The document analyzes pedestrian safety and urban transport, emphasizing the increasing risks faced by pedestrians, especially in urban areas across various countries, with a focus on India. It highlights the need for improved infrastructure, behavioral changes, and better urban planning to enhance safety for non-motorized transport users. Trends indicate that while vehicle safety has improved, urban pedestrian fatalities remain a significant issue that requires urgent attention and innovative solutions.

1. Pedestrian Safety & Urban Transport Geetam Tiwari Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Program Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India

2. ~ 1970 Downward trend success ~ vehicle safety(cars), access control highways(vehicle safety) Marginal decline since 1990(more people inside cars) Downward trends in road traffic fatalities in high-income countries not reducing since 1990s

3. VRUs are RTC victims in all countries, higher proportion in low income countries; NMVs, PT dominant modes “ success” ~ more people travel by car Netherlands:high bicycle use and RTC victims Thailand & Malaysia: High MTW and RTC victims 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. Victims in URBAN RTC Highest share of RTC fatalities in urban areas are pedestrians regardless of country income; eg New York 54% London 30% Johannesburg 33% Mexico city 52% Delhi 50% Mumbai 75% Tehran 33% Shanghai 40% Urban problem, not of development! ‘ Safe countries’ have achieved peds safety on highways, not in cities

5. China Vision of global city, progress, success 1991-1996 i nfrastructure investment $10billion Average speed 15Km/h !! , NMV trips 25% from 40%, increased travel distances & RTCs peds~40%

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. Pedestrian and cyclists have highest risk in the safest city! Trip types and fatality rates in central Copenhagen IIT Delhi 2005

8. Urban Mobility PT and NMV based, MTW majority personal vehicles

9. Urban Transport India:2040 ~40% urbanization; 600-680 m people ~USD 15000 per capita urban income Car ownership: 100-150/1000 persons Small cars Public transport Vehicle ownership: 300-500/1000 persons MTW Small cars Buses ~90m cars ; 270m vehicles

10. Priorities for Energy Efficient/Low EmissionUrban Transport Preserving walking and bicycle trips in all cities(20-60%) Mixed Landuse (short trips) relationship between informal and formal sector (captive users) City speed limits < 50km/h( safety considerations) Safe infrastructure (network connectivity)

11. Priorities for Energy Efficient/low emission Urban Transport PT for serving 5-15km trips (30-40%) of total trips Safe walking and bicycling(feeder modes) Medium density to generate sufficient demand Fares to compete with MTW operating cost

12. Existing scenario …. Chaos at bus shelters Bus stops in the middle of the road; commuters don’t use bus shelters Commuters cross six lanes to access bus shelters

13. Pedestrian safety 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 ) Besides, improvements in safety and comfort for pedestrians can be obtained without major side effects on vehicle travel (Carsten et al., 1998). 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).

14. Mixed Traffic NMV & PT friendly

15. PT and NMV facilities at intersection Fence on three sides of the bus stops to prevent jay walking

16. Pedestrian Bridge ~ 6-8 m high increases walking distance by 100-200 m Discourages use of Public transport More motorcycles and cars leading to congestion and high risk in off peak hours

17. Bicycle lane and Midblock bus shelter (single platform) ~1500 bicycles/h At grade pedestrian crossing

18. DETAILED DESIGN FEATURES WIDE BARRIER FREE PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE

19. Exclusive NMT lane Bicycle and pedestrian paths are physically separated for safety and efficiency

20. NMT lane entrance, at junction

21. BRT & NMT integrated

22. Delhi BRT Traffic May 2008 200 buses 15,000 persons 1500-2000 bicycles Bus speed 15-20km/h Car speed 10-15 m/h

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. Media Reports 2002-2006(november) “…why has the project been delayed?” 2007May-2008 May “…BRT-Big Road Trauma” Mis-reporting of design details Sensationalizing fatal accidents

25. IIT Delhi Jun 7, 2009 Central Bus Lanes in Delhi

26. Jakarta Midblock access Safety concerns Delhi Junction Stops at grade access Bogota High peds bridges

27. Pedestrian Safety challenge 1 Safe infrastructure Pedestrian infrastructure designs and norms from vehicles perspective Foot over bridges, underpass to ensure uninterrupted movements of cars More transport projects instead of transport solutions

28. Pedestrian Safety challenge 2 Behavioural issues Counterintuitive results: Traffic education for children, stricter fines, LIC peds vs HIC peds: findings about red light observance, gap acceptance, crossing behaviour Education and culture vs ease of implementation and effectiveness

29. Pedestrian Safety challenge 3 Science in its infancy Counterintuitive results: marked pedestrian crossings increased fatalities by 20% compared to unmarked, raised crossings decreased fatalities by 40%( Hyden et al) Drivers speed increase near a zebra crossing (varhelyi, A, 1999) Poor understanding of city structures and pedestrian behaviour: pedestrian exposure Pedestrian safety requires safe cities , safe traffic system is a subset

30. Way ahead: development vs market forces Bus stop location All four sides at the signalized junction Shortest crossing distance for pedestrians at the zebra crossing Avg. pedestrian delay 30-50 secs. Required road width(R/W) 33m(minimum) 37m(desirable) Bus stop Pedestrian crossing

31. NON arterial roads and small cities Speed control by design