Pedestrian Safety& Urban Transport

Geetam Tiwari

Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Program Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Years

Fat

alit

y ra

te p

er 1

00 0

00 p

op

ula

tio

n

UK Australia USA

Downward trends in road traffic fatalities in high-income countries not reducing since 1990s

~ 1970 Downward trend

success ~ vehicle safety(cars), access control highways(vehicle safety)

Marginal decline since 1990(more people inside cars)

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

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

China Vision of global city, progress, success

1991-1996 infrastructure investment $10billionAverage speed 15Km/h !! , NMV trips 25% from 40%, increased travel distances & RTCs peds~40%

147

177

2820

6 3 3

0

50

100

150

200

< 1Town

1-5 lakhA & B

5-10 lakhC

10-20 lakhD

20-50 lakhE

50-100lakh

F

1 croreG

No. Of Cities

80/m FTRC, ~5000

70/m, FTRC 4500

50/m, FTRC ~8000

Fatalities in Indian Cities(~ 18000/year), higher rates in metro cities

Pedestrian and cyclists have highest risk in the safest city!

Trip types and fatality rates in central Copenhagen

IIT Delhi 2005

0

5

10

15

20

25

Car Bus Bicycle

Fatalities per 100m trips

Access In vehicle Others

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Modal share

0.05-0.1

0.1-0.5 .5-1 1.0-2.0 2.0-5.0 >5.0

City population

walk Cycle Rick-shaw Three Public Transport Cars MTW

Urban Mobility

PT and NMV based, MTW majority personal vehicles

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

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)

Priorities for Energy Efficient/low emission Urban Transport

PT for serving 5-15km trips (30-40%) of total tripsSafe walking and bicycling(feeder modes)Medium density to generate sufficient demandFares to compete with MTW operating cost

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

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).

Mixed Traffic NMV & PT friendly

PT and NMV facilities at intersection

Fence on three sides of the bus stops to prevent jay walking

Pedestrian Bridge ~ 6-8 m high

increases walking distance by 100-200

m Discourages use of

Public transport More motorcycles

and cars leading tocongestion and highrisk in off peak hours

Bicycle lane and Midblock bus shelter (single platform)

~1500 bicycles/h

At grade pedestrian crossing

DETAILED DESIGN FEATURES

WIDE BARRIER FREE PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE

Exclusive NMT lane

Bicycle and pedestrian paths are physically separated for safety and efficiency

NMT lane entrance, at junction

BRT & NMT integrated

Delhi BRT Traffic May 2008

200 buses 15,000

persons 1500-2000

bicycles Bus speed

15-20km/h Car speed

10-15 m/h

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

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

IIT Delhi Apr 10, 2023

Central Bus Lanes in Delhi

Jakarta

Midblock access

Safety concerns

DelhiJunctionStops

at grade access

BogotaHigh peds

bridges

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

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

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

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 stopPedestrian crossing

NON arterial roads and small cities

Speed control by design