Improved Safety Surface Access at Low Cost Airport
Terminal (LCAT): Kuala Lumpur International
Airport (KLIA) Case Study
Rohafiz Sabar
Nur Khairiel Anuar
Vienna, Austria
5-6 June 2014
Introduction

Pedestrian defines as people who walk, sit, stand, or use a
wheelchair in public spaces. The examples are children, teens,
adults, elderly, people with disabilities, workers, residents, shoppers
and people watchers.

FHWA (2009) stated that pedestrian facilities has been identified as
walkways such as sidewalks, walking and hiking trails, shared-use
paths, pedestrian grade separations, crosswalks, and other
improvements provided for the benefit of pedestrian travel.

Pedestrian safety considers as the most important aspect in the
transport field (Sisiopiku and Akin, 2003)
2
Introduction (Cont’)

Based on MIROS statistics, pedestrian fatalities by mode of transport
contributes 589 cases or 9% of total road accidents in year 2009. On
the same year, MIROS declared the highest road accidents was in
Johor which contributed 1,060 cases.

Authorities (i.e. MOT, MIROS and Royal Malaysia Police) were
aggressively promoted the safety campaign and awareness at
Malaysia (i.e. safety education and speeding limit).

The importance of the availability and appropriate of pedestrian
facilities to increase the pedestrian safety can brings advantage of
reduction of accident rates for pedestrian users.

Therefore, the research measures the importance of provision of
pedestrian preference and users’ perceptions which aims to proposed
better commercial facilities for pedestrian users in a future.
3
Problem Statement

The preferred facilities of pedestrians area is highly recommended as
the users increased parallel with high volume of vehicles on the road
daily.

The road planner should taking consideration the differences of user
levels which include normal, disabilities, children and group of age.

Based on Malaysia experiences, the transport system was rapidly
developed especially in land transport along with developing of
highway system, increasing of car users, type of vehicle on the road,
diversity of driver’s age, and road technology.

Even though there are evidence/ fully effort to protect pedestrians,
there is slightly minor incidents happens while walking on
pedestrian pathway.
4
Problem Statement ( Cont’)

Sisiopiku and Akin (2003) stated the city planners and traffic
engineers should consider the importance of pedestrian preferences
and perceptions when designing efficient and pedestrian friendly
facilities.

Audirac (1999) supported the initiatives that promote pedestrian
travel initiative (e.g. appropriate pedestrian facilities) which offers
potential users an assured level of convenience, efficiency, comfort,
and security for successful applications.

Bernhoft and Carstensen (2008) stated that it is very important to
gain knowledge on disabilities and older pedestrians behaviour in
traffic and their preferences as to traffic conditions relating to safety
and comfort in urban areas.
5
Research Questions
Research Question
 What are the preferences of current provision of pedestrian
facilities?
 Are there any significant differences on the willingness of
pedestrian users on the adequacy of pedestrian facilities?
 Is there any significant relationship between pedestrian users’
perception and the importance and comfort levels of
pedestrian facilities provision?
6
Research Objectives
 To
identify set of preferences of the pedestrian
facilities provision after considering the perception
of pedestrian.
 To
measure the willingness of pedestrian users on
the usage of the pedestrian facilities
 To
evaluate the importance and comfort levels of
pedestrian facilities based on the pedestrian user
perceptions
7
Research Hypotheses

H1: There is a significant relationship between the usage of
pedestrian facilities and purpose of travel of pedestrian users.

H1: There is a significant relationship between the comfort
levels of
pedestrian facilities and purpose of travel of
pedestrian users.

H1: There is a significant relationship between the willingness
to travel
and purpose of travel of pedestrian users.
8
Research Scope

The research focused on the importance of the pedestrian facilities by
users’ preferences at KLIA LCAT.

Sampling decision is proposed at KLIA LCAT.

The scope of this research is therefore to propose a current provision
of pedestrian facilities that contributes to the future design of
pedestrian facilities.

The conceptual model will be based on the specific experience of
pedestrians at KLIA LCAT.
9
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Miles and Huberman (1994) stated that the key factors, concepts or
variables, and the relationship between them. Establishes the
research aims and objectives on pedestrian facilities research.
 Availability of
Pedestrian facilities
Increases of the Importance
of Pedestrian Facilities
 Comfort Levels
Independent variable
10
Dependent variable

Questionnaire survey was used to gather information on the
perception of pedestrian on the provision of pedestrian facilities for
current and future needs in commercial areas.

The survey was conducted at KLIA LCAT.

The survey involve questionnaires and, will distribute to pedestrian
users as selected respondents.

Quantitative data analysis used in order to evaluate the relationship
of the current and future pedestrian facilities by traveller
expectation.

The used of the ANOVA (Analyses of Variance) Test to compare the
mean of variances or differences between the factors
11
Sampling Size

Sample size formulated and calculated as below (Sekaran, 2003):
µ = x̅ ± ( K Sx̅ )
Where:
µ
Confident interval
x̅
Sample of mean
K
1.96 / (Significant level of 0.05) t-table
Sx̅
Standard error of estimate of the means
12
Sampling Size Calculation
12000 = 2.64 (1.96 x Sx̅)
Statistics
Annual Earnings
4545.45 = 1.96 Sx̅
N
4545.45 = Sx̅
1.96
Sx̅ = 2319.11
Sx̅ =
2319.11 =
S
√n
36000
√n
n = 240 samples
13
Valid
180
Missing
0
Mean
2.6444
Std. Error of Mean
.10530
Median
3.0000
Mode
1.00
Std. Deviation
1.41272
The number of sampling size
calculated is 240 respondents. 180
feedbacks have been received which
rates as 75% from the total
response.
Research Findings (1)

14
Proportion of pedestrian users by gender
Research Findings (2): Perception of the pedestrian
Users on the usage of pedestrian facilities
15
Significant Value
Pedestrian Facilities
F Value
Air Conditioning
3.045
.019
Bicycle Lane
2.022
.093
Bollard
2.893
.024
Children Facilities
.293
.882
Disabled Facilities
2.864
.025
Hump
3.133
.016
Internal Use of Plants and Trees
.922
.453
Information Board
1.208
.309
Lighting
3.328
.012
Median
.771
.546
Advertising Board
1.655
.163
(ρ)
Research Findings (2): Perception of the pedestrian
Users on the usage of pedestrian facilities (Cont’)
16
Significant Value
Pedestrian Facilities
F Value
Pavement
3.869
.005
Physically Separated Walkway
3.132
.016
Public Phone
.277
.893
The View of Outside
1.829
.125
Seating Availability
1.374
.245
Self-service Vending Machine
3.862
.005
Spatially Separated Walkway
3.970
.004
Speed Breaker
.266
.900
Stroller Ramp
.774
.543
Signange
2.286
.062
Zebra Crossing
1.064
.376
CCTV
1.297
.273
(ρ)
Research Findings (3) : Perception of Pedestrian on
the Comfort levels of Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian Facilities
F Value
Significant
Value (ρ)
Walking Distance Less Than 5 mins
2.893
.024
Walking Distance 5-10 mins
.771
.546
Walking Distance More Than 10 mins
1.374
.245
2.508
.044
2.335
.057
1.582
.181
1.103
.357
Standing Space With Bags to 1.8 sqm for 1
person
Standing Space With Bags to 1.8 sqm for 2
persons
Standing Space With Bags to 1.8 sqm for
more than 2 persons
Standing Space Without Bags to 1.4 sqm for
171
person
Research Findings (3): Perception of Pedestrian on
the Comfort levels of Pedestrian Facilities (Cont’)
Standing Space Without Bags to 1.4 sqm for
1.265
.286
2.655
.035
4.194
.003
1.057
.380
Reduced in Access to Natural Environment
2.830
.026
Increased of Safety Concern
3.132
.016
2 persons
Standing Space Without Bags to 1.4 sqm for
more than 2 persons
Separated Queuing Lines Between Users
With Family/Elderly/Disable People
Separated Queuing Lines Between Users
Without Family/Elderly/Disable People
18
Conclusion: Implication for the Industry

The research revealed difference perceptions between the views of
pedestrian users at different locations.

Some of the needs for provision of pedestrian facilities by users is
inadequate. Therefore, the output of the research shall reveal the
lack of the pedestrian facilities design (i.e. Covered paved walkways
/ way findings) which subsequently decreased the users convenience
while walking and willingness to travel, especially during bad
weather (raining/heat) and peak times.

By using the analysis result, which, incorporated the preferences of
users, hopefully, the research proposal offers a useful design concept
for pedestrian facilities in commercial areas for planners and
designers in future.
19
THANK YOU
20