Promoting Systainable Transport Solutions For East Africa-Addis Ababa

Transport Research Laboratory
Creating the future of transport
Provision for Non - Motorised Transport in Addis Ababa

and recommendations for improvements
Prepared for: United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT)

Project Ref: GEF Sustainable Transport Solutions – Addis Ababa (11111024)
Quality approved:
Derek Palmer
(Project Director)
Non Motorised Transport
Contents
Glossary 5
1 Introduction 6
1.1 Addis Ababa 6
1.2 TRL’s assessment of the level of provision for NMT 7
2 Report Structure 8
3 Methodology 9
3.1 Stage 1: A review of background information 9
3.2 Stage 2: Meetings with key stakeholders 10
3.3 Stage 3: Definition of the study area 10
3.4 Stage 4: Desktop identification of links, crossings and waiting areas to
be audited 11
3.5 Stage 5: On-street evaluation and strategic assessment 12
3.5.1 Parameters 13
3.5.2 Scoring 15
3.6 Stage 6: Data analysis 15
3.7 Stage 7: Display and review outputs and develop recommendations 16
4 Findings 17
4.1 Review of background material 17
4.2 Results of the on street evaluation and strategic assessment 20
5 Recommendations 38
6 Conclusion 47
7 References 48
2
List of Figures
Figure 1 A map of Addis Ababa highlighting the current BRT demonstration corridor
and proposed routes .............................................................................................. 8
3
List of Tables
Table 1: A definition of links, crossing and public transport waiting areas as used in
the audit ............................................................................................................ 12
Table 2: Parameters assessed against for the links, crossings and waiting areas. ........ 13
Table 3: Key characteristics of non-motorised transport in Addis Ababa in 2005
(Urban Transport Study, 2005) ............................................................................. 17
Table 4: Issues identified with provision for NMT in the Urban Transport Study, 2005 .. 18
Table 5 A summary of the findings of the of the NMT audit carried out by TRL.. .......... 20
Table 6 Examples of good practice observed during the audit ................................... 31
Table 7: Recommendations for planning and institutional design ............................... 39
Table 8:Technical recommendations for provision for NMT ........................................ 42
Table 9: Minimum effective width set out in AACRA’s geometric design manual ........... 19
Table 10: Scoring used for the PERS assessment in the UK ...................................... 20
4
Glossary
Acronym Interpretation
AACRA Addis Ababa City Roads Administration
AFD Agence Française de Développement (The French Development Agency)
Anbessa Addis Ababa City Bus Company
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
CERS Cycle Environment Review System
CIHT Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation
GEF Global Environmental Facility
Km/h Kilometres per hour
LHS Left Hand Side
LRT Light Rapid Transit
MoT Ethiopian Ministry of Transport
N-bound North bound
NMT Non-Motorised Transport
Nxing North crossing
PERS Pedestrian Environment Review System
PT Public Transport
PTWA Public Transport Waiting Areas
Q of E Quality of the Environment
RAG Red Amber Green
RHS Right Hand Side
S&S Safety and security
S-bound South bound
Sxing South crossing
TDM Transport, Travel or Traffic Demand Management
TRL Transport Research Laboratory, UK
UNEP United Nations Environment Program
UN Habitat United Nations Human Settlements Programme
xover Crossover
5
1 Introduction
TRL has entered into a partnership agreement with UN-Habitat to support the
development of a sustainable, low carbon transport system in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The
5 year project, for which UN-Habitat is the executing agency, forms part of a wider GEF1
funded programme of work, which is also supporting action in Nairobi, Kenya and
Kampala, Uganda.
As part of the programme TRL are working to raise awareness of the importance of non-
motorised transport to the development of sustainable transport systems and to help
ensure that there are improvements in the level of provision for NMT across Addis Ababa
as planned public transport improvements are made.
Improving provision for pedestrian will help to maintain the currently high modal share
of walking within the city and help to discourage a shift towards travels by private
motorised vehicle.
This supports the realisation of a number of benefits including:
 Improving environmental quality Pedestrians generate no air pollution,
greenhouse gases and little noise pollution;
 Reducing congestion Pedestrians use limited road space more efficiently than
private motor vehicles helping to combat congestion by providing an alternative
to car use for short trips and helping avoid the need for providing space for
parking;
 Supporting the economy Improving the efficiency of NMT supports the
economy; as walking is a slow mode of transport forcing people to walk long
distances out of their way, rather than providing safe and direct routes for
pedestrians, has a very high economic cost;
 Improving accessibility for all Improvements to provision support accessibility
for the poor and promote social cohesion;
 Supporting health improvements Waking and cycling support health benefits
as the aerobic exercise helps combat a number of health complaints including
obesity, depression and diabetes; and
 Improving safety Improving provision for walking and cycling supports a
reduction in fatalities and injuries resulting from road accidents (GIZ, 2003 2).
1.1 Addis Ababa

Addis Ababa, capital city of Ethiopia, lies at an altitude of 2,300 metres and has a
population of 3.2 million inhabitants. Due to rapid urbanization and population growth, it
is expected that the overall population will reach 5.5 million inhabitants by 2020 3.
Car ownership is currently low in Addis Ababa (below 100 vehicles per 1000 of
population), though rapidly increasing mainly due to economic growth and the
introduction of low cost private cars into the local market.
Non-motorised transport (NMT), and particularly walking dominates the modal split for
daily trips in Addis Ababa, making up approximately 62% of total trips. Despite this
there is currently poor provision for non-motorized transport in the city with over 60% of
the street network lacking footways. Walking also suffers from unsafe crossing points
along many roads, including major urban highways which are often wide with no
pedestrian priority. Access on foot to bus stops along the demonstration bus priority
1
Global Environmental Facility
2
GIZ (2003), A sourcebook for policy makers in developing cities. Module 3D, Preserving and enhancing the
role of non-motorised transport.
3
UN Habitat, Overview of GEF-Sustran project
6
corridor is often inconvenient or faces hazards. Poor provision is reflected in the number
of road accidents in Addis Ababa, which are increasing by 12% per year.
Public transport (provided by publicly owned operator “Anbessa” and individual mini-bus
operators) occupies more than half of the remaining 38% of the motorised trips, while
private cars and taxis make up a small, but growing, proportion.
The Ministry of Transport recently adopted a plan to reform public transport and invest in
mass rapid transit solutions. Apart from on-going renovation of the bus fleet of the City’s
main provider Anbessa, the Ministry aims to implement a network of seven Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) corridors, as well as two Light Rail Transit (LRT) routes in the next few
years. There is a significant opportunity to ensure that improvements to the provision for
non-motorised transport are carried out in parallel with public transport improvements
supporting the development of sustainable transport systems in the city.
The city’s Local Development Plan aims to “promote cost-effective movement systems”
and “accessibility through improving relationships between people, places and activities”.
Nevertheless, currently, poor facilities exist for cyclists. No cycle parking or cycle
priorities, for example cycle lanes, are present. Furthermore from its lowest point, at
2,326 m (7,631 ft) above sea level the city rises to over 3,000 m (9,800 ft) making
cycling unattractive in many areas of Addis Ababa, although there are other areas which
are relatively flat where cycling could be promoted. These occur mainly to the east and
south of the city centre.
1.2 TRL’s assessment of the level of provision for NMT

In February 2012 TRL undertook a mission to Addis Ababa, the focus of which was to
assess the current level of provision for non-motorised transport, focusing in particular
on the current bus priority demonstration corridor in the city.
A street audit of the current level of provision for pedestrians and cyclists along the bus
priority demonstration corridor was undertaken. Data collected was subsequently
analysed using the expert judgement of the auditors to highlight the key issues with the
current level of provision. Recommendations for both short and long term improvements
were then developed.
The aim is that the findings of this work can be used to support the improvement of
provision across the city as public transport improvements are made. Whilst the report
focuses on provision for pedestrians and cyclists along the bus priority and BRT corridors
it also provides more strategic recommendations for improvements to aid pedestrians
and cyclists across the city.
7
2 Report Structure
This report presents the findings of the NMT audit undertaken in February 2012. The
report provides:
 An introduction to the GEF Sustrans Programme and background information on
Addis Ababa (Chapter One);
 A summary of the NMT assessment methodology used (Chapter Three);
 The findings of the review of background information (Chapter 4);
 Key findings of the assessment of the level of pedestrian provision along the
demonstration bus priority corridor and across the city, supported by photographs
(Chapter 4);
 Short and long term recommendations for improving provision along the bus
priority demonstration corridor that should be considered when developing future
BRT routes (Chapter 5);
 Strategic recommendations for improving pedestrian provision across the city
(Chapter 6); and
 Case studies highlighting examples of international good practice.
The aim is that the findings can be used to support the improvement of provision for
pedestrians across the city as public transport improvements are made, especially during
the introduction of the BRT routes.
8
3 Methodology
The assessment of non –motorised transport in Addis Ababa was broken down into a
number of stages.
 Stage 1: A review of background information.
 Stage 2: Meetings with key stakeholders.
 Stage 3: Definition of the study area.
 Stage 4: Desktop identification of links, crossings, and public transport waiting
areas.
 Stage 5: On-street evaluation.
 Stage 6: Data analysis.
 Stage 7: Display and review outputs and development recommendations.
3.1 Stage 1: A review of background information

TRL reviewed a number of local studies and policies to ensure that the audit built on, and
was consistent with, work that has already been undertaken. The main studies
considered were:
The Urban Transport Study for Addis Ababa
The World Bank funded a study in 2005, the aims of which were to develop:
 An Urban Transport Policy Framework and implementation plan for Addis Ababa;
 A list of prioritised investments; and
 An urban transport database.
The study identified the modal share of walking in 2005 and provided an estimate of
expected future demand. It highlighted possible strategies for improving the level of
provision for pedestrians including quick wins.
Addis Ababa Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Line Feasibility Study
The Agence Française de Développement (AFD) intend to develop and implement a

comprehensive BRT strategy for Addis Ababa comprising state-of-the-art and integrated
solutions tailored to the specific needs and characteristics of the city. The integration of
the BRT system into the other existing and planned transport systems (LRT, public
busses, midibuses, minibuses and taxis, road network enhancements and improvements
for walking and cycling) is essential to achieve this goal.
The AFD funded a feasibility study for the BRT system in Addis Ababa which was
completed and launched in October 2010. The study identified seven route options,
including an initial demonstration route (B2) which will travel through the city from North
to South from Wingate, Regional Bus Station to Gofa Gabriel (a different location from
the current BRT demonstration corridor)
The AFD subsequently undertook a mission to Addis Ababa in May 2011 to investigate
the support that would be required for the development of the demonstration route (B2).
The report identified the current gaps in relation to the implementation of the project
and suggests the development of a project management unit to management the
implementation process.
TRL’s Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS) Guidance Manual

TRL have developed a ‘systematic process designed to assess the quality of the
pedestrian environment within a framework that promotes objectivity’ known as PERS –
9
the Pedestrian Environment Review System. The process of review is designed to be cost
effective and gather information that is of use to a range of agencies.
PERS is a comprehensive and consistent review framework which can be used to assess
the current level of service for pedestrians. It may also be used to monitor changes in
performance over time.
The outputs of a PERS review may be used at a number of levels simultaneously:
 To assist with strategic planning and the accurate targeting of resources;
 To establish the relative quality of different pedestrian environment within a
framework that promotes objectivity; and
 To provide an opportunity to review at a detailed level the opportunities for
improving individual facilities.
A guidance manual has been developed for assessors undertaking audits to help ensure
the quality of auditing and consistency between auditors who are basing their
assessment on a common understanding of the appropriate standards.
A separate system, based on consistent principles, has been developed to cater for
cyclists’ facilities – CERS - the Cycle Environment Review System.
It should be noted that the PERS and CERS systems have been developed in the UK and
is based on UK standards. Due to the developing nature of provision for pedestrians and
cyclists in Addis Ababa a bespoke version of the review, based on internationally
recognised principles, was developed that was tailored to the conditions in Addis Ababa.
3.2 Stage 2: Meetings with key stakeholders

TRL met with a number of key stakeholders during the project mission to discuss the
wider project, including:
 Yetmyet Berhanu (Ministry of Transport);
 Bedilu Assefa Alemayehu (Anbessa City Bus);
 Fekadu Haile (Addis Ababa City Roads Authority - AACRA);
 Dinberu Girma (Ministry of Transport);
 Ato Fikere, Mr. Maikonen (Beza Consulting);
 Cheikh Dia (Agence Francaise de Developpement) ;
 Tibleste Asgedom (Addis Ababa Transport Office); and
 Tameru Woundimagegnehu (Ethio-French Cooperation for Urban Development).
Non-motorised transport was discussed as and when appropriate.
3.3 Stage 3: Definition of the study area

The audit focussed on the current level of provision for pedestrians and cyclists along the
demonstration bus priority corridor - highlighted in red on the map below. This route
will, in due course, become LRT2.
A more strategic audit of the level of provision for pedestrians in different area types
across the rest of the city was undertaken – focussing on main roads within specific
areas identified.
10
Figure 1 A map of Addis Ababa highlighting the current bus priority demonstration
corridor and proposed routes
Source: AFD Bus Rapid Transit Line - feasibility study, Oct. 2011
The seven proposed Bus Rapid Transit lines designed to serve the main areas of the city
and to feed and complement two proposed LRT lines are also indicated on the map:
 B1: Ayer Tena – Tor Hailoch – Wingate.
 B2: Gofa Gabriel - Mexico – Merkato – Wingate.
 B3: Gofa Gabriel – La Gare – Gulele.
 B4: Megenagna – Arat Kilo – Shiro Meda.
 B5: Megenagna – Bole.
 B6: Bole Airport – La Gare.
 B7: Tor Hailoch – Lideta – Kera – Bole.
The proposed route for B2 was one of the areas of focus of the strategic audit, as this
has been prioritised by AFD as the future demonstration BRT corridor.
3.4 Stage 4: Desktop identification of links, crossings and waiting

areas to be audited
TRL undertook a preliminary reconnaissance to initially identify the links, crossings and
waiting areas (as defined in table 1 below) to be audited along the demonstration
corridor.
11
Table 1: A definition of links, crossing and public transport waiting areas as used in the
audit
Link Any footway, footpath or highway to be considered. These may be
divided into sections, if level of service varies significantly along them,
and reviewed in total or with each side reviewed separately if relevant.
Crossings Any designated or undesignated crossing where a pedestrian desire line4
intersects with a highway. Crossings of side road junctions along links
may be reviewed as crossings at the discretion of the reviewer or
included within the Link Review if they are not considered unduly
significant.
Public Any designated area where people may wait in order to use public
transport transport. This may include bus stops, taxi ranks or tram stops. Larger
waiting public transport waiting areas, or those supporting a variety of services
areas or modes, may be considered to be interchange spaces and reviewed
accordingly.
The preliminary reconnaissance process was informed using:

 TRL’s photographic library of the demonstration corridor collected during
previous missions to Addis Ababa;
 Maps available from Google; and
 Information obtained during stakeholder meetings at the start of the mission.
The audit team then undertook a pre-audit of the site by car to check the pre-mapping
of items to be audited and to get an impression of the audit area as a whole.
3.5 Stage 5: On-street evaluation and strategic assessment

An on-street evaluation of the bus priority demonstration corridor was then undertaken
by foot. Two non-motorised transport experts from TRL walked the entire length of the
corridor.
The assessment was led by Ellie Gould, an expert in walking and cycling research. She
has undertaken a range of projects including:
 Refining a risk model for pedestrian accidents;
 Assessing and reporting on the current walking conditions across various sites in
London for Transport for London;
 Training new auditors to use TRL’s Pedestrian Environment Review Software;
 Contributing to on-going development of the PERS methodology and software
design;
 Reviewing the existing Abu Dhabi Urban Street Design Manual against other
comparable manuals from around the world and making recommendations.
 Evaluating and making recommendations for improvements to conditions for
cyclists at ten key sites in the city of Ottawa, Canada
The current environment for NMT was evaluated using a bespoke auditing methodology
developed for Addis Ababa, based on the PERS approach. The guiding principle of the
assessment was for the reviewer to consider how pedestrians are likely to want to use
the environment and how well it meets those needs. The auditors recorded their
observations for each link, crossing and waiting areas on a specially designed review
4
A desire line is a path developed by erosion caused by footfall or by bicycle, usually representing the shortest
or most easily navigated route between an origin and destination.
12
form – that was based on the parameters set out in Table 2 below. The full data set in
the annex shows the template complete with data.
3.5.1 Parameters
The parameters that were assessed against for the links, crossings and waiting areas are
described in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Parameters assessed against for the links, crossings and waiting areas.
Parameter Description
Footways (links)
Effective width Effective width is the space within a link available for pedestrian
(represented by movement. It should be noted that footway width refers to the
Levels of Service width remaining after the presence of any obstructions. Ideally, the
in the AACRA scores allocated require a consideration of pedestrian flows and the
Geometric Design capacity of the link relative to the flow. Effective width is therefore
Manual) not merely a quantitative measurement but also an assessment of
how well the width caters for the various users in a particular
context.
Permeability Permeability is the extent to which pedestrians can make informal
movements on the link in order to serve their own personal journey
purposes. Where links are concerned this generally relates to the
ease of crossing a link or leaving or joining it in order to serve
personal desire-lines, rather than having to rely on designated
crossings. Thus an impermeable link offers a lower level of service if
it forces pedestrians, for whatever reason (including improvements
to road safety), to make significant deviations to designated
crossing points. The permeability of individual links can be reduced
by permanent physical barriers such as pedestrian railing or by
temporary barriers such as advertising boards or high density
parking, by wide carriageways, by obstructions to sightlines that
make crossing difficult and by high flows of traffic.
Safety and Safety and security deals with environmental features that relate to
security individual pedestrians vulnerability to, or fear of, crime. Fear of
street crime or intimidation can be sufficient to discourage
pedestrian journeys. Personal security is a difficult concept to
quantify since it is necessarily subjective. It should be recognised
that fear of crime is not constant and is particularly acute at certain
times of the day, particularly evening and night. The reviewer will
based their score on the ‘feel’ of an area, guided if possible by
supplementary information and the views of residents/users,
bearing in mind the need to review with particular consideration to
the sensitivities of more vulnerable pedestrians.
Surface quality Surface quality deals with the evenness, absence of trips hazards
and frictional qualities of horizontal surfaces on which pedestrians
may stand or walk. Surface quality is particularly significant for
pedestrians. Poor surfaces can create trip hazards, reduce comfort
and, particularly in the case of mobility-impaired pedestrians, cause
complete route severance.
Crossings
Provision Crossing provision is concerned with what level of facility is provided
and how appropriate it is to the context. This parameter requires
the reviewer to make an assessment as to how appropriate the
crossing provision is in the context of:
 the location/nature of the road layout.
 the strategic importance of the route and/or flows of users.
13
 the types of pedestrians who regularly use the crossing (e.g.

where a crossing is provided near a school) and the number
of pedestrians using it at peak hours of the day.
Consideration should also be given to the traffic volumes and
speeds on the road to be crossed.
Deviation, ‘Deviation’ is concerned with the degree to which a pedestrian must
legibility, travel an additional distance from their desire line in order to use a
obstructions crossing. Crossings that require pedestrians to significantly deviate
from their desire line are often unsatisfactory and can prompt
pedestrians to cross on their desire line rather than using the facility
provided.
‘Legibility’ in the context of crossing review is concerned with the

ease with which pedestrians can interpret how and when to use the
crossing. The crossing should be clearly marked for all users to be
aware of it. Signalised junctions that do not include pedestrian
crossing lights can present difficulties for pedestrians since they are
required to exercise judgement as to which phase the lights are in
currently and whether to begin to cross. Where pedestrian signals
are provided it is important that they are aligned to the position
where pedestrians wait.
‘Obstructions’ are any physical impediment to pedestrians who wish

to use the crossing. The imposition of obstructions on the approach
to, and around, a pedestrian crossing can pose a serious safety
hazard to users, particularly sensory impaired people 5. Obstructions
may be positioned in such a way as to reduce sight lines for those
using the crossing, inhibiting the ability to see on-coming traffic.
Performance Crossing performance is an assessment of how well the particular

crossing serves pedestrian needs overall. This encompasses its
safety and effectiveness in securing a passage for the pedestrian
user. The crossing should primarily have presence in engendering
confidence with the user in feeling safe using it and in making all
road users aware of the crossing point in the first instance. The
crossing should be clearly marked to make traffic aware of it and to
recognise the ownership of the crossing space to pedestrians at the
appropriate times.
Capacity/delay ‘Crossing capacity’ concerns the degree to which the crossing
provides sufficient space for users. The width of the crossing, from
left to right for the pedestrian, should be adequate for the flows that
it serves, particularly during peak hours, and there should be
adequate space for pedestrians to wait prior to crossing and to
disperse on the far side of the crossing. This assessment also
demands a review of any refuges, which can be important in
assisting pedestrians, particularly those people who are mobility
impaired, to cross busy carriageways.
‘Delay’ concerns the time for which a pedestrian is delayed by the

need to cross an intersecting road. This applies to both controlled
and uncontrolled crossings and can be a matter of both signal
timing and the availability of gaps in motorised traffic.
5
For example, those with sight or hearing impediments.
14
Public transport waiting areas

Information to Information to the waiting area deals with the level of ease
waiting area experienced by the bus user in both getting to, and leaving the
waiting area in terms of the quality of information provided. This
criteria looks at how conspicuous waiting areas are, the level of
information provided in the surrounding area and the identification
of suitable routes to access the area.
Infrastructure to The infrastructure to the waiting area category aims to assess the
the waiting area suitability of the footways and pedestrian crossings surrounding the
waiting area in terms of the quality of service provided to users in
getting to and from the waiting area.
Waiting areas The waiting area comfort category considers the level of comfort
comfort experienced by the waiting passengers. This would typically be
considered in a PERS review in terms of the presence, suitability
and quality of shelters and seating, which are key factors in
determining the attractiveness of a waiting area. Consideration
should be given to the context in which seating and shelter is
provided and the number of people likely to require such provision.
Boarding public Boarding public transport deals with the ease with which public
transport transport users can board their chosen means of transport from the
waiting area. This category assesses various factors such as the
extent of any gaps created between the transport access point (i.e.
the door) and the footway/stand, the level of parallel positioning
achieved and the suitability of access and egress points. This
parameter also considers the ease with which the public transport
vehicle can access the waiting area and return to the traffic stream.
3.5.2 Scoring
Each element of the pedestrian environment was given a rating a red, amber or green
(RAG rating) based on the current level of performance, where red indicates a poor level
of provision for pedestrians, amber an average level and green good provision. The full
data set giving the RAG ratings is provided in Annex 1.
The issues identified and supporting photographs within this report (presented in Section
4.2) are all taken from elements that were awarded a Red RAG score. The positive
aspects identified (also in Section 4.2) were taken from elements awarded a Green RAG
score.
It should be noted that the assessment of the environment for non-motorised transport
entails a review of both quantitative factors and qualitative factors. These two types of
information may reflect issues of equal importance to the users but those factors that
are not readily measurable (for example, the amount of litter or graffiti) require the
reviewer to make a subjective score based on their own professional judgement and
experience.
The wider strategic assessment of the city was undertaken by vehicle. This assessment
was less detailed than that undertaken along the bus priority demonstration corridor but
was undertaken using consistent principles.
3.6 Stage 6: Data analysis

The data collected was analysed qualitatively using the expert judgement of the
auditors, drawing out the key issues with the current level of provision for pedestrians.
15
3.7 Stage 7: Display and review outputs and develop

recommendations
The outputs where then reviewed and a series of recommendations developed
highlighting the key short term and long term priorities for improvement.
The aim of these recommendations is:
 To support the efficient use of resources to maximise improvements to the level

of provision for non-motorised transport along the current bus priority and BRT
demonstration corridors; and
 To provide transferable recommendations that can be used to support

improvements in the level of provision for NMT across the city as public transport
improvements are made.
16
4 Findings
4.1 Review of background material
The Urban Transport Study for Addis Ababa
The World Bank funded Urban Transport Study for Addis Ababa reviewed current and
expected demands for walking and highlighted possible strategies for improving the level
of provision for pedestrians including quick wins.
The importance of walking was highlighted and the need to promote walking both as the
primary mode of travel and at access the developing mass transit system.
Table 3 below highlights some of the key characteristics of non-motorised transport in

Addis Ababa in 2005 (Urban Transport Study, 2005)
Table 3: Data from Urban Transport Study
Factor Description
Dominance of walking On average walking accounted for 60.5% of all trips,
ranging from 78.4% in the Keterna sub-city to 39.7% in the
Bole sub-city.
Trip length The average trip length was 1.49km
Self-containment of trips The majority of trips used walking as the only mode of
transport, ranging from 94.53% of trips in the Akaki Kaliti
district to 69.18% in the Araba district.
Geographic location of Pedestrian flows were found to be most intense at
peak demand intersections (between 23,000 and 79,000 pedestrians in a
16 hour period) with high levels of cross flows observed.
High flows were also found along main roads.
The Urban Transport Study identified issues with the level of provision for non-motorised
transport in 2005. There are set out in Table 4 below against the parameters used for
TRL’s NMT audit in Addis Ababa.
17
Table 4: Issues identified with provision for NMT in the Urban Transport Study, 2005
Parameter Issues identified

Footways
Effective width (represented  AACRA’s geometric design manual classified the level
by Levels of Service in the of service of footways in Addis Ababa on a scale
AACRA Geometric Design between A-F, where F denotes the poorest level of
Manual) service. The level of service was based on the
‘module size’, determined by consideration of the
volume of pedestrians and effective width.
 Footways along main roads in Addis Ababa were
found to be operating at levels of service D, E and F.
 Nearly 63% of the road network studied did not have
a footway.
Permeability  Driveways reduce the permeability along links.
Safety and security  Poor Levels of service on main roads leads to
pedestrians walking in the carriageway leading to a
high level of pedestrian collisions with traffic (making
up 67% of accidents).
Surface quality  Not covered.
Crossings
Provision  Not covered.
Deviation, legibility,  Not covered.
obstructions
Performance  A requirement for grade separated pedestrian
facilities was identified.
Capacity/delay  Not covered.
Information to waiting area  Not covered.
Comfort  Not covered.
AACRA’s geometric design manual sets out standards for the minimum effective for
footways as set out in the table below.
18
Table 5: Minimum effective width set out in AACRA’s geometric design manual
Zone
Location Street Through Total
Kerb Frontage
Furniture Route
Arterial roads in
0.15m 1.2m 2.4m+ 0.75m 4.5m
pedestrian districts
CBD 0.15m 1.2m 2.4m+ 0.75m 4.5m
Alongside parks,
schools and other
0.15m 1.2m 2.4m+ 0.75m 4.5m
major pedestrian
generators
Local roads in
0.15m 1.2m 1.8m 0.45m 3.6m
pedestrian districts
Commercial/industrial
areas outside the 0.15m 1.2m 1.8m 0.45m 3.6m
CBD
Collector Roads 0.15m 0.9m 1.8m 0.15m 3.0m
Local roads in
0.15m 0.9m 1.5m 0.15m 2.7m
residential areas
Absolute minimum
(only acceptable in
constrained
0.15m 0.0m 1.5m 0.0m 1.65m
conditions and where
road space allocation
is not possible)
TRL’s pedestrians Environment Review System Guidance Manual
For comparison the scores awarded by PERS when used in the UK are provided in the
table below, where the width relates to the ‘through route’ measurements provided
above.
The CIHT Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot recommend an absolute
minimum width of 1.8m for footways with 2m being a desirable minimum and the
preferred width being 2.6m (CIHT, 20006). If in exceptional circumstances widths are
constrained below 1.8m, anything below 1.5m should be regarded as totally
unacceptable. Sections of severely constrained width i.e. 1.5-1.8m should in any case
only ever extend for a maximum of 6m (Department for Transpor, 2002) 7. It should be
noted that footway width refers to the width remaining after the presence of any
obstructions. At any point where, as a result of obstructions, the footway width is below
1.5m, it should be regarded as rendering the link unusable to some pedestrians.
Ideally, scoring the width of footways requires a consideration of flows and the capacity
of the link relative to the flow. JJ Fruin (19718) has devised a commonly used method of
6
CIHT, Providing for Journeys of Foot, 2000
7
Department for Transport, Inclusive Mobility, 2002
8
JJ Fruin (1971) Pedestrian Planning and Design, Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, New York
19
calculating the relationship between width and flow to give a level of service. Fruin
proposed levels of service calculated on the number of pedestrians per minute per foot
width. [NB the values in the table below are based on Fruin’s work but have been
modified, recalculated into metres and rounded down].
Table 6: Scoring used for the PERS assessment in the UK
Score Pedestrians/minute/M Width
width
-3 >82 >1.5m
-2 66-81 >1.8m
-1 49-65 1.8-2m
0 33-48 2.1-2.5m
1 22-32 2.6-3.2m
2 15-22 3.2-4m
3 <15 >4m
Addis Ababa BRT Bus Rapid Transit Line Feasibility Study
Conversations with AFD have identified that they are keen to ensure that provision for
non-motorised transport is considered within the design of the mass rapid transit
systems but that there is a need to raise awareness and ensure buy-in from other
stakeholders in Addis Ababa.
AFD are in the process of selecting a company to design the B2 corridor after an initial
design by an Ethiopian Company, Beza Consulting set out the infrastructure issues for
the route. It is important that the level of provision for pedestrians and integration with
the mass rapid transit systems is considered within the on-going design work.
4.2 Results of the on street evaluation and strategic assessment

This section provides a summary of the findings of the of the NMT audit carried out by
TRL. Where comments relate to a specific link, crossing or waiting area the reference has
been provided in brackets after the text. Further information can be found in the full
data set in Appendix 1.
The key issues identified for each parameter have been highlighted in Table 7 with
photos included to providing specific examples of the issue under discussion.
It should be noted that the audit highlighted a lack of current provision for cyclists
across the area assessed.
20
Table 7: A summary of the findings of the of the NMT audit carried out by TRL
Parameter Issues identified Supporting photos
Footways
Effective width  The effective width of Rubble
(represented some footways is narrows
by Levels of limited for the observed the
footway
Service in the pedestrian flows,
along link
AACRA including where flows D3
Geometric are substantial.
Design Manual)  Footways obstructions,
such as loading
vehicles, street sellers,
retailers and building
materials narrow the
effective width and lead
pedestrians to walk in Rubbish
the carriageway. narrows
 Taxi ranks can impinge the
on the footway footway
along link
reducing the effective D4
width available (D3).
 No provision for cyclists
was observed.
Permeability  Parked vehicles can

reduce permeability
and obstruct crossing
points.
 Guard railing is present
along many links
(notably the
demonstration
corridor), with limited
formal crossing points
reducing permeability.
 Poor maintenance has
led to missing sections
in the guard railing
where informal crossing
Guard railing along the Link D4 reduces
movements take place. permeability – one man was witnessed
 A lack of formal vaulting the guard railing to cross during the
crossings leads to audit.
informal crossing
movements, with some
pedestrians seen to
vault guard railing.
21
Safety and  Vehicle behaviour can

security be complicated and
unpredictable
 Many highways feature
a mix of traffic which
often stops in unsafe
places
 Pedestrians walk in the
carriageway due to the
limited effective width
due to specific
obstructions
 Poor environmental
quality reduces the
sense of security. Bustling environment with the potential for
 A bustling environment petty crime
around trip attractors
may lead to the
potential for petty
crime.
A secluded area with low flows of pedestrians

may lead to concerns for safety and security,
particularly at night
Surface quality  Some footways are

gravel rather than
paved.
 Even along generally
well- constructed routes
tiles are sometimes
missing in paved areas
and poor maintenance
(for examples an open
drainage channel (D3))
cause significant trip
hazards.
 Where tactile
information has been
installed poor
maintenance often
means that it
effectiveness is
reduced, for example Poor maintenance leading to uneven surface
reduced colour contrast quality on link D3
between yellow paving
and the footways.
22
 Drainage problems are Poor maintenance leading to a severe trip

observed. hazard on Link D3
Yellow
 Tactile information has Drainage problems on link D4
paving
been incorrectly used
installed in places, for instead of
example at some corduroy
paving
locations yellow tiles
had been used instead
of corduroy paving
providing less
information to guide
sensory impaired users.
23
Crossings
Provision  Poor provision of Pedestrians
crossing points on crossing
pedestrian and cyclists informally
on link D4
desire lines leads to a
as a result
high level of informal of poor
crossing movements, crossing
some pedestrians are provision
even seen vaulting
guard railing to cross
informally (C1, C18).
 Signage where provided
can be incorrectly
located causing A lack of
confusion for drivers formal
(C18). crossing
provision
 No provision for on
cyclists. pedestrian
desire
lines,
pedestrian
signage
incorrectly
located
(C18).
Deviation,  Some designated Taxis

legibility, crossing points lack parked on
obstructions carriageway marking. the
pedestrian
 Parked vehicles can desire line
obstruct visibility. forces
 Crossings are not them to
always located on deviate
pedestrian desire lines,
with significant
deviation sometimes
required to cross at a
formal crossing point.
 Infrastructure can
impede free access to
crossing points, for
example the raised
planter at Crossing 7.
A raised planter
impedes access to
Crossing 7.
Performance  Most routes exhibit a No
vehicle-focused protection
environment. Vehicles measures for
pedestrians,
do not stop to allow pedestrians
pedestrians to cross. cross
Vehicle movements can informally
be complex. where
vehicles turn
 Cyclists do not benefit (C18).
from safe cycle lanes
while drivers do not
give them sufficient
space when overtaking.
24
 Little protection exists

for pedestrians or
cyclists. Three stage
 Poor traffic control crossing on
negatively affects main
carriageway.
pedestrian safety. Vehicle
Formal crossings lack focussed
signalisation even pedestrians
where traffic is heavy. have to wait
for a gap in
Crossing such roads is traffic to
risky for pedestrians. cross (C3).
 Stopped cars at some
crossing points mean
pedestrians have to
wait in the carriageway
to cross (C1) and can No control
reduce sightlines of measures for
those crossing (C13). pedestrians
to facilitate
 The location of some
crossing of
crossings, for example the main
at vehicle access road (C11).
points, leads to conflict
between pedestrians/
cyclists and motorised
traffic.
 Road surfacing can be
very poor at crossing
points.
 Guard railings have Poor
been poorly maintained vehicle
at some crossing points control
adversely
and are broken in affects
places (C1). pedestrian
 No provision for safety.
cyclists.
Pedestrians
have to
cross an
access point
to an
industrial
area.
25
Capacity/delay  Crossings are rarely

signalised meaning that
delay is highly.
dependent on the traffic
flow, with users having
to wait for gaps in the
traffic flow to be able to
cross (C12).
 Where crossings are
signalised, the lights
were not operational at
the time of the audit.
Formal crossing does not cope with observed

flows leading pedestrians to cross informally.
Traffic flow can delay crossing as there is no
pedestrian signalisation (C18).

Information to  Poor information
waiting area provision for
pedestrians – lack of
signage, markings,
information.
 There can be multiple
waiting areas at one
bus stop, which are not
clearly marked (PT1).
 Buses do not always
stop at what appears to
be the waiting area
with it sometimes being
necessary to vault
guard railing to cross No information, signage or markings to indicate
on the desire line (PT2, the location of the public transport waiting areas
PT6). (PT1).
 Anbessa bus signs are
often dirty, reducing
visibility (PT5).
26
A dirty Anbessa bus stop sign which reduced

clarity of the information conveyed.
Infrastructure  Formal crossing points

to the waiting are not always provided
area for users to safely
access waiting areas
(PT1).
A lack of formal crossing provision near the

waiting area leads to informal crossing
movement, with little protection from heavy
traffic (PT1). No provision for cyclists included.
27
A lack of formal crossing provision to access the

waiting area (PT6).
Comfort  There is no shelter, Bus user
shade or seating at seen to
many waiting areas. utilise
guard
Those waiting can be railing to
seen to sit on guard sit as a
railing where this is result of a
provided. lack
seating at
the
waiting
area (PT 1
below).
A lack of
signage to
the waiting
areas. Users
waiting to
the south of
the junction
with busses
seen to stop
at the south
(PT7).
28
Boarding public  No aids to boarding

transport  Congestion at a number
of boarding areas -
waiting areas can be
extremely crowded
(PT2).
 Alighting is difficult for
those with mobility
impairments due to the
difference in height
between the bus and
the kerb.
Busy waiting area, with no aids to boarding public

transport (PT1 and PT4 and PT7 below).
29
Provision for Mobility and Visually Impaired Users

A lack of provision for mobility impaired users was noted across the area assessed.
Specific issues included:
 A lack of provision of dropped kerbs to aid those in wheelchairs to cross;
 A lack of signalisation (or functioning of signals where provided) at crossing
points to provide audible information or rotating cones to guide visually impaired
users;
 Poor provision of tactile paving across the city away from the demonstration
corridor; and
 Insufficient effective footway width for wheelchair users, who are often therefore
forced to travel in the carriageway causing significant concern for safety, as
demonstrated in the photographs below.
A wheelchair is seen to travel in the carriageway due to the poor surface

quality of the footway
Along the bus priority demonstration corridor there certain locations where effort had
been made to improve the level of provision for NMT. Table 8 highlights some specific
examples and provides photographs of good practice along the route.
30
Table 8 Examples of good practice observed during the audit
Parameter Positive Aspects Supporting photos

identified
Footways
Effective width  Tactile
(represented by information
Levels of Service in has been
the AACRA provided along
Geometric Design some links, for
Manual) example with
the use of
yellow tiles and
corduroy
paving.
 Where
footways have
been recently
maintained
surface quality
can be good Good surface quality with no trip hazards. Use of
yellow tiles and corduroy paving to guide
(D3). pedestrians Link D3.
Safety and security  Guard railing

along the route
does offer
some security
in places.
 Some sections
of road have
piggy back
lighting(where
lighting is
provided for
both the
carriageway
and the
footway).
Guard railing and segregated bus way does

offer pedestrians some protection (D1).
31

identified
Piggyback lighting providing illumination for

pedestrians (D3).
Surface quality  In areas that

have been
paved
corduroy
paving appears
to be used to
delineate retail
areas.
 Colour contrast
can be very
good in
recently
improved
areas.
Good colour contrast on link D4
Crossings
Provision (C2,C6)  Some
crossings are
signalised (but
at the time of
the audit
signalisation
was not
operational)
 There are gaps
in guard railing
at some
locations
supporting
crossing
movements in Three stage zebra crossings (C19 and C12 below)
32

identified
designated
locations
 In modernised
areas some
three stage
crossings have
been provided
(C12, 279, C19
307)
Deviation, legibility,  Carriageway

Carriageway
obstructions markings are markings
provided, highlight to
leading to good pedestrians
legibility at where to
cross (C19)
some crossing
points e.g. C5,
C19).
 Traffic
signalisation
and
infrastructure
is provided at
some crossing
points which
aids legibility
despite being
non-
operational
(C4).
 Some crossing
are well
located on
pedestrian
desire lines
e.g. crossing at
PT3, C13.
 Pedestrians are
often able to
cross in stages
33

identified
Performance  Pedestrians are
able to cross in
stages in some
places as there
are central
refuges.
 Straight and
open roadway
provides good
visibility.
Central refuges enable pedestrians to cross in

stages (C2).
Straight and open roads provide good visibility

for those crossing (C2).

Information to  Anbessa signs
waiting area are provided at
most bus
stops,
indicating the
route numbers
that are
available at the
stop
34

identified
Infrastructure to  Designated Designated
waiting areas crossing point crossing to
at the waiting access the
bus stop
area PT2 (D4- (C9 to
C2), PT3 (D4- PT5).
C9) PT4 (D4-
C14).
The strategic assessment across the city highlighted that, in general, provision for
pedestrians is much poorer away from the demonstration corridor. Specific issues
include.
Issues identified Supporting photos

 The effective width of Pedestrians
footways where walking in
provided can be the
carriageway
extremely constrained. due to
 Footways obstructions, rubble
narrow the effective obstructing
width and force the footway.
pedestrians to walk in
the carriageway.
35
 Many Highways lack Pedestrians

any provision for walk in the
pedestrians. carriageway
as no
footway has
been
provided.
A lack of
footway
causes
pedestrians
to walk in
the
carriageway
alongside
passing
traffic
causing
concern for
pedestrian
safety.
36
 Surface quality along An

footways is poor, with uncovered
many trip hazards drain is a
present. significant
trip hazard
is close
proximity to
passing
traffic.
Poorly
maintained
paving
stones
create an
uneven
surface with
many trip
hazards.
37
5 Recommendations
TRL have reviewed the findings of the audit and have developed a series of short and
long term recommendations to help prioritise action to improve provision for NMT and to
maximise the use of limited resources. Although the study was centred around the
demonstration bus corridor the recommendations have been tailored to the proposed
BRT corridors but are applicable across the rest of the city.
Table 9 provides a series of strategic recommendations for planning and institutional

design.
Table 10 outlines technical recommendation for improving provision for NMT.
Case Study
‘Share the Road’ – investment in walking and cycling road infrastructure
The UNEP ‘Share the Road’ is supporting work in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and
Burundi to catalyse policies in government and donor agencies for systematic
investments in walking and cycling road infrastructure, linked with public transport
systems.
This initiative, developed with the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society,
brings together the environment and safety agendas in the context of urban
transport in the developing world where the majority of people – those moving by
foot or bicycle – are disadvantaged on the road.
The objectives of each of the country projects are to:
 Encourage the development of government policy that promotes a

balanced distribution of investments across all transport modes including
walking and cycling.
 Promote development of robust action plans with timelines for improving
investment in walking and cycling road infrastructure, to be well-
integrated with public transport developments.
 Support demonstration projects serving as examples of shared,
sustainable roads which result in a variety of benefits to the
environment, safety and overall mobility.
Additional country projects are being planned and the initiative has the longer
term goal of further engaging with key regional donors in Africa to eventually
launch a regional financing partnership for NMT.
The Initiative highlights design principles that aim to protect and integrate all
users including:
 Providing infrastructure to protect cyclists and pedestrians from high

speed impacts to significantly cut the number of serious injuries and
fatalities;
 Allocating NMT users their own space to make travel more enjoyable and
attractive whilst also improving vehicular traffic flow;
 Integrating NMT networks and other modes, especially public transport
to maximise usage and impact.
Further information can be found on UNEP’s ‘Share the Road’ Initiative website:
http://www.unep.org/transport/sharetheroad/
38
Table 9: Strategic recommendations for planning and institutional design

Parameter Recommendations made in Urban Transport Study Additional recommendations made by TRL
Planning Planning improvement Parking Management
 Develop a city wide parking strategy that ensures that
 More effective planning to cater for high level of
parking does not impinge on non-motorised transport,
pedestrian demand and address the lack of
for example by restricting parking on the BRT
comprehensive provision for NMT and poor safety.
corridors and developing designated parking areas for
 An integrated approach is needed covering the planning,
taxis and loading and unloading bays in commercial
design and development of facilities for NMT.
areas within the forthcoming Masterplan.
Development and implementation of plans  Ensure that parking management is enforced
effectively.
 Support the implementation of the integrated transport
plan where walking is promoted as the access mode for
Development and implementation of plans
the developing mass transit system.
 Develop sub-city walking plans taking into consideration  Ensure that NMT is given sufficient priority within the
the current provision for NMT, for example the Ketma sub integrated transport plan for the City and other land
city would require comprehensive provision for NMT due to use planning activities. Ensure that the plan promotes
the high percentage of trips undertaken by foot. In walking (and cycling where appropriate) as the access
comparison controlled pedestrian crossings would be of mode for the developing mass transit system.
key importance in Bole due to the greater volume of traffic  Ensure that providing for pedestrians, cyclists and
and the speed at which it is travelling. public transport are core elements of the forthcoming
Masterplan.
Pedestrian priority
 The Public Transport Development Plan should ensure
 Give pedestrians priority on all roads with the exception of that access to stations and stops on foot and cycle are
primary arterial high speed corridors. Apply a ‘living well provided for.
streets’ approach where streets are designed with living
and community interaction as the priority. Vehicular traffic
Traffic management
is not excluded but the aim is to implement a design to
better balance the needs of residents, businesses,
pedestrians and vehicle traffic.  Use traffic calming and other traffic control
 Plan and design facilities for NMT to support the reduction measures to make street environments safer and
in traffic and the speed at which it travels. more pleasant for non-motorised transport.
 Develop pedestrian only areas where appropriate, for
example at Mercato, while allowing vehicular access only
for deliveries..
Community engagement
39
 Involve the community in the identification of local
problems and development of solutions. The aims are to
improve safety and security, enhance economic vitality,
provide quality housing, support community networks,
create a sense of place and identity, promote cultural
activities, create a sustainable environment and maintain
ease of access.
Marketing and A strategy is needed to promote walking, and cycling, as  Ensure that marketing for the new mass rapid transit
communicatio improvements to facilities for NMT are implemented. project include references to non-motorised transport.
ns  Perform user surveys to identify problems and
barriers to non-motorised travel
Implementati  Ensure collaboration and co-ordination of efforts between Project Management Unit
on framework the relevant national and local government departments  Set up a Project Management Unit (PMU) to optimise
and other stakeholders. the collaboration of all key stakeholders, support
 Provide a dedicated budget for NMT each year to cover synergies when necessary and coordinate decision
design, implementation and maintenance. towards the successful implementation of the
 Produce guidance for pedestrian and cycling design. projects. Although it is suggested that the PMU be
 Develop signage for pedestrians and cyclists. focused in the development of the B2 BRT corridor
 Involve communities in the development of walking plans and its integration with the LRT, it should not be
and in the implementation and maintenance of facilities. limited to the coordination of mass rapid transit
 Undertake periodic surveys to measure walkability and projects but also synchronize the BRT/ LRT
implement measures to address issues identified. development with the advances in traffic
management, non-motorised transport, road safety,
urban planning, environmental conservation and road
infrastructure. It should involve all stakeholders of
pedestrian and cycling infrastructure either directly or
indirectly.
 Consider appointing a ‘champion’ for NMT, who sits on
the PMU and who can highlight the benefits and
encourage appropriate action.
 Establish a process for consistently monitoring
progress in improving provision.
 Regularly audit the quality of provision for NMT using
an auditing methodology such as the bespoke version
40
of PERS applied in this audit. It would be
recommended that a workshop/training be provided
to build the capacity of those undertaking the audits
and to help ensure consistency.Include non-motorised
travel in transportation surveys and models.
 Provide a dedicated budget for NMT each year to
cover design, implementation and maintenance of
pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. Fund non-
motorised transport planning at a comparable rate as
other travel modes.
Education N/A  Educate all transportation professionals in non-
motorised transportation planning principles;
Monitoring N/A  Develop indicators that monitor and evaluate

roads for their contribution to sustainable
development in terms if environment, safety and
accessibility, rather than the traditional method of
measuring improvements in kilometres paved and
the average speed of motor vehicles.
Case Study
Strategic Planning for Non-Motorised Transport in Cape Town, South Africa.
A Non-Motorised Transport Strategy has been developed for Cape Town that includes a comprehensive plan to guide the planning and
implementation of programmes and facilities that will respond to the41
many needs of NMT users in the City.
An initial review was undertaken to assess existing information on NMT in the city including for examples casualty statistics, mobility
patterns and barriers to walking and cycling and the relevant policy and legislative context.
Table 10: Technical recommendations for improving provision for NMT

Parameter Recommendations made in Urban Transport Additional recommendations made by TRL
Study
Footways (and
cycleways)
Effective width  Increase the effective width of footways to the  Ensure parking restrictions are enforced
(represented by standards set out in the AACRA Geometric effectively.
Levels of Service in Design Manual (as set out in Table 5).  Provide designated loading and un-loading bays
the AACRA Geometric  Provide footways on all major roads designed to for deliveries away from the footway and
Design Manual) meet the level of service “C” set out in ACCRA’s crossings.
geometric design manual. The focus should be  Create designated taxi ranks offset from the
on roads that currently have a level of service of footway.
either D, E or F.  Remove obstructions along the route which
 Prohibit parking along footways reduce the effective width of footways including
 Raise footways to restrain cars from driving overgrown shrubbery, building materials, A-
along the footways or parking on it. boards outside shops and deliverers as they are
being unloaded.
 Consider providing dedicated cycle lanes to
support the uptake of cycling.
Permeability  In new developments where possible driveways  Ensure formal crossings are provided and are
should be located in areas where pedestrian located on pedestrian desire lines.
activity is expected to be low.  Ensure guard railing is maintained effectively.
 High volume driveways should be kept away  Reducing the number of parked cars along and
from pedestrian areas. on footways.
 The number of driveways should be reduced by
combining and pairing driveways to several
properties.
 Driveways should be located as far from street
intersections as possible.
Safety and security  Address crime and personal safety concerns.  Develop and implement a strategy to manage
 Utilise public spaces to provide a more attractive traffic flows and improve vehicle behaviour
walking environments.  Consider the development and implementation
 Use traffic calming measures to reduce traffic of a traffic demand management policy to
speeds, for example using speed humps, speed support a shift away from travel by private car
tables, mid-block kerb extensions, intersection to public transport and NMT.
kerb extensions, chicanes, roundabouts, paving  Implement measures to improve environmental
42
treatments and gateways/entry treatments. quality including street lighting, litter collection
 Provide guard railing along footways on heavily  Increase the effective width of footways so that
trafficked routes and on all roads with a pedestrians do not have to walk in the
pedestrian refuge in the centre of the carriageway.
carriageway.  The provisions of designated cycle ways would
help ensure the safety of cyclists by segregating
them from traffic flows.
Provision  A continuous network is required enabling  Ensure that footways that meet the minimum
pedestrians to travel from one place to another requirements set out in ACCRA’s geometric
without hindrance. design manual are provided consistently along
 Develop integrated pedestrian facilities. the carriageway,.
 Ensure that footways are provided on both sides  Ensure that crossing places are located on
of commercial and residential roads and pedestrian desire lines.
residential roads (on arterials, collectors and  Provide segregated cycle lanes along suitable
local streets). roads, particularly in the east and south of Addis
 Align provision to pedestrian characteristics and Ababa.
preferences.  Provide advanced cycle stop lines (ASLs) at main
junctions, particularly where cyclists would be at
risk from traffic turning left.
 Provide secure cycle parking at all major
destinations, e.g. Government offices, colleges,
schools, sports stadia, main shopping areas.
Surface quality  Improve the surface quality to reduce the
number of trip hazards.
 Ensure that surfaces are maintained effectively
to maintain effectively of tactile paving and
reduce the number of trip hazards.
 Prevent the use of footways for advertising
boards.
 Ensure that tactile paving is installed
consistently.
 Improve drainage along footways.
 Ensure a level surface along cycle routes.
Crossings
Provision  Provide grade separated pedestrian facilities at  Ensure that crossings are provided on pedestrian
43
intersections as per the ACCRA geometric design (and cyclist) desire lines to reduce the level of
manual. informal crossing movements.
 Provide ‘Stop’ and ‘Give Way’ signs to increase  Ensure signage, where provided, is installed
pedestrian priority. correctly.
Deviation, legibility,  Use ‘diverter’ signs to prevent certain through  Ensure that crossing points are provided on
obstructions and/or turning movements at intersections e.g. pedestrian desire lines.
partially closing the street, using kerb extension  Ensure that signage and road marking are
to block one direction of traffic or closing the regularly maintained where provided and are
street to all traffic using a physical barrier. installed where currently not available.
 Improve signage and road markings.  Develop and implement a parking strategy to
help ensure that parked cars do not cause
obstructions at crossing points.
 Remove obstructions that are located on the
approach to the crossing or on the crossing
itself.
 If provided ensure cycle lanes are clearly
marked.
Performance  Ensure that signalised crossing are operational
where provided.
 Improve traffic control at crossing points to
reduce delay and improve user safety.
 Improve the surfacing of crossing points that are
currently poorly maintained.
 Increase the priority of pedestrians though
traffic control measures such as signalisation of
crossings.
 Ensure that crossings are located on pedestrian
desire lines.
 Ensure guard railing, where provided, is
maintained effectively.
Capacity/delay  Re-design signal plans at major intersections to  Ensure that signalisation is working were lights
increase pedestrian priority, for example have been provided and check that the
incorporating a pedestrian phase. pedestrian phase is sufficient to enable all users
to cross, for example wheelchair users.
Public waiting areas
44
Information to waiting  Develop signage for pedestrians, especially as  Improve signage for pedestrians to waiting
area decision points. Consider providing route maps. areas.
 Ensure all signalised junctions have a pedestrian  Ensure that signage is effectively maintained
phase and clear zebra crossing markings. where provided.
 Provide clarity on the location of waiting areas
and ensure that buses and minibuses stop
consistently at the appropriate waiting areas.
Infrastructure to N/A  Improve the provision of crossing to access
waiting area waiting areas, ensuring crossings are located
close to the waiting areas on pedestrian desire
lines.
 Provide secure cycle parking at major stations
and stops.
 Ensure that footway surfaces on the approach to
waiting areas are effectively maintained to
reduce trip hazards.
Comfort N/A  Consider providing a cover at bus stops to
provide shelter from the sun.
Boarding public N/A  Increase the capacity of waiting areas to reduce
transport crowding.
 Provide support to improve access for mobility
or visually impaired users or elderly passengers.
 Consider modifications that can be made to
better align access/ egress to buses. Raising
kerbs to provide level access is not likely to be
applicable in this Addis Ababa as the busses are
high floor (30-40cm)
45
Share the Road Demonstration Project – UN Avenue Nairobi, Kenya
Kenya was the first pilot country for the Share the Road (StR) initiative.
In Nairobi 40% of residents walk despite poor provision for NMT which raising concern
for users safety. Pedestrians and cyclists make up 46% of road traffic accidents in the
city.
UN Avenue in Nairobi was selected as the first demonstration project. The almost
complete rehabilitation is a showcase pilot that involves:
 Incorporation of dedicated pedestrian walkways and a two-way cycling lane;
 Improved signage for cyclists and pedestrians;
 Raised crossings at key crossing points;
 Dedicated slip lanes for vehicles turning left;
 Re-allocation of the ‘matatu’ station.
These facilities will promote:
 Safe and sustainable transport for pedestrians and cyclists;
 Improved accessibility for all groups including the mobility impaired; and
 Reduced localised air pollution levels.
The Kenya Urban Roads Authority (KURA) is responsible for the management,
development, rehabilitation and maintenance of urban road networks in Kenya. In
2011, the corporation adopted a policy change to integrate walking and cycling facilities
on all new urban road projects.
Source: UNEP
Provision for NMT along UN Avenue before and after improvements
46
6 Conclusion
This report presents the key findings of an audit of provision for non-motorised transport
that TRL undertook in February 2012, in particular focusing on the current bus priority
demonstration corridor in the city.
The results of the audit supported the development of a number of strategic and
technical recommendations that could be applied to support the improvement of
provision for pedestrians across the city as public transport improvements are made. A
summary of the key strategic and technical recommendations has been provided below.
Strategic
 Integrated transport plan. Support the development of an integrated transport
plan (possibly the draft Public Transport Development Plan), which promotes
walking as the access mode to the developing mass transit systems;
 Parking Management Strategy. Develop a parking management strategy that
reduces the impact of parking on NMT while ensuring that parking controls are
adequately enforced;
 Project Management Unit. Support the development of a designated ‘Project
Management Unit’ to optimise collaboration between stakeholders and
facilitate robust and timely decision making. It may be beneficial to appoint a
‘champion’ for NMT who can promote the benefits of NMT within the PMU and
ensure that provision for NMT is integrated into wider decision making;
 NMT auditing. Ensure that regular audits of provision are undertaken using a
consistent methodology such as the bespoke PERS methodology developed for
Addis Ababa. It is suggested that training be provided initially to build
capacity locally to undertake the audits.
Technical
 Footways. In order for walking to be effectively promoted as the key access
mode for the developing mass transit systems it is essential that footways be
provided consistently on all access routes and that they meet the minimum width
requirements set out in the geometric design manual. Increasing the usable width
of footways, for example through improved maintenance to remove obstructions,
would significantly improve the provision for NMT, meaning that pedestrians are
not forced to walk in the carriageway which places them at significant risk to road
accidents. More effective parking management along links would also help to
improve permeability and pedestrian safety.
 Crossings. Providing crossings on pedestrian’s desire lines will help to decrease
the level of informal crossing movement and increase pedestrian safety. Signage
and road markings should be installed to clearly highlight to users where to cross
and that they are effectively maintained. Signalisation would significantly improve
the performance of crossings and provision of a pedestrian phase would help
increase pedestrian priority and reduce the delay users experience when crossing,
whilst also increasing pedestrian safety.
 Public Transport Waiting Areas (PTWA). Improving the provision of crossings for
users to access the PTWA’s is of key importance. Currently crossings are often
located a significant distance from the stop leading to informal crossing
movements. It would be beneficial to improve signage too and at the waiting area
provide timetable information.
These recommendations build on those previously identified in the 2005 World Bank
funded Urban Transport Study for Addis Ababa.
47
7 References
 Cape Town – Non Motorised Transport Strategy (2005)
http://www.cityenergy.org.za/transport/non-motorised-transport
 World Bank, Urban Transport Study for Addis Ababa (2005)
 AFD, Addis Ababa BRT Bus Rapid Transit Line Feasibility Study (2010)
 TRL, PERS Handbook (2009)

 Institution of Highways & Transportation (2000), Providing for Journeys on Foot
 Institution of Highways & Transportation, Safety Audit Checklist,

http://www.lancspartners.org/safetychecklist/index.asp
 Institution of Highways & Transportation (2000), Cycle Audit and Cycle Review
 GIZ (2003), A sourcebook for policy makers in developing cities. Module 3D,
Preserving and enhancing the role of non-motorised transport.
 JJ Fruin (1971) Pedestrian Planning and Design, Polytechnic Institute of
Brooklyn, New York
 UNEP and FIA foundation, Share the Road: Invest in Walking and Cycling (2010)
http://www.unep.org/transport/sharetheroad/PDF/SharetheRoadReportweb.pdf
48
Appendix A Appendix A – Full Data Set for the Audit.
Ref Parameter RAG Detail Photos Observations

D1-C1 Provision Amber  No formal provision at intersection. 67, 68, Location: FDRE Ministry of
 Gap in guard railing approximately 15m into start of 69, 70, Science and Technology
BRT (N-bound) – 2 refuges, not quite at grade, no 71
Northbound (LHS = west,
dropped kerbs.
VIDEO RHS = east)
 No markings/legibility on carriageway. No signal
66
controls, minimal delay – pedestrians cross at will. Land use: commercial,
offices, a few stalls
Deviation Amber  Trip attractors on both sides of the carriageway.
Guard railings present for BRT corridor (gap for cross Traffic flows moderate to
Legibility
over). heavy
Obstructions  2/3rds of pedestrians crossing informally at crossover
N-Bound traffic 18 in 1
and 1/3 using crossing point.
min (2 lanes)
 Bus stop located on opposite side to crossover –
crossing does not serve pedestrians well unless they Traffic mix: mostly cars,
are visiting bank. minibuses, odd scooter
Performance Amber  Vehicles do not give way to pedestrians unless they Pedestrians: moderate
are queued to allow turning vehicles to merge. Parking: kerbside, no
 No protection measures at crossover and pedestrians restrictions south to north
wait on raised kerbs. but restricted for 50-60m
 No markings/ legibility aids for crossing point. exactly at crossover from
 Refuges offer ability to cross in three stages. N to S but violations
 Traffic is segregated by direction. witnessed. Parking is
 There is a stop board but unclear but unclear as to controlled by fee
whether purposefully provided to prevent parking at attendant. Informal
crossing point. parking restriction by
Capacity/ Delay Green  Informal crossing has no capacity, pedestrians crowd eastern kerb
waiting for appropriate gap in traffic. Bus using normal traffic
 Formal uncontrolled crossing- refuges 2m wide, 1m lane
deep and appear to cope with volumes.
 No delay owing to signalisation (is not signalised) and Some vehicles using bus
49

pedestrians cross at appropriate gap in traffic. corridor
D1-PT1 Information to Red  Buses stop at both sides of the cut in BRT. 67, 70, Driver behaviour generally
the WA  No information, no signage, no markings 71 good, a spate of non-
compliance –vehicles
Infrastructure to Amber  None. One crossing point but does not serve both
travelling in corridor
the WA bus stops. Many informal movements.
U-turns frequently made-
Boarding PT Red  No aids to boarding. can stop flow of traffic
 Carriageway lighting intermittently spaced.
Road geometry: 3/2/3
S&S Green  Guardrailings/ segregated bus way allows some (parking kerbside both
safety. sides)
 Many passing pedestrians during day – feels fine.
 Quite open, official buildings (government, bank)
Comfort Red  No aids to comfort
 No shelter, no shade, no seating
 Local trade e.g. for water
D1-Link Effective width Green  Good effective width with minor encroachment from 85, 88, See above.
businesses 92, 93,
11:55 – land use change
 Street trees well aligned but not at back or front of 94, 95,
(200m south of new
link-divisive 99, 100,
flyover).
 Moderate pedestrian flows but no real conflict 101,
 Construction site – sand on ground, materials on 102, Big impact from major
footway (92,93) 103, construction (p95)
 Gas canisters on footway (94) 104,
Earthen banks
105,
Little commercial activity
Permeability Amber  Limited to gaps in guardrails at entry/ exit points

 On link, frequent crossovers – poor quality, sheer
kerbs, uneven surfaces, poor driver behaviour

Surface quality Amber  Tiled surface with some missing and loose/ rocking
50

tiles
 Interrupted frequently for drainage access
 Courdroy paving present - yellow. Dirty but good
contrast. Serves no obvious purpose.
 Loose debris and litter
Security/ Q of E Amber  Reasonable shop fronts
 Static pedestrians waiting/ watching
 Sections with piggy-back lighting
 Noisy traffic
 Dusty
 Litter
 Sections without paving
D1-C2 Provision Green  BRT crossover 74-84 11:30am
 Designated crossing points close by – both sides of
BRT blocked N-bound –
cut in BRT (N and S)
related to ongoing
Deviation Amber  A degree of informal crossing but much less because construction
of the crossings either side of the crossover, plus the
Legibility Lighter commercial use –
road surface is extremely poor
no offices or high rise
Obstructions  Designated crossing points lack carriageway
markings Parking unrestricted in
 Visibility problems with parked vehicles kerbside lane, with fee
 Pedestrian crossing to south is located at vehicle collectors
access point, so conflict may arise
3/2/3
Performance Amber  Road surface very poor at informal crossing
 Designated crossings either side of crossover
 Parked vehicles along both sides of the road, where
the designated crossings are located
Capacity/ Delay Green  Low volumes using informal and formal crossings
 Unsignalised, pedestrians have to wait for gap in
traffic to cross
D1-C3 Provision Amber  2 mid link gaps in guard railing, to allow for 86-87, 11:50
designated crossing points either side of crossover 89, 90,
51

 Associated with vehicle crossover to the north 91 The BRT corridor is not
approximately 10m away, and 30m away to the operational at this point.
south It is difficult to know
 Both formal crossings are unsignalised whether pedestrians would
still use the crossover as
Deviation Amber  No road markings at designated crossing point to
an informal crossing point
north – legibility is poor for pedestrians and drivers
Legibility were the BRT open to
 Intermittent parking
buses (and the crossover
Obstructions  Bus/ collective taxi stop
available to turning
 Does not serve pedestrians at the informal
traffic).
intersection (crossover plus side road)
 Informal movements frequently made at crossover As it stands, the informal
instead of designated crossing point crossing is wide, safe and
probably more attractive
Performance Green  Pedestrians have to wait in carriageway to look for a
than the formal crossing
gap in traffic at designated crossing points
points.
 Slow moving vehicles owing to construction site to
northern most point of audit area – bottle neck to
pass under site
Performance score based
Capacity/ Delay Green  Crowding in carriageway to look for gaps in traffic at on observations, likely to
the southern designated crossing be different once corridor
 The informal crossing point is plenty big enough to is active/ crossover
accommodate demand because there is no conflict available to turning traffic.
from turning vehicles or buses using the BRT – pure
pedestrian space.
D2-Link General N/A  Open ditch but lighting nearby 120 Continuation of D1-L1 but
Comments  Grass verge slightly encroaches but discontinuous with comments.
-124
 Mixture of high rise office RHS, single/ double storey
LHS 127
 Missing tiles are a hazard See D2-C1 (below) at
132
 Some of link flanked by corrugated fence panels junction.
 Footway narrowing outside Le Tam Tam club (p127) 133
 Footway obstruction (132) – pedestrians cannot
134
continue on footway owing to loading vehicle. Saw Further south, land use
pedestrians and wheelchair user in carriageway. change LHS – earth banks
52

 Raw materials on footway at access point (p133 and 136 and corrugated fencing
136) (p137).
137
 Pedestrians seen vaulting railings approximately
Less dense land use, more
100m south of designated crossing point (p134) 138
spacing.
 Gap in BRT railings (p138) to N of designated
139
crossing.
 Degraded footway, no tiles (p139) 143
Width narrows on
 Downhill then uphill gradients (p143)
144 approach to flyover.
 Debris on footway including broken footway tiles
(p144) 145 BRT ends for flyover. No
 Hole in ground (145) - used to be a street tree? pedestrian activity, much
151
 Footway obstruction (157). higher speeds, free flowing
 Width narrows on approach to flyover. 157 traffic. Video 161.
 Poor quality footway - footway quality poor, no
158
corduroy, yellow tiles instead. Dirty and hard to see
contrast. 159 Photos 162-171, no audit.
 Regular tree planting further constricts (160) Going over flyover using
160
eastern walking option.
161 (vid) Very poor legibility, no
obvious route to continue
162
passage along corridor.
Have to go over/ under
guardrails to cross.
BRT restarts at 172-174.

D2-C1 Provision Amber  No formal provision at the BRT crossover. NXing Land use: high rise, retail,
 Designated crossing 15m to the south and 50+m to 125 construction RHS, hotel
the north. Refuges present. LHS. Trip attractors both
126
 Lots of pedestrians crossing informally but good use sides.
of crossing to the south.
Moderate pedestrian flow
 At the BRT, pedestrians cross at grade, sometimes
Video
using kerbs to look at oncoming traffic flows. Traffic flows as above –
128
15vehicles over 2 lanes
Deviation Amber  No markings/ legibility and no signal control.
53

Legibility  Trip attractors both sides (60sec) N-Bound
 Collective taxis stop at crossing point on LHS
Obstructions 129 Traffic mix: predominately
 Guardrails for BRT, broken at crossover point and at
(restricte cars, collective taxis (stop
pedestrian crossings
d both sides), some heavier
 Approximately 50/50 split between informal crossing
parking) vehicles
and designated crossings (between the two
designated crossings, majority of pedestrians use the 130 131 Speeds: quite slow,
southern crossing). xover intermittent blockages
 Northbound buses pick up at crossover, southbound caused by high number of
SXing
stops near northern crossing point and then joining vehicles making U turn in
132
flow – S-bound BRT closed. crossover
 Parking is restricted outside Global Hotel- hotel use
Cross Section 3/2/3
only but at informal crossing point vehicles park on
(kerbside parking)
LHS. RHS small gravel access road, so no parking.
 Pedestrians crossing to the west wait in carriageway Bus corridor closed S-
owing to parked vehicles. Bound but open N-Bound.
 Northern designated crossing, west side refuge has
Some non-compliance by
trip hazard (p126) and gradient problem-sloping.
private vehicles and
Performance Amber  Vehicles do not give way to pedestrians unless they scooters going N-Bound in
are queued to allow turning traffic to merge Corridor.
 No protection measures at BRT crossover –
Lots of buses traversing
pedestrians wait in carriageway or on raised kerbs.
into BRT.
 There are no markings. Refuges for designated
crossings allow crossing in stages and BRT crossover A few cyclists observed.
offers the same.
Some poor driver
 Traffic designated by direction. Very high volume of
behaviour e.g. scooter
turning vehicles makes it unpredictable.
going the wrong way
 Crossing to the north- parked vehicle blocking access
– localised deviation. Queuing to N of crossover
all caused by lorry turning
Capacity/ Delay Amber  Designated crossing point appears adequate. Narrow into a narrow entrance
refuge front to back so pedestrians close to traffic 200m north. Quickly
flows. No formal capacity for informal crossing point. queued back to the south
 Some delay but sufficient gaps in flow to allow for 400m+. Cleared quite
quickly - sensitive
54

crossing. equilibrium.
D2-PT1 Information to Red  Buses stop at both sides of the cut in BRT. 130 (no No buses S-Bound
the PTWA  No information, no signage, no markings. one
Vehicles merge at the
waiting)
Infrastructure to Amber  2 designated crossings but Nxing 50m away- not crossover into main flow
the PTWA used by boarding pedestrians but seen to be used by 131
some alighting pedestrian, depending on bus driver
behaviour.
Boarding PT Red  No aids to boarding.
 Not congested – just a few people waiting for the
bus.
S&S Green  Higher quality commercial e.g. cafes and TV shop.
Comfort Red  No aids to comfort.
D2-C2 Provision Amber  BRT closed in both directions. 140,
 Large gap in guardrailings = future crossover. 140, 142
 Used as pedestrian crossing. (vid)
Deviation Green  Pedestrians using raised kerbs for better visibility of
oncoming vehicles.
Legibility
 Large concrete blocks prevent access- offer some
Obstructions protection.
Performance Amber  No vehicles in the corridor which makes it safer.
 Traffic speeds N-bound are higher- probably due to
less commercial activity on the link.
 No turning vehicles as xover blocked, less vehicles
queued on link although collective taxis and buses
stopping to pick up and drop off (video).
Capacity/ Delay Amber  No vehicles in the corridor.
 Have to wait for gap in traffic to cross.
D2-C3 Provision Red  One designated crossing 30m south of intersection. 146 11.15am. MENTAL!
55

 One to north of intersection is 30m into BRT, which 147 Large T intersection by
itself starts 30m+ to north of junction (i.e. 60+m) Baleker Tower.
148
 Majority of pedestrians cross informally, both sides of
Very large break in BRT
intersection – even split. 149
segregation – c.75m.
Deviation Amber  Very open junction, but traffic is only an obstruction 150 (vid)
Intensive commercial
when queued.
Legibility 151 activity, dense small
 Guard railing set back from intersection.
holdings-single storey,
Obstructions  Parked vehicles at north side, none at intersection 152
street vendors and
 Some crowding on footways- street sellers.
153 beggars. Low quality.
 Most people not using designated crossings.
154 High pedestrian activity,
Performance Red  Definitely vehicle focused environment – the onus is localised crowding.
on pedestrians to find gaps in traffic. 155
 No protection measures, some pedestrians wait on BRT reopens S-Bound to
156
raised kerbs. Little protection for side road. traffic from this junction.
 Barrel rolling across junction (p153) Traffic flows heavy. Very
 Vehicles turn in multiple directions which complicates complex movements, no
crossing, but pedestrians weave in stages. signals. Some
 3 stage crossing on main carriageway (some appreciation of yielding,
pedestrians cross through middle of intersection). surprisingly free flowing.
Capacity/ Delay Amber  Pedestrians cross at will in gaps in traffic. Vehicles push to merge.
 No formal capacity, most people crossing at Traffic mix- cars, taxis,
guardrailing. Some crowding here. buses, collective taxis, few
 Footways crowded. scooters, 1 bike, tractor
 Traffic flows are high, so need to wait for gaps in
traffic. Many pedestrians weave to keep moving. Parking eastside kerbside
unrestricted. No parking
on western side- signage
p154, 155, 156.
See sketch on front of D2-
P2 for geometry.
D2-PT2 Information to Red  Buses stop at both sides of the cut in BRT. 150 (vid) S-bound buses are in the
the PTWA  No information, no signage, no markings. corridor. N-Bound vehicles
56

Infrastructure to Red  Nearby crossing to the south, but not used as much merge with traffic (large
the PTWA as the informal crossing. Serves pedestrians walking gap to crossover)
north only.
 Extremely crowded surrounding area.
S&S Red  Lower quality shop fronts, beggars, street sellers
 Very busy
Comfort Red  Nothing.
D3-C1 Provision Red  Informal crossing only. 123- 128 09.40.
 Nearest designated crossing = 150-200m away to
Location – where the BRT
the south.
resumes segregation after
 People waiting for buses at the end of the railings up (128-
flyovers, heading South.
to and including 80m south. vid)
 High number of crossing movements informally. Land use – retail, single
 All pedestrian types both directions. storey LHS. Petrol
stations both sides. Less
Deviation Amber  Nearest designated crossing a significant deviation.
retail RHS.
 One main point where pedestrians cross- end of
Legibility
guardrailing although some just cross at the open Feels poorer.
Obstructions junction
Pedestrian volumes
 No obstructions in the carriageway but despite
moderate to high
clearway sign kerbside loading and collective taxis
block eastern footway. Western side, traffic flows. Traffic flows light, vehicle
Popular collective taxi stop on the western side count 11 veh N-bound
causes footway crowding. across 2 lanes in 60 secs
 No legibility measures in place, though guardrails
Mix of collective taxis,
help.
taxis, cars, buses.
Performance Amber  Junction functions well. Speeds moderate.
 No turning movements seen. Acceleration towards
 No protection measures in place, guardrailing is used junction (flyover)
for informal protection. Some used raised kerb. northbound.
 Pedestrians cross 8 lanes in 3 stages.
57

 Vehicles accelerating to the north to join flyover. One cyclist seen travelling
N-bound.
Capacity/ Delay Amber  No formal capacity
 No crowding on footways except where collective Parking-no stopping sign.
taxis pick up Some compliance (i.e. lots
 Some crowding for BRT demand. of non-compliance).
 Pedestrians cross at will, have to wait for a gap but Collective taxis stop here.
these occur frequently.
3/2/3 with kerbside
parking on east, no
parking observed on west.
Vehicle behaviour – fewer
turning movements,
kerbside loading
Bus stops are at end of the
corridor (just before
flyover). Buses N and S.
D3-PT1 Information to Amber  Multiple waiting areas. 123
the PTWA  N-bound there are 3 distinct areas where people
124
wait.
 There are sandbags which may be used informally to 125
mark one waiting area.
127
 No formal aids to information but well understood/
used as a stop. 129
 Logical placement of stopping area due to flyover.
Infrastructure to Red  None formal – see D3-C1.
the PTWA  Nearest designated crossing 150-200m south.
 High number of informal movements with little
protection.
Boarding PT Red  Nothing, railings only.
 Multiple waiting areas – very busy. People would
have to walk in corridor to access waiting spot.
58

S&S Amber  Bustling environment.
 Frequent piggy back lighting.
 Lots of retail activity.
Comfort Red  No shelter, shade and none will be provided by
buildings.
 No formal seating – people using railings (p129).
D3-Link Effective width Amber  Sporadic sections of planting. 130
 High levels of conflict at collective taxis (p131).
131
 Generally reasonable width, but obstructed by
retailers. Under 1m in places –p130. 138
 High numbers of static pedestrians – one person
145
sitting in middle of footway.
 Definitely narrower than previously, though widens to 147
the South.
150
 Goods on footway (p180).
 Extreme crowding at crossroads (vid 205). 156
 Localised narrowing (p 208, 211).
157
 Vehicle parked across footway (p214).
158
Permeability Amber  Permeability – See D3, C1 – no formal alternatives at
north end of link. 159
 Rest of link – guardrailings with intermittent gaps 161
e.g. 150-200m after link starts.
 Access point (p138) much better quality, concrete 162
surface and essentially flush. 164
 11.12 Breakpoint in BRT- blocked both sides by
concrete blocks. Could be used as informal crossing if 171
buses drop pedestrians nearby but few crossing 172
movements seen. No real attractors on either side.
(p156). 173
 11:20 Mid link BRT crossover, but blocked off. 180
Central block missing on western side- a vehicle
could use the gap to access BRT but no exit. May be 188
used as an informal crossing but no attractors on
59

either side and no pedestrians seen crossing (161, 189
162).
190
 12:15 Vehicular crossover. Little land use either
side, negligible pedestrian flow(p191) 191
 13:00 Vehicle crossover. Parking both sides, low
200
number of informal movements (209, 210)
205
Surface quality Green  Same tiled surfaces resumes after gap for flyover.
 Courdroy surfacing seems to delineate retail areas 208
(where footway widens, courdroy surface moves back
209
from kerb).
 Vehicle crossovers interrupt surface but they are 210
infrequent.
211
 Fair contrast but some tiles missing and some trip
hazards from interruptions. 213
 Open drainage channel (p189). 214
 Cobbled side street (p213, 215).
215
Security/ Q of E Amber  Busy retail environment.
 High pedestrian activity.
 Moderate traffic noise.
 Lower pollution felt.
 Some litter.
 11.13ish Mid-link: Change of use on link- no retail,
no parking, link flanked by fences on W side.
Industrial on RHS but not facing link- green and
yellow fence (p160). Scrubland verge to back of
footway. Cemetery. Lighting missing on single pole
(for carriageway and footway) (p159).
 11.39: Retail, low level, both sides (p171). Some
taller buildings up to 3 storeys. Parking on LHS and
RHS in kerbside lanes. Constant footway.
 Litter bin (189) – full.
D3-C2 Provision Green  Gap in railings. 133 Parking restriction
 Well used, variety of pedestrian types. northbound not well
60

Deviation Green  Crossing markings. 134 respected (p133).
 Serves desire lines.
Legibility
 No evidence of jumping railings.
Obstructions
Performance Green  High speed roadway but good visibility in all
directions if no parked vehicles.
 Cross in stages.
Capacity/ Delay Green  Cross on demand.
 Visibility good if no parked vehicles.
D3-C3 Provision Amber  BRT Crossover – informal crossing 132 (vid) (Not scored at time of
 Designated crossing 75+m to the north which is used audit, scores applied
 Few pedestrians seen crossing informally retrospectively).
 Vehicle speeds higher S-boundand N-bound.
Deviation Amber  Traffic Lanes clearly marked.
 Parking lane kerbside on east, none on west (i.e.
Legibility
three effective traffic lanes).
Obstructions  Eastern side- entrance to (shanty) residential area.
 Western side- LibyaOil business buildings.
 Appears to attract low numbers of pedestrians.
 No markings to highlight crossing.
Performance Amber  High traffic speeds.
 Low numbers of turning vehicles- no conflict.
 Southbound traffic prohibited from U-Turns
 Low pedestrian usage.
 No protection measures, but can cross in stages.
Capacity/ Delay Amber  No formally provided capacity.
 Some delay based on number of crossing stages.
 Takes some time to find a gap in traffic.
D3-PT2 Information to Amber  Ambesa bus stop with sign. 135, 136
the PTWA  Sign on one side only, and have to look hard to see it
(to see sign from footway).
61

 Route numbers given, but no other info e.g.
timetables.
Infrastructure to Amber  Designated crossing (D3-C2) approximately 40m to
the PTWA the south. Protects well, good markings.
 Well trodden earth pathway within corridor suggests
crossing is well used (p135).
Boarding PT Amber  Passengers did not wait at bus stop sign but 10m+ to
the north. Bus stopped half way between the sign
and where passengers were waiting.
 No aids to boarding.
S&S Amber  Feels protected within BRT.
 Bustling, wide environment.
 High pedestrian activity (only on eastern side, very
little on western side).
Comfort Red  No shelter, shade or seating.
D3-C4 Provision Amber  Signalised intersection but not operational (p146). 139, 140 10.49: missing
 Formal crossings to north and south of T-junction. guardrailing on eastern
141
 Red/green man display but not operational. boundary of corridor used
 Effectively acts as previous designated crossings. 142 as crossing for access to
bus stop D3-PT3 – photos
Deviation Green  Good legibility owing to traffic signalisation and 143
139 / 140.
infrastructure, despite being non-operational.
Legibility 144
 Carriageway markings at crossing points, some
Obstructions faded. 145
Traffic police observed at
 Some deviation to north of junction –barrier for BRT
146 junction (p154).
missing and used as a crossing point which offers
direct access to bus stop (p139, 140). 147
 Small volume of pedestrians crossing at open
148
junction.
 More pedestrians using crossings as intended. 149
Performance Amber  Signalised but non-operational – acts as previous 150
designated crossing.
62

 High level of legibility from infrastructure. 151 (vid)
 Driver awareness that pedestrians cross here.
152
 High traffic speeds and turning movements mean
there is vehicular conflict. 153
 Appears as if guardrailings have been struck (p141,
154
144)
 Pedestrians cross in 3 stages. 155
 Collective taxis wait on crossing (150, 152).
158
Capacity/ Delay Green  High number of pedestrians using crossing but no
crowding seen.
 Lack of signal control means that pedestrians cross at
will using gaps in traffic, i.e. lower delay.
D3-PT3 Information to Green  Sign for Ambesa buses easy to spot from the 146
the PTWA footway.
150
Infrastructure to Amber  Crossing right next to waiting area.
152
the PTWA  Signalised but non-operational.
 Tiny number of pedestrians cross informally - using 153
missing railings (those travelling southbound) rather
than using crossing point.
Boarding PT Red  No aids.
 Busy area, many waiting passengers.
S&S Green  Major open intersection.
 High pedestrian volumes.
 Lighting overhead.
D3-C5 Provision Green  Unsignalised crossing point, designated. 160 No parking
Deviation Green  Located well, no evidence of deviations.
 No obstructions.
Legibility
 Excellent legibility – carriageway markings and
Obstructions railings.
63

Performance Green  High speeds but good sightlines (no parking).
Capacity/ Delay Green  Pedestrians cross at will.
 High speeds but sufficient gaps.
D3-C6 Provision Red  Break point in BRT. 163, 165
 Blocked off but next to informal bus stop.
Deviation Green
 Designated crossings either side but this informal
Legibility crossing will be used most likely- is direct.
Obstructions
Performance Amber
Capacity/ Delay Green
D3-PT4 Information to Red  No sign but there are waiting passengers so informal 165, 166
the PTWA understanding exists.
Infrastructure to Red  Informal crossing will be used (D3-C6)
the PTWA  Formal provision to south, but unlikely to be used as
it is 50m away.
S&S Amber  Open.
 Lower pedestrian volumes.
 No retail activity.
Comfort Red  No provision.
 One waiting passenger seen using umbrella for
shade.
D3-C7 Provision Green  BRT crossover. 167 Traffic count:
 2 designated crossings – one to the N and one to the
168 8 vehicles over 2 lanes N-
S with clear markings.
bound (60 seconds)
 Potential for some informal crossing owing to side 169
road.
170
Deviation Amber  Open crossover, designated crossings 30m away.
 No obstructions as limited land use but there may
64

Legibility still be the temptation to cross informally.
Obstructions
Performance Amber  Clear markings.
 Good sightlines (no parking at northern crossing but
at the southern crossing parking restricts the view).
 Collective taxis drop off and pick up.
Capacity/ Delay Green  Low demand.
 More than adequate capacity.
D3-C8 Provision Amber  BRT crossover with designated crossing 174
approximately 70-80m to north and 40m to south.
175
 Informal movements at crossover.
176
Deviation Amber  Both designated crossings have good legibility.
 No blocks present to crossover but blocks to side 177
Legibility
narrow the accessible gap.
178
Obstructions  Most people use informal crossing.
 Trip attractors both sides. 179
Performance Amber  Quite high speeds.
 Sightlines blocked by parking.
Capacity/ Delay Green  Designated crossings cope with demand (but demand
is quite low).
D3-C9 Provision Amber  Large BRT crossover. 182 3/2/3
 Two designated crossings N and S of crossover
183 Very large open junction.
 Quite close to the south, but huge junction which
leads to informal crossing from side roads. 184 No major side roads but
vehicular access to
Deviation Amber  Some use of designated crossings. 185
communities.
 Pedestrian flows across carriageway at crossover.
Legibility 186
 Very large junction. Turning marks on
Obstructions  Good legibility at designated crossings including carriageway on eastern
carriageway markings. side.
 Obstructions from collective taxis.
No turning restrictions but
65

Performance Green  Moderate to high speeds. low volumes of turning
 Very straight open roadway. traffic.
 Visibility good in each direction.
Mix of commercial and
 Very little parking.
retail.
 Cross in multiple stages.
Vehicle mix- cars,
Capacity/ Delay Green  Low demand for formal crossings.
collective taxis, fewer
 No delay – not signalised and gaps in traffic.
larger vehicles.
No parking east side, light
parking west side.
Pedestrian volumes light,
mix of ages.
Very low volumes of
cyclists.
D3-PT5 Information to Amber  There is an Ambesa sign. 187
the PTWA  Dirty but can be seen.
Infrastructure to Green  Marked crossing direct to stop (N crossing of D3-C9.
the PTWA  Does not serve southbound pedestrians as well.
Boarding PT Red  No measures to aid boarding.
 Buses do stop at bus stop post.
S&S Green  Open.
 Lit.
 Some street activity.
Comfort Red  None.
 One pedestrian noted sitting on railings.
D3-C10 Provision Red  BRT crossover. 192 BRT crossover.
 1 designated crossing to N of crossover- not well
193 No turning movements
used. Gap used more frequently (informal).
southbound (restricted),
 Guard railings missing for large separate stretches 194
unrestricted northbound.
which aids informal crossing (eastern set of railings,
66

both north of the crossover and south of the northern 195 Not respected.
crossing)- p193, 196.
196 Evidence of vehicular
 Nothing to the south for 200+metres.
strike to nearby
197
Deviation Amber  Most use informal crossing at crossover. guardrailings.
 No legibility aids.
Legibility Nearby bus stop-
 Formal crossing to N has carriageway markings.
pedestrians waiting.
Obstructions  Pedestrian signage (p197) for vehicles/ pedestrians
travelling N-bound.
 Collective taxis stop here.
 No parking to obstruct views at the crossing.
Performance Amber  Straight carriageway section.
 Increasing speeds.
 Buses seen overtaking in BRT.
 Moderate sightlines- good when no stopped vehicles.
 Break in guardrailing and vehicular strike- south of
crossover.
Capacity/ Delay Amber  Copes with flows to north.
 Informal capacity at crossover.
 Plenty of gaps to cross informally.
D3-PT6 Information to Red  No information. 194
the PTWA  Stop not located at gap in guardrailing.
198
Infrastructure to Red  Informal crossing to north (through gap in
the PTWA guardrailing).
 No viable designated crossing.
 Have to vault guardrail to avoid very large deviation.
to cross at designated crossing point. Guard railing
missing provides strong incentive to cross informally.
S&S Amber  Pedestrian activity.
 Lighting.
 Open.
67

Comfort Red  No shade, no shelter, no seating.
D3-C11 Provision Red  BRT crossover. 201 Trip attractors both sides
 Informal crossing point- break in guardrailings.
202 End of no stopping just N
 Trip attractors.
of crossover
203
Deviation Amber  Well used informal movement
Turning movements-
 Formal crossings not apparent to N. 204
Legibility restricted N-bound.
 One to south approximately 40m away.
Obstructions  No legibility –just a gap in guard railing.
 Parked vehicles obstructing both sides.
Performance Red  No protection of pedestrians – just guard railing.
 Cross in stages – positive.
 Sightlines are reduced.
 No control measures.
Capacity/ Delay Green  No formal capacity.
 Some minor delay waiting for a gap in traffic.
D3-C12 Provision Green  Cross roads. 205 (vid) Small holding retail.
 All arms signalised but none operational.
206 Street sellers.
 Designated crossings at each arm of junction, located
close by. 207 Traffic flows moderate,
 Still some informal crossings across the middle of the multi direction.
junction but most pedestrians are compliant.
Speeds moderate to low at
Deviation Green  Good legibility- carriageway markings on all crossings junction.
 Little deviation from crossing points unless too large
Legibility Mix of cars and collective
for crossing on N side, which can get blocked (e.g. if
taxis.
Obstructions crossing with animals).
 No real obstructions – queuing vehicles occasionally. Pedestrian volumes high.
Performance Amber  Low traffic speeds- localised congestion. 3/2/3 on main carriageway
 Moderate sightlines- some parked vehicles to side 2/2/ on side road (W
roads. kerbside parking)
 High traffic flows.
68

Capacity/ Delay Amber  Refuges quickly fill up, particularly N side.
 Waiting passengers.
 Delay dependant on vehicle flows- have to wait for
gaps in traffic.
D3-PT7 Information to Red  Buses stopping to N of junction. 206
the PTWA  Pedestrians waiting to south- no buses seen
207
stopping.
 No formal signage for stops.
Infrastructure to Amber  Buses stop close to formal crossing points.
the PTWA  Good quality footways.
 Some guardrailings missing.
 Junction signalised but non-operational.
 Pedestrian crowding/ congested.
Boarding PT Red  Congestion – crossing refuge to north.
 Conflict with waiting passengers.
S&S Amber  Busy and bustling area.
 High street activity.
 High numbers of pedestrians.
 Low environmental quality.
Comfort Red  Nothing, and crowded.
D3-C13 Provision Green  Designated crossing. 212
 High demand.
214
Deviation Amber  Good legibility.
 Well marked and pedestrian crossing sign on
Legibility
approach (p214).
Obstructions  Sightline obstructions from parked vehicles on both
sides of crossing.
 Railings set back from crossing point in places.
Performance Amber  Poor- parked vehicles affects sightlines.
 Cross in 3 stages.
69

Capacity/ Delay Green  Not signalised, have to wait for gap in traffic.
 Little delay – 3 stage crossing.
D4-C1 Provision Red  BRT crossover. 216 09.50
 Very high number of pedestrians crossing informally.
217 Some turning movements-
 Nearest designated crossing 100+m to N.
only for S-boundtraffic.
Deviation Red  No aids to legibility- informal crossing. Blocks to stop/ hinder N-
 To use designated crossing incurs a major deviation. boundturns (also
Legibility
 Trip attractors both sides. restricted).
Obstructions
Low level retail, single
Performance Amber  Have to step into carriageway to look past parked storey.
vehicles
 Traffic speeds moderate. Cars, collective taxis,
 Appears to be a vehicular strike to railings. delivery vehicles
 Blocks to prevent turning movements may offer 18vehicles 2 Lanes N-
informal protection. bound(60 seconds).
Capacity/ Delay Amber  Very wide. Speeds mod-high, straight
 High volumes- conflict between pedestrians travelling section.
in opposing directions.
 Turning vehicles = conflict. BRT stop next to
 No control. crossover.
 Cross in stages- some delay but frequent gaps. Pedestrian volumes very
high, trip attractors both
sides.
3/2/3, Parking kerbside
both directions.
Cyclists –negligible.
D4-PT1 Information to Red  No signage. 216

the WA  Plenty of queuing pedestrians for N-bound services.
217
 None for S-bound- perhaps too close to major
70

junction.
Infrastructure to Red  Informal crossing (D4-C1) next to stop.
the WA  No viable designated alternatives without significant
deviation.
Boarding PT Red  No aids to boarding, queuing passengers.
S&S Amber  Busy area.
 Several street sellers and beggars.
D4-Link Effective width  Very congested link (p218, 228, 230, 231). 218 Large junction, extremely
 Lots of rubbish on footway narrows (232). busy land use - shops in
228
 Large vehicle turning from a side road, blocking places.
footway (241). 230
Land use change eastern
 Quietening pedestrian flows and industrial land use
231 side to south - flanked by
(242).
bricks and fence.
232
Permeability  Missing guard railings mid link on one side
encourages informal crossing - one man seen 233
vaulting guard railing (237, 238).
234
 Petrol station crossover creates minor conflict.
 Parking for large vehicles including coaches at 237
crossing points (252, 255).
238
 Collective taxis block edge of footway- (261, 262).
 Extended gravel access road to industrial site- poor 241
surface, turning vehicles (269). 242
Surface quality  Drainage problems (234). 243
 Reasonable quality footway.
 Extended gravel access road to industrial site- poor 244
surface (269). 252
 Tiled surface extremely clean towards south – really
good contrast (275). 255
 Shattered glass on footway from a vehicle (294).
71

Security/ Q of E  Street sellers and beggars at major T-junction (228). 257
and south of D4-C9 (272).
258
 Lots of rubbish on footway (232).
 Flanked in part by fence panels. 261
 Industrial land use to south (242).
262
 Akaki Kaliti Sub-City Police Station (no photo!).
 Industrial area to south includes industrial land use. 269-272
Factory on eastern side pumping out acrid black
275
smoke.
276
281
291
294
D4-C2 Provision Green  Formal crossings in all directions. 223 (vid) Major signalised T-
 Signalised, non-operational but infrastructure junction.
224
present.
Signals non-operational.
 N-bound and side road crossing at junction. 225
 S-bound- crossing set back 8-10m. Small holdings, western
226
 Extensive damage to railings and sign post-vehicle side has multi-storey
strike. 227 building (Comm. Bank of
Ethiopia).
Deviation Green  Carriageway markings at all crossings. 228
 Faded on S side. Traffic flows high- cars,
Legibility
 Crossing sign south of junction. taxis, collective taxis.
Obstructions  Guard railing on main carriageway crossings, none on
Pedestrian volumes very
side road.
high.
Performance Amber  Very complex range of movements for vehicles and Cyclist negligible.
pedestrians
 Some pedestrians x diagonally across junction No parking at junction
(informal movement) either side.
 Pedestrian aspect present but non-operational 3/2/3 main road.
 Vehicle strikes to railings at southern crossing.
 Parking restrictions but queuing traffic blocks 3/3 side road (kerbside
72

sightlines. parking both sides).
Capacity/ Delay Amber  Northern crossing v crowded, including into No U-Turn restrictions.
carriageway.
Traffic police directing
 Next to popular BRT stop.
vehicles at junction,
 Less demand at all other arms.
 Less traffic on side road.
 3 stages to cross- some delay to wait for gaps when
traffic queued.
D4-PT2 Information to Amber  Ambesa sign present. 219
the PTWA  Non Ambesa buses using stop.
220
 No other information present.
221
Infrastructure to Green  Designated crossing at waiting area (D4-C2)-
the PTWA signalised but non-operational. 222
 Crossing signage to south.
224
 Markings on carriageway at nearby crossing.
 Formal crossing to N also, but not marked (the
waiting area is extremely long, so accessible by 2
crossings).
 In either direction of travel, there is a crossing point.
Boarding PT Red  Extremely congested.
 Served by multiple routes- difficult to know where to
stand.
 Buses queue up.
 Verge of BRT so congested that people walk within
corridor carriageway.
S&S Amber  Very busy, congested.
 Potential for petty crime.
 Overhead lighting present.
Comfort Red  No measures to aid comfort.
D4-C3 Provision Red  Informal crossing at crossover. 229 There are blocks
 Blocked both directions for vehicular access. preventing vehicular
73

 High pedestrian volumes. 230 access to turn- but one
 Trip attractors both sides. block is in the path of N-
bound buses which may
Deviation Green  Popular crossing.
cause conflict if buses
 High pedestrian volumes.
Legibility have to swerve to avoid.
 No aids to legibility- gap in railings only.
Obstructions  Some crowding on footways.
Performance Amber  Blocks offer some protection. Lots of crowding because
 3 stage crossing. of parked vehicles (p230).
 Consistent flows.
 No turning- so predictable movements of vehicles.
except perhaps if buses have to swerve.
 Moderate to high vehicle speeds.
 Gaps in traffic.
 Buses travel at high speeds.
Capacity/ Delay Amber  Entire width is crossing space as there are no turning
movements.
 Minor pedestrian conflict owing to high use.
 Some crowding on footways.
 Some delay but easy to find gaps.
D4-C4 Provision Green  Designated crossing point- gap in railings. 235 There is very little to score
 Low pedestrian flows. this crossing down but not
236
 Few trip attractors (more to the north). necessarily appropriate
crossing type owing to
Deviation Green  Markings on carriageway but faded in places.
high speeds.
 Pedestrian crossing sign on approach from south.
Legibility
 Low pedestrian flows but no evidence of nearby
Obstructions informal crossing.
However, there is little
 Fewer trip attractors may explain low demand.
point giving it a lower
Performance Green  High-moderate speeds. score for provision
 Open carriageway section. because even signalised
 Good visibility. crossings are not
 No/low parking on approach (could change) operational and do not
 Sign on approach- N-bound vehicles are aware of
74

pedestrians cross here. offer further protection.
Capacity/ Delay Green  Not signalised.
 3 stage crossing.
 Plenty of small gaps- have to cross quickly (higher
speeds).
D4-C5 Provision NA  BRT crossover. 239 10:50
 Vehicle crashed into railings- not easy to make
Deviation 240 No turning for N-bound
observations or take photos.
traffic, permitted S-bound.
Legibility  Lots of observing pedestrians on footway.
 Audit impossible owing to specific situation- atypical Collective taxi stop N-
Obstructions
pedestrian behaviour. bound.
Performance  Intermittently missing guardrails at crossing and to
the north.
Capacity/ Delay
D4-C6 Provision Green  2 designated crossing points, 1 either side of BRT 245 T-junction with adjoining
crossover. side road.
246
 Side road also present at crossover.
 Not signalised. 247
 Cross in three stages over main carriageway.
248
 Cross in one stage across side road.
 Little parking to the north, none for southbound 249
traffic but some to south of junction (northbound).
250
Deviation Green  Both designated crossings have carriageway
251
markings.
Legibility
 Gaps in guard railings assist legibility.
Obstructions  Some pedestrians seen crossing diagonally from
footway.
 Small number of crossings seen crossing informally
at crossover.
 There is a pedestrian crossing sign on approach to
the southern crossing from the south (N-bound).
Performance Amber  Long straight section = higher traffic speeds
 Gaps in traffic present.
75

 No signalisation.
 3 stages to cross – BRT offers protection.
 Parked vehicles to the south (northbound only).
Capacity/ Delay Green  Low demand for crossings – industrial land use.
 Flows coped with.
 Minor delay to cross - have to find gap in traffic.
 Have to be quick!
D4-C7 Provision Green  BRT crossover. 253 BRT crossover.
 Vehicle crossover with designated crossing
254 Concrete blocks
immediately to the south.
segregating western
 Low demand – Volvo building W side, factory on E 255
entrance (253).
side.
256
Similar on east but blocks
Deviation Red  No carriageway markings for crossing.
more haphazardly
 The eastern kerb has raised planter which blocks
Legibility arranged, which allows a
access to the crossing (255, 256).
vehicle to access/exit.
Obstructions  Parking for large coaches on eastern side blocks
visibility.
Performance Amber  Low demand, low pedestrian flows.
 Large gaps in traffic but relatively high speed.
 Coach parking presents hazard.
Capacity/ Delay Green  Low demand, low pedestrian flows – coped with.
 3 stages.
D4-C8 Provision Red  Vehicle crossover used as an informal crossing. 259
 Physical restriction (concrete blocks) on south
260
eastern corner of the crossover, so turning
movements still present. Potential conflict for 261
vehicles performing U-turns from different directions.
262
 Low pedestrian flows.
Deviation Amber  No aids to legibility- informal crossing.
 Nearby junction to the south is a major diversion.
Legibility
 Blocks in carriageway LHS.
76

Obstructions
Performance Amber  Moderate vehicular speeds.
 Low pedestrian flow.
 Parking eastern side.
 Collective taxis – 260 and 261.
 Have to wait in carriageway to view oncoming traffic
(crossing from eastern side).
Capacity/ Delay Green  Unsignalised.
 Low to moderate demand.
 Coped with.
D4-C9 Provision Amber  Wide open T-junction. 264 Main road 3/2/3.
 Designated crossings either side, set back.
265 Side road 2/2 w parking.
 Signalised intersection but not operational.
 Flows busy, both pedestrians and vehicles. 266 (vid)
 Multiple movements.
267
 Parking at side road and also S of junction.
 No provision at side road, no railings etc. 268
Deviation Amber  Signalised intersection (including pedestrian aspect)
but not operational.
Legibility
 Deviations to the north- pedestrian seen crossing
Obstructions informally at junction.
 Carriageway markings present to both crossings.
 Pedestrians crossing diagonally informally and also to
the north of the junction where railings end.
Performance Amber  Busy, complex traffic movements.
 Speeds are quite low as junction is signalised but not
operational.
 Vehicles aware of pedestrians (infrastructure in
place).
 People cross in gaps, waiting in carriageway.
Capacity/ Delay Amber  Very busy.
 Some delay from non-operational signals.
77

 Turning traffic also causes delays.
 Capacity may be insufficient to the north because of
proximity to bus stop (D4-PT3).
D4-PT3 Information to Green  Ambesa bus stop sign. 263
the PTWA  Used by other buses also- no further information.
264
 Clear to see bus stop, very high demand.
Infrastructure to Green  Designated crossing point next to stop (D4-C9).
the PTWA  Signalised with pedestrian aspect but non-
operational.
 Good sightlines but collective taxis wait on crossing
space.
 Extremely crowded.
S&S Green  Open junction.
 Very busy but feels safer.
 Higher quality smallholding and pedestrian activity in
general –people better dressed.
 Nearby lighting.
Comfort Red  No shade, seating, shelter.
 Very busy.
D4-C10 Provision Red  BRT crossover with gravel side road joining. 269
 Wide crossover.
270
 Some informal crossing movements.
273
Deviation Amber  To access the informal crossing, pedestrians on the
eastern side have to stand within wide vehicular
Legibility
access point to industrial area- lots of large, long
Obstructions turning vehicles pose a particular hazard.
Pedestrians coming from the western side find
themselves within this access road environment –
some may deviate on the last stage to try to avoid.
78

Performance Red  BRT infrastructure offers some protection.
 Crossing in three stages.
 To access the informal crossing, pedestrians on the
eastern side have to stand within wide vehicular
access point to industrial area- lots of large, long
turning vehicles pose a particular hazard.
Capacity/ Delay Amber  Very busy traffic.
 Crossing in three stages.
 Some crowding.
D4-C11 Provision Red  Vehicular crossover. 277 12:00
 No designated crossing point.
278 Large concrete blocks as
Deviation Green  Low pedestrian flows. previously seen, but in
 Industrial land use – small, individual workshop type main roadway. Within
Legibility
accommodation. Kerbside loading. dusty stretch next to
Obstructions  Barron on eastern side. railings so unlikely to pose
 Railings are only infrastructure present. problems to pedestrians.
Performance Amber  Light traffic flows.
 Fairly high speed.
Capacity/ Delay Green  Low pedestrian demand.
 Plentiful gaps in traffic.
D4-C12 Provision Green  Designated three stage pedestrian crossing. 279
Deviation Green  Low pedestrian flows. 280
 No informal crossing movements noted.
Legibility 282
 Sign on approach from south.
Obstructions
Performance Amber  Lorry parked on eastern approach (to south of
crossing), obscuring approaching traffic from the
kerb.
 Guard railings help prevent informal crossing.
 Straight road section – fairly high speeds.
79

 Moderate traffic flows.
Capacity/ Delay Green  3 stage crossing.
 Plentiful gaps in traffic to cross on demand.
D4-C13 Provision Red  Vehicle crossover with no designated alternative in 281 Vehicle crossover partially
vicinity (D4-C12 located within eyesight, but some obstructed by concrete
283
distance away. Similar for D4-C14). blocks- SE corner.
285
Deviation Green  This is the desire line for pedestrians crossing in the
area.
Legibility Missing guard railing
 Industrial land use.
section- approximately
Obstructions  No parking observed on eastern side, some apparent
40m long on south
on western side.
western stretch, but gap
Performance Amber  Low pedestrian flow. doesn’t extend to
 Turning prohibited for northbound traffic but not crossover (p283).
respected (p285).
 No formal protection although guard railings assist.
Capacity/ Delay Green  Unsignalised crossing, pedestrians cross on demand.
 Moderate traffic flows so gaps easy to find.
D4-C14 Provision Green  Designated pedestrian crossing. 284
 Next to bus stop.
286
 Low demand at time of audit.
289
Deviation Green  Crossing is right next to bus stop.
 Carriageway markings presen.t
Legibility
 Parking on eastern side on approach (from N).
Obstructions  Pedestrian crossing sign for N-bound traffic on
approach (to south of crossing).
Performance Amber  Moderate flows of traffic.
 Higher traffic speeds- open roadway section.
 Parking on approach may affect sightlines.
Capacity/ Delay Green  Unsignalised crossing.
 Moderate flows of traffic, so gaps can be found.
80

D4-PT4 Information to Green  There is an Anbessa sign. 286
the PTWA  No other information provided.
Infrastructure to Green  There is a marked designated crossing (D4-C14) next
the PTWA to the waiting areas.
 Good footways.
 Low demand.
Boarding PT Red  No measures to aid boarding.
S&S Amber  Exposed area.
 Lighter flows of pedestrians.
 Lighting present.
D4-C15 Provision Red  Blocked off BRT crossover- inaccessible to vehicles in 287
both directions.
288
 Informal crossing point.
 Low pedestrian flows. 290
 Moderate traffic flows at high speeds.
 Parking on western side (not extensive but includes
large vehicles e.g. lorries).
 Some lighting missing.
 Curve in the road to the S.
Deviation Green  Informal crossing, so pedestrians cross here as a
preference.
Legibility
 Missing railings on western barrier away from the
Obstructions crossing- only a short stretch but unlikely to be used
as informal crossing.
Performance Red  Blocked off BRT crossover- inaccessible to vehicles in
both directions.
 Bend in the road to the south blocks sight lines.
 Some informal protection offered.
 High speeds.
 Have to cross when there is a safe gap in traffic, may
81

have to run because oncoming N-bound traffic isn’t
visible until quite late.
Capacity/ Delay Amber  Low pedestrian demand.
 No formal capacity.
D4-C16 Provision Green  Designated crossing point. 292
Deviation Amber  Carriageway markings. 293
 Someone seen vaulting railings approximately 10m
Legibility
to north, so may not serve all desire lines.
Obstructions  Missing railings to the south- some informal
movements noted (western stretch).
 Parking on the eastern side blocks visibility.
Performance Amber  Low to moderate demand.
 Commercial building on western side (292).
 Parking on the eastern side blocks visibility.
 Collective taxis.
 Missing railings to the south- some informal
movements noted (western stretch).
Capacity/ Delay Green  Low to moderate demand.
D4-C17 Provision Red  Informal BRT crossover. 295
296
Deviation Green  Crossing C16 to the north, but some distance away
Guard railing missing on NW corner.
Legibility
 Collection point for taxis.
Obstructions
Performance Amber  Turning movements.
 Low pedestrian flow.
 Commercial and retail on western side, fencing on
eastern side.
 Parked vehicles on both sides.
82

Capacity/ Delay Amber  Low pedestrian flow but no formal capacity.
D4-C18 Provision Red  Designated crossing approximately 15-20m north of 297 Very wide crossover
guard railing end. This has a pedestrian sign for junction. Probably the
298
traffic approaching from the north (p297). Sign worst crossing in the audit
warning of a joining road ahead but sign incorrectly 299 area.
points to the right, rather than the left- potential for
300 Customs building on
driver confusion (p298)
eastern side- large
 Most pedestrians cross informally at the wide open 302
vehicles pulling in and out
space –p302, 303, 304, 305, 306.
303 (p303). It seems cargo is
 Huge amounts of pedestrian activity.
checked here.
 Attractors on both sides of the carriageway. 304
Made it difficult to take
Deviation Red  Most pedestrians use informal movement at open 305
photos – we had to
junction rather than formal crossing.
Legibility 306 produce IDs and were
 Lots of parking on western side of junction.
forced to delete video.
Obstructions  No formal parking on eastern side, but stopped large 307
vehicles.
 Lots of people standing around at customs point,
which creates conflict between pedestrians and may
also be distracting for drivers (p299).
Performance Red  Turning vehicles – frequent and large – exactly where
pedestrians cross informally.
 Open junction where pedestrians cross, so no use of
informal protection measures.
Capacity/ Delay Red  Formal crossing could not cope with observed flows
crossing informally.
 Some delay – pedestrians cross in stages dependant
on traffic flow.
D4-C19 Provision Green  Designated pedestrian crossing – 3 stages. 307 15 vehicles over 2 lanes
N-bound (60secs).
Deviation Green  Carriageway markings present. 308
 Good legibility.
Legibility 309
 Guard railings assist – in good condition.
Will be site of Kaliti depot
 Parking on both sides restricts visibility (including
83

Obstructions large vehicles). 310 station (LRT) 312.
Performance Amber  Accelerating speeds to the north after the roundabout 311 (RAB
 Parking on both sides restricts visibility. vid)
 Low to moderate demand.
 Moderate to high traffic volumes.
 Platoon type flows from roundabout.
 Mix of cars, taxis etc. as well as large vehicles for
customs point.
Capacity/ Delay Green  Designated uncontrolled crossing.
 Platoon flows helps identify gaps in traffic, but could
cause some minor delay depending on when crossing
point was reached.
84
Debashish Bhattacharjee
Human Settlements Officer - Lead, Urban Mobility
Urban Basic Services Branch
UN-HABITAT
PO Box 30030, Nairobi 00100, Kenya
Tel: (+254)-20 7625288
E-mail: debashish.bhattacharjee@unhabitat.org

Promoting Systainable Transport Solutions For East Africa-Addis Ababa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Promoting Systainable Transport Solutions For East Africa-Addis Ababa

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

Promoting Systainable Transport Solutions For East Africa-Addis Ababa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transport Research Laboratory

Creating the future of transport

Provision for Non - Motorised Transport in Addis Ababa

Prepared for: United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT)

AACRA Addis Ababa City Roads Administration

AFD Agence Française de Développement (The French Development Agency)

Anbessa Addis Ababa City Bus Company

BRT Bus Rapid Transit

CERS Cycle Environment Review System

CIHT Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation

GEF Global Environmental Facility

Km/h Kilometres per hour

LHS Left Hand Side

LRT Light Rapid Transit

MoT Ethiopian Ministry of Transport

N-bound North bound

NMT Non-Motorised Transport

Nxing North crossing

PERS Pedestrian Environment Review System

PTWA Public Transport Waiting Areas

Q of E Quality of the Environment

RAG Red Amber Green

RHS Right Hand Side

S&S Safety and security

S-bound South bound

Sxing South crossing

TDM Transport, Travel or Traffic Demand Management

TRL Transport Research Laboratory, UK

UNEP United Nations Environment Program

UN Habitat United Nations Human Settlements Programme

1.1 Addis Ababa

1.2 TRL’s assessment of the level of provision for NMT

3.1 Stage 1: A review of background information

Addis Ababa Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Line Feasibility Study

The Agence Française de Développement (AFD) intend to develop and implement a

TRL’s Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS) Guidance Manual

3.2 Stage 2: Meetings with key stakeholders

Non-motorised transport was discussed as and when appropriate.

3.3 Stage 3: Definition of the study area

3.4 Stage 4: Desktop identification of links, crossings and waiting

The preliminary reconnaissance process was informed using:

3.5 Stage 5: On-street evaluation and strategic assessment

 the types of pedestrians who regularly use the crossing (e.g.

‘Legibility’ in the context of crossing review is concerned with the

‘Obstructions’ are any physical impediment to pedestrians who wish

Performance Crossing performance is an assessment of how well the particular

‘Delay’ concerns the time for which a pedestrian is delayed by the

Public transport waiting areas

3.6 Stage 6: Data analysis

3.7 Stage 7: Display and review outputs and develop

The aim of these recommendations is:

 To support the efficient use of resources to maximise improvements to the level

 To provide transferable recommendations that can be used to support

4.1 Review of background material

The Urban Transport Study for Addis Ababa

Table 3 below highlights some of the key characteristics of non-motorised transport in

Table 3: Data from Urban Transport Study