Volume 40 Number 1 January - March 2016

Book Packet containing Printed, Published and Edited by Shri Rajkumar Malajure, Editor on behalf of Association of State Road Transport Undertakings, ASRTU Bhawan,
Periodicals Plot No. 4-A, PSP Block, Pocket 14, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110 077, published from Central Institute of Road Transport (T&R), Bhosari,
RNI No. 11604/66 Pune 411026 and Printed from XL Images, Sr. No. 411/1, Plot No. 11, Jc. Satish Agarwal Marg, Opp. Alfa Laval, Dapodi, Pune 411012. Published by Central Institute of Road Transport
 Indian Journal of
Vol. 40 No. 1
January - March 2016
Transport
ISSN 0972–5695
Management
Regn. No 11604/66

CONTENTS

EDITORIAL ........................... 3

Priyanka Das & Soumen Mitra

EVALUATING WALKABILITY IN JALUKBARI-
MALIGAON AREA, GUWAHATI CITY, ASSAM ........................... 4

H. N. Patil
PRICING OF A PUBLIC BUS SERVICE ON CONTRACT ......................... 25
- A RATIONAL APPROACH

P.K. Pandey
INSURANCE OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN INDIA : ......................... 38
LAWS, POLICIES AND PRACTICE

LIST OF STATE TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS ......................... 62

INDEX TO THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT ......................... 68

MANAGEMENT, Vol. 39, January to December 2015
Indian Journal of Transport Management 4

EVALUATING WALKABILITY IN JALUKBARI-

MALIGAON AREA, GUWAHATI CITY, ASSAM
PRIYANKA DAS & Dr. SOUMEN MITRA *

ABSTRACT

Currently rapid urbanisation and motorisation

in India have severely affected the safety and
mobility of pedestrians, who constitute the major
share among all transport modes. Limited road
space, unplanned vehicular movement, uncontrolled
traffic management and rapid change in land use
have led to worsening of conditions for pedestrians.
In many Indian cities, comfort of pedestrian
movement has been seized due to street fatalities,
dense footfalls, increasing probability of accidents,
unorganised on-street parking, lack of appropriate
Priyanka Das street infrastructure and inexistence of road
signalling. There are different tools for measuring
situation of walkability, but, it is yet to be customised
for most of the Indian cities due to unavailability of
time-series data. In this article, the authors have
tried to recast the concept of Walkability Index for
applying it in Jalukbari-Maligaon area, one of the
busiest activity centres of Guwahati city in Assam.
The theoretical construct has been validated through
available data and limited primary survey, and, it
proves to be efficient for application in context of
reality.
Dr. Soumen Mitra
Key Words: Walkability Index, Analytical Hierarchy
Process, Scoring, Scaling, Pedestrian
Level of Service, Jalukbari-Maligaon,
Guwahati.

* Ms. Priyanka Das is a Master’s Student of Urban and Regional Planning, Department of Architecture Town and
Regional Planning, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur and Dr. Soumen Mitra is an
Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture Town and Regional Planning, Indian Institute of Engineering Science
and Technology, Shibpur.
January - March 2016 5

INTRODUCTION

Since ancient civilizations, walking is the primary mode for commuting and social gathering
regardless of age, sex, ethnic group, education or income level (Saelens et. al., 2003). Even today,
pedestrians share largest proportion in modal split on roads as sole-trips or walk links to public
transport (Litman, 2014). Dan Burden (1996) indicates the importance of protecting pedestrian
environment as it affects the commuters’ feeling of safety, comfort and convenience. Recent
investigations explore multifaceted effectiveness of walking in terms of greener environment,
sociability among citizens in a neighbourhood and reduced expenditure for travel (Bhattacharya
and Mitra, 2013).

But in India, rapid urbanisation and motorisation have severely affected pedestrian
environment which goes away from the slogan of ‘people-centric’ development for a city
(Barman, 2010). The uncontrollable growth of vehicle-population in Indian cities (Ministry of
Road Transport & Highways, 2013), construction of flyovers and unregulated road crossings
have shredded off ‘walking’ resulting in increasing street fatalities, choking of street mobility
and degrading liveability (Rankavat et. al., 2013). The situation welcomes long-term penalties
in terms of high socio-economic costs, draining of unnecessary energies and environmental
degradation (Balsas, 2002; Nohria, 2014). The transport planners and decision makers are
religiously in search of improving walkability to achieve acceptable liveability and sustenance in
urban areas. In Indian cities, planning for improved walking environment should be a priority
due to following reasons :-

a) most of the cities, being originated organically, have limited road spaces for
accommodating larger vehicles and on-street parking

b) mixed land-use produces shorter trip lengths which encourages walking and cycling

c) low car ownership in India is in favour of walking and public transport

d) lack of pedestrian infrastructure and rapid change in land use expedites street
fatalities

e) abuse of city’s image due to faulty traffic planning.

National Urban Transport Policy (2014) has thoughtfully focused on improving

infrastructure for pedestrians. In current decade, many cities like Stockholm, Islamabad,
Copenhagen, Singapore, Abu Dhabi and Boston have taken serious initiatives for being walkable.
Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD), India and Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia)
Centre has taken initiatives for measuring walkability conditions in Indian cities. Both of them
have observed that the average walking situation in Indian cities is much below the acceptable
average condition. MoUD considered 30 cities of variable population including Guwahati
city, a major access node for north-eastern states of India. The study reveals the walkability
score of Guwahati as 0.39 while the average value being 0.54 and the highest value as 0.92
in Chandigarh. Such poor result of Guwahati has boosted up the authors to investigate the
underlying causes of such unacceptable walking conditions in the city. Jalukbari to Maligaon,
the busiest area of Guwahati city, has been selected as a study area for evaluating the situation
in depth. The aim of the study is to customise and apply the evaluation technique of walkability
that suits the study area and make the outline for improvement.
Indian Journal of Transport Management 6

LITERATURE REVIEW

Defining ‘Walkability’

‘Walkability’, a term originated almost a decade back, is a measure of how friendly an

area is to walking. As an upcoming and urgent topic of discussion, theorisation, planning and
implementation, several researchers have defined ‘walkability’. Some of the explanations are –
(a) walkability is the extent to which the built environment supports and encourages walking
by providing for pedestrian comfort and safety (Michael Southworth, 2005), (b) Walkability
in its most basic sense is “…the safety, security, economy and convenience of travelling by
foot” (Crambeck, 2006), (c) “…built environment is friendly to the presence of people living,
shopping, visiting, enjoying or spending time in an area (Abley, 2005) and, (d) A highly walkable
environment invites walking by means of a richly connected path network that provides access
to the everyday places people want to go. It is safe and comfortable with streets that are easy
to cross for people of varied ages and degrees of mobility. Spaces are attractive with street trees
or other landscape elements. The pedestrian network links seamlessly, without interruptions
and hazards with other transit modes such as bus, train or subway minimising automobile
dependence. It supports walking for utilitarian purposes such as shopping or the journey to
work as well as for pleasure, recreation and health” (Wikipedia, 2015). However, in true sense
walkability is the planning of pedestrian level of service for a safe, convenient and liveable
urban area.

Constraints of Walking

To promote walkable environment in cities, a few relevant aspects must be kept in

consideration. The average speed of a physically fit adult is 4-5 km/hour and due to limitations
in animate energy, the maximum range of average distance of walking is observed as 500-800 m.
The walking speed usually is reduced in change of elevation in roads. The propensity for walking
is reduced considerably by adverse weather, whether it is rain, snow or broiling sun. There will
be difference in preference of walking if the commuters carry considerable luggage. Therefore, the
measures of walkability near wholesale markets will have to be designed cautiously. Above all,
there must be sufficient arrangements of safety while walking because the absence of sidewalks
forces pedestrians to use the street or narrow shoulders and contributes to increased risk of
fatal or injury accidents.

Measuring and Evaluating Walkability

As per record, the need for sidewalk aroused from 200 BC. The first sidewalk was built
in Pompeii in 200 BC but the safety rules and laws for pedestrians in the Roman streets were
prevalent from 100 BC. The road width according to the law was fixed at a minimum distance
of 4.5 m with sidewalks provided on both sides (Babiano, 2005).

As reported by Gokhale and Telang (2013), initial evaluation method of walkability was
delineated by John Fruin (1971) by calculating sidewalk capacity as a measure of pedestrian
level of service (PLOS) in New York City. The evaluation was done based on speed-density
relationship. During 1974, Lautso and Murole added environmental factors and applied the
model at Helsinki. During 1985, the concept of PLOS was appropriately included in Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM), USA, where the service was classified in six grades - LOS A to F, A
being the best. Four parameters were included to find out LOS – per capita space on road, flow
rate, speed and volume/capacity ratio. Singh and Jain (2011) reported that concept of PLOS as
January - March 2016 7

per HCM was accepted, customised and applied by many researchers afterwards. Dixon (1996)
developed a point scale ranging 1-21 to express the LOS as A to F. He considered six variables
– pedestrian facility (10 points), conflicts (10), Amenities (2), motor vehicle LOS (2), maintenance
(2), TDM (1). The points indicate a default weightage on pedestrian facility and conflicts. Dixon
applied the method in Florida. During 2001, Nicole Gallin developed a methodology for assessing
PLOS based on three broad attributes – design factors (path width, surface quality, crossing
opportunities etc.), location factors (connectivity, path environment, conflicts etc.) and user
factors (pedestrian volume, mix of path users, personal security etc.). He applied the method
in Australia. In 2007, Tan Dandan developed the six-graded LOS through survey-generated
regression considering factors like pedestrians’ subjective perceptions, physical facilities and
traffic flow operation. J.S. Underlein (2007) developed a satisfaction rating in six-grades. He
used logistic regression by expressing the utility function of PLOS.

Simultaneously, some qualitative methods for assessing PLOS were evolved. During 1993,
Sarkar proposed a qualitative method to assess PLOS based on six attributes – safety, security,
convenience, comfort, continuity, system coherence and attractiveness. In the same tune, Khisty
(1994) developed a point-scale method to quantify the attributes. A qualitative scale method was
proposed by Miller et. al. (2000). Muraleetharan (2004) used conjoint technique to assess PLOS.

During 2006, Holly Krambeck developed a method to study the walkability scenario of
different cities in Asian countries. He developed ‘Global Walkability Index’ (GWI) based on
three broad components: safety, security, infrastructure and policy support, and, subdivided
into nine attributes – walking path modal conflict, availability of walking paths and crossings,
grade crossing safety, motorist behaviour, amenities, disability infrastructure, obstructions
and security from crime. As a whole, the method considered essential parameters of physical,
environmental and behavioural aspects. The index was formulated based on a 5-point scaling
for all attributes, which gives perceivable values to judge the scenario. The Clean Air Initiative
for Asian Cities Centre (CAI-Asia), established by the Asian Development Bank, World Bank,
and the United States conducted pilot walkability survey using GWI method in nine Asian
countries including India. Afterwards, the concept of Walkability generated various methods
like walkscore, walkonometrics and walkability app to assess the walking conditions in nodes,
crossings and links. After Crambeck, Frank et. al. (2010) developed walkability index based
on six parameters - Residential Density, Diversity-Entropy Index, Connectivity, Proximity,
Environmental Friendliness, Commercial Density (Floor Area Ratio). Based on the theory,
Agamapatian (2014) developed a GIS (Geographic Information System) model in his thesis.
Dobesova (2012) developed four indices - Connectivity index, Entropy index, FAR index and
Household density index to measure walkability in Olomouc city.

It may be noted that the walkability index developed by MoUD in 2008 was the first
method that was applied in 30 cities of India. The index was valued through a simplified
1
weighted score . Though simple, the methodology primarily lacks heterogeneity, conflicts among
pedestrians and vehicles, density of footfall, flow-rate and impact of land use. Afterwards, a
set of researchers applied the method in different cities of Asia. For example, Luadsakul (2013)
studied a city of Thailand and observed low indices in the city. Yusuf (2015) compared GWI
and ASIA Index and evaluated in Murree, Pakistan. In spite of few limitations, GWI has been
accepted in Indian cities due to its easy applicability and peoples’ participation.

1 Index = w *p + w *p , where w and w are parametric weights (considered as 50%), p is the availability
1 1 2 2 1 2 1
of footpath (ratio of footpath length and length of major roads), p2 is the pedestrian facility rating (score
estimated based on peoples’ opinion).
Indian Journal of Transport Management 8

STUDY AREA

Overview

Guwahati, the only metropolitan city of Assam, is the gateway to north-eastern states of
India and acts as the main hub for commercial, educational, trade and industrial activities. The
city attracts lots of commuters and tourists from a large hinterland. Maligaon-Jalukbari (26°
09’ 27” N and 91° 41’ E) is a small portion located at the western part of Guwahati on southern
bank of river Brahmaputra. The area lies on two sides of 7.1 km long east-west corridor along
National Highway (NH) 37 and Assam Trunk Road, and is considered as the busiest activity
zone in Guwahati city. The zone is characterised by undulating plain, frequently flooded by the
river and hot-humid climate with moderate seasonal rainfall. It comprises of 9 wards (1-9) out
of 100 wards covering only 8% of city area and around 10% of total population in Guwahati
(9.63 Lakh in 2011).

Historically the area possesses religious significance for Kamakhya Temple which attracts
lakhs of pilgrims throughout the year. A few decades back, with the establishment of the north-
eastern frontier railway headquarter, there started a rapid change in land use with upcoming
residential areas for railways and near Kamakhya. To satisfy the need of such growing population
various commercial, educational institutions also developed. Currently, the major landmarks of
the area are – Kamakhya Temple, Gauhati University, Assam Engineering College, Government
Ayurvedic College, Pandu Port Area and Kamakhya Railway Station (Figure-1). Maligaon, the
eastern part of the corridor, is characterised by dense and older settlements, railway stations
and quarters, retail and wholesale markets, flyovers and upcoming residential apartments, while
Jalukbari, the western part of the stretch accommodates mostly the educational centres. A vast
area in Jalukbari zone is occupied by residential settlements.

Transport Scenario

The zone has regional linkage through NH 31, 37 and Assam Trunk Road which attracts
lots of daily commuters from and outside Guwahati city. NH 37 and 31 connect the zone with
other major settlements of Assam like Rangia, Bongaigaon, Khetri, Dibrugarh, Tinsukia, Tezpur,
and, outer states like West Bengal, Bihar and Jharkhand in the west. The road network and
pattern of development in the area is almost linear along NH 37 in the west and Assam Trunk
Road in the east. Both the roads meet at Maligaon node. The node acts as a quadruple junction
containing an extension of NH 37 at south and NH 31 at north. Other than NH 31, 37 and
Assam Trunk Road, different areas of Jalukbari-Maligaon area are accessed by AEC Road, PNGB
Road, Pandu Port Road, G.S. Road, M.G. Road, G.N.B. Road and other local streets.

These roads are occupied by trucks, mass transits like local and regional buses, a number
of paratransits like autorickshaws and trekkers, cycle-rickshaws and cycle-carts, automated
two wheelers, cycles and pedestrians. Current population growth, job opportunities, commercial
activities and the regional routes have significantly increased the number of vehicles causing
discomfort to the pedestrians. Data exhibits a 150% increase in the number of two wheelers
and private vehicles from 2001-2007 (Comprehensive Mobility Plan, Guwahati city, 2008). Due
to encroachments, illegal constructions, spill over activities, absence of signalling, flyovers and
large quantity of on-street parking result congestion pockets in G.S Road, GNB Road, A.T.
Road and M. G. Road. Existence of large wholesale markets in Maligaon has resulted in chaos
in traffic, severe inconvenience and risk of pedestrians. Table-1 exhibits the current transport
scenario of Jalukbari-Maligaon as obtained from various sources like Mobility Improvement
Plan, Development Plan and survey.
January - March 2016 9

Table-1 : Transport Scenario of Jalukbari-Maligaon

Pandu
Jalukbari Maligaon NH NH A.T. AEC PNGB
Roads / Nodes Port
Node Node 37 31 Road Road Road
Road

Carriageway (m) - - 10 10 7.5 7 5 7

Traffic Movement - - 2-way 2-way 2-way 2-way 2-way 2-way

Prevalent Land Use * - - E, R R, C C, T R R, C I, C

Passenger Car Unit 3744 6359 3214 3746 3441 - - -

(PCU)

Peak Hour Vehicle 2543 5252 2000 2344 3060 - - -

Freight Movement Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - - Yes

Buses Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - -

Paratransit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Cycle-Rickshaws, Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Carts

Two Wheelers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

* Prevalent land use: Residential (R), Commercial (C), Industrial (I), Educational (E), Transport (T).
Source: Comprehensive Mobility Plan, Guwahati and Primary Survey.

Conditions of Pedestrians

None of the roads are well equipped with pedestrian infrastructure and safety for the
pedestrians. In most of the major roads, the traffic movement and pedestrians are not segregated
which produces high probabilities of fatalities, especially in crossing zones. With the increase in
traffic volume, the mean speed and running speed of the traffic stream on different roads varies
from 10 Kmph to 41 Kmph during different periods of the day (IIT, Guwahati Report, 2005). At
most of the sections, the running speed was found to be 20 Kmph. A survey on footfall in four
busy bus stops (boarding and alighting) was conducted in 2010 in the area during peak hours
(Tejaswi and Verma, 2010). The result indicates high concentration in Jalukbari (891/hr) and
mid-block of Maligaon (889/hr) in contrast with Adabari (716/hr) and Maligaon (526/hr). The
researcher explained that Jalukbari, being a node for several regional bus routes, attracts lots
of passengers from hinterland. In another study (Comprehensive Mobility Plan, Guwahati city,
2008), number of street fatalities were documented along NH 37 and A.T. Road. Surprisingly,
A.T. Road exhibits higher rate (45 numbers in 2014) of accidents while, NH 37 had 29. The
study also reveals a steady growth of accidents in consecutive three years for both the roads.
Indian Journal of Transport Management 10

Reconnaissance and Observations

To understand the current scenario, a reconnaissance survey was carried out in Jalukbari-
Maligaon area based on criteria like road character, traffic movement, on-street parking and a
limited primary survey on pedestrian movement. The survey was conducted both in Jalukbari
and Maligaon in 2015. The outcome of pedestrian survey is provided in Table-2. Snapshots
taken in Jalukbari-Maligaon are furnished in Figure-2.

Table-2 : Result of Pilot Survey in Jalukbari and Maligaon

Sr.
Description Jalukbari Maligaon
No.

1. Number of respondents 81 86

2. Range of age; average age 17-66; 39 18-73; 37

3. Range of distance travelled; average distance (km) 2.5-35; 8.25 1-30; 3.76

Percentage Percentage

4. Modal split Walk (only) 12.3 26.74

Two wheeler 13.6 30.23

Paratransit 39.5 32.56

Bus 30.9 10.47

Car 3.7 0.00

Percentage Percentage

5. Trip purpose Work 26 19

Educational 52 45

Recreation 13 23

Others 9 13

Source: Primary Survey.

January - March 2016 11

Figure-1 : Map of Jalukbari-Maligaon showing Transport Linkages and Major Landmarks

Figure- 2: Snapshots of Jalukbari-Maligaon

Jalukbari

Maligaon
Indian Journal of Transport Management 12

The survey indicates that proportion of pedestrians is more than double in Maligaon than
Jalukbari. This may occur due to existence of railway stations, wholesale markets, offices and
other commercial activities. But the usage of bus is triple in Jalukbari than Maligaon. The
average trip length is more than double in Jalukbari, which indicates less usage of walking or
personal two wheelers. The scenario envisages better attention towards Maligaon to meet up the
continuous crisis. City Development Plan of Guwahati city (2008) proposed 100% improvement in
walkability during 2013. But the real situation depicts the poor maintenance and implementation
of schemes. In the survey, perception of walking environment was asked to the respondents. In
Jalukbari, 45% explained it as risky environment in case of crossing, 40% opined it as moderate
condition, while 15% suggested for immediate development for children and disabled persons.
Cognitive mapping in Maligaon is completely different. More than 78% respondents firmly
expressed the condition as horrible, chaotic and highly accident prone. Most of them suggested
for public toilets, street lights and separate footpath near banks, schools and markets.

METHODOLOGY, DATA AND RESULTS

In continuation with the evaluation tools described in literature study, concept of

Walkability Index has been adopted in this research. Keeping in mind the major limitations
of Global Walkability Index, the methodology has been customised for the study area and is
explained herewith. Broad steps are following :-

Step-1 - Classification of road stretches and nodes

Step-2 - Identification of parameters and associated indicators
Step-3 - Finding weights of parameters for different types of road stretches
Step-4 - Scaling and scoring of the indicators
Step-5 - Formulation of Walkability Index based on weights and scores

Limited primary survey was conducted to collect relevant data. The survey focused on
pedestrians, their perceptions, pedestrian infrastructure, congestion and vehicular movements
and conflicts. Another set of household survey was also conducted to know the hinterland of
pedestrians. The pedestrian survey was done primarily in Jalukbari and Maligaon node, and
also some other roads and crossings.

Step-1 : Classification of Road Stretches and Nodes

In cities, there are long stretches of major roads (i.e. national highways, state highways,
arterial roads etc.) having diversities in abutting land use, mobility of vehicles and people,
connectivity with other roads and nodes, and those influence the pattern and intensity of footfall
in different time of a day or week. There may be gross mistakes in calculation of Walkability
indices, as usually done, if a particular long road is selected with large varieties and diversities
of such components. The calculation may not represent the true picture of the system, which in
turn, will not help the planners to propose appropriate decisions for planning and development.
Therefore, there is a need to divide a long stretch of road into smaller groups that will portray
acceptable homogeneity in character. In present study area, four parameters have been selected
for quantifying the classification - (a) Volume / Capacity ratio, (b) conflict points (crossings)
(c) average space per pedestrian, and (d) type and density of land use. Based on parameters
and field survey, major road stretches of Jalukbari-Maligaon area have been classified in four
categories, types 1 to 4. This is explained in Table-3.
January - March 2016 13

Table-3 : Classification of Roads for Jalukbari-Maligaon Area

Avg.
Volume / Conflict
Classification Space / Land Use Road Stretches
Capacity Points
Pedestrian

Transport
Jalukbari Node,
stations, dense
Bimal Auto Agency
commercial,
Type-1 ≥1 ≤4 <0.30m2 To Boripara,
industrial areas,
Accounts Colony -
bottlenecks on
Gate No. 1
roads

Dense
commercial,
institutional NH 37
Type-2 ≥0.8, ≤1 >1, ≤4 = 0.30m2 areas, public (Jalukbari -
buildings, Lankeswar)
bottlenecks on
roads

Sparse
Pandu Port
commercial
2 Road, PNGB
Type-3 ≥0.5, ≤0.8 =1 >0.30m areas, markets,
Road (Maligaon -
dense residential
Kamakhya Station)
areas

Jalukbari - Bimal
Sparse
Auto Agency,
commercial
Type-4 <0.5 none >0.30m2 Accounts Colony -
areas, residential
Maligaon,
areas
AEC Road

Based on the classification, altogether eight stretches and nodes from four types have
been selected for application :-

Type-1 - [(a) Jalukbari node, (b) Maligaon node, (c) Adabari bus stand zone]

Type-2 - [(d) NH 37 (Jalukbari to Lankeswar)]

Type-3 - [(e) Pandu port road, (f) Jalukbari to Adabari]

Type-4 - [(g) PNGB road (Maligaon to Kamakhya Station) and (h) AEC road]

Step-2 : Identification of Parameters and Associated Indicators

The literature review indicates use of various parameters and tools to assess pedestrian
level of service (here, synonymous to walkability). In this study, the parameters have been
considered to assess walkability as per prescriptions of Holly Crambeck (2006) with necessary
amendments.
Indian Journal of Transport Management 14

Assessment of walkability considers three broad parameters – (a) Safety and Security,
(b) Pedestrian convenience, and (c) Infrastructure and Amenities. All these components have
been further divided into specific parameters for assessing walkability measures. The guidelines
prescribed by Crambeck have been followed, though a few parameters have been omitted while
some other parameters, suitable for Indian conditions, have been incorporated. Table-4 explains
the parameters considered based on three broad parameters.

Table-4 : Parameters and Indicators

Safety and Security Pedestrian Convenience Infrastructure and Amenities

Pedestrian
1. fatalities and 1. Obstruction 1. Streetlight
injuries
Availability of
2. Modal conflict 2. 2. Transit stand
crossing
Crossing
3. 3. Trees 3. Shading devices
exposure
Safety rules and
4. 4. Cleanliness 4. Public toilet
laws
Motorist Walking path
5. 5. 5. Pedestrian way finding signage
behaviour congestion
Availability and condition of
6. Crossing safety 6. Connectivity 6.
walking path
Traffic Quality and
7. management at 7. maintenance of 7. Availability of parking space
crossings walking surface
Disability Buffer between road and
8. Security 8. 8.
infrastructure walkway
9. Footpath
10. Drainage
11. Encroachment
12. Noise pollution
13. Slab cover of drainage
14. Future development of
infrastructure
Source: Global Walkability Index and Authors’ Interpretations.

Step-3 : Finding Weights of Parameters for Different Types of Road Stretches

The parameters considered for walkability may or may not have equal contribution to final
index. Hence, a popular multi-criteria tool, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 2008),
has been used here to find out comparative weights of the parameters to assess the degree of
influences to assess walkability index. Twenty seven experts were asked to provide pair-wise
weights among three components. The values were synthesised through normalisation and
eigen-value matrix. For each type of road as classified, separate weights were found out, where
sum of the weights being unity. Table-5 depicts the weights.
January - March 2016 15

Table-5 : Weights of Various Parameters in Different Types of Roads and Nodes

Safety and Pedestrian Infrastructure

Type Sum
Security Convenience and Amenities

1 0.57 0.25 0.17 1

2 0.51 0.23 0.26 1

3 0.45 0.41 0.14 1

4 0.59 0.29 0.12 1

Step-4 : Scaling and Scoring of the Indicators

It is already discussed that each component has been divided into necessary parameters.
Now, a point scaling for each parameter has been used to obtain scores of a particular parameter
for a particular stretch of road. For each parameter, a five / four or three point scaling has
been formulated based on logical interpretations. The scaling includes numbers like 1, 2, 3 etc.
where, 1 signifies the worst situation and 5 being the best. Table-6 explains the scores.

Table-6 : Scores Based on Scaling

Indicators Aspects Score

Parameter-1 : Safety and Security

High accident prone all vehicles due to high speed and high volume 1
vehicles

Pedestrian Area somewhat prone to accident due to poor traffic management 2

Fatalities and and mixed traffic
Injuries
Accident prone due to non-motorised vehicles 3

Not accident prone 4

Conflict that makes walking impossible 1

Conflict that makes walking possible, but dangerous and 2

inconvenient

Modal Conflict Walking is possible, but not convenient 3

Minimal conflict, mostly between pedestrians and non-motorised 4

vehicles

No conflict between pedestrians and other modes 5

Indian Journal of Transport Management 16

Indicators Aspects Score

Accident prone with very high crossing time 1

Pedestrian faces some risk of being hurt by other modes and 2

crossing time is high

Crossing Difficult to ascertain dangers posed to pedestrians but the time 3

Exposure available for crossing is less and people have to hurry

Safe – pedestrian is mostly safe from accident with other modes and 4
exposure time is less and time available for crossing more

Other modes present no danger to pedestrians 5

No law present 1
Safety Rules
Laws present but not implemented 2
and Laws
Laws present and implemented 3

High traffic disrespect to pedestrians 1

Traffic disrespect and rarely pedestrians get priority 2

Motorists sometimes act in favour to pedestrians 3

Motorist
Behaviour Motorists usually obey traffic laws and sometimes act in favour of 4
pedestrians

Motorists obey traffic laws and almost always act in favour of 5

pedestrians

No crossing available, pedestrians cross the road at any point 1

Crossing available, then also pedestrians cross at any point of the 2

Crossing Safety road
Pedestrians cross at intersections 3

Pedestrians cross at fully maintained crossings 4

No traffic management 1
Traffic Traffic signal present and some working and some not working 2
Management at
Crossings Traffic police present but no other management system 3

Good traffic management 4

Pedestrian walkway covered, no light, pedestrians susceptible to 1

crime

Pedestrian walkway open but no light, pedestrians susceptible to 2

Security crime

Pedestrian walkway somewhat covered with little chance of crime 3

Eyes to watch, transparent boundary, pedestrians safe from crime 4

January - March 2016 17

Indicators Aspects Score

Parameter-2 : Pedestrian Convenience

Pedestrian infrastructure is completely blocked by permanent 1

obstructions
Pedestrians are significantly inconvenienced. Effective width <1 m. 2
Obstruction Pedestrian traffic is mildly inconvenienced; effective width is 1 3
meter.
Obstacle present minor inconvenience. Effective width is > 1 m 4
There are no obstructions 5
Average distance of controlled crossings is greater than 500 m and 1
average speed is more than 40 Kmph
Average distance of controlled crossings is between 500-300 m and 2
average speed is around 30-40 Kmph
Availability of Average distance of controlled crossings is between 200-300 m and 3
Crossing average speed is 20-40 Kmph
Average distance of controlled crossings is between 100-200 m and 4
average speed is 20-40 Kmph
There is no need of controlled crossings as pedestrians are safe to 5
cross wherever they like and vehicles and pedestrians coexist
Trees not present 1
Trees present at some location on one side 2
Trees Trees present at some location on both side 3
Trees present on both sides of the road providing shade all along 4
the road
Pedestrian walkway full of garbage and it is not possible to walk 1
Pedestrian walkway somewhat dirty due to left over from daily 2
markets
Cleanliness
Pedestrians walk on some clean area and some dirty area due to 3
mixed use
Pedestrians walk on clean path 4

LOS F 1
LOS E 2
Walking Path
LOS D 3
Congestion
LOS C 4
LOS B and above 5
Indian Journal of Transport Management 18

Indicators Aspects Score

No connectivity 1

Connectivity Walkway is well connected with the nearby land use 2

Good connectivity with all the areas 3

Sidewalk full of potholes, open drains, becomes a hazard 1

Quality and Sidewalk space covered with grass or just remains as soil or sandy 2
Maintenance
of Walking Sidewalks cover slabs for drains present, but it is not stable, change 3
Surface in level

No such problem 4

Parameter-3 : Infrastructure and Amenities

No disability infrastructure 1
Disability
Infrastructure Existence of disability infrastructure – ramps, turning areas, 2
handrails etc.

No streetlights 1

Streetlights at some locations on one side at some location 2

Streetlights
Streetlights on both sides at some part of the stretch 3

Roads have excellent streetlights 4

No bus stop observed (though required) 1

Informal bus stands available but at large intervals 2

Bus Stand Bus stands are marked by signboards, no proper infrastructure 3
provided

Bus stands with proper shade and seats 4

No shade 1

Shade Limited shade for pedestrians at some locations 2

Shade at every point 3

No public toilet available 1

Public Toilet Public toilet available at some location 2

Public toilet available at every location as per pedestrian demand 3

No signage present 1
Pedestrian Some safety signs available at some location 2
Way Finding
Signage Some safety signs are available at all locations 3

All safety signs present at all major points 4

January - March 2016 19

Indicators Aspects Score

Pedestrian walkways required but not available 1

Availability and Pedestrian walkways available at some location only 2

Condition of Pedestrian walkways available which are sometimes congested and 3
Walking Path are clean and well maintained

Pedestrian walkways available 4

Availability of No parking available, on-street parking 1

Parking Space No problem of parking, proper parking space is available 2
No buffer from road way 1
Buffer Between Buffer less than 2 m 2
Road and
Walkway Buffer less than 4 m 3
Buffer more than 5 m 4
No footpath 1
Footpath available, but more than 50% encroached 2
Footpath
Footpath available for some stretch 3
Availability
Footpath available on one side 4
Footpath on both sides 5
No drainage 1
Drainage Drainage present on one side 2
Drainage present on both sides 3
No slab cover present 1
Slab Cover of
Covers present but in between holes are there 2
Drainage
Total even coverage of drainage 3
No land available for future development of pedestrian facilities and 1
Future amenities
Development of
Land available but not as per the increasing demand 2
Infrastructure
Sufficient land available 3

Encroachment 60.1% - 100% 1

(on street 40.1% - 60% 2

parking) 0 - 40% 3
> 75 dB 1
Noise Pollution 65 - 75 dB 2
< 65 dB (standard limit) 3
Indian Journal of Transport Management 20

The scores obtained for each indicator under the particular indicator for a particular
road stretch have been summed up (say, A). The maximum values of each parameter under
the particular parameter have also been summed up (say, B). The ratio of obtained value and
maximum value gives a positive fraction and less than unity, which indicates the comparative
scenario of a stretch of road for walkability condition. For example, a particular component
group comprises of 8 parameters, and all those are rated in a 5 point scale. Therefore, available
maximum score is 5 x 8 i.e. 40. Say, for a particular road stretch, the scores under 8 parameters
are 3, 3, 2, 5, 1, 2, 4 and 3. This results in a total score of 23. Hence, the ratio of obtained
score and maximum score is 23/40, that results in a value of 0.575. There may be an option
for putting score as 0, if, the particular parameter is not observed for the stretch. The value
indicates a moderate walkability score for the particular stretch. The score theoretically always
ranges between zero and unity.

Step-5 : Formulation of Walkability Index based on Weights and Scores

Final walkability index for each road stretch has been formulated by summing up weighted
scores of each component, i.e., walkability score being the following :-

Walkability Index = ∑wi*si. [wi is the weight for ith stretch and si is the
ith stretch/node
respective score]

The results are presented in Table-7.

Table-7 : Walkability Indices

Safety and Infrastructure Pedestrian Walkability

Stretch
Security and Amenities Convenience Score

Type-1 W 0.57 W 0.17 W 0.25

Jalukbari Node 0.28 0.34 0.31 0.30

Maligaon Node 0.33 0.43 0.43 0.37

Adabari Bus Stand 0.28 0.37 0.38 0.32

Type-2 W 0.51 W 0.23 W 0.26

NH 37 - Lankeswar 0.33 0.6 0.49 0.43

Type-3 W 0.45 W 0.41 W 0.14

PNGB Road 0.45 0.54 0.33 0.47

Pandu Port Road 0.60 0.66 0.40 0.60

Type-4 W 0.59 W 0.29 W 0.12

Jalukbari to Adabari 0.60 0.74 0.41 0.62

AEC Road 0.80 0.83 0.48 0.77

Boripara to Maligaon 0.65 0.66 0.40 0.62

Average Value 0.48 0.57 0.40 0.50

Standard Deviation 0.19 0.17 0.06 0.16

January - March 2016 21

OBSERVATIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

In five stretches, score of safety and security is below 0.5 i.e. non-acceptable condition.
Three areas i.e. Pandu Port road, Jalukbari to Adabari and Boripara to Maligaon exhibit a score
of 0.6, little better than the others. Therefore, the overall safety and security measures are poor.
The average value and standard deviation of safety measures are 0.48 and 0.19, respectively.
Special attention must be given in these stretches. In comparison, infrastructure stands a better
position than safety measures. Highest value, both in safety and infrastructure is observed for
AEC road, where population density and commercial usage is much less than others. As the
survey revealed, pedestrian convenience is also not acceptable in all the stretches. The average
value of pedestrian convenience is 0.4, but standard deviation at 0.06 signifies worst condition
for pedestrian convenience in all the nodes and stretches. Therefore, the walkability indices in
all the stretches reveal poor exhibits in range between 0.3-0.77, while the average value is 0.5
and the standard deviation being 0.16.

The worst results are indicated for Type-1 road stretches and nodes. The average
walkability value is 0.33, which is much below than the value (0.39) formulated by MoUD for
Guwahati city. Immediate action may be taken in these zones. As a whole, there are significant
observations in nodes and stretches of Type-1. High speed vehicles in Jalukbari and congestion
in Maligaon both produce delayed and unsafe crossing for the pedestrians. Both the areas lack
appropriate traffic management. Due to high speed vehicles and higher probability of street
fatalities, Jalukbari scores worse than Maligaon node. Both the areas exhibit unsuitable on-
street parking that seizes road space. The situation becomes worst due to encroachment by
hawkers. There is a major problem of lack of co-ordinated network and integration of buses
and other paratransits. Lack of appropriate stoppages has become hindrance for pedestrians.
The optional requirements, i.e. toilets, trees, medians, even surface and street lights are hardly
present in these nodes. However, the walkability scores exhibit the true picture of all the
stretches in the study area. The authors look forward for the initiatives of city authority for a
detailed study in Jalukbari-Maligaon area and wish for appropriate interventions.

References

1. Abley S., Walkability Scoping Paper, 2005, Retrieved 21/04/08, cross reference from Wikipedia.
2. Agamapatian R., Using GIS to Measure Walkability: A Case Study in New York City, Master’s
of Science Thesis in Geoinformatics, School of Architecture and the Built Environment,
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) Stockholm, Sweden, 2014.
3. Babiano I. M. and Ieda H., Street Space Renaissance: A Spatio-Historical Survey of Two
Asian Cities, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 2005, Vol. 6.
4. Balsas C.J.L., New Directions for Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Education in the U.S.,
Planning Practice and Research, 2002, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 91-105.
5. Barman J. and Daftardar C., Planning for Sustainable Pedestrian Infrastructure with
Upcoming MRTS — An Appraisal of Walkability Conditions in Lucknow, Journal of Institute
of Town Planners, India, 2010, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 64-76.
6. Bhattacharyya D.B. and Mitra S., Making Siliguri a Walkable City, 13th CTA International
Conference of Transportation Professionals, Elsevier publication, 2013, available at www.
[Link].
7. Burden Dan, “Walkable and Bicycle-Friendly Communities”, Florida Dept. of Transportation,
1996.
8. Census of India (2011, 2001, 1991).
9. City Development Plan, 2006, Guwahati Municipal Corporation, Guwahati.
10. Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Centre, Walkability in Indian Cities, March
2011.
Indian Journal of Transport Management 22

11. Comprehensive Mobility Plan, 2008, Guwahati Municipal Corporation.

12. Dandan T., Wei W., Jian LU and Yang B., Research on Methods of Assessing Pedestrian
Level of Service for Sidewalk, Journal of Transportation Sys. Eng. & IT, 2007, Vol. 7, No. 5,
pp. 74−79.
13. Dixon L.B., Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards
for Congestion Management Systems, Transportation Research Record 1538, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 1-9.
14. Dobesova Z. and Krivka T., Walkability Index in the Urban Planning: A Case Study
in Olomouc City, Advances in Spatial Planning, Dr. Jaroslav Burian (Ed.), 2012, ISBN:
978-953-51-0377-6, InTech.
15. Frank L. D. et. al., The Development of a Walkability Index: Application to the Neighbourhood
Quality of Life Study, British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2009, Vol. 44, No. 13,
pp. 924-933.
16. Fruin J., Pedestrian Planning and Design, New York: Metropolitan Association of Urban
Designers and Environmental Planners, 1971.
17. GMDA, Master Plan of Guwahati Metropolitan Area 2025, Guwahati Metropolitan
Development Authority, Guwahati, 2009.
18. Gokhale M. V. and Teland M. V., Need for Qualitative Evaluation Model for Existing Sidewalks
of Roads in Indian Cities, Indian Journal of Applied Research, 2013, Vol. 3, No. 10, pp. 1-4.
19. Highway Capacity Manual, 2000, Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington, D.C.
20. Jensen Soren Underlien, Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Service on Roadway Segments,
Trafitec, 2007.
21. Khisty C. J., Evaluation of Pedestrian Facilities Beyond the Level-of-Service Concept,
Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
1994, pp. 45–50.
22. Krambeck Holly, Virginia, The Global Walkability Index, 2006.
23. Lautso K. and Murole P., A Study of Pedestrian Traffic in Helsinki: Methods and Results,
Traffic Engineering and Control, 1974, pp. 446-449.
24. Litman T., Economic Value of Walkability, a working paper, published by Victoria Transport
Policy Institute, 2014.
25. Luadsakul C. and Ratanvaraha V., The Study of Walkability Index: A Case Study in
Nakhon Ratchasima Province, International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced
Engineering, 2013, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 471-476.
26. Miller John. S., Jeremy A. Bigelow and Nicholas J. Garber, Calibrating Pedestrian Level-
of-Service Metrics with 3-D Visualisation, Transportation Research Record 1705, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 9–15.
27. Muraleetharan T., Adachi T., Uchida K., Hagiwara T., Kagaya S., A Study on Evaluation
of Pedestrian Level of Service along Sidewalks and at Crosswalks Using Conjoint Analysis,
Journal of Infrastructure Planning, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 2004, Vol. 21, No. 3,
pp. 727-735.
28. Ministry of Urban Development, National Urban Transport Policy, 2014, India.
29. Nicole G., Quantifying Pedestrian Friendliness – Guidelines for Assessing Pedestrian Level
of Service, Walking the 21st Century, 20th to 22nd February 2001, Perth, Western Australia.
30. Nohria M.S. and Chahal K.S., Walkability for Urban Sustainability: Advocating the Green
Transport Paradigm in India, Journal of Institute of Town Planners, India, 2014, Vol. 11,
No. 4, pp. 9-18.
31. Rankavat S., Tiwari G. and Singla N., Pedestrian Preferences for Pedestrian Facilities in
Delhi, The Urban Mobility India (UMI) Research Symposium 2013, published in Urban
Transport Research Journal, Institute of Urban Transport (India), 2013, pp. 17-24.
January - March 2016 23

32. Saaty T.L., Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, International Journal of
Services Sciences, 2008, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp-83-99.
33. Saelens B.E., Sallis J.F., Frank L.D., Environmental Correlates of Walking and Cycling:
Findings from the Transportation, Urban Design and Planning Literatures, Ann. Behav. Med.
25, 2003, pp. 80–91.
34. Sarkar S., Determination of Service Levels for Pedestrians with European Examples,
Transportation Research Record 1405, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
1993.
35. Singh K. and Jain P.K., Methods of Assessing Pedestrian Level of Service, Journal of
Engineering Research and Studies, 2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 116-124.
36. Southworth M., Designing the Walkable City, ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and
Development, 2005, Vol. 131, No. 4, pp. 246-257.
37. Tejaswi B. and Verma A., Public Transport System in Guwahati City - Problems and Issues,
Indian Journal of Transport Management, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 210-221.
38. Web: [Link] last accessed on 12.04.2016.
39. Wilbur Smith Associates, Study on Traffic & Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban
Areas in India, Final Report 2008, Ministry of Urban Development.
40. Yusuf A. and Waheed A., Measuring and Evaluating Urban Walkability through Walkability
Indexes: A Case of Murree, European Transport, 2015, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 1-12.

IJTM

STATEMENT ABOUT OWNERSHIP

Statement about ownership and other particulars about INDIAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT
as required by Rule No 8 of the Registration of Newspapers, Central Rules, 1956.

(1) Place of Publication Pune

(2) Periodicity of publication Quarterly

(3) Printer’s Name Rajkumar Malajure

Nationality Indian
Address Central Institute of Road Transport
Pune-Nasik Road, Pune 411026

(4) Publisher’s Name

Nationality
- As above -
Address

(5) Editor’s Name

Nationality - As above -
Address

(6) Name and addresses of the individuals Association of State Road Transport Undertakings
who own the newspapers and partners ASRTU Bawan,
or shareholders holding more than one Plot No 4-A, PSP Block, Pocket 14,
percent of the total capital Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110077

I, Rajkumar Malajure, hereby declare that the particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
st
1 March 2016 Rajkumar Malajure
Publisher