IndianManual_part1

Manual for Cycling Inclusive Urban Infrastructure Design in

the Indian Subcontinent

2009

Working group:Sandeep GandhiAnvita AroraRuchi VarmaYuti ShethSweety SharmaFaizan JawedAnusha RanganathanReviewed by:Tom GodefrooijGeetam TiwariCover Photographs & Design:Faizan JawedProject Coordination:Innovative Transport Solutions (iTrans) Pvt. Ltd.TBIU, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Interface for Cycling Expertise, I-ce, The NetherlandsContents may be reproduced with attribution to the authors and the I-ce

Acknowledgement

This project has been undertaken by the Interface for Cycling Expertise (I-CE) within its Bicycle Partnership program and the SUMA program. SUMA (Sustainable Urban Mobility in Asia) program is supported by the Asian Development Bank through a grant from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) SUMA is implemented by the Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities Center (www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia), in partnership with EMBARQ the World Resource Institute Center for Sustainable Transport (http://embarq.wri.org), GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project (www.sutp.org), Interface for Cycling Expertise (www.cycling.nl), Institute for Transportation and Development Policy and United Nations Center for Regional Development (www.uncrd.or.jp/est).

Bicycle Infrastructure Design Manual for Indian Sub-continent

1

1 Table of Contents 1 Introduction and Objectives ......................................................................... 6 2 How to Read This Manual ............................................................................. 8 3 Basic Information ....................................................................................... 9

3.1 Vehicle Dimensions ................................................................................................3.2 Speed Design Acceleration and Braking ................................................................................................3.3 Clearances and Width Requirements ................................................................................................

3.3.1 Straight Riding Cyclist ................................................................................................3.3.2 Riding on Bends ................................................................................................

3.4 Turning Radius and Visibility ................................................................................................3.4.1 Turning Radius ................................................................................................................................3.4.2 Visibility ................................................................................................................................

3.5 Inclines or Slopes ................................................................................................................................4 The Design Requirements and Development Process ..................................... 20

4.1 Design Requirements ................................................................................................4.1.1 Cohesion ................................................................................................................................4.1.2 Directness ................................................................................................................................4.1.3 Attractiveness ................................................................................................................................4.1.4 Safety ................................................................................................................................4.1.5 Comfort ................................................................................................................................

4.2 Design Development Process ................................................................................................4.2.1 The Bicycle master Plan (BMP) and the Network Plan ................................................................4.2.2 Network Plan ................................................................................................................................4.2.3 Infrastructure Design................................................................................................4.2.4 Implementation ................................................................................................4.2.5 Evaluation ................................................................................................................................

5 Network Planning ...................................................................................... 28 5.1 Understanding Network Requirements ................................................................................................

5.1.1 Cohesion ................................................................................................................................5.1.2 Directness ................................................................................................................................5.1.3 Safety ................................................................................................................................5.1.4 Other Requirements ................................................................................................

5.2 Network Planning in Existing Built-up Areas ................................................................5.2.1 Selecting the Principles of Network Planning ................................................................5.2.2 Categorizing Routes or Links in the Network ................................................................5.2.3 Building the Network ................................................................................................5.2.4 Planning of Development Phases ................................................................................................

5.3 Integrated Network Approach for New Urban Developments................................................................6 Infrastructure Design ................................................................................ 42

6.1 Data Collection and Interpretation ................................................................................................6.1.1 Geometric Survey ................................................................................................6.1.2 Activity Survey ................................................................................................................................6.1.3 Traffic Surveys ................................................................................................................................

6.2 Road Sections Mid Block ................................................................................................


2

6.2.1 Function, form and use ................................................................................................6.2.1.1 Integration or segregation ................................................................................................

6.2.2 Road Cross Section Design ................................................................................................6.2.2.1 Design Elements ................................................................................................6.2.2.2 Static and Dynamic Functions ................................................................................................

6.2.3 Prioritization ................................................................................................................................6.2.3.1 Carriageway ................................................................................................6.2.3.2 NMV tracks and lanes ................................................................................................6.2.3.3 Tree Belt ................................................................................................................................6.2.3.4 Pedestrian Path ................................................................................................6.2.3.5 Parking ................................................................................................................................

6.2.4 Limitations ................................................................................................................................6.2.5 One Way Streets ................................................................................................

6.3 Intersection and Approach Design................................................................................................6.3.1 Function Form and Use ................................................................................................6.3.2 Requirements for an Intersection ................................................................................................

6.3.2.1 Cohesion................................................................................................................................6.3.2.2 Directness ................................................................................................................................6.3.2.3 Safety ................................................................................................................................6.3.2.4 Comfort ................................................................................................................................

6.3.3 ................................................................................................................................6.3.4 Intersection Types ................................................................................................

6.3.4.1 Arterial Road Arterial Road Intersection................................................................6.3.4.2 Arterial Road - Distributor Road Intersections ................................................................6.3.4.3 Arterial Road Access Street Intersections ................................................................6.3.4.4 Distributor Road Distributor Road Intersections ................................................................6.3.4.5 Distributor Road Access Street Intersections ................................................................6.3.4.6 Access Street Access Street Intersections ................................................................

6.3.5 Intersection Designs/Solutions ................................................................................................6.3.5.1 Roundabouts ................................................................................................

6.3.5.1.1 Integrating NMV Infrastructure ................................................................6.3.5.1.2 Geometric Design of Roundabouts ................................................................

6.3.5.2 Signalized Intersections ................................................................................................6.3.5.2.1 Geometric and Signal Design Elements ................................................................6.3.5.2.2 Segregated NMV tracks at or near the Intersection ................................................................6.3.5.2.3 Segregated Left Turning Vehicular Lanes ................................................................6.3.5.2.4 Intersection Crossing Path for NMVs ................................................................6.3.5.2.5 Bicycle Boxes or Stacking Spaces................................................................6.3.5.2.6 Signal Design ................................................................................................

6.3.5.3 Un-signalized or Traffic Calmed Junctions ................................................................6.3.5.3.1 Primary Road Conflicts ................................................................................................6.3.5.3.2 Secondary Road Conflicts ................................................................................................

6.3.5.4 Grade Separated Junctions ................................................................................................6.3.5.4.1 Grade Separated NMV Crossing ................................................................6.3.5.4.2 Grade Separated Vehicular Junctions ................................................................

6.3.6 Intersection - Approach Road Cross Section Designs................................................................6.4 Geometric Alignment Working on the Plan ................................................................


3

6.4.1 Changes and Limitations in the Available ROW ................................................................6.4.1.1 Location of NMV/Bicycle Path/Lane in the Cross Section ................................................................6.4.1.2 Width of Bicycle Path/Lane ................................................................................................6.4.1.3 Form of Bicycle Path/Lane ................................................................................................6.4.1.4 Function of Bicycle Path/Lane ................................................................................................

6.4.2 Transition Between Mid Block and Junction Cross Section or Alignment ................................6.4.3 Functional Flexibility over time ................................................................................................6.4.4 Traffic Calming Measures................................................................................................

6.4.4.1 SPEED ZONE ................................................................................................6.5 Working on the Details ................................................................................................

In the following sections, each aspect shall be elaborately discussed .................... 158 6.5.1 Relative Levels ................................................................................................................................6.5.2 Entry and Exit (cover illicit use by other traffic)................................................................

6.5.2.1 - ................................................................................................................................6.5.3 Edge Treatments ................................................................................................

6.5.3.1 Bollards ................................................................................................................................6.5.3.2 Speed Control Measures ................................................................................................

6.6 Material Selection ................................................................................................................................6.6.1 Criteria for Selection ................................................................................................

6.6.1.1 Components of Bicycle Infrastructure ................................................................6.6.1.1.1 Bicycle lane ................................................................................................6.6.1.1.2 Cycle track ................................................................................................6.6.1.1.3 Crossings ................................................................................................6.6.1.1.4 Signalized Intersection ................................................................................................

6.6.1.2 Material Options ................................................................................................6.6.1.2.1 Sub Grade and Base materials: ................................................................6.6.1.2.2 Surfacing material: Asphalt ................................................................................................6.6.1.2.3 Surfacing material: Concrete ................................................................................................6.6.1.2.4 Surfacing material: Paver blocks ................................................................6.6.1.2.5 Surfacing material: Clinker Bricks/ quartzite stone ................................................................

6.6.2 Selection Process ................................................................................................6.6.3 Other Options ................................................................................................................................

6.7 Street Furniture and Support Facilities ................................................................................................6.7.1 Support facilities ................................................................................................6.7.2 Street furniture ................................................................................................................................

6.7.2.1 Use of bollards (D 6.7-2) ................................................................................................6.7.2.2 Use of benches ................................................................................................

6.8 Parking ................................................................................................................................6.8.1 Elements of Bicycle Parking ................................................................................................6.8.2 Parking in residential areas (D6.8.6) ................................................................................................6.8.3 Cycle rickshaw parking (D 6.8.7 / D 6.8.8) ................................................................6.8.4 Forms of bicycle parking ................................................................................................6.8.5 Recommendations ................................................................................................

6.9 Signage and Marking................................................................................................6.9.1 Road Signs ................................................................................................................................6.9.2 Road Markings ................................................................................................................................

6.9.2.1 Cycle lanes and Cycle Tracks ................................................................................................


4

6.9.2.2 Marking: Raised Crossing ................................................................................................6.10 Services ................................................................................................................................

6.10.1 Drainage ................................................................................................................................6.10.1.1 Drainage and Road category ................................................................................................

6.10.2 Lighting ................................................................................................................................6.10.2.1 Lighting and Road category ................................................................................................6.10.2.2 Colour of light ................................................................................................

6.10.3 Other under and over ground utilities ................................................................7 Implementation ...................................................................................... 217

7.1 Safety ................................................................................................................................7.1.1 Ensuring Safety by Design ................................................................................................

7.1.1.1 Start and End of Medians/Segregation ................................................................7.1.2 Safety During Construction and Maintenance ................................................................

7.2 Cost Calculations ................................................................................................................................7.2.1 Costing Components ................................................................................................

7.2.1.1 Cycle Tracks ................................................................................................7.2.1.2 Primary Footpath ................................................................................................7.2.1.3 Functional Lighting ................................................................................................7.2.1.4 Storm Water Drain ................................................................................................7.2.1.5 Electrical and Telephone Services ................................................................................................7.2.1.6 Carriageway ................................................................................................7.2.1.7 Telecom Conduits ................................................................................................7.2.1.8 Service Road ................................................................................................7.2.1.9 Secondary Footpath ................................................................................................7.2.1.10 Sign Boards and Pavement Marking ................................................................7.2.1.11 Landscaping and Miscelaneous ................................................................................................

7.2.2 Overall Road and Cycle Infrastructure Development Cost ................................................................7.3 Construction/Site Supervision ................................................................................................

7.3.1 Construction/Working Drawings ................................................................................................7.3.2 Project Manager and Quality Surveyor ................................................................................................7.3.3 Site Layout ................................................................................................................................7.3.4 Site Inspection Procedures ................................................................................................

8 Operations ............................................................................................. 229 8.1 Institutional Structure ................................................................................................8.2 Enforcement ................................................................................................................................

8.2.1 Enforcement Agencies ................................................................................................8.2.2 General Enforcement Strategies ................................................................................................

8.2.2.1 User Specific Enforcement Strategies ................................................................8.2.3 Enforcement Personnel ................................................................................................

8.2.3.1 Officers responsible and authorized to issue citations and Fines. ................................8.2.3.2 Security Guards ................................................................................................8.2.3.3 Marshals ................................................................................................................................

8.2.4 Enforcement Technologies ................................................................................................8.2.4.1 Radar and Laser Based Cameras with Automatic Speed and Signal Enforcement ................................................................................................................................8.2.4.2 GPS based vehicle tracking system ................................................................

8.3 Education/Public Awareness ................................................................................................


5

8.4 Evaluation ................................................................................................................................8.4.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................................8.4.2 Method ................................................................................................................................

Table ... ...................................................................................................... 253 8.4.3 Results ................................................................................................................................

9 Appendix ............................................................................................... 263


6

1 Introduction and Objectives

When the bicycle was introduced in the late nineteenth century, planning bicycle facilities posed no problem at all. The infrastructure for bicycles was already in place in the form of main roads, cart tracks, etc. The invention of the car drastically changed the situation. Although in absolute terms, the number of cars was negligible in the early ears, the car heralded an enormous change for the road network. Speed and mass of the different kinds of road users suddenly began to vary considerably which resulted in a dramatic rise in the number of accidents1.

As the developing countries strive to imitate the western model of growth and lifestyle to achieve a 'developed' status, motorization, and higher per capita energy consumption assume the indicators of development. Policies concerning Cities and small towns in the Indian Sub-Continent, where mobility has a direct impact on livelihood, continues to focus on private motorized modes, even when these cities have always been dominated by captive bicycle users who cannot even afford a subsidized public transport. Here the existing bicyclists are mainstream commuters, who, in the absence of any dedicated infrastructure are forced to share the road space i.e. left most lane on the carriageway with heavy transport vehicles, increasing their risk of fatal accidents. Though their numbers are dwindling amid concerns to their safety, cyclists constitute 8% of the total trips made in Delhi.

On the other hand, the passenger and goods cycle rickshaw (together with bicycles referred to as Non Motorized Vehicles or NMVs), form the primary source of mobility and livelihood to a considerable proportion of the population, consisting not only drivers but fabrication and maintenance/repair industry. Delhi alone has close to 6,00,000 cycle rickshaws while in Dhaka about 54% of total trips are by pedal rickshaws2. Cycle rickshaw demand thus continues to increase even when authorities and current legal framework strives to limit its numbers.

Average trip length in Delhi is 7km, while in most other cities in the sub continent it is much lesser. For example average trip length in Indore is 5.1km and that in Rajkot is 4 km. These are convenient cycling distances indicating that almost 40 to 50% of trips in our cities present a latent bicycling demand.

Along with policies favoring bicycle and NMV use, a bicycle friendly infrastructure is a necessary prerequisite if the bicycle is to retain and possibly strengthen its full status

1 CROW, Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic, Record 25, The Netherlands, June 2007 2 http://www.350.org/en/save-dhaka-cycle-rickshaw

Graph showing share of trips in various Indian Cities ..


7

in the traffic system. The infrastructure should enable the cyclist to make direct, comfortable bicycle journeys in attractive, safe traffic surroundings. Only then is it possible to compete with the car. Various studies have shown that a good quality cycling infrastructure actually leads to a higher proportion of bicycles in the modal split. One of the most recent studies in this area is 'Fietsbalans' (Bicycle Balance). This showed that towns and cities that scored high in the bicycle balance project have more active cyclists than towns and cities that scored low (figure).

Figure ..

Generating large-scale bicycle use by means of a high-quality network requires endurance and continuous attention in policy. This is shown in an analysis of towns and cities with the highest levels of bicycle use in the Netherlands and in studies of other Countries.

This design manual describes all steps required for the creation of a bicycle-friendly infrastructure, from the planning to the construction of a bicycle friendly infrastructure. Bicycle infrastructure refers to all technical facilities intended for (co-) use by cyclists. Traffic engineering handbooks have the following drawbacks, however:

The provide examples and/or templates that tempt planners to apply them without thinking;

They attempt to achieve integration with the requirements set by other means of transport, which lead to compromise at an early stage.

To avoid these drawbacks, this design manual contains a continuous theme that compels designers to:

Study the cyclist as the future user of the design;

Define their goals;

Balance function, form and use;

Weigh all available options in the context of the site and judge them by their immediate and long-term benefits and consequences.

This is a creative challenge that requires more than the use of templates. The method forces designers to think and to formulate the consequences of choices in their design3.

3 CROW, Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic, Record 25, The Netherlands, June 2007

Figure 2, Page 13 from CROW Record 25


8

2 How to Read This Manual

All towns and cities from different countries in the Indian Sub Continent (i.e. India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bhutan) share their characteristics of being a mix of organic and planned development, of being in a state of constant evolution and transition, and of sharing colonial British based principles of planning. We have similar scale of economies, similar obsession for motorization, similar traffic mixes, similar trip profile, similar (high) percentage of cyclists involved in fatal accidents, similar usage (based on similar cultural backgrounds), similar (anti cycling) administrative policies and limitations. This manual is based on the understanding of these common physical and non-physical aspects of our cities which define its traffic and transport characteristics. These include the prevalent socio economic conditions, which transform into high number of captive cyclists, and the need for large cycle rickshaw fleet to address the demand for short passenger and goods trips in dense inner city streets.

This manual attempts at improving the overall bicycling and NMV environment by providing design guidelines covering, planning, detailed design, implementation and management of bicycle friendly infrastructure based on the context and limitation of cities in the Indian Sub Continent. It takes off from International Guidelines and best practices for the design, and retains the internationally accepted five main requirements of bicycle friendly infrastructure i.e., coherence, directness, safety, comfort and attractiveness (chapter 3) as the base for all guidelines and specifications.

The manual may be used as a theoretical base for practitioners and policy makers (to understand the principles of bicycle friendly infrastructure design); or as a practical guide/tool by engineers, planners and designers to detail and develop infrastructure specific to the requirements of cyclists in the city. As a tool for engineers and designers, this manual intends to help them think beyond perceptions and execute decisions on the basis of an analytical and detailed design process, relying on sound data and known best practices. It also intends to help condition the decision-making process and design judgment so as the user requirements from the infrastructure are fulfilled without compromises. For example important requirement of safety is higher on the minds of policy makers than on those of the users (especially captive users), here compromise on coherence, directness and comfort cannot be made if the infrastructure has to be acceptable to users and safety cannot be compromised if the same has to be acceptable to the traffic police and policy makers.


9

3 Basic Information

This section provides the designer with basic dimensions and NMV related technical specifications. The data is useful in developing cross sections, layout plans and construction details for bicycle friendly infrastructure.

3.1 Vehicle Dimensions

The term 'Non Motorized Vehicles' (NMVs) is apt for referring to different types of pedal powered vehicles used in the Indian sub-continent. These include different shapes and sizes of bicycles and multiple forms of tricycles. Tricycles are used to carry goods and passengers in almost all cities of the region. These are commonly referred to as cycle rickshaws. Apart from rickshaws, the use of bicycles to carry goods and passengers (pillion rider) is common in all cities of the sub-continent. As discussed earlier, large number of people in this part of the world are dependent on cycling for their livelihood. Bicycles are commonly used to carry gas cylinders, milk cans, etc. It is also commonly used for vending. The bicycle is used as retail platform to display and sell products, like toys, cooked food, tobacco products, etc. Clearly the shapes and sizes of NMVs vary considerably, making it difficult for designers to base their work on averages.

What makes it further complicated is that apart from some forms of bikes such as the standard adult bicycle, which conform to the Indian Standard, IS 10631; cycle rickshaws and its other modifications are not governed by any codes or specifications. In ...., ..... conducted case studies of different types of pedal based vehicles used in India. These have been used along with recent measurements taken in some Indian cities to arrive at a range of basic NMV dimensions. These dimensions have been arranged in five categories in table 1 including, adult touring bike, adult touring bike with goods, passenger rickshaw, goods rickshaw and modified goods rickshaw.

Table : Vehicle Dimensions

a Length (mm)

b Height (mm)

c Width with rider (mm)

d Handle bar width (mm)

e Wheel size (dia. in mm)

Adult Touring Bike 1800-1950 990-1200 750 500-600 560-710

Adult Touring Bike with goods (milk cans or gas cylinders)

1800-1950 990-1200 850-950 500-600 560-710

Passenger Rickshaw 2000-2200 990-1200 900-1000 500-600 560-710

Goods Rickshaw 2200-2400 990-1200 1000-1220 500-600 560-710

Modified goods rickshaw

2400-2600 990-1200 1200-1400 500-600 560-710


10

Figure 3-1: Vehicle dimensions of adult touring bike

Figure 32 Vehicle dimension for adult touring bike with goods


11

Figure 3-3: Vehicle dimensions for Passenger Rickshaw

Figure 3-4: Vehicle dimensions for goods rickshaw


12

3.2 Speed Design Acceleration and Braking

A NMV is driven purely by the riders muscle power. Muscle power is used to overcome resistance and generate speed. In case of Cyclists balance is maintained by achieving a minimum speed of about 12 km/hr. Higher speed is desirable to ensure balance and reduce journey time. Whereas in the case of rickshaw, stability is provided by the three-wheel design of the vehicle hence a benchmark minimum speed does not exist. However pulling extra load requires huge amount of effort to attain a certain momentum and inertia therefore minimum speed variation is preferred to faster peak speeds. Table .. lists basic data for cycling speed and acceleration.

Table .4

Feature Value

Minimum riding speed to ensure stability 12 km/h

Acceleration from standstill 0.8 to 1.2 m/s2

Deceleration (comfortable while riding) 1.5 m/s2

Deceleration (emergency stop) 2.6 m/s2

General cruising speed 20 Km/h

Speed variations are another critical factor, governing cycling experience. Whereas all riders require extra effort to build inertia every time they slow down or stop, cyclists carrying passengers and goods require putting in much greater effort in pulling the extra weight and building the required momentum. This is why bicycles and cycle rickshaws prefer a lower riding speed to speed variations. Heavier loads also lead to higher momentum and reduced breaking capacity of the vehicle. This is especially true in the sub continent where most NMVs carrying extra load are modified and not designed or built to purpose. This makes it important for bicycle infrastructure design, to reduce the effort and energy required in cycling. The main components that cause energy loss during cycling are5:

Friction losses in bearing and chain

Rolling resistance between the tyre and road surface;

Air resistance;

Vibration losses in the frame, saddle and tyres;

Braking and accelerating;

gravity when riding uphill.

Designers have little control over energy lost due to vehicle design itself. However

4 CROW, Record 25, Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic, 2007, The Netherlands, Page 45 5 CROW, Record 25, Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic, 2007, The Netherlands, Page 44


13

they can reduce the effect of other five factors in reducing the energy requirement during cycling.

Rolling resistance and vibration losses can be effectively countered by providing a smooth riding surface. CROW, Record 25 lists the energy losses with a hard tyre on a smooth surface, as 0.06 N/Kg; on a poor road surface, this can be a multiple of that figure.

Cyclists avoid speed variations as they spend huge energy in building up momentum and achieving cruising speed after every braking manoeuvre. The designers can ensure minimal energy use in maintaining a cruising speed by limiting stops, friction and interruptions in the bicycle path. Hence variations in alignment, levels and form of the bicycle infrastructure should be avoided. At the same time friction caused by intrusions by pedestrians, two wheelers and other motorised modes should be avoided.

Trees can work as effective barriers to limit the adverse effects of wind. Though they should not be planted adjacent to the carriageway on arterial roads for safety reasons. Increasing the gap between the bicycle path and the carriageway can reduce the effect of slipstream caused by heavy vehicles passing close to cyclists.

3.3 Clearances and Width Requirements

Cycle infrastructure width requirements are worked on the basis of vehicle dimensions, volume and clearance requirements of a moving NMV. These requirements vary for straight riding cyclists and those manoeuvring a bend at a cruising speed.

3.3.1 Straight Riding Cyclist

The width requirement for a NMV in movement is higher than its physical dimensions. This is on account of two main factors, i.e. zig-zagging movement and fear of obstacles (or maintenance of manoeuvring gap). Bicyclists move side to side to maintain balance during riding. This is called zig-zagging. The extend of zig-zagging depends on a variety of factors, but in general reduces with the increase in cycling speed. Bicyclists carrying goods and pillion riders may experience higher zig-zagging on account of extra weight carried, while cycle rickshaws experience minimal or no zig-zagging. The distance that NMV maintain for fear of obstacles depends on the height of the onstacle. CROW Record 25, lists the bicycle spatial requirements for different obstacles. This has been used to derive desired clearances and width requirements for different categories of NMVs. These values have been listed in table.. This table can be used to determine the width requirement of bicycle infrastructure.

Table


14

Total room for sideways swaying movement of tyres at pavement level, while riding (from tyre edge) in mm

Total room for fear of obstacles 0-5cm high (from tyre edge) in mm

Total room for fear of obstacles regarding curbstone 5-15cm high (from tyre edge) in mm

Total room for fear of obstacles regarding fixed objects like poles & bollards (from body edge) in mm

Total room for fear of obstacles regarding closed walls (from body edge) in mm

Adult Touring Bike

250 (125) 500 (250) 1000 (500) 1400 (325) 2000 (625)

Adult Touring Bike with goods (milk cans or gas cylinders)

250 (125) 500 (250) 1850-1950 (500)

1500-1600 (325)

2100-2200 (625)

Passenger Rickshaw

1100-1200 (125)

1350-1450 (250)

1900-2000 (500)

1550-1650 (325)

2150-2250 (625)

Goods Rickshaw

1200-1420 (125)

1450-1670 (250)

2000-2220 (500)

1650-1870 (325)

2250-2470 (625)

Modified goods rickshaw

1200-1420 (125)

1450-1670 (250)

2200-2400 (500)

1850-2050 (325)

2450-2650 (625)


15

Figure 3-5: Clearances and width requirement of adult touring bike & adult touring bike with goods.

Figure 3-6: Clearances and width requirement of rickshaws (passenger and goods)


16

3.3.2 Riding on Bends

While negotiating a bend at a cruising speed bicyclists bends to counter the centrifugal force. The degree of bend is dependent upon the riding speed and the radius of curvature of the path. It is unclear on the exact width and clearance requirement based on turning radius and cycling speed, however a 20% increase in clearance requirements may be assumed for cycling speeds of over 15-20 km/hr.

3.4 Turning Radius and Visibility

3.4.1 Turning Radius

Bends are required for smooth connections between cycling path, and also to ensure continuity of the infrastructure. The radius of curves used in bending a path effects the speed of NMVs using it. Sharper the bend, lower the speed. Minimum design speed for stability requirement of a bicyclist is 12 km/hr. At this speed the minimum turning radius of the path should be 5m. However generous radii is required to ensure a comfortable cruising speed. Figure shows the relationship between turning radius and cycling speeds. It is evident that main cycling routes should have bends no less than 20m radius to ensure riding speed of 30km/hr. Bends of 30m radius are preferred on segregated bicycle tracks to maintain visual directness and continuity of the path (in perspective bends appear sharper than they are) and also to reduce the path widening requirement due to additional width requirement for a rider negotiating a bend.

3.4.2 Visibility

CROW Record 25 categorises the visibility requirements for cyclists into three cateogries. These are:

1. Riding Visibility

2. Braking Visibility

3. Approach Visibility

Riding visibility relates to the required clear visible distance of the path for comfortable and safe cycling at design or cruising speeds. This distance is determined as the distance travelled in 8 to 10 seconds; the minimum required riding visibility is the distance travelled in 4 to 5 seconds. Table lists the minimum riding visibility requirements

Table .6

Minimum riding visibility requirement

(Main) cycle route Other routes

Design speed 30 km/h 20 km/h

Riding visibility for cyclists 35-42 m 22-30 m

6 CROW, Record 25, Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic, 2007, The Netherlands, Page 50


17

Braking visibility relates to the distance covered during safe braking manuevre. This distance varies with speed. Braking visibility for different speeds, calculated by assuming a reaction time of 2 seconds and deceleration rate of 1.5 m/s2, have been presented in table

Table .7

Speed Braking Visibility

30 Km/h 40 m

20 Km/h 21 m

Approach visibility is the visible distance, perpendicular to the crossing path of cyclists (calculated 1m away from the crossing edge). It relates to the safe visibility of motorized traffic at a junction or a crossing. Table presents the required approach visibility for different NMV crossing lengths and motorised vehicle speed.

Table 8

Approach visibility required (m) for

various closing speeds of motorised traffic (V85)

Crossing Distance

(m)

Crossing time (s) 30 Km/h 50 Km/h

4 4.2 45 100

5 4.5 45 105

6 4.9 50 110

7 5.5 50 115

8 5.5 55 120

These visibility distances are calculated assuming cyclists are crossing from a standstill or a near standstill position. Other factors used to determine the approach visibility are:

1. The closing speed of crossing traffic;

2. The time the cyclist needs to cross safely (crossing distance);



18

3. The delay time (safety margin, depending on the closing speed of crossing traffic).

3.5 Inclines or Slopes

A bicyclist may encounter two types of inclines; i.e. upward and downward. Extra effort is required by the cyclists to negotiate inclines, especially upward inclines. Design intervention is required to limit this effort within acceptable limits of endurance, riding quality and comfort. The most desirable condition is to avoid level changes or introduction of any inclines along NMV infrastructure. Although designers have little control over natural inclines in the terrain, most inclines in the city are artificial such as approach ramps for level changes in the infrastructure, bridges and tunnels. In some conditions negotiating a bridge or a tunnel may be unavoidable for a cyclist, though smaller ramps and level changes can be avoidable. These can be a nuisance to cyclists especially rickshaws and bicyclists carrying goods/passengers.

The general principle for designing inclines is gentler ramps for higher inclines with the steepest ramp being 1:14 to 1:15, for a maximum height of 1m (maximum continuous ramp length of 14 to 15m) for bicyclists. Figure.... presents the ratio of height difference to gradient for bicycle traffic. Loaded rickshaws may not be able to negotiate a slope of 1:14 to 1:15 for a ramp length longer than 3.0m. For higher-level differences or longer ramps, a gentler slope of between 1:30 and 1:50 is preferred for level difference of up to 2.0m. This is why rickshaws are pulled on foot and not rode across road bridges, which are 1:30 to 1:40 slope. For higher-level differences preferable slope for rickshaws should be 1:100. If a height of over 5.00m has to be climbed, it is advisable to incorporate a 'resting place' in the form of a horizontal section about 25m in length, before cyclists have to climb the next part of the incline9.

Figure....10

A decline is generally the same slope as the incline as most bicycle infrastructure is two way. On a decline physical effort for cyclists is not so much of a problem than the control over the vehicle due to higher speed (up to 40km/hr) induced by the slope. Cyclists especially those carrying goods need plenty of free space at the bottom of the



19

incline to recover from the speed. This is why junctions and obstructions should be spaced reasonably far from the bottom of the incline with the in between space designed as a high-speed level bicycle infrastructure. Declines can be an advantage in tunnels, where the incline follows the decline. Here a cyclist can use the momentum gained on the decline to negotiate the incline, offsetting a part of their energy requirement. This is why steeper slopes can be provided in tunnels, than in bridges.


20

4 The Design Requirements and Development

Process

The design and development of a bicycle friendly infrastructure starts by understanding the client; i.e. cyclists or a cycle rickshaw puller (NMVs) as users, and cycle and cycle rickshaw as their vehicles; as main design parameters. This requires understanding the difference between the characteristics and requirements of motorized and non-motorized modes, as well understanding the requirements of different types of NMV users.

4.1 Design Requirements

The capacities, potential and limitations of a bicyclists or an NMV user is very different from motorized modes. Cyclists are solely dependent on muscle power, while motorized modes are engine driven capable of much higher power and speed. However the two modes are quite similar to each other in size. Cycles are similar to scooters and motorcycles in size while cycle rickshaws are comparable to Auto Rickshaws or motorized three wheelers. Cycle and cycle rickshaw riders are not protected by their vehicles in case of a crash, they are exposed to the whether and have almost no suspension. Motorized two wheelers are equally flexible, though they can attain much higher speeds and thus can be dangerous to NMV users. Their riders are also vulnerable in a crash and are exposed to elements of whether.

It is important to understand that in the context of Indian Sub Continent with high motorized two and three wheeler use, the design and development process will have its limitations in ensuring the specificness of the infrastructure for NMV use only. It must be accepted that the design should aim at providing for the requirements of NMV in its entirety; and not include compromises to physically block the use by any motorized modes. Complete segregation between motor vehicles and NMVs may be beyond design possibilities in our conditions, where physical characteristics of the two modes are so similar. The resulting abuses may need to be tackled by means of training, education and enforcement.

The two main types of NMV users are cyclists and cycle rickshaws. Cycle rickshaws can further be divided into the categories of goods and passenger rickshaws. Rickshaws have very different requirements from bicyclists. Even though they are not as unstable as cyclists, they are much heavier and require higher effort to achieve and maintain a desirable speed. They are much larger in size and thus have completely different requirements of entrance and cycle path width.

Bicyclists can also be classified into two categories; one who bicycles by choice and the second who is a captive cyclist who doesn't have a choice. Cities in the Indian Sub-continent are dominated by the later. Cycling by choice remains a latent demand primarily due to the absence of dedicated infrastructure. While the presence of an infrastructure may encourage some choice and recreational use, the majority or captive users will only accept any new facilities, if it fulfills all their requirements. A captive cyclist or NMV user will exercise his choice between using a dedicated cycle infrastructure or sharing the road/street with motorists on the basis of a promise of


21

delivering and sustaining better quality, lesser effort, and shorter travel time. This implies that the bicycle infrastructure would have to address all NMV requirements ensuring it performs better than the carriageway to attract use.

The requirements from bicycle friendly infrastructure are based on the characteristics of the client or the NMV user. CROW record 25; the Dutch design manual for bicycle infrastructure classifies these requirements in to five categories. These are, coherence, directness, attractiveness, safety and comfort. These have been used in this manual as the basis of all planning, design and implementation guidelines; after rationalizingto suit specific conditions of the cyclist in the region; such as:

1. The presence of large volume of motorized two wheelers in the traffic mix;

2. Presence of cycle rickshaws with completely different spatial requirements than cyclists; and

3. Captive characteristics of almost all NMV users.

Motorized and non-motorized modes

Similarities Differences

Flexibility matches equally for motorized and non motorized two and three wheeled vehicles

Motorized, modes are capable of much higher speeds

Bicycle are similar in size to motorcycles and scooters while cycle rickshaws are comparable to auto rickshaws

Motorization provides power for convenient acceleration and control while for non motorized modes frequent braking and speed variation causes inconvenience and fatigue

Bicycle and Cycle Rickshaw


They have similar speeds and control Bicycles have much higher flexibility than cycle rickshaws.

Both bicycles and cycle rickshaws do not have any shock absorbing systems

Bicycles are much smaller in size than rickshaws, which can be 0.95 to 1.25m in width (though widths are comparable when cyclists carry goods such as gas cylinders).

Both bicycles and cycle rickshaws are used for ferrying goods

Parking requirements for bicycles and cycle rickshaws vary considerably


22

Captive and potential cyclists


They have similar characteristics of size, flexibility and speed

Captive riders bicycle regardless of concerns to safety as their livelihood depends on cheap mobility, while potential riders will opt for cycling if among other things safety is guaranteed.

Captive riders accept road network and infrastructure as suo-moto bicycle network and infrastructure. They find the road network, cohesive, direct and comfortable (in terms of riding quality) but not safe and attractive. Both safety and attractiveness are based on individuals perception, they rate lower in the priority for main stream riders who are concerned with higher efficiency to enable them in undertaking their daily journey, faster, with lesser effort and higher comfort. However, potential riders have higher preference for safety and attractiveness as their journey is likely to be shorter and recreational in nature, and because they mostly have choice of other modes. Clearly planners need a balanced approach in design providing all the requirements in the desired package for each category of users.

4.1.1 Cohesion

The requirement of cohesion relates with the bicycle network. As the word suggests, cohesion means that the bicycle infrastructure forms a cohesive whole. A network is cohesive when bicyclist has a variety of routes between his point of departure and destination, and NMV users can access bicycle specific routes or corridors in the network with minimal detours in their journey. Cohesiveness of a bicycle specific network should be higher/better than that of the road network. Each of the given routes in the network has to include all major roads in their links. And the connectivity of specific cycling facilities (i.e. providing a continuous connection between any origin and destination) is decisive for the question whether they will be used. For captive riders this would translate into the difference between the infrastructure is used or not.

4.1.2 Directness

Directness of bicycle infrastructure has to do with the amount of time and effort required by a cyclist to undertake a journey. The lower the timehe higher the directness. At a network level cohesion effects directness, as a denser or more cohesive network would involve minimal detours for bicyclists accessing it. At infrastructure level details such as treatment of intersection and provision of specific links allowing cyclists to reduce journey time and effort add to the directness. For captive riders, directness offered by a bicycle infrastructure should be higher than that offered by the road network. This is best achieved by overlapping bicycle network on road network and offering cyclists specific short cuts; here a integrated bicycle infrastructure allows more direct access to junction than on road networks, reduces


23

delays at bus shelters or transfer points, etc. or bicycle users by choice, directness can be achieved not just within the bicycling network but at its transfer points with public transport network. This would require integration of adequate parking and storage spaces at public transport interchange points.

4.1.3 Attractiveness

Attractiveness of cycling in the network refers to the visual and spatial experience of the rider. These experiences are vastly different from those of driving or walking, as the speed at which the rider experiences the surrounding is different from these two modes. So while glass buildings and huge concrete complexes may look attractive while driving fast, through the city, the same may look stark, monotonous and lifeless long barren walls to the cyclist and even more so to pedestrians. Planners may choose to include elements such as activity centers (such as small hawker spaces or kiosks), trees, fountains, planters, seating, plazas, etc to break the monotony of the route and introduce visually and spatially attractive elements more apt to the scale of cycling and the cyclist.

4.1.4 Safety

NMV users are vulnerable as their vehicle, i.e. the bicycle or the rickshaw is not designed for any protection to the occupant in case of crashes. Though this is also true for motorized two wheelers, there safety is partially taken care by legislations enforcing helmet use and speed limits. Moreover, their speed is much more similar to the speed of cars and often it is the difference in speed which is causing the accidents. Therefore a mixed traffic situation is less dangerous for motorized two wheelers than for (slower) cyclists. Captive riders are likely to undertake higher risks, compromise safety for comfort, cohesion and directness, as they cannot perceive the dangers involved and have no alternative choices. Hence the onus is on the planners to ensure user safety through a balanced approach in infrastructure planning and design. Common practice of increasing NMV safety is to segregate them from motorized vehicles in time or space. For captive and mainstream riders segregation by time is not a viable option as journey between work and home is undertaken at almost the same time as other (motorized) modes (especially for shorter trips). Here the most effective option would be to segregate cyclists into separate tracks or paths along the road network, reducing their speed difference as well their interaction with motorized modes, without effecting their directness or coherence. Other factors effecting safety on the bicycle network would include the following:

Provision of segregated track or path for most part of the journey.

Minimum part of the journey in mixed conditions on dangerous roads.

Speed reduction by design on roads where NMV mix with motorized vehicles.

Limiting number of junctions/crossings on the bicycle infrastructure.

Reduction of speeds of motorized vehicles at crossings and intersections.

Combining shortest and safest routes.

Discouraging encroachment by motorized modes such as two wheelers on NMV


24

path/track

Improve visibility for both NMV and motorized modes, especially at intersections.

4.1.5 Comfort

This requirement concerns with the nuisance and effort or the exertion undergone by the cyclist during his journey. The lower the nuisance and effort in undertaking the journey, higher the comfort level of the infrastructure. Factors adversely effecting the comfort of cyclists by choice are, traffic bottlenecks, steep gradients or slope of travel way, nuisance caused by traffic noise and emissions, bad riding quality, presence of obstructions resulting in frequent braking or slowing down, etc. Captive riders would find the infrastructure comfortable to use if it offers improved conditions over the carriageway. For cycle rickshaws or cyclists carrying goods requiring huge effort in pulling and building adequate momentum, the most important factors concerning their comfort is a very smooth gradient, comfortable turning radius's, minimal need for braking or slowing caused by obstruction or constrictions at entry/exit points and in the travel way/path.

4.2 Design Development Process

Understanding and transforming NMV requirements into a bicycle-friendly infrastructure requires technical design skills, but these alone are often not enough. The design development process is a long road from policy to implementation, which runs through an environment in which countless interests vie for the limited resources. Any effort to develop bicycle infrastructure has to start with the right policy decisions. These should be Center (Federal), State and City level policies such as the Indian National Urban Transport Policy, cleared on April 6, 2006; which states one of it's objectives as investing in transport systems that encourage greater use of public transport and non motorized modes instead of personal motor vehicles11. This is followed by Master Plan, which includes city level network of bicycle routes as well a time bound vision for a bicycle friendly city. Working according to a Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) gives the best chance of protecting the interests of bicycle and other NMVs12.

4.2.1 The Bicycle master Plan (BMP) and the Network Plan

The BMP is a detailed document, which should include the study of all existing bicycling routes in the city with current peak and off peak demand. Generally these routes are from origin to destination, and in the context of Indian sub continent cover almost the entire road network of any city. This is attributed to the nature of bicycle trips, which are primarily work trips from low income localities, to industrial areas (in case of industrial workers); local shops, commercial complexes and offices (in case of attendants, peons, runners, etc.); high and middle income residential localities (in case of domestic helps, drivers, gardeners, guards, etc.); and, local streets (in case of

11 Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, National Urban Transport Policy,

Draft, May 2005 12 CROW, Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic, Record 25, Page 17, The Netherlands, June 2007


25

vendors, salesman, postman, courier delivery, repair and maintenance personnel, etc.). Other NMV trips, which cover all parts of the city, include good delivery on goods rickshaws, and feeder as well short commuter trips on passenger rickshaws.

The BMP should set the goals and desired level of service for a bicycle friendly infrastructure and include quantifiable criteria such as average cycling speeds, capacity (at a desired level of service or LOS), parking infrastructure (frequency and capacity along the route), integration options with public transport (parking infrastructure, fare concessions, feeder infrastructure, etc.). It should include the following:

1. Vision and Objectives of the document along with details on the desired 'Level of Service' or LOS for the NMV infrastructure.

2. Current data and understanding of cycling in the city along with related issues.

3. Details and data on the current popular and potential routes.

4. Suggested Network Plan

5. Implementation Strategy

6. Assessment Methodologies

7. Institutional and policy requirements, etc.

The BMP should not be treated as an isolated set of recommendations for bicycle friendly infrastructure development. It should be an empowered, legal document in line with the governments policies on promoting non-motorized transport in the city. To enable this the BMP or its key elements should be embedded or made a part of the master plan document, which once notified in the Gazette, is a legal document. This ensures that any deviation from the plan then becomes non conforming and therefore illegal. This will not only label it as a legal, technical document to be adopted by all government organizations, but also ensure policy based co-ordination within departments, especially since the cycle links and routes cross between Municipal borders.

However Master Plans of a city generally are valid for 20 years, which may pose limitations in including the bicycle master plan in the document for a long time. This problem may be overcome by introducing required amendments in the document through suitable provisions and notifications.

4.2.2 Network Plan

A network plan is one of the most important components of the BMP. Detailing of the network and its implementation planning is the logical next step after preparation and notification of the BMP. This includes understanding the network requirements and identifying and classifying routes in the network to form a mesh. The procedure for developing a network plan varies from that of the existing city, if it is proposed for a development or settlement under planning stage. Network plan of an existing city in the region would need to accommodate limitations of current land use and road network plan, whereas that of a new development allows desired independence from a


26

road network along with complementing land use planning. In a new development bicycle network and related infrastructure is integrated in the city development achieving its quick logical conclusion. Making an existing city bicycle friendly requires re-planning and increased level of intervention. This requires staged development, split over time in multiple phases. To be successful it is important to analyze the interests at stake, and to involve relevant stakeholders. This will require time but may prevent avoidable opposition against the plan in a later stage.

4.2.3 Infrastructure Design

The next step is to address all critical issues related to the development of selected route as per the goals, quality of service and other criterion laid in the BMP. This may involve apart from the construction of dedicated bicycle/NMV tracks and/or lanes many other activities, such as:

Redesign of entire Alignment including roads and street to ensure optimum use of available space within the ROW for accommodating all functions and demands from the route. This may also require re-profiling of the carriageway and its surroundings.

Introducing parking policies with or without development of specific on or off street parking facilities.

Introduction of new speed zones to ensure bicyclist safety with or without active and passive enforcement devices such as traffic calming measures and cameras.

Construction of dedicated NMV tracks, with designed segregations, access, signage, marking, etc.

Development, augmentation or repair of existing and/or new services such as storm drains, lighting (as per desired quality and lux levels), etc.

Re-development or modification of intersections to make them safe and convenient for bicyclists and more comprehensible by all road users. This may include introduction of roundabouts or grade-separated facilities specifically designed for bicyclists.

Development of bicycle parking and storage facilities at identified critical locations and as per the guidelines laid in the BMP.

Following this, detailed development plans, and other construction drawings are prepared for implementation.

4.2.4 Implementation

The implementation phase includes detailed cost estimates, based on the detailed implementation drawings. These estimates may require changes in the preliminary approved development budget. Following the approval of the same the public notification or an expression of interest is placed and interested contractors/developers invited to bid for the development project. The successful bidder is selected based on the laid criterion in the invitation of bids. An independent project manager should also be appointed for the implementation phase to ensure


27

proper quality and progress of work as per schedule. Subsequent changes/improvements in designs/drawings may be necessitated due to limitation of site, time, cost overruns, etc.

4.2.5 Evaluation

The bicycle master plan should be regularly assessed to ensure it is up to date. The plan should preferably be updated every five to eight years13. Each developed route should also independently be evaluated to assess the performance, and to gather feedback from users. The guidelines and methodology of evaluation should preferably be laid in the bicycle master plan. These should be based on a grading system, where different components of bicycle infrastructure are graded on a scale of 1 to 6.

13 CROW, Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic, Record 25, Page 21, The Netherlands, June 2007


28

5 Network Planning

One of the most important activities for the design of bicycle friendly infrastructure is the development of an integrated network plan. In order to plan and provide an appropriate network, the nature of NMV use in the city needs to be studied. It is understood that cycling has always been, and is, an important transportation mode, and that is how it needs to be developed and promoted in the region. Clearly the bicycle network has primarily to be planned for as an important transportation mode for mainstream commuter and not just for leisure and recreation.

5.1 Understanding Network Requirements

Planning of the cycling network for the city starts form understanding the requirements of these mainstream users from the network. As is the nature of use, the cyclists requirements are similar to those for any other transportation mode. These can be categorized and understood as the requirements of cohesion, directness, safety, comfort and attractiveness

5.1.1 Cohesion

At network level cohesion is considered the most important requirement and ensures that a bicycle specific network is available from any point of departure till any point of destination. To provide these connections a complete network with a very dense mesh is required. In any conditions the road network offers the most direct link between cyclists point of departure and destination. However the road network at locations may not be dense and safe enough to attract and sustain cycling. This presents an opportunity for making the roads bicycle friendly and providing additional/alternative routes in the urban framework, which may be developed as NMV specific links (or short cuts) in the network. This adds to the connectivity of the network and may include paths across parks/green belts; bridges across rail tracks, rivers, tributaries and drains; and NMV grade separators across expressways, highways and other high speed, high density corridors. Such alternatives would also ensure that the cohesiveness of the cycle network is better than the road network, making it more attractive for use by NMVs. However this advantage may be diluted by the more flexible motorized modes, such as two wheelers; who may not be effectively restricted (by design) from using the bicycle infrastructure. Though this may not be a natural choice as for two wheelers capable of faster movement, bicycle infrastructure scores lower, as it compromises their speed

5.1.2 Directness

Directness of a bicycle network is measured in terms of distance and time. The shorter and faster is the journey between cyclists origin and destination, the more direct it is. Hence the route should have minimal detours and the journey should have minimal stops (such as intersections where bicyclists don't have the right of way). As the network becomes more dense and cohesive, the directness of the network increases in terms of distance. However to increase the directness in terms of time, bicycle


29

delays at congested locations and intersections need to be reduced.

While planning a bicycling network for an existing development; adding bicycle specific links to an integrated bicycle and road network plan would increase its directness in terms of distance by increasing the mesh density. Improving intersection and crossing designs to improve the right of way conditions for cyclists by reducing their delay at such locations can achieve further improvement in terms of directness in time. This can be achieved through the following interventions:

Low Cost Intervention

Raised crossings at minor un-signalized junctions to define cyclist right of way.

Integrated bicycle infrastructure on street network to provide cyclists unobstructed (from stopped cars) access to the junction and cycle boxes, located in front of the stop line for vehicles;

Shorter signal cycle to reduce delays,

Signal phase design to reduce cyclist delays.

Reducing the number or complexity of intersections by banning turns for motorized vehicles.

High Cost Interventions

Grade separated cycle crossings including underpass and overpass

Developing additional bicycle links to provide cyclists with an option to avoid delays at junctions. This may require developing cycle paths across parks, bridges across tracks/rivers/canal, etc.

5.1.3 Safety

As number and type of junctions affect the directness of the cycle network, they have an equally grave impact on the safety of cyclist. Safety of cyclists in the network can be improved either by reducing the number of conflicting points or intersections with motorized vehicles or by reducing the intensity of conflict. This may be achieved through the following interventions on the existing road networks:

Reduce the number of conflicts by introducing a service lane on the left of the cycle tracks/lanes for access to small roads and properties. This allows segregation of flow function from access function on arterial roads by limiting the access to service road (which serves as an access road) from the main carriageway.

Limit or eliminate on street parking along bicycle lanes.

Reduce speed of conflicting motorized vehicles to reduce the speed difference between bicyclists and other modes, through the use of traffic calming devices such as humps or raised crossings, chicanes and road narrowings.

Ensure that cyclists and motorists are aware of the road environment, and the areas of conflict are adequately highlighted through different kinds of treatment such as changing the texture, colour, appearance etc. of the conflicting zone.


30

At signalized intersection, the phase design, which ensures better safety and visibility of cyclists, may be used. For example out of the three types of phase design used for cyclists, i.e., having a separate cycle phase, moving cyclist as/along with pedestrians and moving cyclists as/along with motor vehicles; the phasing option involving lowest risks and highest directness for cyclists may be applied.

Reduce the number of conflicts with motorized vehicles by introducing conflict free bicycle links in the network, which reduce both the number and intensity of conflicts with motor vehicles. Bicyclists may use these as an alternative to a route with complex and higher number of intersections/crossings.

Apart from improving safety and intersections, safety of bicyclists at network planning level may also be addressed by:

Segregating bicyclists and NMVs from faster motor vehicles into separate tracks, which may run along the road network to ensure directness (as mentioned above).

Ensuring uniformity in design and planning to ensure a uniform traffic situation. Road characteristics whether arterial, distributary or access (refer section 6.2) should be maintained preferably throughout the route or at least between two signalized junctions by design.

5.1.4 Other Requirements

Apart from the main requirements of cohesion, directness and safety the bicycle network should also meet the requirements of comfort and attractiveness.

Comfort Comfort at network level transforms to the ease with which a bicyclist can find and select his route. It is also measured with the level of isolation that the bicycle network achieves from the nuisance elements of the road such as noise, fumes, congestion, motorized interferences etc.

Attractiveness Attractiveness for cyclists in the network relates to the spatial experience along each link. At the network level the use of road independent links or upgrading the visual and spatial experience of the ride during the users journey can increase additional bicycle specific alternatives.

5.2 Network Planning in Existing Built-up Areas

Like any other transportation mode its planning should start from the study of user origin and destinations. The right network plan ensures availability of bicycling infrastructure at a convenient and accessible distance from both, origin and destination. In existing cities and built-up areas, the origin destinations of captive cyclists is spread throughout the city, it implies that the bicycle network would have to be citywide and cannot be limited to certain localities. Even potential riders such as school children would require a citywide network. This is evident if one draws a three-kilometer (radius) circle from the school locations, to cover the catchment area. The spread of schools in the city ensures that the entire city gets covered, implying that the bicycle network has to be accessible from every part of the city.


31

At the same time some routes will appear to be used more frequently than others as they serve as main cycling connections between the different parts of the city. Thus the cycling network can be divided into two (or more) hierarchic levels: a network of main cycling routes (used for longer cycling trips) and feeder networks at district and neighborhood level. It is obvious that the main cycling route network should be designed to accommodate these larger numbers of cyclists.

The development of the bicycle network plan for the city can be taken up as the following, five step process:

1. Selecting the principles of Network Planning

2. Categorizing routes or links in the network

3. Building the network

4. Planning the development phases

5.2.1 Selecting the Principles of Network Planning

Since cycling retains its status as a mainstream mode of commuting in Indian cities, current bicycling use is a quick indicator of popular NMV points of departure and destination. The most convenient connections of these points form the routes in the bicycle network. The Dutch model (CROW-record 25) for bicycle network planning rely largely on road independent or calmer road based cycle routes in the network. These serve as direct links between points of origin and destinations. The key question to be addressed here is weather these concepts are applicable in our cities? Weather the road and bicycle network need to be different?

In the absence of any dedicated NMV infrastructure, cyclists and other NMVs in our cities have always used the road infrastructure, sharing the carriageway with motor vehicles. Traditionally also, NMV have shared the street infrastructure with motorized modes. Though with the growth of the city and the resultant increase in motorization, the street infrastructure developed into a strictly motor vehicle specific infrastructure and cyclists have been increasingly marginalized. All Indian cities are manifestations of this growth and evolution from traditional streets to urban roads and expressways.

Where this process is planned as per norms, it is known as the Master Plan Development of the city. Here land use and road network planning combine to provide direct and convenient property access from every street. Even high-speed arterial roads provide direct property access and a dedicated flow function road is completely absent from the planning guidelines. Typically this results in a direct relation between road hierarchy and property values as well trip generation. Thus in almost all Indian towns and cities (with the possible exception of Chandigarh) arterial roads would support large commercial and institutional developments leading to a higher trip demand than calmer city streets.

This is different from the Dutch planning model, which includes dedicated flow function roads, with no direct access to properties, which are accessed from calmer roads. Though the Dutch planning model should be the preferred choice for new developments and settlements due to its inherent advantage of ensuring safety of vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists, current Indian towns and cities


32

would need to be dealt with as per their current Master Plan norms.

With existing origin and destinations consistently spread along the road network in our cities, NMVs, like any other modes, need to access every road to complete their mobility requirements. This is where the current mainstream cyclists are today, with higher numbers on major (arterial). Clearly the current road network fulfills their requirement of cohesiveness and directness. Travel time and effort matter to them more than any other requirement, thus they are unlikely to favor calmer or road independent bicycle routes which would provide an indirect connection between their points of departure and destination. The ambivalence, however remains in the use of major urban roads by NMVs; they risk accidents by mixing with high volume and high speed motor vehicles. The solution lies in minor road infrastructure modifications, enabling integration of safe, NMV friendly infrastructure with the existing road network. This would introduce safety, comfort and attractiveness to an already usable; coherent and direct bicycling network.

This would provide a (safe, convenient, direct and comfortable) city-wide bicycle network which could further be strengthened by introducing additional alternatives and short-cuts which increase safety and directness by avoiding complex and congested intersections, without compromising the cohesiveness of the routes. These could be road independent routes, which may serve to attract additional (latent) demand in terms of school children and recreational cyclists.

5.2.2 Categorizing Routes or Links in the Network

Cycling network consists of a mesh of cycling routes or links. These routes follow a hierarchy based on the primary, secondary and tertiary links; as per the expected intensity and travel pattern of NMV traffic. Since the previous step in network planning has established that the bicycle network should overlap and integrate with the existing road network in the region, cycling link hierarchy in the network is likely to be consistent with the road hierarchy of a city.

Roads in the network are categorized by their function, which is defined by the adjoining land use in the Master Plan. The Master Plan also defines the width or the ROW allocation of these roads based on their planned functions. Current Indian Master Planning norms provide for up to seven different categories of roads with different functions, defined ROW and speed limits. These are listed in table

Table 1:Master Plan Roads in Indian Sub-Continent14&15

14 http://www.ncrgwalior.nic.in/sle5.htm 15 Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Government of Gujarat, Gujarat


33

S.No.

Road Category ROW (m) Design Speed (Km/hr)

Function

1 National Highway Bypass

80 60-80 This will consist of a 6 lane divided carriageway; a 10 m wide central verge is proposed for future expansion. It would have a 15m green and a footpath with a 2-lane service road and storm water drains included in the shoulder on either sides.

2 Arterial Roads 60 to 80 50-60 The Arterial Roads are the highest level in the hierarchy of roads in the township. They would be the primary carriers of traffic within the city connecting all major activity centres and nodes within planning area. They would have 60-metre right of way. This will consist of a 6 lane divided carriageway; a 10 m wide central verge is proposed to accommodate the MRTS. It would have a 3m buffer comprising a green strip, a 3 m wide cycle track and a footpath with a 2-lane service road and storm water drains included in the shoulder on either sides.

3 Sub Arterial Roads

40 to 60 50-60 The sub-Arterial roads would form the next level of hierarchy within planning area. They would have 45m right of way. This will consist of a 4 lane divided carriageway with a 7m median. It would have a 3m buffer comprising a green strip, a 3m wide cycle track and a footpath with a 3m wide parking lane and storm water drains included in the shoulder on either side.

4 Collector 30 to 40 50 Streets for collecting and distributing traffic from and to local streets and also for providing access to arterial and sub-arterial roads, having free frontage access but no parked vehicles

IndianManual_part1

Documents

design requirements

infrastructure design

cycling expertise

regional development

development policy

suma program

development process

asian development bank