basicguidelinesonpedestrianfacilities

Roads BranchPublic Works Department Malaysia

Jalan Sultan Salahuddin50582 Kuala Lumpur

Nota Teknik (Jalan) 18/97

5.0m5.0m

7.0m7.0m

Basic Guidelines onPedestrian Facilities

Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities

Cawangan Jalan, Ibu Pejabat JKR, K.L

IntroductionPedestrians are highly vulnerable road users and they form the second largest group of road userskilled on Malaysian roads. In 1995, there were 5286 pedestrian casualties in traffic accidents, ofwhich 711 were deaths. The majority of these (67%) involved people crossing roads, whereasabout 33% involved people walking along (or working on) the road.

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY



Existing Facilities For PedestriansCrossing RoadsThe current facilities provided in Malaysia toassist pedestrians in crossing busy roadsinclude:

Pedestrian Bridges and Subways,Signalised Pedestrian Crossings,Pedestrian (`Zebra') Crossings,School Children's Crossings,Combined `Zebra' and Signalised Pedestrian Crossings.

In respect to pedestrian bridges and subways,there is strong evidence that the majority ofthose which have been built across non-express-way routes have poor utilisation. For example astudy of 10 pedestrian bridges in and aroundKuantan Pahang, showed utilisation at somesites was less than 10 %. although at few sitesutilisation was higher than 80%. A similar studyof a Pedestrian Subway under Jalan SS l 64 (inthe Bandar Utama area) had less than 20% utili-sation.

In respect to 'Zebra' type pedestrian crossings,there is considerable confusion about the obliga-tions of vehicle drivers and pedestrians at thistype of crossing. There is generally poor obser-vance of the `give -way' obligation by vehicledrivers when pedestrians enter the crossing andthere appears,to be little or no enforcement ofthis obligation by the police.

In respect to signalised pedestrian crossings,while these offer a higher degree of safety forpedestrians, they are often not adopted onFederal Routes because (it is argued) it wouldinterrupt the "free flow" of traffic on theseroutes.

School Children's Crossings have been markedin various ways in different areas of Malaysiaand none of them have any legal or regulatorybacking. This poses a serious legal problem forroad authorities such as JKR in the event of any

court action which may arise out of an accidentat such sites.

At many signalised intersections, a combinationof `white and black' Zebra crossing markingshave been installed in direct contradiction of thecurrent Road Traffic Rules. These pose consid-erable risk to pedestrians because of the confu-sion between pedestrians and vehicle drivers asto who has `right of way'. Quite recently,`Yellow and Black' Zebra crossing markingshave been introduced in conjunction with trafficsignals. These are equally confusing to pedestri-ans and motorists.

The provisions for pedestrians to walk alongroads varies greatly even in urban and `built-up'areas. In town and city centres, footpaths aregenerally provided as part of building (shop)development, but in many cases these areseverely obstructed by business activity, streetfurniture, motorcycle parking and even vehicleparking. In addition to this, most footpaths are`unfriendly' to pedestrians particularly the elder-ly and those who are `disabled'. The cutting ofthe footpath at driveways, the excessive heightof the kerbs, the lack of `ramps' at intersectionsand driveways, the common use of steps insteadof ramps to cater for changes in level and thecommon presence of deep uncovered (and oftensmelly) drains, is a significant discouragementto pedestrians using the footpath and as a resulteven where footpaths are provided pedestriansfind it more convenient to walk along the road-way.

Guidelines On Facilities ForPedestrians To Cross RoadsIt is universally accepted that pedestrians needto be provided with safe and convenient facili-ties, to cross busy roads. The choice of type oftreatment is not always clear cut and may beinfluenced by economics and other factors.


PROVIDING FOR PEDESTRIANS



General Factors To Be Considered:The provision of pedestrian facilities at a par-ticular site needs to take into account factorssuch as:

the number and characteristics of pedestrianswishing to cross the road at a given location. Questions which need to be considered are : are the pedestrians predominantly school children? age? are there disabled pedestrians who need to use the crossing? etc..the functional classification of the road, eg Expressway, Major Arterial, collector Road , Local street,the speed, volume and composition of vehic-ular traffic,the width of the road. the number of traffic lanes and is it operating two-way or one-way?the character of the locality, eg urban, rural, residential , commercial, industrial etc.

Consideration of these factors in most devel-oped countries has resulted in a range of differ-ent types of treatments to meet the needs ofpedestrians at a variety of sites and local condi-tions in the most cost effective way. The selec-tion of the most appropriate treatment is often amatter of judgement, but this is assisted by thedevelopment of, and use of, warrants and guideswhich are aimed at achieving uniformity in deal-ing with similar conditions and ensuring costeffective treatments.

The ability of pedestrians to cross roads 'at-grade' anywhere is very dependent on trafficvolume (or ̀ flow rate') and traffic speed. As traf-fic flow rate increases, the availability of `gaps',sufficient for pedestrians to cross the road safelybetween vehicle arrivals at the site, decreasesand pedestrians are delayed. At high traffic flowrates pedestrian delays can become very largeand in some cases impatient pedestrians maymake risky crossings in short gaps in the trafficflow. This situation invariably results in theoccurrence of traffic accidents involving pedes-trians. In this situation the ability of pedestriansto cross can be enhanced by measures such as:

narrowing the vehicular roadway (maintain-ing only just sufficient width to meet vehicu-

lar traffic capacity requirements). This short-ens the distance pedestrians have to cross when exposed to traffic, and also helps to reduce traffic speed.by providing pedestrian refuge islands so that pedestrians can cross the road in stages, eg placing a central refuge in a `two way' traffic stream allows pedestrians to cross onedirection of flow at a time.by reducing vehicle speeds and reducing the variability of vehicle speeds. This makes gapselection by pedestrians less subject to errorsof judgement.

The Importance Of Speed ControlIn respect to traffic speed, this is closely relatedto the class of road, the road alignment and thenature of the locality. With the exception ofexpressways, where at-grade crossings are notacceptable, reducing traffic speed in the vicinityof a pedestrian crossing, on all other classes ofroad will greatly enhance pedestrian safety, bothfor crossing roads and for walking along roads.However speed control, particularly on highstandard arterial roads is not easy to achieve.The imposition of unreasonably low speed lim-its, which require continual `heavy' enforcementby police, is rarely if ever effective. However,the setting of realistic speed limits (even if theyare higher than may be desired for pedestriansafety), is desirable as this tends to reduce thevariability of vehicle speeds.

The use of `Speed Humps' and other `verticaldisplacement' devices are not favoured on `arte-rial' roads because of the severe effect thesehave on heavy trucks and busses, but they areapplicable and quite effective on `collector' and`local streets' in urban areas. Thus `SpeedHumps' and `raised platform' areas, which maybe used in conjunction with other `Local AreaTraffic Management (LATM) Devices and`Traffic Calming' techniques can also be usedin combination with pedestrian crossing facili-ties at appropriate locations.

Types Of Pedestrian CrossingFacilitiesPedestrian crossing facilities can be categorisedinto three distinct types as follows:




Uncontrolled CrossingsControlled CrossingsGrade Separated Crossings

Guidelines for the selection and use of thesetypes of pedestrian crossings follow:

A. Uncontrolled Crossings:Uncontrolled crossing tend to occur by default atany location where pedestrians find it conven-ient to cross a road. They become more formalwhere pedestrian movements are concentratedsuch as at intersections, near bus stops etc. Ingeneral these uncontrolled crossings are simplyprovided with nothing more than ramps atkerblines to bring the footpath down to explicit warrants are not necessary.

Where the number of pedestrians wishing tocross a road is significant and where the trafficflows are high, to the extent that pedestrianshave difficulty finding a `safe gap' in traffic (egon a two-way road), the provision of a pedestri-an refuge island may be justified. No numericwarrants have been adopted for the provision ofrefuge islands and each case should be treatedon its merits taking into account the volume oftraffic, the number of pedestrians, the type ofpedestrians (eg children, elderly) , the speed oftraffic, the sight distance available etc.

B. Controlled Crossings:At some sites with high traffic flow rates, theabove `un-controlled crossing' treatments maynot provide adequate safety, or capacity (forheavy pedestrian demands), and some form of"Spacial (Grade) Separation" or some form of"Time Separation" of the pedestrian - vehicleconflict is necessary.

`Time Separation' treatments, which are themost common form of pedestrian crossing facil-ity, include the following:

Zebra Crossings, at which by statutory regu-lation, vehicular traffic must `give- way' to pedestrians who are on the crossing.School Children's Crossings, either super-vised or not supervised, (preferably super-vised), at which vehicular traffic must give

way to pedestrians crossing the road between the flags (or flashing lights) during the periods when these devices are displayed.Signalised Pedestrian Crossings, at which `right of way, is alternately allocated betweenpedestrians and vehicular traffic in accordance with pre-set cyclic phasing, or on pedestrian demand by means of a "call" but-ton. This includes `Pelican Crossing' signals and "Puffin" (Pedestrian User Friendly Intelligent") signals, and the provision of pedestrian phases and signal heads at conven-tional signalised intersections.Manually controlled traffic operation. eg by police or by other people so authorised such as 'School Children' Crossing Supervisors

C. Grade Separated Pedestrian Crossings:

Grade separated pedestrian crossings by meansof pedestrian over-bridges or subways potential-ly offer pedestrians with the safest means ofcrossing busy roads, however the requiredbridge or subway construction is very expensiveand these facilities are often poorly utilisedunless extensive fencing is used to deter pedes-trians from walking directly across the roadway.

Where pedestrians need to cross expressway(freeway, motorway) type roads, other than atinterchanges provided for vehicular traffic,grade-separated crossings are essential. Theyshould only be used on other types of roadswhere conditions particularly favour this solu-tion and a high degree of utilisation can beassured.

The following are some of the factors whichhave been found to be associated with low util-isation of pedestrian bridges or underpasses:

Low traffic flows, to the degree that pedestri-ans have little difficulty in finding a safe gapin the traffic flow to cross the road;The proximity to traffic signals. The interrup-tion of traffic flow by traffic signals at a nearby intersection, usually provides pedes-trians with an acceptable opportunity to crossa road. Any traffic signal within approximate-ly 300 m of a pedestrian crossing site is like-ly to have a significant influence on the utili-




sation of any grade separated pedestrian crossing facility.The provision of steps (stairs) rather than ramps at pedestrian grade separations has been found to be a discouragement to pedes-trians.Where subways are depressed below groundlevel, are long and not well lighted, personal security can be a perceived problem, particu-larly for women, children and elderly people.Such facilities often experience poor utilisa-tion even in daytime.

Warrants And Layout GuidelinesConsideration of the various factors relevant tothe choice of the appropriate type of pedestriancrossing leads to the presentation of a range ofdifferent types of facilities to suit various classesof road and different road environment situa-tions. Most of the `well proven' techniques anddevices are currently being used in Malaysia, butthe main problem is that particular treatmentsare often used at inappropriate locations and thegeometric design, traffic signing and roadmark-ing vary greatly from site to site.

Guidelines for the selection of the most appro-priate type of treatment are provided in Figure 1.The desirable general layout etc for varioustypes of pedestrian crossing facilities are illus-trated in Figures 2 to 7.

In the absence of quantitative and other guide-lines specifically developed for Malaysian con-ditions, it is suggested that those presented in theAUSTROADS (Australia) Guide To TrafficEngineering Practice, Part 13 - Pedestrians,(derived from Australian Standard AS 1742. 10),be adopted as `Interim Guidelines' until suchtime as experience in practice indicates any nec-essary changes to better suit Malaysian condi-tions. These are attached as Appendix A of thisreport.

Provisions For Pedestrians AtSignalised IntersectionsAt intersections where traffic signals areinstalled to control conflicting traffic move-ments, the provision of special signal heads

(faces) and signal phases to assist pedestrians tocross safely can be incorporated at little addi-tional cost. In general, at important intersectionswithin cities and towns. there will usually be suf-ficient pedestrian movements to justify the pro-vision of pedestrian facilities, not withstandingthis, some guidelines / warrants for such provi-sions are included in Appendix A.

The type of pavement marking to be used toindicate the pedestrian crossing at signalisedintersections is similar to that used at signalisedpedestrian crossings away from intersections ie,conventional signalised pedestrian crossings asillustrated in Figure 5. These consist of whitetransverse lines marked across the carriagewaythe width between which may vary from a min-imum of 2.5m (for low pedestrian flows) to 4 m(for high pedestrian flows). Note that Zebra typemarkings must not be placed across the maincarriageways at signalised intersections.

The pedestrian phases at signalised intersectionsare usually incorporated into the signal cycle inparallel with non-conflicting, or the least con-flicting traffic movements. It is generally accept-ed that conflicts between left turning traffic isacceptable except where high speed `slip' roadwith 2 or more traffic lanes are provided. At sig-nalised intersections with significant pedestrianmovements, `Zebra' type pedestrian crossingsmay be installed across any separate left turn`slip' road, but never in conjunction with a sig-nalised left turn `slip' road. It is also generallyacceptable to allow the conflict between rightturn vehicular traffic and pedestrians crossingthe roadway into which the right turners areentering, except where this traffic movement isproceeding on a green arrow signal.

Guidelines For Providing FacilitiesFor Pedestrians To walk AlongRoads:There are few places on the road system whereno provision needs to be made for pedestrians towalk along a road, and in view of the vulnerabil-ity of pedestrians in any conflict with vehicles(including motorcycles) some form of segrega-tion is desirable. However where the intensity of




land use and thus pedestrian movements are low, such as in most rural areas, the road shouldercan adequately provide space for people to walkclear of vehicular traffic.

While no numeric warrants are given for theprovision of footpaths along roads, they are gen-erally considered necessary in all "built-up"areas and may also be necessary at some rurallocations such as in the vicinity of schools,mosques or other community facilities wherepedestrians are likely to be concentrated.

In some city and town situations, on 'local street'class of roads, where there may be very highpedestrian activity, the roadway itself. These sit-uations in which vehicles and pedestrians sharethe road carriageway require specific trafficrules which give pedestrians equal priority tovehicles together with special traffic manage-ment arrangements, including a maximumspeed limit of 25 km/h or less, to reduce thedegree of threat to pedestrians posed by vehicu-lar traffic. In some countries these are referred toas "Shared Zones".

Where footpaths are provided. considerationshould always be given to the needs of elderlypeople and people with disabilities. The designshould incorporate the following characteristicsaimed at making them 'user friendly' for allclasses of pedestrians:

Adequate width should be provided. This may vary from an absolute minimum of 0.9 mto 2.4 m or wider in shopping and other highpedestrian activity areas.A height clearance of at least 2.0 m should beprovided.The pathway should not be obstructed by posts, poles, traffic signs, trees and other street furniture. Neither should they be allowed to be obstructed by adjacent businessactivity or parked vehicles, or unreasonably obstructed by motorcycles and bicycles. Anyobstacle close to the pathway which could endanger pedestrians, particularly people with impaired vision, should be well delineat-ed.

Manhole covers and gratings, if they cannot be avoided, should be kept flush with the footpath surface and any drains close to the footpath, which could pose a danger to pedes-trians, should be covered.Clearance of at least 1.0 m should be provid-ed between the traffic lanes and the footpath.This clearance, which should be greater where traffic volume and, or speed are high, increases the safety of pedestrians, and reduces the inconvenience / annoyance caused by the splash from vehicle tires in wetweather.Changes in level along and beside the footpath should be minimised. Where it is not possible to avoid steps, particular care needs to be taken to properly identify them so that they can be seen, especially by people with impaired vision.

Where differences in level are catered for by a ramp instead of or in addition to steps, the gradient should not be steeper than 1 in 10. Where long ramps are involved, such as at pedestrian bridges, gradients of 1 in 20 to 1 in33 should be provided.

Where kerbs are provided at the edge of the carriageway, they should not be higher than 150mm. Where the footpath crosses or inter-sects the kerb as at intersections and drive -ways, the kerb should be `dropped' and a ramp at an acceptable slope should be provid-ed.

In general driveways should not ̀ cut' the foot-path but should be ramped up or down from roadway level to meet the footpath level. Theneed for pedestrians to step down to the drive-way level and back up to footpath level at each driveway is a major discouragement to pedestrians using the footpath. In addition. pedestrians should be given `right of way' (priority) over vehicular traffic where driveways cross the footpath. This pedestrian pri-ority is greatly enhanced if vehicular traffic isramped up to footpath level.Footpath surfaces should be firm. even. smooth and skid resistant, especially in wet




conditions.

ConclusionPedestrian movement forms part of almost everytrip made on the road system and thusPedestrians form an important component of thetraffic sN-stem. The vulnerability of pedestrians.when they must operate amongst vehicular traf-fic, is amply emphasised by the high number oftraffic accident casualties involving pedestrians.The lack of proper provisions for pedestrians tocross roads or to walk along roads safely is amajor contributing factor to the high number ofpedestrian casualties on Malaysian roads.Consideration of the specific needs of pedestri-

ans must be made an essential part of the plan-ning. design. construction. maintenance andoperation of every road or road project. Theseguidelines should be used as a means of achiev-ing better and more consistent standards andpractices in relation to creating a more `userfriendly' and safer road environment for pedes-trians.




Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings:No specific warrants have been adopted foruncontrolled crossings, but they can be used atquite high traffic flows on arterial roads (but Noton Expressways), particularly where traffic flowis `bunched' due to nearby traffic signals. Eachcase should be treated on its merits, consideringfactors such as: the width of road to be crossed,whether it is operating one-way or two-way, thenumber of pedestrians, the traffic flow rate, thespeed of traffic, sight distance available etc.Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings are oftencombined with Local Area Traffic ManagementDevices and `Traffic Calming' Techniques.

Pedestrian, (`Zebra') Crossings:'Zebra' type pedestrian crossings are appro-priate, in the situations indicated in Figure 1,where the general traffic speed as indicatedby the 85th percentile traffic speed, is lessthan 70 km/h, subject to the following crite-ria being met:

The number of pedestrian (wishing to cross the road), P is at least 60 persons per hour,, thetotal volume of vehicular traffic on the road atthe site, V is greater than 600 vph. for at least2 separate one-hour periods of a typical weekday, and the Product PxV > 90,000.The width to be crossed by pedestrians in one`stage' is not more than Four (4) traffic lanes,ie. a carriageway of not more than 15 m wide.The visibility is adequate, both in respect to vehicle drivers being able to see the crossingand pedestrians about to step onto the cross-

ing, and the pedestrians being able to see the vehicles approaching the crossing. In this

regard, the operating speed of traffic needs to be carefully assessed.

School Children's Crossings.School children's crossings may be installedat any location as indicated in Figure 1,where children need to cross a road on a reg-ular basis. Subject to firm arrangementsbeing made for the Children's Crossing Flagsto be placed ( or the flashing lights to beswitched on) during the appropriate periodsof the day when children are expected to becrossing the road, and for the flags to beremoved (or the flashing lights switched off)outside the crossing periods. This arrange-ment often includes the provision of a proper-ly authorised, `instructed' and uniformed`Crossing Supervisor', whose role is to oper-ate the crossing equipment and conduct thechildren safely across the road.

Signalised Pedestrian Crossing:A signalised pedestrian crossing may beinstalled where any one of the followingcriteria are met:

Where, P > 350 pph for each of three (3)one-hour periods of an average day,or,where, P > 175pph for each of any eight(8) one-hour periods and :

where there is no central median or pedestrian refuge island provided, the vehicular traffic flow, V > 600 vph (sum of both directions) in the same hours.where there is a central median or pedestrian refuge island, the vehicu


Appendix A

WARRANTS / GUIDELINES FOR THEINSTALLATION OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

FACILITIES.Based On

AUSTROADS Guide To Traffic Engineering Practice Part 13 - Pedestrians,(1995).

(In the following warranting criteria, P is the number of Pedestrians per hour and, ' V is the volumeof vehicular traffic in the same hour.)



lar traffic flow, V > 1000 vph (sum of bothdirections) in the same hours.

Subject to there being no other pedestriancrossing (including a grade separated crossing within a reasonable distance (say200m) of the site.

A signalised pedestrian crossing may be placed instead of a school Children's Crossing where:

where P> 50pph for each of two (2)one-hour periods and V > 600 vph. and,

the product of PxV > 40,000.A signalised pedestrian crossing may be justified at any location on an Arterial road where the above warrants for a Pedestrian (Zebra) Crossing are met, but at which it would not be appropriate to install a Zebra type crossing due to the high speed of traffic or where the car-riageway is wider than 15m, or where there is a continuous high flow of pedes-trians which would cause excessive delayto vehicular traffic at a Zebra type cross-ing.A signalised pedestrian crossing may be justified to replace an existing pedestrian (Zebra) crossing where the has been two or more pedestrian involved accidents, ofa type which may be corrected by the installation of traffic signals, in the last three (3) years.A signalised pedestrian crossing may be installed instead of a Pedestrian (Zebra) Crossing where the site is within a `coor-dinated (linked)' traffic signal system , orclose to signalised intersection or a rail-way level crossing, where there is a danger of vehicles

Grade Separated Pedestrian Crossings:Grade separated crossings are very costly andexperience shows that they are generallypoorly utilised. They are however essentialwherever pedestrians need to cross and`Expressway' (or Freeway) route.

While no specific warrants have been adopt-ed for grade separated pedestrian crossings,

and each case should be treated on its merits,the following general guides should be con-sidered.

Low utilisation can be expected at siteswhere:

Traffic flow on the carriageway to be crossed is less than about 700 vph duringthe period when most pedestrians need tocross the road.The site is within 250 m of a signalised intersection.The site is not conveniently located for the pedestrian movements in the vicinity.

Good utilisation is usually achieved

In the vicinity of schools (particularly pri-mary schools) where children can be `channeled' to the facility by fencing.At high pedestrian demand locations where ramps are provided directly on themost convenient route for pedestrians

Providing Pedestrian Signals AtSignalised Intersections:Pedestrian signal heads and 'push button'equipment should be incorporated as a gener-al practice into all intersection and inter-change signals in urban areas. Where there isdoubt about the justification of the increasedcost of providing the pedestrian equipmenton some or all approaches to a signalisedintersection. this provision is usually consid-ered to be justified where the following crite-ria is met:

At intersections where for any two (2) one-hour periods of an average day the Pedestrian volume. P >60 pph across the intresection approach under construction.The presence of children, elderly or dis-abled pedestrians at the site may justify the specialpedestrian equipment at lower pedestrian flows than this.


basicguidelinesonpedestrianfacilities

Documents