Analyzing Pedestrian Movement in the Public Realm
February 24th, 2009
Pedestrian path movement can be analyzed using video reworked with computer animation software.
More often than not, cars follow the paths prescribed by traffic engineers but pedestrians are a different story. Many pedestrians venture outside the lines, whether to save time, energy, or take a route for which a path is not provided. In some cases, these improvised pedestrian routes can be identified by the dirt path that develops through repeated use – this usually a clear sign that there is a problem with the form and paths provided. But in most cases, we fail to sufficiently understand pedestrian behavior and design in ways that exhibit this lack of understanding.
That said, there are a number of ways in which this gap in the analysis can be filled. I previously mentioned the possibilities of new gps-enabled handheld phones, which would be suitable for a downtown scale route and origin-destination analysis. Also, Jan Gehl has a done a lot of work studying pedestrian behavior and developed a process that utilizes teams manually recording a number of important behavior factors. And here (above image) is one method of tracking pedestrian movement – from pedestrianlevitation.net – that uses video reworked with computer animation software.
It is hard to study pedestrian behavior in cities without an ample supply of pedestrians. But it is a historic lack of understanding and adequate attention that has created this dilemma. The more attention we give to an analysis of pedestrians and the way they interact with the city, the more appropriate our design solutions will be, resulting in an increase in pedestrian users over time.
Right now there is very little (i.e. zero) analysis of this type taking place in Oklahoma City. This is unfortunate but expected from a city that long ago decided to focus only on mobility as it relates to automobiles. Hopefully, public works will begin to treat pedestrian issues like they matter, developing a process for analyzing circulation at least within active areas where pedestrian-friendliness is a stated priority (e.g. Downtown and Bricktown). It might even be interesting to do “traffic counts” in the Underground to see how many pedestrians we are keeping off the streets.
But until that happens we can do some rudimentary analysis by identifying where pedestrian circulation problems are shown to exists – dirt paths. So does anyone know of any dirt paths in Downtown or Bricktown? I can think of a few, but am hoping you all can chime in with some examples I don’t know.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
I don’t think we’ll see Public Works begin to promote pedestrian matters until they’re forced to. The leadership is extremely car-centric, living far north, south and east. I think the City really needs to look at hiring people who have a vested interest in Public Works and urban (pedestrian and multi-modal) matters. The management now is good, but it’s far from focused on these matters and is really just learning about what to do. Leadership is coming as direction from outside the department, not inside. What was once the Community Development Department is now Public Works. It’s not focused on coming up with new solutions, it’s mainly focused on taking care of the existing infrastructure and trying to keep up with development.
The true leadership is in the Planning Department, for good or for bad. Planners could function in Public Works if the Department wasn’t currently set up to mainly deliver projects or maintain infrastructure. Imagine if Public Works had its own type of Planning division focused on determining these areas and brainstorming solutions to the issues. The way things are structured now, the Planning Department (and, in some ways the Finance Department) come up with most of the ideas and bring them to Public Works for review and analysis. Once everyone agrees on what’s going to happen, Public Works takes the project and delivers it. But Public Works has to be given the project, rarely do they determine these types of needs on their own. The mindset needs to change.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Observer -
That is interesting that you bring up where leadership lives. I was recently in St. Louis and got a tour of town from Steve Patterson at urbanreviewstl.com. I was telling him about my thesis research related to Harland Bartholomew and the 1949 Oklahoma City Plan. He said that he had looked up all of the places Bartholomew lived while working as the director of planning for St. Louis and that he always lived on the suburban edge of town (moving farther out as the city expanded). No wonder the guy love highways! And yeh, you’re right. In OKC the City/PW leadership live closer to wheat fields than anything that resembles a city.
Integrating the planning and implementation is something that has intrigued me for sometime. You may remember that I thought about doing this as part of my thesis (analyzing how Vienna combines these functions). Also, it probably makes sense to put the parks department in there as well. I think aligning people with different backgrounds and perspectives to where they are literally on the same team, would make for some creative solutions that can be effectively implemented.
You offer some wonderful insights on the current setup and great ideas for improving it. Really appreciate your input and hope to hear more from you in the future!