PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY INDEX (PAI) FOR TRANSIT STATIONS: A FRAMEWORK TO EVALUATE PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY TO PUBLIC

TRANSIT

Neog, DristiSushant School of Art and Architecture, Gurgaon, India

neog.dristi@gmail.com

1. SUMMARY

Existing infrastructure and available travel options do not always meet the needs of the huge chunk of the Indian urban population who walk or use public transit. This study attempts to direct attention to the needs of pedestrians and public transit users in terms of having effective access to their core transportation service - public transit. The intention of the study is two-fold. Firstly, it formulates a Pedestrian Accessibility Index (PAI) that appropriately measures and assesses pedestrian accessibility to important nodes like transit stations. Secondly, it applies this index to two metro stations in Gurgaon, to demonstrate the effectiveness of such index.

The PAI is framed by conducting a thorough review literature resulting in a 27-point index covering various aspects of accessibility, safety, security, comfort and convenience.

Using visual surveys and Geographic Information System (GIS), the scores were computed for the two selected stations in Gurgaon. This pinpointed factors that worked or did not work well at these stations. The first metro station –Huda City Center (score – 12/27) failed to impress in terms of quality and safe pedestrian environments and provision of disability infrastructure, but has scored high on location and security factors. IFFCO Chowk (score 14/27), the second metro station did only slightly better in terms of safety, but failed to provide a heightened sense of security and disability infrastructure. Both stations failed to deliver much on comfort and convenience and have potential to be improved in these fronts. These revelations provide meaningful and actionable insights for interventions to improve these existing stations and also plan for better future ones.

Key Words: accessibility; transit station; pedestrian; index

1. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

In a world of jazzy sophisticated machines meant for travel, we have forgotten to pay attention to our most basic, simple, fuel efficient and non-polluting mode that takes us around, at least for short distance – Walking. It does not consume resources and also is associated with health benefits, and yet does not quiet get the respect and attention as it needs to. Existing infrastructure and available travel options do not always meet the needs pedestrians and transit riders. In most cases, faster speeds and efficiency of moving motorised private vehicles become the performance measures and assumptions for traffic studies are based on motorised travel behaviour [Leather, Fabian, Gota and Mejia, 2011; Krambeck and Shah,

2006]. Scarce resources, lack of political will and awareness lead to situations where pedestrian safety, mobility and convenience lie low on the priority list.

25 to 50% of our trips in major Indian cities are made on foot [Krambeck and Shah, 2006, Wilbur Smith Associates, 2008], yet studies show that pedestrians represent more than half of all traffic related fatalities in developing countries and are more likely to be killed or injured in these nations, including the Indian Subcontinent [Krambeck and Shah, 2006, Sayer and Palmer, 1997].

The good news is that we have started acknowledging the importance of non-motorised modes and giving thought to how we may support our non motorised modes of travel through public and para transit services.

1.1 The Case for Public Transit

An Asian Development Bank working paper reports that walking mode share in Indian cities has reduced over time and most pedestrians have shifted to modes like two wheelers and car. However, it also reports that walking has been replaced by public transit to some extent [Leather, Fabian, Gota and Mejia, 2011]. Such findings suggest that pedestrians who want to shift to motorized modes can still do so without choosing less sustainable means of travel like private cars and opt for public transit, as long as that is made convenient, accessible, safe and economically viable.

In addition, enabling role of public transit as a cushion and insurance for pedestrians who need it to complete their longer trips gives enough reason to pay attention to how we connect the pedestrians to facilities of public transit. If we do a good job, we may lure pedestrians into more sustainable public transit modes instead of two wheelers and cars and also provide for those who do cannot adopt the private car or the two- wheeler. Well accessed transit stations can support ridership market expansion, ridership potential increases, reduced air pollution as a result of reduction in auto, mobile use, enhanced development potential better quality of life, and improved individual health and most importantly equitable mobility [Sherman, 2001].

So, this study attempts to direct attention to the needs of pedestrians and public transit users in terms of having effective access to public transit in general and to metro stations in particular. The intention of the study is two-fold. Firstly, it formulates a Pedestrian Accessibility Index (PAI) that appropriately measures and assesses pedestrian accessibility to metro transit stations and simplifies evaluation of these transit hubs. Secondly, it applies it to two important metro stations in Gurgaon to demonstrate the effectiveness of the index. Gurgaon has been growing at a rapid rate and has future plans to expand its rail based transit service. The city authorities need to be sensitized to the needs of pedestrians, and design for pedestrian friendly metro stations in the future.

2. METHODS

The creation of a pedestrian accessibility index is based on the various criteria in the literature and similar studies in the past. Visual surveys and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) have been used to document the proximity metrics

around two metro stations in Gurgaon to understand application of the PAI. The two metro stations are Huda City Center (HCC) and IFFCO Chowk(IC) stations.

2.1 Measures

The table 2.1.1 presents the components and specific measures that constitute the accessibility score and the rating of metro station based on these. These are drawn from the body of literature that contribute to walkability and accessibility for pedestrians and are explained below. One should note that along lines of many global indices that like the World Bank Global Walkability index and the Yale Environmental Sustainability index [Krambeck and Shah, 2006] that have given equal weight age to its variables to avoid issues pertaining to determining which are relatively more important or less important factors, this study assigns equal weight age to all its components.

The literature review revealed four broad categories that should be considered for evaluating walkability of a location. These include – accessibility, safety, security and comfort and convenience. The factors are mostly measured for radial areas of ½ mile around stations as ¼ mile is considered comfortable walking distance and one could extend to a maximum ½ mile buffer to assess the station proximities.

2.1.1 Accessibility

Although the index itself is called an accessibility index, the particular accessibility component of the index consists of measures without which it would be impossible for pedestrians to even reach the station.

The first accessibility measure is regarding the location of stations. Used in similar studies [Sherman, 2001], the measure is intended to understand whether the station is sited in a location in middle of nowhere or well integrated with the surrounding land uses. The ideal site is one that is surrounded by high density residential, commercial and institutional/public spaces [ UTTIPEC, 2010] that allows for maximum number of origins and destinations for pedestrians. A metro station is given a point if more than 50 % of the land area consists of high density residential, commercial and institutional/public spaces.

Researchers have found that connectivity /network patterns impact walkability and are assessed in terms of block perimeters, % T and 4-Way intersections, % cul de sac streets etc in an area [Zhang, 2006, Song and Knaap, 2004, Greenwald and Boarnet, 2001]. A finer street network with more 4-way intersections provides pedestrians with more route options, both in terms of shorter distances and quality of the route. A metro station is given a point If more than 50% of the intersections within a ½ mile radius are 4-way intersections.

The next measure is the availability of a pedestrian network. Sidewalks can make a station accessible for the pedestrian and the percent of sidewalks around 1/2 mile radius around stations can capture that aspect of accessibility. The station gets a point if 50 % of the street network within a 1/2 mile radius has pedestrian sidewalks.

Universal accessibility enables pedestrians with special needs to safely navigate their way to the stations and also is the only way that provides access to the station. The variables within this are based on UTTIPECs Street design checklist and recommended by the Institute of Transport studies (Monash) [Hung, Manandhar and

Ranasinghege, 2010, UTTIPEC, 2010]. These measures assess if the stations in question are designed for those with special needs in terms of crossing and travel ease and information accessing. The station gets points if there are curb ramps at levels changes with proper widths, slopes and material treatment and if they have auditory signals and graphical signage in the vicinity.

2.1.2 Safety

The subsequent measures assess the safety component of the walking paths that influence the overall accessibility to stations. The first variable- modal conflict measures the extent to which pedestrians share the same road space with other modes [Leather, Fabian, Gota and Mejia 2011, Hung, Manandhar and Ranasinghege 2010, Krambeck and Shah 2006]. Since there is no ideal ratio of pedestrians versus other modes set, this was left to the judgement call of the field surveyor whose assessment was based on how many pedestrians walk amongst or against other modes in 5 minute intervals.

Availability of crossings enable pedestrians to safely reach the station entrances and ideally should be available every 300 m [Hung, Manandhar and Ranasinghege, 2010], One would find it acceptable to have these with the walkable range of 1/2 mile or approximately 805meters. Whether or not these crossings are signalised is also important. Although most crossings on Indian streets may miss signalised crossings, these measures are included in the index as they are almost a must to accommodate persons with special needs and also enhance safety and comfort of all pedestrians. Since metro rail is a relatively new and progressive mode of public transit, the access to these stations should also be equally modern and up to date.

Medians and refuge islands if spaced well can make crossings safer and convenient, especially for mid block crossings where pedestrians can wait safely while crossing streets that are really wide [Grimm and Horsely, 2003]. For the purpose of this index, it is acceptable to have refuge islands and medians that allow pedestrians to take refuge on or cross within a walkable range of ½ mile radial area or 805 m approx.

The subsequent safety measure deals with the motorist behaviour. Used for the Global Walkability Index [Krambeck and Shah 2006], the measure adopted for this index is to notes if motorists yield to pedestrians. For stations to score points on these, observations for 5 minute intervals should suggest instances of yielding within ½ mile radius of the stations.

2.1.3 Security

Lighting can provide a sense of security, especially women and has been used in indices and checklists [UTTIPEC, 2010, Krambeck and Shah 2006, Grimm and Horsely 2003]. The station would earn points if within a radius of 1/2 miles, 50% or more of the walking paths are well lit.

The presence of hawkers/vendors has adds a sense of security as they play the role of eyes on the street if they do not encroach on pedestrian walkways. The index takes into consideration the presence of such hawkers in the vicinity. It also takes sight lines into consideration, as unobstructed sight lines not only eliminate danger from motorists, who may fail to locate them, but also brings about a positive perception of the environment and discourage crimes targeted at the slow moving

pedestrians [Sherman, 2001]. The station earns a point if there are unobstructive hawkers, within ½ mile of station and another point for clear unobstructed views.

2.1.4 Comfort and convenience

The factors that add to the comfort and convenience of pedestrians are in terms station siting and design. A station sited next to very wide road with multiple lanes to cross, or a railroad track is not convenient, and neither would be a station which has limited pedestrian entrances that are not oriented to make distances shorter. A parking lot in front of the entrance for instance may elongate a pedestrian’s trip to the station, even if by a few hundred meters. Stations with many entrances can provide for more pedestrian opportunities from more directions. The possibility for more entrances for future should be there to accommodate growing ridership. Stations located next to a highway/ railroad corridor/feature that acts like a barrier and inconveniences pedestrians would not get points. Stations which do not have existing or potential multiple pedestrian oriented entrances score zero.

The width of the sidewalks is also an important factor contributing to the comfort of a pedestrian. A narrow sidewalk is not only uncomfortable, but also unsafe, especially next to a roadway with fast moving vehicles. The stations get a positive score if at least 50% of the sidewalks within ½ mile radial area are equal to or more than 1.5 m wide, a standard specified by UTTIPEC [UTTIPEC, 2010].

The width of sidewalks may be influenced by obstructions- permanent or temporary (Hung, Manandhar and Ranasinghege 2010).The cleanliness and maintenance of the walking paths also make it visually pleasing and relatively less dangerous and comfortable for pedestrians. The PAI takes these into consideration and gives positive scores to the measures if at least 50 % of the network within the ½ mile radial area have no obstacles, and are clean and well maintained.

Comfort of pedestrians also depends on trees, shades and other amenities like toilets, benches and such furniture in the vicinity of the station. Ideally, UTTIPEC suggests that there should be public toilets, including one for persons with disabilities located every 500 - 800 m and preferably near transit stations [UTTIPEC, 2010]. The index rates stations based on these. The last measure adopted by the index is that of signage that identifies that presence of station and other information. The index rates station on basis of availability of such signage.

All the specific variables and measures within the four major categories summarize into a 27-point index that can be both used to compare pedestrian accessibility across different transit stations and also to identify key factors that contribute the success and failure of a transit station in terms of its pedestrian accessibility.

2.2 Research Limitations

It should be noted that there are a few parameters that are important, but have not been included in the index due to the nature and context of the index. Details of footpaths and sidewalks like paving material, curb heights, grade separated crossings, exact location of missing sidewalks, description of sidewalk quality, traffic calming features, appropriateness of signal timing are not included in the index for purposes of simplification. Policy support for pedestrians and details of traffic management at crossings are beyond the scope of the project. Data on pedestrian

fatalities and injuries, crime data and perceptions of pedestrians, can complement the score, but are not part of this study.

3. RESULTS

The 27 point index was applied to two metro stations in Gurgaon- the Huda City Center (HCC) and IFFCO Chowk (IC) metro stations. Functional since June 2010, HCC is the last station on the yellow line of Delhi Metro that connects Gurgaon to Delhi. IC happens to be the second last stop on the same line and is in proximity to the Westin Hotel, IFFCO office, Power Grid Corporation and RITES Limited. Both these are elevated stations and busy stations serving a lot of commuters.

Table 3.1.1 provides the scores for both the stations. HCC scores only 12 points out of 27 total points suggesting that it does not fare very well in terms of providing pedestrian access. IC metro station is only slightly better than the HCC station and scores 14 points out of 27, just a little above 50% of the total score. In terms of accessibility, both stations fare badly, scoring only 3(HCC) and 2 (IC) out of 8 points. Both the stations score 0 on disability infrastructure. IC station is safer than HCC station, with the former adding 4 points and the later only 2 points to the PAI. With 3 points for security, HCC fares well in terms of the sense of security for the pedestrians as compared to IC which gets only 1 point out of 3. However, HCC fails to provide for a comfortable and convenience pedestrian experience compared to IC which scores 7 out of 11 points against only 4 out of 11 for HCC.

4. DISCUSSION

As reflected in the results, a PAI starts to provide a sense how accessible a station is for pedestrians and how it compares to other stations. For instance, an assessment of HCC reveals it fares very badly in terms of accessibility. While location wise, it is very well integrated with high density residential (yellow), commercial (red) and institutional (purple and blue) land uses and even has a well connected network catering to the needs of pedestrians, the station is not surrounded with walking paths that have the design or infrastructure that can enable or support disabled users. The maps shows that the major streets that leads to the stations have sidewalks, but these are in bad shape (lighter shade of red indicates poor quality pathway) and do not conform to the design needs of the disabled.

Land uses within ½ mile of HCC Pedestrian path availability and type within ½ mile of HCC

Availability of crossings within ½ mile of HCC

On the safety aspect, HCC has an undesirable modal conflict, with pedestrians who jaywalk and cross at points that do not have marked crossings. Although crossings are available (green triangles), they are relatively far spaced apart and not signalised. Pedestrians have the opportunity to take refuge in medians, but the motorists’ behaviour of not yielding even once in 5 minutes (at time of visual survey), puts the pedestrians in grave danger every time he wants to access the station.

HCC does offer a good sense of security. The lighting on medians mostly and above sidewalks and keeps the area well lit and the station being open on most sides has an unobstructed line of sight from more points. The hawkers in the area and informal modes like auto/rickshaws also create a level of activity that makes one feel more secured than a covered, isolated place.

The comfort and convenience measures rank HCC very low. Being located on a sub-arterial road and next to two major intersections make the station very inaccessible, inconvenient and uncomfortable for pedestrians who negotiate multilane roads and a high volume of traffic to get to the station. HCC does have multiple entries, and could potentially open up more entrances in more directions which could help the pedestrian find his way to the station premises and signage that lead to these entrances are acceptable for healthy adults without special needs. However, as mentioned before, the sidewalks meant for pedestrians are not in their best shape. Few segments have sidewalks that are hardly 1 meter and there are missing pieces of sidewalks in the segments in ½ mile radial area around the station. In those segments that do have the right width, obstructions like those caused by vendors and trees take away from the fact that sidewalks are available. Trees provide some shade, but there are no toilets, street furniture or even trash bins for the pedestrian.

5. CONCLUSION

A PAI was formulated after a thorough literature review and applied to two metro stations in Gurgaon to assess how pedestrian friendly these stations are.

Application of metro stations in Gurgaon pinpointed factors that worked or did not work well at these stations and may be used to inform authorities and policy makers to improve existing stations, and plan better for the future ones through pedestrian focused interventions. One can take the case of HCC as an example. Blessed with a great location, a connected network of sidewalks and a good sense of security, HCC can become an ideal metro station if attention is paid to safety and convenience features, and most importantly by ensuring there is disability infrastructure which it lacks. Being served by only one spine, IC may not have the best of locations, but with attention to details, especially disability infrastructure and efforts to increase security, IC may also become a pedestrian accessible and friendly station.

In addition to assessing these stations and getting insights about it, the PAI also focuses our attention to some of the problems that pedestrians have to face. The index can generate some awareness of key factors that affect pedestrian travel behaviour that can provide meaningful and actionable insights for interventions in the future. These interventions can create well designed, connected and accessible stations which in turn can expand transit ridership markets, increase ridership and also better serve the already existing section of transit users.

Table 2.1.1: List of selected measures and variable for the index

Components Variable Measure

Accessibility Location/ siting Is the station sited in the middle of nowhere/dispersed development?  Street network Is the percent of 4 way intersection within ½ mile of station above 50%?  Are the percent walkable paths in street network in ½ mile above 50%? 

Universal accessible design/disability infrastructure

Is there raised table top crossings level with sidewalks within ½ mile of station?

  Is there curb ramps at level changes with slope (1:12) and width (1.2m) and tactile warning strips at its edges in the 1/2 mile radial area around stations?

  Are there auditory crossings at traffic signals or in ½ mile radial area?  Do walking surfaces in the ½ mile radius have tactile pavers?  Are all signage within ½ mile of station graphic/ symbol based, rather than text based?Safety Walking Modal conflict Is the modal conflict undesirable?  Crossing Are there pedestrian crossings in ½ mile radial area around station?  Is the crossing signalised?

  Medians and Refuge islands Are there medians and refuge islands in ½ mile radius around the station?

  Motorist Behaviour Are there instances of motorists yielding to pedestrians in 5 minute intervals?Security Lighting Is 50% or more of the walking paths within ½ mile radius well lit  Eyes on street Are there unobstructive hawkers in the ½ mile radial area around the station  Perception of security Are the lines of sight across street unobstructed?Comfort and convenience

Location Is the station next to a barrier like expressway/railroad corridor?

Entrance Are the entrances to the station pedestrian oriented?  Existing/potential for multiple entrances? 

Continuity and integrity of sidewalks

Is the percent of wide sidewalks (>=1.5 meter) within ½ mile of station more than 50 %   Are there missing sidewalks in a radius of ½ mile around the stations?  Are there temporary or permanent obstructions on walking paths?  Is the sidewalk in ½ mile radius clean and well maintained?  Trees and shade Are there trees/other shades along the walking path within ½ mile radius?  Amenities Are there public toilets near stations within ½ mile of station?  Are there benches/street furniture and trash bins within ½ mile of station?  Signage Is there proper signage that directs to station and amenities near the station?

HCC IFFCO Chowk

Components Variable Yes/No Point Yes/No PointAccessibility Location/siting N 1 N 1  Street network-connectivity Y 1 N 0  Street network –availability Y 1 Y 1

  Disability infrastructure - Crossings level N 0 N 0

  Disability infrastructure - Curb ramps N 0 N 0

  Disability infrastructure - Crossings signal N 0 N 0

  Disability infrastructure - Surfaces N 0 N 0  Disability infrastructure - Signage N 0 N 0Accessibility - total     3/8   2/8Safety Walking Modal conflict Y 0 N 1  Crossing availability Y 1 Y 1  Crossing signalised N 0 N 0  Medians and Refuge islands Y 1 Y 1  Motorist Behaviour N 0 Y 1Safety - total     2/5   4/5Security Lighting Y 1 N 0  Eyes on street Y 1 Y 1  Perception of security Y 1 N 0

Security - total     3/3   1/3Comfort and convenience 

Location Y 0 N 1

Entrance orientation Y 1 Y 1

  Multiple entrances Y 1 Y 1

  Continuity and integrity of sidewalks- sidewalk width N 0 Y 1

  Continuity and integrity of sidewalks - missing sidewalk Y 0 Y 0

  Continuity and integrity of sidewalks - obstructions Y 0 Y 0

 Continuity and integrity of sidewalks - sidewalk cleanliness and maintenance

N 0 Y 1

  Trees and shade Y 1 Y 1  Amenities- public toilet N 0 N 0  Amenities- furniture/trash bins N 0 N 0  Signage Y 1 Y 1Comfort & convenience - total     4/11   7/11

Table 3.1.1: PAI for Huda City Center (HCC) and IFFCO Chowk (IC) stations

REFERENCES

Greenwald, M. and Boarnet, M. 2001. “Built Environment as Determinant of Walking Behaviour: Analysing Nonwork Pedestrian Behaviour in Portland, Oregon” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No 1780. pp 33-42

Hung, W.T., Manandhar, A., & Ranasinghege, S.A. 2010. A Walkability Survey in Hong Kong. Conference paper delivered at The 12th International Conference on Mobility and Transport for Elderly and Disabled Persons (TRANSED) held in Hong Kong on 2-4 June, 2010. [Internet]. Available from: www.sortclearinghouse.info/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1774&context=research, accessed on March 15, 2012.

Krambeck, H. and Shah, J. 2006. The Global Walkability Index: Talk The Walk and Walk The Talk. Internship report and a field test conducted in one city. [Internet]. Available from cleanairinitiative.org/portal/system/files/60499_paper.pdf, accessed on March 15, 2012.

Leather, J., Fabian, H., Gota S. and Mejia, A. 2011. Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Asian Cities, State and Issues. Asian Development Bank Sustainable Development Working Paper Series. February 2011. [Internet]. Available from: cleanairinitiative.org/portal/sites/default/files/ADB-WP17-Walkability-Pedestrian-Facilities-Asian-Cities.pdf, accessed on March 15, 2012.

Lewis G. and. Horsley A.S. 2003. “Elderly issues in transportation”. NCHRP Project 08-36, Task 31, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board.

Sayer, I.A. and C.J. Palmer. 1997. Pedestrian Accidents and Road Safety Education in Selected Developing Countries. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.transportlinks. org/transport_links/filearea/publications/1_561_PA3229 _1997.pdf, accessed on March 15, 2012.

Sherman Ryan. 2001. Improving Pedestrian Access to Transit Stations in LessWalkable Environments. [Internet]. Available from: www.walk21.com/papers/Park.pdf

Song, W. and Knaap, G. 2004. “Measuring Urban Form: Is Portland Winning the War on Sprawl?” Journal of the American Planning Association 70 (2): 210-225

UTTIPEC. 2010. Street Design Guidelines, UTTIPEC, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi March 2010. [Internet]. Available from: uttipec.nic.in/writereaddata/mainlinkFile/File280.pdf, accessed on March 15, 2012.

Wilbur Smith Associates. 2008. Study on Traffic & Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban Areas in India, Final Report 2008, Ministry of Urban Development. [Internet]. Available from: urbanindia.nic.in/programme/ut/final_Report.pdf

Zhang, Ming. 2006. “Travel choice with no alternative: Can land use reduce automobile dependence”, Journal of Planning and Educational Research, JPER 25, Vol 3, pp 311-326.