basicGuidelinesonPedestrianFacilities

Nota Teknik (Jalan) 18/97

Basic Guidelines on Pedestrian Facilities

m .0 7

m .0 5

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY

Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities

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

Cawangan Jalan, Ibu Pejabat JKR, K.L

Page 1



PROVIDING FOR PEDESTRIANS

Existing Facilities For Pedestrians Crossing Roads The current facilities provided in Malaysia to assist pedestrians in crossing busy roads include:     

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

In respect to pedestrian bridges and subways, there is strong evidence that the majority of those which have been built across non-expressway routes have poor utilisation. For example a study of 10 pedestrian bridges in and around Kuantan Pahang, showed utilisation at some sites was less than 10 %. although at few sites utilisation was higher than 80%. A similar study of a Pedestrian Subway under Jalan SS l 64 (in the Bandar Utama area) had less than 20% utilisation. In respect to 'Zebra' type pedestrian crossings, there is considerable confusion about the obligations of vehicle drivers and pedestrians at this type of crossing. There is generally poor observance of the `give -way' obligation by vehicle drivers when pedestrians enter the crossing and there appears,to be little or no enforcement of this obligation by the police. In respect to signalised pedestrian crossings, while these offer a higher degree of safety for pedestrians, they are often not adopted on Federal Routes because (it is argued) it would interrupt the "free flow" of traffic on these routes. School Children's Crossings have been marked in various ways in different areas of Malaysia and none of them have any legal or regulatory backing. This poses a serious legal problem for road authorities such as JKR in the event of any Cawangan Jalan, Ibu Pejabat JKR, K.L

court action which may arise out of an accident at such sites. At many signalised intersections, a combination of `white and black' Zebra crossing markings have been installed in direct contradiction of the current Road Traffic Rules. These pose considerable risk to pedestrians because of the confusion between pedestrians and vehicle drivers as to who has `right of way'. Quite recently, `Yellow and Black' Zebra crossing markings have been introduced in conjunction with traffic signals. These are equally confusing to pedestrians and motorists. The provisions for pedestrians to walk along roads varies greatly even in urban and `built-up' areas. In town and city centres, footpaths are generally provided as part of building (shop) development, but in many cases these are severely obstructed by business activity, street furniture, motorcycle parking and even vehicle parking. In addition to this, most footpaths are ùnfriendly' to pedestrians particularly the elderly and those who are `disabled'. The cutting of the footpath at driveways, the excessive height of the kerbs, the lack of `ramps' at intersections and driveways, the common use of steps instead of ramps to cater for changes in level and the common presence of deep uncovered (and often smelly) drains, is a significant discouragement to pedestrians using the footpath and as a result even where footpaths are provided pedestrians find it more convenient to walk along the roadway.

Guidelines On Facilities For Pedestrians To Cross Roads It is universally accepted that pedestrians need to be provided with safe and convenient facilities, to cross busy roads. The choice of type of treatment is not always clear cut and may be influenced by economics and other factors.

Page 2



General Factors To Be Considered: The provision of pedestrian facilities at a particular site needs to take into account factors such as: 









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

Consideration of these factors in most developed countries has resulted in a range of different types of treatments to meet the needs of pedestrians at a variety of sites and local conditions in the most cost effective way. The selection of the most appropriate treatment is often a matter of judgement, but this is assisted by the development of, and use of, warrants and guides which are aimed at achieving uniformity in dealing with similar conditions and ensuring cost effective treatments. The ability of pedestrians to cross roads 'atgrade' anywhere is very dependent on traffic volume (or `flow rate') and traffic speed. As traffic flow rate increases, the availability of `gaps', sufficient for pedestrians to cross the road safely between vehicle arrivals at the site, decreases and pedestrians are delayed. At high traffic flow rates pedestrian delays can become very large and in some cases impatient pedestrians may make risky crossings in short gaps in the traffic flow. This situation invariably results in the occurrence of traffic accidents involving pedestrians. In this situation the ability of pedestrians to cross can be enhanced by measures such as: 

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






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

The Importance Of Speed Control In respect to traffic speed, this is closely related to the class of road, the road alignment and the nature of the locality. With the exception of expressways, where at-grade crossings are not acceptable, reducing traffic speed in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing, on all other classes of road will greatly enhance pedestrian safety, both for crossing roads and for walking along roads. However speed control, particularly on high standard arterial roads is not easy to achieve. The imposition of unreasonably low speed limits, which require continual `heavy' enforcement by police, is rarely if ever effective. However, the setting of realistic speed limits (even if they are higher than may be desired for pedestrian safety), is desirable as this tends to reduce the variability of vehicle speeds. The use of `Speed Humps' and other `vertical displacement' devices are not favoured on àrterial' roads because of the severe effect these have on heavy trucks and busses, but they are applicable and quite effective on `collector' and `local streets' in urban areas. Thus `Speed Humps' and `raised platform' areas, which may be used in conjunction with other `Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) Devices and `Traffic Calming' techniques can also be used in combination with pedestrian crossing facilities at appropriate locations.

Types Of Pedestrian Crossing Facilities Pedestrian crossing facilities can be categorised into three distinct types as follows: Page 3


  

Uncontrolled Crossings Controlled Crossings Grade Separated Crossings




Guidelines for the selection and use of these types of pedestrian crossings follow: A. Uncontrolled Crossings:

Uncontrolled crossing tend to occur by default at any location where pedestrians find it convenient to cross a road. They become more formal where pedestrian movements are concentrated such as at intersections, near bus stops etc. In general these uncontrolled crossings are simply provided with nothing more than ramps at kerblines to bring the footpath down to explicit warrants are not necessary. Where the number of pedestrians wishing to cross a road is significant and where the traffic flows are high, to the extent that pedestrians have difficulty finding a `safe gap' in traffic (eg on a two-way road), the provision of a pedestrian refuge island may be justified. No numeric warrants have been adopted for the provision of refuge islands and each case should be treated on its merits taking into account the volume of traffic, the number of pedestrians, the type of pedestrians (eg children, elderly) , the speed of traffic, the sight distance available etc. B. Controlled Crossings:

At some sites with high traffic flow rates, the above ùn-controlled crossing' treatments may not provide adequate safety, or capacity (for heavy pedestrian demands), and some form of "Spacial (Grade) Separation" or some form of "Time Separation" of the pedestrian - vehicle conflict is necessary.



C. Grade Separated Pedestrian Crossings:

Grade separated pedestrian crossings by means of pedestrian over-bridges or subways potentially offer pedestrians with the safest means of crossing busy roads, however the required bridge or subway construction is very expensive and these facilities are often poorly utilised unless extensive fencing is used to deter pedestrians from walking directly across the roadway. Where pedestrians need to cross expressway (freeway, motorway) type roads, other than at interchanges provided for vehicular traffic, grade-separated crossings are essential. They should only be used on other types of roads where conditions particularly favour this solution and a high degree of utilisation can be assured. The following are some of the factors which have been found to be associated with low utilisation of pedestrian bridges or underpasses: 

`Time Separation' treatments, which are the most common form of pedestrian crossing facility, include the following: 



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


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



Low traffic flows, to the degree that pedestrians have little difficulty in finding a safe gap in the traffic flow to cross the road; The proximity to traffic signals. The interruption of traffic flow by traffic signals at a nearby intersection, usually provides pedestrians with an acceptable opportunity to cross a road. Any traffic signal within approximately 300 m of a pedestrian crossing site is likely to have a significant influence on the utiliPage 4






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

Warrants And Layout Guidelines Consideration of the various factors relevant to the choice of the appropriate type of pedestrian crossing leads to the presentation of a range of different types of facilities to suit various classes of road and different road environment situations. Most of the `well proven' techniques and devices are currently being used in Malaysia, but the main problem is that particular treatments are often used at inappropriate locations and the geometric design, traffic signing and roadmarking vary greatly from site to site. Guidelines for the selection of the most appropriate type of treatment are provided in Figure 1. The desirable general layout etc for various types of pedestrian crossing facilities are illustrated in Figures 2 to 7. In the absence of quantitative and other guidelines specifically developed for Malaysian conditions, it is suggested that those presented in the AUSTROADS (Australia) Guide To Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 13 - Pedestrians, (derived from Australian Standard AS 1742. 10), be adopted as Ìnterim Guidelines' until such time as experience in practice indicates any necessary changes to better suit Malaysian conditions. These are attached as Appendix A of this report.

Provisions For Pedestrians At Signalised Intersections At intersections where traffic signals are installed to control conflicting traffic movements, the provision of special signal heads


Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities (faces) and signal phases to assist pedestrians to cross safely can be incorporated at little additional cost. In general, at important intersections within cities and towns. there will usually be sufficient pedestrian movements to justify the provision of pedestrian facilities, not withstanding this, some guidelines / warrants for such provisions are included in Appendix A. The type of pavement marking to be used to indicate the pedestrian crossing at signalised intersections is similar to that used at signalised pedestrian crossings away from intersections ie, conventional signalised pedestrian crossings as illustrated in Figure 5. These consist of white transverse lines marked across the carriageway the width between which may vary from a minimum of 2.5m (for low pedestrian flows) to 4 m (for high pedestrian flows). Note that Zebra type markings must not be placed across the main carriageways at signalised intersections. The pedestrian phases at signalised intersections are usually incorporated into the signal cycle in parallel with non-conflicting, or the least conflicting traffic movements. It is generally accepted that conflicts between left turning traffic is acceptable except where high speed `slip' road with 2 or more traffic lanes are provided. At signalised intersections with significant pedestrian movements, `Zebra' type pedestrian crossings may be installed across any separate left turn `slip' road, but never in conjunction with a signalised left turn `slip' road. It is also generally acceptable to allow the conflict between right turn vehicular traffic and pedestrians crossing the roadway into which the right turners are entering, except where this traffic movement is proceeding on a green arrow signal.

Guidelines For Providing Facilities For Pedestrians To walk Along Roads: There are few places on the road system where no provision needs to be made for pedestrians to walk along a road, and in view of the vulnerability of pedestrians in any conflict with vehicles (including motorcycles) some form of segregation is desirable. However where the intensity of

Page 5


land use and thus pedestrian movements are low , such as in most rural areas, the road shoulder can adequately provide space for people to walk clear of vehicular traffic. While no numeric warrants are given for the provision of footpaths along roads, they are generally considered necessary in all "built-up" areas and may also be necessary at some rural locations such as in the vicinity of schools, mosques or other community facilities where pedestrians are likely to be concentrated. In some city and town situations, on 'local street' class of roads, where there may be very high pedestrian activity, the roadway itself. These situations in which vehicles and pedestrians share the road carriageway require specific traffic rules which give pedestrians equal priority to vehicles together with special traffic management arrangements, including a maximum speed limit of 25 km/h or less, to reduce the degree of threat to pedestrians posed by vehicular traffic. In some countries these are referred to as "Shared Zones".

Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities 

Manhole covers and gratings, if they cannot be avoided, should be kept flush with the footpath surface and any drains close to the footpath, which could pose a danger to pedestrians, should be covered.



Clearance of at least 1.0 m should be provided between the traffic lanes and the footpath. This clearance, which should be greater where traffic volume and, or speed are high, increases the safety of pedestrians, and reduces the inconvenience / annoyance caused by the splash from vehicle tires in wet weather.



Where differences in level are catered for by a ramp instead of or in addition to steps, the gradient should not be steeper than 1 in 10. Where long ramps are involved, such as at pedestrian bridges, gradients of 1 in 20 to 1 in 33 should be provided.

Where footpaths are provided. consideration should always be given to the needs of elderly people and people with disabilities. The design should incorporate the following characteristics aimed at making them 'user friendly' for all classes of pedestrians: 

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

Adequate width should be provided. This may vary from an absolute minimum of 0.9 m to 2.4 m or wider in shopping and other high pedestrian activity areas.



A height clearance of at least 2.0 m should be provided.



The pathway should not be obstructed by posts, poles, traffic signs, trees and other street furniture. Neither should they be allowed to be obstructed by adjacent business activity or parked vehicles, or unreasonably obstructed by motorcycles and bicycles. Any obstacle close to the pathway which could endanger pedestrians, particularly people with impaired vision, should be well delineated.


Changes in level along and beside the foot path should be minimised. Where it is not possible to avoid steps, particular care needs to be taken to properly identify them so that they can be seen, especially by people with impaired vision.

In general driveways should not `cut' the footpath but should be ramped up or down from roadway level to meet the footpath level. The need for pedestrians to step down to the driveway level and back up to footpath level at each driveway is a major discouragement to pedestrians using the footpath. In addition. pedestrians should be given `right of way' (priority) over vehicular traffic where drive ways cross the footpath. This pedestrian priority is greatly enhanced if vehicular traffic is ramped up to footpath level. 

Footpath surfaces should be firm. even. smooth and skid resistant, especially in wet

Page 6


conditions.

Conclusion Pedestrian movement forms part of almost every trip made on the road system and thus Pedestrians form an important component of the traffic sN-stem. The vulnerability of pedestrians. when they must operate amongst vehicular traffic, is amply emphasised by the high number of traffic accident casualties involving pedestrians. The lack of proper provisions for pedestrians to cross roads or to walk along roads safely is a major contributing factor to the high number of pedestrian casualties on Malaysian roads. Consideration of the specific needs of pedestri-


Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities ans must be made an essential part of the planning. design. construction. maintenance and operation of every road or road project. These guidelines should be used as a means of achieving better and more consistent standards and practices in relation to creating a more ùser friendly' and safer road environment for pedestrians.

Page 7




Page 8




Page 9




Page 10




Page 11



Appendix A

W A R RA N T S / GU I D EL I N E S F OR T H E I N S TA L L A T I O N O F P E DE S T RI A N C RO SS I N G FACILITIES. Based On AUSTROADS Guide To Traffic Engineering Practice Part 13 - Pedestrians, (1995). (In the following warranting criteria, P is the number of Pedestrians per hour and, ' V is the volume of vehicular traffic in the same hour.)

Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings: No specific warrants have been adopted for uncontrolled crossings, but they can be used at quite high traffic flows on arterial roads (but Not on Expressways), particularly where traffic flow is `bunched' due to nearby traffic signals. Each case should be treated on its merits, considering factors such as: the width of road to be crossed, whether it is operating one-way or two-way, the number of pedestrians, the traffic flow rate, the speed of traffic, sight distance available etc. Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings are often combined with Local Area Traffic Management Devices and `Traffic Calming' Techniques.

Pedestrian, (`Zebra') Crossings: 'Zebra' type pedestrian crossings are appropriate, in the situations indicated in Figure 1, where the general traffic speed as indicated by the 85th percentile traffic speed, is less than 70 km/h, subject to the following criteria being met: The number of pedestrian (wishing to cross the road), P is at least 60 persons per hour,, the total volume of vehicular traffic on the road at the site, V is greater than 600 vph. for at least 2 separate one-hour periods of a typical week day, and the Product PxV > 90,000.  The width to be crossed by pedestrians in one `stage' is not more than Four (4) traffic lanes, ie. a carriageway of not more than 15 m wide.  The visibility is adequate, both in respect to vehicle drivers being able to see the crossing and pedestrians about to step onto the crossing, and the pedestrians being able to see the vehicles approaching the crossing. In this 


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

School Children's Crossings. School children's crossings may be installed at any location as indicated in Figure 1, where children need to cross a road on a regular basis. Subject to firm arrangements being made for the Children's Crossing Flags to be placed ( or the flashing lights to be switched on) during the appropriate periods of the day when children are expected to be crossing the road, and for the flags to be removed (or the flashing lights switched off) outside the crossing periods. This arrangement often includes the provision of a properly authorised, ìnstructed' and uniformed `Crossing Supervisor', whose role is to operate the crossing equipment and conduct the children safely across the road.

Signalised Pedestrian Crossing: A signalised pedestrian crossing may be installed where any one of the following criteria are met: Where, P > 350 pph for each of three (3)  one-hour periods of an average day, or, where, P > 175pph for each of any eight (8) one-hour periods and : where there is no central median or  pedestrian refuge island provided, the vehicular traffic flow, V > 600 vph (sum of both directions) in the same hours.  where there is a central median or pedestrian refuge island, the vehicu Page 12


lar traffic flow, V > 1000 vph (sum of both directions) in the same hours. Subject to there being no other pedestrian crossing (including a grade separated crossing within a reasonable distance (say 200m) of the site. A signalised pedestrian crossing may be placed instead of a school Children's Crossing where: where P> 50pph for each of two (2)  one-hour periods and V > 600 vph. and, the product of PxV > 40,000.   A signalised pedestrian crossing may be justified at any location on an Arterial road where the above warrants for a Pedestrian (Zebra) Crossing are met, but at which it would not be appropriate to install a Zebra type crossing due to the high speed of traffic or where the carriageway is wider than 15m, or where there is a continuous high flow of pedestrians which would cause excessive delay to vehicular traffic at a Zebra type crossing. A signalised pedestrian crossing may be  justified to replace an existing pedestrian (Zebra) crossing where the has been two or more pedestrian involved accidents, of a type which may be corrected by the installation of traffic signals, in the last three (3) years.  A signalised pedestrian crossing may be installed instead of a Pedestrian (Zebra) Crossing where the site is within a `coordinated (linked)' traffic signal system , or close to signalised intersection or a railway level crossing, where there is a dan ger of vehicles 

Grade Separated Pedestrian Crossings:

Grade separated crossings are very costly and experience shows that they are generally poorly utilised. They are however essential wherever pedestrians need to cross and Èxpressway' (or Freeway) route.

Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities and each case should be treated on its merits, the following general guides should be considered. Low utilisation can be expected at sites where: Traffic flow on the carriageway to be  crossed is less than about 700 vph during the period when most pedestrians need to cross the road. The site is within 250 m of a signalised  intersection. The site is not conveniently located for  the pedestrian movements in the vicinity. Good utilisation is usually achieved 



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

Providing Pedestrian Signals At Signalised Intersections:

Pedestrian signal heads and 'push button' equipment should be incorporated as a general practice into all intersection and interchange signals in urban areas. Where there is doubt about the justification of the increased cost of providing the pedestrian equipment on some or all approaches to a signalised intersection. this provision is usually considered to be justified where the following criteria is met: 

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

While no specific warrants have been adopted for grade separated pedestrian crossings, Cawangan Jalan, Ibu Pejabat JKR, K.L

Page 13

basicGuidelinesonPedestrianFacilities

Recommend Documents