Walkability & Pedestrian Facilities in Thrissur City
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Thrissur City Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Thrissur City CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5 LIST OF ACRONYMS 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 1. INTRODUCTION 11 1.1 Why Survey Walkability in Thrissur city 11 1.2 Agencies responsible for transportation and urban planning in Thrissur 12 2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 14 2.1 Objectives 14 2.2 Personnel 14 2.3 Design 14 2.4 Study Area 14 2.5 Methodology 15 2.6 Field Walkability Survey 15 2.7 Pedestrian Perception Survey 15 2.8 Policy and Institutional Survey 15 2.9 Finance 15 2.10 Limitations of the Survey 15 3. RESEARCH RESULTS: QUALITY OF PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT 16 3.1 Pedestrian and Traffic Volume 16 3.2 Land Use Diversity 16 3.3 Footpath Availability 17 3.4 Footpath Quality 18 3.5 Facilities for disabled 22 3.6 Safety 22 3.7 Availability of Amenities 23 3.8 Parking & Other issues 24 4. RESULTS: PERCEPTION SURVEY 27 4.1 Travelling mode and pedestrian preference 27 4.2 Pedestrian facilities and pedestrian perception 28 4.3 Safety and Pedestrian perception 29 5. IMPROVING WALKABILITY IN THRISSUR 31 5.1 Transport Policy, Kerala 31 5.2 Parking Policies 31 5.3 National Urban Transport Policy 32 5.4 Hawker Policies 33 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 35 6.1 Specific recommendations in brief 35 7. REFERENCES 37 ANNEXURES Annex A Observation survey data 38 Annex B Perception survey data 39 Annex C Road, safety and pedestrians-A photographic presentation 40 Annex D Field survey form-Quality of pedestrian environments 43 Annex E Perception survey form 46 List of tables Table No 1 Overview of issues addressed, research findings and recommendations 7 Table No 2 Agencies responsible for transportation and urban planning in Thrissur 12 Table No 3 Pedestrian volume at selected points in the city 16 Table No 4 Footpath quality 18 Table No 5 Crossing aids for pedestrians 23 Table No 6 Parking in the segment 24 Table No 7 Hindrance due to parking 25 Table No 8 Problems of crossing roads by age of the respondents 29 List of Figures Figure 1 A major junction in Thrissur city without proper traffic control mechanism 12 Figure 2 Thrissur city map 14 Figure 3 Traffic volume of the road 16 Figure 4 A medium volume road which intersects with three high volume roads in the city 16 Figure 5 Land use 17 Figure 6 Footpath availability 17 Figure 7 Footpath availability in one of the important commercial areas of the city 18 Figure 8 Footpath completeness 19 Figure 9 Footpath quality in a narrow road in the city 19 Figure 10 Materials used for footpath 19 Figure 11 Footpath width 20 Figure 12 Obstructions 20 Figure 13 A lot of obstructions compel the pedestrian to leave the walkway 21 Figure 14 Physical disorders 21 Figure 15 Footpath cleanliness is still a challenge in some areas of the city 21 Figure 16 Facilities for disabled 22 Figure 17 Uneven footpaths pose difficulties for people with disabilities 22 Figure 18 Traffic police helping students to cross the roads 23 Figure 19 Amenities for pedestrians 24 Figure 20 Pedestrian amenities other than trees are virtually absent in the city 24 Figure 21 Parking and other hindrances 25 Figure 22 Parking on the walkway 26 Figure 23 Noise Pollution 26 Figure 24 Travelling mode and time spent 27 Figure 25 Motorized travel mode 27 Figure 26 Pedestrian preferences for improvement 27 Figure 27 Pedestrian facilities 28 Figure 28 Pedestrian preferences for crossing roads 28 Figure 29 Types of vehicle crossing havoc to pedestrians 29 Figure 30 Feeling of security when other people walk on the street 29 Figure 31 Afraid to walk during night time 30 Figure 32 Respondents by desired destination 30 Figure 33 Traffic lane 38 Figure 34 Type of segment intersections 38 Figure 35 Number of times footpath left due to obstructions 38 Figure 36 Scale of segment cleanliness 38 Figure 37 Visible curb cuts on the footpath 38 Figure 38 Barriers for pedestrian crossing 38 Figure 39 Traffic calming measures 38 Figure 40 Visible aggressive drivers 38 Figure 41 Availability of railing barriers 38 Figure 42 Availability of lighting 38 Figure 43 Pedestrian perception- Do drivers care for pedestrians? 39 Figure 44 Mode of transportation within 2kms radius 39 Figure 45 Abuse from motorist while crossing the road 39 Figure 46 Pedestrian perception- Fear to cross busy roads 39 Figure 47 Types of vehicle owned by respondents 39 Figure 48 Need for proper pedestrian facility 39 Walkabilty and Pedestrian Facilities 4 in Thrissur City ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was undertaken with support and co-operation from many people; their support is wholeheartedly appreciated. The project team, including Mr. Shino Davis, Program Officer and Mr. Jinu Varghese, Project Coordinator, is especially appreciated for meticulously undertaking the study despite all the difficulties. Mr. Sridharan Nair, Program Manager, provided overall guid- ance and oversaw the progress of the study. The efforts of Ms. Sandhya Suresh, Manager (R&D) are specifically acknowledged especially at the time of editing of the report. I would like to thank the students from St. Thomas College who conducted the surveys and all the people who participated in the study and gave their time and opinions. Above all, I would like to offer my sincere admiration and grati- tude to the HealthBridge team. Special thanks to Debra Efroym- son, Regional Director for editing the report, Ms. Kristie Daniel, Program Director and Ms. Phaeba Abraham, Program Manager for programme planning and research advice. I thank Mr. K. Paul Thomas, Founder & Executive Director, ESAF, for his support and mentoring to make the project and study a success. Jacob Samuel Program Director, The Livable Cities Project - ESAF Walkabilty and Pedestrian Facilities 5 in Thrissur City LIST OF ACCRONYMS ESAF : Evangelical Social Action Forum KSUDP : Kerala Sustainable Urban Development Project NATPAC : National Transportation and Planning Research Center KSRTC : Kerala State Road Transport Corporation PWD : Public Works Department CBD : Central Business District KTDFC : Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd. GWI : Global Walkability Index WBB : Work for a Better Bangladesh NUTP : National Urban Transport Policy NMT : Non-Motorized Transport JNNURM : Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission M.G. Road : Mahatma Gandhi Road M.O. Road : Municipal Office Road A.R. Menon Road : Ambat Ramanunni Menon Road Walkabilty and Pedestrian Facilities 6 in Thrissur City EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The walkability study in Thrissur was undertaken as part of the Livable Cities Program implemented by ESAF with support from HealthBridge, Canada. The study involved a qualitative assessment of the pedes- trian facilities in the city of Thrissur including safety, security and convenience of pedestrians. This study provides information on the current pedestrian infrastructure and includes the following, 1. Field Walkability Surveys in 381 road segments in Thrissur city. 2. Pedestrian Perception Interviews. 3. An assessment of current policies and institutions relating to the pedestrian and walking environment. The observational study has revealed that the majority of the segments (63%) have no footpaths. Where there were footpaths, less than one-fifth were of sufficiently good quality. Pedestrians face significant challenges in crossing streets and very few service amenities exist for them. Almost all the roads are inhospitable for people living with disabilities. The assessment of policies and institutions related to the pedestrian environment revealed that inspite of the recommendations made in favour of improvements in pedestrian facilities by different organiza- tions and Government bodies, there is lack of relevant policies and dearth of dedicated institutions that cater to the needs of pedestrians. The will to implement the existing policies, however insufficient, is also lacking. Table 1 provides an overview of the specific issues addressed in the primary research, the research find- ings, and issue-specific recommendations based on the findings. Recom- Finding (per- Issue Finding (observation study) menda- ception survey) tion Fear to cross busy High volume road (high traffic roads=66%. volume)=40% Create safe, Traffic Volume Drivers are care- Medium volume (medium traffic level crossings less about volume) road=40% pedestrians=70% Increased land use mix will make walking a viable mode Most segments are single use (47%) of transporta- or had little land use mix (46%) NA tion. Increased Land use mix and t 4IPQT neighbor- type of land use t 0óDFT Desired destination hood diver- t 3FTJEFODFT too far to walk 16% sity should be t 4DIPPMT prioritized, in- cluding aspects like parks and playgrounds. Walkabilty and Pedestrian Facilities 7 in Thrissur City All high volume roads should have footpaths on both sides 84% of the respon- t#PUITJEFTPGUIFTUSFFU of the roads. Footpath Avail- dents’ trips involve t0OFTJEFPGUIFTUSFFU Medium ability walking in some way t/PGPPUQBUI volume roads or the other. should have footpaths on at least one side of the road. t4MBCT The footpaths t5JMFTBOEQBWJOHCSJDLT 8PSTUCBE made of dirt t%JSUBOETBOE OK=63% and sand Footpath composi- t1PPSDPOEJUJPO CSPLFO Good=7% should be up- tion and quality sections)=33% 46% of the respon- graded to bet- t(PPE dents preferred wider ter materials t'BJS and level foot paths. like concrete or bricks. t'SFFPGPCTUSVDUJPOT 52% of the respon- Obstruction- t'FXPCTUSVDUJPOT dents said that Footpath obstruc- free footpaths t4PNFPCTUSVDUJPOT obstacles on the tions are strongly t-PUPGPCTUSVDUJPOT footpaths lessen their advocated. motivation to walk. Policies to prevent these obstructions on footpaths should be established and enforced. Footpaths should not be considered t1JMMBST an acceptable t$BSTBOENPUPSCJLFT place to put Obstruction type t$BSFYJUFOUSZDVUT objects that t4IPQHPPET could block t$POTUSVDUJPOSVCCJTI the street. Pedestrian traffic should be considered as important as car traffic and the need to protect it from obstructions just as high a priority.