Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Recommendations for Safe BRT Design for Indian Cities


Published on

Session 3B - 'Road Safety in Indian Cities'

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

Recommendations for Safe BRT Design for Indian Cities

  1. 1. Recommendations for safe BRTdesign for Indian citiesBinoy Mascarenhas, Associate, Urban Transport, EMBARQIndia
  2. 2. BRT is emerging has emerged as a cost-effective public transportationalternative for Indian citiesSuccess stories like the Ahmedabad BRT have changed the questionfrom “Why to do BRT?” to “How to do BRT?” – “What is the mostappropriate kind of BRT for my city?”BRTs are now being developed in many more cities inIndia, (Surat, Indore, Pune, Naya Raipur, Hubli-Dharwad, etc), withmany more cities showing interest..This decade will be the “tipping point”; with an exponential increase inBRTs, similar to the experience in other parts of the worldThe context
  3. 3. BRT is now an established concept ……but there are some concerns that need to be addressedWhat is BRT’s impact on:Road safety,Local accessibilityNMT mobilityRoad capacityFor BRT to gain a wider acceptance by all stakeholders, it mustaddress these concernsThe context
  4. 4. In 2012 EMBARQ released a draftdocument on “Traffic Safety for BusCorridors”BackgroundFrom 2011-12, EMBARQ conductedroad safety audits on BRTs (Indore,Delhi, Ahmedabad) and other publictransit corridorsRoad safety auditson Indian BRTsand other publictransit corridorsRecommendations for safeBRT design for Indian cities
  5. 5. Many of the flagship BRTs in international cities have the following features:Large section of the BRT on freewaysRestricted property access to such roadsLittle or no pedestrians, no at-grade crossingHigh speedLong routes with large distances between stationsBut why a separate document
  6. 6. Some examples … Bogota, Colombia
  7. 7. …and Istanbul, Turkey
  8. 8. … similarly, in Guangzhou, China
  9. 9. Abundant property development along the road edgeCars are not the dominant motor-vehicleBicycles are not the only NMT modeVery high pedestrian volumeTraffic discipline cannot be taken as a givenStreet vendors and immovable obstacles, like utilityboxes, trees, temples, etcAuto-rickshaws as the feeder system to BRTThe Indian context is different:
  10. 10. Abundant road edge property developmentFrequent propertygatesHigh right / U-turndemandHigh pedestrianvolume andcrossing demandRequirement forparking / waitingarea
  11. 11. Cars are not the dominant motor-vehicleSafety features (such as bollardsalong pedestrian crossings) for carsmay not work for 2-wheelersSafety standards for cars different for2-wheelers
  12. 12. Very high pedestrian volumeHigh crossingdemandNeed for frequentcrossingopportunitesMore footpathwidth needed
  13. 13. At least in the immediate period, people will continue to flout traffic rulesSafe design is based on “how people will behave”, rather than “howpeople should behave”Traffic discipline cannot be taken as a given
  14. 14. Bicycles are not the only NMT modePedestrian crossings and bicycle lanes must be usable by all NMTmodes
  15. 15. Street vendors and immovable obstaclesThe design must be able to take into consideration, varying levels ofavailable road width
  16. 16. Auto-rickshaws as the feeder systemIf auto-rickshaw infrastructure is not provided for, they will make theirown ad-hoc arrangements. This can be a safety concern
  17. 17. Data driven: Identifying the main problems through data analysisContextual recommendations: There cannot be one solution forall contexts: type, scale, local conditions matter!Case-study approach: Documenting the international and Indianbest-practices for various elements of the BRTConceptual designs: Providing conceptual designs that can besuitably adapted for a given contextImpact assessment: Assessing the impact of the designrecommendations on BRT operations, road capacity, etcThe approach for this document
  18. 18. Some of the design recommendations
  19. 19. The basic midblock templateThe provision of a multi-utility (MU) strip on both sides ofthe road to accommodate various ancillary uses – parking,street vendor space, rickshaw stand, utility boxes, etcAll other road elements to be of continuous width – theMU strip to accommodate all variations in road width
  20. 20. Frequent pedestrian crossingLocated at high demand areasClearly demarcatedPedestrian refuge areasPedestrian crossing
  21. 21. Midblock u-turnsProvided at frequent intervals along long midblocksectionsSafely combined with pedestrian crossing
  22. 22. Extension of the pedestrian crossing + u-turn design to accommodate the stationMidblock BRT stations
  23. 23. Only left turn access at minor streetsImproves safety as well as capacity for BRT and main road traffic lanesIntersection with a minor street
  24. 24. The draft document has been released, and is currentlyunder peer reviewThe final document will be released later this yearStatus