Page | 1

 

Multi Stakeholder Assessment of Perceptions to make 'Thamel - A

Pedestrian Zone'

Perceptual study

Resource Center for Primary Health Care (RECPHEC) Bagbazaar, Kathmandu, Nepal

Kathmandu

July, 2013

 

Page | 2

 

CONTENTS Preface ....................................................................................................... 3 

Acknowledgement .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 

Executive Summary .................................................................................. 5 

Chapter 1 .................................................................................................... 8 

Introduction ............................................................................................... 8 

1.1 Background ......................................................................................... 8 

1.2 Context ................................................................................................. 9 

1.3 Objectives ............................................................................................ 9 

1.4 Study Coverage .................................................................................. 9 

1.5 Methodology ...................................................................................... 10 

1.6 Limitations ......................................................................................... 13 

1.7 Organization of the Report .............................................................. 14 

Chapter 2 .................................................................................................. 15 

Profile of Key Stakeholders ................................................................... 15 

2.1 General Description of Sample ....................................................... 15 

2.2 Stakeholders’ Vehicular Needs and Usage ................................... 18 

Chapter 3 .................................................................................................. 26 

Key Study Findings ................................................................................ 26 

3.1 Perceptions on present traffic conditions .................................... 26 

3.2Key Perceptions Regarding Vehicular Restriction ....................... 31 

3.3 Effect of Pedestrian-Friendly Measures ........................................ 39 

Chapter 4 .................................................................................................. 41 

Synopsis, Key Priorities and Way Forward ......................................... 41 

4.1 Synopsis ............................................................................................ 41 

4.2 Key Priorities ..................................................................................... 41 

4.3 Way Forward ..................................................................................... 43 

References ............................................................................................... 44 

Annex 1: Study Tools ............................................................................. 45 

Annex - 2: Parking fee related details .................................................. 58 

 

Page | 3

 

PREFACE

Resource Centre for Primary Health Care (RECPHEC) with motto of “Ensuring equality, equity, accessibility and affordability in realizing the goal of Health for All Nepali” has been working in the areas of advocacy, awareness and networking to promote holistic approach to health. The center, established in late 1980s with initiation of various health professionals and development activists, has been a part of various national and international campaigns towards establishing and realizing the health as a development right. The efforts has so far contributed in establishing constitutional provisions and making people as well as policy makers realize the need to view health and development together. The underlying challenge has been the access of marginalized and ultra poor population to quality services.

One of the key thematic areas of RECPHEC has been urban health. The promotion and safeguard of urban health remained a big challenge especially due to haphazard urbanization and growing number of urban poor.In recent years, RECPHEC has been working closely with local stakeholders to make areas with tourism potential as pedestrian zone. In this context, RECPHEC conducted a perceptual study to assess feasibility of making thamel a pedestrian friendly zone. I would like to congratulate the study team members for their efforts. ShantaLallMulmi Executive Director Resource Centre for Primary Health Care (RECPHEC)

Page | 4

 

Page | 5

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Context

Over the past three decades, Thamel has emerged as a major tourist and commercial hub of Kathmandu. Less than one square kilometer, it hosts trendy restaurants, guesthouses, curio/souvenir shops, travel agencies, trekking goods stores and more. As a commercial hub, tourist attraction and home to a section of Kathmandu’s population, Thamel has numerous stakeholders who are interested in improving the quality of experience associated with visiting, working or living in the area. While the possibility of making Thamel a pedestrian-only zone has been entertained at various levels, an extensive feasibility study is yet to be conducted in order to determine the desirability of a vehicle-free Thamel for key stakeholders. Resource Center for Primary Health Care (RECPHEC) along with Thamel Tourism Development Council (TTDC) commissioned the perceptual study. Nepal Evaluation and Assessment Team (NEAT), an agency specialized in monitoring and evaluation, and development researchers of public interest, undertook the study during initial months of 2013.

Objectives &Scope of the Study

The main objective of the research study wasto examine the perspectives of major stakeholders on making Thamel a more pedestrian friendly zone so as to enable concerned authorities to take rational decision on this initiative. The study primarily include three stakeholders: local residents, business establishments, and tourists. In terms of geographical locations, the study covered core areas of Thamel with tourist related business activities.

Study Methodology

The main data collection methods employed in this study include: (a) survey (based on structured questionnaire), and (b) focus group discussions. The quantitative survey and qualitative assessments were conducted with Thamel’s major stakeholders using representative sample sizes. Moreover, the data collection tools were administered to business establishments (hotel, travel agency, cyber cafe, restaurants, and shop owners), tourists (who are walking around or residing in Thamel area) as well as local residents with households in Thamel.

Key Findings

The majority of respondents (approximately 95%) acknowledged traffic congestion as a problem in Thamel. Likewise, an overwhelming majority of respondents (91.8%) perceived that air pollution is an issue in Thamel along with noise pollution. Morning hours from 9 AM – 12 PM and afternoon hours from 12 PM – 4 PM were found to be common times of high vehicular usage among the two stakeholder groups. The local residents perceived morning hours from (9 AM – 12 PM) to be of highest priority to them, followed by afternoon times between (12 PM – 4 PM). In the case of businesses,

Page | 6

 

night times from 8 PM to 12 AM were found to be of top priority, followed by morning times from 9 AM- 12 PM. Thamel-based businesses appear to be the top users of Thamel’s streets compared to all other vehicle-using parties. Majority of key stakeholders in Thamel (Businesses and Local Residents) are positive towards making Thamel pedestrian friendly. Around 78 percent of the total respondents reported that they want to see pedestrian friendly Thamel while 11 percent were not sure whether to support the movement. All three stakeholders have shown a strong desire to make Thamel more pedestrian friendly. The strongest voice has come from the business community followed closely by tourists and then lastly by local residents.

All of the stakeholders prioritize imperative infrastructure and preparations as a key to initiation of pedestrian friendly zone. The idea of making a complete pedestrian-only zone is not a popular one among local residents. Moreover, they appear to find the vehicle entry permit system appealing. Businesses, on the other hand, appear to prioritize vehicular entry into Thamel only during the afternoon (12 pm – 2 pm) and at night (10 pm – 6 am). They are more in favor of making Thamel a complete pedestrian-only zone and seem hesitant on using the vehicle entry permit system. Tourists on the other hand, consider a complete vehicle free Thamel to be the ideal option. The idea of allowing vehicular access only to rickshaws and bicycles has been placed low by all three stakeholders.

In aggregate, taking in views from both local residents and businesses, the availability of parking space is the top most priority. Taxi and bus stands outside Thamel’s periphery were also determined to be important. During the no-vehicle entry hours taxis, buses and tempos, just outside of the periphery will be necessary for local residents to commute to other places. Thirdly, the availability of porters/ carts/ rickshaws to transport luggage for tourists or supplies for HHs and businesses in Thamel may also be useful. While the perceptual survey with local residents and businesses suggested that policing agencies to monitor compliance with rules on vehicular restriction, were accorded low priority, qualitative data from group discussions revealed that businesses and local residents considered an effective policing agency important for the regulation of pedestrian friendly policies. Most respondents believe that such an agency would not be able to work smoothly. Conclusion The study findings reflect the fact that key stakeholders in Thamel are positive about making the area pedestrian friendly zone. However, they also bring to light the idea that many are skeptical about modalities that would be used to enforce vehicle restriction policies, and possible disadvantages such policies could have on the day-to-day operations of businesses. The perceptions regarding the creation of a pedestrian-friendly zone in Thamel as well as concerns associated with vehicle-restriction policies varied among the stakeholders. Though most of the respondents are positive, the political influence, trust on the implementers, and modality of implementation will play vital role in deciding the swift and sustainable enforcement of provisions. Key Priorities Top priorities include implementation modality, selection of suitable alternatives, and smooth enforcement of provisions. The time frame 10 AM- 6 PM appears to be most favored by both

Page | 7

 

local residents and businesses as hours during which vehicular activity may be banned. As per study findings, the success of pedestrian-friendly policies is contingent upon the availability of appropriate infrastructure. There is a need to ensure that parking infrastructure is in place prior to the implementation of any vehicular restriction policies. Also, taxi and bus stands would be needed outside Thamel’s periphery. A vehicle permit system needs to be in place for local residents and businesses. The idea is to make a very easily understandable system with objective criteria discouraging subjective judgments. The success of the policy depends highly on the effective communication of the policy modality with local residents. A blanket implementation of the policy without effective communication channels (most importantly - collection of feedbacks) could be detrimental.

Way Forward

The following are the recommendations for RECPHEC, implementers of the provision, and other concerned stakeholders:

Develop a proper communication mechanism which allows collecting for feedbacks (both positive and negative) from local residents and business entities

Piloting with the time frame is necessary before a full fledged implementation of vehicular restriction policies

Proper plan needs to be rolled out for delivering vehicle permits to local residents and businesses

Strict implementation of the provisions whereby rule breakers are fined for the misdemeanor

The implementing agencies (Kathmandu Metropolitan City and TTDC) will require working effectively with Nepal Police and the Nepal Traffic Police divisions of Thamel.

Page | 8

 

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION      

This chapter introduces the report with details on study background, context, objectives, methodology, and study limitations.

1.1 BACKGROUND

Over the past three decades, Thamel has emerged as a major tourist and commercial hub of Kathmandu. Less than one square kilometer, ithosts trendy restaurants, guesthouses, curio/souvenir shops, travel agencies, trekking goods stores and more. Besides being a tourism-centered commercial district, Thamel also consists of a residential community and serves as an entertainment hub for Kathmandu residents as well. Thamel’s rise to prominence as a commercial and entertainment district over the years has had the effect of increasing vehicular activity in the area at an alarming rate. Moreover, the chaos and pollution that has resulted from this situation has had the effect of lowering Thamel’s intrinsic appeal to visitors, businesses and local residents alike. Various quarters have raised the need for a policy intervention that restricts vehicular movement in the Thamel area. Pedestrians are most visibly affected by the burgeoning amount of vehicular movement on Thamel’s narrow streets. Walking on these streets is a risky and unpleasant experience because of the need to constantly watch out for (often haphazardly) approaching vehicles. Furthermore, vehicular exhaust and noise pollution associated with increased traffic are other factors that continue to negatively affect the experience of tourists, local residents and other stakeholders in Thamel. It is hoped that a more pedestrian-friendly Thamel would enable tourists and local residents alike to have a pleasant experience as they explore Thamel, free from the risks and discomforts associated with accidents, noise pollution or vehicular exhaust. Greater ease in moving around Thamel on foot may not only allow people to enjoy a laid-back experience, but it may also help businesses that flank Thamel’s narrow streets improve sales, as they gain better visibility and exposure amongst pedestrians. Making Thamel a pedestrian-only zone would also improve the quality of residential life in Thamel. The decrease in noise pollution and vehicular exhaust level would help improve residents’ physical well being. Likewise, reduced traffic in the area may create favorable conditions for them to enjoy strolling around their neighborhood. These potential outcomes may also be enjoyed by people that work or visit Thamel on a periodic basis. Needless to say, tourism is a mainstay of the Nepali economy. In 2011, a total of 735,965 tourists visited Nepal which contributed Rs 119.1 billion to Nepal’s GDP (Source: NRB, 2011). The key advantages of increased tourism in Nepal include increased employment, income earnings and foreign exchange.

Page | 9

 

It is very important that tourists have a good impression of Kathmandu and their stay here is comfortable. If we can assure them as pleasant a stay in Thamel, the average number of nights they spend in Kathmandu and Nepal may increase. Their overall positive impressions would in turn have favorable outcomes for Nepal- better ratings and recommendations on travel forums and reviews, all of which would serve to boost tourism in Nepal.

1.2 CONTEXT This study, sponsored by RECHPHEC, strives to determine the feasibility of adopting pedestrian friendly measures in Thamel by understanding the perspectives and vehicular needs of Thamel’s major stakeholders. The main stakeholder groups incorporated in this study are Thamel’s local residents, business owners and tourists. Their participation in the study has been key to explore the desirability of scenarios such as a completely pedestrianized area vs. a partially pedestrianized area. Furthermore, the study also provides an understanding of the types of infrastructure that need to be in place prior to the implementation of pedestrian-friendly measures. Nepal Evaluation and Assessment Team (NEAT), an agency specialized in monitoring and evaluation, and development researchers of public interest, undertook the study during initial months of 2013. The study was conducted in partnership with Thamel Tourism Development Council (TTDC). 1.3 OBJECTIVES The main objective of the research study wasto examine the perspectives of major stakeholders on making Thamel a more pedestrian friendly zone so as to enable concerned authorities to take rational decision on this initiative. The specific objectives of the study were to:

Assess and determine the feasibility of pedestrian zone in Thamel from the perspective of local stakeholders

Identify strategic options regarding pedestrian-friendly measures in Thamel as well as assess the overall utility of these measures

Guide further advocacy related to RECHPHEC’s eco-friendly campaign in Thamel, and

Promote policies that make the region more vibrant, enjoyable and prosperous.

1.4 STUDY COVERAGE The study wasThamel-focused and covered areas bound by Thamel’s nine major entry points enumerated as follows:

Sanchayakosh

Jyatha

AmritMarg

GolkhuPakha

Page | 10

 

Hotel Manang- Sorrakhotte

Sat Ghumti

KhettrapatiChowk

ThaintiChowk

Zet Street- Hotel Mandap

Chart - 1: Map of Thamel

Source: www.lirung.com The map above illustrates key areas covered by the study. The study included businesses, local residents as well as tourists in areas bound by the aforementioned points.

1.5 METHODOLOGY

The research design, methodology and tools that were utilized for the study have been discussed as follows: Research Study Design This research design employed in this study was aimed at gathering both quantitative as well as qualitative data. Given the nature of the assignment, the

Page | 11

 

primary focus of the design has been on collecting quantitative data. Qualitative data has been obtained through the use of focus group discussions. Methodology and Tools As indicated by its title, the study will be largely based on perceptual data. It will draw on data collected via a quantitative perceptual survey conducted among key stakeholder groups. Likewise, qualitative methods such as focus-group-discussions were also employed to consolidate opinions. Summary of methods The main data collection methods employed in this study are as follows:

i. survey (based on structured questionnaire), ii. focus group discussions

The quantitative survey and qualitative assessments were conducted with Thamel’s major stakeholders using representative sample sizes. Moreover, the data collection tools were administered to business establishments (hotel, travel agency, cyber cafe, restaurants, and shop owners), tourists (who are walking around or residing in Thamel area) as well as local residents with households in Thamel. The Thamel Tourism Development Council (TTDC) was also a resourceful organization whose inputs were drawn in facilitating field activities pertaining to focus group discussions. Perceptual survey with business establishments As Thamel is a tourism-centered business hub, tourism-centric business establishments are primary stakeholders. A perceptual survey with business establishments in the Thamel area was conducted to assess the perceptions of such businesses on making Thamel a pedestrian-friendly zone and to determine the feasibility of doing so taking into consideration their vehicular needs, factors of convenience as well as preferences. A total of 302 businesses (restaurants, stores, guest houses etc) were surveyed. This sample population was derived through the use of stratified random sampling covering areas bound by the nine entry points in Thamel using geographical location as a basis for stratification. The major areas of inquiry addressed by the survey are as follows:

● The size and nature of their business ● The extent to which they rely on vehicles to facilitate their business

(transport of raw material supplies, drinking water, employees, tourists ,etc)

● Their rating of the acceptability of current levels of vehicular activity (and associated externalities) in Thamel and suggestions

● The potential costs and benefits associated with creating a pedestrian-only Thamel

○ their willing to pay parking fees for organizational or employee-owned vehicles in parking lots built in close proximity to the pedestrian-only Thamel zone

○ their willingness to walk to get in and out of Thamel and pay for additional services and inconvenience for their larger good

Page | 12

 

Perceptual survey with tourists The perceptual survey with tourists gleaned their perceptions on the advantages and disadvantages of instituting vehicle free policies in Thamel. Additionally, questions pertaining to their preference for a pedestrian-only Thamel as well as the potential costs and benefits of such a scenario were administered. Around150 tourists were randomly selected for the survey locations around Thamel. Their attitudes and perceptions on the current vehicular movement inThamel, pollution levels, and ease of movement on foot around the area were assessed. The survey also strived to explore the value that pedestrian-friendly policies could add to the tourists’ duration of stay in Thamel, their expenses, preferences and overall enjoyment of Thamel. Perceptual survey with local residents Thamel’s permanent residents were another important stakeholder group that were included in the study. A total of 81 local residents (the estimated sample size for local residents was 100) were taken as a representative sample size for the study and sampling was done randomly on a door-to-door basis. Such a random walk method was deemed useful for the study as it was not possible to obtain a predetermined sample list. A quantitative survey administered to local residents sought to answer questions such as the following:

● The extent to which they rely on vehicles (transport of raw material supplies, drinking water, family travelling, etc

● Hours of the day that involve high vehicular usage ● Their rating of the acceptability of current levels of vehicular activity (and

associated externalities) in Thamel and suggestions ● The potential costs and benefits associated with creating a pedestrian-

only Thamel ○ their willing to pay parking fees for in parking lots built in close

proximity to the pedestrian-only Thamel zone ○ their willingness to walk to get in and out of Thamel and pay for

additional services and inconvenience for their larger good “Quick Assessment” Traffic Survey In order to determine how best to divert and restrict vehicular traffic in the Thamel area so that it is more pedestrian-friendly questions on Thamel’s traffic conditions were incorporated into the perceptual survey administered to businesses and local residents. The survey examined issues pertaining to the volume, composition and variation of traffic at different times of the day and during peak and off tourist seasons. Existing traffic rules and regulations in the area have also been studied so as to better facilitate appropriate modifications that may be necessary for the diversion of traffic. Impressions on the traffic flow and composition were gathered from traffic police in the area, business establishments, and residents.

Page | 13

 

Specifically, the survey will help answer the following questions: ● Where does the traffic originate from and where does it go? ● The composition of traffic:

○ Thru-traffic (vehicles passing through Thamel to get to another destination)

○ Traffic associated with residents, businesses and other Thamel visitors (e.g. tourists – coming in and out of Thamel with luggage, etc))

● The share of each type of traffic and the peak and slack times Group Discussions with Local residents& Businesses In addition to tourists and business establishments, local residents in the Thamel area represent another key stakeholder group whose needs as well as acceptability of ‘Thamel as pedestrian-friendly zone’ are to be taken into consideration. Discussions were conducted with a group of 20-30 individuals who comprised of local residents as well as business owners. Participants were identified through the convenience sampling method. Such discussions were organized with the rationale that the support and participation of these key stakeholders would be instrumental for the successful implementation of pedestrian friendly policies in Thamel. The participants in the discussions spoke about the current vehicular scene, the potential impacts that a pedestrian-only zone in Thamel would have on them as well as the types of special arrangements that would be needed to accommodate their commuting needs and other interests. Sampling for quantitative perceptual survey Simple randomized survey with proper sampling frame and detailed mapping was possible for the survey with businesses. Thus, all respondents for businesses were identified randomly.

1.6 LIMITATIONS

The limitations of the study have been enumerated as follows:

Finding local residents in Thamel was a challenge. The majority of house owners in Thamel rent their houses to businesses or other renters and choose to live somewhere else. Thus, the findings of this research would only provide a snapshot view of what local residents think in terms of making Thamel a pedestrian zone. This being the case, every attempt was made to ensure that a representative sample of local residents were surveyed. Additionally, discussions were also held at different strategic points in different areas of Thamel to include as many local residents as possible in this research.

Convincing local residents and business establishments to participate

in the study was another major challenge. Many were of the opinion

Page | 14

 

that the study findings would not be useful to administer pedestrian friendly policies in Thamel.

Although efforts were made to ensure that the perceptions gathered

reflect Thamel’s level of vehicular activity throughout the year, since the study was conducted during off-season months, it is possible that the responses do not fully capture the scenario for peak season months.

1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT  

The report has been organized in four chapters. The first chapter introduced the study. The second chapter presents profile of stakeholders covered by the study including their vehicular needs and use related details. The third and key chapter presents the study findings more focused on research objectives followed by last chapter which summarizes the study, concludes the findings, and suggests the way forward.

Page | 15

 

CHAPTER 2 PROFILE OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS

This chapter presents the profile of key stakeholders included in this perceptual study which includes local residents, business establishments, and tourists.

2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE 2.1.1 Local residents Age, sex and family size The average age of a local resident in the survey was 40. The minimum age limit was taken as 18 for any local resident to be eligible for participating in the survey. The maximum age of an adult was found to be 70 years. Furthermore, the average family size was found to be around seven members per household. Around 94 percent of the local residents surveyed were male. The rest of the respondents (6%) were females.  Table 2.1: Age and family characteristics of respondents (local residents)

Minimum Maximum Mean

Age 18 70 40.42

Family size 2 23 6.84

Employment The majority (91%) of the respondents were employed. The private sector accounts for the employment of most of the local people in Thamel. Most of the residents are engaged in private employment. Around 45 percent of them said they had private jobs followed by 42 percent who said they own private business. Only five percent reported they had government jobs. Chart 2.1: local residents and their employment sector

45%

5%

42%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Private jobs

Government jobs

Private business

Other

% of respondents (local residents)

Page | 16

 

2.1.2 Business Almost all of the business establishments in Thamel are targeted at tourists. Majority of businesses included in the survey include thanka/handicrafts (21%), restaurants (11%), money exchange stalls (11%), and travel agencies (10%). Chart 2.2: type of businesses

The survey shows a mixed range of businesses. Thanka/Handicrafts (21%) are the most common type of business one might encounter in Thamel. Thanka/Handicrafts businesses are followed by restaurants and money exchange shops (11% each respectively). Hotels make up around 6 percent of the mixture. However, it must be noted that many bigger hotels turned down the request of our surveyors to participate in the study. Other types of businesses included banks, discotheques, art galleries, map stores, stationary shops, tea stores and tattoo shops. Chart 2.3: Years of doing business in thamel

 

Most of the businesses surveyed are established businesses. Around 9 percent of them have been involved in the sector for more than 20 years. However, the

6%11%

10%9%

4%21%

11%4%4%

6%2%

1%1%

10%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

HotelRestaurant

Travel agenciesGeneral commodity business

Internet businessThanka/Handicrafts

Money exchangeMountaineering gear shop

Music shopsClothing store

Book storeJewellary store

Photo studio/storeOthers

% of respondents (businesses)

8%

34%

28%

21%

9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Less than 1 year

1 - 5 years

6 - 10 years

11 - 20 years

More than 20 years

Page | 17

 

highest percentage of businesses has been in operation for around one to five years. On average, businesses had been in operation for about 9 years. Given these statistics, it can be assumed that the businesses surveyed during the study were established private entities who were familiar with Thamel’s traffic conditions and able to comment on the desirability of pedestrian-friendly policies.. 2.1.3 Tourists

Age, sex and nationality The average age of the tourists surveyed was found to be 35 years of age and majority were female (56%). People from around 29 different nationalities participated in the survey. The most common ones were American, Australian, British, Dutch and French. Other nationalities were Brazilian, Portuguese, Argentinean, Malaysian, South African and so on. Previous visit For a little more than half of the tourists this was their first visit to Nepal. Around 36 percent had been here for more than one time but less than five times. There were also tourists who had visited more than 10 times. Chart 2.4: Number of previous visit to Nepal

 

Likes and Dislikes on Thamel Walking on the streets (46%) of Thamel is the best thing for majority of the tourists. This is followed by the shopping and entertainment (38%) options available at Thamel. However, only 16 percent of the tourists said that they love the experience of residing in Thamel.

First visit51%

Visited 1 to 5 times36%

Visited 6 to 10 times6%

Visitied more than 10 times

7%

                  

Chart

VehicSimilaanoth Chart

2.2 S Majorvehicl

                       1 Unles

S

ent

 

2. 5: Reason

ular activity arly, 29 percer 8 percent

2. 6: Reason

STAKEHO

rity of familiees1 either a

                   ss specified oth

Residexpe

16

Shopping and

tertainment

38%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Per

cent

age

of t

ouris

ts/r

espo

nden

ts

ns why touris

(60%) was pent of them t said that no

ns for dislikin

OLDERS’ V

es of local recar/jeep or a

herwise vehicle

dential erience6%

29%

Air quality

sts like Tham

pointed out asaid that theoise levels a

ng Thamel

VEHICULA

sidents (86%a two-wheel

es here indicate

8%

Noise lev

mel

as the majorey are not haare quite high

AR NEED

%) as well asler motorcyc

e cars, two-whe

Wt

60

vels Vehact

r irritation at appy with theh in Thamel

S AND US

s businessescles.

eelers (motorcy

Walking on the streets

46%

0%

hicular tivity

Pag

Thamel. e air quality .

SAGE

s (77%) hav

ycles) and jeep

3%

Others

e | 18

and

ve

ps.

Chart

Fa

*Note: the bus Furtheownedwere obusine Chart

More busineLastly

 

2.7: Owners

amilies of locveh

Businesses witsiness staff.

er analysis od the vehicleowned by thess.

2.8: Vehicles

than fifty peesses itself.

y, around 27

Yes86%

5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Y

ship of vehicl

cal residentshicles

th vehicles incl

of businessees. So the buhe business

s with busin

rcent (58%) Around 90 ppercent of t

No14%

8%

42%

Yes No

Business

les among s

s with

lude vehicles o

es with vehicusinesses witself or the

ess owner, s

of the businpercent of ththe staff of th

%

%

90%

o Yes

Busi

takehlders

Businesse

owned by the b

cles was donwere further p

business ow

staff and the

nesses havehe business hese busine

Yes77%

%

10%

No

ness owner

es* with vehi

usiness itself,

ne to ascertaprobed whetwner or the s

business its

e vehicles utiowners alsosses also ow

No23%

27%

Yes

St

Pag

cles

business owne

ain who actuther the vehstaff in the

self

ilized by the o have vehicwn vehicles.

73%

No

taff

e | 19

er or

ally icles

cles.

 

 

Chart

Veh

Lookinhave avehiclmore Disagresidebusinelocal rreport Chart

Car

 

2.9: Number

hicles per Holocal r

ng at the dataround 2 – 3es with themthan four ve

gregation ofents and 35 ess entities residents (77ted that they

2.10: Numbe

rs with local

2 vece/H49

>4 vehicle

/HH23%

1 car77%

r of vehicles

ousehold (HHresidents

ta, most hou3 vehicles. Am and nearlyehicles with t

f data by vehpercent of bare likely to 7%) have ony have only o

er of cars by

residents (n

1 vehicle

/HH28%

- 3 chilcHH9%

2 - 3 cars23%

per househo

H) with

useholds (49A quarter of by the same pthem.

hicle type shbusiness enti

have more tnly one car. one vehicle.

y stakeholder

n= 26)

old and per b

Vehicles pe

9%) and busbusinesses proportion of

hows that 32ities have cathan four veSimilarly, 55

r type

Cars with b

2 -vecce/sin39

>4 vehicl

e/Business25%

15

business ent

er Business

sinesses (39have more tf local reside

2 percent of tars. Furthermhicles with t

5 percent of

businesses (

1 vehicl

e/Business36%- 3

chil/Buess

9%

1 car55%

2 - 3 cars33% >4

car12%

Pag

tity

entity

%) in Thamethan four ents also has

the local more, only hem. Majorithe business

(n=108)

4 rs%

e | 20

el

s

ty of ses

Chart

Mo

DisagresideAdditipropoof thethe hobusine

Chart staff

The sand bfractiopointe

 

2.11: Numbe

otorcycles w

gregation ofents and 71 onally, majo

ortion of busim reported t

ouseholds haesses (14%)

2.12: Use of

Bu

urvey showsusiness staf

on though in ed out that th

2 - 3 motor-cylce56%

Yes54%

er of motorcy

with local res

f data by vehpercent of b

ority of the honesses withthat they havave only one) said that th

f vehicle ever

usiness

s that majoriff (56%) havminority, fo

hey do not u

1 motor-cylce29%

>4 motor-cylce15%

No46%

ycles by stak

idents

hicle type shbusiness entiouseholds h 2 – 3 two-wve only one e two-wheelhey have mo

ryday by the

Use of v

Busin

ity of the buse to use ther businessesse their veh

-

Ye88

keholder typ

Motorcycle

hows that 75ities have tw

have 2 – 3 twwheelers is a

two-wheeleer. Very few

ore than four

e business, b

vehicle every

ness owner

sinesses (56ir vehicles es (46%) andicles every d

m

es%

No12%

pe

es with busin

5 percent of two-wheelers wo-wheelers also quite higr. More than

w householdsr vehicles.

business own

yday

Bu

6%), businesevery day. Ho business stday.

1 motor-cylce44%

2 - 3 motor-cylce42%

mc

Ye56%

Pag

nesses

the local (motorcyclewith them. T

gh though mn one-quartes (15%) and

ner and busi

usiness staff

ss owners (8owever, a lataff (44%)

>4 motor-cylce14%

es6

%

No44%

e | 21

es). The

most er of

ness

f

88%) arge

Age-w The hyears age. Ocatego Chart

2.2.1

The losameprivateperce Chart

The dare usparkin

16 -

21 -

26 -

31 -

>

 

wise classif

ighest propoof age (37%

Only 8 perceory.

2.13: Age-w

Parking

ocal resident. More than e parking spnt have priv

2.14: Private

Local r

ata related tsed to park tng preferenc

0%

- 20 years

- 25 years

- 30 years

- 35 years

> 35 years

Yes81%

fication of h

ortions of loc%). Also, 57 ent of the loc

ise classifica

ts have privatwo-thirds o

pace to keepate parking

e parking wit

residents

to preferred their vehiclesces were sim

8%

% 10%

No19%

household m

cal residentspercent are

cal residents

ation of HH m

ate parking sof local residep their vehiclspace.

th local resid

parking locas in parking

milar for cars

%

19%

14%

20%

% of househo

members us

s who use vewithin the a

s fall under th

members us

space while ents in the ses. In the bu

dents and bu

B

ations for staspace allocaand motorc

%

22%

30%

olds using vehi

Yes36%

sing vehicle

ehicles are mge group 21he 16 – 20 y

ing vehicles

businesses survey said tusiness front

usinesses

Business

akeholders inated by Mun

cycles.

37%

40%

cles

No64%

Pag

es

more than 35 – 35 years

years of age

did not havethat they havt, only 34

ndicate that nicipality. Th

50%

e | 22

5 of

e the ve

they e

Page | 23

 

Chart 2.15: Car parking spots for stakeholders without private parking

Municipality parking spots is the most common parking space utilized by both businesses and local residents for car parking. Public parking spots were mostly used by local residents (25%) compared to businesses (7%). Some respondents, mostly local residents (8%) had no other option but to keep their cars in the road (3% for businesses). Similarly, 5 percent of the businesses said that they park anywhere they like (depending on the space) but not a single local resident was found to follow this behavior. Chart 2.16: Two-wheeler (motorcycle) parking spots for stakeholders without private parking

8%

25%

67%

0%3%7%

85%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Roadside Public parking spots

Municipality parking spots

Anywhere

Local resdients Business

0%

37%

58%

5%6%10%

83%

1%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Roadside Public parking spots

Municipality parking spts

Anywhere

Local residents Business

Page | 24

 

As with car parking, two-wheelers are also mostly parked in municipality parking spots by both local residents (58%) and businesses (83%). For businesses without private parking space, municipality parking spots seem to be the only option for a majority of them. Around 6 percent of businesses said that they park their motorcycles in the road. This behavior seems to be absent among local residents. But some local residents (5%) did say that they would park anywhere they like. 2.2.1 Vehicle usage by local residents and businesses

Local residents and businesses were also asked to rankthe level of vehicular activityinThamelvehicles in different time frames. A 24 hour day wasdivided into six time frames: Early morning (5am – 9am), morning (9am – 12am), Afternoon (12pm – 4pm), Evening (4pm – 8pm), Night (8pm – 12pm) and Late night (12pm – 4pm). Furthermore, in order to check whether there are any significant differences between peak tourist seasons andoff seasons, both stakeholders were asked to rank vehicle usage twice;espondentsranked times duringpeak tourist season as well asoff season. Table 2. 2: Ranking of vehicle use behavior in different timeframes (aggregated)

Peak season Off season 1. Morning (9am – 12pm) 2. Afternoon (12pm – 4pm) 3. Evening (4pm – 8pm) 4. Night (8pm – 12pm) 5. Early morning (5am – 9pm) 6. Late night (12pm – 4pm)

1. Morning (9am -12pm) 2. Afternoon (12pm – 4pm) 3. Evening (4pm – 8pm) 4. Early morning (5am – 9am) 5. Night (8pm – 12pm) 6. Late night (12pm – 4pm)

Looking at the aggregated dataof both local residents and business entities, Morning (9am -12pm), Afternoon (12pm – 4pm) and Evening (4pm – 8pm) are the peak hours ofvehicle usage.. Table 2. 3: Ranking of vehicle use behavior in different timeframes by local residents only

Peak season Off season 1. Morning (9am – 12pm) 2. Afternoon (12pm – 4pm) 3. Evening (4pm – 8pm) 4. Early morning (5am – 9pm) 5. Night (8pm – 12pm) 6. Late night (12pm – 4pm)

1. Morning (9am -12pm) 2. Evening (4pm – 8pm) 3. Afternoon (12pm – 4pm) 4. Early morning (5am – 9am) 5. Night (8pm – 12pm) 6. Late night (12pm – 4pm)

Similarly, looking at the data by disaggregating it, by local residents and businesses also does not show much variation. The three time frames: Morning (9am -12pm), Afternoon (12pm – 4pm) and evening (4pm – 8pm) are on the top three slots for both local residents and businesses with minor variations depending on peak season and off season. However, these three are always on the top three.

Page | 25

 

Table 2. 4: Ranking of vehicle use behavior in different timeframes by businesses only

Peak season Off season 1. Morning (9am – 12pm) 2. Evening (4pm – 8pm) 3. Afternoon (12pm – 4pm) 4. Night (8pm – 12pm) 5. Early morning (5am – 9pm) 6. Late night (12pm – 4pm)

1. Morning (9am -12pm) 2. Afternoon (12pm – 4pm) 3. Evening (4pm – 8pm) 4. Early morning (5am – 9am) 5. Night (8pm – 12pm) 6. Late night (12pm – 4pm)

2.2.2 Importance of vehicular use for businesses Businesses were asked to rate the importance of vehicular access to their business on a scale of 1 to 5. A mean score of 3.68 (approximately 4), was calculated on the basis of all the ratings. This means on average, businesses are highly dependent on vehicular access. Chart 2.17: Importance of vehicular access to business

 

Further analysis shows that only 23 percent (Neutral) of the businesses said that it does not matter whether vehicular access is available to them or not. A majority 57 percent (Important: 14% + Highly important: 43%) have said that it is quite important. Only 20 percent of the businesses have rated low importance (9%) or not important (11%).

11% 9%

23%

14%

43%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Not important

Low imporatance

Neutral Important Highly important

Per

cen

tag

e o

f b

usi

nes

es

CHA

KEY

                  

APTER

Y STUD This cthe st

3.1

Stakeon thrpollutistakehis espon qupollutiThe mtourist

3.1.1

The mconge90% oproble Chart

                       

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

 

R 3 DY FIN

chapter presudy.

PERCEPT

eholders’ perree counts: tion in Thameholder group

pecially evideestions that ion levels in majority of rts at 27% an

Traffic Con

majority of reestion as a pof respondenem.

t 3.1: Break

                   2 Here, a rat‘5’ meant hig

96%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Local

NDING

ents key find

TIONS ON

rceptions on their take onel. An analysps consider tent by the masked themThamel.2

responses wnd finally loc

ngestion

espondents (problem in Tnts in each o

down of Re

ing of ‘1’ meangh levels of the

%

4%

Residents

Traffic CTraffic C

GS dings of the

PRESENT

present traf a) traffic cosis of the restraffic condit

moderate to hm to rate traff

were obtainecal residents

(approximatehamel. Moreof the three s

esponses by

nt low levels of e same.

96%

Busine

Congestion Is Congestion Is

study focus

T TRAFFIC

ffic conditionongestion, b)sponses revtions in Thamhighaverage fic congestio

ed from busat 16%.

ely 95%) ackeover, as illustakeholder

y Stakehold

air, noise or tra

4%

esses

A ProblemNot A Proble

ing on overa

C CONDIT

ns in Thame)air pollutionveals that all mel to be proratings that

on, air polluti

sinesses (57

knowledgedustrated by Fgroups ackn

der Type

affic pollution, w

93%

7

Tourists

em

Pag

all objectives

IONS

l were asses, and c)noisthree

oblematic. Tt were obtainion and nois

7%), followe

traffic Figure 3.1, onowledged t

where as a rati

7%

s

e | 26

s of

ssed e

This ned se

ed by

over the

ng of

Page | 27

 

In order to gauge their perceptions further, respondents were asked to rate present levels of traffic congestion in Thamel on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 signifies a low level of traffic congestion and 5 an extremely high level. On average, respondents gave a rating of 3.43, which indicates a moderate level of traffic congestion. The average rating fortourists as a stakeholder group (4.13) is higher than those for businesses (3.97) and local residents (3.43) respectively. Moreover, qualitative feedback obtained from tourists on questions relating to traffic congestion also revealed that many considered vehicular activity in Thamel to be dangerous. It could be gleaned from most of the responses that present vehicular movement in Thamel lowered the area’s intrinsic appeal to tourists, and some claimed to have even been hit by vehicles on a number of occasions.

“Please make Thamel more pedestrian-friendly. Already been hit twice by motorcycles.” American tourist, 36 years old

“Pedestrians have no status on Thamel’s streets – i.e. they have last priority. Bigger

vehicles have 1st right of way, then motorbikes, followed by bicycles!" British tourist, 42, second time visitor to Nepal

Likewise, local residents also expressed concern about the danger posed by haphazardly approaching vehicles on Thamel’s narrow streets, especially to young children and elderly members of the community. 3.1.2 Air Pollution

Likewise, an overwhelming majority of respondents (91.8%) perceived that air pollution is an issue in Thamel. A breakdown of responses by stakeholder group, as shown in Figure 3.1.2 also reveals that over 90% of respondents in each stakeholder group perceived that air pollution was an issue, with those considering there to be no problem accounting for less than 10% of respondents in each group. Furthermore, a mean ranking of 4.02 was obtained for air pollution levels, suggesting that on average, Thamel’s main stakeholder groups perceive air pollution to be substantially high in the area. On closer examination, individual ratings by stakeholder group reveals that businesses and tourists had average ratings of 4.14 and 4.21 respectively, slightly higher than the average rating for local residents (3.56).Interestingly, the business entities that perceived air pollution not to be a problem tended to be those located on floors above the ground level. Moreover, from the point of view of pedestrians, tourists as a stakeholder group spoke of being shocked by the sight of black plumes of exhaust from vehicles as well as by the amount of dust pollution in Thamel.

“More tourists would come if roads were safer in and around Thamel” British, 25, first time visitor

“Thamel is a very unique place. If somehow traffic could be limited certain hours, it would help with the noise, road safety and pollution problems” - American, 59, 15th time visitor to Nepal

Chart

It couin Thahave eresideapproand e 3.1.3 Most a findand astakehproble3.1.2.traffic noise The m4, sughigh lethan tside, gnoise that h

0102030405060708090

100

 

t 3.2: Break

ld be gleaneamel loweredeven been hents also expoaching vehiclderly memb

Noise Pollurespondentsing consisteir pollution Inholder groupem in Thame). This is intecongestion pollution is

mean percepggesting thatevels. Furthehe mean ratground-levepollution. Fuonking is pa

91.

0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%

Loc

Air Po

down of Re

ed from mosd the area’s hit by vehiclepressed concles on Thambers of the c

ution s (91.3%) indnt withpercen Thamel. Wps- businessel, the figureeresting becand air pollunot a proble

ptual rating ot Thamel’s kermore, the tings for local businessesurthermore, articularly a p

.4%

8.6%

cal Residents

ollution Is A Pro

esponses B

t of the respintrinsic app

es on a numcern about tmel’s narrowommunity.

dicated that eptions previWhile over 90ses and toure for tourists cause over 9ution, where

em in Thame

on noise pollkey stakeholmean rating

al residents s appear to bresponses a

problem.

91.0%

Busin

oblem Air

y Stakehold

ponses that ppeal to tourisber of occasthe danger pw streets, es

noise pollutiously discus0% of respoists- perceivis comparat

90% of touriseas just over el.

ution levels ders perceiv

g given by bu(3.79) and tobe directly imacross the s

9.0%

nesses

r Pollution Is No

der Type

present vehists, and somsions. Likewposed by haspecially to y

ion is a probssed on traffndents in ea

ved that noistively lower asts acknowler a fifth of tou

in Thamel wve noise pollusinesses (4ourists (3.67mpacted by ttakeholder s

93..7%

8

Tourist

ot A Problem

Pag

cular movemme claimed towise, local

phazardly young childre

blem in Thamfic congestioach of the se pollution isat 79% (Figuedged issuesurists stated

was found tolution to be a4.21) is highe7). Most strethe amount spectrum rev

.2%

ts

e | 28

ment o

en

mel; on

s a ure s of that

o be at er et-of veal

Cha

3.1.4 RespoaskedhighesMornifoundgroupto be PM) acoincicommbusy areturnfoundafternand mbasis.transpbusinelate nreside

Table

TimiEarlyMornAfterEvenNightLate

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

 

art 3.3: Brea

Top Hours ondents in thd to rank the st. The resung hours fro to be comm

ps. Moreoverof highest p

and lastly evedes with mo

muting to woras the workd

ning home. In to be of topoon times fr

most of them. Furthermorport of suppless hours ofight times fro

ents and bus

e 3.1: Top T

ng y Morning (5ning (9 AM- 1rnoon (12 PMning ((4 PM -t (8 PM - 12 Night (12 A

96.3

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Loca

Noise Po

akdown of

of Daily Vehe local residtop three timlts pertaining

om 9 AM – 1mon times of r, local residriority to theening hours

orning rush hrk. Similarly,day at most n the case o

p priority, follrom 12 PM- rely on the re, the top thies, for empf value to cuom 12 AM –sinesses.

Three Times

5 AM-9 AM)12 PM) M -4 PM) - 8 PM) AM) M- 4 AM)

3%

3.7%

al Residents

ollution Is A Pro

Responses

hicular Actdent and bumes of the dg to this que2 PM and af

f high vehicuents perceivm, followed from (4 - 8

hour, when m, the hours boffices ends

of businesseowed by mo4 PM. A vatransport of

hree times thployees’ com

stomers. Ea– 4 AM appe

s of High VeLocal R

Ran

95.7%

Busine

oblem No

s By Stakeh

ivity sinesses sta

day when theestion are tafternoon hou

ular usage amved morning by afternooPM). The timost workingbetween 4:30s at these tims, night time

orning times riety of busiraw materia

hey have ranmmuting need

arly morningar to be of lo

ehicular ActResidents' nking

1 2 3

4.3%

esses

oise Pollution I

older Type

akeholder greir vehicular bulated in Furs from 12 mong the twhours from

n times betwmeframe 9 -g profession0– 6 PM aremes and peoes from 8 PM

from 9 AM- nesses oper

als and suppnked are critds and coincgs from (5 AMow priority to

tivity Business

Rankin

2 3

1

79%

21.0

Tourists

s Not A Proble

Pag

roups were activity wasigure 2.2. PM – 4 PM w

wo stakehold(9 AM – 12

ween (12 PM- 10 AM nals would bee also generaople would bM to 12 AM w

12 PM and rate in Tham

plies on a regtical for the cide with M- 9 AM) ano both local

ses' ng

0%

em

e | 29

s the

were er PM)

M – 4

e ally

be were

mel, gular

nd

Page | 30

 

3.1.5 Thamel street users In order to gather perceptions on who the main vehicle-using parties of Thamel’s streets are, respondents were asked to rank five different groups (mentioned in the table below) on a scale of 1-5, where a rank of 1 signified top user, where as a rank of 5 denoted the least. Thamel-based businesses appear to be the top users of Thamel’s streets compared to all other vehicle-using parties. This is evident by the fact that the top two mean ranks were given to ‘Hotels and Restaurants’ and ‘Other Businesses.’ Moreover, businesses as a stakeholder group appear to perceive that ‘Hotels & Restaurants’ use Thamel’s streets most (2.48) followed by ‘Other Businesses’ (2.67). On the other hand, local residents perceive that non-hotel/restaurant businesses use Thamel’s streets the most (2.26) followed by Hotels and Restaurants (2.42). The high degree of vehicle-usage by these groups is attributable to their need for supplies critical to operations. In the case of hotels, frequent vehicular usage was also required to shuttle guests from the airport to the hotel as well as to other locations. Thru traffic, or traffic of vehicles transiting through Thamel to get to other destinations also appears to be substantial. Likewise, Kathmandu dwellers visiting Thamel also tend to contribute to regular vehicular activity in the area. Moreover, both stakeholder groups-local residents and businesses- concur that local residents use Thamel’s streets the least out of all the vehicle-using parties they ranked, as suggested by their mean rank which is higher (3.3 and 3.38 respectively) than that of any other group. Table 3.2 : A Ranking of Thamel’s Vehicle Users

Vehicle-using Parties

Ranking by Local

Residents Ranking by Businesses

Local Residents 5 5 Hotels & Restaurants 2 1 Businesses Other than Hotels & Restaurants 1 2 Kathmandu Dwellers Visiting Thamel 3 4 Through Traffic 4 3

Two-wheelers (motorbikes) and taxis are the most dangerous vehicles according to local residents and businesses. Many respondents in each stakeholder group raised the point that motorbikes and taxis speed on Thamel’s streets, inciting discomfort and fear among pedestrians. Hence, the pedestrian only zone and restrictions should have strict enforcements to regular movement of motorbike and taxis. Since buses and tempos are not explicitly allowed inside Thamel they have been ranked below taxis. Private cars and other four wheelers are also not seen as a major threat by the stakeholders in comparison to motor bikes and taxis, even though they have been found to disobey traffic rules and contribute to traffic congestion in Thamel, as revealed by local residents and business entities at group discussions.

Chart

3.2

RES

3.2.1 Majorpositivtotal r11 pe(11%) Chartfriend

Per

cent

age

of r

espo

nden

ts

 

t 3.4: Dange

KEY PER

TRICTION

Perceptio

rity of key stave towards mrespondents rcent were n) was also a

t - 3.5: Do yodly zone?

46%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Mo

erous vehic

RCEPTION

N

n regardin

akeholders imaking Thamreported tha

not sure whegainst the m

ou think it i

% 45%

otorbike

No

cles plying t

S REGAR

ng a pedest

n Thamel (Bmel pedestriat they wantether to supp

motion.

is necessar

41%

36%

Taxi

Yes78%

ot sure11%

the streets o

RDING VEH

trian friend

Businesses aan friendly. At to see pedeport the mov

ry to make T

11% 10%

Bus and tem

Local resid

No11%

of Thamel

HICULAR

dly Thame

and Local ReAround 78 pestrian friendvement. A sm

Thamel a pe

2%

%

mpo Private v

dents Busi

Pag

l

esidents) arepercent of thdly Thamel wmall proporti

edestrian

8%

vehicles

iness

e | 31

e e while on

Page | 32

 

All three stakeholders have shown a strong desire to make Thamel more pedestrian friendly. The strongest voice has come from the business community (mean score = 4.29). They are followed closely by tourists (mean score = 4.22) and then lastly by local residents (mean score = 3.77). It has been known all along that businesses have been more supportive compared to local residents with regards to making Thamel a vehicle-restricted zone.

Chart 3.6: Perception on the need to make thamel pedestrian friendly

The chart above illustrates that local residents are not in any way all against the idea of a no-vehicle zone. If the mean score would have been lower than 3 in the rating scale above then it would have been clear that local residents perception was indeed negative on the whole issue. Chart 3.7: Are stakeholders willing to support such a policy?

 

To ascertain the level of support for a more pedestrian friendly Thamel, respondents were further probed by another question asking them to rate the level of their support on a scale from 1 to 5. Both local residents and businesses are willing to support the motion while the business community will be more supportive to the policy compared to local residents in Thamel. However, this analysis underestimates the role political

3.77

4.29

4.22

4.19

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Local residents

Businesses

Tourists

Total

Perceptual rating scale (1-5)

3.81

4.35

4.24

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Local residents

Businesses

Total

Perceptual Rating Scale (1-5)

Page | 33

 

actors and forces would play in shaping the choice/decision of people for and against the movement. Alternative ideas to pedestrian only zone To further gauge the perception of the stakeholders, various viable alternatives on making Thamel more pedestrian friendly were provided to the respondents. They were asked to rank these statements on their likability as well as their likelihood of their implementation. Table 3.1 below presents these statements as well as the rankings they received. The rankings are based on average scores each statement received. Local residents and businesses differ in prioritizing alternative modalities of pedestrian only zone. The idea of making a complete pedestrian-only zone is not a popular one among local residents. Moreover, they appear to find the vehicle entry permit system appealing. Businesses, on the other hand, appear to prioritize vehicular entry into Thamel only during the afternoon (12 pm – 2 pm) and at night (10 pm – 6 am). They are more in favor of making Thamel a complete pedestrian-only zone and seem hesitant on using the vehicle entry permit system. Tourists on the other hand, consider a complete vehicle free Thamel to be the ideal option. The idea of allowing vehicular access only to rickshaws and bicycles has been placed low by all three stakeholders.

Table 3.3: Alternative ideas on making thamel more pedestrian friendly

 

Ranking by stakeholders

Local residents

Business Tourists

Make Thamel a complete pedestrian-only zone

3 2 1

Make Thamel largely pedestrian-only allowing small vehicles to enter during the afternoon (12 - 2 PM) and at night between 10 PM - 6 AM

2 1 2

Allowing vehicular access only to those (residents & businesses) with vehicular entry permits

1 3 3

Allowing access only to rickshaws 4 4 4

Allowing access only to bicycles 5 5 5

A system of permits can be devised In order to cater to the vehicular usage needs of local residents, special permits may be issued to them. Likewise, businesses may be inclined to comply with policies that favor vehicular entry in Thamel only during afternoon and night time frames and using special permits at other times as per need. However, the large administrative burden of managing permits and political influence in arranging the permits could lead to implementation failure.

 

3.2.2

RespobelievimplembusineresideavailaThamwith thof par Taxi aimporof theThirdltouristthe pepolicinaccordbusinefor thesuch athroug Furthefind thaggre

Chart vehicl

The bstrong

1. Pa

2p

 

Imperative

ondents werved to be vermented. In aesses, the aents and busability outsideel visitors orhe local resirking space i

and bus stanrtant.During t periphery wy, the availats or supplieerceptual sung agencies ded low prioesses and loe regulation an agency wgh Thamel to

ermore, takinhat there areegated total v

3.8: Imperale zone polic

business comgly believe th

arking lots in s

2. Taxi and bperiphery

3. Portertourists oThamel

4. Prule

e infrastru

re also askedry important aggregate, taavailability ofsiness represe Thamel at r staffers or dents. Thesin the vicinity

nds outside Tthe no-vehic

will be necesability of portes for HHs arvey with locto monitor c

ority, qualitatocal residentof pedestria

would not beo other locat

ng the viewse no changesview discuss

ative infrastcy

mmunity gavhat the whol

several locatio

us stands out

rs/carts/rickshor supplies fo

Policing agencs on vehicula

5. Diversionother locatio

ctures

d to share vfor pedestri

aking in viewf parking spasentatives vgroup discuvehicles of be will be they.

Thamel’s pecle entry houssary for locaters/ carts/ rind businesscal residentscompliance wtive data fromts considere

an friendly poe able to wortions was als

s separately s on the priosed above.

ructures for

ve greater eme process w

ons in the vic

tside the Tha

haws to transpr HHs and bu

cy that monitoar restriction

of traffic goinons

iews on the an friendly p

ws from bothace is the tovoiced their cussions. Sucbusinesses a

e key stakeho

eriphery wereurs taxis, busal residents tickshaws to

ses in Thames and businewith rules onm group disced an effectivolicies. Mostrk smoothly. so not given

for local resorities of loca

r successfu

mphasis on twould derail e

inity

mel

port luggage usinesses in

ors complianc

ng through Th

types of infrpolicies to beh local residep most priorconcern on pch space is imand businesolders who w

e also determses and temto commute transport lug

el may also esses suggen vehicular rcussions revve policing at respondentDiversion of

n much impo

sidents and bal residents’

l implement

the ‘policing early without

for

ce with

hamel to

Pag

rastructure the successfulents and rity. Local parking mperative fo

ss owners alowill require lo

mined to be mpos, just ou

to other plaggage for be useful. Wsted that

restriction, wvealed that agency impots believe thf traffic going

ortance.

businesses wvis-à-vis the

tation of the

agency’. Tht the backing

e | 34

hey lly

or ong ots

tside ces.

While

were

ortant at g

we e

e no-

hey g of

 

a stroimplemfriendand lo

Table

Loc1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

3.2.4 Sinceimporfor a ventitieThe tiamonbusineresidePM at Chart

The 8rough

 

ng monitorinmenting agely provisions

ocal resident

3.4: Imperat

al residents Parking lotsin the vicinitTaxi and busThamel peripPorters/carts/luggage for toHHs and busPolicing agencompliance torestriction Diversion of tThamel to oth

Banning t

many resportant. The timvehicular b

es as well asme frame 8 g businesseesses selectents, the sect 28.2%.

t - 3.9: Sugg

8-10 AM andly a fifth of lo

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

ng and compency with wils. The prioritts is present

tive infrastru

in several loty s stands outphery /rickshaws toourists or sup

sinesses in Thncy that monio rules on ve

traffic going thher locations

time

ondents favome slot froman to be en

s the same pAM -8 PM c

es, selected ted the com

cond most po

gested bann

4-8 PM timeocal residen

14.1%

33.3%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

8 - 8 PM

pliance agenlingness andty ranking ofted below.

ctures to ma

ocations

tside the

o transport pplies for hamel tors hicular

hrough

4

ored partial pm 10 AM -6 nforced in Tpercentage oclosely followby over a thbined time sopular time s

ning time

e slots werents, as was th

%

36.6%

%

36.6%

M 10 AM - 6

ncy. There isd ability to df imperative

ake Thamel a

Business 1. Parking

in the vic2. Policing

complianrestrictio

3. Taxi and Thamel p

4. DiversionThamel to

5. Porters/cluggage fHHs and

pedestrian mPM appearshamel. Arou

of local residwed as the nird of them.

slots 8-10 AMslot suggest

e popular amhe case with

%

19.7%

%

18.6%

PM8 -10 AM & 4

s a need of sesign and einfrastructur

a pedestrian

lots in severcinity agency that

nce to rules on bus stands o

periphery n of traffic goio other locatio

carts/rickshawfor tourists orbusinesses i

mode, bannins to be the mund 37 percedents selectenext most po

A little less tM and 4-8 Pted for a veh

mong local reh business e

%28.2%

%8.9%

- 8 PM4 -9 PM

Local ResideBusinesses

Pag

strong nforce peopre by busine

zone

ral locations

t monitors on vehicular

outside the

ng through ons

ws to transporr supplies for n Thamel

ng time is vemost preferent of busineed this time sopular time sthan a fifth oM. Among lo

hicle ban is 4

esidents for entities.

1.4%

2.4%

M Other

ents

e | 35

ple ess

r

rt

ery rred ess slot.

slot of ocal 4-9

"I would lAM to 8 Pmaybe wyears

“Allow veHotel in o

 

Interea vehand bmornidesign The rediscussucce

like to see TPM maybe f

we can allow

ehicles durinoperation for

3.2.5

The obelievwhethbusinethat wpoliciestakehtime.

Chart

 

estingly less icle ban. Givusinesses angs and aftenated as top

espondents ssions. They

essful and su

Thamel declafeasible or a

w vehicles wit

ng office timer 25 years

Action to

overwhelminved that ruleher it would bess entities

would be appes on vehicuholders was

t - 3.10: Per

Cancel Pa8%

D

than 10% ofven such findare willing to ernoons, incp priority for

were also ey believed it ustainable im

ared a pedest least betweth pass syst

e but close o

be Taken a

ng majoritye breakers be feasible tand local res

propriate to eular restrictio denying rul

ceptions on

asses

Deny Entry IntoThamel for Sometime

8%

f businessesdings, it appcompromiseluding hoursvehicular mo

ncouraged tis important

mplementatio

strian zone. een 10 AM tem. " - Garm

off vehicular

against rul

y of businesbe made too sustainablsidents wereexercise agaon. The next e breakers e

n Actions to

o

s selected thpears to be the on their ves previously ovement.

to suggest tit to have suion of the pro

If not a comto 6 PM. If thment/souven

movement a

le breakers

sses (75%) ao pay fines.ly enforce pee asked to sainst those w

popular optentry into Th

o be Taken

Fine75%

Oth2

he 4-9 PM ashe case that

ehicular activdiscussed w

me during qtable time fr

ovisions.

mplete one, ohose optionsnirs store in o

at all other ti

s

and local reAs part of uedestrian zoelect the typ

who fail to cotion among bhamel for a c

Against Ru

Punish7%

hers%

Pag

s appropriatet local residevity in the which they h

qualitative rame for

one betweens don’t work,operation for

imes.”

esidents (67nderstandin

one policies, pe of measuromply with both certain perio

ule Breakers

 

e | 36

e for ents

ad

n 8 r 12

7%) g

re

d of

s

Page | 37

 

3.2.3 Costs and benefits to stakeholder’s vis-à-vis a no-vehicle zone Thamel

Thamel – a pedestrian zone is an ideal. However, it has been clear from the outset that there are differences of opinion among all three key stakeholders on who will benefit the most from a pedestrian friendly Thamel. An understanding of key stakeholders’ potential costs and benefits was deemed necessary to determine whether pedestrian zone polices would be desirable in Thamel. In order to find out, the respondents were asked to rank four direct beneficiaries of the pedestrian friendly Thamel policy.

Table 3.5: Benefits of pedestrian friendly thamel (ranking highest to lowest)

 

Local residents Business Tourists 1. Tourists 1. Tourists 1. Tourists 2. Hotels 2. Restaurants and

other businesses 2. Local residents

3. Local Residents 3. Local Residents 3. Restaurant and other businesses

4. Restaurant and other businesses

4. Hotels 4. Hotels

5. Others 5. Others 5. Others

The data shows that all three stakeholders, viz. local residents, businesses and tourists agree that tourists will be the primary beneficiaries. From the point of view of local residents, hotels will benefit the most after tourists. Likewise, businesses perceive restaurants and other non-hotel businesses in Thamel to benefit next. In both cases, local residents and businesses believed that direct tourism linked businesses such as hotels and restaurants will also get sizable benefits. In contrast, tourists see local residents to be the next beneficiary after themselves – the reason most of them provided was that Thamel would be more attractive for local residents to live without all the traffic problems, the air and noise pollution. Interestingly, local residents have been placed third in line by both local residents and businesses. Both stakeholders seem to understand that local residents will have to bear some difficulties due to restrictions placed on vehicle movement.

Similarly, tourists and businesses have ranked hotels very low in terms of benefits accrued. Both believe that vehicle restrictions will place considerable stress on their business since they have to ferry tourists at different times of the day. This is in sharp contrast to what local residents perceive – they have placed hotels in second position and believe them to benefit highly because vehicle restrictive policies will attract more tourists to Thamel. Similarly, local residents and businesses were also asked about their opinions on who would to be bear the costs of a vehicle restrictive policy in Thamel. Local residents point out that hotels will have to bear the brunt. , The majority of the respondents in the business community, however,ranked local residents as the ones who will have to bear the highest costs.

Page | 38

 

Table 3.6: Costs of a pedestrian friendly thamel (ranked highest to lowest)  

Local residents Business 1. Hotels 1. Local residents 2. Local residents 2. Hotels 3. Restaurants and other

businesses 3. Restaurants and other

businesses 4. Tourists 4. Tourists 5. Others 5. Others

Costs to Stakeholders The inconvenience of transporting of essential goods- raw materials, water and luggage- was a top ranked. Delivery vehicles bring water to Thamel’s residential communities as well as business establishments on a frequent basis. Likewise, raw materials and other supplies are critical to the operations of businesses such as hotels and restaurants, so is the transport of guests’ luggage. Secondly, vehicle owning local residents and businesses are also affected by a potential vehicle ban as it would be difficult for them to bring in or take out their vehicles out of the pedestrianized zone. Next, the inconvenience of having to walk to get around Thamel was considered and lastly, the burden of having to pay parking lot fees. Moreover, Combined focus group discussions with local residents and businesses alsorevealed that these stakeholders would be more inclined to accept vehicular restriction policies, as long as they there was convenient parking infrastructure available to them. Average ratings by stakeholder group were computed, which were once again ranked to produce the tabulated values below. As illustrated by the table, the rankings obtained for local residents are identical to the ones for business entities.

Table - 3.7: Ranking of costs

Costs to Stakeholders Local

Residents BusinessesInconvenience of having to walk to get around Thamel 3 3 Inconvenience of transporting essential goods- raw materials, water & luggage 1 1 Parking lot fees 4 4 Inconvenience to vehicle owning local residents and businesses 2 2

Benefits to stakeholders

Improved air quality was the most prized benefit of restricting vehicular activity in Thamel for both business entities and local residents. Likewise, an increase in Thamel’s intrinsic appeal to local residents was ranked second by local residents, where as reduced vehicular noise pollution took second place for business entities. As was previously discussed, both stakeholder groups rated Thamel’s air and noise pollution levels to be substantial. Local residents and businesses ranked ‘increase in the number of nights spent by tourists in Thamel in 4th and 3rd places respectively. The assumption here is that reduction in vehicular activity in Thamel would add to Thamel’s intrinsic appeal, which in turn

Page | 39

 

would have the effect of encouraging tourists to spend more nights there. Moreover, tourists’ greater enjoyment of Thamel may also contribute to increased number of nights in Kathmandu as well as in Nepal as a whole, as was also gleaned from some of the responses. It is interesting that business entities have ranked ‘ease of doing business in ’ 5th and ‘ease of accessing street-side shops in 6th places. Local residents have also ranked these options similarly. It appears to be the case that vehicular restriction does not directly contribute to improving a businesses’ profitability or to improving the visibility of street side shops, but that overall improvement in the environment in whichthey operate would assist in making businesses appear more attractive to customers and alike. Table - 3.8: Ranking of benefits

Benefits Local

Residents BusinessesImproved Air Quality 1 1 Reduced Vehicular Noise Pollution 3 2 Ease of Accessing Street-side Shops 5 6 Ease of Doing Business in Thamel 6 5 Increased Attractiveness of Thamel for Local Residents 2 4 Increase in the # of Nights Tourists Want to Stay 4 3

3.3 EFFECT OF PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY MEASURES

3.2.1 Effect of the policy on businesses Time and again the data have shown that businesses are highly optimistic about making Thamel more pedestrian friendly. Nearly 70 percent of the respondents said that such a policy will affect their business in a positive manner. Majority (42%) of the respondents from the business category said that their businesses will have a highly positive effect.

“A pedestrian zone in Thamel would be great. Shops that sell thankas, handicrafts and other goods can hold exhibitions on Thamel's streets.” - Thankas/handicrafts shop in operation for 20 years

A total of around 70 percent businesses believe that not having vehicles inside Thamel (full or partial) will have somewhat positive effect on their businesses. However, around 18 percent businesses believed that the scheme may not have any effect on their business. A sizable proportion (around 12%) considered the provision to have negative effect on their business.

 

 

Chart

3.2.2 Businrequirpermivehiclrequirarounhave a Chart

Perm

 

3.11: Effect

Vehicle per

esses were re after the nts would be es or not. In

red for them.d 1 to 3 permany vehicles

3.12: numbe

mits for busi

N

1 to 3 80%

of vehicle fre

rmits for bu

also inquireno-vehicle zorequired by

n terms of bu. Some woumits will be es (80%) or n

er of permits

inesses with

Positvie eff28%

Neutral18%

Negativeffect10%

4

ee Thamel o

usiness

ed about howone policy iseach busine

usinesses wild even requenough for mot (78%).

required for

h vehicles

fect

ve t

Not require

d1%

4 to 510%

> 69%

n business

w many vehics implementeess entity whith vehicles, uire around 1majority of b

r vehicles

Permits fo

1 to 78%

cle permits ted. On averahether they more permi

15 permits. Husinesses w

or businessevehicles

Highlynegative e

2%

3 %

Pag

they might age, around have any ts will be However,

whether they

es without

Highly positiveffect42%

y effect

Not requir

ed22%

e | 40

3

y

ve

Page | 41

 

CHAPTER 4 SYNOPSIS, KEY PRIORITIES AND WAY

FORWARD This chapter concludes the study with a short synopsis of the findings, identification of areas for key priorities, and suggestions to stakeholders on way forward.

4.1 SYNOPSIS The study findings reflect the fact that key stakeholders in Thamel are positive about making the area pedestrian friendly zone. However, they also bring to light the idea that many are skeptical about modalities that would be used to enforce vehicle restriction policies, and possible disadvantages such policies could have on the day-to-day operations of businesses. The perceptions regarding the creation of a pedestrian-friendly zone in Thamel as well as concerns associated with vehicle-restriction policies varied among the stakeholders. Though most of the respondents are positive, the political influence, trust on the implementers, and modality of implementation will play vital role in deciding the swift and sustainable enforcement of provisions.

4.2 KEY PRIORITIES Based on the study findings, the following have been deemed as key priorities for the implementation of pedestrian friendly policies.

Implementation modality The time frame 10 AM- 6 PM appears to be most favored by both local residents and businesses as hours during which vehicular activity may be banned. However, this system must be supported by a comprehensive vehicle permit system and parking availability of people visiting Thamel (excluding local residents and businesses –staffs, owners and business vehicles) for different purposes. The ban needs to be more focused in controlling motorbikes and taxis which are deemed to be dangerous by all stakeholders especially tourists. There is a need to ensure that parking infrastructure is in place prior to the implementation of any vehicular restriction policies. Also, taxi and bus stands would be needed outside Thamel’s periphery. As per study findings, the success of pedestrian-friendly policies is contingent upon the availability of appropriate infrastructure. A vehicle permit system needs to be in place for local residents and businesses. The permits should not be given to particular individuals or businesses but should be in the form of stickers that can be permanently attached to the vehicles. This will ensure that stakeholders do not

Page | 42

 

have to worry about carrying the permit every time they have to take out their vehicle. However, special passes should be provided to each business entity which will allow other types of vehicles (such as delivery van, tourist transportations etc) to enter Thamel. A central mechanism could be developed for each ‘tole’ where businesses can acquire these passes in advance or when necessary. The idea is to make a very easily understandable system with objective criteria discouraging subjective judgments. Vehicular access has been deemed important by more than half of the businesses and the pedestrian policy should promote these businesses not hamper their activities.

The success of the policy depends highly on the effective communication of the policy modality with local residents. They are not entirely against the idea of a no-vehicle zone but are relatively more concerned on the restrictions they will have to face in their own neighborhood. A blanket implementation of the policy without effective communication channels (most importantly - collection of feedbacks) will be detrimental. Feedbacks can be collected through monthly or quarterly meetings with local residents and businesses. This is imperative since the system might need some changes for particular problems that were not thought about during the implementation phase.

As per the study findings, parking fees will not impede the implementation of the policy. The parking fees popular for individual types of vehicles are: NRs. 10 for motorcycles, NRs. 20 for cars, NRs. 30 for delivery vans and buses.

Enforcement of provisions

A complete pedestrian-only zone does not appear to be feasible. However, key stakeholders appear to be in favor of a vehicle-restricted zone, one where vehicular movement is banned during certain hours. As discussed above, curtailing vehicular activity will require a good vehicle permit system as well as proper feedback collecting mechanisms for evolving the system. Many respondents suspect the sincerity and commitment of the policy enforcing agency. An effective monitoring agency is necessary to oversee compliance of pedestrian-friendly measures and to deter parties from breaking the rules. It may be most effective to fine those who fail to comply with pedestrian-friendly policies.

Alternatives

The hours 8-10 AM and 4-8 PM also appear to be appropriate for a vehicle ban. If these time frames are to be adopted, it may be necessary to enable local residents vehicular access to Thamel with special permits. Likewise, an 8 AM-8 PM vehicular ban in Thamel may also be considered. However, as mentioned in the previous alternative, for the convenience of local residents, it would be necessary to enable them vehicular access for certain hours during this period. Since some volume of traffic in Thamel is thru-traffic, there needs to be an effective diversion of such traffic during vehicular –restriction hours. Without such diversion, it would be difficult for pedestrian policies to be effectively implemented. The traffic police in and around Thamel would need to be

Page | 43

 

thoroughly consulted to devise ways that would enable thru-traffic to be managed on a sustainable basis.

4.3 WAY FORWARD

Based on the findings, the following are the recommendations for RECPHEC, implementers of the provision, and other concerned stakeholders:

Develop a proper communication mechanism which allows collectingfor feedbacks (both positive and negative) from local residents and business entities. Changes must be brought in the system time and again to make it flexible. A rigid, unchanging policy will not be popular.

Piloting with the time frame is necessary before a full fledged implementation of vehicular restriction policies. The policy might not work at the beginning so different time frames may need to be utilized.

Proper plan needs to be rolled out for delivering vehicle permits to local residents and businesses. It is advised that permits for these two stakeholders be in the form of permanent stickers. Also, special pass system must be in place for these stakeholders as per need. For vehicles that are not owned by these stakeholders but have to visit Thamelon a daily basis (such as school buses, delivery vans and so on) should also be distributed special passes. These passes could hold validity for a longer period – bimonthly or quarterly. It will be the responsibility of the owners of these vehicles to obtain the passes from TTDC.

Rule breakers need to be fined for the misdemeanor. Fines can be determined based on the type of the vehicle (e.g. NRs. 100 for motorbikes, NRs. 200 for others). Fines can also be utilized to sustain the vehicle permit system and might also provide some costs for the feedback meetings. A monthly list of rule breakers names can be published in the bulletin boards of TTDC and different ward offices publicly. This will have two benefits – firstly, it will serve the purpose of record keeping and secondly, it might act as a deterrent for future violations.

The implementing agencies (Kathmandu Metropolitan City and TTDC) will require working effectively with Nepal Police and the Nepal Traffic Police divisions of Thamel. Fining the rule breakers and taking their names can only be done by authoritative figures.

Page | 44

 

REFERENCES

MOF. (2012). Budget Speech FY 2011/2012. Kathmandu: Ministry of Finance.

NRB. (2012). Economic Report 2011. Kathmandu: Nepal Rastra Bank.

CBS. (2011). Nepal Living Standard Survey. Kathmandu: Central Bureau of Statistics. Government of Nepal.

UNDP. (2010). Human Development Report. New York: United Nations Development Program with Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI).

Page | 45

 

ANNEX 1: STUDY TOOLS

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS Section - A: Introduction 1. Location: ………………………….. 2. Type of business:

(a) Hotel (b) Restaurant (c) Travel Agencies (d) General commodity business, (e) Internet business (f) Thanka/Handicrafts (g) Money exchange (h) Mountaineering gear shop (i) Music shops (j) Others……………………(Please specify)

3. Years in business: ….......... year …......... months 4. Does this business or business staff or the business proprietors own any vehicles? (a) Yes (b) No

4.1 If no, then go to QUESTION NO. 7 4.2 If yes, then please fill in the following information

Own

Page | 46

 

3.2) Information on use of vehicles per day Use

Page | 47

 

Page | 48

 

5. Does your business have its own private parking space? (a) Yes (b) No

5.1 If Yes, then go to QUESTION NO. 7 5.2 If No, then where do you park? (Multiple Choice)

Cars/Jeeps Motorcycles a) Road side b) Public parking spots c) Municipality allotted spots d) Anywhere

a) Road side b) Public parking spots c) Municipality allotted spots d) Anywhere

6. Which hours do you require most vehicular movement? Priority ranking 1 – 6: where “1” denotes top

priority and “6” denotes least)

Timing Peak season Off-season

Early morning (5am – 9am)

Morning (9am – 12pm)

Afternoon (12pm – 4pm)

Evening (4pm – 8pm)

Night (8 – 12)

Late Night (12 – 4)

7. How much is vehicular access important to your business?

(a) Highly Important (b) Moderately Important (c) Neutral (d) Less Important (e) Not Important

Section - B: Existing Situation 8. Do you think that traffic congestion is a problem in Thamel? (1) Yes (2) No

9. Please rate the existing level of traffic congestion in Thamel by selecting an option from the following:

(a) Getting worse every day (b) Moderate (c) Good (d) Very Good 10. Do you think air pollution is a problem in Thamel? (1) Yes (2) No

11. Please rate the existing level of air pollution in Thamel by selecting an option fromthe following:

(a) Getting worse every day (b) Moderate (c) Good (d) Very Good

Page | 49

 

12. Do you think noise pollution is a problem in Thamel? (a) Yes (b) No

13. Please rate the existing level of noise pollution in Thamel by selecting an option from the following: (a) Getting worse every day (b) Moderate (c) Good (d) Very Good

14. Please rate on a scale of 1-3 the volume of traffic in Thamel at three different times of the day for

different seasons. Where “1” is highest volume of traffic and “3” the least:

Peak season Off- season

____ Early Morning: 5-9 AM ____ Morning: 9 AM-12PM ____ Afternoon: 12-4 PM ____ Late Afternoon/Evening: 4-8 PM ____ Evening/Night time: 8-12 PM ____ Late Night: 12-4 AM

____ Early Morning: 5-9 AM ____ Morning: 9AM-12 PM ____ Afternoon: 12-4 PM ____ Late Afternoon/Evening: 4-8 PM ____ Evening/Night time: 8-12 PM ____ Late Night: 12-4 AM

15. Who are the main vehicle users of Thamel’s streets: rate on a scale of 1-5. Where ‘1’ is the vehicle-

owning category using the streets the most and ‘5’ the category that uses the streets the least.

Rank Statements Local residents Hotels/Restaurants Other businesses besides hotels/restaurants Kathmandu dwellers wanting to get to destinations in Thamel Kathmandu dwellers community through Thamel to get to other places

16. Please pick two options from the following list to indicate the top two types of vehicles that pose the

greatest danger to pedestrians? (Choose two options out of the five)

Choose () Statements Motorbikes Taxis Public modes of transport such as buses Privately owned vehicles Others:………………………. (Please specify)

Section - C: Pedestrian Zone specific questions 17. Do you think it is necessary to make a pedestrian zone in Thamel? (a)Yes (b)No

18. Would you support a No-vehicle zone in Thamel? (a) Yes (b) No (c) Indifferent

Page | 50

 

19. In order to make Thamel more pedestrian friendly (either through a complete pedestrian-only zone or zone with restricted vehicular movement) what are critical infrastructural needs that should beaddressed: Rate the relevant importance of the following measures: 1-6. Where “1” is the most important and “6” the least.

Rank Statements

Parking lots in several locations in the vicinity Possible locations(Multiple choice): Lainchaur, Dhobichaur, basement of Sanchayakosh building, Others (specify locations:………….............................

Porters/carts/rickshaws to transport luggage for tourists or supplies for households and businesses in Thamel Policing agency that monitors compliance to rules on vehicular restriction Taxi and bus stands outside the Thamel periphery Diversion of traffic going through Thamel to other locations

20. Please rank the following stakeholders with respect to the benefits pertaining to Thamel’s creation of

a vehicle-restricted zone.“1” is the group enjoying highest benefits and “5” the least.

Rank Stakeholders Tourists Local residents Hotels Restaurants and other business establishments Others……………………..(Specify)

21. Please rank the following stakeholders with respect to the costs pertaining to Thamel’s creation of a

vehicle-restricted zone.“1” is the group incurring the highest costs and “5” the least. Rank Stakeholders Tourists Local residents Hotels Restaurants and other business establishments Others……………………..(Specify)

22. Please rate from 1-5, your preference for the following (possible) interventions that may help make

Thamel more pedestrian-friendly. ‘1’ signifies top preference and ‘5’ the least. Rank Statements Make Thamel a complete pedestrian-only zone Make Thamel largely pedestrian-only allowing small vehicles to enterduring

the afternoon (12 - 2 PM) and at night between 10 PM - 6 AM Allowing vehicular access only to those (residents & businesses)

withvehicular entry permits Allowing access only to rickshaws Allowing access only to rickshaws

23. If Thamel were to be made a pedestrian zone, for which of the following times would it be appropriate

to ban entry for vehicles? (Choose only one option) Choose (�) Timings From 8 AM to 8 PM From 10 AM to 6 PM From 8 AM to 10 AM & From 4 PM - 8 PM From 4 PM to 9 PM

Page | 51

 

Other timings : _________________ (Please specify)

Comments, if any: _____________________

24. Are you willing to pay fees for using parking lots in the vicinity to make Thamel a better place? (1) Yes (2) No

24.1 Please identify parking fees that would be appropriate for different types of vehicles?

Choose ()

Fee/Hour Motorcycles Buses Car/Jeeps

NRs. 10

NRs. 20

NRs. 30

Other prescribed rate:

25. What are appropriate punishments for those that fail to comply with pedestrian-friendly measures?

Please select all those that apply. (a) Punishments (b) Monetary fines (c) Revoking of permits (d) Grounding of vehicles for certain time periods (e) Other (please specify): _________

26. What are possible costs and benefits for key stakeholders (local residents, tourists, businesses)

associated with the establishment of a pedestrian-friendly zone? Please rank the top 3 items from each list.

Costs

____ Inconvenience of having to walk to get to Thamel ____ Inconvenience of transport of essential goods – raw materials, drinking

water, luggage ____ Fees to be paid for parking lots ____ Inconvenience to vehicle-owning local residents and businesses

Benefits:

____ Improved air quality ____ Reduced vehicular noise pollution

____ Better accessibility to road side shops ____ Improved sales for businesses ____ Better distribution of revenues earned through tourism (porters, parking lot patrolling personnel, policing agents, etc)

____ Increased attractiveness of Thamel for local residents ____Tourists’ increased number of nights in a) Thamel b) Kathmandu, c) Nepal

Page | 52

 

____Increased attractiveness of Nepal as a tourist destination Section - D: Pedestrian zone and business specific questions 26. To what extent would restriction of vehicular movement in Thamel affect your business? Please select your answer from the following scale of 1 -5.

1 --It would have a positive impact on my business 2 --It would marginally improve my business 3 --It would not affect my business 4 --It would have a marginal negative effect on my business 5 --It would severely hamper my business

27. How many vehicle permits would your business require? _______(may be directly based on the number of vehicles used per day)

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS

Section - A: Introduction 1. Location (Bahal) :…………………………… 2. Age:………………. 3. Sex: Male / Female 4. No. of family members: 5. Occupation: (a) Employed (b) Unemployed

5.1 If employed, then in which sector? (1) Student (2) Private jobs (3) Government job (4) Private shops (5) Others…………………

6. Does anyone in your family own a vehicle? (a) Yes (b) No 6.1 If the answer is “No” please proceed to QUESTION 10 6.2 If yes, then please fill in the following information: 7. Please make a tally of the number of family members that use a vehicle for the relevant age groups.

(Multiple options) a) 16 – 20 ______ b) 21-25 _______ c) 26-30 _________ d) 31-35 ______ e) 36 and above ___________

8. Do you have parking space in your home? (a) Yes (b) No 8.1 If ‘No’, where do you normally park your vehicle(s)? Please select those that apply.

Cars/Jeeps Motorcycles e) Road side f) Public parking spots g) Municipality allotted spots h) Anywhere

e) Road side f) Public parking spots g) Municipality allotted spots h) Anywhere

9. Which hours do you require most vehicular movement? Priority ranking 1 – 6: where “1” denotes top priority and “6” denotes least)

Timing Peak season Off-season Early morning (5am – 9am)

Morning (9am – 12pm)

Afternoon (12pm – 4pm)

Evening (4pm – 8pm)

Page | 53

 

Night (8 – 12)

Late Night (12 – 4)

Section - B: Existing Situation 10. Do you think that traffic congestion is a problem in Thamel? (1) Yes (2) No

11. Please rate the existing level of traffic congestion in Thamel by selecting an option from the following:

(a) Getting worse every day (b) Moderate (c) Good (d) Very Good 12. Do you think air pollution is a problem in Thamel? (1) Yes (2) No

13. Please rate the existing level of air pollution in Thamel by selecting an option fromthe following:

(a) Getting worse every day (b) Moderate (c) Good (d) Very Good

14. Do you think noise pollution is a problem in Thamel? (a) Yes (b) No

15. Please rate the existing level of noise pollution in Thamel by selecting an option from the following: (a) Getting worse every day (b) Moderate (c) Good (d) Very Good

16. Please rate on a scale of 1-3 the volume of traffic in Thamel at three different times of the day for different seasons. Where “1” is highest volume of traffic and “3” the least:

Peak season Off- season

____ Early Morning: 5-9 AM ____ Morning: 9 AM-12PM ____ Afternoon: 12-4 PM ____ Late Afternoon/Evening: 4-8 PM ____ Evening/Night time: 8-12 PM ____ Late Night: 12-4 AM

____ Early Morning: 5-9 AM ____ Morning: 9AM-12 PM ____ Afternoon: 12-4 PM ____ Late Afternoon/Evening: 4-8 PM ____ Evening/Night time: 8-12 PM ____ Late Night: 12-4 AM

17. Who are the main vehicle users of Thamel’s streets: rate on a scale of 1-5. Where ‘1’ is the vehicle-

owning category using the streets the most and ‘5’ the category that uses the streets the least.

Rank Statements Local residents Hotels/Restaurants Other businesses besides hotels/restaurants Kathmandu dwellers wanting to get to destinations in Thamel Kathmandu dwellers community through Thamel to get to other places

Page | 54

 

18. Please pick two options from the following list to indicate the top two types of vehicles that pose the greatest danger to pedestrians? (Choose two options out of the five)

Choose (�) Statements Motorbikes Taxis Public modes of transport such as buses Privately owned vehicles Others:………………………. (Please specify)

Section - C: Pedestrian Zone specific questions 19. Do you think it is necessary to make a pedestrian zone in Thamel? (a)Yes (b)No

20. Would you support a No-vehicle zone in Thamel? (a) Yes (b) No (c) Indifferent 21. In order to make Thamel more pedestrian friendly (either through a complete pedestrian-only zone or

zone with restricted vehicular movement) what are critical infrastructural needs that should beaddressed: Rate the relevant importance of the following measures: 1-6. Where “1” is the most important and “6” the least.

Rank Statements

Parking lots in several locations in the vicinity Possible locations(Multiple choice): Lainchaur, Dhobichaur, basement of Sanchayakosh building, Others (specify locations:………….............................

Porters/carts/rickshaws to transport luggage for tourists or supplies for households and businesses in Thamel

Policing agency that monitors compliance to rules on vehicular restriction

Taxi and bus stands outside the Thamel periphery Diversion of traffic going through Thamel to other locations

22. Please rank the following stakeholders with respect to the benefits pertaining to Thamel’s creation of

a vehicle-restricted zone.“1” is the group enjoying highest benefits and “5” the least.

Rank Stakeholders Tourists Local residents Hotels Restaurants and other business establishments Others……………………..(Specify)

23. Please rank the following stakeholders with respect to the costs pertaining to Thamel’s creation of a

vehicle-restricted zone.“1” is the group incurring the highest costs and “5” the least.

Rank Stakeholders Tourists Local residents Hotels

Page | 55

 

Restaurants and other business establishments Others……………………..(Specify)

24. Please rate from 1-5, your preference for the following (possible) interventions that may help make Thamel more pedestrian-friendly. ‘1’ signifies top preference and ‘5’ the least.

Rank Statements Make Thamel a complete pedestrian-only zone Make Thamel largely pedestrian-only allowing small vehicles to enter during the afternoon (12 - 2 PM) and at night between 10 PM - 6 AM Allowing vehicular access only to those (residents & businesses) with vehicular entry permits Allowing access only to rickshaws Allowing access only to bicycles

25. If Thamel were to be made a pedestrian zone, for which of the following times would it be appropriate

to ban entry for vehicles? (Choose only one option) Choose (�) Timings From 8 AM to 8 PM From 10 AM to 6 PM From 8 AM to 10 AM & From 4 PM - 8 PM From 4 PM to 9 PM Other timings : _________________ (Please

specify) Comments, if any: _____________________ 26. Are you willing to pay fees for using parking lots in the vicinity to make Thamel a better place?

(1) Yes (2) No 26.1 Please identify parking fees that would be appropriate for different types of

vehicles?

Choose ()

Fee/Hour Motorcycles Buses Car/Jeeps

NRs. 10

NRs. 20

NRs. 30

Other prescribed rate:

27. What are appropriate punishments for those that fail to comply with pedestrian-friendly measures?

Please select all those that apply. (a) Punishments (b) Monetary fines (c) Revoking of permits (d) Grounding of vehicles for certain time periods (e) Other (please specify): _________

28. What are possible costs and benefits for key stakeholders (local residents, tourists, businesses)

associated with the establishment of a pedestrian-friendly zone? Please rank the top 3 items from each list.

Page | 56

 

Costs ____ Inconvenience of having to walk to get to Thamel ____ Inconvenience of transport of essential goods – raw materials, drinking

water, luggage ____ Fees to be paid for parking lots ____ Inconvenience to vehicle-owning local residents and businesses Benefits:

____ Improved air quality ____ Reduced vehicular noise pollution

____ Better accessibility to road side shops ____ Improved sales for businesses ____ Better distribution of revenues earned through tourism (porters, parking lot patrolling personnel, policing agents, etc)

____ Increased attractiveness of Thamel for local residents ____Tourists’ increased number of nights in a) Thamel b) Kathmandu, c) Nepal ____Increased attractiveness of Nepal as a tourist destination

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TOURISTS

Section - A: Introduction 1. Age:……........ 2. Sex: (a) Male (b) Female 3. Nationality:………………….. 4. What among these do you like about Thamel?

(a) Walking on the streets (b) Residential experience at thamel (c) Shopping and entertainment options (d) ______________________ (Please specify if any others)

5. What among these do you dislike about Thamel? Please check all those that apply.

(a) Air quality (b) Noise levels (c) Vehicular activity (d) ____________________ (Please specify if any others )

6. Do you think that traffic congestion is a problem in Thamel? (1) Yes (2) No

6.1 Which of the following options best represents your views on the level of traffic congestion in Thamel?

(a) It is getting worse by the day (b) Moderate (c) It is good (d) It is very good Additional comments:_______________________________________________

7. Do you think air pollution is a problem in Thamel? (1) Yes (2) No

7.1 Which of the following options best represents your views on the level of air pollution in Thamel? (a) It is getting worse by the day (b) Moderate (c) It is good (d) It is very good

Additional comments:_______________________________________________

8. Do you think noise pollution is a problem in Thamel? (1) Yes (2) No 8.1 Which of the following options best represents your views on the level of noise

pollution in Thamel? (a) It is getting worse by the day (b) Moderate (c) It is good (d) It is very good

Page | 57

 

Additional comments:_______________________________________________

9. Is there a need to make Thamel more pedestrian-friendly? (1) Yes (2) No

10. In order to create a more pedestrian friendly zone (either a complete pedestrian-only zone or a

zone with restricted vehicular movement) what are critical infrastructural needs that need to be addressed? Rate the relevant importance of the following measures from a scale of (1-5). Where ‘1’ represents top priority and ‘5’ least priority. Rank Statements

Parking lots in several locations in the vicinity Porters/carts/rickshaws to transport luggage for tourists or supplies for households and businesses in Thamel Policing agency that monitors compliance to rules on vehicular restriction Taxi stands outside the Thamel periphery Diversion of traffic going through Thamel to other locations

Any other suggestions/comments: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

29. Please rank the following stakeholders with respect to the benefits pertaining to Thamel’s creation of

a vehicle-restricted zone. “1” is the group enjoying highest benefits and “5” the least.

Rank Stakeholders Tourists Local residents Hotels Restaurants and other business establishments Others……………………..(Specify)

30. Please rank the following stakeholders with respect to the costs pertaining to Thamel’s creation of a

vehicle-restricted zone. “1” is the group incurring the highest costs and “5” the least.

Rank Stakeholders Tourists Local residents Hotels Restaurants and other business establishments Others……………………..(Specify)

31. Please rate from 1-5, your preference for the following (possible) interventions that may help make

Thamel more pedestrian-friendly. ‘1’ signifies top preference and ‘5’ the least. Rank Statements

Make Thamel a complete pedestrian-only zone Make Thamel largely pedestrian-only allowing small vehicles to enter during the afternoon (12 - 2 PM) and at night between 10 PM - 6 AM Allowing vehicular access only to those (residents & businesses) with vehicular entry permits Allowing access only to rickshaws Allowing access only to bicycles

Page | 58

 

Other suggestions/comments: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

32. What are possible costs and benefits for key stakeholders (local residents, tourists, businesses) associated with the establishment of a pedestrian-friendly zone?

Please rank the top 3 items from each list.

Costs ____ Inconvenience of having to walk to get to Thamel ____ Inconvenience of transport of essential goods – raw materials, drinking

water, luggage ____ Fees to be paid for parking lots ____ Inconvenience to vehicle-owning local residents and businesses Benefits: ____ Improved air quality ____ Reduced vehicular noise pollution

____ Better accessibility to road side shops ____ Improved sales for businesses ____ Better distribution of revenues earned through tourism (porters, parking lot patrolling personnel, policing agents, etc)

____ Increased attractiveness of Thamel for local residents ____Tourists’ increased number of nights in a) Thamel b) Kathmandu, c) Nepal ____Increased attractiveness of Nepal as a tourist destination

Other suggestions/comments: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ANNEX - 2: PARKING FEE RELATED DETAILS

Parking is a major concern for local residents as well as businesses, and an immediate issue of consideration if pedestrian only zone is to be implemented for long run. If good parking spaces are available outside Thamel, majority of respondents are also willing to pay parking fee. Nearly two-thirds of all respondents (local residents and businesses) were positive about paying parking fees. However, 20 percent of them said their decision would be based on the amount that will be prescribed.

Table

Furtheresidein busrelativreside Sincelocal rresidefees, who v

Figur

Additivariouparkinvehicare dibusineagreeimplem

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

 

e 1: willingnAll responde

ermore, lookents were asinesses (2%vely larger seents and bus

the percentresidents it sents. Since tparking syst

visit Thamel.

re 2: Parking

onally, stakeus types of vng fee of Rs

cles seem tovided – majoesses (43%)

e a levy of NRmenters to h

Yes 73%

No7%

98%

0%

97%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

NRs. 10

NR2

Moto

ness to pay ents

king at only lagainst payi%) said that tegment saidsinesses res

tage of peopseems pertinhe businesstem could be

g fees for d

eholders wevehicles, viz.s. 10 per hoo be an agreority of local) want to chaRs. 30. The have sufficie

%Depends …

% 2%

2

2% 1%

Rs. 20

NRs. 30

N

orcycle

parking feeLocal res

ocal residening parkingthey will not

d they would spectively).

ple uncertainnent to adops communitye only done

ifferent veh

re also inqu motorcycles

our for bikeseed and fea residents (5arge NRs. 2parking fee

ent resources

Yes 58%

No24%

6%

67%

31%

60%

NRs. 10

NRs. 20

Car

es sidents

nts view, arog fees. Less

be paying pwait and se

n about payinpt the systemy is more posfor the busin

hicles

ired on the as, car, delives, Rs. 20 fo

asible optio58%) want to0. For busesof sizable a

s to manage

Depends on

pa…

7%12%9%

19%

NRs. 30

NRs.10

D

Local resident

Bus

ound one-thpercentage

parking fees.ee (18% and

ng parking fem of vehicle psitive towardness commu

amount to beery man andr cars, and n. For deliveo charge NRs, majority omount will e

e the parking

Yes 76%

38%

50%

%

43%38

NRs. 20

NR30

Delivery van

ts Business

Pag

sinesses

hird of the loof responde

. Also, a 22% for loc

ees is high fpermits for lo

ds paying paunity and oth

e charged od buses. TheRs. 30 for l

ery van peopRs. 30 whilstof stakeholdeenable g facilities.  

No2%

Depends on p…

4%

36%8%

10%

Rs. 0

NRs. 10

N2

B

s

e | 59

ocal ents

cal

for ocal rking

hers

n e arge ple t ers

%

60%

27%

63%

Rs. 20

NRs. 30

Bus