[sustran] Re: Pedestrian overpasses

[Sudhir]

I agree with Joachim... if only we can provide the best space ......

I have been a very bad road designer in past and used to use many
thumbrules ( which people call as guidelines) when designing the roads. I
have realized over time that people are bound to take shortest and
convenient route many a times irrespective of risks involved. Thus you see
people running across in the road below a overpass. This explains the
non-usage of bad overpass.
In order to even prevent that we have used 1m medians to prevent people from
thinking at-grade...

Providing an overpass one needs to marry geometry with landscape....there
are only few good asian examples of this...

for the bad examples there are thousands...

see this photo which i consider the best example of our mindset...

i took this in cebu and was shocked when i saw this "wonder of new world"

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yhbUFBRBDMo/SgeA8NTVOYI/AAAAAAAAAD4/C-42VqEK3_4/s1600-h/Picture+1031.jpg

cheers
Sudhir


On 16 March 2010 01:46, Joachim Bergerhoff <
joachim.bergerhoff at unhabitat-kosovo.org> wrote:

> 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><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').
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').
>



-- 
Sudhir Gota
Transport Specialist
CAI-Asia Center
Unit 3510, 35th Floor, Robinsons-Equitable Tower,
ADB Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
Metro Manila, Philippines 1605
Tel: +63-2-395-2843
Fax: +63-2-395-2846
Visit our new portal: www.cleanairinitiative.org
Skype : sudhirgota