1. INTRODUCTION
It’s on foot that you see people’s faces and that you meet and experience them. That is how public socializing and community enjoyment in daily life can most easily occur. And it’s on foot that one can be most intimately involved with the urban environment: with stores, houses, the natural environment, and with people. (Jacobs, Allen 1993)
Pedestrian spaces are becoming increasingly rare nowadays. The explosive increase in vehicular traffic has relegated the pedestrian to subways and over bridges. A pedestrian is not taken into account in the planning and design of traffic and transportation systems with the importance imparted to vehicular modes of travel.
Pedestrian spaces have a long history. Most of the older towns in India as well as abroad, display a degree of respect towards the pedestrian which is higher than modern day cities. Indian cities have not yet reached the level of western cities in terms of vehicular volume, but they are growing very rapidly. With a major percentage of trips performed by walking, logic dictates that pedestrians deserve more respect in the overall urban scheme.
Various studies have demonstrated the benefits that could accrue to a city by the creation of proper pedestrian spaces. ( Shelley, Anne 1976)
As Jane Jacobs said “Streets and their sidewalks, the main public places of a city, are its most vital organs. Think of a city and what comes to mind? Its streets.” (Jacobs, Jane 1961)
Encouragement provided to walking creates a better awareness of a street or an area. People tend to become conscious of the character of a street, its buildings, their detailing and the small open spaces abutting the street. Walking is the ideal way by which a person can appreciate the urban environment. A person needs to walk leisurely, absorb the sights and sounds, experience the smells wafting through the breeze and jostle with fellow shoppers and pedestrians in crowded markets for space.
As Colin Buchanan points out: “Walking is also an integral part of many other matters, such as looking at shop windows, admiring the scene, or talking to people. In all, it does not seem to be far from the truth that the freedom with which a person can walk about and look around is a useful guide to the civilized quality of an urban area.” (Buchanan, C 1963)
Pedestrian networks encourage people to stand and talk to each other, to simply stand and observe any activity going on, to listen to street musicians, etc. Thus, the street becomes an extension of the home. Therefore, it is not just from the point of tourists or shoppers that pedestrian facilities should be looked at. The entire gamut of street life should be covered, from shopping corridors, parks, residential front gardens, squares for ceremonies, meeting points, parade grounds, spaces for street entertainment and much more.
2. Issues
These are a few fundamental questions which could be categorized as various issues relating to pedestrian spaces:
1. Issues relating to sensory perception, imageability and aesthetic impact.
· How does one evaluate the quality of a pedestrian environment?
· Does the introduction of a pedestrian area help to improve the imageability and quality of life of an urban area?
· Does the architectural environment influence the quality and success of a pedestrianarea?
2. Issues relating to climate, vegetation and topography.
· How does climate and vegetation exert an impact on the usage of pedestrian areas?
· How does topography of an area influence the usage of a pedestrian area?
3. Issues relating to design parameters and standards.
· What are the problems afflicting existing pedestrian areas?
· Are they being effectively used?
· Does the size and function of a city matter with respect to its pedestrian areas?
· How do land use patterns influence usage of pedestrian areas?
· Should the context (location, land use) determine standards for pedestrian areas and facilities?
4. Issues relating to user-friendliness and pedestrian satisfaction.
· Can user perception be utilized to frame context specific standards?
5. Issues relating to social (culture, lifestyle), economic and religious aspects.
· How do we provide the pedestrian his due share of the street?
· How do our culture and lifestyle exert an impact on the usage of pedestrian areas?
· How does the economic condition of an area affect usage of pedestrian areas?
3. Guidelines and standards
3.1. IRC
The Indian roads congress (IRC) has stipulated standards for pedestrian facilities – both at-grade and grade-separated (Indian roads congress, 1998). But these lack the “human” element like aesthetics, scale, form and proportion. Pedestrian amenities and street furniture do not find a place in these standards. Context-specific standards according to the location in the city, hierarchy of streets and functions of streets have not been thought of.
Sidewalks:
a. Sidewalks should be provided on both sides of the road.
b. The width of sidewalks depends upon the expected pedestrian flows, subject to a minimum of 1.5 metres.
In shopping areas, the width should be increased by 1 metre which is treated as “dead width”. Where sidewalks abut buildings and fences, the dead with can be taken as 0.5 metres.
Table 1. Width of Sidewalk
Width of sidewalk(m) | Capacity in no. of persons per hour | |
All in one direction | In both directions | |
1.50 | 1,200 | 800 |
2.00 | 2,400 | 1,600 |
2.50 | 3,600 | 2,400 |
3.00 | 4,800 | 3,200 |
4.00 | 6,000 | 4,000 |
For areas of heavy pedestrian activity such as bus stops, railway stations and recreational areas, the width of sidewalks should be suitably increased to account for accumulation of pedestrians.
Guard-rails:
§ Guard-rails could be considered at hazardous locations along straight stretches, at junctions / intersections, near schools, bus stops, stations, subways, over bridges and in central reserves.
Crossings:
§ Cross-walks of width 2.0 to 4.0 metres should be provided at all important intersections and such locations where substantial conflict exists between vehicular and pedestrian movements. They should be at right angles to the carriageway and properly marked.
§ Grade-separated crossings are warranted when the volumes of pedestrian and vehicular traffic are very large, vehicular traffic demands uninterrupted flow and at-grade crossings fail to mitigate the problems of pedestrian-vehicle collision.
3.2. HCM and LOS
The HCM 2000 defines "level of service" as follows: "a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, based on service measures such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, and convenience (HCM 2000, p. 5-8.). This definition of level of service applies to all transportation modes, motorized or non-motorized. Walking is treated as a variation of motorized traffic, the transportation modes being separated only by space and time.
"The qualitative measures of pedestrian flow are similar to those used for vehicular flow, such as the freedom to choose desired speeds and to bypass others" (HCM 2000, p. 11-1).
The HCM attempts to make walking an equal among all transport modes, but it does so only on its terms of service measures. The LOS system is remarkable for its lack of relevance to the personal experience of walking. LOS is based on chronological time. The quality of walking is, however, determined to a large degree by psychological or perceived time.
3.3. Aranya – an example of Indian standards.
Architect B.V. Doshi in the Aga khan award winning project “Aranya” – a housing project at Indore had developed a “levels of accessibility” scale for various facilities, but it was purely restricted to a residential layout. (Vastu Shilpa foundation. 1990)
Figure 1. Aranya – Levels of Accessibility.
3.4. Edward hall & Robert Sommer.
Edward hall in “Hidden Dimension” (Hall, Edward T. 1990) and Robert Sommer in “Personal Space” (Sommer, Robert. 1969) have developed standards for various pedestrian activities.
Figure 2. Typical pedestrian spacing Figure 3. Waiting at curbs at an intersection
(Desirable moving space bubble 4’-6” long by 2’-2.5’wide)
Figure 4. Gazing at the wares
displayed by Street vendors
Figure 5. Listening to street
musicians perform
These are graphical representations of the basic terminology developed by Robert Sommer in “Personal Space” for determining the amount of space people want or need.
Figure 7. Personal Spacing
Figure 8. average 6 – 8 sft.
Figure 9. average 10 sft. (close phase)
/person (crowded sidewalk)
This sketch uses the same graphical representation for Ranganathan Street, employing the personal space bubble and the moving space bubble.
Ranganathan Street and South Usman road are two of the most crowded streets in Chennai, with a wide variety of shops beckoning people from all corners of the metropolis. But, they present a dismal picture as far as pedestrian facilities and amenities are concerned. Sidewalks are encroached upon, pedestrian amenities are non-existent and there is practically no segregation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
There are no sidewalks. Vehicular movement is restricted so the entire stretch is used by pedestrians. Maintaining the same space standards – 2’6” by 4’6”, this representation reveals the disorderly movement of pedestrians and the resultant congestion on the road.
Figure 10. Ranganathan street, T.Nagar
Amenities
Pedestrian spaces need to be architecturally designed and properly fitted out. People want to be able to avail themselves of all kinds of amenities in pedestrian spaces. The aim of introducing amenities is to create external spaces in which a pedestrian can feel at ease. According to Anne Shelley, street furnishings are distinctive characteristics and psychologically the design has the effect of a symbol of recognition. Furniture, varied architectural features, play equipment, lighting fixtures, landscaping, fountains and works of art – these elements could visually integrate the entire space. Provision of resting places – simple sitting areas with chairs, benches or steps where one can have a break – is an important element of pedestrian spaces.
In T.Nagar, pedestrian amenities are virtually non-existent. There are no resting places, no coherent signage system, no unified design language adopted for street furniture, no play equipment, and no landscaping or works of art. The sidewalks – the only area allocated for the pedestrian – are dilapidated and encroached upon by official and illegal structures.
Most of the sidewalk is covered with hawkers’ stalls. This is a unique feature of South Usman road where the formal shops co-exist with the informal hawkers. The stalls are very well patronized by shoppers.
Figure 11. A view of the hawkers’ stalls Figure 12. A view of the reduced sidewalk
Consequently the remaining space is barely adequate for one person to walk. (Fig.11 and fig.12) The condition of the sidewalk is poor and in dire need of maintenance. A pedestrian also has to constantly duck beneath or avoid products which are hung up for display. The sidewalk is actually very wide – on an average about two metres – but due to the encroachment by the hawkers and other impediments like lampposts, electricity junction boxes, telephone pillar boxes, the actual space available varies from two feet to three feet. The canvas sheets put up by the hawkers serve to shade the sidewalk to an extent. This side of the street is also benefited by the abundant tree cover, which is strangely lacking on the opposite side.
Figure 13. The impediments faced by a pedestrian.
Most of the pedestrians tend to walk on the carriageway to avoid the obstacles on the sidewalk. Goods are dumped by shopkeepers on the sidewalk. Lamp posts are put up on sidewalks by shops to illuminate their signboards. Two wheelers are parked on any free stretch of sidewalks. (fig.13) Regulation is equally bad. The entire stretch follows a one-way traffic system but nevertheless due to the enormous number of pedestrians, there are numerous conflict points between vehicles and pedestrians. Crossings are non-existent except for the two ends of the stretch which are served by traffic signals. Consequently pedestrians tend to cross over wherever they wish, leading to traffic snarls and frayed tempers. Cleanliness is at a premium here in spite of the street being the premier shopping destination for Chennai and the meticulous cleaning of garbage undertaken every morning.
Thus, a qualitative assessment needs to be conducted which could highlight factors, such as safety, security, comfort, convenience, and attractiveness etc. These environmental factors can greatly influence the pedestrians’ perceptions of the overall quality of the street environment. These factors can be analyzed in finer detail and an evaluation and grading method can be devised to assess the street. (Sarkar, S. 2002)
REFERENCES:
1. Buchanan, C. (1963), Traffic in Towns, The Specially Shortened Edition of the Buchanan Report,Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp.56-57
2. Burden, Dan, (1996), Walkable and Bicycle-Friendly Communities, Florida Dept. of Transportation.
3. C. Alexander, S. Ishikawa, M. Silverstein, M. Jacobson, I. Fiksdahl-King and S. Angel. (1977), A Pattern Language, Oxford University Press, New York.
4. Fruin, J.J. (1971), Pedestrian: planning and design, Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners, Inc., New York.
5. Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities – IRC: 103 – (1998), The Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi.
6. Hall, Edward T. (1990), The hidden dimension, Anchor Books (Doubleday), New York.
7. Jacobs, Allen. (1993), Great Streets, MIT Press, Boston.
8. Jacobs, Jane. (1961), The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Random House, New York, p.39.
9. Khisty, C.J. (1994), Evaluation of pedestrian facilities: beyond the level-of-service concept. Transportation Research Record 1438.
10. Kroll, J. (2001), Moving About in a Technological World: A Hermeneutic-Phenomenological Inquiry of Urban Streets and Freeways as Public Architecture, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Architecture, University of California, Berkeley.
11. Lynch, Kevin.(1960), Image of the city, MIT Press, p.9
12. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1971), Existence, Space and Architecture, Studio Vista, London, p.18.
13. Sarkar, S. (1995), Macro level and micro level evaluation of pedestrian networks. Transportation Research Record 1502, 105-118.
14. Sarkar, S. (2002), Qualitative Evaluation of Comfort Needs in Urban Walkways in Major Activity Centres, November.
15. Shafer, C.Scott. (1999), Evaluation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities: user satisfaction and perceptions on three shared uses trails in Texas, Texas A&M University.
16. Shelley, Anne (Tr). (1976), Pedestrian areas – From malls to complete networks, Academy Editions, London,
17. Sommer, Robert. (1969), Personal space (The behavioural basis of design), Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey.
18. Transportation Research Board (2000), Highway Capacity Manual, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
19. Vastu-Shilpa Foundation (1990), Aranya – An approach to settlement design, Vastu-Shilpa Foundation, Ahmedabad.
(Rakesh K.S., “The pedestrian environment - A qualitative perspective”, Architecture – Time, Space and People, New Delhi, Vol. 8, Issue 1, pp. 38-43, 2008.)
