1. 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

2. 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)

3. Introduction (Cont’)
Based on MIROS statistics, pedestrian fatalities by mode of transport contributes 589 cases or 9% of total road accidents in year 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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?

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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

12. Sampling Size
Sample size formulated and calculated as below (Sekaran, 2003):
µ = x̅ ± ( K Sx̅ )
Where:
µ Confident interval
x̅ Sample of mean
K / (Significant level of 0.05) t-table
Sx̅ Standard error of estimate of the means

13. Sampling Size Calculation
= (1.96 x Sx̅)
= Sx̅
= Sx̅
1.96
Sx̅ =
Sx̅ = S √n =
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
The number of sampling size calculated is 240 respondents. 180 feedbacks have been received which rates as 75% from the total response.

14. Research Findings (1)
Proportion of pedestrian users by gender

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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.

20. THANK YOU