PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY INDEX (PAI) FOR TRANSIT STATIONS: A
FRAMEWORK TO EVALUATE PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY TO PUBLIC
TRANSIT
Neog, Dristi
Sushant School of Art and Architecture, Gurgaon, India
neog.dristi@gmail.com
1. SUMMARY
Existing infrastructure and available travel options do not always meet the needs of
the huge chunk of the Indian urban population who walk or use public transit. This
study attempts to direct attention to the needs of pedestrians and public transit users
in terms of having effective access to their core transportation service - public transit.
The intention of the study is two-fold. Firstly, it formulates a Pedestrian Accessibility
Index (PAI) that appropriately measures and assesses pedestrian accessibility to
important nodes like transit stations. Secondly, it applies this index to two metro
stations in Gurgaon, to demonstrate the effectiveness of such index.
The PAI is framed by conducting a thorough review literature resulting in a 27-point
index covering various aspects of accessibility, safety, security, comfort and
convenience.
Using visual surveys and Geographic Information System (GIS), the scores were
computed for the two selected stations in Gurgaon. This pinpointed factors that
worked or did not work well at these stations. The first metro station –Huda City
Center (score – 12/27) failed to impress in terms of quality and safe pedestrian
environments and provision of disability infrastructure, but has scored high on
location and security factors. IFFCO Chowk (score 14/27), the second metro station
did only slightly better in terms of safety, but failed to provide a heightened sense of
security and disability infrastructure. Both stations failed to deliver much on comfort
and convenience and have potential to be improved in these fronts. These
revelations provide meaningful and actionable insights for interventions to improve
these existing stations and also plan for better future ones.
Key Words: accessibility; transit station; pedestrian; index
1. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
In a world of jazzy sophisticated machines meant for travel, we have forgotten to
pay attention to our most basic, simple, fuel efficient and non-polluting mode that
takes us around, at least for short distance – Walking. It does not consume
resources and also is associated with health benefits, and yet does not quiet get the
respect and attention as it needs to. Existing infrastructure and available travel
options do not always meet the needs pedestrians and transit riders. In most cases,
faster speeds and efficiency of moving motorised private vehicles become the
performance measures and assumptions for traffic studies are based on motorised
travel behaviour [Leather, Fabian, Gota and Mejia, 2011; Krambeck and Shah,
2006]. Scarce resources, lack of political will and awareness lead to situations where
pedestrian safety, mobility and convenience lie low on the priority list.
25 to 50% of our trips in major Indian cities are made on foot [Krambeck and Shah,
2006, Wilbur Smith Associates, 2008], yet studies show that pedestrians represent
more than half of all traffic related fatalities in developing countries and are more
likely to be killed or injured in these nations, including the Indian Subcontinent
[Krambeck and Shah, 2006, Sayer and Palmer, 1997].
The good news is that we have started acknowledging the importance of nonmotorised modes and giving thought to how we may support our non motorised
modes of travel through public and para transit services.
1.1 The Case for Public Transit
An Asian Development Bank working paper reports that walking mode share in
Indian cities has reduced over time and most pedestrians have shifted to modes like
two wheelers and car. However, it also reports that walking has been replaced by
public transit to some extent [Leather, Fabian, Gota and Mejia, 2011]. Such findings
suggest that pedestrians who want to shift to motorized modes can still do so without
choosing less sustainable means of travel like private cars and opt for public transit,
as long as that is made convenient, accessible, safe and economically viable.
In addition, enabling role of public transit as a cushion and insurance for pedestrians
who need it to complete their longer trips gives enough reason to pay attention to
how we connect the pedestrians to facilities of public transit. If we do a good job, we
may lure pedestrians into more sustainable public transit modes instead of two
wheelers and cars and also provide for those who do cannot adopt the private car or
the two- wheeler. Well accessed transit stations can support ridership market
expansion, ridership potential increases, reduced air pollution as a result of reduction
in auto, mobile use, enhanced development potential better quality of life, and
improved individual health and most importantly equitable mobility [Sherman, 2001].
So, this study attempts to direct attention to the needs of pedestrians and public
transit users in terms of having effective access to public transit in general and to
metro stations in particular. The intention of the study is two-fold. Firstly, it formulates
a Pedestrian Accessibility Index (PAI) that appropriately measures and assesses
pedestrian accessibility to metro transit stations and simplifies evaluation of these
transit hubs. Secondly, it applies it to two important metro stations in Gurgaon to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the index. Gurgaon has been growing at a rapid
rate and has future plans to expand its rail based transit service. The city authorities
need to be sensitized to the needs of pedestrians, and design for pedestrian friendly
metro stations in the future.
2. METHODS
The creation of a pedestrian accessibility index is based on the various criteria in the
literature and similar studies in the past. Visual surveys and Geographical
Information Systems (GIS) have been used to document the proximity metrics
around two metro stations in Gurgaon to understand application of the PAI. The two
metro stations are Huda City Center (HCC) and IFFCO Chowk(IC) stations.
2.1 Measures
The table 2.1.1 presents the components and specific measures that constitute the
accessibility score and the rating of metro station based on these. These are drawn
from the body of literature that contribute to walkability and accessibility for
pedestrians and are explained below. One should note that along lines of many
global indices that like the World Bank Global Walkability index and the Yale
Environmental Sustainability index [Krambeck and Shah, 2006] that have given
equal weight age to its variables to avoid issues pertaining to determining which are
relatively more important or less important factors, this study assigns equal weight
age to all its components.
The literature review revealed four broad categories that should be considered for
evaluating walkability of a location. These include – accessibility, safety, security and
comfort and convenience. The factors are mostly measured for radial areas of ½
mile around stations as ¼ mile is considered comfortable walking distance and one
could extend to a maximum ½ mile buffer to assess the station proximities.
2.1.1 Accessibility
Although the index itself is called an accessibility index, the particular accessibility
component of the index consists of measures without which it would be impossible
for pedestrians to even reach the station.
The first accessibility measure is regarding the location of stations. Used in similar
studies [Sherman, 2001], the measure is intended to understand whether the station
is sited in a location in middle of nowhere or well integrated with the surrounding land
uses. The ideal site is one that is surrounded by high density residential, commercial
and institutional/public spaces [ UTTIPEC, 2010] that allows for maximum number of
origins and destinations for pedestrians. A metro station is given a point if more than
50 % of the land area consists of high density residential, commercial and
institutional/public spaces.
Researchers have found that connectivity /network patterns impact walkability and
are assessed in terms of block perimeters, % T and 4-Way intersections, % cul de
sac streets etc in an area [Zhang, 2006, Song and Knaap, 2004, Greenwald and
Boarnet, 2001]. A finer street network with more 4-way intersections provides
pedestrians with more route options, both in terms of shorter distances and quality of
the route. A metro station is given a point If more than 50% of the intersections within
a ½ mile radius are 4-way intersections.
The next measure is the availability of a pedestrian network. Sidewalks can make a
station accessible for the pedestrian and the percent of sidewalks around 1/2 mile
radius around stations can capture that aspect of accessibility. The station gets a
point if 50 % of the street network within a 1/2 mile radius has pedestrian sidewalks.
Universal accessibility enables pedestrians with special needs to safely navigate
their way to the stations and also is the only way that provides access to the station.
The variables within this are based on UTTIPECs Street design checklist and
recommended by the Institute of Transport studies (Monash) [Hung, Manandhar and
Ranasinghege, 2010, UTTIPEC, 2010]. These measures assess if the stations in
question are designed for those with special needs in terms of crossing and travel
ease and information accessing. The station gets points if there are curb ramps at
levels changes with proper widths, slopes and material treatment and if they have
auditory signals and graphical signage in the vicinity.
2.1.2 Safety
The subsequent measures assess the safety component of the walking paths that
influence the overall accessibility to stations. The first variable- modal conflict
measures the extent to which pedestrians share the same road space with other
modes [Leather, Fabian, Gota and Mejia 2011, Hung, Manandhar and
Ranasinghege 2010, Krambeck and Shah 2006]. Since there is no ideal ratio of
pedestrians versus other modes set, this was left to the judgement call of the field
surveyor whose assessment was based on how many pedestrians walk amongst or
against other modes in 5 minute intervals.
Availability of crossings enable pedestrians to safely reach the station entrances and
ideally should be available every 300 m [Hung, Manandhar and Ranasinghege,
2010], One would find it acceptable to have these with the walkable range of 1/2 mile
or approximately 805meters. Whether or not these crossings are signalised is also
important. Although most crossings on Indian streets may miss signalised crossings,
these measures are included in the index as they are almost a must to
accommodate persons with special needs and also enhance safety and comfort of
all pedestrians. Since metro rail is a relatively new and progressive mode of public
transit, the access to these stations should also be equally modern and up to date.
Medians and refuge islands if spaced well can make crossings safer and convenient,
especially for mid block crossings where pedestrians can wait safely while crossing
streets that are really wide [Grimm and Horsely, 2003]. For the purpose of this index,
it is acceptable to have refuge islands and medians that allow pedestrians to take
refuge on or cross within a walkable range of ½ mile radial area or 805 m approx.
The subsequent safety measure deals with the motorist behaviour. Used for the
Global Walkability Index [Krambeck and Shah 2006], the measure adopted for this
index is to notes if motorists yield to pedestrians. For stations to score points on
these, observations for 5 minute intervals should suggest instances of yielding within
½ mile radius of the stations.
2.1.3 Security
Lighting can provide a sense of security, especially women and has been used in
indices and checklists [UTTIPEC, 2010, Krambeck and Shah 2006, Grimm and
Horsely 2003]. The station would earn points if within a radius of 1/2 miles, 50% or
more of the walking paths are well lit.
The presence of hawkers/vendors has adds a sense of security as they play the role
of eyes on the street if they do not encroach on pedestrian walkways. The index
takes into consideration the presence of such hawkers in the vicinity. It also takes
sight lines into consideration, as unobstructed sight lines not only eliminate danger
from motorists, who may fail to locate them, but also brings about a positive
perception of the environment and discourage crimes targeted at the slow moving
pedestrians [Sherman, 2001]. The station earns a point if there are unobstructive
hawkers, within ½ mile of station and another point for clear unobstructed views.
2.1.4 Comfort and convenience
The factors that add to the comfort and convenience of pedestrians are in terms
station siting and design. A station sited next to very wide road with multiple lanes to
cross, or a railroad track is not convenient, and neither would be a station which has
limited pedestrian entrances that are not oriented to make distances shorter. A
parking lot in front of the entrance for instance may elongate a pedestrian’s trip to the
station, even if by a few hundred meters. Stations with many entrances can provide
for more pedestrian opportunities from more directions. The possibility for more
entrances for future should be there to accommodate growing ridership. Stations
located next to a highway/ railroad corridor/feature that acts like a barrier and
inconveniences pedestrians would not get points. Stations which do not have
existing or potential multiple pedestrian oriented entrances score zero.
The width of the sidewalks is also an important factor contributing to the comfort of a
pedestrian. A narrow sidewalk is not only uncomfortable, but also unsafe, especially
next to a roadway with fast moving vehicles. The stations get a positive score if at
least 50% of the sidewalks within ½ mile radial area are equal to or more than 1.5 m
wide, a standard specified by UTTIPEC [UTTIPEC, 2010].
The width of sidewalks may be influenced by obstructions- permanent or temporary
(Hung, Manandhar and Ranasinghege 2010).The cleanliness and maintenance of
the walking paths also make it visually pleasing and relatively less dangerous and
comfortable for pedestrians. The PAI takes these into consideration and gives
positive scores to the measures if at least 50 % of the network within the ½ mile
radial area have no obstacles, and are clean and well maintained.
Comfort of pedestrians also depends on trees, shades and other amenities like
toilets, benches and such furniture in the vicinity of the station. Ideally, UTTIPEC
suggests that there should be public toilets, including one for persons with disabilities
located every 500 - 800 m and preferably near transit stations [UTTIPEC, 2010]. The
index rates stations based on these. The last measure adopted by the index is that
of signage that identifies that presence of station and other information. The index
rates station on basis of availability of such signage.
All the specific variables and measures within the four major categories summarize
into a 27-point index that can be both used to compare pedestrian accessibility
across different transit stations and also to identify key factors that contribute the
success and failure of a transit station in terms of its pedestrian accessibility.
2.2 Research Limitations
It should be noted that there are a few parameters that are important, but have not
been included in the index due to the nature and context of the index. Details of
footpaths and sidewalks like paving material, curb heights, grade separated
crossings, exact location of missing sidewalks, description of sidewalk quality, traffic
calming features, appropriateness of signal timing are not included in the index for
purposes of simplification. Policy support for pedestrians and details of traffic
management at crossings are beyond the scope of the project. Data on pedestrian
fatalities and injuries, crime data and perceptions of pedestrians, can complement
the score, but are not part of this study.
3. RESULTS
The 27 point index was applied to two metro stations in Gurgaon- the Huda City
Center (HCC) and IFFCO Chowk (IC) metro stations. Functional since June 2010,
HCC is the last station on the yellow line of Delhi Metro that connects Gurgaon to
Delhi. IC happens to be the second last stop on the same line and is in proximity to
the Westin Hotel, IFFCO office, Power Grid Corporation and RITES Limited. Both
these are elevated stations and busy stations serving a lot of commuters.
Table 3.1.1 provides the scores for both the stations. HCC scores only 12 points out
of 27 total points suggesting that it does not fare very well in terms of providing
pedestrian access. IC metro station is only slightly better than the HCC station and
scores 14 points out of 27, just a little above 50% of the total score. In terms of
accessibility, both stations fare badly, scoring only 3(HCC) and 2 (IC) out of 8 points.
Both the stations score 0 on disability infrastructure. IC station is safer than HCC
station, with the former adding 4 points and the later only 2 points to the PAI. With 3
points for security, HCC fares well in terms of the sense of security for the
pedestrians as compared to IC which gets only 1 point out of 3. However, HCC fails
to provide for a comfortable and convenience pedestrian experience compared to IC
which scores 7 out of 11 points against only 4 out of 11 for HCC.
4. DISCUSSION
As reflected in the results, a PAI starts to provide a sense how accessible a station is
for pedestrians and how it compares to other stations. For instance, an assessment
of HCC reveals it fares very badly in terms of accessibility. While location wise, it is
very well integrated with high density residential (yellow), commercial (red) and
institutional (purple and blue) land uses and even has a well connected network
catering to the needs of pedestrians, the station is not surrounded with walking paths
that have the design or infrastructure that can enable or support disabled users. The
maps shows that the major streets that leads to the stations have sidewalks, but
these are in bad shape (lighter shade of red indicates poor quality pathway) and do
not conform to the design needs of the disabled.
Land uses within ½ mile of HCC
Pedestrian path availability and
type within ½ mile of HCC
Availability of crossings within ½
mile of HCC
On the safety aspect, HCC has an undesirable modal conflict, with pedestrians who
jaywalk and cross at points that do not have marked crossings. Although crossings
are available (green triangles), they are relatively far spaced apart and not
signalised. Pedestrians have the opportunity to take refuge in medians, but the
motorists’ behaviour of not yielding even once in 5 minutes (at time of visual survey),
puts the pedestrians in grave danger every time he wants to access the station.
HCC does offer a good sense of security. The lighting on medians mostly and above
sidewalks and keeps the area well lit and the station being open on most sides has
an unobstructed line of sight from more points. The hawkers in the area and informal
modes like auto/rickshaws also create a level of activity that makes one feel more
secured than a covered, isolated place.
The comfort and convenience measures rank HCC very low. Being located on a subarterial road and next to two major intersections make the station very inaccessible,
inconvenient and uncomfortable for pedestrians who negotiate multilane roads and a
high volume of traffic to get to the station. HCC does have multiple entries, and
could potentially open up more entrances in more directions which could help the
pedestrian find his way to the station premises and signage that lead to these
entrances are acceptable for healthy adults without special needs. However, as
mentioned before, the sidewalks meant for pedestrians are not in their best shape.
Few segments have sidewalks that are hardly 1 meter and there are missing pieces
of sidewalks in the segments in ½ mile radial area around the station. In those
segments that do have the right width, obstructions like those caused by vendors
and trees take away from the fact that sidewalks are available. Trees provide some
shade, but there are no toilets, street furniture or even trash bins for the pedestrian.
5. CONCLUSION
A PAI was formulated after a thorough literature review and applied to two metro
stations in Gurgaon to assess how pedestrian friendly these stations are.
Application of metro stations in Gurgaon pinpointed factors that worked or did not
work well at these stations and may be used to inform authorities and policy makers
to improve existing stations, and plan better for the future ones through pedestrian
focused interventions. One can take the case of HCC as an example. Blessed with a
great location, a connected network of sidewalks and a good sense of security, HCC
can become an ideal metro station if attention is paid to safety and convenience
features, and most importantly by ensuring there is disability infrastructure which it
lacks. Being served by only one spine, IC may not have the best of locations, but
with attention to details, especially disability infrastructure and efforts to increase
security, IC may also become a pedestrian accessible and friendly station.
In addition to assessing these stations and getting insights about it, the PAI also
focuses our attention to some of the problems that pedestrians have to face. The
index can generate some awareness of key factors that affect pedestrian travel
behaviour that can provide meaningful and actionable insights for interventions in the
future. These interventions can create well designed, connected and accessible
stations which in turn can expand transit ridership markets, increase ridership and
also better serve the already existing section of transit users.
Components
Variable
Measure
Accessibility
Location/ siting
Is the station sited in the middle of nowhere/dispersed development?
Is the percent of 4 way intersection within ½ mile of station above 50%?
Are the percent walkable paths in street network in ½ mile above 50%?
Is there raised table top crossings level with sidewalks within ½ mile of station?
Is there curb ramps at level changes with slope (1:12) and width (1.2m) and tactile
warning strips at its edges in the 1/2 mile radial area around stations?
Are there auditory crossings at traffic signals or in ½ mile radial area?
Do walking surfaces in the ½ mile radius have tactile pavers?
Are all signage within ½ mile of station graphic/ symbol based, rather than text based?
Is the modal conflict undesirable?
Are there pedestrian crossings in ½ mile radial area around station?
Is the crossing signalised?
Street network
Universal accessible
design/disability
infrastructure
Safety
Walking Modal conflict
Crossing
Security
Comfort and
convenience
Medians and Refuge
islands
Motorist Behaviour
Lighting
Eyes on street
Perception of security
Location
Entrance
Continuity and
integrity of sidewalks
Trees and shade
Amenities
Signage
Desired
Response
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Are there medians and refuge islands in ½ mile radius around the station?
Yes
Are there instances of motorists yielding to pedestrians in 5 minute intervals?
Is 50% or more of the walking paths within ½ mile radius well lit
Are there unobstructive hawkers in the ½ mile radial area around the station
Are the lines of sight across street unobstructed?
Is the station next to a barrier like expressway/railroad corridor?
Are the entrances to the station pedestrian oriented?
Existing/potential for multiple entrances?
Is the percent of wide sidewalks (>=1.5 meter) within ½ mile of station more than 50 %
Are there missing sidewalks in a radius of ½ mile around the stations?
Are there temporary or permanent obstructions on walking paths?
Is the sidewalk in ½ mile radius clean and well maintained?
Are there trees/other shades along the walking path within ½ mile radius?
Are there public toilets near stations within ½ mile of station?
Are there benches/street furniture and trash bins within ½ mile of station?
Is there proper signage that directs to station and amenities near the station?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Table 2.1.1: List of selected measures and variable for the index
HCC
IFFCO Chowk
Components
Variable
Yes/No
Point
Yes/No
Point
Accessibility
Location/siting
Street network-connectivity
Street network –availability
Disability infrastructure - Crossings
level
Disability infrastructure - Curb ramps
Disability infrastructure - Crossings
signal
Disability infrastructure - Surfaces
N
Y
Y
1
1
1
N
N
Y
1
0
1
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
Disability infrastructure - Signage
N
0
N
0
Y
Y
N
Y
N
3/8
0
1
0
1
0
N
Y
N
Y
Y
2/8
1
1
0
1
1
Accessibility - total
Safety
Walking Modal conflict
Crossing availability
Crossing signalised
Medians and Refuge islands
Motorist Behaviour
Safety - total
Security
Lighting
Eyes on street
Perception of security
Y
Y
Y
Security - total
Comfort and
convenience
Comfort &
convenience - total
4/5
2/5
1
1
1
N
Y
N
3/3
0
1
0
1/3
Location
Y
0
N
1
Entrance orientation
Y
1
Y
1
Multiple entrances
Continuity and integrity of sidewalkssidewalk width
Continuity and integrity of sidewalks
- missing sidewalk
Continuity and integrity of sidewalks
- obstructions
Continuity and integrity of sidewalks
- sidewalk cleanliness and
maintenance
Trees and shade
Amenities- public toilet
Amenities- furniture/trash bins
Signage
Y
1
Y
1
N
0
Y
1
Y
0
Y
0
Y
0
Y
0
N
0
Y
1
Y
N
N
Y
1
0
0
1
Y
N
N
Y
1
0
0
1
4/11
Table 3.1.1: PAI for Huda City Center (HCC) and IFFCO Chowk (IC) stations
7/11
REFERENCES
Greenwald, M. and Boarnet, M. 2001. “Built Environment as Determinant of Walking
Behaviour: Analysing Nonwork Pedestrian Behaviour in Portland, Oregon”
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No
1780. pp 33-42
Hung, W.T., Manandhar, A., & Ranasinghege, S.A. 2010. A Walkability Survey in
Hong Kong. Conference paper delivered at The 12th International Conference on
Mobility and Transport for Elderly and Disabled Persons (TRANSED) held in Hong
Kong on 2-4 June, 2010. [Internet]. Available from:
www.sortclearinghouse.info/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1774&context=research,
accessed on March 15, 2012.
Krambeck, H. and Shah, J. 2006. The Global Walkability Index: Talk The Walk and
Walk The Talk. Internship report and a field test conducted in one city. [Internet].
Available from cleanairinitiative.org/portal/system/files/60499_paper.pdf, accessed
on March 15, 2012.
Leather, J., Fabian, H., Gota S. and Mejia, A. 2011. Walkability and Pedestrian
Facilities in Asian Cities, State and Issues. Asian Development Bank Sustainable
Development Working Paper Series. February 2011. [Internet]. Available from:
cleanairinitiative.org/portal/sites/default/files/ADB-WP17-Walkability-PedestrianFacilities-Asian-Cities.pdf, accessed on March 15, 2012.
Lewis G. and. Horsley A.S. 2003. “Elderly issues in transportation”. NCHRP Project
08-36, Task 31, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation
Research Board.
Sayer, I.A. and C.J. Palmer. 1997. Pedestrian Accidents and Road Safety Education
in Selected Developing Countries. [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.transportlinks. org/transport_links/filearea/publications/1_561_PA3229
_1997.pdf, accessed on March 15, 2012.
Sherman Ryan. 2001. Improving Pedestrian Access to Transit Stations in Less
Walkable Environments. [Internet]. Available from: www.walk21.com/papers/Park.pdf
Song, W. and Knaap, G. 2004. “Measuring Urban Form: Is Portland Winning the War
on Sprawl?” Journal of the American Planning Association 70 (2): 210-225
UTTIPEC. 2010. Street Design Guidelines, UTTIPEC, Delhi Development Authority,
New Delhi March 2010. [Internet]. Available from:
uttipec.nic.in/writereaddata/mainlinkFile/File280.pdf, accessed on March 15, 2012.
Wilbur Smith Associates. 2008. Study on Traffic & Transportation Policies and
Strategies in Urban Areas in India, Final Report 2008, Ministry of Urban
Development. [Internet]. Available from:
urbanindia.nic.in/programme/ut/final_Report.pdf
Zhang, Ming. 2006. “Travel choice with no alternative: Can land use reduce
automobile dependence”, Journal of Planning and Educational Research, JPER 25,
Vol 3, pp 311-326.