ASSESSMENT OF PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES IN MAJOR CITIES OF …

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8, 2011

Assessment of Pedestrian Facilities in Major Cities of the Philippines

Ernesto ABAYA

Graduate Student

Institute of Civil Engineering

UP College of Engineering

Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines 1101

Fax: +632-928-8305

E-mail: [email protected]

Bert FABIAN

Transport Program Manager

Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities

Center, 35th Flr., Robinsons-Equitable

Tower, Ortigas Center, Pasig City

Tel. No.: (+632) 395-2843 & 45

Fax No.: (+632) 395-2846

Email: [email protected]

Sudhir Gota

Transport Specialist

Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities Center,

35th Flr., Robinsons-Equitable Tower,

Ortigas Center, Pasig City

Tel. No.: (+632) 395-2843 & 45

Fax No.: (+632) 395-2846


Alvin MEJIA

Environment Specialist

Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities

Center, 35th Flr., Robinsons-Equitable

Tower, Ortigas Center, Pasig City

Tel. No.: (+632) 395-2843 & 45

Fax No.: (+632) 395-2846


Abstract: This paper is an assessment of the pedestrian facilities in major cities of the

Philippines namely Metro Manila, Davao City and Cebu City. The study shows results on

perception survey carried out at different areas of a particular city such as central business

district, public transport terminals, educational areas and residential area. The questionnaire

tackles traveling behavior, preferences on pedestrian facilities and socio-economic status of

respondents at the different areas mentioned. Furthermore, the study rates current pedestrian

facilities according to a rating scale adopted from a study entitled "Global Walkability Index"

developed by Holly Krambeck. The paper presents descriptive analysis of the results

obtained.

Keywords: walkability rating, pedestrian, pedestrian preferences

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

As a response to the thrust of the transport sectors’ towards sustainable transport in major

urban centers in Asia, CAI for Asia and the Asian Development Bank initiated this research in

order to profile and assess walking trends and preferences and pedestrian facilities in the

Philippines.

This study specifically investigates the case of major cities in the Philippines namely Metro

Manila, Davao City and Cebu City.

1.2 Statement of the Research Problem:

a) What are the current walking trends of pedestrians in major cities of the Philippines?

b) What is the rating of pedestrian facilities with respect to the users in general in the

Philippines?

c) What is the rating of pedestrian facilities according to a specified scale as set in the

study?


1.3 Objectives:

a) To know the preferences of the walking community with the currently installed

pedestrian facilities in their cities.

b) To rate the current facilities according to factors such safety, comfort and aesthetics.

2 METHODOLOGY

The methodology for the survey conducted in this study was adopted from Global Walkability

Index developed by Holly Krambeck and modified slightly based on suggestions and was

made simpler and cost effective. Since the objective of walkability surveys is to compare

streets and cities, the time of survey was intended to be carried out during peak hours

(morning or evening). In some cities, where security is not a major issue, survey done at

evening peak hours (3-8 PM) may provide best results as the environment would be hostile.

Consequently, in this study the survey for the four areas in the three major cities was

conducted from three o’clock in the afternoon to eight o’clock in the evening. The

assessment was carried out by the main author of this study.

2.1 Survey Sites

Subject areas were selected according to categories such as residential, commercial,

educational and bus terminal areas. Time of survey was also designated to obtain appropriate

results.

For each city, four main category areas namely are: 1) commercial center, 2) public transport

terminals, 3) educational areas, and 4) residential areas.

2.1.1 Metro Manila

Commercial Center (Ortigas

Center - To and from MRT to

Major Offices in Ortigas Center)

Public Transport Terminal (Cubao

Area – LRT2 going to MRT/Bus

Terminals)

Educational Area (Lerma/

Espana – Vicinities of FEU

and UST)

Residential Area (Project 8,

Quezon City – GSIS Avenue,

St. Joseph, St. Michael, Engi-

neering, Premium)


2.1.2 Davao City

2.1.3 Cebu City

Commercial Center (San Pedro

St., Quuirino St., Father Selga

Avenue)

Public Transport Terminal

(Ecoland Transport Terminal,

Hall of Justice)

Educational Area (San Pedro Col-

lege and Holy Cross Memorial

College, Philippine Paramedical,

STI College)

Residential Area (Old San

Isidro St., Medalla Milagrosa

St.)

Commercial Center (City Hall, DFA,

Sto. Niño Bassilica altar Church, Ma-gallanes St., Osmeña Avenue)

Public Transport Terminal (Citilink

Van Terminal Cebu City South Bus

Terminal—Bacalso Ave., Panganiban

St., Sanciangco St., Osmeña Avenue)


2.2 Survey Procedure

Tables 2.1 to 2.9 shows the specific conditions of the pedestrian facility with a corresponding

rating. These were formulated in order to enhance objectivity in assessing the pedestrian

facilities of a certain city in Asia.

In the computation of the walkability rating, all variables are weighted equal. In the course of

improving the rating scale, different weights may be applied to suit community preferences

(Krambeck, 2006). Additionally, other parameters may be added as perceived to be

important.

Table 2.1 Walking Path Modal Conflict

Points Description

1 Significant conflict that makes walking impossible

2 Significant conflict that makes walking possible, but dangerous and inconvenient.

3 Some conflict – walking is possible, but not convenient

4 Minimal conflict, mostly between pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles

5 No conflict between pedestrians and other modes

Educational Area (Abellana Nat’l High

School, Cebu Normal University, Saint Paul College, San Carlos University)

Residential Area (Brgy. Mambaling—

Bacalso Avenue, Bayabas St., Ali-

mokon St., Avocado St.)


Table 2.2 Availability Of Walking Paths ( with Maintenance and

Cleanliness)

Rating Description

1 Pedestrian Walkways required but not available

2 Pedestrians Walkways available but highly congested , badly

maintained and not clean

3 Pedestrians Walkways available but congested , needs better

maintenance and cleanliness

4 Pedestrians Walkways available which are sometimes

congested and are clean and well maintained

5 Pedestrian Walkways not required as people can safely walk on

roads

Table 2.3 Availability Of Crossings ( Count the number of

crossings available per stretch)

Rating Description

1 Average distance of controlled crossings is greater than 500m

and average speed is high

2 Average distance of controlled crossings is between 500-300m

and average speed is 20-40 Kmph





5 There is no need of controlled crossings as pedestrians are safe

to cross wherever they like and vehicles and pedestrians co-exist

Table 2.4 Grade Crossing Safety

Rating Exposure to Other Modes and Exposure Time – available and

required - If the other modes don’t stop to allow you to walk or

they keep moving as you run etc...

1 Very high Probability of Accident with very high crossing time

2 Dangerous- pedestrian faces some risk of being hurt by other

modes and crossing time is high

3 Difficult to ascertain dangers posed to pedestrians but the time

available for crossing is less and people have to hurry

4 Safe – pedestrian is mostly safe from accident with other modes

and exposure time is less and time available for crossing more.

5 Very safe – other modes present no danger to pedestrians


Table 2.5 Motorist Behavior

Rating Description

1 High Traffic disrespect to pedestrians

2 Traffic Disrespect and rarely Pedestrians get

priority

3 Motorists sometimes yield

4 Motorists usually obey traffic laws and sometimes

yield to pedestrians

5 Motorists obey traffic laws and almost always

yield to pedestrians

Table 2.6 Amenities (lighting, Cover/shade, hawkers

exclusive zones, resting place/benches etc.)

Rating Description

1 No Amenities

2 Little Amenities at some locations

3 Limited number of provisions for pedestrians

4 Pedestrians provided some good amenities for

major length

5

Pedestrians have excellent amenities such as

lighting, cover from sun and rain making

walking a pleasant experience


Table 2.7 Disability Infrastructure ( Footpath Should be at least

1m Wide)

Rating Description

1 No infrastructure for disabled people is available

2 Limited infrastructure for disabled persons is available, but is

not in usable condition.

3 Infrastructure for disabled persons is present but in poor

condition and not well placed

4 Infrastructure for disabled persons is present, in good

condition, but poorly placed.

5 Infrastructure for disabled persons is present, in good

condition, and well placed.

Table 2.8 Obstructions

Rating Description

1 Pedestrian infrastructure is completely blocked by permanent

obstructions

2 Pedestrians are significantly inconvenienced. Effective width <1m.

3 Pedestrian traffic is mildly inconvenienced; effective width is < or = 1

meter.

4 Obstacle presents minor inconvenience. Effective width is > 1m

5 There are no obstructions

Table 2.9 Security from Crime

Rating Security when walking – do you feel safe from external elements?

1 Environment feels very dangerous – pedestrians are highly

susceptible to crime

2 Environment feels dangerous – pedestrians are at some risk of crime

3 Difficult to ascertain perceived degree of security for pedestrians

4 Environment feels secure – pedestrians at minimal crime risk

5 Environment feels very secure – pedestrians at virtually no risk of

crime


3 FINDINGS

3.1 Pedestrian Preference

3.1.1 Travel Behavior

In Tables 3.1a, 3.1b and 3.1c, it shows that a major percentage (77.5%-MM, 30.3%-Davao,

54.3%-Cebu) of the respondents from every city, walk in their everyday regular travel (home

to work, home to school).

Table 3.1a Duration of respondent’s regular travel (one way) per mode (Metro Manila)

Table 3.1b Duration of respondent’s regular travel (one way) per mode (Davao City)

Table 3.1c Duration of respondent’s regular travel (one way) per mode (Cebu City)

<15 15-30 30-60 60-90 >90

Walk 67.9% 8.6% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 77.5%

Cycle 2.6% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0%

Bus/Train 3.6% 12.6% 7.3% 4.6% 1.7% 29.8%

Intermediate Public Transport 15.2% 14.9% 9.9% 2.0% 0.7% 42.7%

Car/Taxi 2.3% 4.0% 5.6% 0.7% 1.0% 13.6%

2 wheeler 3.0% 0.7% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0%

Tricycle 12.9% 2.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 15.2%

Pedicab 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%

Travel Time Duration (%)Mode of Transport Subtotal

<15 15-30 30-60 60-90 >90

Walk 23.3% 5.6% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 30.3%

Cycle 1.0% 0.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 2.8%

Bus/Train 0.7% 0.3% 2.1% 1.0% 6.6% 10.8%


Car/Taxi 0.3% 2.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1%

2 wheeler 1.0% 1.4% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 3.5%

Tricycle 20.2% 3.1% 2.4% 0.0% 0.3% 26.1%

Pedicab 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


<15 15-30 30-60 60-90 >90

Walk 48.3% 5.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 54.3%

Cycle 4.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3%

Bus/Train 0.3% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3%


Car/Taxi 0.3% 1.7% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0%

2 wheeler 1.7% 2.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 4.6%

Tricycle 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%

Pedicab 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%



In Table 3.2, for the three cities considered, the ranks of ―preferred improvement on

pedestrian facilities‖ are astonishingly the same. Widen, clean and level sidewalks and

footpaths ranked first among the choices mentioned.

Table 3.2 Preferred Improvement of Pedestrian Facilities in Order of Priority

Majority of the respondents’ rating of pedestrian facilities they encounter in their everyday

activities is ―ok‖ (53%-MM, 48%-Davao, 48%-Cebu) as shown in Figures 3.1a, b and c.

Figures 3.1a, b and c Respondents’ Rating of Pedestrian Facilities (Metro Manila, Davao City,

Cebu City)

In Metro Manila and Cebu, at-grade crossing (47%-MM, 50%-Cebu) is most preferred

followed by overhead crossing(42%-MM, 46%-Cebu). In Davao, the most preferred is

overhead crossing followed by at-grade. A minimal percentage, for the three cities, prefer

underground crossing.

Figures 3.2a, b and c. Preferred Facility in Crossing Roads (Metro Manila, Davao City, Cebu

City)

1 Wider, level and clean sidewalks/ footpaths

2 Improved street lighting

3 Easy access for people with special abilities

4 Remove obstacles/parking from footpath

5 Reduced and slow traffic on road

6 More crossing points

5%

17%

53%

17%

8%

5 - Best

4 - Good

3 - Ok

2 - Bad

1- Worst

9%

26%

48%

14%

2% 0%

Best

Good

Ok

Bad

Worst

No Answer

5%

13%

48%

22%

13%Best

Good

Ok

Bad

Worst

11%

42%

47%

Subways (underground)

Skywalks (overhead crossings)

Ground Crossing (at-grade)

9%

53%

38%




4%

46%50%





As shown in Figures 3.3a, b and c, In Metro Manila and Cebu, ―walking‖ has the major

percentage of the respondents (35%-MM, 42%-Cebu) who perceive to be more exposed to

pollution. This is followed by waiting for bus (32%-MM, 23%-Cebu), ―riding a tricycle‖

(35%-MM) and ―riding a jeepney‖ (22%-Cebu).

Figures 3.3a, b and c. Place Where Most Exposed to Air Pollution (MM, Davao, Cebu City)

In Figure 3.4 shows majority of the respondents from the three cities would shift from

walking to other modes.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

MM Davao Cebu

Yes

No

Figures 3.4 Plan to shift from walking to other modes? (MM, Davao, Cebu City)

In Metro Manila and Cebu, car is the most preferred mode to shift to (30%-MM, 24%-Davao,

24%-Cebu). In Davao, the two wheeler, or better known as the motorcycle, is the most

preferred mode to shift to (28%-Davao).

Figures 3.6a, b and c. Mode of Transportation Preferred to Shift to (MM, Davao, Cebu City)

1%

32%

2%

0%22%

7%0%

35%

Riding Tricycle

Waiting for bus

Two Wheeler

Car/Taxi

3 Wheeler/ Jeepney

Bus/Train

Cycle

Walking

23%

6%

0%

22%

0%1%

6%

42%

Waiting for Bus

Two Wheeler/MotorcycleCar/Taxi

Jeepney

3 Wheeler/ Tric

Bus/Train

Cycle

Walking

1% 1%

8%

30%

5%

5%

13%Taxi

Tricycle

Two Wheeler

Car

Jeepney

Bus/Train

Cycle

2%

9%

28%

24%

4%3%

Taxi

Tricycle

Two Wheeler

Car

Jeepney

Bus/Train

6%

6%

24%

18%1%

12%

16%

Taxi

Two Wheeler/Motorcycle

Car

Jeepney

3 Wheeler/Tric

Bus/Train

45%

1%0%

22%

1%

1%

1%

28%

Riding Tricycle

Waiting for bus

Two Wheeler

Car/Taxi

Jeepney

Bus/Train

Cycle

Walking


3.2 Walkability Rating

The roads considered in the different category areas of the three major cities were rated

according to the ratings specified in Tables 2.1 to 2.9.

Tables 3.7a, b, c and d shows the summarized rating of the different category areas of the

different major cities and a summary

Table 3.7a, b and c Summary of Computations of Rating of Pedestrian Facilities (Metro

Manila, Davao City and Cebu City)

Table 3.7d Overall Walkability Rating

In the three major cities, facilities for people with disabilities is lacking as seen in Table 3.7 a,

b and c. For Davao and Cebu, the residential areas selected do not have pedestrian facility

such as sidewalks or foothpaths. Availability of crossings in all areas is lacking except in

commercial areas in the three cities. Obstructions such as parked vehicles, installed stalls of

vendors, trash, and other unsuitable structures such as unused pedestal of electric posts,

communications panel board and extensions of buildings are prevalent in most subject areas.

In the overall ratings of the pedestrian facilities in the major cities, Metro Manila garnered the

highest rating of 3.65. Cebu and Davao City are at par with ratings of 2.96 and 2.95

respectively.

Road Stretch Com PTT Educ Res

1. Walking Path Modal Conflict 5.00 4.79 4.27 4.46

2. Availability Of Walking Paths 4.56 3.79 4.17 3.36

3. Availability Of Crossings 4.16 3.46 4.39 3.00

4. Grade Crossing Safety 4.00 4.00 4.15 3.80

5. Motorist Behavior 4.00 3.23 4.01 3.84

6. Amenities 3.50 3.02 3.10 2.35

7. Disability Infrastructure 3.61 1.79 2.00 1.60

8. Obstructions 4.25 4.02 3.16 3.20

9. Security from Crime 4.15 3.23 3.60 4.22

Average 4.14 3.48 3.65 3.31

Metro ManilaRoad Stretch Com PTT Educ Res






6. Amenities 3.00 2.00 2.69 2.00


8. Obstructions 2.97 3.23 2.64 3.00


Average 3.42 2.89 2.96 2.56

Davao City

Road Stretch Com PTT Educ Res






6. Amenities 2.69 1.60 2.38 1.30


8. Obstructions 3.27 3.11 3.34 3.00


Average 3.46 2.87 3.16 2.35

Cebu City


4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Results show that walking is an indispensable part in a travelling populace in the country.

Therefore, pedestrian facilities must be given due priority by concerned agencies for

improvement and provision of adequate amenities such road markings, signages pertaining to

pedestrian safety, ramps for wheelchair and other facilities that favor the walking public.

Respondents’ shows average satisfaction as majority rating to pedestrian facilities is ―ok‖.

Nonetheless, priority of improvement such as 1) widening, leveling and cleaning of sidewalks

and foothpaths, and 2) addition of street lighting ranked first and second for the three major

cities.

Respondents are also aware of exposure to air pollution when walking, waiting for bus, riding

a tricycle and jeepney. This implies current status of air quality in the major metropolis

considered.

Majority of the respondents would prefer to shift to another mode of transport such as car or

motorcycle when given the opportunity. This implies discontent to walking as a means to

travel. It is essential to upgrade pedestrian facilities to influence the populace that walking

can be a viable and enjoyable locomotive means.

Results of the computations of ratings are important information for local planners as to what

particular elements of the pedestrian facilities in their locality needs improvements.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Clean Air Initiatives for Asian Countries and the Asian Development Bank are hereby

acknowledged for funding this research.

REFERENCES

1. Krambeck, et. al. February 2006. The Global Walkability Index: Talk the Walk and Walk

the Talk. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Civil and Environmental

Engineering & Dept. Urban Studies and Planning, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

2. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. January 2004. A

Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States and Abroad. Research,

Development, and Technology Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, 6300

Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101-2296

Documents

ASSESSMENT OF PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES IN MAJOR CITIES OF …