Modeling Qualitative Level of Service for Sidewalks in Delhi

Development of Qualitative Walkability Measures for Pedestrian Facilities in Delhi

byDr. Purnima Parida

Scientist, Central Road Research Institute New Delhi, India

Prof.. M. Parida,Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee,

India

Transforming Transportation

15th Jan 2009

Pedestrians & Road Accidents

Fatalities 15,000 in 1971 increased to 1,00,000 in 2004

Economic loss of Rs. 5,000 crore per annum

15,000 fatalities on urban roads

50 per cent of road victims are pedestrians, 30% two wheeler riders, & remaining 20% occupants of 4 wheelers.

Pedestrians are vulnerable

Reasons to Support Walking

Economy

Health

Availability

Cognition

Environment Protection

Sustainable Transportation

Capacity in number of persons per hour Width of side walk (meter) All in one direction In both directions.

1.50 1200 800 2.00 2400 1600 2.50 3600 2400 3.00 4800 3200 4.00 6000 4000

Capacity of Sidewalks

Source: Indian Road Congress, 103 :1988

Level of Service

Level of service for pedestrian flow is defined as an overall measure of walking conditions on a facility.

LOS characterize the quality of traffic flow at various fractions of capacity.

Quantitative criteria includes space per pedestrian, speeds, flow rates.

Qualitative criteria includes comfort, safety, convenience on the basis of pedestrian perception.

Qualitative LOS Grades

LOS A is a pedestrian environment where ideal pedestrian conditions exist and no factors that negatively affect pedestrian LOS are minimal

LOS B Reasonable pedestrian conditions exist but a small number of factors impact on pedestrian safety and comfort. LOS A is ideal, LOS B is acceptable.

LOS C Basic pedestrian conditions exist but a significant number of factors affect on safety and comfort.

LOS D Poor pedestrian conditions exist.

LOS E Pedestrian environment is unsuitable.

Qualitative Level of Service A (Excellent)

Qualitative Level of Service E ( Poor)

Design From Pedestrian Perspective

Footpath surface

Footpath width

Obstruction

Encroachment

Potential for Vehicle Conflict

Continuity

Pedestrian volume

Safety

Comfort

Walk environment

Footpath Surface

Footpath Width

Obstruction

Encroachment

Potential for Vehicle Conflict

Continuity

Pedestrian Volume

Safety

Comfort

Walking Environment

Stages of LOS Model Development

Identification of LOS Factors

Primary Surveys Self Onsite Assessment

Estimation of Weights

Frequency Distribution of Cumulative Weights

Estimation of Satisfaction Rating

Development of Qualitative Level of Service

Computation of Cumulative Weights

VIDEOGRAPHIC SURVEY QUALITATIVE EVALUATION

Locations for Primary Survey

Central Road Research Institute Delhi – Mathura Road New Delhi – 110020

Evaluation of Pedestrian Facilities in Delhi

1. Form No. : ..................

2 Study Location: ………………………………………………………

PART – A PEDESTRIAN CHARACTERISTICS

3. Location of pedestrian facility: ………………………...………………

.

4. Physically handicapped (legs only): Yes / No

5. Male / Female

6. Age : <10 / 11 – 20 / 21 – 30 / 31 – 40 / 41 – 50 / 51 – 60 / 61 -75 / 75+

7. Profession: Retired / Housewife / Student / Service / Business / Self Employed /

Unemployed / Others

8. Income (in ‘000s. of rupees per month): No income / < 5 / 5 – 10 / 10 – 20 / 20 – 30

/ 30 – 50 / 50+

9. Purpose of trip: Work / Education / shopping / Change of mode / return home / Jay

walker / other.

10. Distance of walk trip: .........................meters

11. Frequency: Many trips per day / Daily / Weekly / Monthly / Occasionally

12. Foot path: Available / not available / partially available

13. If Available: Walking on footpath / Carriageway / Both

14. Reason for not Walking on footpath: Encroachment / Footpath surface / Walking

environment / safety / Comfort / Continuity

15. Your perception regarding the pedestrian facility: 1. Assign weights (in the scale of 1 – 5, where 1 is the least important and 5 is most important), to the following parameters as per your perception regarding the pedestrian facility. 2. Tick the rating of pedestrian facilities with respect to following parameters. PART – B EVALUATION OF PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Parameters Weights ExcellentVery good

Good Satisfactory Poor Code

Footpath surface

Foot path width

Obstructions

Encroachment

Potential for veh. Conflict

Continuity

Parameters Weights ExcellentVery good

Good Satisfactory Poor Code

Pedestrian Volume

Safety

Comfort

Walk environment

PART – C USER FACTORS

Parameters

Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Poor

1Footpath

width3m. + wide 2m to 3 m. 1m to 2 m 0.1 – 1 m No footpath

2

Footpath surface

Smooth surface with no cracks or bumps

Reasonable quality. Walking is comfortable

Moderate quality, with few bumps and cracks

Very bad condition. Lots of bumps and cracks.

no raised footpath

3 ObstructionNo obstruction. ( trees, hoardings, poles)

very few few manyCant walk on the footpath

4Encroachment

No encroachmentNo problem to walk

Slightly difficult to walk

Very difficult to walk

Cannot walk

5 Potential for veh. Conflict

Well protected

Raised footpath , guard rails not continuous

Raised footpath but no guard rails

Footpath not sufficiently raised and no guard rails

Very unsafe

6 Continuity Continuous 1-2 ups and downs

Few ups and downs

Frequent ups and downs

Non existent

7 Walk environment

Very pleasant good acceptable poor Intolerable

8Pedestrian volume

Very low low moderate high Very high

9 safety Very safeSlightly unsafe during night

Safe during day only

Slightly unsafe during day

Totally unsafe

10

Comfort

Very comfortable ( protection from sun, rain and mountable curb)

comfortableSlightly uncomfortable

Uncomfortable No comfort

EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION OF PEDESTRIANS5%

7%

15%

62%

4%4% 3%

Retired House Wife Student Service Business Self Employed Unemployed

MONTHLY INCOME DISTRIBUTION OF PEDESTRIANS in '000

20%

23%

28%

24%

4% 1%

No Income 0-5 5--10 10--20 20--30 30-50

TRIP PURPOSE DISTRIBUTION OF PEDESTRIANS

55%

13%

8%

5%

10%

5% 4%

Work Education Shopping Change of mode Return home Jay walker Other

TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION OF PEDESTRIANS

67%

25%

4% 4%

UPTO 500 500 -1000 1000 - 1500 1500 - 2000

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TRIPS MADE BY PEDESTRIANS

1%

79%

8%

8% 4%

Many trip per day Daily Weekly Monthly Occasionally

AVAILABILITY OF FOOTPATHS TO PEDESTRIANS

84%

4%

12%

Available Not avaiable partialy available

Importance Levels of Attributes by Pedestrians

0

20

40

60

80

100

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9A10

Re

sp

on

se

in %

ag

e

Immaterial Least Important Important Very Important Most Important

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9A10

Re

sp

on

se

in %

ag

e


Cannaught Place

ISBT

CRRI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9A10

Re

sp

on

se

in %

ag

e


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9A10

Res

po

nse

in %

age


AIIMS

Azadpur

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9A10

Re

sp

on

se

in %

ag

e


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9A10

Re

sp

on

se

in %

ag

e


Ashram

0

20

40

60

80

100

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9A10

Re

sp

on

se

in %

ag


Janakpuri

0

20

40

60

80

100

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9A10

Re

sp

on

se

in %

ag

e


ITO

0

20

40

60

80

100

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9A10

Re

sp

on

se

in %

ag

e


Hauz Khas

0

20

40

60

80

100

Res

pons

e in

%ag

e


Vivek Vihar

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9A10

Re

sp

on

se

in %

ag

e


Rohini

Shahdara 0

20

40

60

80

100

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9A10

Re

sp

on

se

in %

ag

e


Satisfaction Rating of Attributes by Pedestrians

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Footpath surface

Foot path width

Obstructions

Encroachment

conflict P

otential

Continuity

Pedestrian Vol

Safety

Comfort

Walk environment

Re

sp

on

se

in %

ag

e

Poor Satisfactory Good Very good Exellent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Re

sp

on

se

in %

ag

e


ISBT

Connaught Place

CRRI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Footp

ath su

rface

Foot p

ath

width

Obstru

ction

s

Encro

achm

ent

conflic

t Pote

ntial

Continuit

y

Pedes

trian

Vol

Safety

Comfort

Walk

envir

onm

ent

Re

sp

on

se

in %

ag

e


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Foot

path

sur

face

Foot

pat

h widt

h

Obstru

ction

s

Encro

achm

ent

conf

lict P

oten

tial

Contin

uity

Pedes

trian

Vol

Safet

y

Comfo

rt

Wal

k env

ironm

ent

Re

sp

on

se

in %

ag

e


AIIMS

Azadpur

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80R

es

po

ns

e in

%a

ge


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Foot

path

sur

face

Foot

pat

h widt

h

Obstru

ction

s

Encro

achm

ent

conf

lict P

oten

tial

Contin

uity

Pedes

trian

Vol

Safet

y

Comfo

rt

Wal

k env

ironm

ent

Re

sp

on

se

in %

ag

e


Ashram

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Foot

path

sur

face

Foot

pat

h widt

h

Obstru

ction

s

Encro

achm

ent

conf

lict P

oten

tial

Contin

uity

Pedes

trian

Vol

Safet

y

Comfo

rt

Wal

k env

ironm

ent

Re

sp

on

se

in %

ag

e


Janakpuri

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Foot

path

sur

face

Foot

pat

h width

Obstruc

tions

Encro

achm

ent

conf

lict P

oten

tial

Contin

uity

Pedes

trian

Vol

Safet

y

Comfo

rt

Walk

enviro

nmen

t

Re

sp

on

se

in %

ag

e


ITO

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Foot

path

sur

face

Foot

pat

h widt

h

Obstru

ction

s

Encro

achm

ent

conf

lict P

oten

tial

Contin

uity

Pedes

trian

Vol

Safet

y

Comfo

rt

Wal

k env

ironm

ent

Re

sp

on

se

in %

ag

e


Hauz Khas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Res

po

nse

in %

age

Poor Satisfactory Good Very good ExellentVivek Vihar

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80R

esp

on

se in

%ag

e


Rohini

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Res

po

nse

in %

age


Shahdara

Relative Weights

Footpath surface 3.69 4.08 3.43 4.05 4.35 4.00 3.79 4.00 4.02 4.00 3.86 3.65 3.92

Footpath width 3.65 3.73 3.14 4.15 3.89 3.93 3.69 3.76 4.27 3.61 4.14 3.96 3.80

Obstruction 3.06 3.08 2.57 3.15 3.17 3.12 2.85 3.07 2.98 3.11 2.83 3.61 3.06

Encroachment 3.91 3.57 4.62 4.45 3.45 3.88 4.41 3.83 4.27 3.96 4.69 3.78 3.93

vehicle conflict Pot. 3.90 3.47 4.86 4.20 3.21 4.05 4.26 4.24 4.27 3.96 4.62 3.83 3.92

Continuity 2.17 2.48 1.57 2.25 2.29 2.17 2.08 2.51 2.20 1.96 1.97 2.39 2.23

Pedestrian vol. 3.90 3.81 3.90 4.15 3.91 3.98 4.03 3.76 4.57 4.07 4.14 3.65 3.97

Safety 4.71 4.64 5.00 5.00 4.91 4.87 4.90 4.90 4.95 4.96 4.83 4.91 4.81

Comfort 2.99 3.70 1.52 3.40 4.05 2.98 2.49 3.76 3.08 3.07 2.34 3.17 3.18

Walk environment 3.91 3.62 4.24 4.30 3.80 4.07 3.85 3.90 4.40 4.14 4.07 4.00 3.94

L11 L12L7 L8 L9 L10L3 L4 L5 L6ATTRIBUTES L1 L2

Quantification of Mean Relative Weights for Sidewalk Attributes


ATTRIBUTES L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10

Footpath surface 15.7 11.8 11.8 19.6 19.6 19.6 11.8 15.7 19.6 15.7

Footpath width 11.4 11.4 7.6 15.2 15.2 15.2 11.4 11.4 11.4 7.6

Obstruction 12.2 6.1 6.1 12.2 15.3 15.3 6.1 6.1 9.2 9.2

Encroachment 15.7 11.8 7.9 15.7 19.7 11.8 3.9 7.9 15.7 11.8

vehicle conflict Pot. 11.8 7.8 7.8 19.6 11.8 15.7 15.7 11.8 11.8 11.8

Continuity 4.5 8.9 4.5 8.9 6.7 8.9 4.5 4.5 8.9 4.5

Pedestrian vol. 11.9 11.9 7.9 19.8 19.8 15.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9

Safety 14.4 14.4 9.6 4.8 19.3 4.8 4.8 4.8 14.4 14.4

Comfort 9.6 9.6 9.6 15.9 12.7 9.6 12.7 9.6 9.6 9.6

Walk environment 7.9 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 15.8 3.9 3.9 7.9 7.9

TOTAL 115 113 92 152 160 133 83 84 116 100

LOS C C D A A B D D C D


ATTRIBUTES L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20

Footpath surface 15.7 15.7 15.7 19.6 15.7 3.9 11.8 11.8 15.7 15.7

Footpath width 11.4 7.6 15.2 11.4 15.2 3.8 7.6 11.4 15.2 15.2

Obstruction 6.1 6.1 15.3 6.1 12.2 6.1 6.1 12.2 6.1 9.2

Encroachment 11.8 7.9 19.7 7.9 15.7 11.8 3.9 15.7 11.8 19.7

vehicle conflict Pot. 11.8 3.9 11.8 15.7 11.8 3.9 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8

Continuity 8.9 2.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 2.2 8.9 4.5 6.7 8.9

Pedestrian vol. 4.0 4.0 15.9 11.9 15.9 4.0 7.9 15.9 11.9 4.0

Safety 4.8 4.8 14.4 4.8 14.4 9.6 9.6 9.6 14.4 14.4

Comfort 12.7 3.2 3.2 12.7 9.6 12.7 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6

Walk environment 7.9 3.9 15.8 7.9 15.8 3.9 3.9 15.8 7.9 3.9

TOTAL 95 59 134 105 133 62 81 118 111 112

LOS D F B C B E D C C C


Frequency Distribution of Cumulative Weights

05

101520253035

<25 25 - 50 50 - 75 75 - 100 100 -125

125 -150

150 -175

>175

Cumulative Weights

% o

f L

oc

ati

on

s

Mean = 114, SD = 25

Allocation of Qualitative LOS

LOS Cumulative Score

No. of Sidewalks

Cumulative Score

No. of Sidewalks

A >139 3 > 140 3 B 114 – 139 13 120 -140 9 C 89 – 114 9 100 - 120 9 D 64 – 89 3 80 - 100 7 E <64 2 60 - 80 2

Distribution of Locations using Qualitative LOS Criteria

Range LOS No. of Locations %age> 140 A 3 10

120 -140 B 9 30

100 - 120 C 9 30

80 - 100 D 7 23

<80 E 2 6

Total 30 100

Comparison of Quantitative & Qualitative LOS for Sidewalks

Peak Footpath Quantitative Qualita tive Flow w idth LOS LOS

Ashram 792 2.5 A CITO 1992 5 A ACP 4248 4.5 C B

ISBT 1651 1.4 C DAIIMS 1462 2 B D

Location

Application of the Qualitative LOS Models

Evaluation of a sidewalk facility

For evaluating alternate design

Assessment of Level of Service

Attribute Description Satisfaction

Rating Relative Weight

Footpath Surface

Smooth surface with no cracks or bumps, well maintained facility

5 3.92

Footpath Width

More than 3 m. wide 5 3.80

Obstruction

No obstruction(trees, billboard, poles) 5 3.06

Encroachment

No encroachment 5 3.93

Potential for Veh. Conflict

Well protected, completely segregated 5 3.92

Continuity

Continuous, curb cuts, gentle ramps 5 2.23

Pedestrian Vol.

Very low (located in elite location) 5 3.97

Safety

Very safe, police patrol vehicle available 24 hours

5 4.81

Comfort

Very comfortable ( Protection from inclement weather)

5 3.18

Walk Environment

Lush green environment, aesthetically pleasing

5 3.94

Cumulative core = 175 Level of Service A



Footpath Surface

Moderate quality with few bumps and cracks

3 3.92

Footpath Width More than 3 meters 5 3.80

Obstruction Few obstructions, like plantations 3 3.06

Encroachment

Few informal sector shops, slightly difficult to walk

3 3.93

Potential for Veh. Conflict Raised footpath, no guard rails 4 3.92

Continuity 1-2 ups and downs 4 2.23

Pedestrian Vol. Moderate 3 3.97

Safety

Safe during day only 3 4.81

Comfort

Comfortable 4 3.18

Walk Environment Acceptable 3 3.94

Cumulative Score = 127 Level of Service ‘B’




Footpath Surface

Reasonable quality, walking is comfortable

4 3.92

Footpath Width

2-3 meters 4 3.80

Obstruction

Too many obstructions (Hoarding, signboards)

2 3.06

Encroachment

Slightly difficult to walk 3 3.93


Well protected with railings 5 3.92

Continuity

Few ups and downs 3 2.23

Pedestrian Vol.

High pedestrian volume 2 3.97

Safety


Comfort

Uncomfortable 1 3.18

Walk Environment

Acceptable environment 3 3.94

Cumulative Score = 112 Level of Service ‘C’




Footpath Surface

Moderate with few bumps and cracks

3 3.92

Footpath Width

Varies at places with width0.5 – 1 meter

2 3.80

Obstruction Few 3 3.06 Encroachment No problem to walk 4 3.93 Potential for Veh. Conflict

Footpath not sufficiently raised and no guard rails

2 3.92

Continuity Few ups and downs 3 2.23 Pedestrian Vol.

High 2 3.97

Safety Safe during day only 3 4.81 Comfort Uncomfortable 2 3.18 Walk Environment

Poor 2 3.94

Cumulative Score = 95 Level of Service ‘D’




Footpath Surface Very bad condition 1 3.92 Footpath Width No Footpath 1 3.80 Obstruction

Can not walk o footpath

1 3.06

Encroachment

Very difficult to walk 2 3.93


Very unsafe 1 3.92

Continuity

Non existent 1 2.23

Pedestrian Vol. Very high 1 3.97 Safety


Comfort

Uncomfortable 2 3.18

Walk Environment Poor 2 3.94 Cumulative Score = 57

Level of Service ‘E’


Level of Service at sample locations Under Do Nothing Scenario

Attributes/Location L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20 Footpath surface 4 4 4 5 4 1 3 3 4 4 Footpath width 3 2 4 3 4 1 2 3 4 4 Obstruction 2 2 5 2 4 2 2 4 2 3 Encroachment 3 2 5 2 4 3 1 4 3 5 Vehicle conflict Pot. 3 1 3 4 3 1 3 3 3 3 Continuity 4 1 3 3 3 1 4 2 3 4 Pedestrian vol. 1 1 4 3 4 1 2 4 3 1 Safety 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 Comfort 4 1 1 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 Walk environment 2 1 4 2 4 1 1 4 2 1 Score 95 59 134 105 133 62 81 118 111 112

LOS (0) D E B C B E D C C C

Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Footpath Surface) on Walkability

Attributes/Location L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20 Footpath surface 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Footpath width 3 2 4 3 4 1 2 3 4 4 Obstruction 2 2 5 2 4 2 2 4 2 3 Encroachment 3 2 5 2 4 3 1 4 3 5 Vehicle conflict Pot. 3 1 3 4 3 1 3 3 3 3 Continuity 4 1 3 3 3 1 4 2 3 4 Pedestrian vol. 1 1 4 3 4 1 2 4 3 1 Safety 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 Comfort 4 1 1 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 Walk environment 2 1 4 2 4 1 1 4 2 1 Score 99 63 137 105 138 78 89 126 115 116 LOS (0) D E B C B E D C C C LOS (A1) D E B C B E D B C C

Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Footpath Width) on Walkability

Attributes/Location L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20 Footpath surface 4 4 4 5 4 1 3 3 4 4 Footpath width 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Obstruction 2 2 5 2 4 2 2 4 2 3 Encroachment 3 2 5 2 4 3 1 4 3 5 Vehicle conflict Pot. 3 1 3 4 3 1 3 3 3 3 Continuity 4 1 3 3 3 1 4 2 3 4 Pedestrian vol. 1 1 4 3 4 1 2 4 3 1 Safety 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 Comfort 4 1 1 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 Walk environment 2 1 4 2 4 1 1 4 2 1 Score 103 71 137 112 137 77 93 126 115 116 LOS (0) D E B C B E D C C C LOS (A2) C E B C B E D B C C

Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Obstruction) on Walkability


Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Encroachment) on Walkability


Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Potential for Veh. Conflict) on Walkability

Attributes/Location L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20 Footpath surface 4 4 4 5 4 1 3 3 4 4 Footpath width 3 2 4 3 4 1 2 3 4 4 Obstruction 2 2 5 2 4 2 2 4 2 3 Encroachment 3 2 5 2 4 3 1 4 3 5 Vehicle conflict Pot. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Continuity 4 1 3 3 3 1 4 2 3 4 Pedestrian vol. 1 1 4 3 4 1 2 4 3 1 Safety 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 Comfort 4 1 1 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 Walk environment 2 1 4 2 4 1 1 4 2 1 Score 103 75 141 109 141 78 89 126 119 120 LOS (0) D E B C B E D C C C LOS (A5) C E A C A E D B C C

Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Continuity) on Walkability

Attributes/Location L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20 Footpath surface 4 4 4 5 4 1 3 3 4 4 Footpath width 3 2 4 3 4 1 2 3 4 4 Obstruction 2 2 5 2 4 2 2 4 2 3 Encroachment 3 2 5 2 4 3 1 4 3 5 Vehicle conflict Pot. 3 1 3 4 3 1 3 3 3 3 Continuity 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian vol. 1 1 4 3 4 1 2 4 3 1 Safety 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 Comfort 4 1 1 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 Walk environment 2 1 4 2 4 1 1 4 2 1 Score 97 68 138 109 137 71 83 125 116 115 LOS (0) D E B C B E D C C C LOS (A6) D E B C B E D B C C

Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Pedestrian Vol.) on Walkability


Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Safety) on Walkability

Attributes/Location L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20 Footpath surface 4 4 4 5 4 1 3 3 4 4 Footpath width 3 2 4 3 4 1 2 3 4 4 Obstruction 2 2 5 2 4 2 2 4 2 3 Encroachment 3 2 5 2 4 3 1 4 3 5 Vehicle conflict Pot. 3 1 3 4 3 1 3 3 3 3 Continuity 4 1 3 3 3 1 4 2 3 4 Pedestrian vol. 1 1 4 3 4 1 2 4 3 1 Safety 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Comfort 4 1 1 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 Walk environment 2 1 4 2 4 1 1 4 2 1 Score 114 79 143 124 143 77 96 133 121 122 LOS (0) D E B C B E D C C C LOS (A8) C E A B A E D B B B

Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Comfort) on Walkability

Attributes/Location L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20 Footpath surface 4 4 4 5 4 1 3 3 4 4 Footpath width 3 2 4 3 4 1 2 3 4 4 Obstruction 2 2 5 2 4 2 2 4 2 3 Encroachment 3 2 5 2 4 3 1 4 3 5 Vehicle conflict Pot. 3 1 3 4 3 1 3 3 3 3 Continuity 4 1 3 3 3 1 4 2 3 4 Pedestrian vol. 1 1 4 3 4 1 2 4 3 1 Safety 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 Comfort 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Walk environment 2 1 4 2 4 1 1 4 2 1 Score 98 72 146 108 139 65 88 125 117 119 LOS (0) D E B C B E D C C C LOS (A9) D E A C B E D B C C

Effect of Change in Sidewalk Attribute (Walk Environment) on Walkability

Attributes/Location L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20 Footpath surface 4 4 4 5 4 1 3 3 4 4 Footpath width 3 2 4 3 4 1 2 3 4 4 Obstruction 2 2 5 2 4 2 2 4 2 3 Encroachment 3 2 5 2 4 3 1 4 3 5 Vehicle conflict Pot. 3 1 3 4 3 1 3 3 3 3 Continuity 4 1 3 3 3 1 4 2 3 4 Pedestrian vol. 1 1 4 3 4 1 2 4 3 1 Safety 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 Comfort 4 1 1 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 Walk environment 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Score 107 75 138 117 137 78 97 122 123 128 LOS (0) D E B C B E D C C C LOS (A10) C E B C B E D B B B

Level of service model developed through qualitative analysis designates a sidewalk in terms of a walkability score depending on the ten identified attributes.

Walkability assessment of pedestrian infrastructure need to be a modeled as a composite function of both design factors and user perception.

Application of this model can be explained by studying the effect of change in sidewalk attributes on the walkability scores.

This model shall be useful to evaluate existing pedestrian infrastructure along with evolving ALTERNATIVES for improving pedestrian facilities.

Epilogue