GIS-Based Safety Bus Stops— Serdang and Seri Kembangan Case Study

Enhancing a bus transit system is a possible solution to the growth of congestion in urban areas. Issues related to the safety of bus passengers, either on board or during their travel to a bus stop, should be considered. This article presents a GIS method to identify risky bus stops on a single bus route in the Serdang and Seri Kempangan area according to three attributes: location, characteristics, and surface. The aim is to improve the safety of bus stops in the area. Results show that GIS is a good tool to achieve the purpose of this study. Introduction Enhancing a bus transit system is a possible solution to the growth of congestion in urban areas. Bus transit market potential cannot be explored to its full extent unless issues related to the safety of bus passengers, either on board or during their travel to a bus stop, and accessibility to bus stops are addressed (Pulugurtha and Vanapalli 2008, Hamby and Thompson 2006). Personal safety is an important issue in an effective transit system because it greatly impacts transit users. The real safety of transit users and their perception Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2009 40 of their safety are often crucial factors in the decision to use or not to use transit (Vogel and Pettinari 2002). At a minimum, bus stops should have safety amenities such as lighting, curbs, and shelter. Lighting is crucial for visibility and safety throughout the day and night. In transit environments, lighting should illuminate the faces of people. Curbs should be clearly designated and assigned as “no parking” areas. The shelter should be large enough for sidewalks and visually disruptive. In this paper, a shelter was considered a risk factor because of weather conditions in the area of study (rain and thunderstorms)—pedestrians seeking cover at a shelter may suddenly jump into the street when their bus arrives. Thus, a level of risk may occur for pedestrians and vehicles. Bus stops should be at safe locations, no more than 50 meters after a traffic light or road intersection (Higher Committee of Planning Cities 2000). They should not be located on sloped surfaces. Stops that are not located within a distance of 50m after a traffic light or road intersection, that do not have lighting, curbs, and shelters, and that are located on a sloped surface are considered unsafe. Pulugurtha and Vanapalli (2008) developed a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based methodology to assist decisionmakers in identifying and ranking bus stops in high auto-pedestrian collision areas. The GIS-based methodology is illustrated by using 2000-2002 auto-pedestrian collision data, traffic volumes, bus stop coverage, transit ridership data, and street centerline coverage for the Las Vegas metropolitan area. Vogel and Pettinari (2002) focus on the design of transit environments as they consider the personal safety of transit users and address the nature of the larger environment in which the transit stop or station is located. Issues of access also are addressed because the characteristics of the pathways leading to and from transit stops are integral parts of the transit environment. Studies such as the one by Moudon and Hess (2003) show a strong relationship between autos and pedestrians. Providing appropriate pedestrian facilities along bus transit corridors makes access to transit systems more effective. This study aims to enhance public transportation service in an identified area by determining bus stops that may cause risk for pedestrians or vehicles. It also describes a step-by-step approach for validation of bus stop safety using the geoprocessing tools available with ArcGIS 9.2.