Adequate walking infrastructure that keeps social distancing

❑ Background

-     Life loss and property damage caused by Corona 19 are serious globally. Border crossings and traffic movements are restricted internally in most countries. However, considering the economic recession in all sectors of society, limited levels of economic activity must be resumed. Therefore, maintaining the “social distance” to suppress transmission is very important

-     Until now, it mainly relied on government administrative orders, but it is effective only when a systemic way for citizens to maintain and pass "social distance" in multi-dense facilities is critical.

-     In this study, a pedestrian system was established to present passengers who can act while maintaining a “social distance” in a multi-dense facility (historic station, department store, stadium, etc.) and the acceptable number of people in the facility based on this.

 

❑ Methodology  

 

-      Based on the departure and arrival schedules of trains such as KTX for Seoul Station, a pedestrian network connected to a platform, a corridor, a waiting room, an exit, and entrance, and a pedestrian demand considering the number of train users and walking paths are analyzed for simulation.

-      In order to calculate the pedestrian circulation system considering the optimal “social distance” and the appropriate capacity, a scenario was constructed which reflects the number of passengers on the train, the longitudinal / transverse distance between pedestrians, and the speed of pedestrians.

 

Scenario		The number of passengers
Scenario A	Base	Passenger 100%(955)
Scenario B	Applying “Social distancing”
Scenario C-1	2 lanes (1.6m) on platform
Scenario C-2	3 lanes (1.6m) on platform

 

KTX consists of 20 vehicles including a first class, a second class, and a non-reserved seat which accommodate different number of passengers. The realistic number of passengers are applied through the number of seats.

 

KTX component
1	Pc(Engine room)	11	T10(first class, 60 seats)
2	MT1(Motorized carriage, 56 seats)	12	T11(first class, 56 seats)
3	T2(first class, 25 seats)	13	T12(first class, 60 seats)
4	T3(first class, 35 seats)	14	T13(first class, 56 seats)석
5	T4(first class, 32 seats)	15	T14(first class, 60 seats)
6	T5(second class, 55 seats)	16	T15(first class, 56 seats)
7	T6(second class, 56 seats)	17	T16(first class, 60 seats)
8	T7(second class, 60 seats)	18	T17(first class, 56 seats)
9	T8(second class, 56 seats)	19	MT18(Motorized carriage, 56 seats)
10	T9(second class, 60 seats)	20	Pc(Engine room)
Total 955 seats

 

❍ Scenario C-1

Passengers at the entrance of the train adjacent to the stairs use pedestrian line 1 to maintain the “social distance,” and passengers at the front and rear of the train use pedestrian line 2.

❍ Scenario C-2

Constructed a pedestrian line with 3 rows with more rows than scenario 2 of Scenario C-1. Passengers can move more freely.

 

❑ Results

Scenario	Density(㎡/p)	LOS	Speed(m/s)	LOS
A	0.648	D	0.69	F
B	0.206	B	0.71	F
C-1	0.241	B	0.48	F
C-2	0.181	B	0.51	F

❍ Scenario A

-     Scenario A is the current status, and the walking density is analyzed to be high at LOS level D. This is considered to be inadequate in maintaining the “social distance” for preventing Corona 19.

 

  ❍ Scenario B

    - Scenario B is analyzed to have low walking density compared to Scenario A However, walking behaviours appear strange when passengers get off while maintaining “social distance” on the train.

 

  ❍ Scenario C-1

    - Scenario C-1, constructed with two rows of pedestrian lines, exits the platform while passengers get off the train and maintain the “social distance” along the pedestrian line. So the walking density is analyzed to be similar to scenario B at LOS level B. Scenario C-1 is judged to be valid when passengers follow the pedestrian line because they actually leave the platform while maintaining the “social distance”.

 

  ❍ Scenario C-2

    - Scenario C-2, constructed with 3 lines of pedestrian lines, is analyzed to have the lowest pedestrian density among the scenarios, but in the case of constructing a pedestrian line with 3 lines, the pedestrian's transverse separation distance does not satisfy the “social distance”. Suitability is considered invalid