1. 1 Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Asian Cities Sameera Kumar Anthapur Transport Researcher Sudhir Gota Technical Manager Transed 2012 New Delhi 20 September 2012

2. How walkable are our cities? 2 “improving walkability entails improvement not only in the physical infrastructure but equally in the minds of people”

3. Lanzhou 3

4. Davao 4

5. Jakarta 5

6. Ho Chi Minh City 6

7. Hyderabad 7

8. Manila 8

9. How people travel in Asian cities is changing 9 cities which has more than 75% of trips by bus, metro, cycles and walking cities which have 50 to 75% of trips by bus, metro, cycle and walking. cities with 50% of trips by private modes such as two wheelers, cars, taxis etc. http://transport-solutions.blogspot.com/2010/07/trip-mode-share-in-asia-what-does.html CAI-Asia, 2011

10. Walkability surveys in Asia – 23 cities 10

11. 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 Walkability Assessment Methodology 11

12. 12 Walkability Results

13. Field Walkability Assessment Results (1) 13 Walking environment varies significantly depending upon the location "Waiting To walk" "Pleasure to walk" "Walk at your own risk"

14. Field Walkability Assessments Results (2) 14

15. Field Walkability Assessment Results (3) 15

16. Pedestrian Preference Survey Results (1) 16 People Interviewed in 19cities > 6,500 1.30% of people interviewed came from households without motorized vehicles 2.Majority of people (61%) were in the age group 15-30 years 3.Walking constitutes 40% of trip mode share. 4.67% of all trips are less than 30 minutes and less than 6 km

17. 42 % - the pedestrian environment is “bad” or “very bad” 15% - facilities are “good” or “very good” Respondents top priority: 1.Wider, level and clean sidewalks/ footpaths 2.Reduced/slower traffic on the road 3.Removal of obstacles/ parked cars from sidewalks/ footpaths Crossings 47% prefer at-grade crossings and 33% skywalks 74% prefer crossings that are within 100 meters Pedestrian Preference Survey Results (2) 17

18. Pedestrian Preference Survey Results (3) 18 Without improvements in pedestrian facilities, 75% of respondents would shift from walking to other modes when affordable

19. Policies and Guidelines - Sri Lanka 10% of urban road space for NMT - Action Plan for Traffic Management in Greater Colombo (2008) Policies and Guidelines - 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 Policies, Institutions and Guidelines Survey Results (1) 19

20. Policies and Guidelines: Indian Road Congress Footpath separated with carriageway with an insurmountable 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 PV 2 > 1 million (Undivided carriageway), PV 2 > 2 million (divided carriageway), Stream speed of greater than 65 kph City Development Plans The trend is towards building few pedestrian overpasses and improving few kilometers of footpath. Majority of the emphasis is on the public transport and increase in road space. Policies, Institutions and Guidelines Survey Results (3) 20

21. Dedicated Institutions Lack of dedicated institutional responsibility and legal and financial resources in support of pedestrian needs Multiple agencies but who owns the footpaths? Political support is barrier in promoting improvement of pedestrian facilities considering the significant number of pedestrians and public transport commuters Policies, Institutions and Guidelines Survey Results (4) 21

22. Allocation of 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) Policies, Institutions and Guidelines Survey Results (5) 22

23. Walkability surveys to measure success of the project 23

24. Effective Media Strategy 24 Over 40 news articles, with potential readership of 4.4 million

25. Walkabilityasia.org - Home Page Over 4000 hits in 90 days ! 25

26. Walkabilityasia.org - Facebook page 26 Over 140 ‘likes’ and growing

27. Boon or bane? 27 Using the same money 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

28. Acknowledgments 28 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), Choudhury Rudra Charan Mohanty (UNCRD) 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 CAI Asia Center Collegues Sustran, CAI Asia COP members Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation

29. center@cai-asia.org Unit 3505 Robinsons-Equitable Tower ADB Avenue, Pasig City Metro Manila 1605 Philippines CAI-Asia Center cpo@cai-asia.org 901A Reignwood Building, No. 8 YongAnDongLi Jianguomenwai Avenue Beijing China CAI-Asia China Office india@cai-asia.org Building no.4, 1 st floor, Near Thygaraj Stadium Lodhi Colony, New Delhi India CAI-Asia India Office CAI-Asia Country Networks China. India. Indonesia. Nepal. Pakistan. Philippines. Sri Lanka. Vietnam 29 CAI-Asia Center Members 231 CAI-Asia Partnership Members 45 Cities 19 Environment ministries 13 Other Government agencies 17 Development agencies & foundations 67 NGOs 37 Academic and research institutes 33 Private sector companies Donors in 2012 Asian Development Bank Cities Development Initiative for Asia ClimateWorks Foundation DHL/IKEA/UPS Energy Foundation Fredskorpset Norway Fu Tak Iam Foundation German International Cooperation (GIZ) Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) Institute for Transport Policy Studies Institute for Transportation and Development Policy International Union for Conservation of Nature MAHA Rockefeller Brothers Fund United Nations Environment Program Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles (UNEP PCFV) Veolia World Bank For more information: www.cleanairinitiative.org