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