Nota Teknik (Jalan) 18/97Basic Guidelines on Pedestrian Facilities 7.0m 5.0m Roads Branch Public Works Department Malaysia Jalan Sultan Salahuddin 50582 Kuala Lumpur 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. Ibu Pejabat JKR. K. of which 711 were deaths.L Page 1 . Cawangan Jalan. The majority of these (67%) involved people crossing roads. In 1995. whereas about 33% involved people walking along (or working on) the road. there were 5286 pedestrian casualties in traffic accidents. 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. to cross busy roads. Guidelines On Facilities For Pedestrians To Cross Roads It is universally accepted that pedestrians need to be provided with safe and convenient facilities. Quite recently. but in many cases these are severely obstructed by business activity. showed utilisation at some sites was less than 10 %. the excessive height of the kerbs. At many signalised intersections. These pose considerable risk to pedestrians because of the confusion between pedestrians and vehicle drivers as to who has `right of way'. Combined `Zebra' and Signalised Pedestrian Crossings. footpaths are generally provided as part of building (shop) development. Signalised Pedestrian Crossings.to be little or no enforcement of this obligation by the police. This poses a serious legal problem for road authorities such as JKR in the event of any Cawangan Jalan. These are equally confusing to pedestrians and motorists.FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities 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. In addition to this. There is generally poor observance of the `give -way' obligation by vehicle drivers when pedestrians enter the crossing and there appears.L court action which may arise out of an accident at such sites. The provisions for pedestrians to walk along roads varies greatly even in urban and `built-up' areas. Page 2 . most footpaths are `unfriendly' to pedestrians particularly the elderly and those who are `disabled'. 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. 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. motorcycle parking and even vehicle parking. School Children's Crossings. K. street furniture. In town and city centres. A similar study of a Pedestrian Subway under Jalan SS l 64 (in the Bandar Utama area) had less than 20% utilisation. The choice of type of treatment is not always clear cut and may be influenced by economics and other factors. In respect to pedestrian bridges and subways. `Yellow and Black' Zebra crossing markings have been introduced in conjunction with traffic signals. Pedestrian (`Zebra') Crossings. The cutting of the footpath at driveways. there is considerable confusion about the obligations of vehicle drivers and pedestrians at this type of crossing. In respect to 'Zebra' type pedestrian crossings. For example a study of 10 pedestrian bridges in and around Kuantan Pahang. the lack of `ramps' at intersections and driveways. there is strong evidence that the majority of those which have been built across non-expressway routes have poor utilisation. a combination of `white and black' Zebra crossing markings have been installed in direct contradiction of the current Road Traffic Rules. Ibu Pejabat JKR. In respect to signalised pedestrian crossings. 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. although at few sites utilisation was higher than 80%. rural. warrants and guides which are aimed at achieving uniformity in dealing with similar conditions and ensuring cost effective treatments. 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. decreases and pedestrians are delayed. With the exception of expressways. However. industrial etc. on all other classes of road will greatly enhance pedestrian safety. commercial. the speed. the road alignment and the nature of the locality. As traffic flow rate increases. but they are applicable and quite effective on `collector' and `local streets' in urban areas. by reducing vehicle speeds and reducing the variability of vehicle speeds. reducing traffic speed in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing. K. 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- Cawangan Jalan. The ability of pedestrians to cross roads 'atgrade' anywhere is very dependent on traffic volume (or `flow rate') and traffic speed. Thus `Speed Humps' and `raised platform' areas. eg Expressway. sufficient for pedestrians to cross the road safely between vehicle arrivals at the site. Major Arterial. and use of. collector Road . residential . Ibu Pejabat JKR. the width of the road. eg placing a central refuge in a `two way' traffic stream allows pedestrians to cross one direction of flow at a time. 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. 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. but this is assisted by the development of. which require continual `heavy' enforcement by police. and also helps to reduce traffic speed. particularly on high standard arterial roads is not easy to achieve. volume and composition of vehicular traffic. Types Of Pedestrian Crossing Facilities Pedestrian crossing facilities can be categorised into three distinct types as follows: Page 3 . This makes gap selection by pedestrians less subject to errors of judgement.FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 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. eg urban. The imposition of unreasonably low speed limits. This shortens the distance pedestrians have to cross when exposed to traffic. the setting of realistic speed limits (even if they are higher than may be desired for pedestrian safety). is rarely if ever effective. the number of traffic lanes and is it operating two-way or oneway? the character of the locality. However speed control. The use of `Speed Humps' and other `vertical displacement' devices are not favoured on `arterial' roads because of the severe effect these have on heavy trucks and busses. The selection of the most appropriate treatment is often a matter of judgement. both for crossing roads and for walking along roads. Local street. The Importance Of Speed Control In respect to traffic speed. where at-grade crossings are not acceptable. this is closely related to the class of road. This situation invariably results in the occurrence of traffic accidents involving pedestrians. by providing pedestrian refuge islands so that pedestrians can cross the road in stages. the availability of `gaps'.L Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities lar traffic capacity requirements). 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.. is desirable as this tends to reduce the variability of vehicle speeds. vehicle conflict is necessary. at which `right of way. the number of pedestrians. 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. 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.L Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities way to pedestrians crossing the road between the flags (or flashing lights) during the periods when these devices are displayed. 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. School Children's Crossings. to the extent that pedestrians have difficulty finding a `safe gap' in traffic (eg on a two-way road). usually provides pedestrians with an acceptable opportunity to cross a road. vehicular traffic must `give. The proximity to traffic signals. grade-separated crossings are essential. Controlled Crossings: At some sites with high traffic flow rates. to the degree that pedestrians have little difficulty in finding a safe gap in the traffic flow to cross the road. Where pedestrians need to cross expressway (freeway. B. and some form of "Spacial (Grade) Separation" or some form of "Time Separation" of the pedestrian . eg by police or by other people so authorised such as 'School Children' Crossing Supervisors C. Any traffic signal within approximately 300 m of a pedestrian crossing site is likely to have a significant influence on the utiliPage 4 . the sight distance available etc. Manually controlled traffic operation. They become more formal where pedestrian movements are concentrated such as at intersections. (preferably supervised). the speed of traffic. the above `un-controlled crossing' treatments may not provide adequate safety. 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. Ibu Pejabat JKR. Uncontrolled Crossings: Uncontrolled crossing tend to occur by default at any location where pedestrians find it convenient to cross a road. or capacity (for heavy pedestrian demands).way' to pedestrians who are on the crossing. include the following: Zebra Crossings. near bus stops etc. which are the most common form of pedestrian crossing facility. `Time Separation' treatments. 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. This includes `Pelican Crossing' signals and "Puffin" (Pedestrian User Friendly Intelligent") signals. K. and the provision of pedestrian phases and signal heads at conventional signalised intersections. The following are some of the factors which have been found to be associated with low utilisation of pedestrian bridges or underpasses: Low traffic flows. at which by statutory regulation. either supervised or not supervised. the provision of a pedestrian refuge island may be justified. the type of pedestrians (eg children. Signalised Pedestrian Crossings. at which vehicular traffic must give Cawangan Jalan.FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY Uncontrolled Crossings Controlled Crossings Grade Separated Crossings Guidelines for the selection and use of these types of pedestrian crossings follow: A. other than at interchanges provided for vehicular traffic. Where the number of pedestrians wishing to cross a road is significant and where the traffic flows are high. is alternately allocated between pedestrians and vehicular traffic in accor dance with pre-set cyclic phasing. elderly) . The interruption of traffic flow by traffic signals at a nearby intersection. motorway) type roads. or on pedestrian demand by means of a "call" button. Most of the `well proven' techniques and devices are currently being used in Malaysia. it is suggested that those presented in the AUSTROADS (Australia) Guide To Traffic Engineering Practice.Pedestrians. The desirable general layout etc for various types of pedestrian crossing facilities are illustrated in Figures 2 to 7.5m (for low pedestrian flows) to 4 m (for high pedestrian flows). and in view of the vulnerability of pedestrians in any conflict with vehicles (including motorcycles) some form of segregation is desirable. Provisions For Pedestrians At Signalised Intersections At intersections where traffic signals are installed to control conflicting traffic movements. 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. there will usually be sufficient pedestrian movements to justify the provision of pedestrian facilities. 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. are long and not well lighted. These are attached as Appendix A of this report. particularly for women. conventional signalised pedestrian crossings as illustrated in Figure 5. except where this traffic movement is proceeding on a green arrow signal. The pedestrian phases at signalised intersections are usually incorporated into the signal cycle in parallel with non-conflicting. At signalised intersections with significant pedestrian movements. In the absence of quantitative and other guidelines specifically developed for Malaysian conditions. Note that Zebra type markings must not be placed across the main carriageways at signalised intersections. (derived from Australian Standard AS 1742. Ibu Pejabat JKR. traffic signing and roadmarking vary greatly from site to site. 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. 10). the provision of special signal heads Cawangan Jalan. The provision of steps (stairs) rather than ramps at pedestrian grade separations has been found to be a discouragement to pedestrians. personal security can be a perceived problem. at important intersections within cities and towns. Guidelines for the selection of the most appropriate type of treatment are provided in Figure 1. not withstanding this. However where the intensity of Page 5 . 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. 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. or the least conflicting traffic movements. be adopted as `Interim Guidelines' until such time as experience in practice indicates any necessary changes to better suit Malaysian conditions. but the main problem is that particular treatments are often used at inappropriate locations and the geometric design. K.L Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities (faces) and signal phases to assist pedestrians to cross safely can be incorporated at little additional cost. These consist of white transverse lines marked across the carriageway the width between which may vary from a minimum of 2. `Zebra' type pedestrian crossings may be installed across any separate left turn `slip' road.FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY sation of any grade separated pedestrian crossing facility. children and elderly people. In general. some guidelines / warrants for such provisions are included in Appendix A. Where subways are depressed below ground level. Such facilities often experience poor utilisation even in daytime. but never in conjunction with a signalised left turn `slip' road. Part 13 . 0 m should be provided between the traffic lanes and the footpath. While no numeric warrants are given for the provision of footpaths along roads. Where footpaths are provided. In some countries these are referred to as "Shared Zones". Cawangan Jalan.4 m or wider in shopping and other high pedestrian activity areas. This clearance. gradients of 1 in 20 to 1 in 33 should be provided. or unreasonably obstructed by motorcycles and bicycles. or speed are high. A height clearance of at least 2.9 m to 2. In some city and town situations. Ibu Pejabat JKR. the kerb should be `dropped' and a ramp at an acceptable slope should be provided.L Changes in level along and beside the foot path should be minimised. Where the footpath crosses or intersects the kerb as at intersections and drive ways. This pedestrian priority is greatly enhanced if vehicular traffic is ramped up to footpath level. In general driveways should not `cut' the footpath but should be ramped up or down from roadway level to meet the footpath level. which could pose a danger to pedestrians. Where kerbs are provided at the edge of the carriageway. poles. consideration should always be given to the needs of elderly people and people with disabilities. Footpath surfaces should be firm. Where long ramps are involved. should be covered. the road shoulder can adequately provide space for people to walk clear of vehicular traffic. Where it is not possible to avoid steps. trees and other street furniture. This may vary from an absolute minimum of 0. should be well delineated. such as in most rural areas. and reduces the inconvenience / annoyance caused by the splash from vehicle tires in wet weather. increases the safety of pedestrians. particularly people with impaired vision. traffic signs. the gradient should not be steeper than 1 in 10. particular care needs to be taken to properly identify them so that they can be seen.0 m should be provided. Any obstacle close to the pathway which could endanger pedestrians. The design should incorporate the following characteristics aimed at making them 'user friendly' for all classes of pedestrians: Adequate width should be provided.FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities land use and thus pedestrian movements are low . Manhole covers and gratings. the roadway itself. Clearance of at least 1. Neither should they be allowed to be obstructed by adjacent business activity or parked vehicles. especially in wet Page 6 . they should not be higher than 150mm. K. where there may be very high pedestrian activity. In addition. smooth and skid resistant. if they cannot be avoided. should be kept flush with the footpath surface and any drains close to the footpath. 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. such as at pedestrian bridges. even. 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. pedestrians should be given `right of way' (priority) over vehicular traffic where drive ways cross the footpath. to reduce the degree of threat to pedestrians posed by vehicular traffic. 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. The pathway should not be obstructed by posts. mosques or other community facilities where pedestrians are likely to be concentrated. Where differences in level are catered for by a ramp instead of or in addition to steps. especially by people with impaired vision. on 'local street' class of roads. including a maximum speed limit of 25 km/h or less. which should be greater where traffic volume and. is amply emphasised by the high number of traffic accident casualties involving pedestrians.FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY conditions. K. when they must operate amongst vehicular traffic. construction. These guidelines should be used as a means of achieving better and more consistent standards and practices in relation to creating a more `user friendly' and safer road environment for pedestrians. The vulnerability of pedestrians.L Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities ans must be made an essential part of the planning. Consideration of the specific needs of pedestri- Cawangan Jalan. design. 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. Page 7 . Ibu Pejabat JKR. maintenance and operation of every road or road project. 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. K. Ibu Pejabat JKR.L Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities Page 8 .FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY Cawangan Jalan. L Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities Page 9 . K. Ibu Pejabat JKR.FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY Cawangan Jalan. L Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities Page 10 .FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY Cawangan Jalan. K. Ibu Pejabat JKR. FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY Cawangan Jalan.L Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities Page 11 . K. Ibu Pejabat JKR. is less than 70 km/h. and the Product PxV > 90. where the general traffic speed as indicated by the 85th percentile traffic speed. the number of pedestrians.Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY Appendix A WARRANTS / GUIDELINES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITIES. V > 600 vph (sum of both directions) in the same hours. V is greater than 600 vph. the vehicular traffic flow. Pedestrian. for at least 2 separate one-hour periods of a typical week day. the vehicu Page 12 . sight distance available etc. where children need to cross a road on a regular basis. Based On AUSTROADS Guide To Traffic Engineering Practice Part 13 . 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. `instructed' and uniformed `Crossing Supervisor'. Signalised Pedestrian Crossing: A signalised pedestrian crossing may be installed where any one of the following criteria are met: Where. and the pedestrians being able to see the vehicles approaching the crossing. P > 350 pph for each of three (3) one-hour periods of an average day. subject to the following criteria being met: The number of pedestrian (wishing to cross the road). In this Cawangan Jalan. School children's crossings may be installed at any location as indicated in Figure 1. K. P is at least 60 persons per hour. the total volume of vehicular traffic on the road at the site. ' V is the volume of vehicular traffic in the same hour. whether it is operating one-way or two-way. a carriageway of not more than 15 m wide. This arrangement often includes the provision of a properly authorised. the operating speed of traffic needs to be carefully assessed. in the situations indicated in Figure 1.. (`Zebra') Crossings: 'Zebra' type pedestrian crossings are appropriate. where there is a central median or pedestrian refuge island.) Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings: No specific warrants have been adopted for uncontrolled crossings. or. The visibility is adequate. The width to be crossed by pedestrians in one `stage' is not more than Four (4) traffic lanes. particularly where traffic flow is `bunched' due to nearby traffic signals.Pedestrians. the speed of traffic. (In the following warranting criteria. Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings are often combined with Local Area Traffic Management Devices and `Traffic Calming' Techniques.L regard. whose role is to operate the crossing equipment and conduct the children safely across the road. P is the number of Pedestrians per hour and. and for the flags to be removed (or the flashing lights switched off) outside the crossing periods. Each case should be treated on its merits. the traffic flow rate. but they can be used at quite high traffic flows on arterial roads (but Not on Expressways). School Children's Crossings. ie. Ibu Pejabat JKR. (1995).000. where. both in respect to vehicle drivers being able to see the crossing and pedestrians about to step onto the crossing. considering factors such as: the width of road to be crossed. P > 175pph for each of any eight (8) one-hour periods and : where there is no central median or pedestrian refuge island provided. P >60 pph across the intresection approach under construction. 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. Ibu Pejabat JKR. Subject to there being no other pedestrian crossing (including a grade separated crossing within a reasonable distance (say 200m) of the site. V > 1000 vph (sum of both directions) in the same hours. or close to signalised intersection or a railway level crossing. elderly or disabled pedestrians at the site may justify the specialpedestrian equipment at lower pedestrian flows than this. and. 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. While no specific warrants have been adopted for grade separated pedestrian crossings. Cawangan Jalan. 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. or where there is a continuous high flow of pedestrians which would cause excessive delay to vehicular traffic at a Zebra type crossing. 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. the product of PxV > 40. 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.000. 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. of a type which may be corrected by the installation of traffic signals. 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. They are however essential wherever pedestrians need to cross and `Expressway' (or Freeway) route. Good utilisation is usually achieved In the vicinity of schools (particularly primary schools) where children can be `channeled' to the facility by fencing. The site is not conveniently located for the pedestrian movements in the vicinity. Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities and each case should be treated on its merits. The presence of children. K. A signalised pedestrian crossing may be installed instead of a Pedestrian (Zebra) Crossing where the site is within a `coordinated (linked)' traffic signal system . The site is within 250 m of a signalised intersection. the following general guides should be considered.L Page 13 .FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY lar traffic flow. in the last three (3) years. 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. A signalised pedestrian crossing may be justified to replace an existing pedestrian (Zebra) crossing where the has been two or more pedestrian involved accidents.