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)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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. Independent variable Dependent variable Availability of Pedestrian facilities Comfort Levels Increases of the Importance of Pedestrian Facilities

Research Methodology 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

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

Sampling Size Calculation 12000 = 2.64 (1.96 x Sx̅) 4545.45 = 1.96 Sx̅ 4545.45 = Sx̅ 1.96 Sx̅ = 2319.11 Sx̅ = S √n 2319.11 = 36000 n = 240 samples Statistics Annual Earnings N Valid 180 Missing 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) Proportion of pedestrian users by gender

Pedestrian Facilities Internal Use of Plants and Trees Research Findings (2): Perception of the pedestrian Users on the usage of pedestrian facilities Pedestrian Facilities F Value Significant Value (ρ) 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

Research Findings (2): Perception of the pedestrian Users on the usage of pedestrian facilities (Cont’) Pedestrian Facilities F Value Significant Value (ρ) 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 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

Pedestrian Facilities 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 Standing Space With Bags to 1.8 sqm for 1 person 2.508 .044 Standing Space With Bags to 1.8 sqm for 2 persons 2.335 .057 Standing Space With Bags to 1.8 sqm for more than 2 persons 1.582 .181 Standing Space Without Bags to 1.4 sqm for 1 person 1.103 .357

Research Findings (3): Perception of Pedestrian on the Comfort levels of Pedestrian Facilities (Cont’) Standing Space Without Bags to 1.4 sqm for 2 persons 1.265 .286 Standing Space Without Bags to 1.4 sqm for more than 2 persons 2.655 .035 Separated Queuing Lines Between Users With Family/Elderly/Disable People 4.194 .003 Separated Queuing Lines Between Users Without Family/Elderly/Disable People 1.057 .380 Reduced in Access to Natural Environment 2.830 .026 Increased of Safety Concern 3.132 .016

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.

THANK YOU