RS5805 - Walkability Report Kathmandu - 2018

Kathmandu WALKABILITY Study
2018
Prepared by:
Resource Centre for Primary Health Care(RECPHEC)
Thasikhel,Lalitpur
recphec@info.com.np
www.recphec.org.np/www.elibrary-recphec.org.np
Walkability Study
Kathmandu Metropolitan City
2018
Resource Centre for Primary Health Care
Walkability study in Kathmandu City 2017-2018 Page 2

CONTENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 7
LIST OF ACRONYMS 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9
CHAPTER 1 INTRODCUTION 10
1.1 Rationale of the study 10
1.2 Scope 11
1.3 Objective 11
CHAPTER 2 PEDESTRAIN POLICIES AND INSTITUTIONS 12
Role of Key Government agencies, Private sectors and Non-Governmental

2.1
Organization 13
2.1.1 Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport 14
2.1.2 Ministry of Urban Development 15
2.1.3 Kathmandu Valley Development Authority 16
2.1.4 Traffic Police Division 17
2.1.5 Municipalities 18
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 19

3.1 Study Area 20
3.2 Methodology 20
• Field Walkability Survey 21
• Pedestrian Perception Survey 21
• Pedestrian Count 21
3.3 Limitation of the survey 22
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH RESULT 23

4.1 Infrastructure Audit 23
4.1.1 General Condition of the segment 23
4.1.1 Land Use Diversity 24
4.1.3 Footpath Availability 25

Footpath Quality
4.1.4 26
4.1.5 Safety Measures 26
26
4.1.6 Availability of Amenities 28
4.1.7 Others 30
4.2 Pedestrian Perception Survey 31
4.3 Pedestrian Count 32
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 33

REFERENCE 44
ANNEXURE 1 44
ANNEXURE 2 47
ANNEXURE 3 53
ANNEXURE 4 59

List of Table
Table 1 Minimum Width of footpath as per Nepal Road

Standard
Table 2 Total Number of segment surveyed
Table 3 Pedestrians count
List of Figures
Figure 1 Study area, Kathmandu metropolitan city
Figure 2 Random sampling of segments
Figure 3 Number of lanes
Figure 4 Traffic volume in the segment
Figure 5 Land use diversity in the segment
Figure 6 Availability if the footpath in the segment
Figure 7 Materials used for the pavement of the footpath
Figure 8 Width of the footpath
Figure 9 Condition of the segment
Figure 10 Obstruction observed in the footpath
Figure 11 Images showing various obstruction on the footpath in various segment
Figure 12 Obstruction that forced surveyor to leave footpath
Figure 13 Kind of physical disorder in the segment
Figure 14 Images showing physical disorder in footpath

Figure 15 Cleanliness in the segment
Figure 16 Wheelchair accessibility in the segment
Figure 17 Crossing aid for pedestrian in the segment
Figure 18 Condition of zebra crossing in the segment
Figure 19 Images showing situation of zebra crossing
Figure 20 Availability of traffic lights to support zebra crossing
Figure 21 Traffic calming measures to reduce speed of vehicles in the segment
Figure22 Drivers attitude towards pedestrians
Figure23 Images showing difficulty for the pedestrian to cross using zebra crossing
Figure 24 Basic amenities in the segments
Figure 25 Tree shades in the segment
Figure 26 Availability of street light in the segments
Figure 27 Vehicles parks in the roads
Figure 28 Disturbance due to vehicle parked
Figure 29 Noise pollution experienced during survey
Figure 30 Children playing in the road
Figure 31 Social dynamic in the road
Figure 32 Fear of crossing the road
Figure 33 Pedestrian's perception in drivers attitude towards them
Figure 34 Mode of transportation chosen for short trips
Figure 35 Pedestrians perception on safety in streets while walking
Figure 36 Types of vehicle creating havoc for pedestrians movement

Figure 37 Situation of pedestrians facility
Figure 38 Image showing broken footpath
Figure 39 Wish list of pedestrians for better pedestrian amenities
Figure 40 Preferred medium to cross the road by the people
Figure 41 Image showing senior citizen crossing through fly over bridge
Figure 42 Number of injuries faced due to poor quality of pedestrian facilities
Figure 43 Preference for proper hawker facility
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our deepest appreciation to all those who provided us the possibility to conduct this
report. Our appreciations to Executive Director of Resource Centre for Primary Health Care for his support to
complete the report.We would like to express our gratitude to Ms. Kristie Daniel and Ms. PhaebaAbraham of
HealthBridge Foundation of Canadaforresearchguidance and editing the report.
We would like to acknowledge all the volunteers, for their help in data collection for the report.

LIST OF ACRONYMS
DoTM- Department of Transport Management
KMC-Kathmandu Metropolitan City
KVMP- Kathmandu Valley Mapping Project
MOPIT- Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Transportation
MTPD- Metropolitan Traffic Police Division
NRS- Nepal Road Safety
YVLC- Youth Volunteer for Livable Cities

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The city of Kathmandu traditionally had been a city of walkers, and majority of its population depend on
walking, cycling and public transport for mobility. However, with the rise in motorization, pedestrian and
public transport facilities have lost attention and neglected in the planning process . A change in focus is
required which will allow people, not vehicles, to reclaim the urban environment. 1Walkability study in
Kathmandu Metropolitan city was commissioned by RECPHEC with the purpose of raising and addressing
pedestrian issues in planning of the city .
The study involved,

• walkability surveys : pedestrianinfrastructure audits, perception surveys and pedestrian count: and
• an assessment of the current policies and institutions relating to pedestrians and walking in the
city.
Safe and accessible pedestrian infrastructure is extremely important to improve mobility in any city.
Kathmandu valley is the capital city of Nepal and is largest metropolis of Nepal with population of 1.5
million in the city proper and 3 milllion in its agglomeration across Kathmandu valley. 2As per the density
the number of vehicles will also be high in the city resulting high volume of traffic. According to Department
of Transporta management (DoTM), the number of vehicle registered has reached 2,551,138 units by 2017.
And motorcycle registration have overtaken other vehicle with nearly 2 million registered. 3In retrospect,
the design of city traditionally focused on walking and communal space however it is not the case in recent
time. The vehicular movement is increasing in such a rapid way that it is questioning the real essence of the
city and peoples traditional lifestyle.
Vehicular movement, traffic jams and air pollution has become the most pressing issues for the city. For a
very long time , extension and expansion of roads to solve traffic jam and division of land use in cities to
make it more manageable , and grid based planning to make it possible for faster vehicular movement has
been the focus of planning but the pedestrian facilities have been ignored. We can see many examples
around the world that promoting sustainable mode of transportation like walking and cycling are more
1
https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/28679/adb-wp17-walkability-pedestrian-facilities-asian-cities.pdf
2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathmandu
3
https://thehimalayantimes.com/business/vehicle-registration-exceeds-2-5-million/

likely to be effective to manage traffic. As the assessment of policies and agencies responsible for in Nepal,
there are no comprehensive policy level plans to ensure the pedestrian rights for safer mobility whichwould
encourage people to walk.
In this study, the city was assessed using field walkability survey in 35 sections divided as wards, pedestrian
perception survey of 350 respondents and pedestrian volume in randomly selected points in above
mentioned 35 sections.
The study results showed that, the pedestrian facilities are not of standard forms. In fact, most of them are
not pedestrian friendly. It is observed that, around 60 percent of pathways did not have distinctive
pathways designed for pedestrian. Even with segment with footpaths, the width of footpath with four to six
feet was found in less than 25 percent of the segments.More than 30 percentof the footpaths were in
poorcondition with lot of obstructions. We could observe lot of physical disorder in the segments which
makes it unappealing for pedestrian to walk. Crossing aids were in very poor state. More than 80 percent of
segment lacked zebra crossing. This makes the risk of injury high amongst the pedestrian. According to data
of Metropolitan Traffic Division (2069 to 2072), 40 percent of pedestrians die ,out oftotal road accidents in
Nepal Kathmandu.The study also showed that, Zebra crossing in 40 percent of segments had faded away.
More than 70 percent of segment did not have any kind of basic amenities for the pedestrians. This poor
infrastructure could create risk to pedestrian. More than 70 percent reported that they fear to cross road,
whereas more than 40 percent have been already injured more than once because of poor pedestrian
facilities.
This study shows that there is a lot of room for improvement that need to be done from policy, budget,
planning to implementation part to improve pedestrian facilities in KMC. The respective government
authorities should consider pedestrian facilities as one of major aspect of any city design.

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Walking is a significant mode of transport. All human beings are pedestrians for varying time periods on roads.
Even people, who own vehicle, walk for shorter or longer distance. Walking may be considered as fundamental
to urban life. It is a healthy and pollution free form of mobility and recreation.The issue of walking friendly
urban environment is of importance also for the reason of social life, experiential quality, sustainability and
health. For instance, in terms of health benefits of walking which are supported by scientific evidence, changes
in the built environment may help people reach their physical activity goals in addition to individually
orientated behavior changes by promoting sustainable and healthy life style choices. Considering, emerging
issue of Non Communicable diseases, especially in urban areas of both developed and developing countries,
any kind of built environment that promotes physical activity should be prioritized in city planning and policies.
City Streetis the host for the community. It is street that the encounters essentials of communty and well
being. For decadethe simple act of walking has been largely overlooked by city planners, but the fact is no
matter how one chose to get around city, the chances are we are pedestrian at some point. Many city planners
have kept walkability under road safety guidelines but it is also about economic competitiveness too. According
to the UN, well planned cities should have 30-35 percent of their land dedicated to walk able streets to get
benefit of high connectivity.
Safety of pedestrian is also one of major issues around the world. Each year more than 170,000 pedestrian lose
their lives on theworld’s road. Globally, pedestrian constitute 22 percent of all road deaths and low
incomecountries this proportion is as high as two third. These incidents cause much suffering and grief as well
as economic hardship for the families 4.
Cities around the world are taking steps. Guangzhou in China has among the highest level of walking in the
world. Seoul had taken step to transform their city for pedestrians. London is moving forward to create world
class pedestrian space inOxford Street. In case of Nepal, pedestrian only street in Thamel can be considered as
a beginning. There are many similar examples all around the world.Inclusion of vehicle free areas and road
model equally giving importance to walking would increase the overall well being of the society.
1.1 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
4
WHO Pedestrian Safety: A road safety manual for decision makers and practitioners.2013

In many developing countries, a large number of citizen walk as part of their daily social, recreational and
livelihood activities. In case of Kathmandu, a large percentage walk as part of their daily commute (KVMP,
2001). Another study by MoPIT in 2011 showed that the travel mode share of walking is 40.7 percent
whereas private vehicle is only 28.2 percent. Kathmandu valley is historically designed, considering walking
as best mode of transportation.
Traffic congestion and air pollution caused by vehicular movement has become one for the most crushing
issues of cities around the world. For very long time, extension and expansion of roads to solve traffic
congestion and division of land use in cities is focusing faster vehicular movement. Though cars are made to
reduce travel time, most of the times, it has been cause of expansion of cities, thus increasing travel
distances especially for pedestrians. The hidden social, environmental and health cost of such an approach
are mostly ignored.
A study conducted by MOPIT and JICA (2011) also showed that the travel mode share of walking has
declined in last two decades. In cities, pedestrian infrastructure, amenities and services are often neglected
in policies, planning and budget. According to study conducted by KVMP, pedestrian represent up to 40
percent of all fatalities in Kathmandu City in 2001. Aside from this, an unsafe and inconvenient pedestrian
environment impedes social and economic mobility of people. There is also opportunity of cost that are lost
from tourism.
It is easily observed that the recent road development include increasing number of over head bridges and
widening the roads for vehicles. Many areas lack standard foot paths and zebra crossing which would
ultimately results congestion, road accidents. From 2069 to 2072(2013 to2015), 42 percent of total death is
of pedestrians in road accidents in Kathmandu (MTOD).This data urges some serious plan and action
towards increasing safe and inclusive walking infrastructure in the city.
However the share of walking is declined by more than 23 percent in last two decade. This is mainly
because the plans and policies and infrastructure development that were adopted are almost exclusively
vehicle centric, discouraging walking and even cycling.
Considering these facts RECPHEC planned to conduct the study to collect actual fact about the pedestrian
facilities in Kathmandu Metropolitan City

1.2 Scope
The study provides information on the current pedestrian infrastructure in Kathmandu Metropolitan City
(KMC) and can be used to develop and propose pedestrian friendly solutions.
1.3 Objective
The main objectives of the research are;
1.3.1 To provide qualitative assessment of walking situation of the KMC respective to pedestrian’s right.
1.3.2 To evaluate perceptionof pedestrian regarding the current pedestrian facilities andtheir preferences.
1.3.3 To create awareness and interest among general public, planners and policymakers on pedestrian
right.

CHAPTER -2
2. PEDESTRAIN POLICIES ANF INSTITUTIONS IN NEPAL
The National Transport Policy (2001/02) is the major guiding policy document of Nepal. According to the
National Transport Policy, the principal objective is to develop a reliable, cost effective, safe facility oriented
and sustainable transport system that promotes and sustains the economic, social, cultural and tourism
development of the of Nepal as a whole. However, apart from recommending action plan to restrict vehicle
and pedestrianized the prescribed urban core areas, the policy doesn’t have any specific policy to promote
walking. The policy is largely focused on building vehicle friendly roads throughout the country.
In fact, several plans and initiatives, including the first Physical Development Plan for Kathmandu Valley (1969)
have suggested improving the pedestrian infrastructure and pedestrianization of city core areas. There were
initiatives on restricting vehicles in Thamel area, however they are yet to materialized. In order to content
urban sprawl, the Kathmandu Valley Long -Term (2000-2020) Development Concept recommended series of
preventive and precautionary land management policies including encouragement of infill development,
maximizing land-use efficiency and minimum average gross residential density. It supports the creation of a
car-free zone and pedestrianization.
The Government of Nepal has published third revised National Road Standard (NRS) in 2013. According to the
document, the standards are to be applied for all roads being constructed in Nepal, however apply mostly for
non-urban roads (in open country outside built-up area).It states that footpaths should be made on all roads
passing through populated areas. On high traffic non-urban roads, footpaths should be constructed outside of
the roadway with separate formation or buffer areas to separate them from the carriageway. The width of the
footpath should be dependent on the volume of anticipated pedestrian traffic but a minimum width of 1.5 m is
required for the pedestrian facility. In case of narrow footpaths(<1.8m wide) a passing zone of a minimum
width of 1.8m and length of 2.0 m is to be provided at every 50m or less for passing of two wheelchairs.
According to NRS, the minimum width of footpaths for various volumes of pedestrian traffic should be as
shown:

Number of persons (both ways)/h Footpath width, m
1200 1.5
2400 2.0
3600 2.5
Table 1 Minimum width of footpath as per NRS
It states that no road humps shall be provided on road located in non-urban areas. They can be provided on
slow speed roads (speed <30 kmph, only on class IV roads) on some urban areas if their necessity is justified.
The NRS set the following standards for the pedestrian crossings.
• Grade separated pedestrian crossings should be provided where pedestrian volume, traffic volume,
intersection capacity, and other conditions favor their use, although their specific location and design
require individual study.
• They may be warranted where there are heavy peak pedestrian movements, such as at central business
districts, factories, schools, or athletic fields, in combination with moderate to heavy vehicular traffic or
where unusual risk or inconvenience to pedestrians would otherwise result.
• Overpass/underpass crossings should be easier to use(than directly crossing the road), well lighted to
enhance the sense of security and well ventilated (especially on long underpasses).
• Walkways for pedestrian separations should have a minimum width of 2.5 m. Greater widths may be
needed where there are exceptionally high volumes of pedestrian traffic.
• Overpasses should have a minimum vertical clearance of 4.75m and underpasses 2.5m.
• All overpass/underpass pedestrian crossings should be provided with ramp for wheelchairs or other
alternative measures (e.g. lifts) for comfortable movement of disabled people. Maximum grade on the
ramps should not be steeper than 8%.
According to motor vehicle and transport management act (2049 B.S),it has not mandate the construction of
footpaths. It states that pedestrian shall walk only on the pavement of a road wherever it exists, and at the
edge of the road if such pavements are not built. It further states that pedestrian shall do crossing only use
zebra-crossing, sub-way, and overhead bridge or at the places designated for road-crossing while crossing the
roads.

Metropolitan Traffic Police Division has started campaign to discourage people for Jaywalking and forced them
to use the overhead bridges. In 2012, Metropolitan Traffic Police Division (MTPD) penalized around 365
persons for jaywalking. The police collected a fine of Rs 50 each from those crossing the roads from the main
roads instead of the overhead bridges and zebra crossings. In 2011, the traffic police had arrested hundreds of
people and fined Rs 50-200 for not using zebra crossings and overhead bridges while crossing roads. 5
The government of Nepal with the support from ADB has initiated Kathmandu Sustainable Urban Transport
Project (KSUTP). Improving walkability or pedestrianization in the city center is one of the components of
KSUTP. The main objective the project is to improve the quality of urban life through improving urban mobility.
The project is planning to pedestrianize 8-km of heritage routes in Kathmandu city core and improve around
16-km of sidewalks in and around the central business district. The project is also upgrading and/or
constructing pedestrian bridges, and improving interchange facility and public space in Kantipath. Street
furniture, sidewalk garden and signpost have also been proposed wherever applicable and appropriate to
facilitate pedestrians to walk and relax, and create pleasant walking environment.
Local city governments have pedestrianized or restricted vehicular movement in major heritage sites of
Kathmandu Valley such as Basantapur, Bhaktapur and Patan Durbar Square. According to the decision on Aril
2010, all vehicles except ambulances and other emergency vehicles including those used by police are not
allowed in the Basantapur Durbar Square. The local administration banned four-wheelers at World Heritage
Site first in 2002 and again in 2008. The main objective is to preserve cultural heritage sites, promote tourism
and create walking environment for pedestrians. However it is often found that the restriction of vehicles in
those pedestrianzed areas are not properly regulated.
2.1 Role of Key Government Agencies, Private Sectors and Non-governmental Organization
Our cities are traditionally designed for walking and walking still dominates the mode share. Everyone becomes
pedestrian at some point of time in a day. Public transports users have to walk to the stations, and even car
user have to walk from the parking areas to the office or other destination. Making our streets pedestrian
friendly benefits everyone. The key governmental agencies that are responsible for making the pedestrian-
friendly streets, including the role of non-governmental agencies are:
2.1.1 Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Transport (MoPIT)
5
The Kathmandu Post: http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2012/02/23/top-story/traffic-police-fines-365-
jaywalkers/231894.html

MoPIT is the key ministry that is responsible for developing policies and plans for transport infrastructures and
management. As the key task of MoPIT is to prepare policies, plans and programs, it can play the major role in
enhancing the pedestrian’s safety and accessibility. The Department of Roads and Department of Transport
Management under the MoPIT are key agencies responsible for implementing the policies and plans. The
ministry is currently implementing Kathmandu Sustainable Urban Transport Project, which also has
pedestrianization of urban core areas and sidewalk improvement components. It is also planning to develop
National Transport Management Strategy and revise National Transport Policy. Recently, it has also formulated
revised national road standards.
2.1.2 Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD)
The main goal of the ministry is to manage the urbanization through integrated urban land-use planning, and
developing new sustainable urban settlements. It has mandate to devise polices, plans and programs on urban
development including urban infrastructures and evaluate the devised plans and policies. With the better land-
use planning and strategies, the ministry can contribute in making cities more walk able. Although the
jurisdiction of developing and maintaining urban roads is not very clear, the ministry has key role to play to
develop pedestrian-friendly urban roads through coordination with different ministries, municipalities and
development authority.
2.1.3 Kathmandu Valley Development Authority (KVDA)
KVDA’s primary mandate is to prepare and implement an integrated physical development plan for Kathmandu
Valley. One of the long-term goals of KVDA is to manage the road and transport system of the valley. It aims to
upgrade and improve the road network system and open spaces in the valley. Thus, KVDA has important role in
ensuring that the integrated Kathmandu Valley development plan has components of building pedestrian-
friendly infrastructures and amenities.
2.1.4 Traffic Police Division
Traffic Police Division has key role in enforcing the traffic rules and regulations for effective traffic management
specifically in the cities. It has key role in addressing the issues faced by pedestrians such as road crossings,
illegal parking of vehicles in sidewalks etc. Traffic police are also responsible to safeguard the pedestrians’
rights and prioritize in overall traffic rules/regulations.
2.1.5 Municipalities

Beside highways and strategic road networks, the municipalities look after all the urban roads. The municipal
office has key role to play for devising plans/programs and allocate budget for developing and maintaining the
urban roads including sidewalks. It has also key role in providing amenities for pedestrians.
Although there are few initiatives on improving pedestrian facilities and services, there are no comprehensive
polices and plans to ensure the pedestrians’ rights for safer mobility. Many of the policies and plans including
National Transport Policy have prioritized the mobility of vehicles by focusing on expanding and improving the
motor road infrastructures.

CHAPTER -3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The study method is completely based on primary data. These primary data were collected through
observation and interviews. An observation study was designed and developed to generate clearer picture
of the actual problems faces by the pedestrian in KMC. In addition, to complement the observation study, a
perception study was undertaken which included survey of 350 people. The pedestrian volume at
difference segments in the city was also analyzed.
3.1 Study Area
The Kathmandu Valley is one of the fastest-growing urban agglomerations in SouthAsia

(Muzzini&Apericio, 2013; MoUD, 2015). Since, it is major city with high heavy traffic volume and
mobility of people, we chose Kathmandu Metropolitan City of Kathmandu valley for our study. Then
the study area was divided into 35 sections following the available map .35 wards of KMC. In each
section, 5 point of interest were chosen which were,
• Temple
• Educational institute
• Commercial area
• Vegetable market and
• Public space as available.
From each point of interest 12 nearby segment were chosen and from random sampling three
segments were finalized for the procedure. The point of interest along with their coordinates is
attached in Annex I.

Figure 1 Study Area, Kathmandu Metropolitan City
3.2 Methodology
The methodology includes interview with pedestrians regarding the walking environment in the city
and city and analyze the pedestrian volume at selected points. The field walkability survey and
pedestrian perception survey were done by eight member of Youth Volunteer of Livable Cities 6
(YVLC).They trained for the survey and monitored continuously by RECPHEC.
3.2.1 Field Walkability Survey (Infrastructure Audit)
A field survey is a qualitative assessment of walking condition including safety, security and
convenience of the pedestrian environment. For this survey, we divided Kathmandu
Municipality into 35 sections, referring to number of wards KMC was divided into
previously. The total number of site for the study was 525 as shown in table below.
S.N No. of Point of interest in No. of segment in Total number

Section each section each point of of segments
interest chosen for the
study
1 35 5 3 525
Table 2 Total number of segment for the survey
6
YVLC is a group of volunteer formed by RECPHEC, where student of different field have enrolled

Figure 2 Random sampling of three segments of each point of interest in Ward number 10.(For
example)
3.2.2 Pedestrian Perception Survey

A pedestrian perception survey conducted in order to evaluate the pedestrian’s perception
of the current walking facilities available in the city. Their perceptions about future
improvements were also studied. Pedestrian’s perception survey was conducted in 35
sections of the city during peak hours. This was done after completing the infrastructure
audit with pedestrian walking by. 350 (10 in each section) pedestrian were randomly
selected for the study. The sample was distributed equally among children, youth, middle
age and senior citizen as much possible.
3.2.3 Pedestrian Count

Pedestrian count was carried out during weekdays in peak hours in all 35 sections. For this,
the volunteers chose one position in each section and then counted total number of
pedestrian passing from that position for two hours with interval of 15 minutes.
3.5 Limitation of the survey

The roads of Kathmandu during the study process was worst because of road expansion
and digging during the process of installing water pipes for the Melamchi Drinking water
supply project. Thus we have to choose different segments than we previously planned.
Apart from this, subjectivity of responses depended upon the assessment of individual
surveyors.

CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH RESULT
Using an physical audit tool developed specifically for this study, the project team analyzed 525 road segments
(“segment” refers to a section of road between two intersections). The physical audit was supplemented by
perception intercept surveys conducted with a random sample of 350 residents and visitors of study areas;
these perception surveys collected information about how people in the street felt about the street conditions
that they experienced every day. Finally, we conducted pedestrian counts in ach of the 25 sections during peak
hours.
4.1 Infrastructure Audit Survey

The Infrastructure Audit tool measured eight attributes of the walking environment in the 35 sections:
• Road Details
• Land Use Diversity
• Footpath Availability
• Footpath Quality
• Facilities for the Differently Abled
• Safety
• Availability of Amenities
• General Characteristics
4.1.1 Road Details
From the survey , it was found that 39 percent of the segment had only one lane and 37 percent had two
lanes. Only 9 percent had more than four lanes. It was found that 14 percent of segment did not have any lane,
especially in core areas (see Figure 3).

Number of lanes
40%
30%
20%
10% Number of lanes
0%
4 or 3 lane 2 lane 1 lane No lane
more
lane
Figure 3 Number of lanes
More than 50 percent of segment have low volume of traffic whereas 11 percent of segment have high volume
of traffic. Unexpectedly, it was found that roads with more lanes have high volume traffic compare to road with
fewer lanes for traffic (see Figure 4).
Traffic Volume
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% Traffic Volume
10%
0%
Low Medium Hihg No path
Volume Volume Volume
Figure 4 Traffic Volume in the segment

4.1.2 Land use diversity
We also found that 38 percent of the segments have little mixture of residential and non residential land use.
Only 28 percent of the segments we reviewed were found to have some mix in land use. Approximately 22
percent of total segments surveyed were found to have lot of mix in land uses. We could find lot of mixed land
uses in core areas of Kathmandu. Restaurants and shops were the most common non-residential land uses in
the surveyed segments with approximately 24 percent of segment having shops and 18 percent having
eateries. Offices were reported to be observed in 14 percent of all segments surveyed. Other landmarks
includedschools, government offices, playgrounds and entertainment were seen in only a few segments (see
Figure 5).
Land Use Diversity (Mi Land Use

40% 30%
25%
20%
30% 15%
10%
20% 5%
Land U 0%
(Mix) Land Use
10%
0%
No Little Some A lot
Mix Mix Mix of mix
Figure 5 Land use diversity in the segment
4.1.3 Footpath Availability
Footpath availability is essential to promote walking. Streets without footpaths requires pedestrians to walk on
the street and mix with automobile traffic, which increases the risk of collisions. Around 60 percent of the city
had no footpaths. However, for those streets where footpaths were available, they were typically located on
both sides of the roads (31 percent of total segment surveyed). Only 9 percent of the segments surveyed had
footpaths on only one side of the street (see Figure 6).

Availabity of footpaths
80%
60%
40% Availabity of footpaths

20%
0%
None One Side Both Side
Figure 6Availability of footpath in the segment
4.1.4 Footpath Quality
Half of all footpaths were covered with tiles and bedding materials and around 30 percent of segments
surveyed used slabs.Paving bricks and sand were each was found in approximately 10 percent of segments
surveyed (see Figure 7).
Footpath Materials
50%
40%
30%
20%
10% Footpath Materials
0%
Figure 7 Materials used for the pavement of footpath
In determining the quality of a footpath, it is important to understand the size and features of the footpath
itself. During the study we observed many people were walking along the roadside instead of the footpaths as
many of the footpaths were too narrow to use or were broken. Even and wide footpathsare necessary for
people to walk comfortably. In this study it was found that, of those segments with footpaths, approximately
28 percent were less than 2 feet wide, almost half of the footpaths were 2-4 feet in width, and approximately
24 percent were found to have a width of 4 to 6 feet. Footways more than 6 feet were found in less than one
percent (see Figure 8).
Width of Footpath
50%
40%
30%
20% Width of Footpath
10%
0%
Less than 2 to 4ft 4 to 6 ft More than
2 ft 6 ft
Figure 8 Width of footpath
Most of the footpaths in the segments surveyed were considered fair (44%) or poor (32%). To be considered to
be in fair condition means people could use the footpath, but there was broken places and some heave and
poor condition means there were a number of broken sections and heaves. Only 20 percent of all segments
surveyed had a well-maintained footpaths with very few broken sections (see Figure 9).

Condition of Footpath
50%
40%
30%
Condition of Footpath
20%
10%
0%
Poor Fair Good
Figure 9 Condition of footpath in the segment
Obstructions are a big problem on segments surveyed. Most of the roads were found with no
obstruction.Pillars and cables were found to be blocking the footpaths in almost 25% of all segments, which
highlights mismanaged development. Around 17 percent of street segments had cars/motorbikes blocking the
way and shop goods were found to cause obstruction a similar number of street segments. Construction
rubbish (13%) and car entry/exits (11%) were contributing to obstructing surveyed segments. Other more
minor sources of obstruction including trees, trashcans and vendors (see Figure 10).
Obstructions in footpaths
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Obstructions in footpaths
Figure 10 Obstruction in the footpath

Figure 11 Images showing various obstructions on the footpath in various segment
In addition to understand the type of obstructions, we also wanted to understand whether those obstructions
caused problems for pedestrians. We found that surveyors could not walk on the footpath due to the
obstructions on approximately 20 percent of all segments. They had to leave the footpath because of the
obstructions 1-3 times in more than 30 percent of the segments and they had to leave the footpath more than
four times on 11 percent of the segments(see Figure 12).
Obstruction and leaving foot path for

the survey
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Obstruction and leaving
Never 1-3 times More Could foot path for the survey
than 4 not walk
in the
path
Figure 12 Obstruction that forced surveyor to leave footpath
Physical disorder is important, such as trash, is important because it makes walking unattractive. We found
that cigarettes and bidis were the most prominent disorder element with surveyors reporting 33 percent of
segments have these types of small litter. Garbage was observed in 28 percent of all segments and 19 percent
of segments had cans and bottles scattered around. Urine smells and graffiti were each observed in 2.5 of the
segments. Only 13 percent of segments had no physical disorder (see Figure 13).

Physical Disorder
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% Physical Disorder
Figure 13 Kind of physical disorder in the segment
Figure 14 Image showing physical disorder in footpath.
Approximately 60 percent of the observed segments were rated as “fair” in terms of cleanliness, which means
they have\ some physical disorder and 20 percent of segments were rated as having poor cleanliness. Only 12
percent of segments were considered good in terms of cleanliness situation with very few physical disorders
present (see Figure 15).

Cleanliness in the segment
80%
60%
40% Cleanliness in the

segment
20%
0%
Poor Fair Good
Figure 15 Cleanliness in the segments
4.1.5 Facilities for the Differently Abled
In order to support walkability, it is important that those people who are differently abled can move about the
city freely and easily. In order to measure this attributed we considered whether it would be possible for
people who use mobility devices, such as wheelchairs, to move about the segments. We concluded that
approximately 71 percent of the segmentsit would not be possible for an individual in wheelchair to travel
freely. In the remaining 29 percent of the segments it would be possible for a person with wheelchair to use
the available infrastructure, but they would not be able to do so easily and smoothly. So for these remaining
segments we concluded that it would be possible to use a wheelchair or other mobility device, but to do so
would be difficult and risky (see Figure 16).

Wheelchair accessibility
80%
60%
40% Wheelchair accessibility
20%
0%
Yes No
Figure 16 Wheel chair accessibility in the segments.
4.1.6 Safety
Safety is a critical attribute if we are to encourage and support pedestrians. Here again we can see the lack of
planning for pedestrians on Kathmandu streets. We found that 80 percent of all segments surveyed lacked any
kind of crossing aid for pedestrians to aid them in crossing the street safely. Only 17 percent of all segments
had zebra crossing and signs were also found in only 2.5 percent of all roads. Police enforcement was seen in
only near 1 percent of all segments (see Figure 17).
Crossing aids for pedestrains

80%
60%
40%
20% Crossing aids for
0% pedestrains
Figure 17 Crossing aid for pedestrian in the segments.
In those intersections where zebra crossings did exist, 16 percent were in poor condition, 44 percent of them
were considered in fair condition where as 40 percent were in good condition (see Figure 18). In addition,
97percent of all segments surveyed had no special traffic lights to support zebra crossings and only 3 percent
of all such segments had special lights to aid zebra crossing (see Figure 20).
Condition of zebra crossing
50%
40%
30% Condition of zebra
20% crossing
10%
0%
Poor Fair Good
Figure 18 Condition of zebra crossing in the segments
Figure 19 Image showing situation of zebra crossing.
Traffic lights to support zebra crossing
100%
80%
60% Traffic lights to support
40% zebra crossing
20%
0%
Yes No
Figure 20 Availability of traffic lights to support zebra crossing.

In addition, 70 percent of all segments had no traffic calming and controlling devices. Lane width restrictions
and signs accounted for 8.5 percent each, where as roundabouts, traffic signals and speed humps wereeac
found in only 4 percent of all road segments (see Figure 21).
Traffic Calming measures

80%
60%
40%
20%
Traffic Calming measures
0%
Figure 21 Traffic calming measures to reduce speed ofvehicles in the segments.
In addition to having few traffic calming measures, vehicle drivers were found to be aggreessive towards
pedestrians in 62 percent of all surveyed segments. Examples of aggressive behaviour included speeding and
not allowing pedestrians to pass first. Only 38 percent of remaining segments had drivers who were calm and
let the pedestrians move easily (see Figure 22).

Drivers attitude towards pedestrains
80%
60%
Drivers attitude towards
40%
pedestrains
20%
0%
Good Bad
Figure 22 Drivers attitude towards pedestrians.
Figure 23 Images showing difficulty of pedestrian to cross in zebra crossing.

4.1.7 Availability of Amenities
As part of the audit we identified the amenities that were available to the pedestrians, as amenities help create
an interesting and comfortable walking environment. Unfortunately the vast majority of segments had no
amenities for pedestrians. Only 11 percent of all segments had vendors selling goods visible. Other such
amenities such as toilet, seating and trash bins were found in very few segments (ranging from 1-3 percent; see
Figure 24).
Basic Amenities
80%
60%
40%
20% Basic Amenities
0%
Figure 24 Basic amenities in the segments.
The shade from tree is always pleasant for walking, especially in the hot summer season. Kathmandu is a city
where people could walk in summer season if there was enough tree canopy or any kind of other artificial
shade. Unfortunately, 93 percent of all segments surveyed had no tree shade. We found that only 6 percent of
segments had some form of shade and in only 0.5 percent of all segments did we find tree cover dense enough
to create shade (see Figure 25).

Tree Shade
100%
80%
60%
40% Tree Shade
20%
0%
None/Very Some Many/very
Few dense
Figure 25 Tree shades in the segments
A final important amenity is pedestrian-scale street lighting. Of the segments we reviewed, the vast majority
(80%) hadroad oriented lighting while only 7 percent had pedestrian-scale lighting. In addition, 12 percent of
all segments surveyed had no lighting at all (see Figure 26).
Street Lights
80%
60%
40%
Street Lights
20%
0%
Road pedestrain Other No lighting
orientated orientated lighting
Figure 26 Availability of street lights in the segments.
4.1.8General Characteristics
In 43 percent of all segments cars and motorbikes were parked illegally whereas 39 percent of the segments
had legally parked vehicles. Approximately 10 percent of segments had no cars and bikes parked. Trucks were
illegally parked in 2 percent of all area . (see Figure 27).

Parking in road segment
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Parking in road segment
Figure 27 Vehicles parkedon the roads.
In 37 percent of the segments, the parking hindered the pedestrians to some extent whereas in 34 percent of
the segments parking caused only a little hindrance. In 16 percent of the segments, the parking caused a lot of
hindrance and in 11 percent of all road segments we found the parking did not hinder pedestrian activity at all
(see Figure 28).
Disturbance due to parking

40%
30%
20% Disturbance due to
10% parking
0%
A little To some A lot No
extent hindrance
Figure 28 Disturbance due to vehicle parked.
In 39 percent of all road segments the surveyors found that a little noise pollution was audible and in 26
percent of all segments some noise pollution could be heard. However, 27 percent of segments had a lot of
noise pollution. These were typically segments with high traffic volumes and were mostly in commercial areas
such as Baneswor. Around 8 percent of surveyed segments had no noise pollution and most of these segments
belonged to residential areas (see Figure 29).
Noise Pollution
40%
30%
20% Noise Pollution

10%
0%
None A little Some A lot
Figure 29 Noise pollution experienced during the survey.
An important characteristic in cities is the ability for children to play in the streets. Luckily, in Kathmandu we
can still find children playing in streets. Unfortunately, such playing is decreasing every year as the risk due to
increasing traffic has decreased the opportunity of children, especially from low-income families as they tend
to live in higher volume traffic corridors. Our study found that only 25% of segments surveyed had children
playing on the streets(see Figure 30).
Childrens playing in road
80%
60%
40% Childrens playing in
road
20%
0%
Yes No
Figure 30 Children playing in the roads.

In terms of the social dynamics of the road, we found that 60 percent of the segments we could see people
stopping to talk or greet each other but in the remaining 40 percent no any such conversations could be
observed (see Figure 31).
Social dynamics in road
80%
60%
40% Social dynamic in road
20%
0%
Yes No
Figure 31 Social dynamics in the road.
4.2 Pedestrian Perception Survey
In addition to the physical audit of the street segments, we also conducted a pedestrian perception survey in
order to better understand the perceptions and experiences of those who are walking in Kathmandu. In total,
we interviewed 350 pedestrians. Approximately 58 percent of the respondents were female and 42 percent
were male. From the survey it was also found that, most of the female respondent were more interested and
engaged in the idea of improving pedestrian facilities.
Our study found very clearly that most of the pedestrians surveyed feel unsafe while crossing the road with 73
percent responding positively when asked if they feared crossing the road (see Figure32).

Fear of crossing the road
80%
60%
40% Fear to cross road
20%
0%
Yes No
Figure 32 Fear of crossing the road.
In addition, the majority of respondents shared that they believe drivers are careless and aggressive towards
pedestrians. Some even suggested that drivers behave as if pedestrians do not belong on the streets.
Approximately 80 percent of respondent felt aggressive behavior from drivers (see Figure 33).
Perception about drivers

attitude(Aggressiveness)
80%
60%
40% Perception about drivers
attitude(Aggressiveness)
20%
0%
Yes No Don’t Know
Figure 33 Pedestrians perception on driver’s attitude towards them.
Kathmandu is a traditional city originally developed as walking-friendly city. But, the dynamics have changed as
city planning has focused more on encouraging travel by automobile. However, even today more than 40
percent of respondents indicated they prefer to walk for short trips whereas only four percent of respondents
would choose to drive a private car. From the physical audit, we found that many of the road segments do not
have footpaths and more that 30 percent of total footpath observed were in poor condition. Yet, despite these
poor walking conditions, many respondents still prefer to walk for short trips. This suggests that there is

demand for pedestrian infrastructure in Kathmandu and that if we improved the infrastructure, there is high
probability that we could encourage even more people to walk (see Figure 34).
Choice of mode of transportation for

short trips
50%
40%
30%
20% Choice of mode of
10%
0% transportation for short
trips
Figure 34 Mode of transportation chosen for short trip
Unfortunately, safety is a concern with 71 percent of respondent saying they felt unsafe walking at nights.
When we consider that there are very few streets with pedestrian-scale lighting, it is easy to understand why
pedestrians would feel uneasy walking at night (see Figure 35).
Safety while walking at night
80%
60%
Safety while walking at
40%
night
20%
0%
Yes No
Figure 35Pedestrian’s perception on safety while walking
It is not easy to walk in Kathmandu city especially during rush hours. More than 39 percent respondents
reported feeling that motorbikes were a major cause of havoc for pedestrians, while 33 percent felt it was the

trucks that were the major source of the problem. Only six percent felt that cars created havoc for pedestrians
(see Figure 36).
Most havoc creating vehicle for

pedestrians
40%
30%
20%
10% Most havoc creating
0% vehicle for pedestrians
Figure 36 Types of vehicle creating havoc for pedestrian movement.
Our perception survey found53 percent of respondents feel that the pedestrian facilities in Kathmandu city are
bad while 23 percent feel it is worst. This shows that 75 percent of respondent find it difficult to walk and this
can be reflected in the facilities the city provides for pedestrians. This kind of negligence towards pedestrian
facilitieswill result in people opting to take other forms of transportation other than walking. Thiswill ultimately
create more traffic pressure in the city (see Figure 37).
Situation of pedestrains facilities in

KMC
60%
40%
Situation of pedestrains
20% facilities in KMC
0%
Worst Bad OK Good Best
Figure 37 Situation of pedestrian facilities.

Figure 38 Image showing broken footpaths.
When asked what types of improvements they would like to see to improve the situation for pedestrians, the
majority of respondent emphasized they wanted easy access for differently able(72%), cleanness, improved
street lights, wider and uniforms footpaths and safer crossing points.
Wish list for better pedestrain amenities

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Wish list for better pedestrain
amenities
Figure 39 Wish list of pedestrians for better pedestrian amenities.
When asked how they would like to cross the road, the majority said they would prefer zebra crossings (60%).
Although the second most popular choice was footover bridges (25%), we believe that most people are
unaware of the types of facilities available to help them cross the street and would therefore choose a facility
that they are familiar with (see Figure 40). However, our experience shows that footover bridges are

impossible for thedifferently abled and difficult for many vulnerable citizens. It is clear, based on the number
of people who cross the road at grade despite being close to a footover bridge, that crossingat grade is the best
option for Kathmandu.
Preferred medium to cross the road

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Preferred medium to
cross the road
Figure 40 Preferred medium to cross the road by the people.
Figure 41 Image showing a senior citizen crossing the road through foot over bridge.
Official statistics regarding injuries resulting from vehicle-pedestrian collisions typically under-estimate the
number of people injured. It was revealing to learn that more than 40 percent of respondents have been
injured more than once due to poor facilities for pedestrian on streets of Kathmandu (see Figure 42).

Injuries due to poor quality of
pedestrain facilities
40%
30%
20%
Injuries due to poor
10%
quality of pedestrain
0%
facilities
Never 1-2 3-4 More Not
times times than 5 sure
times
Figure 42 Number of injuries faced due to poor quality of pedestrian facilities.
A final area we explored was the necessity to manage street hawkers. It is typical for street hawkers to be the
target of pedestrian improvement programs as they are often blamed for causing obstructions on the
pedestrian pathways. Our study did not find that street hawkers contributed to the poor walking environment.
So, we asked respondents if they would support properly managing street hawkers. More than 80 percent of
respondents felt that the street hawkers should be managed properly to end any disputes (see Figure 43).
Would you prefer proper

management of hawkers?
100%
80%
60% Would you prefer proper
40% management of hawkers?
20%
0%
Yes No Not sure
Figure 43 Preference for proper hawker facility.

3.3 Pedestrians Count
The study area was divided into 35 sections with five point of interest in each section. The pedestrian count
was conducted at each of the five points of interest for all the 35 sections. Altogether there were 175 segments
where pedestrians were count. Again we took an average of each 35 sections. TableX depicts the average
number of pedestrians in each of the 35 sectionsduring peak hours, which we defined as 9 am to 11 am.
Section 31 had the highest number of pedestrians by Section 1 and Section 6. The lowest number of pedestrian
were found Section 20 followed by Section 21 and Section 26. The average total number of pedestrians for all
sections was found to be 613per hour.
Section number 31 is a commercial area where there one bus station and arenowned college of Nepal. Most of
the pedestrians were students walking towards the bus station nearby. Sections 1 and 6 have lots of schools
and is where five star hotels are located. This suggestions that students and tourists are two important
pedestrian groups in the city. Eventhough we see a lot of pedestrians in the core areas of Kathmandu,which
includes Sections 13 to 24, the number of pedestrian counted was not the highest. We believe this is in part
because of the time of day we chose and because thesize of the areas is smaller. However, mostof these areas
have more than 500 pedestrianduring the study period. And the mostprominent featureof theses area is the
traditional market places. The infrastructure of these areas is suitable for walking and people visit these areas
for shopping. We have found that many people prefer to walk while shopping. The section where the major
land use was residentialwere observed to have lower number of pedestrian. This finding makes sense given
that there are no mixed land uses and a variety of desintations have been shown to produce demand for
walking.
Table X: Pedestrian Counts by Section
Section Pedestrian Section Pedestrian
No. Volume No. Volume
1 1226 19 332
2 983 20 124
3 1056 21 189

4 947 22 266
5 730 23 444
6 1098 24 396
7 902 25 335
8 698 26 212
9 736 27 372
10 742 28 239
11 478 29 487
12 227 30 357
13 552 31 1685
14 675 32 856
15 778 33 789
16 469 34 661
17 589 35 527
18 289
Table 3 Total pedestrian count in each 35 sections.

CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSION
Safe and accessible pedestrian infrastructure is extremely important to improve the mobility system of cities.
Although there are a few initiatives to improve pedestrian facilities and services in Kathmandu, there are no
comprehensive policies, plans and infrastructure development programs that ensure the pedestrian’s right for
safe and easy mobility.
Government authorities often use the word “development” to describe the recent trend of expanding roads. It
is imperative that all “development” approaches should encourage sustainability and protect the most
vulnerable. Focusing on vehicular mobility while ignoring the needs of pedestrians achieves the opposite.
Having wider roads for vehicles is only a temporary solution to congestion and creates a whole host of other
health, environmental, and economic problems.On the other hand, having an integrated road design that
includes standard footpaths, cycling lanes and dedicated public transit routes is more sustainable.
Our walkability study has provided valuable insight into many aspects of the pedestrian experience in
Kathmandu city. The audit and perception surveysfocused on the quality of the pedestrian facilities and the
experiences of pedestrians. From the study it is clear that the pedestrian facilities in Kathmandu city do not
meet the basic standards for pedestrians. Kathmandu city, is considered the most urban and developed city of
Nepal so if it does not meet the basic standard, we can suppose the situation in other cities of Nepal is equally
dire.
The study revealed that around 60 percent of street segments surveyed do not have footpaths at all. The study
also showed that 33 percent of footpaths that are available are of poor condition. Particularly alarming was the
finding that more than 40 percent of respondents reported that they have been injured more than once
because of poor pedestrian infrastructure. In addition, we found that more than 20 percent of those segment
had a lot of noise pollution. This study also looked in facility of differently able to move across in the city.
Around 71 percent of the areas observed did not have wheelchair accessibility, which will greatly reduce the
mobility, and therefore quality of life, for people living with disabilities. If the trend towards focusing on
vehicular mobility and not on pedestrian mobility continues, it is likely we will see a massive growth in shift of
transportation mode from walking to private vehicle. The result of this will be not only increases in traffic
congestion but also increases in air and noise pollution.
The wish list of the respondents in the perception survey was to improve access for differently abled people,
improve street lighting, cleanness of the footpaths, removing obstacles and creating safe crossing points at

intersections. Since, street hawkers have emerged as one of major issue in street management, when asked
about this issue more than 80 percent of respondent indicated they would like to see hawkers better managed.
Overall our study found that a lot of work is need in terms of improving policy, allocating appropriate budgets,
creating pedestrian plans and ensuring implementation if we want to create environments that encourage
pedestrians in KMC. There have been some positive initiatives that have benefited pedestrian. However, these
initiatives have been few in numbers and frequently fragmented and not part of a larger vision. The respective
government authorities should consider pedestrian facilities as one of major aspect of any city design.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on our findings, we recommend the following policy and infrastructure improvements to improve the
situation for pedestrians:
Policies
 Formulate a National (Urban) Transport Policy with a vision to develop a people-centric transport
system.
 Formulate National (Urban) Road Standards or Design Guidelines that put the pedestrian first, and that
will guide the overall development of road infrastructure and services.
 Formulate a National Urban Planning Policy or guidelines that encourages compact, mixed-use cities.
 Develop comprehensive plans at the city-level to promote non-motorized transport system, which
could include a pedestrian and cycling master plan or strategy and ensure those plans or strategies are
linked to the transit plans or strategies.
 Ensure pedestrian infrastructure is a separate budget line (not combined with overall road work) and
ensure the budget is sufficient to improve footpaths and create a more positive environment for
walking.
 Create policies that require zebra crossing and discourage overhead bridges.
 Ensure strict law for collisions in zebra crossings.
 Provide the necessary supports for law enforcement to ensure footpaths are free of obstructions and
clean.
 Develop a strategy to manage parking including creating strict laws for illegal parking and for parking in
footpaths to reduce disturbance while walking.
 Create a separate department of pedestrian rights in each city, starting with the Kathmandu Valley
Development Authority.
 Conduct awareness and educational programs on the importance and benefits of walking and raise
awareness among drivers about their responsibilities.
 Strengthen monitoring system in construction site to ensure quality.
Infrastructure Improvement
 Prioritize the building of footpaths in all high volume and medium volume streets.
 Ensure footpaths are standard size starting in the planning phase and ensure the size matches the
volume of pedestrians.
 Promote inclusive footpath designs that ensure facilities for the differently abled.
 Repaint the existing zebra crossing and ensure enforcement for safety of pedestrians.
 Create a strict monitoring system that improves the quality of footpaths
 Install pedestrian-orientated street light to increase safety at night time.
 Plant shade trees in footpath areas to create a more comfortable walking environment.
 Add additional dustbins and toilets and other amenities such as benches for sitting throughout the city
to encourage walking.
 Create designated hawker zones as part of the pedestrian network.

REFERENCE
Final Report: Data Collection Survey on Traffic Improvement in Kathmandu Valley, MoPIT/JICA (2012)
Master Plan for Delhi-2021, Delhi Development Authority (2001)
National Urban Transport Policy, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India (2009)
The Pedestrian Street - "Strøget" – Copenhagen (Link: http://www.copenhagenet.dk/cph-map/CPH-

Pedestrian.asp)
Vision Zero – A safe road traffic concept (Link: http://www.swedishroadsafety.se/vision-zero.html)
Walkabiliyt Study Kochi- ESAF India/Healthbridge(2017)
Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Asian Cities- Status Issues, ADB (2011)
Walkability in Asian Cities: Assessment of Pedestrian Infrastructures and Services in Four Areas of Kathmandu
City, CEN/CANN/CAI-Asia/ADB/FK (2010)
Walkability in Kathmandu Valley- Walking: Our Right-of-Way, MaYA Factsheet #2, CEN/CANN (2013)
https://www.pps.org/article/what-is-walkability-how-do-you-measure-it-take-aways-from-this-years-trb-
meeting.
https://www.walkscore.com/walkable-neighborhoods.shtml
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095263516300656
http://www.communityindicators.net.au/files/images/Transport%20Walkability%20Index%20FAQs%20FINAL.p
df
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/m0000/pedfacgb.pdf
https://www.swov.nl/file/15401/download?token=W-ot6xSE
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/#inbox/KtbxLwgdcLMBdhfrVzvdtQkTFttjJZJVbB
http://cen.org.np/cann/admin/download/911Fact%20Sheet%20_Walkability(2).pdf
http://www.cen.org.np/index.php?page=news_detail&nid=226

http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/printedition/news/2018-02-10/walkable-cities-reduce-blood-pressure-
and-hypertension-risk.html
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/79753/9789241505352_eng.pdf;jsessionid=0E7D154497B3C
34D76D072E2009D7BB2?sequence=1
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:551283/FULLTEXT01.pdf

ANNEXURE -1 Segment Detail.
Segment identified and analyzed for the walkability study of Kathmandu City are listed below.
S.N Point of Interest

o A B C D E
Bagmati Boarding SamaMarg,Naxa Annapurna

1 NaxalBhagwati Secondary School l Hotel Kamaalpokhari
Blue Horizon Shanti DDC Dairy Ltd

2 Shiva Temple School NiketanMarg Hotel Shanker (Lainchour)
Bhanubhakta
3 Shiva Mandir Memorial Collage SallghariMarg HotelSangrila Rani Bari
Panchakanya Dashrath Chand Nepal Rastra
4 DakshikaliMandir School marg Bank Sankha Park
MahendraBhawan Sano
Higher Education Hirarantna Gauchanranfootb
5 * School HadiGaunMarg Hall allstadium
BoudhhanathStu Arunima higher GhyoiLaisang

6 pa Secondary School Jorpati Road Hyatt regency Peace Park
MitraparkGahes Nepal Bank
7 hthan Texas Int Collage AbhibyektiMarg Ltd Mitrapark
Pashupati Pashupati Pashupati

8 Temple Multiple Campus Bagmati Road View Tower Mrigasthali
Om Ace Int Business Sinamangal Eduhubconsul

9 MagarMandir School Road tingpvt ltd Prakash Ashram
KharibotRadha Aryan School Maitighar
10 Krishna Temple Pvt.Ltd BibhutiMarg Everest hotel Mandala
KalmochanMaha ViswoNiketan United World
11 devMandir School GanaBahalMarg Trade Centre Tudikhel
12 HyumatWonde * KarunamayaMar FNCCI PachaliMarg

Narayan Temple ga
Kathmandu Kalimati
Engineering Vegetable
13 * Collage BijayaMarg Soalte Hotel Market
KuleshworGanes Janamaitri Ganesh man Nepal SBI
14 than Temple Multiple Campus Sing Path Bank Khasi Bazar
Swoyambhu
SwoyambhuMah Acne Engiineering View Guest Manjushree
15 achiatya Collage Bhuikhel House Bazar
Balaju
MhepiAjima SidhharthaVanast industrial
16 Temple hali PakhnajolMarg zone Balaju Park
Indrayanitemple( Public youth Everest Steak

17 LutiAjima) Campus House Dhobichor Chhetrapti
SwornimShikshaS
adan Secondary MM Newar Hotel Ganesh
18 RaktakaliMandir School Restaurant Himal Bhrunkher Park
Maruhiti Cold
19 Kanga Temple * MaruTole Store YatkaTole/Bahal
ShantinikunjMadh Kamana News

20 Bhimsenthan yamikBidyalay Ward Marg Publication ParopakarMarg
Ashok Binayak Shree Aajad JaamanaGubh
21 temple Primary Schoool Tabahal ajuMarg BhoteBahal
Bhadrakali Nava Adarsh High TebhalMedicalH
22 Temple School all Pako BhugolPark
JorGaneshGalli(O
23 Bhagwati Temple * layakuMarg R.B Complex mBahal)
WachuBhadrakal
24 i * PhasikebaGalli Kumari Bank *
MakhanMahade
25 v * MajuDega MakhaGalli *

SantanesworMa
26 hadev * * * Indrachowk Club
27 Narayan Mandir * * * *
AaryenaKiranaP BhimsenThap
28 GanaMaha Bihar * asal aDurbar *
Silver Mountain GalkopakhaMar
29 * School g LekhnathMarg KapurdharaMarg
Annapurna High Election
30 Ganesh Chowk School EnaBahaMarg Commision Ason Store
KamaladiGanesh Dhobi Kathmandu
31 than PK Collage DharaMarga Plaza Ratna Park
Vijay Merchantile
Kalikasthan SmarakHigher Exchange
32 Temple Secondary School GhattekuloMarg Nepal Ltd DillibazarPipalbot
Asian Public Siddhi Poly
33 Maitidevimandir School JanataMarg Clinic MaitideviChowk
PanchaKumari International
34 Temple Baneswor Campus Milan Chowk Convention *
Everest Florida Pancheswormar TribhuwanInt
35 BinayakMandir School g Airport Tinkune Park
Point of Interest defined;
Points of
Interest Detail
A Temple
B School/Collage
C Residential Point
D Commercial point
E Public Space

ANNEXURE -2 Field Walkability Survey
Field Study Survey Form-Quality of Pedestrian Environment
Volunteer Name: Date: Section ID:
Segment ID: Start Time End Time:
1. Is road construction underway? 1 2 3

25 mph 30 mph 35 mph
Yes No 4 4 5 6
l 2 40 mph 45 mph 45+ mph
If yes, skip all questions and begin next segment on a 7 8 9

5. Segment Type:
new sheet.
Low Volume Medium High Volume Path/No
Road Volume Road Road
If no, .continue to Question 1.
Road
. l 2 3 4
** if no road, skip the "Safety" section
2.Number of Lanes:
6.Segment Intersections (check all that apply):
4 or more lanes 3 lanes 2 lanes

1 2 3
1 Lane No Lanes
3 way 4 way Other
4 5
intersection intersection intersection
1 2 3
Segment ends Segment ends Segment has
3. Two way traffic but path no
4 5 6 '
Yes No
1 2
Land Use Diversity
4. Vehicle Speed
7. Are residential and non-residential land-uses mixed in

this segment?
Not Posted 15 mph 20 mph

No mix Little mix Some mix A lot of mix 12. What materials are used for
1 2 3 4
footpath/walkway? (check all that apply)
8. What uses do you see in this segment? (check all)
Houses Office Public/ Schools Paving Brick Concrete Bitumim

Government 1 2 3
1 2 3 4
Slab Tiles Dirt/Sand
Shops Restaurant/ Entertainment Park/
4 5 6
Cafe Playground
5 6 7 8 Other
7
Footpath Availability
9. Presence of a footpath or walkway in segment? 13. What is the width of the footpath/walkway?
Less than 2 2ft to 4ft 4ftto6ft More than 6 ft

ft
None One side Both sides 1 2 3 4
1 2 3
14. What is the condition of the
footpath/walkway?
** if no footpath or walkway skip to question 22 Poor (many Fair (some heaves, Good (very few
heaves, broken broken sections) heaves, broken
10. Is the footpath/walkway complete in this
1i ) 2 3i )
segment?
Not Complete one Complete both 15. Are there obstructions blocking the footpath/
1l t id
2 id3 walkway? (check all that apply)
Cars/
Construction Car Exit/
Trash cans
rubbish entry cuts
Footpath Quality Motorbike
1 2 3 4
pillers and
11. Is there a buffer between the road and path? Shop goods Trees Vendors
cables
. No buffer Buffer less Buffer 2 feet Buffer is more

5 6 7 8
than 2 ft to 6 feet than 6ft
1 2 3 4

Trucks None 1 2 3
9 10
16. What is the quantity of obstructions blocking the

footpath/walkway? 21. Would a person in a wheelchair be able to

travel along the footpath/walkway in this
l 2 3 4 segment?
17. Did you need to leave the footpath/walkway because of the Yes No
1 2
obstructions?
Never 1-3 times 4+ Could not

walk on
path
1 2 3 4
Safety
18. Is there physical disorder visible in the segment (on

footpath or road)?( check all that apply)
22. Are there barriers that make it difficult or

Cans/bottles Cigarette/ bidi Urine Smell
1 2 3 prevent pedestrians from crossing the street?
Garbage Broken glass Graffiti
4 5 6 High medians Barbed wire . Trees/
None
l ti i
7 1 2 3
More than 2 Mixed Traffic None
19. What is the overall cleanliness of the segment?

l 4t ffi 5 6
Poor (a lot of Fair (some Good (very few

physical physical physical 23. Are there crossing aids for pedestrians to cross
1 2 3 the street safely? (Check all that apply)
Zebra Special Police Crossing

Facilities for the Disabled .
Crossing Lights Enforcement Guard
1 2 3 4
20. Are there curvilinear or curb cuts on the Raised Signs Underground/ Cars obey
footpath/ walkways of this segment? walkway Overhead laws/
5 6 7 8
None Some All intersections None
intersections

9 1 2
*if no, skip to question 24
27. Are there aggressive drivers (i.e. speeding, not giving

If there is zebra crossing;
pedestrians the right of way)?
i) What is the condition f the zebra crossing Yes No

Good Fair Poor 1 2
1 2 3
28. What are the major sign/sign boards seen in a segment/

check all ?
ii) Are there traffic lights to support zebra
crossing?
Speed limit Pedestrian School Ahead
crossing
1 2 3
Yes No
Horns Trohibited Other None
1 2
4 5 6
29. Is there any Railing barriers to prevent the pedestrian

24. Are there traffic-calming and controlling
crossing the roads in stretches without zebra crossing?
devices to reduce volume or speed? (check all that apply)
Roundabout Lane width Traffic signals

Yes No Not Applicable
1 t 2i ti 3 1 2 3
Speed humps Signs (other) None
4 5 6
Availability of Amenities
30. What types of service amenities exist in this segment?

25. What is the posted speed limit? (if there is no
(check all that apply)
posted limit, write N) _______ r Seating Toilet Trash bins

1 2 3
Vendors Other None
4 5 6
26. Do you see cars being driven in segment?
Yes No

31. Are there trees shading the walking area? A little To some extent
1 2
None/very few Some Many/very dense Alot No Hindrance
1 2 3
3 4
32. Are there lights? (check all that apply)
Road- Pedestrian- Other No lighting

oriented scale lighting lighting 36. How much noise pollution is audible in this
lighting
1 2 3 4 segment (e.g. traffic, construction, factories)?

Other 1 2 3 4
33. Are there vehicles parked on the road in this

segment? (check all that apply)
37. How many people do you see in this segment?
None 1-6 7-14 15+

Yes- Yes -cars/ No cars/ N/A - no 1 2 3 4
car/motorbike motorbike motorbike road
l l 1 ki 2l l 3k d 4
38. Are there children playing in this segment?
Yes- trucks Yes -trucks No trucks
Legal not legal parked Yes No
5 6 7 8
1 2
34. If yes , Is there any charge for parking ? 39. Are there people stopping to talk or greet one
another?
No charge Yes
1 2
Yes No
Less than 20 per Above 20 per
1 2
hr/day hr/day
3 4
40. What was the weather condition ?
Hot Summer Raining

1 2
35. Does the parking hinder the mobility of
pedestrians / cyclist ?

Safety in the School Premises
41. Are there crossing aids for school children to

cross the street safety ? (Check all that apply)
Zebra Special Police Crossing

Crossing Lights Enforcement Guard
1 2 3 4
Raised Signs Underground/ Cars obey
walkway Foot over laws/
5 6 7 8
None Restriction
for some
vehicle in
9 10
42. Are there enough walking space for children to

walk comfortably across the road on peak times ?
Yes No
1 2
43. Are there tracks for cycling in the school

premises?
Yes No
1 2

Annexure 3 – Pedestrian perception survey in Kathmandu Metropolitan City
Perception Survey Form
Name: Segment ID:
Instructions:Complete the surveyforeverypersonyoutalkto. If theysaytheywillnotparticipate,

check off“no”forquestions 1andthen start anew surveyforthenext person.
1. We areconductingasurveyof pedestrians to understandwhatwouldmakethestreetsbetterforyou.

Doyouhavea few momentsto answer asurvey? Yes (1) No(2)
If yes, proceed to question 2.
If no, “Thankyouforyourtime.”Endofsurvey.Startnew form.
2. Whereareyouliving? Instruction:Writeaddress as preciselyas possible
3. Wheredidyoustart your journey today? (instructions:donotpromptunlessconfused,selectoneanswer)
Work Home Relative Friend Shopping Entertainmen Other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Other(specify):
4. Whereareyougoingonthisjourney? (instructions:donotpromptunless confused, select

oneanswer. If person says theyaregoingtomultipleplacesselecttheirnext destination)
Work Home Relative Friend Shopping Entertainmen Other
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Other(specify):
5. What is theaddressofyournextdestination?Writeaddress as precisely as possible
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Do you fear to cross busy roads?
 Yes
 No
7. Do you think that most of the times drivers give less care for pedestrians and cyclists?
 Yes
 No
 don't know
8. What mode of transportation would you choose to travel to places that are below 2kms in distance?
 Walk
 Cycle
 Auto
 Bus/Public transport
 Car
 Motorbike
 Other..............
Walkability Study in Kathmandu Metropolitan City, 2016 Page 64

9. Do you feel safe to walk during night time?
 Yes
 No
10. Do you experience abuse from motorists while crossing the roads or in similar circumstances?
 Often
 Rarely
 Many times
 Never
11. According to you which type of vehicles cause more havoc to pedestrians?
 Auto
 Bus
 Trucks
 Cars and
 motorbikes
 Other...............
12. Thinkaboutthetripthatyouare currently on. How much time will youspendtravellingoneway
using the following modes:(Instructions: readoutthe first mode,letthepersonanswerwith
noprompt,selectthe appropriate answer, thenreadthenextmode,selectthe appropriate answer.
Continueuntilthe end).
Mode None <= 5 min 6‐10 11‐15 16‐30 31‐60 60‐90 90+ Notsure
a. Walk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
b. Cycle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
c. Bus/Train 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
d. Rickshaw 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
f. CNG/taxi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
h. Car/Personal Vehicle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
i. Motorbike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

13. What typeofvehicle(s) doesyourfamilyown?(donotprompt, checkallthatapply)
Bicycle Car Motorbike Rickshaw CNG None Not sure

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Is there any place thatyouwouldlike to walk (suchastowork or toa relatives house)
butyoucurrentlyareunable? (Instructions: Checkallthatapply)
Work School Park Small BigStore Vendor Relatives/Friends Mosque/templ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Entertainmen Does not Other
t
apply/
9 10 11
Other(specify):
15. Why can’tyouwalktothis place (places)?(Instructions:Donotprompt unless confused.Check all

thatapply)
Too far No footpath Footpath quality Difficult tocross Afraidof crime Other
1 2 3 4 5 6
Other(specify):

16. How would youratethepedestrianfacilitiesinKathmandu Metropolitan City?(Instructions:
listtheoptions,checkoneanswer)
Worst Bad OK Good Best

1 2 3 4 5
17. If given the opportunity, whatimprovementswouldyoulike to have in pedestrian

facilities?Thefollowingareimportantpossibleimprovements.
Pleasepickthe5thatyouthinkaremostimportant.
(Instructions:youmayneedto show thepersonthelist.Only choose the top 5.If refuse,crossout)
Improvement Check if chosen 

a. Easy access fordisabled people
b. Improvedstreet lighting
c. Enforcement of laws
d. Wider and level footpaths/walkways
e. Cleanfootpaths/walkways(e.g.
f. l
Reduced andslow f
traffic onroad
g. Removingobstaclese.g.parkingfromfootpath
h. More crossing points
i. Safercrossing points
j. Other(specify):
18. If youhavetocrosstheroad, whatdoyouprefer? (Instructions:Donotprompt,

unlessconfused.Checkoneanswer.
If personhasmany, askwhichonethey wouldlikethe most)
Zebra Crossing Special Lights Police CrossingGuard Raised Foot Underpass
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sign Not sure
8 9

19. Inone week, how oftendoyoufeeling fear while walking because ofthe following?
(Instructions:readoutthe first, let theperson answer with noprompt,selectthe appropriate
answer, thenreadthenext mode, selectthe appropriate answer. Continueuntilthe end.)
None/Rar 1‐3 days 4‐6 days Everyday Manytimesaday Not sure/refused

a. Car/motorbike/  2 3 4 5 6
1
b. Bus  2 3 4 5 6
c. CNG/taxi  2 3 4 5 6
d. Rickshaw  2 3 4 5 6
e.Commercial Truck  2 3 4 5 6
f. Road design  2 3 4 5 6
g. Dogs  2 3 4 5 6
h. Crossingstreet  2 3 4 5 6
i. Uncovered manholes  2 3 4 5 6
j. Drains  2 3 4 5 6
20. How manytimesyoubeeninjured because of the poor qualityofthefootpath/walkwayin

thelast3months? (instructions:donotpromptunlessconfused,selectoneanswer)
Never 1‐2 times 3‐4 times 5+ Not sure/refused

1 2 3 4 5
21. Haveyouseenor personally experienced the followingcrimes while walkinginthe

last3months?(instruction: read out the first,letpersonanswer,selectappropriateanswerthen
continue)
Crime Yes No Notsure

a. Teasing 1 2 3
b. Hijackers 1 2 3
c. Political ConflictGroup 1 2 3
d. Conflict 1 2 3

e. Addicted people/mad person 1 2 3
22. Do youfeel safer when thereareotherpeoplewalkingonthestreet?
Yes No Not sure/refused

1 2 3
Socio‐EconomicProfile
23. Wouldyoulikepropermanagementforhawkers?
Yes No Not sure/refused

1 2 3
24. Sex:
Male Female
1 2
25. Age
15‐30 30‐50 >50

1 2 3
26. Occupation

27. Household Income/month
25. Age 3001‐ 6001‐ 9002‐ 12001 Enter
1 2 3 4 5 6*
ANNEXURE -4 Pedestrian Count Form
Pedestrian Count Form(Kathmandu City)
Name: _________________________________ Location: ____________________________________
Date: _____________________ Start Time: ___________________End Time: ____________________
Weather: ______________________
Pedestrians
Male Female
Children and Youth Middle Senior Children upto 16 Youth Middle Senior
Hours
teenagers aged citizens years aged citizens
00-:15
15- :30
30- :45

45- 1:00
1:00-
1:15
1:15-
1:30
1:30-
1:45
1:45–
2:00
Total

RS5805 - Walkability Report Kathmandu - 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

RS5805 - Walkability Report Kathmandu - 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RS5805 - Walkability Report Kathmandu - 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kathmandu WALKABILITY Study

Kathmandu Metropolitan City

Resource Centre for Primary Health Care

Walkability study in Kathmandu City 2017-2018 Page 2

CHAPTER 2 PEDESTRAIN POLICIES AND INSTITUTIONS 12

Role of Key Government agencies, Private sectors and Non-Governmental

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 19

CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH RESULT 23

Walkability study in Kathmandu City 2017-2018 Page 4

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 33

Walkability study in Kathmandu City 2017-2018 Page 5

Table 1 Minimum Width of footpath as per Nepal Road

Table 2 Total Number of segment surveyed

Table 3 Pedestrians count

Figure 1 Study area, Kathmandu metropolitan city

Figure 2 Random sampling of segments

Figure 3 Number of lanes

Figure 4 Traffic volume in the segment

Figure 5 Land use diversity in the segment

Figure 6 Availability if the footpath in the segment

Figure 7 Materials used for the pavement of the footpath

Figure 8 Width of the footpath

Figure 9 Condition of the segment

Figure 10 Obstruction observed in the footpath

Figure 11 Images showing various obstruction on the footpath in various segment

Figure 12 Obstruction that forced surveyor to leave footpath

Figure 13 Kind of physical disorder in the segment

Figure 14 Images showing physical disorder in footpath

Walkability study in Kathmandu City 2017-2018 Page 6

Figure 16 Wheelchair accessibility in the segment

Figure 17 Crossing aid for pedestrian in the segment

Figure 18 Condition of zebra crossing in the segment

Figure 19 Images showing situation of zebra crossing

Figure 20 Availability of traffic lights to support zebra crossing

Figure 21 Traffic calming measures to reduce speed of vehicles in the segment

Figure22 Drivers attitude towards pedestrians

Figure 24 Basic amenities in the segments

Figure 25 Tree shades in the segment

Figure 26 Availability of street light in the segments

Figure 27 Vehicles parks in the roads

Figure 28 Disturbance due to vehicle parked

Figure 29 Noise pollution experienced during survey

Figure 30 Children playing in the road

Figure 31 Social dynamic in the road

Figure 32 Fear of crossing the road

Figure 33 Pedestrian's perception in drivers attitude towards them

Figure 34 Mode of transportation chosen for short trips

Figure 35 Pedestrians perception on safety in streets while walking

Figure 36 Types of vehicle creating havoc for pedestrians movement

Walkability study in Kathmandu City 2017-2018 Page 7

Figure 38 Image showing broken footpath

Figure 39 Wish list of pedestrians for better pedestrian amenities

Figure 40 Preferred medium to cross the road by the people

Figure 42 Number of injuries faced due to poor quality of pedestrian facilities

Figure 43 Preference for proper hawker facility

Walkability study in Kathmandu City 2017-2018 Page 8

DoTM- Department of Transport Management