crossing facility, include the following:
Š Zebra Crossings, at which by statutory regulation, vehicular traffic must `give- way' to
pedestrians who are on the crossing.
Š School Children's Crossings, either supervised or not supervised, (preferably supervised), at which vehicular traffic must give
Cawangan Jalan, Ibu Pejabat JKR, K.L
Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities
way to pedestrians crossing the road
between the flags (or flashing lights) during
the periods when these devices are displayed.
Š Signalised Pedestrian Crossings, at which
`right of way, is alternately allocated between
pedestrians and vehicular traffic in accor
dance with pre-set cyclic phasing, or on
pedestrian demand by means of a "call" button. This includes `Pelican Crossing' signals
and "Puffin" (Pedestrian User Friendly
Intelligent") signals, and the provision of
pedestrian phases and signal heads at conventional signalised intersections.
Š Manually controlled traffic operation. eg by
police or by other people so authorised such
as 'School Children' Crossing Supervisors
C. Grade Separated Pedestrian
Crossings:
Grade separated pedestrian crossings by means
of pedestrian over-bridges or subways potentially offer pedestrians with the safest means of
crossing busy roads, however the required
bridge or subway construction is very expensive
and these facilities are often poorly utilised
unless extensive fencing is used to deter pedestrians from walking directly across the roadway.
Where pedestrians need to cross expressway
(freeway, motorway) type roads, other than at
interchanges provided for vehicular traffic,
grade-separated crossings are essential. They
should only be used on other types of roads
where conditions particularly favour this solution and a high degree of utilisation can be
assured.
The following are some of the factors which
have been found to be associated with low utilisation of pedestrian bridges or underpasses:
Š Low traffic flows, to the degree that pedestrians have little difficulty in finding a safe gap
in the traffic flow to cross the road;
Š The proximity to traffic signals. The interruption of traffic flow by traffic signals at a
nearby intersection, usually provides pedestrians with an acceptable opportunity to cross
a road. Any traffic signal within approximately 300 m of a pedestrian crossing site is likely to have a significant influence on the utiliPage 4
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
sation of any grade separated pedestrian
crossing facility.
Š The provision of steps (stairs) rather than
ramps at pedestrian grade separations has
been found to be a discouragement to pedestrians.
Š Where subways are depressed below ground
level, are long and not well lighted, personal
security can be a perceived problem, particularly for women, children and elderly people.
Such facilities often experience poor utilisation even in daytime.
Warrants And Layout Guidelines
Consideration of the various factors relevant to
the choice of the appropriate type of pedestrian
crossing leads to the presentation of a range of
different types of facilities to suit various classes
of road and different road environment situations. Most of the `well proven' techniques and
devices are currently being used in Malaysia, but
the main problem is that particular treatments
are often used at inappropriate locations and the
geometric design, traffic signing and roadmarking vary greatly from site to site.
Guidelines for the selection of the most appropriate type of treatment are provided in Figure 1.
The desirable general layout etc for various
types of pedestrian crossing facilities are illustrated in Figures 2 to 7.
In the absence of quantitative and other guidelines specifically developed for Malaysian conditions, it is suggested that those presented in the
AUSTROADS (Australia) Guide To Traffic
Engineering Practice, Part 13 - Pedestrians,
(derived from Australian Standard AS 1742. 10),
be adopted as `Interim Guidelines' until such
time as experience in practice indicates any necessary changes to better suit Malaysian conditions. These are attached as Appendix A of this
report.
Provisions For Pedestrians At
Signalised Intersections
At intersections where traffic signals are
installed to control conflicting traffic movements, the provision of special signal heads
Cawangan Jalan, Ibu Pejabat JKR, K.L
Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities
(faces) and signal phases to assist pedestrians to
cross safely can be incorporated at little additional cost. In general, at important intersections
within cities and towns. there will usually be sufficient pedestrian movements to justify the provision of pedestrian facilities, not withstanding
this, some guidelines / warrants for such provisions are included in Appendix A.
The type of pavement marking to be used to
indicate the pedestrian crossing at signalised
intersections is similar to that used at signalised
pedestrian crossings away from intersections ie,
conventional signalised pedestrian crossings as
illustrated in Figure 5. These consist of white
transverse lines marked across the carriageway
the width between which may vary from a minimum of 2.5m (for low pedestrian flows) to 4 m
(for high pedestrian flows). Note that Zebra type
markings must not be placed across the main
carriageways at signalised intersections.
The pedestrian phases at signalised intersections
are usually incorporated into the signal cycle in
parallel with non-conflicting, or the least conflicting traffic movements. It is generally accepted that conflicts between left turning traffic is
acceptable except where high speed `slip' road
with 2 or more traffic lanes are provided. At signalised intersections with significant pedestrian
movements, `Zebra' type pedestrian crossings
may be installed across any separate left turn
`slip' road, but never in conjunction with a signalised left turn `slip' road. It is also generally
acceptable to allow the conflict between right
turn vehicular traffic and pedestrians crossing
the roadway into which the right turners are
entering, except where this traffic movement is
proceeding on a green arrow signal.
Guidelines For Providing Facilities
For Pedestrians To walk Along
Roads:
There are few places on the road system where
no provision needs to be made for pedestrians to
walk along a road, and in view of the vulnerability of pedestrians in any conflict with vehicles
(including motorcycles) some form of segregation is desirable. However where the intensity of
Page 5
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities
land use and thus pedestrian movements are low
, such as in most rural areas, the road shoulder
can adequately provide space for people to walk
clear of vehicular traffic.
Š Manhole covers and gratings, if they cannot
be avoided, should be kept flush with the
footpath surface and any drains close to the
footpath, which could pose a danger to pedestrians, should be covered.
While no numeric warrants are given for the
provision of footpaths along roads, they are generally considered necessary in all "built-up"
areas and may also be necessary at some rural
locations such as in the vicinity of schools,
mosques or other community facilities where
pedestrians are likely to be concentrated.
Š Clearance of at least 1.0 m should be provided between the traffic lanes and the footpath.
This clearance, which should be greater
where traffic volume and, or speed are high,
increases the safety of pedestrians, and
reduces the inconvenience / annoyance
caused by the splash from vehicle tires in wet
weather.
In some city and town situations, on 'local street'
class of roads, where there may be very high
pedestrian activity, the roadway itself. These situations in which vehicles and pedestrians share
the road carriageway require specific traffic
rules which give pedestrians equal priority to
vehicles together with special traffic management arrangements, including a maximum
speed limit of 25 km/h or less, to reduce the
degree of threat to pedestrians posed by vehicular traffic. In some countries these are referred to
as "Shared Zones".
Where footpaths are provided. consideration
should always be given to the needs of elderly
people and people with disabilities. The design
should incorporate the following characteristics
aimed at making them 'user friendly' for all
classes of pedestrians:
Š Adequate width should be provided. This
may vary from an absolute minimum of 0.9 m
to 2.4 m or wider in shopping and other high
pedestrian activity areas.
Š A height clearance of at least 2.0 m should be
provided.
Š The pathway should not be obstructed by
posts, poles, traffic signs, trees and other
street furniture. Neither should they be
allowed to be obstructed by adjacent business
activity or parked vehicles, or unreasonably
obstructed by motorcycles and bicycles. Any
obstacle close to the pathway which could
endanger pedestrians, particularly people
with impaired vision, should be well delineated.
Cawangan Jalan, Ibu Pejabat JKR, K.L
Š Changes in level along and beside the foot
path should be minimised. Where it is not
possible to avoid steps, particular care needs
to be taken to properly identify them so that
they can be seen, especially by people with
impaired vision.
Where differences in level are catered for by
a ramp instead of or in addition to steps, the
gradient should not be steeper than 1 in 10.
Where long ramps are involved, such as at
pedestrian bridges, gradients of 1 in 20 to 1 in
33 should be provided.
Where kerbs are provided at the edge of the
carriageway, they should not be higher than
150mm. Where the footpath crosses or intersects the kerb as at intersections and drive ways, the kerb should be `dropped' and a
ramp at an acceptable slope should be provided.
In general driveways should not `cut' the footpath but should be ramped up or down from
roadway level to meet the footpath level. The
need for pedestrians to step down to the driveway level and back up to footpath level at
each driveway is a major discouragement to
pedestrians using the footpath. In addition.
pedestrians should be given `right of way'
(priority) over vehicular traffic where drive
ways cross the footpath. This pedestrian priority is greatly enhanced if vehicular traffic is
ramped up to footpath level.
Š Footpath surfaces should be firm. even.
smooth and skid resistant, especially in wet
Page 6
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
conditions.
Conclusion
Pedestrian movement forms part of almost every
trip made on the road system and thus
Pedestrians form an important component of the
traffic sN-stem. The vulnerability of pedestrians.
when they must operate amongst vehicular traffic, is amply emphasised by the high number of
traffic accident casualties involving pedestrians.
The lack of proper provisions for pedestrians to
cross roads or to walk along roads safely is a
major contributing factor to the high number of
pedestrian casualties on Malaysian roads.
Consideration of the specific needs of pedestri-
Cawangan Jalan, Ibu Pejabat JKR, K.L
Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities
ans must be made an essential part of the planning. design. construction. maintenance and
operation of every road or road project. These
guidelines should be used as a means of achieving better and more consistent standards and
practices in relation to creating a more `user
friendly' and safer road environment for pedestrians.
Page 7
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
Cawangan Jalan, Ibu Pejabat JKR, K.L
Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities
Page 8
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
Cawangan Jalan, Ibu Pejabat JKR, K.L
Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities
Page 9
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
Cawangan Jalan, Ibu Pejabat JKR, K.L
Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities
Page 10
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
Cawangan Jalan, Ibu Pejabat JKR, K.L
Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities
Page 11
Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
Appendix A
WARRANTS / GUIDELINES FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
FACILITIES.
Based On
AUSTROADS Guide To Traffic Engineering Practice Part 13 - Pedestrians,
(1995).
(In the following warranting criteria, P is the number of Pedestrians per hour and, ' V is the volume
of vehicular traffic in the same hour.)
Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings:
No specific warrants have been adopted for
uncontrolled crossings, but they can be used at
quite high traffic flows on arterial roads (but Not
on Expressways), particularly where traffic flow
is `bunched' due to nearby traffic signals. Each
case should be treated on its merits, considering
factors such as: the width of road to be crossed,
whether it is operating one-way or two-way, the
number of pedestrians, the traffic flow rate, the
speed of traffic, sight distance available etc.
Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings are often
combined with Local Area Traffic Management
Devices and `Traffic Calming' Techniques.
Pedestrian, (`Zebra') Crossings:
'Zebra' type pedestrian crossings are appropriate, in the situations indicated in Figure 1,
where the general traffic speed as indicated
by the 85th percentile traffic speed, is less
than 70 km/h, subject to the following criteria being met:
Š The number of pedestrian (wishing to cross
the road), P is at least 60 persons per hour,, the
total volume of vehicular traffic on the road at
the site, V is greater than 600 vph. for at least
2 separate one-hour periods of a typical week
day, and the Product PxV > 90,000.
Š The width to be crossed by pedestrians in one
`stage' is not more than Four (4) traffic lanes,
ie. a carriageway of not more than 15 m wide.
Š The visibility is adequate, both in respect to
vehicle drivers being able to see the crossing
and pedestrians about to step onto the crossing, and the pedestrians being able to see the
vehicles approaching the crossing. In this
Cawangan Jalan, Ibu Pejabat JKR, K.L
regard, the operating speed of traffic needs
to be carefully assessed.
School Children's Crossings.
School children's crossings may be installed
at any location as indicated in Figure 1,
where children need to cross a road on a regular basis. Subject to firm arrangements
being made for the Children's Crossing Flags
to be placed ( or the flashing lights to be
switched on) during the appropriate periods
of the day when children are expected to be
crossing the road, and for the flags to be
removed (or the flashing lights switched off)
outside the crossing periods. This arrangement often includes the provision of a properly authorised, `instructed' and uniformed
`Crossing Supervisor', whose role is to operate the crossing equipment and conduct the
children safely across the road.
Signalised Pedestrian Crossing:
A signalised pedestrian crossing may be
installed where any one of the following
criteria are met:
Š Where, P > 350 pph for each of three (3)
one-hour periods of an average day,
or,
where, P > 175pph for each of any eight
(8) one-hour periods and :
Š where there is no central median or
pedestrian refuge island provided,
the vehicular traffic flow, V > 600
vph (sum of both directions) in the
same hours.
Š where there is a central median or
pedestrian refuge island, the vehicu
Page 12
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
lar traffic flow, V > 1000 vph (sum of both
directions) in the same hours.
Subject to there being no other pedestrian
crossing (including a grade separated
crossing within a reasonable distance (say
200m) of the site.
Š A signalised pedestrian crossing may be
placed instead of a school Children's
Crossing where:
Š where P> 50pph for each of two (2)
one-hour periods and V > 600 vph. and,
Š the product of PxV > 40,000.
Š A signalised pedestrian crossing may be
justified at any location on an Arterial
road where the above warrants for a
Pedestrian (Zebra) Crossing are met, but
at which it would not be appropriate to
install a Zebra type crossing due to the
high speed of traffic or where the carriageway is wider than 15m, or where
there is a continuous high flow of pedestrians which would cause excessive delay
to vehicular traffic at a Zebra type crossing.
Š A signalised pedestrian crossing may be
justified to replace an existing pedestrian
(Zebra) crossing where the has been two
or more pedestrian involved accidents, of
a type which may be corrected by the
installation of traffic signals, in the last
three (3) years.
Š A signalised pedestrian crossing may be
installed instead of a Pedestrian (Zebra)
Crossing where the site is within a `coordinated (linked)' traffic signal system , or
close to signalised intersection or a railway level crossing, where there is a dan
ger of vehicles
Grade Separated Pedestrian Crossings:
Grade separated crossings are very costly and
experience shows that they are generally
poorly utilised. They are however essential
wherever pedestrians need to cross and
`Expressway' (or Freeway) route.
Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities
and each case should be treated on its merits,
the following general guides should be considered.
Low utilisation can be expected at sites
where:
Š Traffic flow on the carriageway to be
crossed is less than about 700 vph during
the period when most pedestrians need to
cross the road.
Š The site is within 250 m of a signalised
intersection.
Š The site is not conveniently located for
the pedestrian movements in the vicinity.
Good utilisation is usually achieved
Š In the vicinity of schools (particularly primary schools) where children can be
`channeled' to the facility by fencing.
Š At high pedestrian demand locations
where ramps are provided directly on the
most convenient route for pedestrians
Providing Pedestrian Signals At
Signalised Intersections:
Pedestrian signal heads and 'push button'
equipment should be incorporated as a general practice into all intersection and interchange signals in urban areas. Where there is
doubt about the justification of the increased
cost of providing the pedestrian equipment
on some or all approaches to a signalised
intersection. this provision is usually considered to be justified where the following criteria is met:
Š At intersections where for any two (2)
one-hour periods of an average day the
Pedestrian volume. P >60 pph across the
intresection approach under construction.
The presence of children, elderly or disabled pedestrians at the site may justify
the specialpedestrian equipment at lower
pedestrian flows than this.
While no specific warrants have been adopted for grade separated pedestrian crossings,
Cawangan Jalan, Ibu Pejabat JKR, K.L
Page 13