Safe Routes to Transit Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide – Pedestrian Section Overview

SSAFEAFE RROUTESOUTES TTOO TTRANSITRANSIT BUS RAPID TRANSIT PLANNING GUIDE PEDESTRIAN SECTION

Nelson Nygaard DPOTVMUJOHBTTPDJBUFT Table of Contents

Overview ...... 1 Safety ...... 2 Key Elements of Pedestrian Safety ...... 2 Crash History ...... 9 Accessibility ...... 19 Physical Conditions ...... 19 Quality of Pedestrian Experience ...... 21 Connectivity ...... 25 Service Zones ...... 25 Origin-Destination Analysis ...... 26 Transfers to Other Modes ...... 28 Appendix A: Documenting Sidewalk Conditions Appendix B: Kansas City Pedestrian Level of Service Model Appendix C: Pedestrian Bridges And Underpasses

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates i Overview SAFE ROUTES TO TRANSIT BUS RAPID TRANSIT PLANNING GUIDE – PEDESTRIAN SECTION OVERVIEW

A key component of BRT station planning and Project Description design is the provision of safe, convenient and Nelson\Nygaard was retained by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy to update secure access for pedestrians. If it is not con- and augment the Pedestrian Section in their Bus venient or easy to walk to a BRT station, then Rapid Transit Planning Guide. The work was customers will be discouraged from using the funded by the Hewlett Foundation and the Global system. Providing a Safe Route To Transit is Environment Facility and builds on a previous guide therefore the fi rst step to providing an eff ective prepared by the German Technical Assistance BRT service. Agency (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit). The work was completed in While station locations vary by the origin/des- 2005 with Michael King as the principal author. tination pa erns to be served and local context, fundamental pedestrian factors remain con- These qualities are not necessarily always stant. These include: mutually compatible. For example, the most • Safety direct path may involve confl icts with vehicles, • Security or the safest route may imply climbing over a • Directness diffi cult set of stairs. The design challenge is to • Ease of entry fi nd a balance that optimises the total package • Comfort of characteristics. • Aesthetics This section of the manual addresses pedestrian A “safe” pedestrian pathway implies that pedes- access and safety. It is organized according to trians are well protected from road hazards such three broad themes: safety, accessibility and as vehicles. “Security” refers to providing an connectivity. Safety pertains not only to that of environment where pedestrians are not suscep- pedestrians, but to an environment where mo- tible to robberies or other crimes. “Directness” tor vehicles do not dominate the urban fabric. involves a pedestrian path that minimises the For example there are “safe” places with few distance travelled. “Ease of entry” means that vehicle-pedestrian confl icts, but only because the walk to the station does not involve oner- there are few pedestrians. Accessibility covers ous actions, such as walking up steep inclines. not only issues for those in wheelchairs, but “Comfort” refers to the quality of the pathway also the general possibility of walking to the and provisions for protection from inclement BRT station. Security is placed here, for if the weather, such as sun, wind and rain. “Aesthet- route is not secure, then it is not accessible, even ics” imply that the walking environment is with wheelchair ramps. Connectivity discusses pleasing to the eye and inspires a person to use the placement of the station within the larger public transport. context of the urban fabric.

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 1 SAFETY

The notion of safe foot access to a BRT station Pedestrian Injury Severity Risk is not an isolated concern. Many of the issues

are neither pedestrian nor transit specifi c. The 100% following elements have universally applica- 90% 80% tion yet can be tailored to this subject. 70% Fatality 60% 50% Injury Key Elements of Pedestrian Safety 40% Uninjured There are four fundamental aspects to pedes- 30% 20% trian safety along any roadway. These concepts 10% 0% are equally applicable to pedestrian safety 32 48 64 80 when accessing BRT stations, as the physical vehicle speed, km/h factors (sidewalks, etc.) and decision-makers Relationship between Vehicle Speed and Pedestrian Safety Source: “Traffi c Calming Regulations: Traffi c Advisory Leafl et 7/93,” United (walkers, drivers, etc.) are constant in both Kingdom Department of Transport Traffi c Advisory Unit, 1993. environments. • Vehicle volumes. A street with zero cars • Vehicle speed. Vehicle speed is a sig- will see zero auto-related incidents. Every nifi cant determinant of crash severity additional vehicle in the street increases and o en dictates the nature of a street the possibility of incident with pedestri- including the pedestrian facilities and ac- ans, until there are so many vehicles that cessibility to a transit station. As vehicle people are banned, like on an expressway. speed increases, so does risk to drivers and pedestrians; increased speeds must be accompanied by additional physical Vehicle Speeds separations or impact protections. As speed decreases, the range of design The chart above graphs the relationship be- options expands and so do options for tween vehicle speed and pedestrian injuries in pedestrians. the United Kingdom. At 32 km/h about 30% • Pedestrian ‘exposure’ risk. This is the of collisions between vehicles and pedestrians time that pedestrians are exposed to the dangers of traffi c and has both a tem- will result in no injury, 65% in injuries and 5% poral and spatial component. Crossing in fatalities. As vehicle speed increases the distances and crossing times at signalized intersections are key indicators of percentage of fatalities increases so that by 80 exposure risk, as are vehicle speeds and km/h all vehicle-pedestrian incidents result in volumes. To reduce the exposure risk is to increase safety. death. • Driver predictability. Drivers are con- Research from Australia suggests that a drop in stantly making decisions, and if other speed of only 5 km/h will result in: street users - drivers, cyclists, or pedestrians - can be er predict those decisions, • 10% fewer pedestrian fatalities; and then the street will be safer. Reducing 1 the number of options for drivers at key • 20% less severe pedestrian injuries. junctures is the simplest way to improve driver predictability.

1 McLean, A. et al., “Vehicle Travel Speeds and the Incidence of Fatal Pedestrian

Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe

• Collisions,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 29, No. 5, 1997.

Page July 2005 2 Safety There are many techniques to lower traffic • Restructuring roads to meander around speeds, from speed limits, to police enforce- trees, planters and medians forces drivers to slow down ment, to physical design. This section highlights • Changing from smooth to rough road a few of the design options, commonly known surfaces or using rumble strips alerts as verkehrsberuhigung, or traffi c calming. drivers to a change in roadway condi- • Speed humps (‘sleeping policemen’) tion slow drivers The images below show techniques which de- • Raised crosswalks slow drivers at desig- crease speeds thereby creating safer conditions nated pedestrian crossing location for pedestrians. • Curb extensions at intersections force slower turning speeds 2 3 Courtesy Michael Ronkin Courtesy Michael Ronkin Curb extension – before Curb extension – after Salem, Oregon (USA) Salem, Oregon (USA) Michael King Michael King Raised crosswalk Speed humps Morogoro Road, Tanzania Mexico City, Mexico Michael King Michael King Fence in center of road keeps drivers from Roundabout swinging wide during turn Cape Town, South Africa Shenzhen, China Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 3 Exposure Risk There are a few fundamental ways to reduce exposure risk when crossing the street. One can narrow the roadway, either overall or at specifi c points via curb extensions. One can add traffi c or pedestrian refuge islands where people may wait in the middle of a two-way street. One can alter traffi c signals to provide additional time for pedestrians to cross the street. One can alter the phasing of a traffi c signal to give walkers priority over vehicles, such as prohibiting right turns on red signals or using an exclusive phase for pedestrians and cyclists to cross.

Altering driver behavior also can decrease exposure risk. For example, lower speeds and speed humps create longer ‘gaps’ between passing cars and hence a longer time for people to cross the street. Lower speeds increase reaction times, which means people have more time to react. Michael King A series of medians and islands breaks up the crossing and keeps drivers in their proper lanes. Mexico City, Mexico Michael King Bollards placed in the roadway narrow the intersection and force drivers to turn a slower speeds. Berlin, Germany

Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe

•

Page July 2005 4 Safety Driver and Pedestrian Predictability Driver predictability can best be explained through the diff erences between limited-access highway and city street design. Highways generally have what is known as ‘recovery zones’- an area alongside the road or just a er an exit ramp where drivers who have had an accident or missed the turn can take corrective action before hi ing a tree or other obstacle. The penalty for a fl at tire should not be a severe crash. State DOT York Courtesy New Median – before Urban streets usually have sidewalks adjacent Saratoga Springs, New York (USA) to the roadways and people waiting to cross the street at the corner; no ‘recovery zone’ is available. Techniques to increase driver predictability in these contexts include dedicated turn lanes, traffi c islands (which double as pedestrian refuge islands and may take the form of a BRT station), curb extensions (which prevent drivers from passing on the right), narrow Courtesy Reid Ewing lanes (which prevent double parking), medians Median – after (which prevent sudden turns), and good sight Saratoga Springs, New York (USA) distance (so that everyone can know what everyone else is doing).

Pedestrians should be protected from errant drivers through physical obstructions, such as bollards, trees, and parked cars. Placing bollards to protect curbs at intersections prevents trucks and motorists from jumping curbs and hurting pedestrians. Bollards also are used to prevent motorists from parking on sidewalks. The images below show how the median can be altered to increase driver predictability.

In Saratoga Springs, a median was added to, among other things, ensure that drivers in the le turn lane turned le . Note that the median on the far side of the intersection is wider and bollards are placed to protect pedestrians. In Dortmund the “recovery zone” opposite the le

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 5 turn lane has been ﬁ lled in with dirt and a new curb. In Veracruz the design of the median allows the driver in the le turn lane to turn le or continue straight. This not only is confusing to pedestrians but other drivers as well.

It is easy to say that drivers should be more predictable, but the same can also be said for pedestrians. How the person on foot interfaces with traﬃ c is also a consideration. No one

wants to hit a pedestrian, or be hit by a car. Michael King Left turn lane with recovery zone Transit station areas can be prone to vehicle- Veracruz, Mexico pedestrian incidents for several reasons. First, customers have a tendency to run to catch an approaching bus or train without paying close a ention to signals (see image below). While frequent services mitigate this tendency, customer care in crossings can be compromised when persons are in a hurry. Second, vehicles in mixed traﬃ c lanes may be less prepared for the existence of mid-block (non-intersection) pedestrian crossings placed to serve a transit station. Ina entive drivers may not realise a crossing exists and may fail to properly yield to pedestrians or to obey mid-block traffic lights. Thus, the combination of rushing transit

customers and ina entive drivers can produce Michael King “Recovery zone” eliminated lethal consequences. Dortmund, Germany There are many solutions to providing safer and more eﬀ ective pedestrian crossings at transit stations. The design of the crossing itself will play a role. The areas to the side of the roadway should allow for clear visibility, so that the sight lines of both pedestrians and vehicle users are unimpeded by signage or vegetation. The crossing’s painted surface should be highly visible and well maintained. Luminescent paints Lloyd Wright or reﬂ ectors can provide additional visibility Customers rushing to catch their bus can be put for evening hours. Additionally, high illumina- at risk from unsafe crossings Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe Quito, Ecuador

• tion street lighting should be placed over the

Page July 2005 6 Safety crossing area. In contrast, signage and adver- tisements can create an area of visual clu er that will distract motorists from seeing traﬃ c signals and pedestrians properly, and should be avoided to the extent possible.

The following images are of the same pedestrian refuge island in Guangzhou, China. The one on the le is shown without lighting. Note that the driver cannot tell if there are people waiting on the island, which makes it nearly impossible to predict what is going to happen. The one on the right is shown with the proper amount of lighting. Michael King Pedestrian refuge island – without lighting Guangzhou, China Michael King Pedestrian refuge island – with lighting Guangzhou, China

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 7 Vehicular Volume As stated above, a street with fewer cars will be generally safer for pedestrians (unless those few cars travel at excessive speeds). By utilizing the physical space previously allocated to other vehicles, a BRT alignment can reduce the capacity and therefore the volume of traﬃ c. Other techniques include auto-restricted streets, oﬀ -street pathways, bicycle boulevards and pedestrian-oriented corridors which extend the reach of the BRT system.

The development of dedicated pedestrian zones around a BRT station can be mutually beneﬁ cial for pedestrians and public transport Lloyd Wright systems. The BRT system helps alleviate the Pedestrian promenade necessity of costly car-based infrastructure in Curitiba, Brazil the city core. The dedicated pedestrian zones provide a concentration of customers that can feed directly into the BRT system. Curitiba is a leading example of integrating dedicated pedestrian zones with a BRT system. Michael King Street converted to cycling and walking only Morogoro, Tanzania

Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe

•

Page July 2005 8 Safety Crash History Determining where pedestrians and other In the example below, pedestrian volumes along vulnerable road users are hit by vehicles is the BRT corridor in Jakarta were compared to a fundamental step in the safety analysis for injury locations. This comparison was used to planning a transit station. Simply put, loca- demonstrate that higher pedestrian volumes tions with high accident rates are not safe for a are not necessarily accompanied by more transit station, unless mitigation measures (as deaths and severe injuries. In fact, it has been described above) can be installed to improve shown that vehicle speed is a be er indicator conditions. Mapping traffi c accident locations of injury severity. Pedestrian volumes usually is the key to this analysis. mean more absolute numbers ge ing hit, but generally with less severe outcomes. This is the Planners should fi rst collect traffi c accident ‘Safety in Numbers’ argument that is gaining (crash) data for incidents involving non-motor- currency within pedestrian safety circles. ized road users from the police and map the locations as precisely as possible. A division In any type of statistical analysis one should between intersection and non-intersection ac- always be aware of the diff erence between ab- cidents is required. Even though the numbers solute and proportional numbers. For example, are likely to be signifi cantly underreported, the number of children hit by cars may have this simple mapping exercise should make it fallen from one year to the next, but if fewer chil- possible to identify particularly dangerous dren are walking, then it may be proportionally locations. more dangerous. This type of analysis is most useful for traffi c calming, where the incidents of property damage may increase, but the rate of hospitalization and deaths decreases.

Jakarta BRT Jakarta BRT Pedestrian Volumes Pedestrians Hit by Vehicles

Thamrin Thamrin Sudirman Sudirman Kota Kota Gajah Mada Gajah Mada Blok M Blok M

Sisingamangaraja Sisingamangaraja

based on bus stop boardings Killed Hospitalized ITDP ITDP Pedestrian Volumes along BRT Corridor Pedestrian Injuries and Deaths alongDt BRT f Corridor Jk t Pli Jakarta, Indonesia Jakarta, Indonesia

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 9 The chart at right lists factors which can be used to determine the relative safety of a location Factor Severity or area. It includes direct (property damage, 1300 Fatality emergency medical services (EMS), medical 90 Incapacitating Injury treatment, lost productivity, insurance payouts) 18 Evident Injury and indirect (insurance premiums, automobile 10 Possible Injury safety features) costs. These multipliers can be 1 Property Damage Only applied to existing crash data to show the ap- Crash Cost Factors in the USA proximate annual cost of the existing roadway Source: Homberger, et al. Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering, conﬁ guration. It can also be used to estimate 14th Edition. Institute of Transportation Studies, 1996. potential cost savings of a proposal relative to the cost of construction.

Design Standards And The Law The notion of design standards is well established in brings up the question of who is acting with impunity: the the construction industry. Buildings and bridges are pedestrians or the traffi c authorities? constructed with a ‘design load’ based on expected Another example of this confl ict is found in New York use. Industry standards are used to normalize an City where it is permissible to cross the street between industry and make it more effi cient - light fi xtures come two intersections (midblock), but not if both adjacent in ‘standard’ sizes, so that we can be sure the bulbs will intersections have traffi c signals. If one of the intersections fi t. Standards are also codifi ed to advance a particular has a signal and one has a stop sign, then pedestrians may concern, like making all toilets accessible to those who cross midblock. It can be said that relatively few people use wheelchairs. know of this statute, and if they did, would probably not As design standards are brought into the public realm, obey it. Similarly, the traffi c authorities refuse to sanction especially with regard to streets and highways, there is midblock crossings, believing them to be unsafe (albeit the risk that the standards will not conform to the law. legal). With light bulbs, if a manufacturer makes the wrong size, The point is that design standards should reinforce existing people simply will not buy it. If a road is designed to laws, and vice versa. In designing a road, one implicitly restrict an ‘unsafe’ activity, but that activity is legal under dictates lawful actions, from vehicle speed to crossing the prevailing statute, then there is a confl ict. To exemplify, locations. This does not give the designer the license to there is the story of Zebra and Pelican crossings in the curtail legal behavior, or encourage unlawful ones. United Kingdom. While guidelines are useful to focus the planning process, In the past few decades, British traffi c authorities have it is important to keep in mind that design guidelines are been converting unsignalized, midblock crossings just that, guides. They are not a substitute for engaging into signal-controlled crossings under the theory that in the design process. Guides are also historically more control would increase safety.* However, the law conservative, in that they seek to codify established regulating walking behavior was not updated to require practice. Furthermore, that codifi cation may take years pedestrians to obey the new signals. They could, and or decades. Be especially wary of guidebooks that have did, cross regardless of the signal. Recent research has been copied verbatim from other sources, which quite shown that Pelicans do not increase safety, and in some possibly rely on out-of-date research. It is best to look at instances are more dangerous than a standard Zebra. This guidebooks as nothing more than reference manuals.

Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe

• * http://www.driveandstayalive.com/articles%20and%20topics/pedestrians/pedestrian-crossings-and-crosswalks.htm.

Page July 2005 10 Safety

Leading Pedestrian Interval A novel technique gaining favor with pedestrian safety experts is the leading pedestrian interval (LPI). An LPI re-times the signal phasing so that the pedestrian phase begins a few seconds before the vehicular phase. Typically, this permits a pedestrian to get halfway across the street and establish presence in the crosswalk before vehicles start turning, thus increasing the chance that drivers will yield as required.

Analysis of 10 years of crash data from New York City (USA) shows that intersections with LPIs have 26 percent fewer pedestrian injuries and those injuries are 36 percent Michael King less severe.* Data from San Francisco Walk phase of an LPI (USA) show that 89 to 98 percent more New York City, New York (USA) drivers yielded to pedestrians a er LPIs were installed.† Data from St. Petersburg, Florida (USA) show that 95 percent more drivers yielded to pedestrians a er LPIs were installed.‡

The image at top right shows the pedestrian phase of an LPI . The image below right shows the vehicle phase. Note that the pedestrians have cleared the intersection.

* Independent research by Michael King

† “Pedestrian Head Start Signal Timing” by J. Fleck, in Compendium of Papers. Institute of Transportation Engineers, District 6 Annual Meeting, San Diego, California, 2000. ‡ “Field Evaluation of a Leading Pedestrian Interval Signal Phase at Three Urban Intersections” by R. Van Houten et al., in IIHS Status Report, Vol. 32, No. 7, Aug.

30, 1997. Michael King Walk plus vehicle phase of an LPI New York City, New York (USA)

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 11 The time-lapse sequence below shows a Leading Pedestrian Interval in action. The pedestrian signal is on in frames 1 and 2. In frame 3 it is joined by the green light for vehicles. The ﬁ rst right-turning vehicle does not enter the crosswalk until frame 8. The ﬁ rst le -turning vehicle enters the crosswalk at frame 12. By this time most pedestrians have crossed.

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9 Michael King 10 11 12 Time-lapse of Leading Pedestrian Interval New York City, New York (USA)

Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe

•

Page July 2005 12 Safety

Effective Turning Radii It is common for roadway designers to use corner radii as a proxy for turning radii. The problem with this practice is that the two may not be equal, and o en the turning radius is larger. It is be er to use the ‘eﬀ ective turning radius – the widest possible turn that a driver can make. The image on the le below dem- onstrates the diﬀ erence between the two.

In the image on the right, the intersection has been designed for a 15m long truck to turn the corner from the inside lane. The actual curb radius is 9m, but the eﬀ ective turning radius is 29m. This layout allows a typical car to round the corner at 43 km/h, a speed quite unsafe for pedestrians in the crosswalk.

Car speed = 43 km/h

15m truck

29m R

Actual v. Effective Radius Car v. Truck Turning Speeds Source: AASHTO Green Book, 2001.

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 13 Limits Of Crash Statistics Vehicle-vehicle incidents and incidents involving fatalities are typically reported with reasonable accuracy and need not be adjusted. However, research indicates that only 35 to 85 percent of vehicle-bicycle and vehicle-pedestrian incidents involving injury are included in typical crash statistics. A study of California children estimated that police reports only cover 80 percent of hospital admissions.* A British study found that only 67 percent of slight injuries to pedestrians were reported while 85 percent of serious injuries were.† In Germany the ﬁ gures are 50 percent for major injuries and 35 percent for minor ones. Based on this research, it is appropriate to adjust vehicle-bicycle and vehicle-pedestrian injury statistics upwards by at least 50 percent.‡

* Agran PF, Castillo DN, Winn DG. “Limitations of Data Compiled from Police Reports on Pediatric Pedestrian and Bicycle Motor Vehicle Events.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 22, No. 4, 1990, pp. 361-370. † James, H. “Under-reporting of Road Traffic Accidents.” Traffic Engineering and Control, Dec. 1991, pp. 574-583. ‡ Hautzinger H, Dürholt H, Hörnstein E, Tassaux-Becker B. Dunkelziffer bei Unfällen mit Personenschaden (Unreported Proportion of Personal-Injury Accidents). Report M13. Bundesanstalt für Strassenwesen (Federal Highway Research Institute), Bergisch Gladbach, Germany, 1993.

Conflict Analysis Researchers at Lund University in Sweden have developed a ‘confl ict-analysis’ technique where a location is observed and confl icts between various roadway users are observed and recorded. These ‘confl icts’ could be near misses, evasive maneuvers or simply a reduc- tion in speed. The idea is that this type of information paints a more complete picture of the safety at a particular location than do accident statistics. The technique is especially useful in contexts where most traffi c incidents go unreported.

Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe

•

Page July 2005 14 Safety

When Crosswalks Need Help Recent research suggests that Zebra crosswalks should only be used by themselves on low-volume, narrow, or low-speed roads. At higher volumes, speeds, or number of lanes, Zebra crosswalks in and of themselves do not make crossings safer, and more substantial treatments such as traﬃ c calming, refuge islands or increased lighting are required. Speed limit Daily volume Type of Road km/h <9000 9000-12000 12000-15000 >15000 2 lanes <50 X X X X 50-60 X X X = >60 = = O O 3 lanes <50 X X = = 50-60 X = = O >60 = = O O 4+ lanes w/median <50 X X = O 50-60 X = = O >60 = O O O 4+ lanes, no median <50 X = O O 50-60 = = O O >60 O O O O Comparative Safety of Zebra Crosswalks in the USA*

KEY: X Zebra crosswalk alone increases pedestrian safety = No difference in pedestrian safety with or without Zebra crosswalk O Zebra crosswalk decreases pedestrian safety, need other treatments

* Zegeer, C. et al., “Safety Analysis of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks in 30 Cities,” ITE Journal, January 2004.

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 15 Documenting Pedestrian Behavior Time-lapse photography is a very informative The series of images below documents how methodology to document how people, wheth- people use a median to cross a street safely. By er drivers, walkers or cyclists, use a street. With using the median as a refuge, the woman in the advent of digital cameras, it is becoming the white sari only has to cross one direction of increasingly aff ordable. This technique not only traffi c at a time. This means that she can take gives planners and designers information with advantage of gaps in one traffi c stream, then which to design spaces, but also can be used to the other. convince politicians and the public.

1 2 3

4 5 6 Michael King 7 8 9 Time-lapse of median used for a safer pedestrian crossing Delhi, India

Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe

•

Page July 2005 16 Safety Shared Space One of the most innovative concepts in recent years has been the idea of “shared space”, also known by several other names including “post- traffi c calming”, “second-generation traffi c calming”, “psychological traffi c calming”, and even “naked streets”. In some respects “shared space” represents the antithesis to traffi c calming, and yet, both share the ultimate goals of slower vehicle Courtesy Cara Seiderman speeds and reduced accidents. With shared space, Vehicles are allowed on this “shared street” all physical diff erentiation between car space and Copenhagen, Denmark pedestrian space is removed.

Not surprisingly, Shared Space has its roots in the Netherlands, where woonerfs began in the 1970s. While woonerfs (Home Zones in the UK) are typically found on small residential streets, Shared Space extends to larger commercial thor- oughfares. Cities such as Drachten and Ooster- wolde in Holland, Copenhagen and Christianfi eld in Denmark, Wiltshire and Suff olk in the UK, and West Palm Beach and Cambridge in the US now have Shared Space streets. Bicycle-priority ITDP streets (Lemgo in Germany, Berkeley in the US) Temples placed in the street before the advent of motor vehicles calm traffi c are close cousins. One can also fi nd de facto Jaipur, India Shared Space in many cities around the world (see images below).

In Shared Space, neither pedestrians nor motorists have explicit signage to dictate who has priority. People must resort to eye contact and other forms of subtle communication to navigate the roadway. The end result is that motorists instinctively reduce speeds in order to engage in this subtle communication process. A roundabout, for example, can be considered a “fi rst generation traffi c calming” technique. It works by replacing a traffi c signal with an Michael King all-yield condition. In Shared Space the signal and Tourist street with traffi c roundabout would be removed altogether. The Bangkok, Thailand premise is that lack of assigned priority (as

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 17 Shared Space (continued)

with a signal) actually creates safer conditions by forcing drivers, pedestrians and cyclists to interact, sans rules.

By eliminating speciﬁ c designations for motorized road users the total amount of usable public space for non-motorized transport increases. Vehicles still use the street, albeit at a slower rate. Moreover, since

driver speed is entirely self-enforced, second genera- Michael King tion traﬃ c calming can be seen as the ultimate form Narrow, low speed, textured street Beverungen, Germany of context sensitive design. Drivers’ speed is deter- mined not by arbitrary speed limits, but rather the presence of pedestrians, cyclists and public furniture in the “roadway”.

Advocates of Shared Space claim that traffi c controls, even those that make cars go slower, are actually less eff ective than the total absence of rules. The concept is that ‘familiarity breeds complacency’. Because traditional traffi c engineering has relied so heavily on street signs, lane stripes, and other tools to signal to the driver where, when and how fast to proceed, drivers can switch into auto-pilot with the a endant Michael King slowing of refl exes that this state entails. When cy- Pedestrian street with auto access clists, pedestrians or playing children interfere with Limburg, Germany such drivers, results can be deadly.

The extent to which Shared Space is applicable to larger cities and to developing cities is not yet known. While the lack of signage results in greater caution from motorists in the Netherlands – and fewer vehicle-pedestrian collisions have resulted there - it is not clear if the same success would be achieved on the streets of Lagos, Jakarta, or São Paulo. Ad- ditionally, as traﬃ c volumes increase the lack of signalling may eventually reach a critical point in which gridlock prevails. Nevertheless, Shared Space Michael King represents an innovative approach that will likely Street with vendors and mixed trafﬁ c receive increasing a ention. Jakarta, Indonesia

Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe

•

Page July 2005 18 Accessibility ACCESSIBILITY

Accessibility is the ability to reach a BRT station • The surface of the PAR should be stable and fi rm, and consist of slip resistant from an external origin, and to travel from the material; station to the fi nal destination. The dominant • Transitions from ramps to planes should BRT planning concerns include overcoming be fl ush. ‘Lippage’ – changes in eleva- physical barriers (specifi cally for travelers with tion that are vertical – may not exceed disabilities), avoiding excessive volumes which one-quarter inch (6.5mm); may impede timely access, providing a safe • Materials should be smooth to minimize vibration; route, and minimizing confl icts and detours. • At existing planes with grades of more than 11%, a level strip should be provid- Physical Conditions ed to serve as a site-specifi c leveler; The following are the key measures which • Cross slopes should be consistent (i.e. should be included in designing a BRT facility, planar) and should not exceed 2%; presented according to the nature of a pedes- • Obstacles, including grates, access covers, poles, parking meters, and bike trian’s disability.2 racks, should be kept out of the PAR; • Maximum width of cracks along the Limited Mobility (wheelchair) PAR: The Paved Accessible Route (PAR) is the − 6.5mm if vertical, 13mm if beveled. pedestrian accessway prescribed to conform − Openings may not exceed 13mm to ADA standards. Design guidelines for horizontally. a PAR (presented below) are based on the − Must be at least 0.75m between two physical requirements needed to offer a horizontal planes. consistent and reliable accessway to a person − Over 13mm must be 1:12, like a ramp. in a wheelchair. The PAR is not just a sidewalk Crossings or individual walkway, but the entire system • Curbs along the pedestrian route to the providing accessibility to all destinations. These transit station should all be ramped to guidelines have been developed with access provide access to customers in wheelchairs and to those carrying wheeled to all destinations in mind, but are specifi cally objects such as bicycles or trolleys applicable here for access to and circulation • Corners should include small curb radii, within a BRT station. to maximize visibility of pedestrians to turning drivers; Walkways • The maximum slope of a ramp should The PAR should be a minimum of 1.2m wide be 1:12 and ramp runs should be (though greater width is recommended to pro- straight; vide enough clearance for two wheelchairs to • Ramps should be located directly adjacent to crosswalks to avoid the need for pass each other); turns once a wheelchair is in the street;

2 Information on accessible design is taken largely from guidance published by • Include a level area at the toe of the the United States Access Board (www.access-board.gov). This is the agency charged with ramp to prevent water from pooling. developing design guidelines for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which established design requirements for the construction or alteration of facilities, including transit facilities. Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 19 There is li le value in making station platforms Limited Vision (blind) and transit vehicles friendly to the physically Visual impairments require diﬀ erent types of disabled if it is impossible for those individu- safety features along the PAR. These measures als to reach the stations in the ﬁ rst place. The are intended to provide a guide along the PAR, image below shows a good, accessible route to which can be followed utilizing senses other transit. than the eyes. The critical locations for these measures are at intersections and borders between pedestrian accessways and vehicular roadways.

The intention at intersection crossings is to provide information to the pedestrian about where the pushbu on is located (so the pedestrian can initiate the Walk phase, and sense when the Walk phase is active). Options include: • Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) • Pushbu on locator tones to alert the pedestrian to the Courtesy Queensland Transport Courtesy Queensland Level surfaces can greatly increase the accessibility of transit • Audible WALK indication stations for those with physical disabilities • Vibro-tactile WALK indication • Tactile arrow • Tactile map or pushbu on information message • Automatic sound adjustment Detectable warnings are raised bulges at key locations which alert the pedestrian to a changing condition – stop signs for the blind. These warnings are appropriate to denote station edges and curbs. Truncated dome detectable warnings are recommended at a depth of 60cm from the base of the curb ramp or level street transition, and along the width of the ramp or level area.

Geometry and landscape modiﬁ cations at intersections can also improve accessibility. Design Michael King Level transition between sidewalk and crosswalk recommendations include providing two ramps Rio de Janeiro, Brazil per corner where possible. Ramps should cross perpendicular to the curb and gu er.

Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe

•

Page July 2005 20 Accessibility Quality of Pedestrian Experience A safe environment for pedestrians is an important factor in planning a BRT station, but without viable access the facility may never be used. Accessibility is primarily based on the other demands for space compared to the amount of space available (volume and delay), Michael King as well as context and security. Audible signal at crosswalk leading to BRT station Walkway Volume and Width Leon, Mexico Walkway level of service (WLOS) is a scaled measurement which quantifi es the fl ow of pedestrians in a given walkway width. It is most applicable to sidewalks, corridors and bridges with high pedestrian volumes where the essen- cial Designs, Inc. tial concern is the provision of suffi cent space. fi Calculating WLOS requires two inputs: eff ective

width and number of pedestrians per hour. A Courtesy Bene pedestrian facility provides a high WLOS if few Vibro-tactile push button from crosswalk signal pedestrians are present.

The charts below show the range of area needed ments. A platoon of walkers requires more per person under average and platoon condi- space than if the same number of people were tions. Platoons are created when a group of spaced evenly throughout a sidewalk. When pedestrians is released en masse by crosswalk two platoons meet each other, as in a crosswalk, signals, Metro doors or other temporal displace- the spatial requirements are even greater.

A D Average Platoon A > 5.6 > 49.2 38-Pedestrian LOS (average) B > 3.7 - 5.6 > 8.4 - 49.2 C > 2.2 - 3.7 > 3.7 - 8.4 D > 1.4 - 2.2 > 2.1 - 3.7 E > 0.7 - 1.4 > 1.0 - 2.1 B E F <= 0.7 <= 1.0

From Highway Capacity Manual square meters per person

Walkway average level of service Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (Transportation Research Board) C F

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 21 Photography is a powerful tool to document and demonstrate issues in the walking infra- Michael King structure. The images at right show the condi- Sidewalk between municipal offi ces and nearest Metro station Mexico City, Mexico tion of the sidewalk (or lack thereof) between a government offi ce building in Mexico City and the nearest Metro station. It is quite clear that the roadway has been designed for the driver, in spite of the continual presence of walkers. Michael King Sidewalk between municipal offi ces and nearest Metro station

Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe Mexico City, Mexico

•

Page July 2005 22 Accessibility Pedestrian Delay Time is a key element to determining the best At-grade crossings should be placed as close method for accessing a BRT station within an to the station entrance as possible. Otherwise, active roadway. Pedestrians will not want to sig- customers may simply cross at an uncontrolled nifi cantly increase their access time, especially point closer to their intended destination. The when the bus is coming. Instead they will fi nd image below illustrates a poorly placed cross- diff erent (possibly unsafe) routes or not use the ing, which is located some 100 meters away facility at all. from the station. Passengers must walk 100 metres down the roadway and then 100 metres Research shows that the likelihood of compli- back to access a point that is actually less than ance is signifi cantly reduced if delay is greater 12 metres from their starting point. than 30 seconds. Applied to the BRT station, an above-grade crossing that has a travel time of 30 seconds or more than the at-grade route will generally not be eff ectively utilized. In a similar fashion, elevators are generally designed so that people do not have to wait more than 30 seconds. Pedestrian Delay Likelihood of (seconds) Noncompliance <10 Low 10-20 21-30 Moderate Michael King 31-40 Crosswalk 100m away from BRT station High Leon, Mexico 41-60 >60 Very High

Pedestrians Patterns per Delay Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (Transportation Research Board)

The concept of pedestrian delay applies primarily to traffi c signals, but also to gaps in traffi c and crosswalk location. Where there are no signals, pedestrians generally must wait for a “gap” in traffi c to cross the street. If the fl ow of traffi c is so great that suffi cient gaps are not available, then the person afoot will a empt to cross the street dangerously.

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 23 Context Security4 Beyond the technical assessments described Whether based on empirical crime data or above, planning a BRT station requires an un- public perception, if potential riders feel unsafe derstanding of how it fi ts within the urban con- walking to a BRT station that can be enough to text. Key factors which infl uence the viability of nullify the system’s eff ective use. Coordination a station include fl ow, confl icting movements, with local police departments and community and detours. An additional element of context organizations may be the only way to accurately is the pa ern of land uses surrounding a BRT determine the importance of this factor. If a lo- station, to which the traveler may want to access cation or route is actually unsafe, as verifi ed by (the goal of the trip). Historically, segregated incident statistics, alternatives may be required. land uses were favored in order to minimize On the other hand, implementation of security confl icts. Such land use pa erns reduce the op- elements, ranging from lighting to monitoring portunities for access, forcing residents to drive to providing security personnel, may be the to many individual destinations to run errands, only way to overcome perceptions of crime. a end school or fi nd work. Instead, more mixed While security and police techniques are a sub- land use provides more concentrated origins ject unto themselves, there is much to be said for and destinations, which can be served by a BRT “eyes on the street” and “safety in numbers”. station within walking distance. The more people in a particular area, the safer it Context should also include acknowledgment will be due to the number of potential witnesses that many of these factors may be perceived and to any crime. These witnesses can be other not actual. Even if a factor is only perceived, the people walking, police offi cers on the corner, resulting impact will limit the eff ectiveness of or simply shop- or homeowners looking out the BRT station. from their windows and doors. By improving the physical and safety conditions on a route to The documentation of context will be necessar- transit, more people will walk, which will make ily qualitative. For example, if riders can see them more secure. the BRT station across a plaza or large street, they will want to fi nd the shortest route there. However, if the paths are organized such that the station is not visible until it is directly accessible, then they will be less likely to take a detour. Alternatively, placing the station in a prominent, more visible location will increase its presence, security and use. Ultimately one needs to have a good understanding of human travel characteristics when discussing pedestrian routes to a BRT station.3

3 For more information on human travel characteristics, see Life Between 4 “Security” usually refers to personal assaults such as muggings and theft.

Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe

• Buildings: Using Public Space. Jan Gehl, Danish Architectural Press, 1971. “Safety” usually refers to traffic incidents and walkway conditions.

Page July 2005 24 Connectivity CONNECTIVITY The above sections discussed the planning and Service Zones design of safe and accessible BRT stations. On The project area to be served by a BRT alignment the macro level, stations should be located so and individual station needs to be divided into that they best serve the general population and ‘zones.’ A radius of 500 metres is traditionally maximize ridership potential. While there are recommended to determine the catchment area many non-pedestrian issues in the location of each station, with zones of roughly 250 square of stations, there are a few particulars which metres delineated. The distance of 500 metres directly relate to pedestrian access and safety. is generally considered the furthest people will Data collection and mapping is recommended walk to catch a bus. If pre-existing origin and to determine where people are (origin), where destination surveys at a suffi ciently small scale they want to go (destination), and where BRT exist, the same zones and the same zoning codes stations can be located to serve them (potential should be used. site). It is important to record travel distances from A well-designed pedestrian access plan will pro- the station based on walking travel times. Maps vide a natural fl ow of walking customers from showing areas covered in one, fi ve, ten, twenty, the surrounding area. System planners should and thirty minute intervals not only indicate ask a few basic questions regarding the quality the potential catchment area for the station, of pedestrian access. Are the pedestrian walk- but may also highlight potential barriers to pe- ways leading to the station well maintained? destrian access. For example, a busy roadway Are they sufficiently broad to comfortably near the station may create severance issues for handle the expected pedestrian traffi c? Are they approaching pedestrians. Other impediments safe and well lit? Is there adequate signage to such as blocked or non-existent pavements lead individuals easily to the stations? Are there will become evident in a time-based mapping. logical pedestrian connections between major Also, long signal cycles for pedestrian crossings origins and destinations such as shops, schools will increase walking travel times. This type of and work places? analysis can o en show areas where distances Mapping pedestrian movements in the area of are relatively short but pedestrian travel times the proposed BRT station provides the baseline are lengthy. data that will help shape the optimum design The image on the next page shows a 1/3-mile of the supporting pedestrian infrastructure. (roughly 500 metres) circle around the main Just as traffi c counts were an important input train station in Trenton, New Jersey (USA). The element to the BRT modelling process, pedes- distance that a person walking at 1.5 metres trian counts and pedestrian movements are per second walked in fi ve minutes is shown in important parts of understanding issues around yellow. The person followed all traffi c laws. station access. This type of analysis is useful in planning station environs. Note that the person was able to walk further where the street network is denser,

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 25 EET RY STR MONM PER 66' OUTH STREET T 50' TE STREET PedestrianREE Plan E STA 66' U T IVE ST N μ OL PERRY STREET ' E EAS 71' 20 ALLEY IN ORT 15' ON AV ' E M T N 5 A N L ACADEMY55' STREET I 5 L WALL ET C WN N E STR W REEMAN20' STR H EE F Y STREET 50' T KNO NO IVE ST N OL 3' ACADEM ' RT U K 1 55 E K O A CA W UN E N MMERCE STREET T CO RS ING 40' EO RRO LEY E Reconfigure Roundabout Gateway L F Y 50' 1 L NEW S INA 3 L T TRE to Downtown? 50' ' A R 5' O 1 H L ET S M AMP EMY STREET L E AD 4 T 5' J E E AC 3 4 RE ERSEY STR Y T ' ( T T S) ON E C US 45' WOOD STREET T EAST STATE STREET HA OC 20' L 6 6 M A 0 V RO ' 68' B E EY E NU UT SRS E 60' E POST OFFICE ALL 5 E2 Move Bus Stop WALNUT AVENUE 0 EAST HANOVER STREET 50' 5 ' 66' T 6 EAST STATE STREET RE ID AVENU CL 45' 70' Make 2 Way E + EY T EU + D L + R + A IN AL LEY + V T ' AL + E 5 L CO OR 1 N + M POST OFFICE EAST STATE STREET U O + 13' 66' O ACE O RTH B PL KP ET STREET ) ATE G S ' 15' STRE T ST '( OOK 24 L EAS R C M B 60' AddLights E 58 A ' S C ONMO R CUST S 60 ET TAT E O E NB LO 8 TR OUT TE S E 0' A A T ST EAS E S D HL Y ' O U 60 OF A E HS L U T L S Relocate Bus Stop W STREETH A NE T TR 6 IC H 6' TOCK UNK T WJE N ' E LA 30 E C AT NOW T 66' LI ? RS T N h NS ON t E E 63 TO U N a Y F EN ' t P V ROUT A KNOWN N UN o Driveway (not street) e C D WN r e H O UNKNO T OWN m r Improve Sidewalk O KN A t EST RE UN NW 6' V S OWN 44.71' E u t EE 6 KN E N 2 l U E i e N GR 6 z N k C WN 9' T r U O 9.3 e U HA N 3 a TA NDSOR ALLEY P E M 50 UNK OWN WI a e MB KN '(S) t AddU-Turn? ' VE UN 32 h am E n N SRS e U R E 7 0 1 HO ' TRE L LYWO WN REET E NO E FRONT ST U T EAST N UNK ' E 15 60' O 5 D Trenton Station 0' TAV0' S VENUE U 5 T N R NLEY A L EE KI 50' MC 2 WA T H A N FO

R T Make 2 Way D EE Add Path E 30' TR C ENU S H V PL R A DA C LE ' M REET O AC 50 T WO HE TY B S EN E RE 66' E Align Curbs with G ST R N ' Widen Sidewalk SA O 3 RD 3 NUT A 7 KS A Bridge Legend 0' C V A EET V S J R 6 E O ST 0 UE N U ULE ' 7 VE EN UE T N H KET 04' O T AV AR 1 B NU EE Improved Sidewalk B M M 4 TR TSON Y OW S R ' LLE R G A E R 0 A O N RKET LE LBE 5 DY A R K TY 0' CU O 6 E 6 M MO 5 D N Realign Curb 15' ' U ON S T NB 8 S 3 R 7' T M LE R E EET O Add Crosswalk H H E U E T A NU TH VE WA N FO 6 ONA LIV 0' Paths AMILT R ST H 6' IN 7 C D 4 R LA G 3' EET Lights YS S P T LA + O 50' T 50' C REE N 5MinuteWalk F T E R S REE AN ME T T T R LERS KLIN R E TY ' CE E 50 Street Name T R 6 B Street Width Street Centerlines 0' ST 5 S E REET 0 T N ' R E ET S TRE ON E 4 LEY T HS 0 AL Railroad ET HIG ' ' MI E 40 S MIA R T 5' T . 1 S ' Curb W 0 AS 4 REET REET JA AL ST H ERST ES IN L N H ARL C AN TY CH S UD G KS C NKNOW 0' U O 5 1/3MileBuffer T O O U S N N CONO T O 6 H E 0 55' N U STR EN ' STR S CA ET 60 AV T E C N TR S O W VE E A S ' ILT NAL L L TR E T M ET AR A H I E H ' E S R EOFN N P 6 6 50' 6 I D ANDE T E S 5 T ET O 2 T Study Intersections 23' IV RE 0 E TA UT E O ST A T 50' ' T IS AD S S H LLE U NA KER ONR T C I O O O ' RS E RE 0 B R CHE 5 U R Y 50 N U WJ T O V O EY NK ET ' EET 6 HW 72(S E AVEN R A S T 0 NST ST 60' D R N N HU S E DS ' E W N R T Property Lines RS U A ) J RE A ST O O D AY 0' NUT AVE ' E B R C N 6 W S U O K E RE R EW E REE O N ON E 9 E N Y 6 U N T 0 N P E F 0' REET ' E T O RO 6 T T S R E E T S T 0' STR T STRE T UT EE BuildingT Footprint R 5 S TR NU KEN 12' E 0' T STA S 1 E R E129 E D 0' RKET E Y YAR E 5 T E LLE E BA 60' MA T RA T ITTMA ET D 15' STRE Source: City of Trenton, NJ Transit, ESRI KENT 50' EET STR 0 250 500 ARD ET BAY 60' TRE LERS Feet BUT 60' 500m radius around train station; fi ve minute walk from station entrances in yellow Trenton, New Jersey (USA) Nelson\Nygaard so it would be useful to create passages within good indication of where people can and will blocks. Note also that crossing larger streets walk. This map would be used to: took longer, so the person was not able to walk • locate the station, as far. Here it would be useful to minimize • show where nominal interventions, e.g. delay at signals. a new bridge over a river, access to the station can be improved, and Origin-Destination Analysis • demonstrate where the most signifi cant increases in non-motorized travel could O-D Pairs and Actual Walking Routes be achieved by providing a new transit Ideally, a map identifying all signifi cant origin service. and destination (O-D) pairs for trips under fi ve Because pedestrian trips are so short and var- kilometres should be mapped. It is reasonable to ied, micro-scale detail is o en needed to truly assume that longer-distance trips are rarely go- understand O-D pairs. It is o en useful to map ing to be made by foot, unless there is a distinct all actual routes between each diff erent major corridor such as a path along a river. Origins origin and destination pair in the project area. and destinations can include markets, schools, If there is a major trip a ractor in the destina- houses of worship, parks, residential neighbor- tion zone (e.g. a shopping centre, school or hoods, shopping centers, offi ce buildings, etc. It hospital), use this as the destination point. If is also useful to map major barriers to foot traffi c not, use a central point in each zone. On this such as expressways, rivers, train tracks and map it would be useful to highlight any roads large parcels of land. Conversely one needs to or streets where bicycles or other modes are locate the links across these barriers – bridges, forbidden (i.e., pedestrian-only streets and other tunnels, gates, etc. traffi c restrictions). Understanding how the origins, destinations,

Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe

• barriers and links relate spatially gives one a

Page July 2005 26 Connectivity In the fi rst image (below le ), motorized access Detour factors are the distance that the average to a station is shown in red and non-motorized cyclist or cycle rickshaw operator needs to travel routes are shown in green. Bus stops are shown out of their way in order to reach their destina- in blue, schools in brown, mosques in yellow tion, relative to the distance as the crow fl ies and shopping areas in purple. The second (straight line distance). In a typical European image (below right) shows actual routes that or American traffi c grid with no restrictions on students take from their homes to school. Note non-motorized vehicle travel, the detour factors that some students cross an expressway at a are generally very low. A detour factor of 1.2, particular point in the bo om right of the im- as observed in Del , Holland, is extremely low. age. Note also that no students cross the train This means that the average cyclist only needs to line at the top right of the image. travel 20% farther than a straight-line distance in order to reach their destination. Mapping of Detour factors some detour factors in Surabaya indicates that This actual route mapping can be used to calcu- Asian cities with many one-way streets, few late detour factors. Detour factors are the most intersections, a weak secondary and tertiary systematic way of identifying major severance street system, and unsafe high-speed roads can problems. Severance problems can be created have fantastically high detour factors. by unsafe, high-speed roads, by restrictions on Pedestrian connectivity to a BRT station is non-motorized vehicles on specifi c streets, by also a function of the layout of area roads and barriers to crossing streets, by a one-way street paths. Street networks which rely on a high system, and by large canals, railroad tracks, and number of minor roads which do not connect other impassable infrastructure. with each other severely limit the pedestrian’s ability to reach the BRT station. This pa ern

43 ITDP

Origin-destination map Surabaya, Indonesia Actual walking routes to school Copenhagen, Denmark

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 27 reduces the functionality of the BRT station, since it requires longer trips to reach destinations. Conversely, networks developed on an interconnected grid system provide greater ac- Tracking Surveys cessibility because streets are more connected, On the micro scale, pedestrian tracking surveys are a which allows pedestrians to travel directly to useful way to document exactly how people use a street, BRT stations. A grid street system also tends to intersection, or plaza. These surveys have been used be more resilient, because the system will not to redesign intersections, show how the space is used fail if one link is blocked. throughout the day, and demonstrate a speciﬁ c pattern (such as a need for a crosswalk).

Transfers to Other Modes The basic technique for tracking pedestrians is to Locating BRT stations and alignments at key position surveyors at the ‘entries’ of the location. [At a typical 4-leg intersection, there are eight sidewalks that locations off ers connections between origins lead to the intersection, hence eight points.] As people and destinations. This may achieve the pri- walk past, the surveyors record on a plan of the area mary goal of providing local connectivity to exactly where they walked, where they crossed the signifi cant trip generators, but there is more to street, where they turned around, etc. The surveyors the story. To maximize the eff ectiveness of any do not actually follow anyone. The survey can last transit mode, it is imperative to off er system from 30 minutes to two hours, depending on how long connectivity. The same O-D data collected and it takes to establish the walking patterns. The surveys analyzed as described above can help determine are then compiled into one composite map and distilled as necessary [see Jakarta images on the opposite the ultimate destination for potential riders. page]. Whether other modes (or BRT alignments) exist The images on the opposite page [Mulry Square] show prior to the planning of the new facility, new how a tracking survey can be used to redesign an area. BRT stations should provide convenient trans- In the lower left is the previous condition. In the upper fers. Evaluation of rush hour volumes may be left is the tracking survey. The upper right has temporary the key to maximizing pedestrian convenience curb extensions (in paint). Note that they accommodate at transfer points. Whether alignments run the primary walking movements along. The lower right shows the built condition. In the image on the right east/west, north/south or any combination, most [Tubman Triangle] show how curb extensions and locations will have dominant fl ows. Connecting refuge islands can be located to mirror walkers. services will be rendered most useful by planning for the overall fl ow pa erns. While it is possible to predict walking patterns, humans are highly adaptable. After the station is opened it Once locations for transfer points are deter- is good to re-analyze the area and see if the design mined, the elements discussed above for safety works. The second two images show the variations and access remain constant. Critical safety between morning and evening use of a transit station. factors (e.g., reducing pedestrian crossing time The morning fl ows are reversed in the evening. It is important to accommodate these differences. and distance) and accessibility criteria (e.g., off ering routes which have available sidewalk space) are equally important to providing ef-

Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe fective modal connectivity as origin/destination

• connectivity. Page July 2005 28 Connectivity Jakarta ITDP ITDP Walking routes at transit station – morning Walking routes at transit station – evening Jakarta, Indonesia Jakarta, Indonesia

Tubman Triangle

S T . NOTES N Survey taken weekday, 4-6 PM Mulry Square IC H Each survey 30 minutes O L One line = 7 people A S POLICE Project for Public Space, Inc. A V E FRED DOUGLASS BLVD.

W. 122 ST. W. 122 ST. Courtesy Project for Public Spaces Tracking survey as intersection redesign tool Mulry Square

New York City, New York (USA) W. 121 ST. W. 121 ST.

S T . N IC H O L A S A V E FRED DOUGLASS BLVD. CHURCH Composite tracking survey from 19 points Michael King Tubman Triangle New York City, New York (USA)

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 29 Aerial Photos Showing Walking Routes Tracking surveys are highly speciﬁ c and require a certain amount of personnel to perform. Aerial photographs are a less exact method of obtaining similar information. This is more useful on a macro scale when trying to determine where pedestrian activity is concentrated. Aerial images can show actual pedestrians, say at a market or along a sidewalk, or the paths in unpaved ground.

50 Michael King Aerial image showing where people cross the street Aerial image showing where people cross the street Michael King Brasilia, Brazil Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ITDP Aerial image showing where people cross the street

Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe Cape Town, South Africa

•

Page July 2005 30 Connectivity Pedestrian Corridors The planning of station access extends beyond the immediate transit corridor and into the origin communities themselves. While it is accepted wisdom that transit customers will only walk 500m, in the developing world where alternatives may be sparse or costly people will walk considerably further. This is especially true for major origins and destinations. As such, it may be worthwhile to invest in a few quality pedestrian corridors.

Some of the design factors to consider within these corridors include: • Quality of pavement materials • Aesthetic value of walking environment • Amount of trees, vegetation, veran- das, etc. providing climate protection • Quality of street lighting • Pedestrian priority at intersections

• Absence of major barriers / severance Lloyd Wright issues Covered pedestrian walkway helps to dramatically reduce pavement temperature and thus encourage walking Some cities now are providing low-cost, cov- Panama City, Panama ered pedestrian walkways in order to elimi- nate the disincentive that the weather can bring to walking and cycling. In cities with extreme heat, covered walkways can reduce temperatures by 5-8 degrees Centigrade, and thus make the diﬀ erence to the viability of comfortably reaching a BRT station.

Addressing these details is a relatively small investment in comparison to the total investment for the BRT system. However, providing a safe, a ractive, and convenient pedestrian environment can deliver signiﬁ cant beneﬁ ts in terms of customer satisfaction and total ridership.

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 31 Appendix A Appendix APPENDIX A: DOCUMENTING SIDEWALK CONDITIONS

Roadway departments regularly document the condition of pavement, curbs and other roadway features for maintenance and quality control purposes. The same methodology can be applied to sidewalks and other NMT routes. All one needs is a good map, a camera and a measuring wheel. In the following image from Surabaya, Indonesia sidewalks and crosswalks have been rated usable (green), partially usable (yellow) and unusable (red). GTZ & ITDP Example for a mapping of perceived quality of NMV travel Surabaya, Indonesia

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates A-1 To obtain this information one walks the route and photographs at periodic intervals – say every 30m or as the conditions change. The series of images below were taken between a large hotel and a proposed BRT station. This is the route walked everyday by much of the hotel staﬀ , as shown in frame 3. The varying conditions are clearly apparent, from well groomed sidewalks (frame 4) and good wheelchair ramps (frame 6) to trees blocking the path (frame 9) and poles blocking the crosswalk (frame 11).

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9 Michael King 10 11 12 Photographic walking audit Cape Town, South Africa

Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe

•

Page July 2005 A-2 Appendix A Appendix

Taking the exercise a step further, one measures the sidewalk and notes each obstruction and the remaining width. The plan below shows a sidewalk in Bangkok, Thailand. The sidewalk itself is about 5m wide, but the many obstructions (signs, utility boxes, bus stands, telephone booths, stairways, poles) reduce the ‘eﬀ ective’ width, in this case to 1.4m and 1.5m. GTZ Siam Square sidewalk layout Bangkok, Thailand

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates A-3 Eff ective width is very important for sidewalk like diff erent peak hours are used in calculat- usability. In the two images below, the sidewalk ing vehicle LOS. Lastly the possible LOS was on the le has a clear path in which to walk calculated should all the obstructions (poles, down the center of the walkway. The sidewalk stairways, phone booths, taxi stands, signs) be on the right has its width compromised by trees removed. This was done to demonstrate that and steps. There is only about 0.5m clear in by simply removing or reorganizing the street which to walk. furniture, one can create a clear path, greater ‘eff ective’ width and a higher LOS. For sidewalks in the Siam Square area in Bangkok, Thailand, the Bangkok Metropolitan There are a number of walking audits and Authority surveyed the number of pedestrians similar products available on the internet. We per hour, and the sidewalks on which they suggest the following: walked. The three charts at the bo om of the http://www.bikewalk.org/vision/community_assessment.htm page show the results. The fi rst shows absolute numbers for three sidewalk segments. In the http://www.walkinginfo.org/walkingchecklist.htm second the LOS is calculated for the average http://www.falls-chutes.com...... /guide/english/resources/pdf/WalkChecklistJuly- and platoon conditions. Both weekday and 29ForWeb.pdf weekend pedestrian counts were used, much Michael King Michael King Driveway slope does not affect effective width Stairs in walkway limit effective width Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Brasilia, Brazil

57 Sidewalk LOS Measurements 57 Siam Square Sidewalk LOS 57 LOS w/ no obstructions

Average Platoon Average Platoon W We Pk Vol Phaya Thai & weekday D F Phaya Thai & weekday A B Phaya Thai & weekday 1299 3.8m 0.4m Soi Chula 64 weekend F F Soi Chula 64 weekend B D Soi Chula 64 weekend 3360 weekday C D weekday A B weekday 1647 Rama I & Soi 3 Rama I & Soi 3 Rama I & Soi 3 5.9m 1.1m weekend E F weekend A C weekend 4692 weekday A A weekday A A weekday 345 Rama I & Soi 6 Rama I & Soi 6 Rama I & Soi 6 8.2m 1.3m weekend A C weekend A B weekend 918 GTZ Effective Width Current LOS Possible LOS

Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe Bangkok (Thailand)

•

Page July 2005 A-4 Appendix B Appendix APPENDIX B: KANSAS CITY PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE MODEL Kansas City (USA) has developed a pedestrian • Continuity: Continuity is the measurement LOS model based on fi ve specifi c measures: of the completeness of the sidewalk system with avoidance of gaps and barriers. The directness, continuity, street crossings, visual measure considers not only the presence of interest and amenity, and security. The fi ve Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible sidewalks for the same routes used measures essentially ask fi ve questions: to evaluate directness, but also the condition 1. Does the pedestrian network provide of the pedestrian pathways and whether the shortest possible route to the transit there are barriers in the pathway (i.e. light poles in sidewalk, newspaper vending facility? machines, etc.). This measure requires a 2. Is the pedestrian network free from gaps fi eld survey of the most logical routes to the and barriers? transit facility from key destinations. 3. Can the pedestrian safely cross streets? − In the highest level of service, LOS A, the public pedestrian sidewalk not only 4. Is the environment a ractive and com- provides access from key origins, but also fortable, off ering protection from harsh connects to continuous sidewalks within conditions? those major trip generators (parks, for 5. Is the environment secure, well lit with example). LOS B and C have continuous good line of sight to see the pedestrian, sidewalks but without direct interior site connections and as the level falls, with and far away enough from vehicular increasing maintenance problems and traffi c to provide a feeling of safety? non-standard widths or confi gurations. While Kansas City developed these measures LOS F, the lowest level of service, is a complete breakdown in the pedestrian for citywide use, the points below are tailored fl ow, where each pedestrian selects a for use in station access planning. diff erent route because no pedestrian network exists. • Directness: The measure of directness • Street Crossings: The Pedestrian Level of is simply how well key destinations (e.g. Service measurement predicts how easy and schools, parks, commercial centers, or activ- safe it will be for a pedestrian to cross streets ity areas) are connected to the transit facility with various street crossing and intersec- via the pedestrian network. The directness tion designs to reach a transit facility. The LOS is based on a ratio of the actual distance Pedestrian LOS is dependent on the type of and minimum distance between two points. crossing, the number of lanes to cross, lane To determine the Directness Ratio, measure widths, travel speed and the presence or the actual distance between a representative absence of parking lanes. For each type of key destination and the transit facility and street crossing, the table prescribes a mini- divide it by the minimum distance between mum number of lanes for the highest levels those two points. of service. As design elements and features − The minimum distance is defi ned by the are reduced, parking lanes exist, higher grid street pa ern using standard sized speeds are estimated, and/or additional city blocks (no greater than 660 feet in lanes to cross are increased, the LOS is re- length), measuring from a representative duced. If parking lanes do not exist and the trip origin to destination by a north-south pedestrian does not need to be exposed to measurement plus an east-west measure- additional travel time, or if traffi c speeds are ment. An actual/minimum (A/M) ratio of lower than what is typical for the roadway between 1.0 and 1.2 would be considered type, or if the traffi c lanes are narrower, re- an LOS A, whereas an A/M ratio of 2.0+ sulting in less exposure time for the pedes- would be considered a failure. An A/M trian, the LOS is increased. ratio of below 1.0 could be achieved with the availability of a diagonal street.

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates B-1 • Street Crossing Types: There are four types − Are there crosswalks, and are they well of street crossings under the Street Crossing marked? Level-of-Service Measure. Each has its own − Are the signal heads easily visible to the inherent issues and needs. pedestrian and the motorist? − Signalized Intersections: Signalized inter- − Is the intersection and crosswalk well lit so sections pose major pedestrian crossing that the pedestrian is visible (to motorists) at problems due to high traffi c volumes, night? turning vehicles, vehicles that stop in the crosswalk, a signifi cant number of lanes − What are the walk-times (if any) for each to cross, signal indication that is diffi cult phase? Some signals have the walk-time to read or understand, lack of visual automatically set for each phase. This is connection with the automobile, lack of desirable for all pedestrian areas, as it vehicle driver respect, lack of raised me- states the importance of the pedestrian. dian protection, no corner ramps, and no An alternative is the pedestrian bu on, or inconvenient pedestrian bu ons. where the pedestrian presses the bu on, waits for the cycle to repeat, and gets the − Unsignalized Intersection Crossing the walk phase. The third type of signal does Major Street: Problems are similar to not have any walk phase. This type of signalized intersections with even greater signal is unacceptable, as the only way concern for the number of lanes to cross a pedestrian may ever get a green light since pedestrians do not have the pro- is when an automobile on the side street tection of the signal. Problems may also activates the cycle. include speed of vehicles and lack of adequately marked crosswalks with good − Are median refuge areas available? Painted lighting, raised median, visibility, and medians off er li le refuge other than corner ramps. ge ing out of a lane of traffi c. Substan- tive raised medians of signifi cant width − Unsignalized Intersection Crossing the Mi- provide some increase in security for the nor Street: The problem at these locations crossing pedestrian and are required to is the vehicle traveling along the arterial meet LOS B and C standards for Street turning right or le onto the minor street, Crossings. while being urged along by a following vehicle. − Are there any amenities, including signage and design features, that strongly suggest the − Mid-Block Crossing: Problems are similar presence of a pedestrian crossing? to the unsignalized major street crossing, including number of lanes to cross − What are the intersection’s sight distances? and lack of crosswalk presence, lighting, Sight distance measures the unobstructed raised median, and corner ramps. view between the motorist and the pedestrian. This can be a problem particu- • Key Street Crossing Elements: The follow- larly when a driver intends to make a le ing are questions about key street-crossing turn under a permissive le -turn phase elements to determine its LOS: and it is diffi cult to see around the op- − How many lanes must the pedestrian cross to posing le -turn vehicle. Sight distances reach the transit facility? can also pose a problem when parked − Are travel lane widths 3.5m or less? cars are allowed too close to pedestrian crosswalks. − Are on-street parking lanes present parking that would increase the walk time necessary − Corner ramps may be either ADA standard to cross the street? Are parking lanes are or nonstandard. The maximum curb radii protected by curb neckings or bump-outs allowed in Pedestrian Areas in Kansas City for an LOS A through C standard is − Does the street that needs to be crossed have 6m. unusually high travel speeds? Factors that might aff ect speed would include minimum cross street traffi c, low number of access points, and geometric design.

Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe

•

Page July 2005 B-2 Appendix C Appendix APPENDIX C: PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES AND UNDERPASSES Accessing a BRT station in the center of the then people will use it. If the bridge makes road can be a challenge. Crossing at-grade it slower, people will try to fi nd a shorter route. A 1965 study found that if crossing over multiple traffi c lanes has inherent safety via the overpass takes 50 percent longer issues and may be a psychological disincentive than crossing at grade, then almost no one will use the overpass. Usage of underpasses to using the BRT facility. However, solutions (tunnels) was even less.5 that require pedestrians to climb up and down • vehicle speed, volume, number of lanes stairs can be physically diffi cult, dangerous, and median – if the street to be crossed has the look and feel of an expressway, then and o ignored in favor of the shorter route. people will naturally want to avoid it. If Elevators and ramps partially mitigate this, but the street has lower speeds and volumes, at considerable expense. fewer lanes, a tree-lined median, and/or signals then people will be inclined to cross At-grade crossings should always be the fi rst at-grade. choice when designing a BRT station. Only if • traffi c signals – if there is a traffi c signal within 200m of the crossing location, then this is physically impractical should a bridge or gaps will be created in traffi c such that tunnel be considered. For example if the BRT people will not use the bridge. station is combined with a Metro station, a tun- • street network – if the street network fun- nels people to a bridge or tunnel, then they nel makes sense. If the station is in the center will be more inclined to use it. If the net- of an expressway then access can be combined work is more of a grid system with multiple paths, then people will want to cross the with an existing overpass. But if the station is street as soon as they get to it. on a street with traffi c signals, chances are pe- • grade change – if there is a reason for people destrians will want to cross at grade. In general to go up or down (hillsides, shopping center bridges and tunnels will only be used if there is entries, Metros), they will be amenable to using a bridge or tunnel. a reason to go up or down, they lead directly to a shopping center or Metro, they are inviting, Following is a list of basic design considerations and crossing the street is overtly dangerous. for bridges and tunnels. • lighting – bridges and tunnels should be All too often pedestrian bridges have been well lit. constructed supposedly for the safety of pedes- • visibility – there should be clear lines of trian. The real reason though was to remove sight between the bridge or tunnel, station and street. This is a huge issue for security. people from the roadway in an eff ort improve • width – bridges and tunnels should be wide vehicle fl ow and speed. This is sad given that enough to accommodate the peak hour the people who need the safety of bridges the number of people. most – the elderly, those with disabilities, chil- • ramps, escalators, or elevators – the bridge or tunnel should be accessible to a person in dren in strollers – cannot climb stairs. a wheelchair, a person pushing a baby car- riage, a person with a bicycle or packages, Following is a list of planning consideration for pedestrian bridges and tunnels. 5 Moore, R.L. and S.J. Older. “ˆPedestrians and Motor Vehicles are Compatible • crossing time – if the bridge or tunnel in Today’s World,” Traffic Engineering, Vol. 35, No. 12, Sept. 1965, in “A Review of Pedes- makes it quicker to cross to the station, trian Safety Research in the United States and Abroad”, Publication No. FHWA-RD-03-042, January 2004, pp. 97.

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates C-1 or one who has trouble climbing stairs. In addition there should be stairs for those who choose to use them. • fl ooding – tunnels must include a good drainage plan. • criminals, vendors, graffi ti, homeless, toilets – if the bridge or tunnel is perceived as unsafe or unclean it will not be used, regardless of the design. The following images show some issues with pedestrian bridges including design, placement and usage. Michael King Multiple medians make crossing at grade easy; pedestrian bridge not well used Mexico City, Mexico Walter Hook Walter Traffi c stopped at signal makes crossing at grade easy; pedestrian bridge not well used Jakarta, Indonesia

Pedestrian bridge crowded with vendors thus limiting and Lloyd Wright Lloyd Wright discouraging passenger use Steep, narrow stairway makes for poor accessibility to the Dhaka, Bangladesh transit station

Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe Beijing, China

•

Page July 2005 C-2 Appendix C Appendix The following images show pedestrian bridges and tunnels that are well designed, located and used. Michael King Michael King Park-like pedestrian bridge over an expressway Park-like pedestrian bridge over an expressway Guangzhou, China Guangzhou, China Lloyd Wright Courtesy TransMilenio SA Courtesy TransMilenio Wide, modern pedestrian bridges are highly accessible and Wide, modern pedestrian bridges are highly accessible and are well regarded by passengers are well regarded by passengers Bogota, Colombia Bogota, Colombia Michael King Michael King Pedestrian bridge connects directly to shopping center Pedestrian bridge over an expressway connects Shenzhen, China directly to a school Fort Worth, Texas (USA)

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates C-3 Underground pedestrian network at Rockefeller Center New York City (USA) Urban Space for Pedestrians, Pushkarev, B, Zupan, J., MIT Press, Cambridge, 1975 Michael King Safe Routes to Transit — BRT Planning Guide — BRT to Transit Routes Safe Well-lit pedestrian underpass • Munich, Germany

Page July 2005 C-4 Appendix C Appendix The map below is from an analysis of the proposed Eje 8 BRT corridor in Mexico City. Shown are the proposed stations, existing and proposed pedestrian bridges, traﬃ c signals, speed limit, number of lanes, median type and street network. From this map one can see where bridges are necessary (where the Metro travels down the median), where bridges are not recommended (near underground Metro stations), and where bridges would be not used (where the street is relatively narrow and has traﬃ c signals).

Eje 8 BRT 5

parada BRT Metro sentido de circulacion semaforo existente camellon inaccesible puente existente A

d puente disenado

e b Z o

c E s E M . co z 40 km/h be . do e M O velocidad maxima a Cjó u n d . de o g G l C rd C . ana e n l . L í . a a a . ESTRELL O d m 1 C a o J d . C a D a Cián O 2 em g . . at B u en v c

. a EZ o . R . i z . a d r a n e a P d C t d ó id R d M . alg C c o C o j C o a . c o o E a a C . t 1 p I GOMEZ e M d a d . z u . a s P m V C o 3 m e riv n v . i r a 2 z a ó r c A o e o P l J j O F m . C . . a ó a s .C.DELA M C n 2 a jon. C G i I L e M . L p 23 A ROJO n u P l ó j a 3 C

a AJ.ALVAR d . Ce z rra a da Av e . H u ida . lg m G o o a

ó . z g d l B J . G a e l a d C n e r s r a ó d o a j e s j i v . o t H i l C V ICTORIA icente . Gu a a erre . R u a ro i

i A a C a a d . q r b A d

v z n g d C o M 24. MIN a C t

a a a A e r IN C . c .

c u o i P

. a . a

l r ORENZO O l l M i o iv. S J a Cj

a 2 V ó RE u n g o p . l Gu

CERRROr . DE LA 3 ad

1 a Z n a A e a lup P o e

ó L . p d c m l i A s

F G u A l o H S ú UNDICION ESTRELLA. A a C l s v N C UEZ d d l . i a. e e a

e 25. G. V F r L a a a u J . t t i C O . P d u b 5 i g a d a R a u a i . C . Cd e a G o a d C A E . m s ic q C d d m I t M d n 2 z Ma an m M . C o o a t . M a e N s C . p r . MOROS . a e p a a a i . a i e L ta l le p . c c r . S . M o d Z a n e n p 1 a P G C ó i a n C Car a t l j l ril r a ó 2 o O a o 3 i N z i 1 L s r v o e g l a. C r 26. SAN L . o a al e A a c UA l i C F e x e M b n d . i b i d a o . e Cd a d a. . r o Nogal a m e n . a l

o n y r z L M r s a d a i a o

2 d a R u a z q s a a e F o u o S R

u r P c F . C d z e C a s e s a e n lm e n C M r a o n l i r

d g l a á t t . C i s ó m e a. . u c o i o

e l o z t O e c e e . RODRIG a A a F

b i . a

a g A r F c A r u n i C i d d g C a m . r i a 3 a d

e r 5 .

Z r n B o d . l o r h A a o . a n S u a P C u 2 A

. d R F u C M t d r c o . . N A P . . A l E o a l n a a A e

1 o l t n s é g o M

. M a i r m R v r t a . r aB a E s P . M l 27. MATA l MA á n b R

m i o u a . e p M v l a o i a s Pin i d S r R

A . L d r L T R e A n u r a ll e e e m n i d

e a r . M J j u . d c

P G e

o l z p a t z a e w y a d z m a M L P TUCION O r í o n a

i . d v a v . r s a a S a A z r g UAMa C ón o e i n

t . r i a r l r l C A r r i c r u L z A n o M c r a e M s o a

á n G . O e a J z a g a A u z D o . r Cravi N A n o a to J n o a P a L E z z t . u nriq r v u A e r r C o l o lu o s 7 e n a M a ga l . C i d e a o . d d o o S c l S . a b a B. N R R i a a G a amí z P r m n e i z 8 . o n r a a . l n e . Cd

e l o a. i z s a l e á a F n c e o

l o. i a e l

V o j t A a e a c b z s r R o

a z l F d l

igue H l a e p r t o R z a u p . u s e

a b m M I A a a r a

z i f r b A . r a

a a l n a o

m r mo e a M J M A . o o m a n n A

e l lv g a a a R r l e i e

M z F y t

l A i a lv f p a a r c A u l e te a z n

m e

n r o a

lin i

e 8. CONSTI t l s o B n á i a i ut m

r l d

n e ñ z o a v a e e e s

a a i l r

C r a z G a

z p d e i e

2 a

l s l e

P d J i

r a

t v la i i e l v r C a . a e d

i i s up s a

E u p s s r p v ú

u o r

o r r e I r s a C l u a a i

v a

C o el A

g D m

Z l ULIPAN

C e i e e

a d L a e a N l q n .

. i u

i ó M a i r p r r r v

g D s o

d a e c a v n o

s v

A i

e C

v i z d b

. r i e o t d a á

t o o e i b l L l a a

n a l e R L

l i

o b u a a r o s n a d a l n

n r

M e M J z e d V

u q e D M

R u C

M a a t c e r A

o i t t l T N r l o a l

C o

. i s z

O e a a A i c l ñ . f e o ns a

O f o B H l u

P er z

s m r u A e i a ra u t m

V i i r

29. T v a i

r n . r c L . h o s c x

P C i

e a d A d b o r ro

p l A . a n . A a A i G o n C l h l

v v a . g

. d o pa G o

e A c l J a . l

. a

a J R C i o a s o M al t r d

o e .

L v . e e v V F o i . i o c

a l u

r G

r f c d r t R . v F i

a n u e n o

n L p L e . . r l o T a 2

r l

N Y l

o e e a .

l c i I P o . t n CONSTITUCION i M p e

d e A s o

a a

e d a L m d

C b m t a e d t d

R r a R r l o

a y

e e a a i e e M C a

i s l Sa F 5 d l o . s l a a ifl e P Cd u o z r G

A n y S o m a i o r e N z i ochebuena M r q e

e d O t e i L e 5 A B V V e G c r

t P abe n l a P . e e n

n a r z a i d r E d n a E s e Z i i M l d ana d . o h o r o r a S p ri i a i C D C m o a nc s a r a a o

ó Bl a z o i D i l l Liz uc

z de L

r n a d R l

lo d e

a F a o

b c

a i F e n L

o L a

a a l

d C n

R R s

. s

J i O

. t

L a ñ L G

A e

l R

d e

u n l

z a

v B f r

Na i a e A v e

a a

o d

g n

p o

N . cu I

d e d

l r

e u a

l o G

j m

E . A

a F

s u J

A s

t Z

G a a

re l

o e r

l . o

l l a i

C o e

y t M r s r

a a

o E V

e M y c

a n

e d . .

d M L

u z a

5 e n

o J z d e

r . n n

V lo es a

l e

F ra P

o M

a A

. M g

I M p

A J. M

C R h h / / m m k k 0 0 5 7 ITDP Analysis of proposed BRT corridor with pedestrian bridges Mexico City, Mexico

Page Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates C-5