Romi roy presentation nmt-uttipec e4

Consequences Of
Favoring the MINORITY
&
Marginalizing the MAJORITY
– in the “Indian Democracy”!!

Presented by: Romi Roy
Senior Urban Designer, UTTIPEC DDA Delhi
Spl. Invitee, Masterplan Review Committee under LG, Delhi
Member, High Court Special Task Force on Transportation under CS
Member, Technical Committee on Urban Drainage, GNCTD, Delhi
Spl. Invitee, LAP Monitoring Committee, MCD Delhi
Member, Sub-Committee on Sustainable Habitat, MoUD
Member of Committees, Indian Road Congress

22 Dec 2012

Who are the Roads for ??

Pedestrians + As Many as 20 Types of Vehicles

Delhi Modal Share

35% of Trips
are Walk Only!
Private modes
BICYCLE
4% CAR/TAXI 27%
Walk 9%
35%
WALK
35% 2W
14%

CYCLE RICKSHAW
2%

BUS
TRAIN (IR) 27%
1%
AUTO RICKSHAW
5% METRO
3%

Public modes In addition,
38% all Public Transport
trips include walk!
Source: RITES Transport Demand Forecast Study for DoT, GNCTD, 2010

Delhi Modal Share
Only 23% of the city’s people use private vehicles (car/2-wheeler).
Yet almost all infrastructure investments in the city are made for this MINORITY!

Private modes
BICYCLE
4% CAR/TAXI 27%
Walk 9%
35%
WALK
35% 2W
14%

CYCLE RICKSHAW
2%

BUS
27%
TRAIN (IR)
1%
AUTO RICKSHAW
5% METRO
3%

Public modes
38%


35% people of Delhi own CYCLES !! But only 4% of trips are by
cycle – because its unsafe and dangerous to use them!

Vehicle Ownership in
Private Vehicle Ownership (%) Private Vehicle Trips (%)
Delhi
60

50

47.9
40 43.4 40
35 38
30 35 30 35
25
20 20
19.4 15
10 10 14
5 9
4
0 0


Women prefer to travel in groups by Cycle – for Safety !!
Its also a Free mode. Gives them independence.

Delhi was once the Cycling City !

Soon cyclists were marginalized due to growing traffic…

Now they are “invisible” so they have no rights to road space
and are at the mercy of motor vehicles!!

Cycle tracks are sometimes constructed, but wrongly so!!
Therefore they land up being “encroached” by motor vehicles
while cycles/ rickshaws remain on road!!

Samarthyam (an NGO) conducted Audit of one such road.

MCD Engineers
Police said they
were not aware
that the track
constructed here
Police
was for Cycles &
Rickshaws… !!

MCD engineers
said they were not
aware of the
UTTIPEC or IRC
design standards
for footpaths &
cycle tracks…!!
Samarthyam

Cycle tracks/ footpaths
are supposed to be 4-inch
high…

11-
11-inch high were
constructed here.

For whom ??

How can a rickshaw get on
an 11-inch high cycle track,
11-
even with a ramp ???

They can’t!! Therefore….

….the Track meant for Cycles/rickshaws
is being used for Car-parking comfortably!!
Car-

The physically disabled person with us could barely be
pushed up on the footpath/ cycle track. Slope here is 1:2 !!

Message we are giving to people through our Road Design:

• If you are a car user, the Road is for you. You get first priority to do
whatever you like.

• If you are a Pedestrian, you are “At you Own Risk”. If possible, install
eyes at the back of your head.

• If you are running a cycle-rickshaw, you are illegal and there is no
space for you on the road. Be thankful we are not throwing you out.

• If you are on a cycle, again, “At your Own Risk”.

• If you are old or even slightly physically challenged, STAY AT HOME!

CLICK NEXT >

Some good examples…. The BRT corridor….

Planned/ designed respectable spaces for pedestrians,
cyclists, auto-parking as well as motor-vehicles !!
auto- motor-

A simple table-top crossing lets a cyclist move freely across
table-
driveway, without hampering the car’s movement!!

Policy recommendation 1:
Promote Non-Motorized Transport &
Pedestrian Safety.

Why ?

33

• 60% of Trips in Delhi are below 4 KMs.
60%

Cycles, Cycle-rickshaws & Walking
are the ideal modes for short 1-4 km Trips.

Average Trip Lengths
by M ode: Delhi
120

100 Average Trip
Mode Length (KM)
80
% of Trips

•Car 10.5
60 •2W 8.7

40 •Auto Rickshaw 4.7

20 •Bus 8.8
•Metro 13.8
0
•Train (IR) 20.2
•Bicycle 4
•Cycle Rickshaw 1.7
Trip lengths in KM
60-70%
60- •Walk 1.1

trips 34
Source: RIT ES T ransport Demand Forecast Study for DoT , GNCT D, 2010

For a 3 km trip, car bicycle BRT metro
Buses & Cycle are
most efficient PT
3
modes.
walk
2.5

2
Distance, km

1.5

1
Metro Walking

0.5 Bicycling BRT

2-Wheeler/car
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time, minutes

Source: Created by IIT Delhi + iT rans

NMT inclusive Planning –
Where do you need it?
Schools
• 3 km buffer around
schools of Sec. and
Sr. Sec schools.
(Schools marked From
. Eicher City
Map, Edition 2)

• The Catchment area
of education based
trips.

Legend
School
railway line
NCTD Boundary

Source: TRIPP/IIT Delhi
yamuna watercourse
IGI airport
forests and ridge
Buffer School
0 3 6 12 18 24 ±
Kilometers

Trips origin: slums
• Distributions of JJ
Clusters in Delhi

• There is direct
relation between the
density of these
poor households
and the number of
cycle trips origin.

Legend
JJC_Point
POPULATION
0 - 100
101 - 200
201 - 400
401 - 800
801 - 1600

±
1601 - 10000
nctd line
railway line
Source: TRIPP/IIT Delhi yamuna watercourse
0 2 4 8 12 16

NMT trips destination:
shops, MLU, CSC, DC, Wholesale areas

• Major Commercial
Centres, District
Centres, -18%

• Shops / Mixed Land
Use and Wholesale
areas -23%

• These are spread all
over urban area as
major destination for
poor urban workers
Legend
using cycles for upto
20km per day Shops / Mixed Landuse
district centers
C.S. Center s

±
wholesale areas
yamuna watercourse
rai lway line
0 2 4 8 12 16
nctd line Kilometers
Source: Figure 4.17 Shows locations of major Commercial Centres, District Centres, Shops /
/TRIPP/IIT Delhi Mixed Land Use and Wholesale areas

NMT destination: manufacturing
areas and govt. offices

• 21% of cycle n
work- trips have
factory destination
and travel up to
10 km in a day n
n
• about 35% have
offices (Govt. and n n
Pvt.) as their
destination and Legend
n nn n
n
n
travelling upto 10 n govt landuse
km per day railway line
NCTD Boundary
n
yamuna watercourse
govt. landuse
manufacture

±
IGI airport
forests and ridge
Buffer_of_manufacture
0 3 6 12 18 24
Buffer_of_govt_landuse
Source: TRIPP/IIT Delhi Kilometers

Walking & Cycle-rickshaws are the most
Cycle-
important Feeders to Metro/ BRT Stations.

Mode used to Reach Metro Stations:
MODE FROM ORIGIN TO METRO FROM METRO TO DESTINATION

Walk 61% 78%
Cycle Rickshaw 12% 9%
Two Wheeler 11% --
Auto 8% 8%
Bus 5% 5%

Car/Taxi 3% 1%
Source: RITES Transport Demand Forecast Study: May 2008

Yet NO Metro Station provides authorized
cycle-
cycle-rickshaw parking !! 40

Policy Recommendation 2:
• Improve Supply & Service by IPT.
• Provide authorized Parking.

auto taxi rickshaw

• A Car serves one person a day & occupies minimum 3 parking
spaces throughout the city.

• An IPT mode occupies only one parking space, and
serves multiple people throughout the day.
41

12th Plan Strategies to
promote IPT:

1. Provide More IPT Choices
2. Provide organized IPT Parking at all
Metro Stations & along all Roads.

Road Safety is Low.
The reasons for all accidents are:
1. Signal free high speed corridors.
2. Insufficient/ No pedestrian Crossing facilities.
3. Central verge without grills.
4. No speed breakers/ rumble strips on long stretches.
5. Absence of dedicated lanes for slow moving
vehicles.
6. Heavy volume of traffic.
7. Glaring during night etc.

Wazirabad Road Pedestrians
G. T. Road Two Wheelers
• There are more than 2100 Najafgarh Road Self
accidents occurred during 2010. Mahrauli Badarpur Road

N. H.-8
• The maximum casualty in the
fatal accidents are pedestrians, Mathura Road

cyclists & 2 wheelers. G T K Road

Rohtak Road
• The maximum accidents have
occurred during the lean hours both Outer Ring Road

in the morning & night. Ring Road

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Fatal Accidents in 2010
Source: Delhi Traffic Police

How are Car-oriented Infrastructure
Car-
Impacting us?

How are Car-oriented Infrastructure
Car-
Impacting us?
• Making motor vehicle movement smoother for a few years,
before jams take over.

• Making it impossible/ very difficult to cross roads on foot!

• Making cycles & cycle-rickshaws move contra-flow, thus
endangering their lives.

• Making it impossible/ difficult to interchange between different
bus routes near junctions.

• Creating environments suitable for eve-teasing and heinous
crimes like Rape!

• In long run, increased car use leads to Congestion again,
while use of all other modes has been made excruciatingly
difficult or impossible!

How to cross this road ??

Where to walk or cycle ??

Dhaulan Kuan Signal-free Cloverleaf (जलेबी)
Signal- 46

Walking Distances are increased by >5 times
>5
after जलेबी construction at AIIMS!.
AIIMS!.

(Source: CSE)
After construction of the Clover Leaf Flyover, the walking distance
from AIIMS exit to Dilli Haat has increased by over 5 times.

In addition, there are no safe crossings available, so people risk
their lives crossing the street at the most convenient locations.

Walking Distances are increased by >5 times
wherever a flyover is constructred.
constructred.

People can’t cross the street between neighborhoods!!

All major flyovers have failed, or led to MORE
congestion.

Congestion is good!!
It makes people shift to BRT or other modes like cycles!!

Jakarta

Delhi

Delhi

What to Do?

1. Follow Road Standards & Guidelines.
(IRC+ UTTIPEC)
2. Plan a Network for cyclists, rickshaws &
pedestrians, not pieces.
3. Technically Design, Implement & Supervise
projects.
4. Regular Audit and Maintenance.

Street Design Guidelines
“…for Equitable Distribution of Road Space” - NUTP

© UTTIPEC, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi
Guidelines Adopted: Nov 2009. Revision 1: Nov 2010

Masterplan-2021 Road Hierarchy: Categorization*
Primary Arterial Other Primary Arterial Primary Collector Secondary Collector Local Streets

RIGHT OF WAY 60-80 M 45-60 M 30-40 M 18-24 M 12-20 M
SPEED RANGE 50 – 70 km/hr 30 - 40 km/hr. 20 - 30 km/hr 10- 20 km/hr 10-20 km/hr

SPEED Enforcement and Traffic Enforcement and Traffic Enforcement and Traffic calming Traffic calming
CONTROL Calming required Calming required Traffic calming essential. required
required.
BUSWAYS FOR Segregated busw ays Segregated busw ays Segregated busw ays No segregated bus lane; No segregated bus
BRT required w here BRT required w here BRT required w here BRT but Road may be lanes or bus operations
proposed proposed proposed, at-grade designated Bus-NMV required; but Road
segregation possible on only if required may be designated
R/Ws above 36 M Bus-NMV only if
required
MOTORIZED 2 to 4 motorized lanes per 2 to 4 motorized lanes per 2 to 3 motorized lanes No minimum lane width No minimum lane
LANES direction, min. 3.3 m w ide direction, min. 3.3 m w ide per direction, min. 3.1m specification. width specification.
(min. 3.5 for BRT (min. 3.3 for BRT w ide (min. 3.3 for BRT
busw ays) busw ays) busw ays)
CYCLE/ NMV Segregated cycle tracks Segregated cycle tracks Traffic Calming Cycle lanes can work, No special feature for
TRACKS required; min. 2.5 m wide required; min. 2.5 m wide essential where segregated tracks cyclists
for two-way movement. for two-way movement. segregated Cycle tracks required where friction &
are not provided; Cycle encroachment expected
tracks to be min. 2.5 m
wide if block lengths are
>250m.
SERVICE LANES Serv ice lanes required. Serv ice lanes required for No serv ice lane No serv ice lane No serv ice lane
residential frontages; for required required required
commercial / MU
frontages, not required.
MEDIANS Continuous median; all Continuous median; all Intermittent or No Intermittent or No No medians; traffic
openings and intersections openings and intersections median; median required; For calmed crossings, or
accompanied by signals accompanied by signals openings/ intersections roads w here need for mini roundabouts
and traffic calming. (no and traffic calming. (no accompanied by signals Median is felt, issue to
grade separators within grade separators within and traffic calming. be brought to
city) city) UTTIPEC. Crossings to
NOT E: Lane Widths have been designated based on desired speed of the road category. be traffic calmed.
54 Guidelines prepared by UTTIP EC, DDA; Revised and Updated in Nov 2010.
* 54

05 Bicycle and Non-Motorized Transport Infrastructure
05A Segregated Cycle +
NMT Tracks
05B Bicycle Parking and
Other
Infrastructure

Provision for introducing cycle tracks, pedestrian and disabled friendly features in arterial
and sub-arterial roads is a must. (MPD-2021)
Bicycles, Rickshaw s and other Non-Motorized transport are essential and the most eco-
friendly feeder services to and from MRTS stations. They are also indispensible for short &
UTTIPEC
Mobility
Safety
medium length trips for shopping, daily needs, school, etc. Providing safe and segregated
NMT lanes on all Arterial and Collector Streets w ould encourage their use and reduce the
& Comfort
dependency of people on the private car...

StreetIntegrated
Design MAIN PRINCIPLES:
Mobility - Continuous and safe NMT lanes with adequate crossings are essential
throughout the city

Guidelines
Ecology
- Ample parking facilities for NMTs must be provided at all MRTS stations

Ecology: - The most eco-friendly mode of transportation.

Safety/Comfort - Safe crossings for NMT are essential for their safety.
- NMT lanes must be segregated from faster motorized traffic.
- Shade must be provide along NMT lanes as well as at traffic signals.
55

Not Preferable 05A Segregated Cycle and NMT Tracks
Key Principles:
• Cycle Lane - A portion of a roadw ay that has been designated by striping, signs,
and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists.
• Cycle Track - A Track intended for the use of bicycles that is physically
separated from motorized vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier w ithin the
existing ROW.
• Provision for introducing cycle tracks, pedestrian and disabled friendly features in
arterial and sub-arterial roads is a must, as per MPD-2021. Minimum
acceptable Width for single lane movement is 2.0 M.

‘Marked’ Cycle Lanes have failed in Delhi • NMT Lanes are meant for Bicycles, Cycle-Rickshaw s, Hand pushcarts, Haw ker
carts, animal draw n carts, etc.
as vehicles freely drive and park on these
cycle lanes. Key Guidelines:
Marked lanes also suffer from lack of visibility. • NMVs are the second most vulnerable group
of road users and therefore must be clearly
Lack of physical separation also deprives segregated from faster moving motorized
cycles of safety and does not allow them to traffic, especially on Roads designed for
pick up speed. motorized speeds of
• The NMV lane should be constructed with
smooth-finished cement Concrete or
Asphalt in order to ensure a low
maintenance and smooth riding surface. In
the absence of this, cyclists will tend to
move into the MV lanes which may be more
comfortable.
• Minimum Dimension of NMV Track is 2.5 M.
• NMV Lanes or Tracks should be located on
both sides of the street.
? • A 0.7 M landscaped buffer should be kept
between NMV and MV lanes in order to
Mixing of modes slows down everyone and maximize the speed, efficiency and capacity
creates chaos! of the NMV Lane. NMV lanes must be given clear crossing Tracks at junctions.

Street Design Guidelines © UTTIPEC, DDA 2009
56 ESSENTIAL GUIDELINES

05A Bicycle and NMT Tracks Best Practices
05
A

Relative Levels of NMV Tracks and Footpaths.
Source: TRIPP, IIT Delhi, BRT Design Specif ications, 2009

Segregated Cycle-NMV Track,
BRT Corridor, Delhi

Cycle track on Public Staircase,
Europe

Segregated TWO-WAY Cycle Track,
Canal Street, Manhattan

2.5 M is the Optimum Cycle Track Width. 1.5 M Width is required Shaded Waiting Area for Cycles at Segregated Cycle Track on 20 M Road,
for Cycle Rickshaw Parking. Detail Source: Oasis Designs Road Junction, Hangzhou, China Manhattan
Inc.
ESSENTIAL GUIDELINES 57

Not Preferable 05B Bicycle Parking and Other Infrastructure
Key Principles:
• Cycles are a very desirable and affordable private feeder service to MRTS/ BRTS Stations.
• To encourage their usage therefore - safe and secure cycle parking options must be provided.
• Secure Cycle Parking must be provided at all MRTS/ BRTS Stations.

Key Guidelines:
• Long-Stay Parking – Cycle parking lots must be enclosed, ticketed (like car-parking
lots) and shaded from w eather. Cycle parking lots can be combined w ith ticket counter
booths, local police booths, cycle service stations or shared areas w ithin private building
complexes.
80% of Cycles under the Paris Cycle Share
Program are stolen or damaged. • Short-stay parking – should be open to view and close to entrances of destinations.
Source: Samuel Bollendorf f for The New Y ork
Times

The stands should allow at least the frame and ideally both w heels, to be secured to them.
Open lockable parking bays like above may
A typical Cycle Stand is show n above.
not succeed in Delhi – due to fear of theft or
Source: http://www.norwich.gov.uk/local_plan/images/figures/diag1a.jpg
vandalism. However, they may work as a
short term (10-minute) parking option. http://www.bolsov er.gov.uk/localplan/ws_pics/image005.jpg

58 ESSENTIAL GUIDELINES

05B Bicycle Parking and Other Infrastructure Best Practices

Public Cycle Parking in a Private Compound

2.1 or 2.5 M x 5.0 M Parking Bays

Graphic Source:
http://www.hackney-
cyclists.org.uk/parking/on_street_x.jpg

SAMPLE CYCLE PARKING PLAN A Cycle-repair stall next to a Cycle Track, Shanghai

Stacked Cycle Parking, China

05
B

Cycle Rickshaw Parking, Cycle Parking Stands, Cycle repair Stalls, etc.
can all be accommodated within the Flexible “ Multi-Functional Zone” (Section 04) Shaded and Ticketed cycle Parking, Beijing
Street Design Guidelines © UTTIPEC, DDA 2009 Sample Drawing: Pradeep Sachev a Design Associates

01E Continuous Pavement Best Practices
At entry points of properties – introduce “ raised driveway” or “ table-top” details – where
01E pedestrian and cycle tracks continue at their same level, but the motorized vehicles have to move
over a gentle ramp to enter the property.

BRT Corridor, New Delhi

01E

T ypical Detail of Raised Driveway at Building Entries.
Source: TRIPP, IIT Delhi, BRT Design Specifications, 2009


45 M Primary Arterial Road
IRC Section

Cycle Tracks
MANDATORY

UTTIPEC
Section
63 Drawings only Suggestive, not Prescriptive. Prepared by UTTIPEC, DDA 63

40 M Primary Arterial Road
IRC Section

Cycle Tracks
MANDATORY

UTTIPEC
Section

30 M Arterial Road
IRC Section

Cycle Tracks
MANDATORY

UTTIPEC
Section
65
65 Drawings only Suggestive, not Prescriptive. Prepared by UTTIPEC, DDA

30 M Primary Collector Road
NOTE:

IRC Section Non-motorized Lanes/ Cycle T racks are
OPT IONAL on R/Ws below 40m Width.

In case smoother flow of motorized traffic is
desired, one “ Shared Lane” may be replaced
by a dedicated Non-motorized Lane, in each
direction, to reduce friction between slow and
fast moving vehicles.
Cycle Tracks
OPTIONAL

UTTIPEC
Section

18-24 M Secondary Collector Road
IRC Section

Cycle Tracks
OPTIONAL

UTTIPEC
Section

Example:
45m Road
(Vikas Marg)

Cycle tracks,
footpaths,
rickshaw-parking,
auto-parking,
vendor cart spaces,
trees,
car-parking,
toilets…
accommodated
within R/W
without disturbing
carriageway
space !

7/26/2012 UTTIPEC 68

Example:
45m Road
(Vikas Marg)

Cycle tracks,
footpaths,
rickshaw-parking,
auto-parking,
vendor cart spaces,
trees,
car-parking,
toilets…
accommodated
within R/W
without disturbing
carriageway
space !

7/26/2012 UTTIPEC 69

Example:
45m Road
(Vikas Marg)

Cycle tracks,
footpaths,
rickshaw-parking,
auto-parking,
vendor cart spaces,
trees,
car-parking,
toilets…
accommodated
within R/W
without disturbing
carriageway
space !

7/26/2012 UTTIPEC 70

A complete City-wide Safe Cycling Network to be developed.

Arterial Roads to have safe Cycle Tracks

A complete City-wide Safe Cycling Network to be developed.

Nallahs can be Cycle-Ecomobility corridors, forming a City-wide Network.

Even when traffic is jammed & standing,
still pedestrian crossings are not left free !

74
Why No Crossings ? © UTTIPEC, DDA 2012

No signalized
zebra
crossings
= jaywalking
= Road
accidents!

75

Signalized Pilot Projects
Crossings
were
proposed
every ~250m
on Aurobindo
Marg to make
it safer!

Times of India, 2010
76

Signalized Pilot Projects
Crossings
were
proposed
every ~250m
on Aurobindo
Marg to make
it safer!

Times of India, 2010
77

Typical Safe
Crossing Designs:

78

Typical Safe
Crossing Designs:

79

Provide safety through Design

80

Safe Crossings implemented on Aurobindo Marg:

• Traffic calming
strips before
zebra
crossings

81


• New Safe zebra
crossings

82


• New Safe zebra
crossings

83

Provide safety through Design Success

84

What to Do?

Problems, Issues and
Solutions are known!

POLITICAL WILL IS MISSING !

Safety and Pride for Non-motorized Transport

One day we will have it!

Romi roy presentation nmt-uttipec e4

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Mehr von ManushiIndia

Mehr von ManushiIndia (19)

Romi roy presentation nmt-uttipec e4