[sustran] Re: Pedestrian overpasses

[Joachim Bergerhoff]

Let's consider that, by definition, the street is where the pedestrians and
cyclists are.  If the street must go over or under a thick stream of
motorised traffic flow, so be it.  What matters is that this "over- or
under- pass-street" is a real street with all the positive features that it
should have from the point of view of non-motorised users: short connection,
ample space, no obstacles for mobility impaired, safety, attractiveness,
etc.  An overpass can provide all this, if it is well designed at macro and
micro scale.  It will not even be perceived as an overpass any longer,
because it IS the street and the motor traffic is now underground relative
to it.  This is of course difficult to achieve in many places, for physical
and funding reasons.  But I suggest that anybody who considers an over- or
under-pass solution should have this vision in mind.
Yours,
Joachim










On 15 March 2010 18:07, Walter Hook <whook at itdp.org> wrote:

> Well, certainly we generally agree that its best to have at grade, but we
> tend to live in a second best world.
>
> We tend to recommend that brt stations be placed away from junctions
> because
> otherwise it slows down the busway because of bus stop/traffic signal
> interference, as witnessed in Delhi, significantly slowing both bus speeds
> and mixed traffic speeds.  Placing the bus stop next to the intersection
> has
> its ideological merits but frequently results in slower speeds and capacity
> not only for motorists and also for bus passengers.
>
> This offset makes it more complicated for pedestrians who have to cross mid
> block somewhere.  Some BRT roads still have three mixed traffic lanes even
> mid block, though not very many.  TransMilenio does.  TransJakarta does,
> etc.  Maybe the road is a national road carrying a lot of long distance
> truck traffic, a lot of charter buses, minibuses, shared taxis, who knows.
>
> Sure, the best solution for three or more lanes of mixed traffic per
> direction might be a slow bump before the mid block ped crossing, and an
> elevated crosswalk, and a ped crossing signal, IF the traffic signal phase
> for pedstrians is reasonably short, when there are three lanes or more of
> mixed traffic to cross, but many such roads are wide national roads where
> there are currently restrictions against slow bumps and other major
> administrative and political hurdles which you just cannot overcome in a
> short time.
>
> If you just make people cross at grade but fail to provide a safe crossing
> environment for whatever reason, it is probably better to have a pedestrian
> flyover in a second best world.  I've tried to cross mid-block in Jakarta
> at
> an at-grade traffic signal where I had to wait for the signal for a long
> time and then NOBODY respected the pedestrian crossing signal anyway, and I
> can tell you, in that situation I am very happy for the locations where
> there is a pedestrian overpass.
>
> That doesnt mean there should not also be an  at grade crossing.  i am all
> for giving the pedestrians as many choices as possible.
>
> So while it is fairly easy to take an ideological position on the matter,
> there may be a lot of local factors and political realities that dont give
> two hoots about a pure ideological position and actually do care about
> traffic flow, etc.
>
> So if we offer an at grade option, would we still be against also providing
> a pedestrian overpass?
>
> Pedestrian overpass design matters a lot.  many of them are too high, the
> gradient is too steep, etc.  What if there are escalators or elevators?
>
> In some cases they get used by a lot of people who are simply trying to
> cross the street who have trouble crossing the street anyway, in conditions
> where despite YEARS of advocacy efforts we have simply FAILED to convince
> the authorities to improve the surface condition.
>
> So, I am not sure a hard line against them is constructive.
>
> best
> walter
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory <
> edelman at greenidea.eu> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > First - I hope this does not seem and odd question - for the "experts"
> > whom Carlos spoke of and others who ask ITDP about it, etc, what is the
> > conceptual or philosophical starting point for a "street"? (And I mean
> > all spaces for life between buildings, to paraphrase our dear Mr Gehl).
> > Is the simple space between buildings the natural street, with
> > everything else adding both positive (e.g. fast collective public
> > transport, access for emergency vehicles) and/or negative (e.g. any
> > private automobiles, or at least those moving over typical cycling speed)
> >
> > Or is the starting point the
> >
> >
> total-Hell-we-need-a-flyover-dont-we?-children-are-scared-to-cross-BUT-if-vehicles
> > dont-move-fast-enough-the-same-children-will-somehow-starve road?
> >
> > Second - for wider streets with heavy/fast road vehicles - why not a
> > pedestrian signal which allows the slowest walking people to cross in
> > one go (no islands), assuming they get to the edge just as the light
> > turns green for them? Or on any major pedestrian routes, how about
> > having a "green wave" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_wave> for
> > pedestrians with signals based on walking speed along a single route? I
> > see no need at all for a pedestrian flyover, even for streets with BRT
> > or light rail and close intervals.  So I am agreeing with Colin, but
> > Walter, you seem to have some reason to disagree but I can't figure out
> > what it is...
> >
> > - Todd (in Europe, on a pretty busy street)
> >
> > Walter Hook wrote:
> > > we've been asked to advise on this issue in many cities and under many
> > > contexts.  I believe that some basic general principals can be followed
> > but
> > > also a gut feeling is usually to be trusted.  People can normally cross
> > two
> > > lanes of reasonably high speed traffic reasonably easily but not three
> or
> > > more if they are not at a traffic signal that is going to be respected.
> > >  even two lanes are hard if the average speeds are very high, but as a
> > rule
> > > of thumb, i would say two lanes of mixed traffic, at grade, and three
> > lanes
> > > of mixed traffic probably a flyover is better.
> > >
> > > w.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Colin Brader <brader at itpworld.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> Dear Carlos
> > >>
> > >> I think you may be generalising a little. Having undertaken  user
> needs
> > >> analysis, as part of developing a BRT conceptual design in the
> > >> Philippines, I have found a strong preference for at-grade crossings.
> I
> > >> believe it is then the designers job to either ensure that the
> at-grade
> > >> crossing is safe - adequate green times for predicted pedestrian
> volume,
> > >> appropriate sight lines and signal design, or if the locality is such
> > >> that safety cannot be assured, design an over bridge that does not
> > >> require overt effort to use. The designers appraisal must take full
> > >> consideration of the conditions within which the crossing is being
> > >> placed.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >> Colin Brader
> > >> Director
> > >> Integrated Transport Planning Ltd
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+brader=itpworld.net at list.jca.apc.org
> > >> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+brader<sustran-discuss-bounces%2Bbrader>
> <sustran-discuss-bounces%2Bbrader><sustran-discuss-bounces%2Bbrader>=
> > >> itpworld.net at list.jca.apc.org] On
> > >> Behalf Of Carlosfelipe Pardo
> > >> Sent: 15 March 2010 01:42
> > >> To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
> > >> Subject: [sustran] Pedestrian overpasses
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> The issue of everyone preferring pedestrian overpasses instead of
> > >> level-crossings is pretty much ubiquitous in developing countries in
> > >> Asia and Latin America (I assume Africa, but I don't know this as a
> > >> fact). But the most interesting part is that many "experts" and even
> > >> pedestrians prefer those overpasses, and when asking for "safety" in a
> > >> crossing they ask for an overpass instead of an adequate crossing!
> I've
> > >> been shouted at in meetings where I deny the need to have a specific
> > >> overpass and urge planners to design a crossing instead... they don't
> > >> understand that overpasses should be the last recourse, that they are
> > >> also much more expensive and provide a very negative message to many
> > >> (you, pedestrian, must do extra effort to cross, while the car must
> just
> > >>
> > >> whizz by).
> > >>
> > >> This just shows how much we still have to work on these issues...
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >>
> > >> Carlos.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 12/03/2010 01:25, jane. wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Here there is no reason given. Like most things in China, they simply
> > >>>
> > >> just one day appear. Well, it was announced in the newspapers just
> > >> before construction started, but as I recall, they were simply
> notices.
> > >> But I suppose the justification would be something along the lines of
> > >> "improving traffic."
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ________________________________
> > >>> From: Eric Britton<eric.britton at ecoplan.org>
> > >>> To: Cornie Huizenga<cornie.huizenga at slocatpartnership.org>;
> > >>>
> > >> jane.<voodikon at yahoo.com>
> > >>
> > >>> Cc: Salil Bijur<salilb at gmail.com>; Global 'South' Sustainable
> > >>>
> > >> Transport<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>;
> > >> Kanchan<kittykanchan at gmail.com>; JasonChang<skchang at ntu.edu.tw>
> > >>
> > >>> Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 11:04:11 PM
> > >>> Subject: Pedestrian Budget
> > >>>
> > >>> Just to be sure I understand rightly the basics on this one.
> > >>>
> > >>> The idea, if one scratches, is to get the "other stuff" - i.e.,
> > >>>
> > >> walkers,
> > >>
> > >>> cyclists -- out of the way of motorized traffic so that drivers can
> > >>>
> > >> arrive
> > >>
> > >>> unencumbered and on time at their destinations? (No matter how the
> > >>>
> > >> concept
> > >>
> > >>> is otherwise billed.)
> > >>>
> > >>> Do I have that right?
> > >>>
> > >>> Kind thanks for informing,
> > >>>
> > >>> Best/Eric Britton
> > >>>
> > >>> PS. If anyone is up to it, this could be  an excellent truth-seeking
> > >>>
> > >> piece
> > >>
> > >>> for World Streets, with the necessary independent balanced coverage
> of
> > >>> course. Candidates?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Note: New Paris tel. +331 7550 3788 . Kindly change your records.
> > >>>
> > >>> World Streets  .  www.worldstreets.org
> > >>> 8/10, rue Jospeh Bara  .  Paris 75006 France
> > >>> +331 7550 3788  .  eric.britton at newmobility.org  .  Skype
> newmobility
> > >>> New Mobility Partnerships   . www.partners.newmobility.org
> > >>> 9440 Readcrest Drive  .   Los Angeles, CA 90210
> > >>> +1 213 984 1277 .  fekbritton at gmail.org .  Skype ericbritton
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> > >>> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
> > >>>
> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to
> > >>>
> > >> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the
> > real
> > >> sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.
> > >>
> > >>> ================================================================
> > >>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> > >>>
> > >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
> countries
> > >> (the 'Global South').
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >> --------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> > >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
> > >>
> > >> --------------------------------------------------------
> > >> If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to
> > >> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the
> > real
> > >> sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.
> > >>
> > >> ================================================================
> > >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> > >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
> countries
> > >> (the 'Global South').
> > >> --------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> > >> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
> > >>
> > >> --------------------------------------------------------
> > >> If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to
> > >> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the
> > real
> > >> sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.
> > >>
> > >> ================================================================
> > >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> > >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
> countries
> > >> (the 'Global South').
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > Todd Edelman
> > Green Idea Factory
> >
> > Urbanstr. 45
> > D-10967 Berlin
> > Germany
> >
> > Skype: toddedelman
> > Mobile: ++49 0162 814 4081
> >
> > edelman at greenidea.eu
> > www.greenidea.eu
> > www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
> >
> > CAR* is over. If you want it.
> >
> > "Fort mit der Privatautostadt und was Neues hingebaut!"
> > - B. Brecht (with slight modification)
> >
> > * "Car" is a sub-category of automobile, i.e. one used inappropriately,
> > opportunistically or without creativity
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to
> > http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real
> > sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.
> >
> > ================================================================
> > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
> > (the 'Global South').
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Walter Hook
> Executive Director
> Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
> 127 W 26 St, Ste 1002
> New York, NY 10001
> 1-212-629-8001
> www.itdp.org
>
> Promoting sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to
> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real
> sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
> (the 'Global South').
>