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.

@ UDRI - Traffic & Transportation Plan - Final

241 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

@ UDRI - Traffic & Transportation Plan - Final

  1. 1. Traffic and Transportation Management Plan
  2. 2. 1.Mission, Scope of Work and Background 2.Illustration of present and future traffic conditions 3. Top Level Objectives 4. Top Level Methodology 5. Case Study Ballard Estate 6. Case Study Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus 7. Survey Findings and Phase 1 Work 8. Questionnaire Contents
  3. 3. Mission To ensure that Mumbai retains its numero-uno position among all Metropolitan cities of the world when it comes to usage of Public Transport over private vehicles and also to make Mumbai a pedestrian friendly city.
  4. 4. Sections 6 & 7, Ward B Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, Ward A Sections 13 & 14, Ward B Scope of Work
  5. 5. Background • Visions: “… transform Mumbai into a World Class City…with a globally comparable quality of life for its citizens” (MMRDA, 2007) – Quality of Life survey done by Mercer Human Resource Consulting survey 2007 ranks Mumbai at 150 out of 215 cities (Transportation and Traffic systems is an important parameter)
  6. 6. • Visions: “… transform Mumbai into a World Class City…with a globally comparable quality of life for its citizens” (MMRDA, 2007) Background
  7. 7. Background • Plans: Western Sea-link and Eastern Freeway, Flyovers, Metro etc. - Top - Down planning approach - Failure in capturing dynamic evolvement of a City and changing needs and behavior of its citizens.
  8. 8. Background • Framework: National Urban Transport Policy – To bring about a more equitable allocation of road space for people rather than vehicles. – Encourage greater use of public transport and non-motorized modes for commuting.
  9. 9. Equitable Road space allocation? 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 in% walk train bus rickshaw taxi two wheeler private vehicle Percentage average trips per day Source: CTS 2005-08 Household Survey 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 in% train bus rickshaw taxi two wheeler private vehicle Modal Split without walk Source: CTS 2005-08 Household Survey
  10. 10. Equitable Road space allocation? 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 in% Best Bus taxis two wheelers private vehicles Percentage Road Space on Marine Drive Source: CTS Actual Counting Survey (2005-08) Percentage Modal Split Source: CTS 2005-08 Household Survey 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 in% bus taxi, rickshaw two wheeler private vehicles
  11. 11. Equitable Road space allocation? Source: GTZ, 2007 Comparison of road space captured by private vehicles and bus
  12. 12. Arrival at Overall Objective Commuters arriving in Fort Area Pvt Vehicles/ Taxis BEST Buses Suburban Trains/BRTS Suburban Trains Pedestrians Public Transport Taxis
  13. 13. Present requirement of parking spaces Parking space required in case 5% commuters shift from Bus to Private Vehicles Parking space required for resident vehicles Parking space required for incoming vehicles in Fort Area / South Mumbai
  14. 14. Projected requirement of parking spaces in next 5 years Parking space required in case 5% commuters shift from Bus to Private Vehicles every year Parking space required for resident vehicles Parking space required for incoming vehicles in Fort Area / South Mumbai
  15. 15. Projected requirement of parking spaces in next 10 years Parking space required in case 5% commuters shift from Bus to Private Vehicles every year Parking space required for resident vehicles Parking space required for incoming vehicles in Fort Area / South Mumbai
  16. 16. Top level objectives •To provide a safe and comfortable walk to commuters for short distances (10 to 15 minutes) alighting/boarding at CST and Churchgate. •To provide a safe, comfortable and economic Public Transport System for commuters alighting/boarding at CST and Churchgate beyond short distances. •To ease the level of traffic and regulate parking conditions on inner roads and to give due consideration to them as public spaces.
  17. 17. Top Level Approach & Methodology • To initiate the participation process between UDRI, public, experts and other key stakeholders •To provide a framework for defining policy statements for Traffic Zones, buses, pedestrian, private vehicles, key junctions etc. - Based on surveys, secondary data, expert inputs, top level objectives, parameters and mission
  18. 18. Top Level Approach & Methodology • To collect data, knowledge and experiences of transport and traffic related parameters and their relationships (For ex.: Changing effects on vehicular traffic and pedestrian flows after providing a dedicated bus line) • To identify traffic zones and provide policy and proposals - Surrounded by main and arterial roads - Based on land use, inner road structure, relationship with other zones, historical significance etc. • To develop proposals for CST, Churchgate, Pedestrian Flows and Key Junctions
  19. 19. Identified Traffic Zones
  20. 20. Top Level Approach & Methodology •To elaborate policies and develop proposals for each Traffic Zone - organisation of parking space - organisation and restriction of traffic flows - public transport connections - other transport and traffic related needs
  21. 21. Top Level Approach & Methodology •Improving and redeveloping policies and proposals in an iterative way together with public, experts and other key stakeholders. • Adoption of policies and implementation of agreed proposals
  22. 22. Public (Citizen Forums and Other Public Groups) • Knowledge transfer about local situation and needs. • Implementation Agents 007 • Instruments for Acceptance and Rejection of policies and proposals Institution (UDRI): Conducting surveys, collecting data, developing policies and proposals, information and knowledge disbursion, Tie-ups with independent planning bodies and other organisations Other Key Stakeholders (Transport experts, City Planners, Activists, Transport Dept Heads and Reps etc ) • Government Dep.: Information and data sharing, implementers • Experts: Knowledge Transfer • Activists: Understanding Social Consequences and Impact on Environment
  23. 23. Case Study: Ballard Estate
  24. 24. • Policy statements: – A sufficient number of Feeder bus stops should be made available inside the zones adjacent to office complexes. – Public Transport buses should have dedicated lanes on Arterial Roads and Main Roads surrounding the zone in order to provide an efficient service level to commuters. – Cargo Vehicles and Pvt Buses should not be allowed to park on inner roads. Case Study: Ballard Estate
  25. 25. • Policy statements: – Taxis should be parked on separate and identified Taxi Stands only. – Restrict movement of vehicular traffic to arterial roads so as to provide more comfortable and safe movements of pedestrians (commuters). – The number of subways and FOB’s a pedestrian has to cross should be restricted to as less as possible. Waiting time on signals should be in favor of pedestrians rather than of vehicles. – Residential space should not be disturbed and encroached by office staff vehicles. Case Study: Ballard Estate
  26. 26. Case Study: Ballard Estate -Comfortable walking zone in the middle of the street - One way loop system for vehicular flow - Providing additional parking space on surrounding main road - Parking only for residents in western part of Ballard Estate - Closure of secondary roads for through traffic
  27. 27. Case Study: Ballard Estate Proposed road space organisation
  28. 28. Case Study: Ballard Estate -Comfortable walking zone in the middle of the street -One way loop system for vehicular flow - Providing additional parking space on surrounding main road - Parking only for residents in western part of Ballard Estate - Closure of secondary roads for through traffic
  29. 29. Case Study: Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus • Policy statements - Transit Zones should have Pedestrian Plazas at their main entry and exit points, if the current amount of pedestrian movement can not be handled by normal junctions - Feeder buses as well as future mass/light transit systems connectivity points should provide easy and direct access from the Main Station. Buses should have easy access to arterial road
  30. 30. Case Study: Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus • Policy statements - Specific Areas and stops should be defined for shared taxis/taxis and private vehicles. - multiple taxis stops at decentralized locations (e.g. on Subway entry/exit points).
  31. 31. • Policy statements - Pedestrians should have priority to cross at surrounding Key Junction Signals - Crossing facilities should be based on existent pedestrian flows (e.g. location of zebra crossings) - Public Transport buses should have dedicated lanes on Arterial Roads and main roads surrounding this zone. Case Study: Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus
  32. 32. Short Term Proposal -Separation of pedestrian paths and vehicular lanes - Reorganisation of signal at intersection of Mint Road /Walchand Hirachand Rd and Bazaar Gate Road - Mint Road becomes Transit Street with speed limit - Temporal closing of Walchand Hirachand Rd. in peak hours
  33. 33. Short Term Proposal -Separation of pedestrian paths and vehicular lanes - Reorganisation of signal at intersection of Mint Rd /Walchand Hirachand Rd and WH Road/Bazaar Gate Road - Mint Road becomes Transit Street with speed limit - Temporal closing of Walchand Hirachand Rd. in peak hours
  34. 34. Medium Term Proposal -Shifting of Long distance (train) Taxi stand to Shaheed Bhagat Singh CST exit: - Creating a pedestrian plaza in front of CST main entry gate - Mint Road becomes a Transit Street and has two dedicated bus lanes - Two Metro subways with their entry points at CST’ s Pedestrian Plaza - New parking space on Walchand Hirachand road
  35. 35. Long Term Proposal -Vehicular flyover on Shaheed Bhagat Singh Rd -Murzban Rd becomes a pedestrian plaza -Walchand Hirachand Rd becomes part of an extended Pedestrian Plaza. -Two new Metro subways with two of their entry points at CST Pedestrian Plaza
  36. 36. Survey Findings: Feeder bus commuters 3142 3050 2737 1736 22965 16583 15262 11154 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 9:00-9:30 9:30- 10:00 10:00- 10:30 10:30- 11:00 Time ranges NumberofCommuters feeder bus commuters CCH Local train alighters
  37. 37. Survey Findings: Feeder buses usage Percentage usage of Feeder buses 13,6 18,4 17,9 15,6 0 5 10 15 20 9:00-9:30 10:30-11:00 10:00-10:30 9:30-10:00 Time range Percentage usage of Feeder buses
  38. 38. Handout – Survey Findings Survey Major Findings Limitations Next Steps Number of passengers boarding and alighting at CST and Churchgate. In morning peak hrs. The overall results were in and around 5-10% (upper limit) compared to secondary data available. (CTS 2005-2208 Study) 1.65964 passengers are alighting at Churchgate between 9 am and 11 am. 2.146674 passengers are alighting at CST between 9 am and 11 am. The most busy hr is 9:00-10:00 am. 3.Fast locals at CST are heavily packed and the frequency needs to be further increased; esp between 11:00-11:30 arrival time at CST. 4.The number of commuters arriving at ChurchGate have a sudden drop after 10:30 am. 1.The survey was done only in second class compartments. 2.The density of Women and Male travelers was considered at par. 3.The Number of First class compartment passengers was estimated as 0.8 of density of Second class passengers. Evening Surveys. Team requirement, 6 people including 2 women , 2 days. Distribution to other transport modes at CST and Churchgate. 10685 commuters between 9:00-11:00 am are taking the feeder bus, i.e 16.2 % of the overall suburban train passengers alighting at Churchgate Station. 1.Bus frequency is not in sync with alighting patterns of commuters. 2.Bus routes were mapped. 3.Bus stop accessibility, infra conditions etc were also mapped. WIP : New policy and proposals specific to new bus routes etc. Taxis are not counted yet. The CST survey was conducted but could not be managed because of lack of resources. 1.Survey to count the number of taxis at CST and CCH during peak hours. 8 people , 2days 2.CST bus survey. 8 people 1 day
  39. 39. Major Pedestrian Flows : Mapping of infrastructure , volume, flow and behavior pattern of pedestrians alighting at CST and CCH. Major problems on the path are key junctions (organization and signaling). 1.1 to 1.5 sq.mts space available for pedestrians, for all the six major flow originating points. 2. Capacity reduction of pavements as result of hawking is not relevant; accept at the Main Entry Gate of CST in the evening. 3. Jay walking is present even when the pavement conditions are very comfortable to walk. Lack of pedestrian grading, preference to have a shortest path walk ; maintain express walking speed etc are found to be few reasons.. 4.Parking vehicles do not dither the pedestrian to walk on road. The solutions include identification of specific infrastructure, accessibility, comfort and safety conditions on the six major pedestrian walk-ways . Surveys to examine the evening flows : are only partly done . - Statements about amount and volume of flow are subjective in nature. Survey on evening flows. Survey at exit points of CST and CCH. Requirement for 6 major pedestrian flows: 6 people 1 evening. Requirement for survey at exit points: 6 people 2 days. (not a priority survey) Handout – Survey Findings
  40. 40. Key Junctions: Mapping of 4 important junctions. Signal timings and pedestrian flows at the junction. Using this data to create overall policy and specific proposals. Long waiting times for pedestrians (up to 2 minutes) 1.Nearby Junctions are not synchronized to pedestrians avg walk speed. They are in synchronization to vehicular speed. Hence large wait time for pedestrians. 2.Location of zebra crossings not based on the existent pedestrian flows. 3. Dangerous situations results as warning times are short, when pedestrian signals turn to red. 4.Median Island built-ups by pedestrian are a common feature. The solutions include , averaging out signal times in favor of pedestrians, providing median space wherever applicable , arterial roads and second priority to Public Transport, synchronized movement of one-way traffic with nearby signals etc. Signal phases of nearby junctions in connection to each other were not examined. surveys on remaining Six Key junctions requirement: 6 junctions , 1 person 3 days. Vehicular count on the key junctions. Requirement (not on priority) : 8 people 6 days Handout – Survey Findings
  41. 41. Zoning We identified the zones. And did walkthroughs in number of zones. The policy statements and detailed proposals are in WIP. Lack of local zone based knowledge .ion of & identification of Key stakeholders in the zone Local knowledge and Participation extremely important to come out with policies and proposals. Identification of problems such as , detailed land use ,vehicular traffic , accessibility to public transport , parking , pedestrian infrastructure and flows , key junctions and their alignment , encroachment etc . Handout – Survey Findings
  42. 42. S. No Name of Policy/Proposal (Status) Proposed Discussion ,Meetings 1. Transit zones policy and proposals CST , short, medium and long term ( done) 1st meeting i.e Today * 2. Transit zones policy and proposals CCH short ,medium and long ( WIP) 2nd meeting 3. Identification of zones (done) 2nd meeting 4. Key Junction Policies and specific proposals (done) 3rd meeting 5. 6 major Pedestrian flows and specific proposals (done) 3rd meeting 6. Zone wise policy making and proposals (WIP, heavily dependent on participation level of key stake holders) Need to identify participation levels and have a Roadmap for further meetings. 7. Policy and proposal for physically challenged commuters (done ) Not scheduled 8. Policy for Taxis (not done ) Not scheduled 9. Policy for BEST (done) Not scheduled 10. Basic Policy for Parking (done) Not scheduled 11. Policy for Pedestrians (done) Not scheduled 12. Basic Policy for Pvt Vehicles (done) Not scheduled 13. BEST specific proposals (WIP , dependent on CST survey ) Not scheduled + BEST needs to be involved. 14. Taxi specific proposals (not done ,dependent on Survey ) Not scheduled + Cab unions need to be involved. 15. Parameters mapping ( ongoing) Discussion limited to experts. Handout – Phase 1 Work
  43. 43. Questions? ?
  44. 44. Questionnaire Please fill the questionnaire and collect your handout before you leave

×