Walkability in Asian Cities - EcoMobility Changwon 2011

Walkability in Asian Cities:
State and Issues
Bert Fabian, Sudhir Gota, Alvin Mejia
Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities Center
EcoMobility Changwon 2011
World Congress on Mobility for the Future of Sustainable Cities
Changwon, Republic of Korea
22-24 October 2011

Outline
• Context and trends
• Results of the Field Walkability and Pedestrian Interview
Surveys in Asian cities
• Improving walkability and pedestrian facilities
2

How walkable are our cities
Lanzhou
Kathmandu
Jakarta
Ho Chi Minh
Surat
Manila
3

Walking still () has a high in all trips
Chongqing,China,2002
Dhaka,Bangladesh,1999
Haiphong,Vietnam,2007
Zhuzhou,China,2000
Shimla,India,2008
Gangtok,India,2008
Surat,India,2005
Shenzhen,China,2005
Lanzhou,China,2001
Mysore,India,2005
Chennai,India,2002
Bikaner,India,2008
Ghangzhou,China,2003
Nanchang,China,2001
Weihai,China,2006
Nanchang,China,2002
Jaipur,India,2005
Nanchang,China,2003
Urumqi,China,2006
Dongguan,China,2006
Pondicherry,India,2008
63%
62%
61%
58%
58%
56%
55%
55%
55%
51%
47%
46%
46%
45%
44%
44%
44%
42%
41%
40%
40%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Pedestrian Mode Share %
Source: Various, compiled by CAI-Asia, See Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Asian Cities:
State and Issues (2010) http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/node/7354
4

But walking trips are depreciating fast
City Year Before Year After Biggest Gainer (Motorized)
Bangalore 1984 44 % 2007 8.3 % Two wheeler and Car
Changzhou 1986 38 % 2006 21.5 % Two wheeler and Car
Chennai 2002 47 % 2008 22 % Two wheeler
Delhi 2002 39 % 2008 21 % Two wheeler and Car
Nanchang 2001 45 % 2005 39 % Cars
Shanghai 1986 38 % 2004 10.4 % Two wheelers and Bus
Xi'an 2002 23 % 2006 15.8 % Bus
Source: Various, compiled by CAI-Asia, See Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Asian Cities:
State and Issues (2010) http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/node/7354
5

Selected Cities Countries
High pedestrian fatality
Bangladesh
Brunei
Cambodia
China
India
Indonesia
Japan
Malaysia
Mauritius
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Sri Lanka
Thailand
Bandung
Bangalore
Delhi
Kolkata
Mumbai
9%
13%
8%
10%
13%
15%
26%
24%
27%
32%
29%
30%
33%
33%
35%
44%
51%
54%
64%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Pedestrian Share in Road Accident Fatality (%)
Source: Various, compiled by CAI-Asia, See Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Asian Cities:
State and Issues (2010) http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/node/7354
6

Walkability Indexes
Source: Times of India – Sep 26, 2009
Walkability index calculated ONLY as a function of the availability of footpaths
and pedestrian facility rating
Source: 2008. MOUD. Study on Traffic and Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban Area.
Source: DNA – Nov 2,2010
7

Walkability Assessment
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
8

Walkability surveys in Asia – 21+ cities
• Lanzhou, Hong Kong SAR
(China)
• Kota, Chennai,
Bhubaneshwar, Pune,
Rajkot, Surat, Bangalore
(India)
• Jakarta (Indonesia)
• Karachi (Pakistan) +
Islamabad
• Ulaanbaatar (Mongolia)
• Ha Noi, Ho Chi Minh City
(Vietnam)
• Kathmandu (Nepal) +
Pokhara
• Cebu , Davao, Manila
(Philippines)
• Colombo (Sri Lanka)
9

Chennai
Bangalore
Jakarta
Kathmandu
Karachi
Male
Lanzhou
Hanoi
Colombo
Kota
Cebu
HCMC
Davao
Ulaanbaatar
Manila
HongKong
Field Walkability Assessment Results (1)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
“Pleasure to walk”
“Walk at your own risk”
Walking environment varies significantly depending
upon the location
10

Field Walkability Assessments Results (2)
Rajkot
Pune
Kota
Indore
Chennai
Surat
Cebu
80
60
40
20
0
Colombo
Davao
Hanoi
HCM
Hong Kong
Jakarta
Residential
Educational
Public Transport
Terminals
Bhubaneswar
Karachi
Commercial
Bangalore
Ulaanbataar
Male
Lanzhou
Manila
Kathmandu
11

Field Walkability Assessment Results (3)
Security from Crime
Obstructions
Disability Infrastructure
Amenities
Motorist Behavior
Grade Crossing Safety
Average Hong Kong SAR
Average Other Asian City
Average Indian city
Availability Of Crossings
Availability Of Walking Paths
Walking Path Modal Conflict
0 20 40 60 80 100
12

Pedestrian Preference Survey Results (1)
Manila, 304
Lanzhou, 204
Rajkot, 370
Pune, 309
Kota, 256
Kathmandu, 305
Ulaanbaatar, 266
Surat, 337
Cebu, 301
Chennai, 300
Colombo, 170
Davao, 287
Hanoi, 500
HCM, 500
• A total of 6,559
pedestrians surveyed
• Nearly 37% of people
interviewed came from
households which do
not have motorized
vehicles
• Majority of people (65%)
were in the age group
15-30 years
• Walking constitutes 39%
of trip mode share
Karachi, 272
Jakarta, 250
Indore, 300
Hong Kong, 1,029
13

Pedestrian Preference Survey Results (2)
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
145
148
414
1380
296
394
46
101
729
405
99
2227
122
14
326
611 536
60
16
55
366
76
127
141
422 500
140
215
232 350
walk cycle bus/ train para-transit car/ taxi motorcycle
> 90 minutes
61 to 90 minutes
31 to 60 minutes
15 to 30 minutes

Pedestrian Preference Survey Results (3)
• 36 % - the pedestrian environment is “bad” or “very bad”
• 16% - facilities are “good” or “very good”
• Respondents top priority:
1. Wider, level and clean sidewalks/ footpaths
2. Removal of obstacles/ parked cars from sidewalks/ footpaths
3. Street lighting
• Crossings
• 49% prefer at-grade crossings and 36% skywalks
• 49% prefer pedestrian crossings within 50m; 36% within 100m
• Without improvements in pedestrian facilities, 81% of respondents
would shift from walking to other modes when affordable
15

Improving walkability – who is responsible
Institutions Responsible
Country National Local (Primary)
People’s Ministry of Transport Municipal Government
Republic of
China
o Planning and Engineering
Administration Offices
o
Environmental Sanitation
Department
India Ministry of Urban Development Municipal Corporation and
Government
Indonesia Ministry of Transport City or Municipal Government
Mongolia City Development Policy Department
Nepal Department of Roads
Metropolitan City Government
o Road Board Nepal
o Environment Department
Philippines Department of Transportation City or Municipal Government
and Communications
o Planning and Engineering
Department of Public Works and
Offices
Highways
Metro Manila Development Authority
(only for Metro Manila)
Sri Lanka Ministry of Transport City or Municipal Government
Viet Nam Ministry of Transport
Road Management Agency
People’s Committee
Hanoi Department of Transport
Department of Construction
Department of Traffic and Transport
Urban Environment Company
• Improvements for
pedestrian facilities
are often with city
planning agencies/
engineering
departments
• However, there
seems to be lack of
clear mandates and
coordination
between local and
national
• Responsibility of the
owner of land and
local governments
are not clear, or else,
guidelines/
standards not
enforced
16

Improving walkability – what policies
• Inappropriate and unclear policies and guidelines – e.g.
– 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”;
– Action Plan for Traffic Management in Greater Colombo (2008) –
1/10th of space of all roads within urban areas exclusively for NMT;
– Indian Road Congress - Footpath separated with carriageway with an
unmountable 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
17

Improving walkability – 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)
18

Improving walkability – what is needed
Overview of Actions and Relevance for Various Stakeholders
National
Gov.
City
Gov.
Civil
Society
Development
Agency
Develop comprehensive policies prioritizing the improvement of walking and
pedestrian facilities XX XXX XXX
Private
Sector
Pedestrian Policies and
Guidelines
Institutions and
Resources
Urban and Transport
Plans and Projects
Develop policies incorporating pedestrianized streets and open spaces X XXX
Include stringent pedestrian fatality reduction targets X XX XXX XX
Conduct regular walkability surveys and promote improvement starting at
the community level XXX XX X X
Develop monitoring system to check whether policies and guidelines are
being followed and necessary penalties are implemented X XXX XX X
Institutionalize non-motorized transport units and/or cells in city
governments XX XXX X X
Increase investments on relevant pedestrian facilities X X
Mandate inclusion of pedestrian plans in new establishments and transport
projects, using the pedestrian levels of service analysis XX XXX X XX
Set high pedestrian mode share targets in city master plans X XXX X X
Review design guidelines for urban transport and pedestrian facilities XXX XX XX
Use walkability surveys and assessments as a basis for evaluation of
transport projects XXX XX X XX X
Prioritize walking and cycling in traffic management and design XX XXX XX
Provide exclusive space for vendors, utilities, and parking XX X
Make traveling and streets more accessible to transport-disadvantaged
people XXX XXX XX
X = Level of involvement and participation of stakeholders.
19

Walkability surveys to measure success of
transport projects
20

Boon or bane
Using the same money as 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
21

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),
• 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
•Choudhury Rudra Charan Mohanty (UNCRD)
•Sustran members
22

For more information
http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/knowledgebase/topics/topic_overview/NMT-Walking
www.cleanairinitiative.org
CAI-Asia China Office
cpo@cai-asia.org
901A, Reignwood Building
No.8 YongAnDongLi
Jianguomenwai Avenue
Beijing 100022
China
CAI-Asia Center
center@cai-asia.org
Unit 3505 Robinsons-Equitable Tower
ADB Avenue, Pasig City
Metro Manila 1605
Philippines
CAI-Asia Country Networks
China, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka
CAI-Asia India Office
india@cai-asia.org
257 Regus Elegance
Elegance Tower, Mathura Road,
Jasola Vihar, New Delhi
India
23