Safe Access Manual Webinar 1

Enabling Safe Access to Mass Transit Stations

Sahana Goswami Senior Project Associate, EMBARQ India

Vasanth RaoGeneral Manager – Finance, Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited

Enabling Safe Access to Mass Transit Stations

Challenges in urbanizing India

32% of total population

of India lives in cities

Challenges in urbanizing India

Data from MoRTH

Traffic Fatalities

9.1% 3.5%

28.6%

41.2%

Traffic Fatalities (2011)

140 000

A recent strategy has been to

Develop MRT (ex: Metro Rail, Bus Rapid Transit)

To counter urban transport issues by creating a sustainable

mobility option, reduce congestion on roads and improve air

quality

Challenges to safe access in urban India

8 BRTS in operation6 Metro Rail in operation

Challenges to safe access in urban India

But deploying MRT might have limited efficacy within a city

when it is not a part of an integrated strategy to improve

mobility and the urban experience

Safe Access Manual

EMBARQ India projects in

Mumbai, Bangalore and Hubli-

Dharwad are heavily referenced

as well as cases from other cities

(Indian and global) where

innovative mechanisms have been

applied to create or improve

station accessibility and station

areas.

Safe Access Manual: Safe Access to Mass Transit

Stations in Indian Cities

A station area is a place of connectivity where different modes of transportation come together seamlessly and where work, live, shop and play can happen simultaneously.

Station areas around mass transit

The safe access approach

In the safe access

approach the needs of

“PEOPLE” lie at the

centre of the strategies

developed for station

accessibility plans and

station area

improvements.

Mechanisms to Plan and Implement SAP

State or metropolitan authorities need to ensure coordination between multiple

agencies.

Planning & implementing station accessibility plans

Critical need for public engagement at multiple stages and good/ relevant data collection

Planning & implementing station accessibility plans

Evaluating Station Accessibility Plans

The need for good data at evaluate station accessibility plans

Evaluation through user surveys and other metrics at multiple stages

Evaluating station accessibility plans

Evaluating station accessibility plans

Bangalore Metro Rail

Corporation

Safe Access

The namma metro corridor The BMRCL Metro E-W & N-S corridors are Located in an area

with a high density of employment, retail activity, and/or

population and generally within walking and bicycling distance.

However, despite this planed feature BMRCL recognizes that if

ridership has to increase, a lot more has to be done.

Safe access to Metro rail is two fold:

A. Safe Access to within the station boundary including the

train and;

B. Safe access to the station from public street.

Access within the Station Boundary

Safe access within the Metro station boundary should answers

whether it is:

easily accessible from the street front the commuters in

general and to the physically challenged and the aged and

the infirm.

Safety and comfort of the commuters.

Access within the Station Boundary

BMRCL station design answers these two issues adequately

stations access are designed for the peak load with

sufficient entry and exits including emergency exit.

convenient ramp entry, escalators and lift for the

persons with disability and the aged and infirm. Within

the train there is a defined spaces for wheelchair. There

is a disability audit in place.

For the safety the commuters

both at the stations and in the train cars state of the art 360

degrees surveillance cameras.

For the comfort of travelling the trains are air-conditioned

and well maintained.

The challenge While the design of the metro station sufficiently answers

the definition of ‘safe access’ the challenge is the access to

the metro station using non-motorized transport.

The challenge Walking and bicycling to the metro station can be

inconvenient, uncomfortable, and/or unsafe, owing to a lack

of good pedestrian and cycle path.

The width of the footpath is highly reduced by trees and

electrical poles making them safe ‘Tree path’ and safe ‘pole

path’ rather than safe pedestrian path.

The fact is that the Metro Stations have bicycling facilities

yet there are no users for the simple reason that the roads

are not safe enough.

Problems with stakeholders

There too many stakeholders claiming ‘ownership’ of the

pedestrian pathway- apart from the pedestrians and civic

agencies - the tree crusaders, cable operators, hawkers, kiosk,

two wheeler parking.

The selection of appropriate tree species has been a problem.

In Urban cities we need a green cover, not a forest.

Multiple cable operators and unscientific laying of cables and

complete absence of a duct system.

Hawkers – livelihood issues and hence pose a problem with

NGOs working for them.

Restaurants using footpath for vehicle parking

With a multitude of ‘occupants’ of the footpath, the

question is how to improve access to the metro

stations ?

BMRCL does not have the jurisdiction beyond the station

boundary

BMRCL is prepared to work with various government and

private agencies towards the last-mile connectivity and

greater accessibility for the commuters.

Improving access to the metro stations

BMRCL is already working with BMTC for the feeder route

services and though the feeder route plan for each of the

stations has been designed, it can become effective once

the Phase 1 operational.

Bus bays are planned at stations and a common mobility

care is also in the offing.

BMRCL is working with BBMP for allocating

proportionate spending on roads and footpath and

drains.

However, with multitude groups staking ownership of the

footpath and road, BBMP is far from finding a solution that

fits all for a safe access especially for non-motorized

transport.

With interest groups working at cross purpose, its is

becoming difficult for BBMP to draw clear guidelines, though

substantial work has been done by city planners for

equitable access to the metro stations.

Apparently BBMP is not able to take leadership as each

stakeholders has a point of view which does not converge

with other groups to arrive at a meaningful solution.

There is no running away from the fact that it is the

BBMP that has to take the leadership as far as civic

roads and footpaths are concerned.

Since stakeholders have their unyielding point of view,

the onus now appears to be directly with the community

to come together and decide what is good for them.

Community is ultimately the owner of the city, the

community, along with the city planners, has to take a

greater role to evolve a consensus for safe access.

End