Measuring Pedestrian Accessibility: Comparing Central Business and Commercial Districts

Measuring Pedestrian Accessibility: Comparing Central Business and Commercial Districts in Beijing, London, and New York City

Summary: This paper proposes a new indicator for urban accessibility - design and measurement - and introduces a new variable in the evaluation of the urban core. The connection between accessibility and urban design is established by modeling pedestrian accessibility from major transport hubs to key points of interest in a downtown urban environment (specifically areas of employment and commerce). An investigative study was conducted in 2008 to test this indicator in three major urban cities: Beijing, London, and New York. The study reveals impressive data on levels of accessibility and coordination of land use and public transport service planning, and further sheds light on the impact that urban compactness, built environment, network design, and pedestrian infrastructure have on the provision of access to goods and services in a city’s urban core. Results of the study indicate that pedestrian accessibility is a measure, not only of infrastructure design and quality, but also of the successful arrangement of urban resources (i.e., goods, services, recreation, greenery). Further, this paper suggests that improved urban design will lead to more attractive and effective public transport systems.

Authors: Mariana Torres (World Economic Forum); Li Yanan (Independent Consultant); Emily Dubin (Independent Consultant); Shomik Mehndiratta (World Bank)

1 I. Introduction

When on lunch break, how far must you travel from your office to access a restaurant and how convenient is it to walk there? From the World Bank Office in Beijing, we often walked for an average of 18 minutes to reach one of our favorite lunch spots in Beijing’s Central Business District (CBD), which was located a mere 100 meters distance across the street from our office building. The reason: Beijing’s third ring road, which includes few pedestrian crossings, stands directly in between the two locations, and practically cuts through this growing CBD. Accessibility, when applied to urban transportation, measures the ability and level of convenience with which people access goods and services. Accessibility is a key indicator defining a city’s success, given high levels of access provide populations with the opportunity to connect through marketplaces of goods, activities, and ideas. Ultimately, providing access to these opportunities is transportation’s main goal, as cities develop and progress with enhanced relationship-building, exchange, and connectivity. Three levels of urban transport accessibility are required to achieve high connectivity in a city: (1) road access for motorized vehicles (e.g. a well-connected road network); (2) public transport access (e.g. a high coverage system); and (3) non-motorized access (e.g. safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle facilities). While emphasis is often placed on road and public transport infrastructure, pedestrian and non-motorized access is too often overlooked. Such pedestrian access is particularly valuable in terms of continued growth and long-term sustainability of urban cores, especially within the fastest-growing cities of the developing world, which often have a tendency towards sprawl and therefore higher costs attributed to connectivity.

Giving adequate attention to accessibility is important because appropriate provision of pedestrian access is critical to the success of a public transport system. When pedestrian accessibility is reliable, safe and convenient, public transport options become the preferred mode of transport in urban centers and personal motorized vehicles. This concept is especially relevant to trip-makers who have a choice between public and private modes of transport; even extensive networks cannot compensate for a failure in adequate access to public transport facilities. In countries like China, whose cities follow a national mandate to give priority to public transport through the implementation of bus and metro systems, particular attention to pedestrian accessibility is vital to success.

Finally, pedestrian accessibility and walkability is important in and of itself. As pedestrian access increases, people become less dependent on motorized transit options, private motorized transport in particular. Many cities in the developing world, and nearly all cities in China still show that, on average, more than fifty percent of person-trips made within the urban core are made either by foot or bicycle. By further improving pedestrian accessibility, there will be less pressure to invest in the large-scale and costly infrastructure required to accommodate large volumes of motorized transport – public and private. Furthermore, despite the importance of quality of pedestrian facilities (e.g.

2 proper sidewalks that are safe and involve adequate facilities), the pedestrian network must lead people to where they need to go.1

An investigative study was performed in 2008 in order to provide insights into levels of accessibility as well as the coordination of land use and public transport planning. This was achieved by testing out a basic accessibility indicator: number of jobs and square feet of commercial floor-space area accessible within a 10 and 20 minute walking radius of a major public transit station in the city’s central commercial district and central business district (CBD). Data was gathered in three metropolitan areas: Beijing, London, and New York, and compared to provide the following results and conclusions offered below. In the sections that follow, study findings provide insight into the urban design variables including urban compactness, built environments and pedestrian friendliness (landscapes, lighting, sidewalk quality, etc.), which have a causal effect on the survey results. Conclusions on the significance of the different degrees of accessibility and the relevance of this work follow.

II. Defining an Indicator for Pedestrian Accessibility

Pedestrian accessibility measured through walking surveys were conducted in October 2008 and August 2009 in Beijing, London, and New York City. These surveys modeled the distance, direction and obstacles encountered in traveling from major transport hubs to key points of interest in a downtown urban environment. The surveys were based on catchment areas determined by 10 and 20 minute walks in four cardinal directions from a major metro station in the central commercial and business district areas of each of the three cities. Eight total walks were performed for each city, one in each of the four cardinal directions for each of two transport hubs per city. The public transport hubs chosen were selected on the basis of their high influx of passengers and location in important business and commercial districts in each city. In the case of Beijing, the fast-growing CBD area is centered around Guomao Metro Station, while Xidan Metro Station is the main station to access the city’s most important commercial powerhouse. Similarly, Bank Street and Oxford Circle in London are the two main terminals to access the city’s CBD and the commercial center. New York City’s Grand Central Terminal, with a daily influx of 125,000 commuters a day, is the most important public transit terminal in this high-density job area. The 34th Street Herald Square Metro Station lies at the heart of New York City’s commercial district. Once the end points of each walk were determined, a catchment area was defined by creating a circle connecting these points with the transport hub at its center. A visual representation of these catchment areas for all six locations is displayed in Figure 1 below. This graphic provides a comparison between the walking distances possible within 10 and 20 minute time ranges in each of the three city environments.

1 This work is meant to complement the Global Walkability Index (Holly Krambeck, 2006), which focuses on the importance of high quality pedestrian infrastructure, amenities, and services: http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/34409?show=full. 3 Figure 1. Catchment areas for all locations in Beijing, London, and New York City.

NYC London Beijing

Approx miles traveled in North-South 20-minute and East-West directions N-S E-W NYC Average, by Direction 0.63 0.72 London Average, by Direction 0.81 0.76 Beijing Average, by Direction 0.65 0.88

Results shown in Figure 1 suggest that, within the same allotment of time, different distances, and thus business and commercial services, are reached in each city, indicating the differences in “walkability” amongst the survey sites in each of the cities. The

4 variable walking lengths, as reported above, are influenced by factors such as levels of pedestrian congestion, number of intersection and pedestrian light crossing phases, as well as size and quality of the sidewalks. In New York City, the average distance in miles covered in 20 minutes was 0.68 miles: 0.63 miles travelled in the north-south direction and 0.72 miles travelled in the east-west direction. London, on the other hand, allowed for more equal distances traveled between north-south and east-west directions. In study areas within London, it was found that pedestrians could travel approximately 0.8 miles in each direction in 20 minutes, a 16% increase from New York City in distance traveled overall in 20 minutes. The distance traveled in Beijing largely falls between the New York City and London distances with an overall average of 0.76 miles in 20 minutes. This is equivalent to 13% increase in overall distance traveled in 20 minutes in New York City. Interestingly, when compared to London, Beijing offers shorter pedestrian distances in all directions and all times except for in the 20 minute walk east-west direction, where 15% and 21% more distance is travelled compared to London and New York City respectively. These relationships highlight the mobility differences for pedestrians between the three urban cores. When considering distance travelled within a fixed time period as the principal indicator for pedestrian accessibility in a city, it would be easy to conclude, based on the figures above, that Beijing is more accessible than London or New York. However, as Figures 2 and 3 below demonstrate, the radius of the catchment area does not coincide jobs and commercial area accessible – an issue of urban design. This is particularly true for New York City, where, despite a smaller catchment area, the high level of building density and urban compactness allows equally high access to jobs and services within a limited area.2

Figure 2. Number of Jobs Accessed in 10 min and 20 min

2 The job and commercial floorspace area calculations are based on estimates. Please refer to Annex 1 for further information on the methodology. 5

Figure 3. Commercial Areas Accessed in 10 min and 20 min (square meters)

Unit：1,000 square meters

The data provided in Figures 2 and 3 are revealing, as they highlight the variable access to job and commercial facilities in each studied city. Different levels of accessibility among the commercial and business centers is seen as particularly high in terms of commercial floorspace accessible: where New York City boasts access to 20 percent more area than London, and as much as 97 percent more area than Beijing. In terms of job access, New York City contains 80 percent more jobs available within the 20 minute catchment area than does London, and 91 percent more than Beijing. Less of a difference exists between London and Beijing centers, but this difference is still significant for the 20 minute catchment area, where London contains 85 percent more commercial floorspace and 55 percent more jobs than Beijing. Results of this data indicate that, for both the commercial and business districts, New York City is much more pedestrian accessible than either London or Beijing, and that

6 though the survey areas studied in Beijing allowed the greatest distance for pedestrian travel, this walkability does not allow for the greatest accessibility for business and shopping.

III. Analysis Results of this study yielded interesting data in terms of the variation of distances travelled in the business and commercial districts studied, and the number of resources (jobs and commercial floorspace) accessible within the catchment areas. While the relatively short walkability within New York City’s urban core was surprising, the high number of jobs and commercial area accessible was consistent with expectations because of how the City is built – up instead of out. On the other hand, urban design elements including building compactness, floor-area ratios (FARs), block size, and road network design contribute to the walkability of Beijing’s urban core compared to London or New York – indicating an easier, more efficient walking environment – though at the price of lower accessibility. The visual representation from a footprint of a Google Earth (2009) aerial imagery displaying 500x500 meter snapshots of the three CBD catchment areas, as shown in Figure 4 below (the length of white lines is 500m), indicates very different planning models and urban design between the three CBDs. Each urban core displays variations in building height and proximity, road network design and block size, and pedestrian infrastructure and visual environment. These are all important variables in a city’s level of accessibility, as discussed below.

Figure 4. Google Earth Aerial View of Urban Density (2009)

NYC London Beijing

1) Urban Compactness

Perhaps the most significant and variable factor between survey areas of the three cities is the compactness of the cities’ built area, especially the height and proximity of buildings within the urban cores. Within the catchment areas, New York features buildings that are both tall and built near each other, which allows for a large number of jobs and services within a smaller area. The situation is slightly different in London, where buildings are not as tall – an average of five stories in the commercial catchment area – but they are built close together.

7 Urban design in Beijing is nearly opposed to what is observed in New York: despite the presence of a significant number of high-rise buildings, the wide layout is spaced out, resulting in low horizontal capacity for jobs and commercial floorspace area. This is due in part to Beijing’s urban construction regulations, which stipulate a much wider area to be left in between buildings and between buildings and the edge of the road when compared to New York or London. Figure 5 below illustrates the differences in layout between New York and Beijing: New York’s densely built design and the underutilized spacing in Beijing have a significant impact on the number of jobs and commercial floorspace available.

Figure 5. Comparing urban density in commercial cores in New York City (34 Street Herald Square) versus Beijing (Guomao)

NYC Beijing

Further, Chart 1 below shows the approximate number of buildings present within the 20- minute catchment area of each business and commercial district studied. As expected, the number of buildings in New York City is significantly higher: 70% more buildings than Beijing, but only 40% more than London.

City Approx. Number of Buildings in “20-min circle"

NYC 710 London 430 Beijing 220

Chart 1. Building Density Information of three cities (Mean Value of Two Target Area)

2) Road Network Design: Qualitative Differences in Secondary Road Network, Block Size, and Community Design Crucial to urban compactness is the layout of the road network. New York City features a dense urban grid with small blocks and narrow roadways, in other words a solid secondary road network that allows flexibility in accessing different addresses. Beijing’s road network, on the other hand, is marked by wide avenues and few, narrow secondary roads. Figure 6 displays the road network and differences in block size in the research 8 area, confirming that the road network density in Beijing is clearly lower than that of NYC.

Figure 6. Road Network Format in New York City versus Beijing *Image capture from Google Earth: 2010.

Beijing: Guomao Metro Station

NYC: Grand Central Station

The catchment areas studied present differences both the width of the roads and the length of the road network. Chart 2 below summarizes the differences in average road width and total network length between New York City, London, and Beijing for the catchment areas. New York City’s roads are 29 percent narrower than Beijing’s and 34 percent wider than London’s. However, in terms of total road length, New York City’s network is 52 percent longer than Beijing’s and 15 percent longer than London’s. While road width may result in higher allocation of road space for pedestrians and therefore a more comfortable displacement, it provides less flexibility for more convenient access throughout the catchment area than does a longer road network.

9 Average Road Approximate Total Road City Width (feet) Length (miles) NYC 66 21 London 43 17 Beijing 98 10

Chart 2. Road Information of NYC, London and Beijing (Mean Value of Both Catchment Areas)

The main difference in road network design between the catchment areas in the three cities is block size. Higher road network density in New York City is a product of the presence of more but smaller blocks compared to Beijing and London, as shown in Chart 3 below. Beijing’s lower road network density and limited secondary network is a result of the city’s widespread “superblocks”. In fact, Beijing’s superblocks within the catchment areas are, on average, almost four times larger than New York City’s, and therefore Beijing’s catchment area contains less than half the number of blocks than New York City’s. London lies in between NYC and Beijing, with an average block size 60 percent larger than New York’s, but 53 percent smaller than Beijing’s, and nearly doubles Beijing in number of blocks. Block size is relevant to accessibility to the extent that it impacts the time it takes pedestrians to cross from one side of the block to another (to access, for example, a main road or a public transport station), and the amount of commercial and work places available within a determined area, since these are often on the edges of the blocks.

Number of Blocks in 20-min City Average Size (feet*feet) catchment area NYC 656*197 178 London 689*312 143 Beijing 853*590 84

Chart 3. Block Information of the three cities (Mean Value of the CBD and Commercial Areas)

The relevance of the block size is compounded by the micro design of the actual block areas: land use and building distribution. NYC tends to use the area within its smaller blocks more efficiently than Beijing: buildings are built closer to each other and nearer to the road and sidewalk, taking maximum advantage of the area available. Beijing, on the other hand, tends to distribute constructions in its superblocks according to planning of gated community areas, whether commercial or residential. The design of these gated communities hinders free access throughout the superblock. Figure 7 below illustrates this situation: path 1 and 2 drawn below are the ideal routes for pedestrian travel from Xian Metro station (the yellow placemark west of the block) to a typical residential building (identified in the figure by a green house). However, the gated community design requires that pedestrians use Path 3, equivalent to 50% additional walking time. Compared to Beijing, London has no gated complexes. Instead, because London’s

10 original design was based on narrow roads for pedestrians, the equivalent area of a Beijing superblock in London would generally involve a series of narrow roads traversing the block and therefore allowing higher access to the premises.

Figure 7. Pedestrian Route in Beijing

Path 1

Path 3 Path 2

An additional factor impacts pedestrian accesibility: traffic light crossings. The variation in traffic signal cycle times is very high for the three cities, as shown on chart 4 below. By far, New York City has the most predictable and short waiting times with uniform 90 second cycle times. Beijing has the longest waiting times – nearly 60% higher than New York City and 40% higher than London –, creating significant delays for pedestrians. Beijing also has the lowest level of predictability, given the high levels of variation in cycle times across the different intersections (265 seconds vs. 91 seconds for London). As in other comparisons, London is a middle point between New York and Beijing averages.

Cycle Time Level of Variation within City (minutes) Survey Area NYC 1:30 None – fixed timing London 2:15 (average) Varies based on time and location Beijing 3:40 (average) Varies based on location

Chart 4. Road Information of NYC, London and Beijing (Mean Value of Both Catchment Areas)

3) Pedestrian Infrastructure and Visual Environment:

Safety and comfort are critical to the perception of the pedestrian’s walking experience, as is the visual content of the walk in terms of commercial activity, greenery, etc. The walking experiences in Beijing, London, and New York are very different. The

11 snapshots below demonstrate some of the differences in terms of visual environment, obstructions, pedestrian congestion, and width of sidewalks. Figure 9. Pedestrian environment and visual landscape in New York, London and Beijing New York London Beijing City

IV. Analysis of Results

Identifying an adequate measure for accessibility in a city is important because it is a measure of how well a city performs bringing people together and providing access to services. This simple indicator for accessibility, based on number of jobs and commercial floorspace area available within a 10 and 20 minute walking circumference, illustrates the “accessibility” component of walkability and highlights key urban design elements which enable such access, therefore establishing the impact that urban design has on developing a sustainable urban transport system.

The study demonstrated that a city with design characteristics like New York that gives way to a much more accessible urban environment than a city with the design characteristics of Beijing: fewer, wider roads, large superblocks and widely spaced buildings set back from the road. The study brought to light the importance of the following considerations when designing a detailed urban area plan for high accessibility: 1) High density land use, a closely built set of high-rises; 2) Dense grid network with sufficient secondary roads and small blocks; 3) Pedestrian-friendly environment.

12 The indicator proposed in this paper, assessing how people are able to access jobs, services, recreation, and other points of interest on foot, is therefore useful in planning for improved urban design in the central business district of major cities as this can partially remove the burden on a city’s public transport and road network system, and help to achieve a more efficient urban transport system. In addition, a more sustainable individual travel pattern also means significant time and economic savings, both for the end-user as well as for the city’s investments in public transport and road infrastructure. Further, and crucial to megacities like Beijing, London, and New York, pedestrian accessibility is key to the success of a public transport system: no matter the number of metro lines or the quality of the system, if pedestrians cannot access the stations from their point of origin, they will opt for alternative modes of transport.

The accessibility indicator proposed in this paper can be used across cities as a key tool to help decision makers understand how their urban cores compare and plan for enhanced walkability and general service access in urban environments, including improved utilization of public transport options and pedestrian access. Further, this indicator should form part of a standard set of urban performance indicators, given its importance to cities in terms of determining productivity and linking to sustainability in urban areas through higher connectivity and therefore increased non-motorized access. Finally, particularly for the case of China’s fast-developing cities, identifying and implementing the urban design variables that are conducive to more people-oriented cities will enhance competitiveness to the country’s new and developing urban communities.

13 Annex

 Annex 1: Study Methodology and Assumptions  Annex 2: Presentation about Detailed Survey Description  Annex 3: Walking Video of NYC, London and Beijing

For More Information Website Link: http://go.worldbank.org/OWNNK85QO0 Contact: Shomik Raj Mehndiratta (smehndiratta @worldbank.org), East Asia and Pacific Region Transport

14 Annex 1: Calculation Methodology and Assumptions

WALK Methodology Assumptions • Not performed during rush hour • Workers use the metro exit closest to • Walk in a constant rate their office • Continue in one direction without unnecessary • No accidents or delays en route street crossings • No road closures or construction • Not walk during red lights activities removing sidewalk access • If a pedestrian reaches a dead end that cannot • Constant walking rate be avoided or walked around (such as a river..), the pedestrian will stop.

15 ANALYSIS/PROCESSING

Methodology Assumptions • Jobs and commercial space reported every • For this study, we had to assume that minute are sum totals for that minute in all our data was generally up-to-date, or directions, not just the direction walked (see that figures hadn't changed drastically Figure 1 below) since the last reporting period. • If the study area (circle) created by a Figure 1. Area of cumulative analysis by minute. walk cut through a block, lot or Commercial space and jobs were calculated by building, total commercial area or jobs minute total in all directions, rather than by cardinal would be taken proportionally (ie. if 1/3 direction (the light blue area rather than the red of a building is within the 10 minute hatched area) circle, only 1/3 of the building's commercial space is accessible). • Assumptions were made based on the number of jobs per commercial area, and visa versa, for both London and New York City (see Methodology, to the left). • For New York City, we assumed that any taxlot coded for Commercial and Office space were commercial areas with employees, and that employees were located throughout the building - one every 300 square feet. • For London, we assumed that for every job per block, there were 300 square feet of commercial space surrounding the employee. • Total commercial space and jobs in London • For Beijing jobs, we assumed that the and New York City were calculated assuming 1 employment numbers is equally employee for every 300 square feet of distribution by area in one traffic zone. commercial space, as per the DeChiara • For Beijing commercial areas, we Planning & Design Criteria Handbook . assumed that for each shopping mall, Because of different planning requirements and all the area that belongs to this building context, this calculation was not used for is commercial area and no office area. Beijing. • Figures used in this study were rounded to the 100's place in order to avoid giving a false sense of accuracy (as these figures are estimates, meant only to provide a general framework for comparison between cities). • All commercial area was converted to meters for easy comparison