Pedestrian Safety and Urban Infrastructure

4,646 views
4,389 views

Published on

By Geetam Tiwari, Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Program (TRIPP), Chair and Associate Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (New Delhi, India)

Published in: Travel, Technology
1 Comment
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • interesting presentation on urban transport. by Move transport http://www.movetransport.com/ Car Transport, Vehicle Shipping, Auto Transport, Car Shipping, Vehicle Transport
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,646
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
173
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
323
Comments
1
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Pedestrian Safety and Urban Infrastructure

    1. 1. Pedestrian Safety & Urban Transport Geetam Tiwari Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Program Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India
    2. 2. <ul><li>~ 1970 Downward trend </li></ul><ul><li>success ~ vehicle safety(cars), access control highways(vehicle safety) </li></ul><ul><li>Marginal decline since 1990(more people inside cars) </li></ul>Downward trends in road traffic fatalities in high-income countries not reducing since 1990s
    3. 3. VRUs are RTC victims in all countries, higher proportion in low income countries; NMVs, PT dominant modes <ul><li>“ success” ~ more people travel by car </li></ul><ul><li>Netherlands:high bicycle use and RTC victims </li></ul><ul><li>Thailand & Malaysia: High MTW and RTC victims </li></ul>Source: Various WHO collaborators in countries 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% USA Thailand Colombo, Sri Lanka South Africa Netherlands Malaysia Kenya Japan Bandung, Indonesia Delhi, India Ghana Australia Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorized 2-wheelers Motorized 4-wheelers Other
    4. 4. Victims in URBAN RTC <ul><li>Highest share of RTC fatalities in urban areas are pedestrians regardless of country income; eg </li></ul><ul><li>New York 54% </li></ul><ul><li>London 30% </li></ul><ul><li>Johannesburg 33% </li></ul><ul><li>Mexico city 52% </li></ul><ul><li>Delhi 50% </li></ul><ul><li>Mumbai 75% </li></ul><ul><li>Tehran 33% </li></ul><ul><li>Shanghai 40% </li></ul><ul><li>Urban problem, not of development! </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Safe countries’ have achieved peds safety on highways, not in cities </li></ul>
    5. 5. China Vision of global city, progress, success <ul><li>1991-1996 i nfrastructure investment $10billion Average speed 15Km/h !! , NMV trips 25% from 40%, increased travel distances & RTCs peds~40% </li></ul>
    6. 6. 80/m FTRC, ~5000 70/m, FTRC 4500 50/m, FTRC ~8000 Fatalities in Indian Cities(~ 18000/year), higher rates in metro cities
    7. 7. Pedestrian and cyclists have highest risk in the safest city! Trip types and fatality rates in central Copenhagen IIT Delhi 2005
    8. 8. Urban Mobility PT and NMV based, MTW majority personal vehicles
    9. 9. Urban Transport India:2040 <ul><li>~40% urbanization; 600-680 m people </li></ul><ul><li>~USD 15000 per capita urban income </li></ul><ul><li>Car ownership: 100-150/1000 persons </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Small cars </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Public transport </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Vehicle ownership: 300-500/1000 persons </li></ul><ul><ul><li>MTW </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Small cars </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Buses </li></ul></ul><ul><li>~90m cars ; 270m vehicles </li></ul>
    10. 10. Priorities for Energy Efficient/Low EmissionUrban Transport <ul><li>Preserving walking and bicycle trips in all cities(20-60%) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mixed Landuse (short trips) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>relationship between informal and formal sector (captive users) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>City speed limits < 50km/h( safety considerations) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Safe infrastructure (network connectivity) </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Priorities for Energy Efficient/low emission Urban Transport <ul><li>PT for serving 5-15km trips (30-40%) of total trips </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Safe walking and bicycling(feeder modes) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Medium density to generate sufficient demand </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fares to compete with MTW operating cost </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Existing scenario …. <ul><li>Chaos at bus shelters </li></ul><ul><li>Bus stops in the middle of the road; commuters don’t use bus shelters </li></ul><ul><li>Commuters cross six lanes to access bus shelters </li></ul>
    13. 13. Pedestrian safety <ul><li>The most influential factor ..in making a decision to cross at a designated crossing location is the distance of the crosswalk to desired destinations of pedestrians. (Handy, 1996; Shriver, 1997 ) </li></ul><ul><li>Besides, improvements in safety and comfort for pedestrians can be obtained without major side effects on vehicle travel (Carsten et al., 1998). </li></ul><ul><li>Also it is evident that pedestrian safety can be affected by changes in the signal settings at signalized crosswalks(peds delay< 40 sec) (Garter, 1989). </li></ul>
    14. 14. Mixed Traffic NMV & PT friendly
    15. 15. PT and NMV facilities at intersection Fence on three sides of the bus stops to prevent jay walking
    16. 16. Pedestrian Bridge ~ 6-8 m high <ul><li>increases walking </li></ul><ul><li>distance by 100-200 m </li></ul><ul><li>Discourages use of </li></ul><ul><li>Public transport </li></ul><ul><li>More motorcycles and cars leading to </li></ul><ul><li>congestion and high </li></ul><ul><li>risk in off peak hours </li></ul>
    17. 17. Bicycle lane and Midblock bus shelter (single platform) ~1500 bicycles/h At grade pedestrian crossing
    18. 18. DETAILED DESIGN FEATURES WIDE BARRIER FREE PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE
    19. 19. Exclusive NMT lane Bicycle and pedestrian paths are physically separated for safety and efficiency
    20. 20. NMT lane entrance, at junction
    21. 21. BRT & NMT integrated
    22. 22. Delhi BRT Traffic May 2008 <ul><li>200 buses </li></ul><ul><li>15,000 persons </li></ul><ul><li>1500-2000 bicycles </li></ul><ul><li>Bus speed 15-20km/h </li></ul><ul><li>Car speed </li></ul><ul><li>10-15 m/h </li></ul>
    23. 23. Accidents on the corridor RAISED CROSSINGS TO GIVE PRIORITY TO PEDESTRIANS AT JUNCTIONS Year                Fatalities   2002               9   2003             17   2004              9   2005              6   2006              8 2007 2 2008 7 Average fatalities/month Before BRT (five yrs) 0.85 During BRT construction (16 m) 0.25 BRT in Operation (7 m) 0.71
    24. 24. Media Reports <ul><li>2002-2006(november) “…why has the project been delayed?” </li></ul><ul><li>2007May-2008 May “…BRT-Big Road Trauma” </li></ul><ul><li>Mis-reporting of design details </li></ul><ul><li>Sensationalizing fatal accidents </li></ul>
    25. 25. IIT Delhi Jun 7, 2009 Central Bus Lanes in Delhi
    26. 26. Jakarta Midblock access Safety concerns Delhi Junction Stops at grade access Bogota High peds bridges
    27. 27. Pedestrian Safety challenge 1 <ul><li>Safe infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian infrastructure designs and norms from vehicles perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Foot over bridges, underpass to ensure uninterrupted movements of cars </li></ul><ul><li>More transport projects instead of transport solutions </li></ul>
    28. 28. Pedestrian Safety challenge 2 <ul><li>Behavioural issues </li></ul><ul><li>Counterintuitive results: Traffic education for children, stricter fines, </li></ul><ul><li>LIC peds vs HIC peds: findings about red light observance, gap acceptance, crossing behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Education and culture vs ease of implementation and effectiveness </li></ul>
    29. 29. Pedestrian Safety challenge 3 <ul><li>Science in its infancy </li></ul><ul><li>Counterintuitive results: marked pedestrian crossings increased fatalities by 20% compared to unmarked, raised crossings decreased fatalities by 40%( Hyden et al) </li></ul><ul><li>Drivers speed increase near a zebra crossing (varhelyi, A, 1999) </li></ul><ul><li>Poor understanding of city structures and pedestrian behaviour: pedestrian exposure </li></ul><ul><li>Pedestrian safety requires safe cities , safe traffic system is a subset </li></ul>
    30. 30. Way ahead: development vs market forces Bus stop location <ul><li>All four sides at the signalized junction </li></ul><ul><li>Shortest crossing distance for pedestrians at the zebra crossing </li></ul><ul><li>Avg. pedestrian </li></ul><ul><li>delay 30-50 secs. </li></ul><ul><li>Required road width(R/W) 33m(minimum) 37m(desirable) </li></ul>Bus stop Pedestrian crossing
    31. 31. NON arterial roads and small cities Speed control by design

    ×