PREPARED BY
VK:a architecture
URBAN
STREET DESIGN
TEAM
Ar. Nikhil Mijar
GUIDELINES
Ar. Anuja Gokhale
Ar. Dwaipayan Chakravarty
Ar. Rutuja Bhosale
ADVISORS
Ar. Hrishikesh Kulkarni
Ar. Poorva Keskar
Ar. Anagha Paranjape ‐ Purohit
Ms. Apoorva Kulkarni
TEAM
Ms. Shraddha Zende
Ms. Apeksha Pa l
GRAPHIC DESIGN
Orangetree
EXTERNAL ADVISORS
Mr. Pramod Nirbhavne ( ACE, Road Dept. PMC)
Dr. Pravin Ashtekar (J.M.D, PMPML Pune)
Mr. Vishwas Pandhare (DCP Traffic, PMC)
Mr. Yuvraj Deshmukh, Mr. Tandale and Mr. Gone (PMC Road Dept.)
Prashant Inamdar (Pedestrian First)
Ranjit Gadgil and Sujit Patwardhan (Parisar)
Pranjali Deshpande (ITDP)
PHOTOGRAPHER
Praful Ninale
CLIENT
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (Road Dept.)
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
01 Purpose of USDG, Manual Jurisdic on, Implementa on
of manual, Scope of Guidelines, Transporta on studies
and legisla on in India and Pune, Methodology 08
ECOLOGICAL STREET ELEMENTS
Mul U lityBelts, Street Planta on,
U lity Services, Stormwater, Garbage Can,
Public Toilets
GRADE SEPARATORS
10
OPINION SURVEY
03 Ra onale for Opinion Survey, Methods of survey,
Findings of Opinion Survey, Comments and Inferences
Pedestrian Grade Separators,
Vehicular Grade Separators
12
STREET DESIGN PROCESS USDG REFERENCE DRAWINGS
05 Road inventory, surveys, se ng vision, referring USDG
for design and templates, actual design and integra on,
stakeholder discussion.
Street cross sec ons and plans based on RoW,
Plans for Intersec ons
06
MOBILITY STREET ELEMENTS
Footpath, Cycle Paths, Carriageway, IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK
Shoulders, On‐ street Parking,
Bus lanes and Bus stops,
MRTS,BRT,Metro
13 Op ons about ins tu onal mechanism to be
adopted in order to have compliance of design
of streets with USDG in future.
Purpose of USDG Manual Jurisdic on Transporta on studies and legisla on in India Disabili es Act
The Persons with Disabili es (Equal Opportuni es,
The purpose of USDG is to provide mechanism for establishing USDG is applicable to all the street stretches within the and Pune Protec on of Rights and Full Par cipa on) Act of 1995 has
the street system which will accommodate growth, provide jurisdic on of PMC. These include all the exis ng roads, Following are some of the acts, laws and ini a ves undertaken
transporta on choices and keep the city liveable. Such a proposed new roads and the road stretches proposed to be been on the statute book for nearly 15 years. This Act has
un l now by Central and State Government regarding the road
system shall provide 'complete' streets which will serve all widened within the exis ng PMC city limit as well as all those been the basis of a largely empowering jurisprudence on
and transporta on sector prominently related to vehicles,road
users giving op mum priori es to every user group.USDG within the extended boundaries of PMC. the Rights of Persons with Disabili es.
construc on, road users. USDG has taken into considera on
intend to provide a process which dis nctly, systema cally and the informa on and sugges ons as men oned in these
comprehensively considers the needs of the motorised and studies. India has ra fied the UN Conven on on the Rights of
non motorised users when planning and designing streets. Persons with Disabili es (UN CRPD) and has undertaken the
Implementa on of manual obliga on to ensure and promote the full realiza on of all
USDG is directed to all such organiza ons and professionals Indian Road Congress Guidelines
USDG shall supplement the exis ng policy, legal and technical human rights and fundamental freedoms for all Persons
who are associated with the planning, design, construc on, The Indian Roads Congress (IRC) was set up by the Gover‐ with Disabili es without discrimina on of any kind on the
effort to achieve improved results in maintaining consistently nment of India in consulta on with the State Governments
approval and maintenance of exis ng and new streets within basis of disability. In fulfillment of this interna onal commit‐
be er streets within the city. It establishes a common in December, 1934 and is a registered society under the
the jurisdic on of PMC. All such professionals and depart ‐ ment, the country is obligated to enact suitable legisla on
reference point for all those involved in the design of urban Registra on of Society Act. It is the premier body of
ments of the urban local body responsible for design, in furtherance of the rights recognized in the UN Conven‐
streets so as to have effec ve collabora on amongst various Highways Engineers in India. The Principal objec ves of the
construc on, maintenance and approval of the various street on.
agencies and all the stakeholders to address the issues related India Roads Congress are to provide a na onal forum for
elements considered in this manual should adhere to the
to traffic and transporta on. It presents guidance on how to regular pooling of experience and ideas on all ma ers
guidelines and recommenda ons men oned in this manual for Accessibility' is one of the rights that is given importance
do things differently within the exis ng policy, technical and concerned with the construc on and maintenance of
the respec ve works. Local communi es, ac vist groups,NGOs under this act which makes it mandatory to provide for
legal framework. It supersedes all the studies and guidelines highways, to recommend standard specifica ons and to
working in any field related to traffic and transporta on for the disable friendly design of public places including roads and
done ll now for the traffic and transporta on sector for Pune. provide a pla orm for the expression of professional
city and all relevant stakeholders are to be encouraged to refer streets.
It is designed to be a flexible document that will alter and opinion on ma ers rela ng to roads and road transport
this document.
improve incorpora ng new treatments as appropriate a er including those of organiza ons and administra on. It also The Guidelines and Toolkits for Urban
tes ng to address the need of me. publishes Journals, monthly magazines and research Transport Development
bulle ns. The Guidelines and Toolkits for Urban Transport
‘Even assuming that physical characteris cs of the street are Scope of Guidelines Development were prepared by a Technical Assistance on
not important criteria for deciding what makes one street This manual gives guidelines purely regarding the designing of Few of such journals regarding design of urban roads have Urban Transport Strategy (TA 4836‐IND) funded by the
be er than the other, one presumable wants to do ones best to a street for appropriate alloca on of spaces and general been considered in the study for USDG. USDG recommends Asian Development Bank for the Ministry of Urban
design and arrange the pieces in ways that will be be er, that design specifica ons for various elements of the street. It is to follow the relevant IRC for the technical specifica ons Development (MoUD), Government of India. These
are more likely to please, upli , a ract or achieve a desired set recommended to refer to the IRC/STAC report of the PMC for and details for construc on of street elements. documents are designed to help decision makers and
of values than some other arrangement.’ technical engineering aspects as regards, material, technology prac oners in states and municipal governments who are
and construc on procedure. Motor vehicles Act
concerned with urban transport development in medium‐
‐‐'Great streets' Allan Jacob Following are some of the acts, laws and ini a ves sized ci es in India.
undertaken un l now by Central and State Government
regarding the road and transporta on sector prominently
It consists of 5 modules addressing topics like ‐
related to vehicles,road construc on, road users. USDG has
taken into considera on the informa on and sugges ons as • Comprehensive mobility plans
men oned in these studies. • Bus Rapid Transit Systems (BRTS)
• Guidelines for Bus service improvement
• Guidelines for parking measure
• Guidelines for NMT measures.
1 1 1 1 2
INTRODUCTION
The Na onal Urban Transport Policy (April 2006) UTIPPEC Guidelines for street design Methodology USDG AIMS TO BRING CHANGE IN
It was approved by GOI to tackle urban mobility issues to As per the recommenda ons of Na onal Urban Transport
ensure a safe and sustainable urban mobility in the coming Policy, D DA , Delhi has no fied Unified Traffic and CURRENT CONDITION OF STREETS IN PUNE.
decades. It provides for integrated land use and transport Transporta on Infrastructure (Plg. & Engg.) Centre (UTTIPEC)
plans in ci es, coordinated planning for urban transport, to enhance mobility, reduce conges on and to promote traffic
people oriented equitable alloca on of road space, capital safety by adop ng standard transport planning prac ces.
Valida ng need for USDG Pune
support in the form of equity par cipa on and or viability Recently UTTIPEC has published street design guidelines to
gap funding, innova ve financing, dedicated urban promote sustainable transporta on system in the city of
transport funds, non‐motorised transport, car restraint Delhi. Define vision, goals and objec ves for
measures, clean fuel and vehicle technology, private sector USDG Pune.
par cipa on, and pilot projects in ci es to establish models Urban Local Bodies Ini a ves
of best prac ces. Following are the policies and studies undertaken by PMC
which have been considered in prepara on of this report.
Recommenda ons of working group on 12th FYP
• Comprehensive Mobility Plan (as it is amalgama on of all
The Working Group on Urban Transport for the 12th Five Data collec on and analysis for Pune
previous studies)
Year Plan has made recommenda ons on investments and
• PMC Environmental status report
plans on 9 broad themes in urban transport which were
• City Development Plan
iden fied in line with the Na onal Urban Transport Policy Establishing street hierarchy for Pune
• PMC Parking policy
(NUTP) developed by the Government of India.
• PMC hawkers Policy
Study on traffic and transporta on policies and strategies • BRTS Opera onal Plan
Defining the principles of street design
in Urban Areas in India ,MOUD, 2008 • DMRC Metro report
for Pune
The study aimed at upda ng the transporta on informa on • Ring Road
and projec ons made from the previous study 'Traffic and
transporta on policies and strategies in Urban Areas in India
1994' in order to review the Na onal Urban Transport Policy
in light of the new and comprehensive data provided within Defining /detailing street elements
this report. based on principles of street design
Na onal Mission on sustainable habitats:
Report of the Sub‐Commi ee on Urban Transport Street composi on‐ reference
Under the Na onal Ac on Plan for Climate Change, the drawings for RoW wise cross
Na onal Mission on Sustainable Habitat has been launched sec ons and intersec on designs.
to cover various aspects which inter alia include be er
urban planning and modal shi to public transport.
Regarding Urban Transport, the objec ves of the Na onal
Mission on Sustainable Habitat (NMSH) are “To address the
issue of mi ga ng climate change by taking appropriate Implementa on strategy for USDG
ac on with respect to the transport sector such as evolving Pune
integrated land use and transporta on plans, achieving a
modal shi from private to public mode of transporta on,
encouraging the use of non‐motorised transport, improving
fuel efficiency, and encouraging use of alternate fuels, etc.
1 3 4
02
VISION AND GOALS
Provides the context of traffic and transporta on sector for Pune in par cular
to iden fy need, vision and goals for formula ng the Street Design Guidelines.
2.1
NEED FOR STUDY
Introduc on
While the u lity of urban streets has been mul plying deman‐ Design and Maintenance: Measures to maximize the use of Ci es form the largest public realm and perform variety of Many elements and components co‐exist on streets in Pune.
ding more space, the road widths are ge ng restricted due to exis ng transport infrastructure by organizing for equitable roles in making city liveable.Challenge is to understand the These need to be organized to make streets accessible, safer
space constraints within the fast expanding city. This has led to alloca on of spaces will provide immediate relief to mobility major func ons of any streets and corresponding needs of and environmentally sustainable. Presently there is no single
severe conflicts amongst various a ributes like physical, social, in the city. Maintenance and upkeep of the road surface at these users. document which talks collec vely about all such street
environmental associated with the road development as also all mes should receive higher priority than even elements for Pune city.
amongst the interests of various stakeholders. augmenta on of infrastructure as it affects the traffic
capacity of roads and the safety of the road users.
Traffic problems, degrading environment, encroachments are
the manifesta ons of such conflicts that slowly ruins the Environmental:The transport sector plays a crucial role in
development of any city. With streets being the common energy use and emission of GHGs. Among transport sub
pla orm serving various func ons and stakeholders, the issues sectors, road transport is the main source of CO2 emissions
are ge ng intertwined and extremely cri cal to resolve with which accounts for 90 per cent of total transport sector
the changing me. emissions. Integrated Energy Policy (IEP,) 2006 states that
no economic subs tutes are obvious for the transport
Following are the various aspects associated with the traffic sector at least ll 2031‐32. Therefore, energy efficiency of
and transporta on system: vehicles, use of mass transport, pedestrianisa on, cycling
Spa al: Sprawl oriented land‐use policies, density control and transport demand management measures have to get
are encouraging longer travel distances and locking up more high priority. (source :NMSH)
emissions and fuel use as a rebound effect.
Social infrastructure:Transport infrastructure is devouring
Public Safety: With growing traffic, lack of driver discipline, urban commons and green spaces affec ng liveability of
and inadequacy of the exis ng road infrastructure to handle ci es.
the ever increasing traffic, road safety is deteriora ng
rapidly. The pedestrians' and cyclists' right to safe and free
passage has become a casualty.
Streets for Streets for Streets for Streets for Streets for Streets for
Access Walking Parking Traveling Hawking Services
2 1 1 2 2
NEED FOR STUDY
The traffic and transporta on of Pune is currently in the same 2.1.1
cri cal phase of transi on and requires immediate a en on and Need for study ‐Spa al Reason 1.95 0.69
long term planning for the sustainable development of the city.
Pune is expanding rapidly in radial format. Lack of ring road
The traffic and transporta on condi ons in Pune are analysed 0.60
road and high density in core city is resul ng into high
Nashik Road
M
based on above men oned parameters to validate the need for
um
Alandi Road
dependency on main radials. Almost 85 % of traffic uses main
ba
having design guidelines.
i-P
radials making these corridors congested. The Volume /
un
e
capacity ra o suggests that roads are exceeding their carrying
Ro
ad
capacity. This high vehicular usage of radials is resul ng in
W
oad
ak
many issues like 0.86 ar R
ad
ag
edn
Ro
m 2.25
ad
Ah
Pollu on and conges on on roads making travel of 0.94
Ba
pedestrians and cyclists unsafe and discouraging. ne
rR
oa
d
Unsafe condi ons for old and children to walk on streets Chandni Chowk Solapur
Road
1.14
High level degrada on of environment – river, hills, trees, ad 2.13
k Ro
nalas affec ng overall ecology w
ga
d
ho a
1.04 je
C
Si
nh
Sa
ar sw 0.94
Decline in bus based transport due to lack of space. W ad
Ro
Satara Road
ad
0.53
More me spent in travel and delay due to conges on
affec ng business and rela ons. 1.56
Number of Accidents
resulted in compromising the road areas for pedestrians and
private vehicles making travel. Vehicles are causing tremen‐ which vehicular growth is happening will result into stagna on cycles to accommodate the increasing traffic. Absence of 1000
dous impact on city health. footpaths or dedicated cycle lanes have made the roads unsafe
March 13 Road Mul ply by for pedestrians. 500
Type of vehicle Sq.M vehicles
The table below illustrates how increase in vehicles will result registra on space
Sq.M Due to decrease in overall network speed the rate of accident 0
in reduc on of speed and increase in waste of valuable me in 2 wheeler 1851785 1.5 x 2 3 5555355 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
has dropped but fatali es and grievous accidents have
travel. Car 378608 2.5 x 5 12.5 4732600
Year
increased mainly due to over‐speeding and haste in certain Fatal Grievous Minor No Injury
Jeep 42159 2.5 x 5 12.5 526987.5 peripheral wide road stretches. Fig no. 2.1.2
Year No of Private Avg. Travel Avg.Travel Sta on wagons 877 3x5 15 13155 Trend and type of road accidents from 2001‐12
Vehicles Distance Speed Source: Pune Traffic Police
Taxi cabs 12826 2.5 x 5 12.5 160325
3 wheeler rickshaw 43973 2x3 6 263838
1981 218305 4.72 45.9
Stage carriage 2541 2.5 x 5 12.5 31762.5
Contract carriage 3144 2.5 x 5 12.5 39300 PUNE CITY MOBILITY PUNE CITY MOBILITY
1991 619458 5.44 43.0
School bus 10203 5 x 10 50 510150
2001 1431965 6.24 30.4 Private ser.vehicles 1173 5 x 10 50 58650
Ambulance 1049 2.5 x 5 12.5 13112.5
2003 1700021 6.47 26.5
Truck / lori 21787 5 x 10 50 1089350
2006 2065000 6.62 23.4 Tanker 2856 5 x 10 50 142800
Delivery van – 4 wheeler 30488 2.5 x 5 12.5 381100 Pune City 1970‐80 (Cycle City) Pune City 1980‐90 (Moped City) 1900: Pune street. No motorised Pune city 1940 with cycles ge ng
2009 2019979 6.77 20.9 Delivery van – 3 wheeler 2x3 transport popular
26166 6 156996
Tractor 18457 3x5 0 0
2012 2307942 6.92 20.2
Trailer 11507 5 x 15 0 0
Table no. 2.1.1 PMPML Buses 1800 5 x 10 50 9000
Rela on between number of vehicles and average speed. 2461399 367.5 13765481.5
Source: check this spacing betwen titles and source lines.
Sq.Km 13.7654815 Pune City 2011 (Two & Four Wheeler City) 1960 S
Road Area Vehicle
Area of Pune Sq.Km %
Sq.Km (13 %) occupied
space
243.84 31.70 13.77 43.43% Fig no. 2.1.3
Trends in changing pa ern of Mobility of Pune city.
Table no. 2.1.2 Source: ESR Pune 2011‐12
Road space u lised by registered vehicles by March 2013
Source : RTO Pune, PMPML.
2 5 2 6
NEED FOR STUDY
2.1.4 As per the survey by 'walkability India' exposure to air It is evident from the graph below that the share of emission
pollu on is also a major deterrent to walking or use of cycles. from transports sectors i.e. vehicles is highest leading to air
Need for study ‐Environmental Reason 51% of non motorised modes and 24% who use public pollu on.
Air and sound pollu on are the immediate and serious cause of transport have no or lesser emissions, but are exposed to most
increasing traffic on roads. The figures indicate that the pollu on.
pollu on is increasing over the years and have crossed the
permissible limits.
10%
Sound Pollu on
Wai ng
As per ESR 2012‐13 the decibel levels of sound has found to
for bus
be more in commercial, residen al and industrial areas in the
city than the permissible limits as decided by CPCB.The
19% Transport;
permissible noise levels in residen al and commercial areas is
2 Wheeler 869,565.25: 51%
55 dB and 65 dB respec vely. The noise levels have increased 46%
to 75 to 85 dB. Walking
Commercial;
It is also observed that the sound levels are higher during the Industrial: 40,342.14; 3%
6%
peak me hours at morning and evening compered to night and 3 Wheeler Residen al; 244,020.01; 14%
a ernoon me due to greater vehicular traffic. 547,226.96: 32%
14%
The reason for increasing sound levels in residen al areas is Bus/Train
that most of these loca ons are now having mixed landuse 5%
which a racts vehicular traffic resul ng in sound pollu on. Cycling
Fig no. 2.1.4 river beds, canals, hills, trees etc is endangering the city health 1000
Noise levels in commercial and residen al areas from to big extent. 800
2008‐2012 600
200
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Fig no.2.1.8
Rela on between traffic count and social interac ons across streets.
2.3.1 2.3.2
Secondary data Stakeholders Consulta ons
The Study will take cognizance of following ini a ves by GoI Streets are public spaces where variety of aspects governed by
and will also take references from Interna onal case studies. different agencies are involved. Each element and user of the
street has its own peculiar requirements and demand specific
road space and loca on. The stakeholder consulta on helps
building consensus between all these agencies and designing a
GOI Ini a ves PMC ini a ves Indian Case studies solu on which suits all the stakeholders and in long term
improves the efficiency of the streets.
Indian Road Congress Guidelines Comprehensive Mobility Plan UTIPPEC Guidelines for street 6 May 13 ‐ Introductory Presenta on to PMC Hon
design, New Delhi Addi onal Commissioner, Road dept, NGOs, traffic police.
Motor vehicles Act 1939 PMC Environmental status report
Be er Streets, Be er ci es: 13 June 13 – Interac on with PMPML.
The Guidelines and Toolkits for Urban City Development Plan Ahmedabad
11 Aug 13 – Interac on with NGOs and ac vists working for
Transport Development be er streets in Pune.
PMC Parking policy Tender Sure: Bangalore
The Na onal Urban Transport Policy 11 Sep 13 – Interac on with DCP Traffic.
(April 2006) PMC hawkers Policy Interna onal Case studies:
13 Sep 13 – Interac on with Landscape architects, PMC
consultants.
Recommenda ons of working group on BRTS Opera onal Plan NACTO Urban Street Design Guide,
12thFYP on urban transport NYC 17 Oct 13 – Interac on about status of USDG with
DMRC Metro report. Addi onal city Engineers,Road dept .
Study on traffic and transporta on World Class Streets,NY
policies and strategies in Urban Areas in Ring Road 23 Dec13 – Interac on with STAC Commi ee, PMC and
India ,MOUD, 2008 Abu Dhabi USDM Submission of First dra from the regular interac ons with
• Mr Pramod Nirbhavane ‐ Addi onal City Engineer (PMC)
The Persons with Disabili es (Equal Be er Streets Plan, San Francisco and his department
Opportuni es, Protec on of Rights and
• Mr Jayant Dharap – Landscape architect
Full Par cipa on) Act of 1995 Design Manual for Urban Roads and
Streets. • Mr Chandrashekhar Ghodake, Mr Rajesh Shah – Rtd from
Na onal Mission on sustainable habitats: MERI, Senior Civil Engineer roads and bridges.
Report of the Sub‐Commi ee on Urban • Mr Prashant Kakade – CIRT
Transport
• Mr Prashant Inamdar and Mr Ranjit Gadgil – ngo's
Table no. 2.3.1 11 Feb2014 ‐ interac on with engineers for PMC road
List of reference documents for secondary data. department regarding op ons for implementa on of USDG
2 13 1 2 14
03
OPINION SURVEY
Public par cipa on to understand peoples' percep on about
streets in Pune, validate the need of study and strengthen the
technical recommenda ons for USDG
3.1
RATIONALE FOR OPINION
SURVEY
3.1.1 3.1.2
Defini on of street and road Method for survey
The terms 'road' and 'street' are commonly used . But these The easiest and the most popular method of garnering public the public through a series of ques ons. and every responsible
words have different meaning. par cipa on is through opinion surveys. SI designed a survey, resident of the city.The survey was based on random sampling
The main func on of a road is to distribute traffic whereas a the results of which would help to represent the opinions of to get responses of all the stakeholders
street is mul ‐func onal and is a place to live, work, walk,
cycle, interact and spend me.
Streets are an inseparable part of urban life and used by all the
ci zens irrespec ve of age, gender or profession and income
class. As the streets are being used by everyone and for
various purpose, it is necessary that the design and
construc on of streets is done considering the needs of these
street users. It is thus important to understand their views, Urban Street Design
aspira on and problems about the streets for achieving the Opinion Survey Form
goals and objec ves as envisaged in USDG so that the streets
best respond to their contexts and intended func ons. ROAD = MOVEMENT FUNCTION
3 1 3 2
Ci zens are urged to fill in
their valuable opinions. Till
now a very healthy response
has been received but more is
expected.
Peoples opinions will help us
in re valida ng, modifying
and strengthening the
proposed recommenda ons.
2 wheeler 11.50%
25.4% 47.9%
3 7 1 3 8
FINDINGS OF OPINION SURVEY
Considering the fact that private vehicles are major cause of
conges on would you avoid using cars and 2 wheelers if
Origin des na on map of Pune based following things are provided?
on survey findings
3 9 1 3 10
FINDINGS OF OPINION SURVEY
3.2.1 3.2.2
Pedestrian infrastructure Infrastructure for cyclists 76.45%
Do you think the following aspects are important criteria in What aspects will encourage you to use cycles?
you choosing to walk on footpaths in Pune?
Aspects for encouraging use of cycles
Factors influencing decision to walk of footpaths
Shorter commute distance 76.45% 5.81% 17.74%
Electrical box , other u li es on footpaths 83.64% 6.67% 9.70%
Vehicles parked on footpaths 92.12% 3.94%3.94% Con nuous connec vity of cycle paths 88.39% 4.19%7.42%
Broken/bad surface of footpath Parking provision for cycles at regular intervals 84.19% 5.16%10.65%
89.39% 5.15%5.45%
Inconsistent level 77.88% 10.00% 12.12% Safety design at junc ons 89.68% 4.84% 5.48%
Lack of clean toilets at regular intervals 70.00% 10.61% 19.39%
Traveling along with other slow moving vehicles 43.55% 27.42% 29.03%
Hawkers obstruc ng walking space 88.18% 5.76%6.06%
Bus stops obstruc ng space on footpaths 81.21% 8.18% 10.61% Separate and dedicated cycle lanes on wider roads 86.13% 4.84% 9.03%
Lack of be er light on footpaths for safety 83.03% 7.88% 9.09% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%
Lack of dustbins at regular intervals 70.00% 8.48% 21.52% Yes No Not really
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Cycling is considered to be preferred mode of transport for Provision of mere cycle tracks will not encourage cycling. There is
Yes No Not really shorter commute distance. Survey results indicate that need to bring in cultural, land‐use and policy change. Cycling is
con nuous connec vity of cycle paths and safety at junc ons s ll popular and needs to be developed for healthy transport.
Bad condi on of footpaths and encroachment of all types like Clean, Wide, Un‐obstructed , shady and walkable footpaths are are most important aspects that can encourage people to use
unlawful parking, hawkers, services are the significant reasons most essen al elements of the streets. cycles.
for considera on to walk on streets in Pune. Although need of
wide footpaths with shady trees and proper light alongside
footpath has not been the topmost priority as per the survey
findings, these reasons are also important for more than 75% of
respondents which indicates it is equally significant aspect.
3 11 1 3 12
FINDINGS OF OPINION SURVEY
3.2.3 3.2.4
Vehicular use Liveability of streets
Do you think following are the Major PROBLEMS while How important are followings aspects to make Pune streets
driving any vehicle? pollu on free and liveable?
Improper and inadequate signage like 'traffic signs, direc on info,etc) 78.06% 21.94% Shady trees and green
96.13% 3.87%
areas along road
Improper design and loca on of Speed breakers and raised crossings 85.81% 14.19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Yes No
Yes No
Inspite of diver ng the resources for focusing improvements This indicates that not only the engineering aspects like road It is evident from the responses that people have understood the Public transport, walking and cycling are the sustainable
in condi ons for private vehicles,most of the respondents are quality and material is important but considera on in street fact that providing more infrastructure for private vehicles will modes for future and designs should give equal considera on
s ll not sa sfied with current status of the streets.Bad surface design to address the issues like parking, signage, alterna ves never make streets livable and healthy. to accommodate those.
quality, encroachments and hal ng vehicles (parking) are the to avoid encroachment for improving the efficiency of the Majority of the respondents feel that be er alloca on of
major problems faced by the motorists. Other paramentes too vehicular traffic is necessary. spaces to cater the need and func ons of all users will make
are found to be significantly affec ng the vehicular traffic. the streets convenient and liveable.
3 13 1 3 14
FINDINGS OF OPINION SURVEY
3.2.5 Opinion about MUB 3.2.6 Solu on to traffic problems at junc on
Mul u lity belt Percep on about flyovers. Police and manged
What is your opinion on designated mul ‐u lity space in‐ As regards effects of flyovers, majority of respondents agree 1.09% traffic junc on
between footpath and vehicular way to accommodate that traffic generally becomes faster but major disadvantages
parking, hawkers,bus stops, trees, auto stands etc.? being it cannot be used by the cyclist, inconvenient crossing Adequate road width
19.7%
and very narrow service road is le below flyover which affects 31.95% 34.35% leading to and from
Mul ‐u lity belt is basically a designated space to accommodate
the footpath width too. These disadvantages indicate that junc on
parking, hawkers,bus stops, trees, auto stands etc. to keep the
footpaths and carriageway free of encroachment by these flyovers are good for vehicular traffic but inconvenient for There is no major
ac vi es. More than 75% of the respondents agree that this pedestrian and cyclist movement. Hence the responses from issue in our junc on
concept will work well.But those few who doubt its func onality above 2 ques ons clearly indicate that flyover should be 32.60% overall
are concerned mainly about the enforcement issues. proposed if design of flyovers should include considera on for
80.3% all road users and not only vehicles. Flyovers if properly Flyover/Grade
Where ever possible the provision on Mul ‐u lity belt along designed taking into considera on the network traffic problem Separator
the shoulders of the street is considered to be the most and not only specific junc on traffic problem then only they
effec ve way of managing the street mess. It is also are effec ve. Design of flyovers should include provision for all
recommended as per IRC 2012 and in UTIPEC New Delhi road users and not only vehicles.
Yes, it is a good idea wherever possible
guidelines.
No
City looks uglier 26.89% 45.94% 27.21%
Conges on shi and adds to the next junc on 61.13% 12.72% 26.15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
3 15 1 3 16
FINDINGS OF OPINION SURVEY
3.2.7 Pedestrain crossing preference 3.2.8
Preference for pedestrian crossing Comments
It has been observed that fast moving high number of vehicles, Following are some of the interes ng comments and
medians, flyovers etc make it unsafe to cross the streets at sugges ons by some of the enthusias c respondents. These
junc ons or midblocks. However unsafe the condi ons may be, highlight such issues which although are not en rely within
20.1%
crossing the streets at grade by zebra crossing is most preferred the scope of USDG but will play an important role in the
by the respondents. The second best op on is the par al /hump successful implementa on of USDG.
subway. But FOB or subways are least preferred as those are 7.6% 'A street design is good if the design itself ensures
inconvenient for the pedestrians. The only reason is that people 53.0%
enforcement of rules. Design should make it convenient to
do not find it convenient to ascend or descend to cross the follow rules'.
streets. Also, the designs are not disable friendly.
Hence it is required to look for op ons to make at grade crossing 19.4% Strong opinions against parking:
safer and convenient for the users by way of design or On street parking should be discouraged.
enforcement. Foot over bridges especially at intersec ons are
considered to be most ineffec ve means to cross the street. If provided should have high fees.
Most respondents have favored At‐grade crossing with refuge
By Zebra crossing with intermediate Absolutely no parking on narrow/local streets.
islands. Subways are second in priority.
pla orms for wai ng while crossing RTO should register cars only a er ensuring that the
person owns the parking space
By underground subways
Enforcement
By foot over bridge
U‐turns should be avoided and controlled by design
By par al subways and enforcement.
Driving in opposite direc on should be strongly
penalized.
Discipline required for auto drivers.
Design should be inclusive of hawkers' requirements
Management:
Road reserves should be well treated and maintained as
that space goes waste and encourages encroachments
otherwise.
Road dust is a problem and road cleaning should be given
importance.
Roads to be designed/ constructed / repaired as
complete stretch in a single a empt.
3 17 1 3 18
Street Hierarchy and 04
street elements for Pune
Establishes street hierarchy for Pune and iden fies street elements to be categorized to
serve principles of street design.
4.1
STREET HIERARCHY
4 3 1 4 4
4.3
STREET
ELEMENTS
All people should be able to Make streets safe, clean, Streets to reduce impact on
move fast, safely and conveniently a rac ve and comfortable natural and built environment.
on the streets in Pune. for people to walk and drive To gave green streets in the city.
& Environment
Mobility &
Accessibility Safety & Comfort Ecology
Street furniture
Signage’s , markings
& adver sements
3 4 5
4
05
STREET DESIGN PROCESS
Describes the methodology to be followed for any street related development
work to achieve be er and complete streets as envisaged in the vision of USDG.
5
PROCESS FOR DESIGNING
URBAN STREETS
USDG recommends that the designing of any street in Pune
should follow a systema c process having logical and technical
approach. Following are the important stages of the street
designing process for achieving the desired results:
Road Inventory Surveys Se ng Vision
Prior design stage
BEFORE AFTER
• Long indirect crosswalks lead to jaywalking • Direct crosswalks reduce jaywalking
• No defined spaces for cyclists • Hi‐visibilty crosswalks protect pedestrians at intersec on
BEFORE AFTER • Undefined lane des na on for drivers increases • Bike lane a racts and organizes cyclists
unpredictably • Safety islands draw pedestrians to safe crossing
• Long indirect crosswalks • Shorter pedestrian crossings • Clear lane designa on for all users
• Undefined lanes for drivers • Lane designa ons show clear path for drivers • New pedestrian ameni es
• Long waits for green or walk because mul ple legs of traffic • Shorter waits with low volume
each have a signal phase • Legs removed from main intersec on
Create Platoons of vehicles
BEFORE AFTER
• Vehicles are randomly spaced • Groups of cars with gaps in between
BEFORE AFTER • Speeding and weaving occurs as vehicles are more free to • Turning vehicles wait as platoon of pedestrians get head
move about start
• No defined lanes • Median or pedestrian islands allow safer crossing and
• Pedestrians and le turners conflict • Traffic is orderly and grouped
• Long unbroken crossings connec on to crosswalk
• Bikers and buses among unevenly spaced vehicles • Signal queue jump allows bus to get ahead of platoon
• No facili es for cyclists • Lane designa on markings and signage directs users
• Street feels chao c and unpredictable
• Sidewalks end before reaching crosswalk • Bike facility designates space for cyclists
5 3 1 5 4
PROCESS FOR DESIGNING URBAN STREETS
Put people where thay can see each other. Simplify complex intersec on
BEFORE AFTER
• Drivers constantly change lanes to get around le turns and • Through Lanes are clear of turning and stopped vehicles BEFORE AFTER
double‐parked cars • Easier to drive • Large, complex intersec on is difficult to navigate • Minimize presence of legs with lower volumes
• Difficult to drive • Be er traffic flow • Long waits because each traffic leg needs a signal phase • Corridors leading into intersec on are matched to volume
• Congested and unpredictable • Easier to an cipate drivers movements safe • Poor connec vity along corridors leading to main they carry
• Leads to rear ‐ end and le turn crashes intersec on • Turn bans at intersec on accommodated elsewhere in
local network
5 5 1 5 6
PROCESS FOR DESIGNING URBAN STREETS
A er se ng up the vision or concept for any street design A er Se ng of Vision and referring Urban Street Design It is very important to discuss the design with the users of
project, Urban Street Design Guidelines need to be referred guidelines and taking cognizance of surveys and the streets. In case of streets there are mul ple users and
at every stage for all aspects while working out the design observa ons the design of street has to be ini ated. each user's opinion need to be respected.
from conceptual level to detail design proposal.
Street has to be designed not just considering the cross The Authori es and decision makers should take an
The guidelines will not provide instant designs but they will sec ons but also in plan. ini a ve to invite sugges ons from people and elected
guide the designer to consider all necessary aspects in representa ves as the design stage is ini ated.
depth to come up with a ra onal and sustainable solu on. Adjoining intersec ons and access points have to be
considered while designing any stretch of street. The design Sugges ons and views of following stakeholders should be
USDG has to be referred in following ways needs to be integrated with adjoining intersec ons, grade invited on designs.
• Mobility separators, bridges etc.
• Feeder • PMC road engineers.
• Neighborhood While designing, utmost priority has to be given to safe • Traffic Police
• Special pedestrian crossings. Zebra crossings should be • PMPML (Bus operators)
Selec on of street template based on its right of way. supplemented with refuge islands and should be from edge • Local elected representa ves
to edge of footpath. • Tree authority
Referring the design elements to be provided from • MSEB or electrical authority
• Mobility Elements Trees should be properly integrated in the design and • Local NGO's & Environmentalists
• Safety Elements provision should be made for water percola on and smooth • Experts
• Environmental Elements run off.
Guidelines need to be supplemented with other relevant Elements required for universal access should be integrated
norms like PMC ‐ STAC report, IRC , MORTH, CPHEEO etc in design. Hawkers, bus stops, parking should be
for detail engineering designs considered.
5 7 1
06
Accessibility
Mobility street elements
Mobility & Includes introduc on to elements, exis ng issues, design recommenda ons based on standards
and norms for all such street elements related to mobility aspect.
6
MOBILITY
STREET ELEMENTS
Accessibility
Mobility &
Shoulders
Parking
Bus stops
Bus lanes
6 1
6.1
FOOTPATH
Exis ng Issues:
Footpaths are missing and are discon nuous at many
loca ons
Introduc on
Footpath or sidewalk is an por on of the street reserved only
for pedestrians. It is provided on both edges of the street.
Footpaths should be walkable, clean and safe for pedestrians
and should be free for encroachments, parking and u lity
obstruc ons. Good footpaths are the most essen al
components of any good street in the city.
Improper placement of adver sements and signages giving less head room for Footpaths end abruptly and materials lay
pedestrains causing inconvenience at random crea ng obstacles.
6 3 1 6 4
FOOTPATH
Design recommenda ons Selec on of a rac ve paving / surface pa ern of footpath is Access to Property:
Clear width of Min. Number of
Layout: very important. Footpaths also serve the basic function of giving access to any
footpath persons per hour in
Footpaths should be con nuous and provided on both sides property along any street.
both direc ons
of the road with ROW 9 m and more.
Design of footpaths should be such that it provides 1350
1.8
Width of footpaths is to be determined based on the street convenience to pedestrian as well as provides for easy
hierarchy and ROW, land‐use and pedestrian traffic and as vehicular access to adjoining properties.
per the universal accessibility design standards. 2 1800
The most common and ideal method is to provide for gentle
Footpath should provide for clear unobstructed walking ramp or raised driveway at the entrance gate of the properties
zone of width 1.8 m and height of 2.2 m. without altering the surface levels of the walkway. This makes 2.5 2250
it easy and convenient for the pedestrian since the levels are Building zone
Minimum width of con nuous walkway of footpath should not disturbed at every property access gate.
be 1.8m for roads with ROW 10 m and more. 3 Edge zone
2700
Building zone
Walking zone
Edge zone In any case the footpath level should not be lowered due to
Minimum width of pathway should be 1.5m for roads with Walking zone following reasons: 3.5 3150
ROW lesser than 10 m and with less pedestrian traffic.
• The pedestrians find it uneasy to frequently change the
In order to achieve min1.8 clear width of unobstructed
levels. 4 3600
walking zone, all such elements like trees, street lights and
street furniture etc should be accommodated within MUB
• Motorists tend to use the footpaths more often like a Table no. 6.1.1
(Mul U lity Belt. refer chapter no. 7.1) wherever
vehicular way or parking space and dominate the Capacity of footpath
provided.
pedestrians making it unsafe for them.
Footpath should have tac le paving, guiding blocks and curb
ramps as recommended ( refer chapter no. 10 for details) • The lowered access portion is bound to get sunk due to
for be er accessibility to all. frequent vehicle movement. This causes its wear and tear
causing water logging during rains.
Level:
It should be above carriageway and separated by kerb. Bollards can be used to restrict the vehicular movement along Kerb
Footpath should have uniform height of maximum 150 footpaths.
mm above road level.
Use of bollards
Should have gradual slope towards street storm water drain
to avoid water accumula on.
Raised entry
Surface
Footpath should have tough and an skid surface.
Exis ng Issues:
Cycle Tracks are missing and are discon nuous at many Lack of maintenance especially of surface makes it
loca ons uncomfortable for cyclists.
Unavailability of suppor ng infrastructure like cycle
There is no uniformity in cycle track network within city. stands/parking places.
Paver blocks which are used for cycle tracks which are no Inappropriate design and placement of bollards.
ideal surface material for cycling.
Introduc on
Cycle tracks / paths are reserved por on of the street only for Obstruc on in path
cyclists. These are essen al components of wide streets which
safeguard cyclists from fast moving vehicles and encourage the
use of cycles.
6 7 1 6 8
CYCLE TRACK
General Design Recommenda ons: Cycle track and sidewalk are ideally segregated by
Width : planta on/verge as buffer.
Clear unobstructed cycling zone of width 1.5 m and height
of 2.2 m. Cycle tracks are to segregated from vehicular lanes by
parking lane, planta on strip or a verge.
Cycle paths should have adequate clearances from the
bollards,planta on, parking areas for car door opening and Wherever dedicated cycle tracks are not feasible a colored
street furniture. cyclist lane should marked on the street and parking on Cycle track segrgated by Cycle track in Montreal
dedicated or marked cycle tracks should be strictly verge. segrgated by kerb stones.
Changes in level should be minimal to avoid any discomfort prohibited
Max 50mm
to cyclists. ver cal kerb
Considera on to the signages, signals at junc ons for safety
of the cyclists are recommended. Padastrains SEGREGATED BY KERB
Gentle ramp or raised driveway should be provided for only Cycles only Edge zone
motorised vehicles at entry points of proper es or access
to buildings whereas cycle tracks should con nue at same Cycle paths should be well lit and have shade for comfort of
level. the cyclists. SEGREGATED BY CENTRAL
Padastrains Cycles only DELINEATOR STRIP (NOTE 2)
only
Dedicated parking spaces with well designed cycle stands
Surface :
should be provided for cycles near transit sta ons and
The surface of cycle lanes/tracks should be leveled without within on ‐street parking in commercial areas. Padastrains 1.0m Cycles only
SEGREGATED BY VERGE
any obstruc ons like u lity covers, planta on etc. only Verge
Provision of cycle parking is recommended within the Mul Fig no. 6.2.2
Asphalt and concrete is recommended surface material for u lity belt or parking zone of the streets. Ways of segrega ng cycle tracks from pedestrian paths.
cycle paths. Paver blocks should be avoided. Source:MOUD toolkit module 5:
Guidelines for Non motorised transport measures
Colored surface treatment is recommended to improve the
visibility of the bicycle opera ng area.
Red cycle lanes in Netherland Blue cycle lanes in London Green lanes in Australia Signals for cyclists Provision for cycle parking Push bu on
6 9 1 6 10
6.3
CARRIAGEWAY
CYCLE TRACK
Con nuity of cycle tracks
Cycle tracks or providing a dedicated space for cyclists is an
absolute need of me. Improving the standards of cycle
infrastructure is impera ve for providing respect and
encouragement to cyclists to con nue using cycles.
Intersec ons are places where the cyclist may need to change
his direc on. But cycle tracks abruptly end or discon nue Provision of cycle lane crossing at junc on
especially near intersec ons. The con nuous network of cycle
tracks is the biggest issue for cyclists. Introduc on
Carriage way is the reserved por on of the street only for
Recommenda ons:
moving vehicles. They need to be well defined and
It is understood that junc ons need to be wider amoun ng to demarcated with lane markings. They are Divided (by
turning traffic. Cycle tracks should merge 50m before the railing/median) or undivided depending on ROW for to and fro
approach of any major junc on on Mobility and Feeder corridors traffic. Carriage way should not be used for parking, hawking,
but should remain con nuous at minor junc ons along with walking and laying u li es.
footpath.
Exis ng Issues:
Cycle tracks should be marked in green or blue color where it is Carriage way is used for many other func ons like parking,
merged at the junc on to highlight cyclist priority . A stopping hawking, walking, bus stops etc .
bay for cyclists near the stop line of the junc on should be
marked. Carriageway lacks dis nct demarca on crea ng confusion
of func onality of space between carriageway, shoulder and
The faulty placement of bollards on cycle tracks require cyclist to footpath.
li their bicycles in order to pass through it. This is also one of
the reasons that the cyclist discon nue using cycle tracks. Carriageway are not uniform and greatly differ in width and
number of lanes.
The height and gap between the bollards should be such that
cyclists can pass through it but other ve Varia on in surface material and subgrade technical
hicles cannot enter. quali es.
6 11 1 6 12
CARRIAGEWAY
The material density and compac on shall be as per the property should not affect the street or footpath. Protec ve
specifica on of sub grade, where it is earthen shoulder and barriers which will avoid soil and water coming onto streets
the required cross fall should be maintained. during rains should be designed on priority.
6 15 1 6 16
ON STREET PARKING
Exis ng Issues
Loca on issues: Design Issues:
Parking ac vity at the entrance of eateries and restaurants Uneven surface affec ng the discipline and proper alignment Parking alignment is not as per the space provided. Parked
Car parking on both sides on local street reduces ROW of parked vehicles. vehicles project into the carriageway.
interferes with the movement of the visitors.
2 way parking on narrow commercial streets by compromising No considera on to cycle parking and auto stands on Vehicles intrude on footpaths affec ng the pedestrian Lack of signages, markings to demarcate the parking space
spaces for footpaths. commercial streets. movement.
6 17 1 6 18
ON STREET PARKING
General Recommenda ons Should have proper water drain facili es to avoid any water
Enforcement Issues: The provision of on‐street parking depends on the landuse logging.
context, ROW and type of street.
Parking areas should be well lit and have necessary signage.
Where full me on street parking is provided, curb extensions
should be designed at crossings for pedestrian safety and Parking belts of local narrow street should have planta on
visbility. which also act as TCM.
6 19 1 6 20
ON STREET PARKING
Recommenda on for Parking Layout Autos are widely preferred semi public mode of
ROAD TYPE PARKING
Parallel car parking is recommended on streets where transporta on.
parking is permi ed. Inclined / perpendicular car parking 1 or 2 side parking
should be avoided. 24 m and above divided These are commonly used for pick up and drops of school
depending on landuse
children.
Combina on of parallel and inclined parking is acceptable in 15‐21m ROW one way 2 side parking
case of high parking demand. Exis ng Issues:
12‐21 m ROW undivided 1 side parking Undisciplined parking
Angular 2‐wheeler parking is recommended on all streets
with provision of parking. Table no. 6.4.1
Inappropriate loca on of auto stands
Recommended parking op ons as per RoW.
On street parking should be permissible only in designated For local streets with ROW less than 12m following should No considera on for design of parking area
spaces and in Mul ‐u lity belts. Discipline in parking of autos.
be provided
General Recommenda ons
Parking on Mobility corridors during peak hours should be • 4w wheeler parallel parking on either side
Auto stands should be preferably located
avoided. No parking should happen for min 50m on all arms Building zone
• Inclined 2 wheeler parking
near the intersec ons on mobility and feeder streets.
• Within MUB wherever provided
• Traffic calming measures are mandatory
• Adjacent to bus stops and transit sta ons
Walking zone
6 21 1 6 22
6.5
BUS LANES AND BUS STOP
Exclusive ROW for bus is the basic requisite for successful Bus lanes should be segregated from main carriageway by
implementa on of BRTS. median / railing
6 23 1 6 24
BUS LANES AND BUS STOP
6.5.2 General Design Recommenda ons for Bus lanes
Bus stop Ideal dimensions of bus stop = 10M x 1.5 M x 2.2 M (min ht)
Bus stops are one of the essen al component of streets.
Bus stop size for ar culated bus (long bus) to be 1.8 M X 2.2
M (min Ht).Mul ple bus stops on busy loca ons of Mobility
Loca on and design of bus stop affects the movement
corridor should construct this size of bus stop.
pa ern of vehicles and pedestrian and other ac vi es in
general within it catchment.
Design should be such that they do not obstruct visibility of
Exis ng Issues: surroundings and pedestrian flow on footpath.
Non uniformity in design The design should be compact, robust with an skid, leveled
floor space and with preferably can lever roof. Sufficient
User unfriendly, bulky designs giving importance to shade and light.
adver sement rather than comfort of users.
Sea ng if provided should be compact and minimal.
No considera on to signage,info display of bus system
within bus stop design. Guard rails / railings at the kerb edge should not be
provided.
Loca on of bus stop is irrespec ve to road geometry and
adjoining landuse. It should have provision for display of route info maps,
digital sign broads apart from adver sement boards.
No regula ons over mul ple,obsolete, unsafe bus stops. Adver sements should not obstruct route informa on
display maps, statutory signage’s etc.
No considera on to the pa ern of approach of buses,
comfort of drivers, safety of passengers. Night illumina on is a must on bus stops. Bus stops to have
emergency numbers/ police helpline numbers/ PMPML
numbers displayed.
6 25 1 6 26
BUS LANES AND BUS STOP
Bus stops should be independent of footpaths, cycle tracks Placement of bus stops
and carriage ways. Depending on above factors following are the various
recommended op ons for loca ng footpaths in different
Should not obstruct pedestrian flow or cycle movement and scenarios.
conflict vehicular movement in any case.
• Ideal typical layout for bus stop
Bus stop to be in the vicinity of the junc on but should be
located at a distance of 50 m away from any junc on. • Bus stops on narrow roads with narrow carriageway and
footpaths
Parking should be restricted near bus stops. Ideally bus EXISTING
BUS STOP
stops can be constructed in parking space. Bus stopszone
• Building on wider roads with wide carriageway and wide
footpaths Edge zone
Bus stops to be constructed in MUB wherever provided. Walking zone
• Bus stops within MUBs
Mul ple bus stops to be provided at busy loca ons where Fig. no. 6.5.1
route segrega on is possible and where frequency of buses Exis ng typical layout of bus stop in Pune
• Bus stops considering cycle tracks
is high at peak hours. Exis ng Bus stops are placed on the footpaths which block the carriage way. Owing to passengers wai ng at carriage way bus
pedestrian flow. The constant conflict between pedestrians waits in middle of road and carriage way traffic gets affected.
Bus stops should be accessed by Zebra crossings, median and bus passengers encourages bus passengers to wait on This way placing bus stop on footpath affects both pedestrians
breaks, refuge islands. and vehicles.
6 27 1 6 28
BUS LANES AND BUS STOP
PROPOSED
BUS STOP
PROPOSED
BUS STOP
PROPOSED
BUS STOP
PROPOSED
Fig. no. 6.5.4 BUS STOP
Op on 3: Bus stop loca on for wider streets with wider footpaths Building zone
In cases where road is wide and footpath is also wide (min 3 width of footpath behind bus stop should not be less than Edge zone
Fig. no. 6.5.6 Walking zone
M) in such cases bus stops to be placed near road side. The Edge
1.8M. Bollards/ guide rails/reflec ve cats eye or zone
lane marking
Walking zone Op on 5: Bus stop within MUB adjoining footpath for wider
to be done to demarcate the bus bay. streets
In cases where road is wide enough that Mul ‐U lity Zone is stop in MUZ has to be designed as a bus bay taking space
provided (MUZ is a strip recommended to be provided as per from footpath / cycle track so that buses do not conflict with
IRC which takes care of all u li es like electrical, telephone, vehicular traffic. In such case minimum width of footpath 1.8
water etc this avoids services coming on footpath). The bus M should be maintained at bus stop loca on.
6 29 1 6 30
6.6
MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM.
BUS LANES AND BUS STOP
Introduc on
Implica ons of and Integra on with Proposed Mass Transit
System
The implica on of elevated METRO track on Pune narrow Ex from Aundh to hinjewadi
Phase II 13 Km
streets and its Integra on with other modes is an study which and Kalyani Nagar to Kharadnaka
needs to be carried out on priority level.
Agriculture College to Swargate
Line 3 Phase I 9 Km
via JM ROad and Mhatre bridge
Phase II Ext from Swargate to Hadapsar 9 Km
Agriculture College vio Warje
Line 4 Phase III 9 Km
via JM Road and Karve Road
6 31 1 6 32
MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM.
BRTS – Pune launched BRTS in Dec 2006. Pune has been Implica ons of and Integra on with Proposed Mass
trying hard to implement Bus Rapid transit system in the Transit System
city.Many models of BRTS (kerb side / median side / mixed Recommenda ons
etc) have been tried in the city. BRTS has proven to be a
Design of any Mass Rapid Transit system requires an
success for bus commuters and has helped PMPML a ract
comprehensive approach and good amount of detailing.
more commuters and deploy more buses but has received
Detailing in regards to the area it is going to consume on the
large scale cri cism from other modes of transport especially
street, area available for other modes especially footpaths and
private vehicle users. Central Government and JNNURM
motor vehicle lanes.
(Jawaharlal Nehru Na onal Urban Renewal Mission) stresses
on implementa on of BRTS and cycle tracks in ci es and some Width
ci es like Ahmedabad have demonstrated a very effec ve and
The street having dedicated bus lane or elevated METRO /
successful way of implemen ng BRTS in the city. The design of
MONORAIL streets should have min 2.5m footpath on both
bus lanes, bus sta ons, terminals is having a large implica ons
sides.In case of dedicated bus lane or elevated METRO /
on design of streets and its integra on with exis ng and
MONORAIL columns or pillars on the streets the Motor
proposed modes of transport needs be studied. MONORAIL –
Vehicle lane should be kept 9m on both sides.The elevated
The 1983 DP of Pune demarcates an ring roadreserved for
sta ons or METRO terminals should not cause any hindrance
High Capacity Mass Transit. Many op ons of construc ng this
to pedestrians and motor vehicle flow. Extra wide footpath of
ring road for either buses or as MONORAIL or road are being
min 3m width is required near terminals and sta ons. The
worked out.
terminals to have sufficient setback from adjoining proper es.
If required road at stretches to be widened.
Integra on
Integra on of METRO / MONORAIL with the exis ng bus
system, Auto rickshaws / taxis , providing parking for private
vehicles near terminals and also having commercial
exploita on of such spaces is an study needed to be done by
experts with wide stake holder consulta on. Without such
provisions the viability of any MRTS system is doub ul.
6 33 1 6 34
07
SAFETY ELEMENTS
Includes introduc on to elements, exis ng issues, design recommenda ons
Safety & Comfort based on standards and norms for all such street elements related to safety
and comfort of the street users.
7
SAFETY ELEMENTS
Building zone
Safety & Comfort Edge zone
Walking zone
Traffic Signals
Central Medians
Railings
Bollards
Street lights
Street furniture
Signage’s , markings
& adver sements
7 1
7.1
AT GRADE PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING
Introduc on Exis ng Issues:
Zebra crossings are blocked at either ends by median or fail For wider roads, lack of refuges space or wai ng space
Pedestrian at grade crossings are to be provided at
to have proper footpath for pedestrian landing. this creates makes it inconvenient and unsafe for pedestrians.
all intersec ons as maximum number of
inconvenience for pedestrians.
pedestrians cross the street at intersec ons.
The alignment of zebra crossings is improper at most of the
Flaws in marking of zebra crossings creates confusions and skewed junc ons.
To ensure pedestrian safety and convenience, crossings
affects its u lity.
should be designed so as to have direct and shorter route to
There is lack of proper light, signage and pedestrian signals
the other end of street.
near zebra crossing.
Common formats of crossings
• Signalized crossings at junc ons with refuge islands
Building zone
• Mid block crossings supported by Traffic calming Edge zone
measures. Walking zone
7 5 1 7 6
AT GRADE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
7.1.2
Mid block crossing recommenda ons
Mid block zebra crossing should be provided only when the
distance between the 2 consecu ve intersec on is more
than 250m and simultaneously there is genuine demand
with high pedestrian crossing at such loca ons.
Fig no 7.1.3
Should have sufficient signage and illumina on. Reflec ve
Midblock crossing curb extensions provide be er visibility for
paints, cats eye, bollards and light poles to be used for high
motorist and pedestrians
visibility source:www. wa.dot.gov
Refuge island with crossing path of Bulb outs at a midblock crosswalk in Curb extension with properly placed
dis nct color Canada signage
Oxford circus, London
7 7
source:
urbandesignbrazil.blogspot.com
7.2
TRAFFIC CALMING
MEASURES
Introduc on Various types of TCM
Traffic calming measures are ways of calming or reducing
the speed of vehicles on local streets in order to avoid
accidents due to collision.
There are many ways of calming the traffic. Apart from the
ones given in the diagram in India we can introduce number
of other elements like small temples, trees, parking etc
which also act as TCM.
Traffic calming consists of engineering and other measures Chicanes Chicanes Trees / Landscape
put in place on roads for the inten on of slowing down or
reducing motor‐vehicle traffic enable safe mobility of
pedestrians and cyclists.
Fig 7.2.1
Types of traffic calming measures
source: 'Fargo Traffic Calming Demonstra on Study'
prepared for Fargo‐Moorhead Metropolitan Council of
Governments by ND LEA Engineers & Planners Inc’.
7 9 1 7 10
7.3
CENTRAL MEDIAN, RAILINGS
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES AND BOLLARDS
General Design Recommenda ons 7.3.1
TCM are recommended on all local residen al streets with Central median
ROW less than 12 m.
Medians or dividers are raised barrier that separate the
street in two half’s and direct traffic flows.
Use of planta on and trees is recommended for local
streets with ROW less than 12m
Medians help to streamline traffic and avoids conflicts
between traffic moving in opposite direc ons.
TCM are recommended near crossings where residen al
local street intersects the feeder streets of ROW less than
Exis ng Issues:
21m.
Varying types,widths,heights and designs of medians.
Dis nct markings, signages,signals and proper ligh ng are
mandatory within zones of TCM. Frequent cuts in Medians causing accidents.
Speed humps and rumble strips are recommended at all Lack of refuge space or wai ng space amidst the medians
mid block crossings on roads with ROW 21m and more.
Landscape on medians affects the visibility while turning.
Kerb extensions with material varia on are recommended
for all junc ons on roads with ROW 9m and more having Requires frequent pain ng and maintenance
high pedestrian ac vity like mixed use streets and
commercial streets. Do not follow the center‐line of the street.
30 Concrete 0.6 & 0.75 Can have 0.3M railing over the divider
divider
36 (non Concrete 0.6 & 0.75 Can have 0.3M railing over the divider
BRTS divider
36 (with Concrete 0.3 & 0.75 To have divider on both sides between bus lane & MV lane.
BRTS) divider
40 Concrete 0.3 & 0.75 To have divider on both sides between bus lane & MV lane.
divider
45 Concrete 0.3 & 0.75 To have divider on both sides between bus lane & MV lane.
divider
>45 Concrete 0.3 & 0.75 To have divider on both sides between bus lane & MV lane.
divider
Table no. 7.3.1
Recommended type of TCM based on ROW
7 13 1 7 14
CENTRAL MEDIAN, RAILINGS AND BOLLARDS
Bollards Bollards can have variety of designs and shapes but the
Railings
design should not cause hindrance to pedestrians in any
General Design Recommenda ons Bollards are entry restric ng elements on streets whose
way.
Railings are the essen al elements of the street. It is purpose is to discourage vehicles from entering into
advisable to have railings for central medians. pedestrian space. Bollards are also used to demarcate and
Conscious choice of material has to be made so that they
safeguard any space for pedestrians.
are easy to replace and procure but difficult to break or
If railings are to be fi ed on footpath kerb the width of steal. eg: Concrete bollards
Exis ng issues
footpath has to be min 3m.
The height, gap between two bollards and its loca on
Bollards should have light fi ngs or reflec ve radium
causes hindrance to pedestrian and cyclist flow.
Railings need to be aesthe cally pleasing and should materials fi ed on it to make it easily visible in dark.
enhance the look of the street at the same me their design
The stainless steel bollards are o en stolen or bended due
should be robust, difficult to tamper or break and difficult
to collision of vehicles.
for people to easily climb or sit on it.
Gap /
Loca on Height Remarks
spacing
On 0.6m 0.7m Less gap and height is
Footpath intended to restrict vehicle
entry and facilitate pedest‐
rians carrying luggage.
(one gap of 0.8m should be
le for wheel chair users).
On cycle tracks 0.7m 0.8m This fill not facilitate cyclists
carrying milk cans or cylind‐
ers hung on sides but will
restrict entry of two
wheelers into cycle tracks.
Speed breakers are one way of Traffic calming measure. Its Some wrongly planned speed breakers o en hit the car
one of the easiest but obsolete way of traffic calming. bo om.
7 17 1 7 18
7.5
STREET LIGHTS
SPEED BREAKERS
Design Recommenda ons: Introduc on
There are 3 types of speed breakers : Ligh ng of streets is one of the most important and
essen al elements of safety of commuters.
Type Loca on Width Height Remark
Speed Bumps
Local / Good quality light promotes safer environment by ensuring
Speed to be rubber
BUMP Neighbor inter‐visibility between users.
1' – 2' Max 4” pad type fixed
hood properly and
Streets
Quality of ligh ng has major impact on percep ons of
maintained.
security especially by pedestrians and cyclist.
Humps to be
bitumen / Ligh ng should be designed to ensure that both the
Speed
HUMP Feeder concrete. vehicular carriageway and pedestrian/cycle path are Metal Halide
3' – 5' Max 5”
Streets Should be sufficiently illuminated. (BEST)
spaced at
midblocks. Street lights can have various designs and appearances
depending on the type / theme or aesthe c significance of
Speed Tables to be any street.
TABLE bitumen /
Mobility concrete. Street lights necessarily need to have light throwing down
10' –15' Max 6”
Streets Should be towards the street. Ideally they should have
spaced at an outreach arm protruding towards the street. Street lights
midblocks. can be clubbed with traffic signs.
Table no. 7.4.1
Design Recommenda on for speed breakers White light is preferred instead of yellow light in Urban
areas.
Speed Bumps, Speed Humps and Speed tables are the only
three types which need to be introduced on local streets, Exis ng Issues: White SON
feeder streets and mobility streets respec vely. Lack of op mum ligh ng. Vandalism, the and require high (GOOD)
maintenance
They should be supplemented by reflec ve radium’s or cats
eyes and signage’s making them clearly visible at night me. Lack of considera on to the road geometry
while loca ng light poles.
They should be painted in any color preferably in
Yellow and Black stripes. Lack of considera on to pedestrian ligh ng.
Orange SOX
(BAD)
Ref:IRC 99 – 1988 guidelines for speed breakers on minor roads
7 19 1 7 20
STREET LIGHTS
General design recommenda on
Ligh ng installa on should be generally placed within
• Verge
• MUB Spacing between Height of the light Length of the
Loca on of street light Intensity of light (Lux)
• Central medians two light poles (m) pole (m) outreach arm (m)
• Kerbside of footpaths
Pedestrian and street light should share the pole wherever In between footpath and cycle track 20‐25 6.5 – 9 1‐2 25
feasible.
The height and spacing of light poles and illumina on High masts at Intersec ons ‐ 10 ‐ 15 2.5‐4.5 50
characteris cs should comply with the IRC standards.
Solar ligh ng systems should be encouraged by checking
their economic and financial viability. High speed vehicular streets 30 10 ‐ 15 2.5‐4.5 30
Street lights can have various designs and appearances
depending on the type / theme or aesthe c significance of
any street.
Local / Neighborhood Streets 10 ‐ 15 6 ‐ 12 1 – 1.5 25
Street lights necessarily need to have light throwing down
towards the street. Ideally they should have
an outreach arm protruding towards the street. Street lights Table no.7.5.1
can be clubbed with traffic signs. Rrecommenda on for street ligh ng.
White light is preferred instead of yellow light in Urban
areas. Ref: Interna onal Best prac ces & Na onal Street Ligh ng manual
7 21 1 7 22
7.6
STREET FURNITURE
Introduc on Design recommenda ons Recommenda ons for Sea ng: Recommenda ons for dustbins:
Purpose of street furniture is to cater to the comfort need Should be of durable material, easy and cheap to maintain, Benches or sea ng should be provided at the building/ Size of trash bins should be such that it does not occupy
of the road users especially pedestrian and cyclist. safe to use, easily available in case of repairs and replace‐ frontage edge of the footpath and ideally with provision of more than 2 sq.m of space of any street.
ment and aesthe cally pleasing. shade.
Well placed and designed street furniture inculcates Trash bins should be located at intervals of not more than
sense of discipline among road users acts as traffic Should be placed such that it does not obstruct the Where sea ng is oriented parallel to the curb, it should face 200m.
calming measure and adds aesthe c value to the street. pedestrian or vehicular flow. toward buildings when located in the furnishings zone, or
away from buildings when located in the frontage zone. Trash bins should be located ideally on the edge zone or
Following are the commonly used street furniture: Should be placed along all the streets. The loca on, type within verge between carriageway and footpath.
• Sea ng/benches and quan ty should be decided depending on the adjacent Where sidewalk width permits, sea ng in the furnishing
• Dust bins land‐use of the roads and user ac vity. zone should be perpendicular to the curb. Design of trash cans should be such that it conceals the
• Water taps li er bags, is covered,facilitates easy removal of li er and
• Bollards and railing Street furniture should be convenient to use and have Site furnishings may also be placed within curb extensions cleaning of bins.
• Signage/ info kiosks universal accessibility. where sidewalk widths are extended into the parking lane.
It is recommended to provide for separate bins for
Street Furniture brings in life on the streets and improves its All street furniture should be placed to allow access for Sea ng should be designed to encourage si ng and to segrega ng the wet waste and recyclable waste.
aesthe cs and usability. street cleaning. discourage lying down.
Dust bins should be placed near all transit sta ons, parking
Exis ng Issues:
Street furniture is to be provided at all such loca ons having Benches are recommended on all streets at adequate areas and junc ons.
No regula ons as regards placement and design of street high public ac vity and pedestrian flow like commercial intervals of maximum 200m. Sea ng capacity and intervals
furniture. plazas public buildings, recrea onal areas, transit sta ons, should be determined considering the adjacent landuse and
parks and gardens, educa onal ins tutes, market areas, space availability.
Lack of enforcement for the provision of street furniture shopping malls etc.
Design flaws and lack of maintenance make street Street Furniture should be placed within MUB belt
furniture nonfunc onal and adds to the crap on the street. wherever provided.
7 23 1 7 24
MANDATORY
7.7 50
Stop Give way No entry One way Vehicle prohibited All motor Truck prohibited Tonga prohibited Bullock and hand cart Hand cart
No No Length Speed in both direction vehicle prohibited prohibited prohibited
Cycle Pedestrian Right turn Left turn Left turn Over taking Horn prohibited Width limit Height limit Axleroad
Compulsory Compulsory Compulsory Compulsory prohibited prohibited prohibited prohibited prohibited prohibited limit
Introduc on horn left turn ahead only turn right
Informatory Signs;
These guide the road users regarding the distance and
Pedestrian School Dual carriage Men at work Falling rock Perry Steep ascent Steep descent Narrow bridge Round about Loose gravel
direc ons roadside facili es & des na ons. crossing way ends
INFORMATORY
P P
Pune Station 5
Parking Park this No through No through Public Petrol Hospital First aid Eating Light Rest room
both side side road side road telephone pump place refreshment Swargate 15
P P Khothrud 20
• Many signage’s are placed closely.Many mes the old Signage poles are in conflict with other adver sement Minimum height of any traffic sign (lowest edge) should be It is advisable to follow a pa ern of placement for loca ng
signs are not removed and new ones are added. billboards, trees, traffic signals and cannot be well read by 2.1 m from the pavement when posted on footpaths and the direc onal signs. It is recommended to place direc on
the driver. sidewalks. signage’s at definite points near transit sta ons, bus stops
• Mul ple signage o en overlap and are not properly visible and public buildings.
and create confusion for the road user. It should be placed on the le side of the road and
perpendicular to the line of the approaching traffic. The Regulatory and Safety signage’s should be ideally placed
nearest edge of the sign should be 1.2 m along the edge zone or kerbside of footpath so that those
away from the edge of the carriageway. are easily readable by the motorists and the pedestrians.
Minimize sign clu er by loca ng mul ple, related signs on Direc on signage’s should be of larger sizes with readable
single poles. font sizes.
Placement should be such that it is not in conflict with Design of signage’s should conform with IRC standards IRC
services and trees on roads. MUB if provided is a good 67‐2010 and Motor Vehicles act in accordance with the
loca on for placing signages. recommenda ons by traffic police dept of Pune.
Road markings
Road Marking is an essen al element which is required for
improving efficiency of the street. The Design, colors,
materials and loca on of Road
ELECTRICITY OR STREET ROAD NAME BOARD TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE
LIGHT POLE SIGNAGES Markings should strictly adhere to:
• IRC 35 – 1997 for road markings
• MoUD IUT Code of Prac ce for Road markings
• UTIPEC Guidelines for road markings
Fig 7.7.3
Placement of signage
Source: IRC 67 – 2010 & Report of Pedestrians First
7 29 1 7 30
ROAD MARKING
There are two types of road markings. Following are the basic elements of road markings. Triangular yield Marking at speed humps / speed tables –
• Non Mechanical Markings – Paint Markings, White Broken line – represents travel lane 100 thk 1500m Elongated triangles
Plas c and Epoxy Markings long with 3000mm gap.
• Mechanical Markings – Cats Eye, Reflec ve posts. Parking strips – parking for 2 wheelers, cars, buses, auto's,
• Road Markings are done in four basic colors. White solid line – represents le edge of street or boundary cycles etc marked clearly on edge.
• White – used for permissible, informa ve of carriage way. 100Mm thk
• Yellow – used for preven ve, cau onary Bus Box, bus lane, ‐ to demarcate posi on where buys
• Blue – Special purpose marking Yellow solid line – represents right edge & center line of two should stop or travel.
• Green – Non Motorized Transport markings. way street. 100Mm thk
Cycle symbol , cycle box – to demarcate clearly cycle lane
Paint Markings : Paints used for road markings should be hot and box where cycle's should stop.
Direc onal arrow – represent change in direc on, marked
applied Thermoplas c paints instead of ordinary paints,
near turnings.
feasible for be er visibility and long life. Visibility at nights is Rumble strips – undula ons to cause vibra ons cau oning
improved by the use of minute glass beads embedded in to drive slowly.
Channelizing line or Chevron marking – represent merging
pavement marking material to produce a retro reflec ve
or d‐merging of lanes
surface. Cats Eye – retro reflec ve objects fixed on street to highlight
Zebra crossings – for pedestrian crossing. 300Mm thk, 2400 center‐line, edge at night me.
Plas cs :cold rolled or glued down plas c strips with the
adhesive in the backing are used for cross walks / Zebra – 3000mm long with 300mm gap.
Reflec ve posts – to cau on the driver for obstruc on in
strips, this product is heavy‐grade material with reflec ve
Stop line – White color line 1.5m before zebra crossing near street.
beads embedded in the plas c. This method is used to mark
the stop lines on bituminous roads in high density urban intersec on for vehicles to stop.
Word symbols – clearly men oning no parking, bus lane,
areas.
cycle lane etc.
Epoxy technology has become more affordable and reliable.
This material competes directly with plas c with respect to
usage and cost.
Cats eye are reflectors which either reflect the light falling
on them or can have a blinking mechanism at important
loca ons.
Bus Lane – bus box, bus only lane in word, solid yellow and • Adver sing affects the aesthe cs and safety of the street to
white lines, cats eye, rumble strips. an great extent.
Cycle lane – Solid white and yellow line marking , cycle Exis ng Issues
symbol, cycle only lane in word, cycle parking in green, cycle Adver sing overshadows the traffic signage’s. Adver sing is
box in Green at intersec on, reflec ve posts. many mes done on traffic signage's nullifying their
purpose.
Pedestrian crossing – stop line, triangular yield marking,
cays eye, reflec ve posts at edges of refuge islands. Illegal hoardings make the street look ugly.
Near Intersec ons – Direc onal arrows, stop line, cays eyes, Adver sing on streets does not have any specific guideline
reflec ve posts, triangular yield markings, no parking for placement. The PMC Sky Sign policy needs to be
markings. followed.
Before & A er Fly‐overs/ Subways – chevron markings, The placement of adver sements , hoardings their heights
rumble strips, cats eyes, reflec ve posts, direc onal arrows. many mes obstruct the pedestrian flow and also divert the
a en on of the driver causing accidents.
Parking – no parking , reserved parking for cycles, buses,
disables, Auto rickshaws etc. Adver sements many mes block the visibility of travel
lanes, foot‐over bridges, traffic signals, turning lanes etc
Important landmark – rumble strips, word markings like causing inconvenience.
school ahead, hospital ahead, quiet zone etc.
Lot of waste is generated due to hoardings.
Road marking needs to have a very scien fic approach. The
road marking needs to be placed cau ously considering its
usage and impact. Eg : The zebra crossings should connect
the refuge islands or lead to other end of street without
hindrance. Duplica on of road markings should be avoided.
Old ones should be scrapped before marking new ones.
Road markings should not convey any message which
hampers the usage of the sec on of the street or access
access of the property.
Source:IRC 35 – 1997 for road markings & UTIPPEC Guidelines. Source:PMC Sky Sign Policy & Interna onal Best prac ces.
7 33 1 7 34
7.10
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
ADVERTISEMENTS
General Recommendations: Should be placed such that it does not adversely affect the Traffic signals
These should be placed such that it does not cause beauty and unique character of important places, Traffic signals at intersec on are necessary to
obstruc on to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. landmarks, heritage sites, religious buildings and natural • To reduce traffic conflicts and delays
elements like river, hills, trees etc. • To avoid accidents
No part of the structure should project on the carriageway • To economize on police me
and footpath. Sky signs should not be placed beyond 40m distance from • Direc ons and distances of des na ons, landmarks and
the 'STOP' line marked at the intersec ons of roads. No suburbs.
The structure should not be detrimental to safety of the other luminaries except LED and LCD be used for
people, vehicles and adjoining property. illumina on of adver sements structure. Traffic volume, interrup on of con nuous traffic, accident
probability determines the need for having a signalized
Should not adversely affect the aesthe cs and beauty of the intersec on.
city scape and the city in general.
The change in the way we install traffic signals can bring in
good amount of improvement in traffic discipline
Exis ng Issues.
Type of adver sement structure Street widths Size Heights from ground level The primary and secondary signal system increases the
traffic lights on the intersec on crea ng confusion in vehicle
commuters.
Min 3.5m
ROW 45m and more 12m x 12m
Max 18 m As the primary signals are on opposite end the commuters
tend tocross the stop line and halt ahead at intersec on
causing blockage for opposite end entering traffic.
Ground structures (Boards) Min 3.5m
ROW 18m ‐ 45m 9m x 6m
Max 18 m Pedestrian or pelican signals are not seen to be effec ve.
Min 3.5m
Unipoles ROW 30m and more 9m x 9m
Max 18 m
If placed on central medians Should be placed at intervals of 50m 0.6m x 0.9m Min 2 m
In Pune Traffic lights follow primary secondary system As per interna onal standards we see a very simple way of
loca ng traffic light posts.
As per the above figure the primary of arm A is located on
arm B which has secondary of arm B on its back side. As per the above figure there will be no duplica on of
Similarly for other arms . signals, no primary and secondary but will have only one
signal per arm which will be located on the kerb side or in
This arrangement causes confusion and commuters tend to median side of that arm.
halt ahead of the stop line blocking entry of other arms.
Arm A will have its signals on arm A. The signal post will
This also causes vehicles to halt on pedestrian zebra have an long outreach arm over which traffic lights above
crossings or cycle boxes causing inconvenience to all street each lane will be fi ed. It will also have CCTV cameras,
users. cycle and pedestrian signals.
This will be easy as all the traffic of any arm will follow only
one signal and since the traffic light post is located near the
stop line at height of min 5.5m the commuters will need to
stop before the stop line in order to see the signal.
& Environment
Ecology
Garbage containers
Public toilet
8 1
8.1
MULTI UTILITY BELT
Introduc on
MUB is a new and highly appreciated concept which has been
successfully implemented in city of Nanded in Maharashtra.
Taking its cognizance the latest IRC for pedestrians 103 – 2012
and the Urban Street Design Guidelines for Delhi have made it
as an mandatory element on Urban streets.
The concept is very simple and workable. All the sta onary
elements on the street are organized in an dedicated space
which result in an obstruc on free streets.
Sta onary elements like trees, hawkers, bus stops, MUB for streets in Nanded.
underground and overhead u li es like MSEB boxes, light A Mul ‐U lity Belt is proposed along the stretch of the street
poles etc, parking and such other elements are organized in a for incorpora ng mul ple ac vi es which happen along the
space on shoulders between footpath / cycle track and motor street edge
vehicle lane.
This concept has brought in high efficiency and improvement A mul u lity belt will have space provisions for following
in streets. func ons:
• Tree planta on
• Auto Rickshaw stands
• Bus stops
• Parking
• Hawkers
• Street furniture
MUB for streets in Nanded. • Public toilets, informa on kiosks
• Underground and overhead U lity services like
MSEB, Water, telephone, gas etc.
8 3 1 8 4
MULTI UTILITY BELT
General Design Recommenda ons
MUB is recommended on all roads with ROW 21 m and
more. Width of Mul ‐u lity
Right of Way (M) Belt on both sides of
Min width of MUB is to be 0.75 m & 1m for roads with
the street.
ROW of 18m & 21m resp. This MUB should accommodate
the underground u lity lines and tree guards. Should have >60 2.5
removable pavement.
60 2.5
The surface of MUB shall have removable pavement or
have green cover but has to be demarcated by kerb stones. 45 2.5
42 2.5
MUB should be min 2.0m for all roads of ROW 27 and
more.
40 2
MUBs with width of 2m or more should serve all other 36 2.5
func ons as listed above besides accommoda ng the
service lines and duct banks. 30 2
Exis ng Issues:
Mostly exis ng street planta on are now part of streets due
to road widening and are not planted inten onally by
authority but by private owners.Hence no regula on over
species or placement of trees.
To reduce local ambient heat and provide cooler Common issues observed due to inappropriate selec on of
atmosphere species are as follows:
Improve quality of air by absorbing pollutants. Conflicts between tree branches and electrical lines ,street
lights and signage’s
To reduce surface water drain off.
Damage by tree roots to roadways and sidewalks.
Make streets aesthe cally pleasing.
Underground u lity lines are o en disturbed due to
intrusion of tree roots.
A regular presence of trees along the sides of street is
desirable to frame the street, calm traffic and enhance Obstruc ons is caused to pedestrians and visibility is
pedestrian crossings. reduced for the motorists due to the growing tree branches.
8 7 1 8 8
PLANTATION
Following are broad level recommenda ons for plan ng trees Selec on of species
on streets: Selec on of species will be determined by following
factors:
Trees should not obstruct the pedestrian flow or vehicular
flow. Clear walkable footpath should be le depending on Road width
the road width.
Available space for plan ng
Trees should not affect the visibility for the road users
especially motorists. Plan ng shrubs should be avoided in Adjacent land use and type of surrounding ac vity.
medians.
Ease and cost of maintenance
Vase Shaped Broad Spreading
Street trees should typically be upright and branched above
2.2 m to provide adequate walking clearance under Appropriate tree species selec on should consider:
branches.
Form, mature size, color, and texture to reflect the urban
design goals of a street
It is recommended to plant trees in Mul ‐u lity zone as
recommended by IRC codes.
The mature tree canopy with respect to how it may affect
street and pedestrian ligh ng or views of signage and
In case of narrow streets and in absence of Mul ‐u lity
building fronts
zone Trees should be planted in parking zone / shoulder as
it is advisable that trees u lize parking space instead of
The poten al for root systems to affect sidewalks, curbs,
compromising walking space.
and u li es ; and
It is recommended to have tree pits which provide space for Broad Oval Columnar
Impacts and constraints created by local climate.
root growth. Tree pits can be individual, elongated or
connected. They may be surfaced with porous pavers, or
grates that allow water to readily flow to the root zone. Generally following aspects should be considered while
Minimum tree guard dimensions should be a followed as selec ng species considering the adjacent land uses
per table men oned below.
Trees with columnar form are appropriate for narrower
plan ng spaces such as small streets, alleys, and narrow
medians.
Medium‐sized trees with light to medium density foliage are Fig no. 8.2.1
appropriate on neighborhood residen al and commercial Schema c representa on of typology of trees
streets.
Ref : Interna onal Best Prac ces, Interac on with Landscape architects
8 9 1 8 10
PLANTATION
Local Indigenous trees ,Deciduous & Evergreen trees that are Right of Type of Tree Loca on on street Size of Tree Clear walkway
recommended by PMC Garden department and men oned in
Way (M) guard (M) distance (M)
PMC ESR 2013 should be planted. Trees like EUCALYPTUS,
Australian Acacia, Lantana, Lucena, Mast Tree (False Ashoka) 6 Columnar, Conical Shoulder 0.6 X 0.6
should be avoided. 9 Columnar, Conical, Vase shaped Footpath 0.6 X 0.6 1.2
Tree grates and tree guards should be provided for 12 Columnar, Conical, Vase , broad
Parking / Shoulder 0.6 X 0.6 1.5
safeguarding trees. upright
Trees should be only planted in following areas:
15 Broad Upright, Broad Oval Parking / Shoulder 0.75 X 0.75 1.8
Along the edge of the carriageway ideally within an
unpaved areas (verge) between footpath and carriageway. 18 Broad Upright, Broad Oval, Broad Mul ‐U lity Zone /
0.75 X 0.75 2.5
Tree grate spreading Parking / Shoulder
MUB wherever provided.
21 Broad Upright, Broad Oval, Broad Mul ‐U lity Zone /
0.75 X 0.75 2.5
Verge between footpath and cycle tracks. spreading Parking / Shoulder
Within parking belts. 24 Broad Upright, Broad Oval, Broad Mul ‐U lity Zone / 1X1 2.5
spreading Parking / Shoulder
Within frontage zones on commercial streets
27 Broad Upright, Broad Oval, Broad Mul ‐U lity Zone / 1X1 2.5
Within edge /furnishing zone of footpaths in case of spreading Parking / Shoulder
footpaths with width 3m and more to allow 1.5m clear
walkway. 30 Broad Upright, Broad Oval, Broad Mul ‐U lity Zone /
1.5 X 1.5 2.5
spreading Parking / Shoulder
Diameter of Tree Min size of tree Min clear walking 36 Broad Upright, Broad Oval, Broad Mul ‐U lity Zone /
Trunk grate(M) distance (M) Tree gaurd 1.5 X 1.5 3.5
spreading Parking / Shoulder
Upto 6 “ 0.6 X 0.6 1.2
>36 Broad Upright, Broad Oval, Broad Mul ‐U lity Zone /
Upto 12” (1') 0.75 X 0.75 1.5 2X2 3.5
spreading Parking / Shoulder
Upto 12” (1') 1X1 1.8
Table no. 8.2.2
Upto 36” (3') 1.5 X 1.5 2.5 Recommended loca on and placement of trees on streets.
More than 36” (3') 2X2 3.5
Table no. 8.2.1
Recommended size of tree trunk and grates.
Root barrier
8 11 1 8 12
PLANTATION
8 13 1 8 14
8.3
UTILITIES AND SERVICES
Introduc on Each u lity line has its peculiar requirements. These lines need Exis ng Issues:
Streets are not just movement corridors for people and vehicle to co‐exist on streets in proximity but without affec ng each U li es o en causing obstruc ons to pedestrians and Many mes safety of pedestrians is at stake due to broken
but they also carry infrastructural u li es. U li es are the other. The en re life cycle of the streetdepends on the design vehicles. wires hanging, u lity sha s open etc. The u lity covers are
most crucial components of the street and require proper and placement of u li es. not on level with pedestrian paths and cause unsafe walking
design, placement, & maintenance . The en re health of the • HT Lines, Electric meters, feeder pillars etc. condi ons.
city depends on these u li es and hence these need to be • Garbage cans,
studied in detail and dealt with properly. • U lity covers of underground u li es o en broken / U li es like storm water drains have open covers. They
stolen or not in level o en get dismantled and chocked due to dirt accumula on.
Streets carry number of u li es. Each u lity service • Water supply ferrules, pipes etc.
installed & maintained by different departments and need to
co‐ordinate with the road department of Pune Municipal U li es are not laid scien fically resul ng in over
Corpora on for installa on / up grada on or maintenance. expenditure in repairs. U li es are not mapped properly
and maintenance of one results in disturbance of other
Water Supply – PMC ‐ Water supply Dept, Irriga on Dept u li es.
Cable TV,
Network of underground services. Improper design and lack of maintenance of manhole covers Road surface and traffic affected due to con nuous repairing
creates unsafe condi ons. and upgrada on of underground services.
Manhole covers and other obstruc ve u li es should be U li es should be laid Underground. Electrical LT & HT
located within the edge zone of the sidewalk so that it does lines, Cable TV lines, Fiber Op c Cables etc should be
not disturb the pedestrian flow. properly taken underground.
U li es should not be located below the carriageway. Storm water drains need to be covered and be along the
kerb of footpath or Mul ‐u lity belt. Open jalis should be
Alignment of the electric meters,feeder pillars should be avoided.
parallel to the footpath and should placed near the building
edge so that there is adequate clearance for pedestrian U lity covers should be designed in such way that they are
movement. not easily recognizable but should carry the required
informa on like u lity names, logos etc.
Manhole covers should be flushed properly with the surface
so as to have minimal level difference.
Road
Fig no. 8.3.1 Ref: CPHEEO Norms & IRC 98‐1997 for U li es and pedestrian
Placement of u li es on footpaths first report
8 17 1 8 18
UTILITIES AND SERVICES
General Design Recommenda ons Design Recommenda ons
U li es need to be designed in such way that there will be For 6m to 15m RoW Following diagrams show the placements of u li es for various RoW..
less need for maintenance and future provision will be
ensured.
For 18 m RoW
Sewer and Drainage lines required gravita onal flow and are
placed at substan al depth based on longitudinal slope.
Storm water drains also work on gravita onal flow but are
placed along edge of road and right edge of footpath.
Exis ng issues:
Water logging especially during rains creates inconvenience
for road users, damages the road surface and affects the
traffic.
Many mes Public toilets obstruct footpaths and The design and access for Public toilets should be friendly
pedestrians are forced to walk on carriage ways. for old people and disables.
Public toilets are not friendly for people with Disability and The recommenda ons for augmenta on of Public Toilets
for old ci zens. given in Pune Sanita on Plan 2010 should be followed.
8 25 1 8 26
09
INTERSECTIONS
Provides for recommenda ons based on various aspects related to
planning and designing of intersec on considering the requirements
of all stakeholders like pedestrians, cyclist, vehicles etc.
9.1
INTERSECTIONS
Intersec ons or junc ons are the most important and cri cal Planning of Intersec ons. ‐ Design of Intersec ons. ‐ Natural / Ar ficial topography – In most of the cases the
components of any street. Any loca on on the street where Planning intersec ons requires an methodical approach. Design of intersec ons depends of following factors. topography influences the design. Having slopes and gradients
two or more streets intersect each other are called Following are the basic recommenda ons. affects the speeds, safety and u li es near intersec ons.
Geometric Alignment – The angle in which number of streets
intersec ons. These are to be designed taking into Design of Intersec ons should take the topography in account
First priority at intersec ons in urban areas should be given intersect decides the geometry of intersec on. This geometry
considera on Mobility, Safety and Environmental aspects. and ensure that vehicle speeds are controlled and vehicles are
for pedestrian crossings and safety, then for public transport plays an important role in deciding turning traffic and
Junc ons are the spaces where through moving, turning not required to halt on sloping surfaces like ramps etc,
and then for vehicles. Parking / Hal ng vehicles (Auto pedestrian crossing movement. Most Streets in Pune intersect
pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles, public transport share the same pedestrian crossings are safe, water does not get accumulated
rickshaws, hawkers, buses, private vehicles etc) for min 50m each other in an organic manner forming acute angles or
space. It is very important to design intersec ons from safety, but gets drained out easily.
on all arms of intersec ons on mobility & Feeder corridors skewed intersec ons. Improving the geometry of such
and accessibility of all types of road users. Intersec ons is
should strictly banned. loca ons should be worked out.
urban areas should be designed as compact and for low speed.
Intersec ons are of various types but can be categorized into
Two intersec ons should not be close to each other. A Right of Way – The width of arms intersec ng each other
two main types namely planned and unplanned. In Pune city
distance of at least 250M is recommended between decides the priority each user gets on intersec on. Deciding
streets have evolved over the years with mostly unplanned
intersec ons on Mobility and Feeder corridors. op mum width for through traffic, turning traffic, pedestrian
intersec ons which pose unique challenges pertaining to land
and cycle flow depends largely on available right of way. The
use and density. Performance of any street depends largely
Intersec ons to be designed as compact as possible possibility of widening the intersec ons to an op mum right
upon design and efficiency of its intersec ons.
for low vehicle speeds and should have high visibility for of way should be checked.
pedestrians and turning traffic. Turning le should not have
Mobility Streets Mobility Streets
obstacles on corners which will obstruct the visibility. Direct Traffic count – The rela on between volume of traffic (through
Feeder Streets Feeder Streets access to proper es from major intersec ons should be traffic and turning traffic and also pedestrian count)and
1
Local Streets 4 4 Local Streets avoided. capacity of street (available space)decides the managing
5
6
2
6
5
criteria of any intersec on. Op ng for signalized / non Fig 9.1.2
3 Low height shrubs only are to be planted at intersec ons as signalized / round about or grade separators largely depend on Various forms of planned of intersec ons
big trees or dense foliage obstructs signage’s and light. The this factor. While designingany intersec on the traffic flow
Dirt spaces (spaces where no traffic movement occurs and count, pedestrian count and overall network analysis should
so dirt is accumulated) should be reclaimed for pedestrians. Intersec on management decision matrix.
be done. Applying design concepts which will reduce the
Fig 9.1.1 Vehicles peak hour Type of intersec on
pedestrian vehicular conflicts should be applied.
Intersec on with varying road hierarchy Intersec ons are the points where Right of way or street per direc on management element
Ref : USDG, Bangalore hierarchy should change RoW and Street hierarchy should
not change at mid block loca ons. Land use – In city like Pune land use plays a very important
Type TCM Rotary Signal Grade role in intersec on design. Having many openings to adjoining
<3000 Un‐signalised. Traffic Calming
separator proper es like schools, temples, hospitals, offices, markets etc Measures with mini rotary island
from major junc ons affects the performance of junc ons.
1. M ‐ M >3000 < 6000 Un‐signalised. Large rotary island.
Such access to proper es must be planned or diverted in such
2. F ‐ F way that performance of junc on will be improved. Also >6000 < 10000 Signalised intersec on
proper es adjoining major intersec ons are exposed to air and
3. L ‐ L noise pollu on which is harmful for the inhabitants. > 10000 Grade Separated.
4. M ‐ F Table no. 9.1.2
Intersec on management matrix.
5. M ‐ L
Source:IRC 1994 GUILDINES FOR DESIGN OF AT GRADE
6. F ‐ L INTERSECTIONS
Table no. 9.1.1
Proposed design for intersec on of varying road hierarchy. Ref: Int Best Prac ces, IRC 1994 , Ref:USDG for Bangalore.
9 1 1 9 2
INTERSECTIONS
Intersec on Design for Pedestrians.‐ Intersec on Design for Cyclists.
Ensuring Pedestrians safety is the most important aspect of Cyclists usually travel on le side of street as its the slow speed
intersec ons design. Pedestrians are most vulnerable to sec on. Cyclists safety comes at stake at intersec ons as
conflict with vehicles and hence their safety in crossing streets cyclists need to turn le of right or cross the street at
at intersec ons should be given the topmost priority in design. intersec ons where in dedicated cycle paths or tracks need to
get merged with MV lane. Hence there is a need to design a
Following are the pedestrian safety elements required to be defined way in which cyclists movement at intersec ons will
introduced at all intersec ons. be controlled. Following are the recommenda ons.
Kerb Extension – maximum pedestrians cross the street from • Merging – De‐merging cycle lane – Cycle Tracks provided
intersec ons. In order to facilitate their wai ng and reduce the on Mobility streets need to merge with the traffic lane 50m
distance for crossing the curve before the stop line. This is required for cycles turning to
por on of footpath at intersec ons should be widened. This Kerb extensions other street, if possible le turning cycle lane can con nue Cycle lanes at intersec on
helps in crea ng extra space, avoids vehicles hal ng at to be dedicated.
intersec ons, improves visibility of vehicle drivers and • Paint marking cycle priority lane ‐ Min 1.5 m paint marking
pedestrians. should be done on streets where cycle track is not provided.
Also when dedicated cycle lane merges with the regular
Refuge Islands ‐ Refuge islands should be developed at the traffic lane 50m near the intersec on it needs to be paint
center of the two way street so that pedestrians cross the marked to dis nctly remind vehicles cyclist priority. Paint
stretch in safe stages. Pedestrians should have a small wai ng marking to be minimum 1.5m wide along kerb side and be
space between street if they need to cross a stretch of more marked in green /blue color.
than 3 motor vehicle lanes.
• Paint marking Cycle box – A cycle box must be painted
Channelizers – The triangular spaces formed at right and le before the zebra crossing so that cyclist get priority in front
turning lanes at intersec ons should be reclaimed for and can safely change the lanes. Vehicles to stop before
pedestrians as vehicles do not use them and mostly dirt gets cycle box. Width of cycle box to be min 1.5m.
accumulated there. Such triangular spaces are channelizers. Refuge islands Paint marking cycle lane
They should be accessible to pedestrians as they serve as
refuge spaces.
Ref: Int Best Prac ces, IRC 1994 , IRC 103‐2012 Ref: Int Best Prac ces, IRC 1994 , IRC 103‐2012.
9 3 1 9 4
INTERSECTIONS
Intersec on Design for Vehicles. ‐
Vehicles currently occupy largest share of space on
intersec ons. Its very essen al to design intersec ons in
Urban areas for low vehicular speeds. Intersec ons should be
freed from obstruc ons like parked vehicles, hawkers etc on
mobility and feeder streets for at least 50m. Following are the
recommenda ons.
9 5 1 9 6
INTERSECTIONS
Intersec on Design for Vehicles. ‐ Traffic rotaries and
roundabouts are effec ve ways of managing the intersec ons
without signals. Roundabouts work well in situa ons of low to
medium intensity traffic. The capacity of roundabouts can be
significantly increased if they are large in size but space
constraints in urban areas like Pune do not allow having large
scale roundabouts. Following are the recommenda ons.
Signage’s –
Except traffic signals, direc on signs and street lights
intersec ons should not have adver sements / hoardings
which will obstruct the traffic and pedestrian flow or divert the
a en on of commuters.
Ref: Int Best Prac ces, IRC 65 – 1976,IRC 1994 ,
Be er Streets Guidelines.
9 9 1 9 10
10
GRADE SEPARATORS
Provides for recommenda ons based on various aspects related to planning
and designing of different type of grade separators for vehicles and pedestrians.
10.1
GRADE SEPARATORS - Vehicular
Grade separators tend to increase the latent demand of Flaws in design of fly overs
traffic by encouraging more use of private vehicles.
Ref:IRC SP 90 – 2010, IRC 92‐1985 & Interna onal Best Prac ces Ref: IRC SP 90 – 2010, IRC 92‐1985 & Interna onal Best Prac ces
10 1 1 10 2
GRADE SEPARATORS - Vehicular
Design Recommenda ons The Merger & Diverter blocks to be designed in such a way that conflict is avoided
Priority should be given for designing grade separators
exclusively for Public Transport like dedicated grade
separated bus lanes etc. This will help in priori zing and
encouraging public transport.
SUCH DESIGN
Ref:IRC SP 90‐2010, UTIPEC Guidelines and IRC 54‐1974 Lateral and
TO BE AVOIDED
ver cal clearance at underpasses for vehicular traffic. Ref: Seoul & Other Interna onal Best Prac ces
10 5 1 10 6
10.2
GRADE SEPARATORS - Pedestrian
3’ for 9”
steps & Street Width
( Variable ) Transverse
risers
Sec on
Arranging drainage will also not be a problem Not To Scale
‐ Drains can be connected to exis ng sewer lines
easily as bo om will only be abt 4’ below level.
Non func onal subways
Fig no. 10.2.1
hump subway
Ref:IRC for Grade Separators & Interna onal Best Prac ces
10 7 1 10 8
GRADE SEPARATORS - Pedestrian
Design Recommenda ons. Pedestrian Grade separators Should have following
Pedestrian Grade separators are needed for safe crossing of clear widths and height clearances.
pedestrians. Following are the factors need to be Width of passage = min 4.5m
considered for loca on and design of Grade separators.
Width of access – min 2.5m
Pedestrian Grade separators to be located at mid‐blocks or
away from intersec ons. If located at intersec ons they Ver cal Distance = min 2.75m
should be access controlled.
Ground Clearance for FOB: min 5 m
Exact Loca on & Volume of pedestrians crossing the street.
Whether the access route is to a school,hospital or other Stairs riser ht – max 150mm, Tread min 350mm
local amenity. Proximity from nearest intersec on.
Access – two modes of access should be provided. Primary Proper light and cleanliness in the subway
Priority must be given for selec on of type of grade with Stairs and secondary with either ramp or li or
separator in following order. escalators.
• Dedicated At Grade crossing by changing grade of
vehicular lanes. Visibility – Clear view from one end to other , provision of
• Hump Subway – par ally raising the level of vehicular natural ligh ng and ar ficial ligh ng of at least 50 lux.
lane.
• Complete Subway – making pedestrians cross the street Security‐ provision of CCTV & emergency alert alarms,
underground. helpline numbers.
• Foot Over Bridge with universal access.
Material – use of an ‐skid walking surfaces on stairs and
Type of road and number of lanes to be crossed at a stretch; passages, guard rails (ht min 1.5m for FOB), textured
Speed of vehicles on the road and thevolume of traffic surfaces and warner les for disables.
including the propor on of heavy goods vehicles;
Adver sements should not block the visibility. Space for Ramp for universal accessibility and cyclists
Use by children, elderly people, visually impaired people adver sements and hoardings should be designated in
and disabled people including wheelchair users, and people design.
with prams and pushchairs;
The access to any type of grade separator should not
Natural gradient or slope of the street. compromise on pedestrian walkways. Min 1.8m footpath
should be le along the access point to grade separator.
Effects of changes in structure of street over the next 15
years including any prospec ve Bus lanes or central bus Universal access should be provided with provision of
stops and its connec vity with Grade separator. ramps, signage’s and guard rails. Cyclist should also be able
to use the grade separators.
Fig no.11.2.2 A cane user will detect objects within a sweep that extends
Detectable reach of a cane user approx 150 mm ( 6") to either sides of his shoulders.
Adults helped visually impaired girls during a 'White Cane Space allowances: Most blind people in India use canes to Source of images: Design for access and mobility‐building and
Safety Day' march in Mumbai in 2010. navigate the streets. associated facili es, New Zealand Standard
Photo source:Agence France‐Presse/Ge y Images
11 3 1 11 4
11.3 11.4
SIDEWALK DESIGN TACTILE PAVING AND GUIDING
BLOCK
Introduc on Introduc on
• Sidewalks should be con nuous and should have stable, • Tac le paving is a textured bright coloured le which can
firm level and slip‐resistant surface without any be detected by a visually impaired person and provide
projec ons, drops, or unexpected varia on in levels. guidance in using pedestrian area.
• It should have guiding blocks for people with visual • Tac le paving should be provided in the line of travel
impairments;and fi ed with visual signs and tac le dues avoiding obstruc ons such as manholes/tree gaurds/lamp
(e.g., Braille blocks) as route finders;Preferably it should posts etc.
have well defined edges of paths and routes by use of
different colors and textures • Tile should have colours which contrasts with surrounding
surface.
• Sidewalks should have curb cuts where‐ever a person is
expected to walk into or off the pathway with warning
blocks installed next to all entry and exit points from the 300
pathway.
Bollard
Where bollards are erected at entrances to walkways or Dot‐type block give a warning
300
pathways, a minimum dear space of 900mm and ideally signal.
1200mm should be provided between the bollards.
Gra ng
Gra ng located along the exterior circula on should 25
preferably be covered. It should not have spaces greater 5
than 12 mm wide in one direc on. The long dimension 30
should be across the dominant direc on of travel as
illustrated in the figure. 300
300
correct route to follow
25
5 50 25
30
11 11 1 11 12
11.8 11.9
UNIVERSAL DESIGN OF STREET FURNITURE AND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL STREET SIGNAGE FOR DISABLES
Introduc on Introduc on
• Pedestrian traffic lights should beprovided with clearly Disabled persons may have limita ons in the movement of
audible signals for the benefit of pedestrians with visual their head, or a reduc on in peripheral vision. Signs posi oned
impairments perpendicular to the path of travel are easiest for them to
• Acous c devices should be installed on a pole at the point no ce. Persons can generally dis nguish signs within an angle
of origin of crossing and not at the point of des na on of 30° to either side of the centerline of their faces without
moving their heads.
• The installa on of two adjacent acous c devices such as
beepers is not recommended in order to avoid Signs should be in contras ng colour and preferably be
disorienta on embossed in dis nct relief to allow people with visual
impairments to obtain the informa on by touching them.
• The me interval allowed for crossing should be Audible signs should be installed in dangerous areas for the aid
programmed according to the slowest crossing persons. of people with visual impairments.
11 13 1 11 14
STREET FURNITURE AND
STREET SIGNAGE FOR DISABLES
Defini on of Universal accessibility
Public toilets
"Universal design is the design of products and environments
• A minimum of one toilet compartment should have to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible,
enough floor space of 2000mm x 1750mmfor wheelchair without the need for adapta on or specialized design. “
users to enter and exit.
‐Ron Mace (1941‐1998) Founder and program director of
• Provide a door of clear opening of at least 900mm with The Center for Universal Design.
the door swing outwards or be folding or sliding type.
In designing for inclusion, accessibility and barrier‐free
• The flooring should be slip resistant pedestrian environments following Seven Principles of
Universal Design are recommended:
• Accessible toilet should have a switch near the WC (one at
300mm and the other at 900mm from the floor level), Principle 1: Equitable Use
which ac vates an emergency audio alarm (at the The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse
recep on/a endants desk, etc.) abili es.
The en re study about street design guidelines gets Safeguarding Cyclists – Cycle is the most cost effec ve, Service
summarized to the final output win the form of drawings of energy efficient and healthy mode of transport. Cycles are Row Footpath Cycle Lane MUB MMV Lane Bus Lanes Lanes
typical or reference RoW wise cross sec ons, plans and not just used by school going children and economically (M)
intersec on design. USDG recommends to refer these weaker sec on but the number of cyclists is increasing from LHS RHS LHS RHS LHS RHS LHS RHS LHS RHS LHS RHS
drawings while conceptualizing design of any street in Pune. other sectors of society too. Cyclists need to be encouraged
These drawings have been prepared broadly based on and safeguarded. Dedicated cycle tracks are recommended 6.0 3.0 3.0
sustainability principles in consulta on with experts and stake on wider streets but also marking cyclist lanes on narrow
holders. These principles have been advocated by GoI NUTP, streets will bring in awareness and respect about cyclists. 7.5 0.75 0.75 3.0
3.0
Pune CMP and best prac ces. Equitable Distribu on of Urban
Road Space is the governing principle which can be achieved Op mizing Vehicular needs ‐ Though its extremely
9.0 1.5 1.5 3.0 3.0
by following ways. important to restrain the rate of vehicular growth in the city,
Priori zing Pedestrians ‐ As per the present condi ons vehicles s ll form the major por on of the road users.
Hence providing them with op mized space is essen al. The 12 1.8 1.8 0.4 2 3.0 3.0
streets in Pune seem to be dominated by vehicles and
needs of pedestrians seem to be neglected which has led to carriageway widths as proposed in USDG have been verified
unsafe walking condi ons and rapidly diminishing number from such studies done for other ci es where these have 15 2 2 2 2 3.5 3.5
of pedestrians on streets. High dependency on personal been found to be func onal.
vehicles and high vehicle growth is the outcome of the 18 2.5 2.5 2 2 2 3.5 3.5
same. Our surveys and analysis has proved that priori zing Encouraging Public Transport – In order to make any mass
only vehicles is an incorrect approach. Just as widening transporta on system effec ve, it needs to be given top
21 2.5 2.5 2 2 2 3.5 3.5 3
streets for vehicles leads to more vehicles on streets, priority by the governing authority. Having dedicated lanes
similarly widening exis ng footpaths or having new for public transport is considered to be the basic
requirement and its efficiency depends on its integra on 24 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 2 2 6 6
footpaths on all streets can help to encourage people to
walk thereby reducing vehicular usage. Keeping this in mind with other modes. Reserving space for buses on wider
we have recommended footpaths for street with 9m RoW streets is the seed which needs to be planted for be er 27 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 7 7
and onwards. commuta on in future.
30 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 2 2 9 9
45 3.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 10.5 10.5 3.5 3.5
12 1 1 12 2
7000
3500
RoW WISE STREET 3500
3500
BIFURCATION DIAGRAM 2500
2500
3000
1500 2500
2500 1500
2500 2500
2000 1500 2500
2000 2500
1500
2500
2000 1500 2500
10500 10500
10500 10500 1500 2500
2500 2000
9000
2000 2000
2000 2000 1800
9000 2000 2000 2000
500 500 750
7000 6000 3500
30000 3500
27000 24000 3500 15000 3000
12000 3000
7500 6000 3000
21000
60000
7000 45000 6000 42000 6000 40000 6000 36000 6000 3000 18000
9000
3000 3000 3000 3000
3500
3500 700
500 6000 3500
7000 750
500 2000 1800
9000 2000
2000 2000
2000 2500
9000
10500 10500 2500 1500 2500
10500 10500
2000
1500
2500
1500
2000 2500
2000 2500
2500 1500
2500
2500
1500
1500 2500
2500
2500 3000
3500
3500
3500
7000
60M 45M 42M 36M 30M 27M 24M 21M 18M 15M 12M 9M 6M
STREET CROSS SECTIONS AND PLAN
STREET STREET
LIGHTS LIGHTS
750
750 4500 750 6000
750 750
3000 3000 750 750
3000 3000
7.5 M. RoW
6.0 M. RoW STREET CROSS SECTION
STREET CROSS SECTION
12 5 1 12 6
STREET CROSS SECTIONS AND PLAN
STREET
1200 400
LIGHTS
STREET
6000 LIGHTS
1500
1500 6000 1500 600
400
1800 3000 3000 2000 1800
600
TREES WITH
TREE GUARDS 1800 3000 3000 2000 1800
1200 TREES WITH
TREE GUARDS 600
12.0 M. RoW
FOOT FOOT STREET CROSS SECTION ‐ P2
VERGE
PATH PATH
CARRIAGE WAY
MUB
FOOT CARRIAGE WAY FOOT
PATH PATH
3000 3000
1500 1500
9.0 M. RoW
STREET CROSS SECTION
1800 3000 3000 2000 1800
600
12.0 M. RoW
TREES WITH STREET CROSS SECTION ‐ P1
TREE GUARDS
12 7 1 12 8
STREET CROSS SECTIONS AND PLAN
BROAD FOLIAGE
STREET TREES WITH 1.8 MT.
LIGHTS TREE GUARDS
BIG
TREE
MUB
PARKING
2000 2000 3500 3500 2000 2000
+ BIG
1800 TREES
2000 2000 3500 3500 2000 2000 1800
SMALL
TREE
CYLINDRICAL
/CONICAL/VASE 600
FOILAGE TREES
PARKING
3500 3500
2000 2000 2000 2000
600
18.0 M. RoW
15.0 M. RoW BIG STREET CROSS SECTION
STREET CROSS SECTION ‐ P1 TREE (RESIDENTIAL USE)
BROAD
FOILAGE OPTION 1
TREES WITH
1.8 MT. TREE
GUARDS
18.0 M. RoW
STREET PLAN
15.0 M. RoW
OPTION 1
STREET PLAN
12 9 1 12 10
STREET CROSS SECTIONS AND PLAN
STREET
LIGHT
FOOT
PATH MUB MUB MUB CARRIAGE WAY
CARRIAGE WAY
SMALL
TREE 2500 2000 6000 6000 2000 2500
FOOT MUB FOOT
600
PATH 3500 3500 PATH
3500 2000 2000 3500 21.0 M RoW
750 750 STREET CROSS SECTION
STREET FOOT
18.0 M. RoW PATH DIVIDED IN MIX USE (FEEDER CATEGORY)
LIGHT SMALL CARRIAGE WAY
TREE STREET CROSS SECTION SMALL OPTION 1
(IN MIXED LANDUSE) TREE
OPTION 2
21.0 M. RoW
18.0 M. RoW STREET PLAN
STREET PLAN OPTION1
OPTION 2
12 11 1 12 12
STREET CROSS SECTIONS AND PLAN
BROAD FOLIAGE
1.8 MT. TREE
GUARDS 24.0 MT STREET CROSS SECTION
BIG WITH CYCLE TRACK
TREE
1800
OPTION 1
BIG
TREE
21.0 M. RoW
STREET PLAN
OPTION 2
12 13 12 14
STREET CROSS SECTIONS AND PLAN
24.0 M. RoW
STREET CROSS SECTION
27.0 M. RoW
OPTION 2 STREET CROSS SECTION
2500 2500 7000 7000 2500 2500 2500 1500 2500 7000 7000 2500 1500 2500
24.0 M. RoW
CARRIAGE WAY
STREET PLAN MUB 27.0 M. RoW
OPTION 2
STREET PLAN
FOOT
PATH FOOT
CARRIAGE WAY PATH
CYCLE MUB
FOOT MUB CARRIAGE WAY FOOT
TRACK
PATH PATH CYCLE
LANE
TRACK
LANE
12 15 12 16
STREET CROSS SECTIONS AND PLAN
30.0 M. RoW
30.0 M. RoW STREET CROSS SECTION
STREET CROSS SECTION
WITH 1 MT. MEDIAN OPTION 2
OPTION 1
2500 1500 2000 9000 9000
2000 1500 2500
3500 2000 9000 9000 2000 3500
1000
12 17 12 18
STREET CROSS SECTIONS AND PLAN
36.0 M. RoW
STREET CROSS SECTION
(DIVIDED WITH BUS LANE 40.0 M. RoW
& CYCLE TRACK LANE) STREET CROSS
SECTION
CYCLE
TRACK
LANE
MUB
3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500
3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 36.0 M. RoW
3000 3000 1500 2000 10500 3000 3000 10500 2000 1500 3000
2500 1500 2000 9000 6000 9000 2000 2500 STREET PLAN 40.0 M. RoW
1500
BUS LANE CYCLEMUB
FOOTPATH CARRIAGE WAY BUS LANE CARRIAGE WAY MUBCYCLEFOOTPATH STREET PLAN
FOOT TRACK TRACK
PATH CARRIAGE WAY LANE LANE
12 19 12 20
STREET CROSS SECTIONS AND PLAN
42.0 M. RoW
STREET CROSS
SECTION 45.0 M. RoW
STREET CROSS
SECTION
10500 3000 3000 10500 3500 2500 2500 10500 500 3000 3000 500 10500 2500 2500 3500
3500 1500 2500 2500 1500 3500
CYCLE
TRACK
LANE
CYCLE
TRACK
LANE
MUB
3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500
3500 2500 10500 3000 3000 10500 2500 3500 42.0 M. RoW 3500 1500 2500 10500 3000 3000 10500 2500 1500 3500
1500 1500 STREET PLAN MUB 45.0 M. RoW
CARRIAGE WAY BUS LANE CARRIAGE WAY FOOT
BUS LANE STREET PLAN
MUB FOOT CARRIAGE WAY CARRIAGE WAY MUB PATH
FOOT PATH FOOT
PATH PATH
CYCLE CYCLE
TRACK TRACK
LANE LANE
12 21 12 22
STREET CROSS SECTIONS AND PLAN
6000 2500 3500 2500 12000 500 3000 3000 500 12000 2500 3500 2500 6000
60.0 M. RoW
STREET PLAN
Note : The streets are shown in this map are having RoW > 12 M.
Thus all those streets which are not visible in this map have
60.0 M. RoW
RoW < 12 M
STREET PLAN
12 23 12 24
2500
FOOTPATH
2500 1500
CYCLE TRACK LANE
CARRIAGE WAY
FOOTPATH
CARRIAGE WAY
12 25 1 12 26
CARRIAGE WAY
FOOTPATH
CARRIAGE WAY
2500
CARRIAGE WAY
2500
MULTI UTILITY ZONE ‐ PARKING, BUS STOP,
HAWKERS, TREES AND SERVICES.
CYCLE TRACK LANE
FOOTPATH
CARRIAGE WAY
12 27 1 12 28
M
UL
TI
HA UTI
W LIT
KE Y Z CY
RS O C L
FO
, T NE E
OT
RE ‐ P TR
PA
ES A R A
AN KI CK
TH
D NG LA
SE , B N
RV U E
IC S S 00
ES TO 15 25
. P, 00
00
M
20
UL
TI
HA UTI
W LIT
KE Y Z
00
RS O
90
, N
CY TRE E ‐ P
C L ES A R
E T AN KIN
R A D S G,
FO
C K E RV B U
OT
L A ICE S ST
PA
N E S. O P
TH
00
,
90
00
15
20
00
00
25
C YC FO O
LE T T PA
RAC TH
K LA
NE
MA
RKI
NG
FO OT PAT
H
2500
FOOTPATH CYCL E TR AC
M U LT I K LA NE
U TI LI TY ZO
1500 CYCLE TRACK LANE H AW KE RS N E ‐ PA RK IN G, BU S
, TR EES AN STO P,
2000
LA NE M AR KI NG
CYCL E TR AC K
9000
FOOTPATH
M U LT I U TI
LI TY ZO
H AW KE RS N E ‐ PA RK IN G, BU S
, TR EES AN STO P,
D SE RV IC
2000
FOOTPATH
12 29 1 12 30
CARRIAGE WAY
CARRIAGE WAY
FOOTPATH
CARRIAGE WAY
12 31 1 12 32
12 33 1 12 34
2000 1500 2500
FOOTPATH FOOTPATH
1500
CYCLE TRACK LANE
Mul U lity Zone‐ Parking, Bus Stop,
Hawkers, Trees and services
3000
3000
9000
3000
3000
150
36000
6000
3000
RAMP
9000
3000
150
3000
9000
3000
1500 3000
2500 1500 2000
FOOTPATH
12 35 1 12 36
FOOTPATH FOOTPATH
1500
CYCLE TRACK LANE CYCLE TRACK LANE
Mul U lity Zone‐ Parking, Bus Stop,
Hawkers, Trees and services
3000
7000
SLP ROAD BELOW VEHICULAR
11000
3000
GRADE SEPARATOR
7500
9000
500
3000
30000
7000
500
7000
FOOTPATH
12 37 1 12 38
Implementation 13
Framework
Provides for op ons for implementa on process for proper execu on
of USDG to achieve be er streets for Pune.
13.1
IMPLEMENTATION OF URBAN
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PUNE
Op on 1 Op on 2 Graphical representa on
Graphical representa on
PMC has to approve USDG in its General Body. A er PMC has to approve and adopt USDG. The approved USDG
approval City Improvement Commi ee and Hon. will be sent to state level and central concerned authority.
PMC to approve USDG in PMC to approve USDG in
Commissioner shall give instruc ons to PMC Road
general body mee ng general body mee ng
Department for adop ng USDG for all aspects related to The respec ve higher authority shall then form an External
road development of Pune city. USDG Design cell, headed by Addi onal Municipal
Commissioner (Roads) comprising of dedicated team of
Commissioner + City State level authority
As per the instruc ons,PMC Road Department shall form an following
Improvement Commi ee
Internal USDG Design cell comprising of dedicated team of • Experienced government authori es (re red or
experts comprising of following Instruct Forma on
addi onal
• Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer, Deputy Chief charge), Experienced Urban Designers and planners PMC Road department
Engineer and an experienced External adviser from STAC PMC Road department (teaching faculty), senior level transporta on expert, civil
and allied representa ves of PMPML / MSEB / Garden engineer, es mate commi ee rep. and ac vists and CIC
Dept / other road dept etc. representa ve
Internal USDG Design cell External USDG Design cell
• ACE (Roads)will be the head of this cell. The role of ACE The role of ACE will be to appoint an Urban Designer firm
will be to appoint an Urban Designer firm from Head ‐ ACE (Roads) from empaneled consultants,review the design process, Head ‐ Addi onal Municipal Commissioner
empaneled consultants, review the design process, approve the dra and final design report, ini ate the ( Roads)
approve the dra and final design report, ini ate the Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer, tendering process and finally give the work comple on
tendering process and finally give the work comple on Dy CE and an experienced External le er. Experienced government authori es (re red or
le er. adviser from STAC and allied addi onal charge), Experienced Urban Designers
representa ves of PMPML / MSEB / The role of the USDG cell is to ensure that the process and and planners (teaching faculty), senior level
• The role of the USDG cell is to ensure that the process Garden Dept / other road the proposed design as worked out by the appointed transporta on expert, civil engineer, es mate
and the proposed design as worked out by the appointed dept etc. consultant is in compliance with the recommenda ons of commi ee rep. and ac vists and CIC representa ve
consultant is in compliance with the recommenda ons of USDG before approving the dra design proposal.
Approve
USDG before approving the dra design proposal. Approve
design
A er approval of dra design proposal by the USDG cell, design
• A er approval of dra design proposal by the USDG cell, the consultant shall then prepare detail design and project
the consultant shall then prepare detail design and Urban designer Tender report including cos ng and phasing of the project and Urban designer Tender
project report including cos ng and phasing of the firm from empaneled for contractor submit to ACE and concerned Authori es. firm from empaneled for contractor
project and submit to ACE and concerned Authori es. consultants
• USDG cell and ACE to give final work comple on le er consultants
a er proper scru ny of work.
• The USDG cell shall then review the proposal and give
approval. A er final approval, USDG cell shall ini ate the
tendering process to appoint the contractor. The urban
designer shall supervise the work and report every stage
to the USDG cell.
13 1 1 13 2
IMPLEMENTATION OF URBAN
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PUNE
Graphical representa on Op on 4 Graphical representa on
Op on 3
PMC has to approve USDG in its General Body and formulate
PMC has to approve USDG in its General Body. A er
an Expert Commi ee headed
approval City ImprovementCommi ee and Hon.
PMC to approve USDG in by AMC (Roads) PMC to approve USDG in
Commissioner shall give instruc ons to PMC Road
general body mee ng general body mee ng
Department for adop ng USDG for all aspects related to The commi ee to comprise of USDG representa ve,
road development of Pune city. representa ve from Traffic department,PMPML, traffic
Commissioner+ City police, MSEB, city based ac vists, environmentalist &local
PMC Road Department shall undertake the capacity Improvement Commi ee corporator. PMC
building program for Assistant Engineers , Junior Engineers, Instruct Forma on
all Deputy City Engineers and other concerned authority to The commi ee to meet once a month to discuss only
make them acquainted with the USDG process and designs of streets prepared by appointed Urban Designer / External USDG Design cell
PMC Road department
recommenda ons and train them for its proper firms.
implementa on and execu on. • The appointed Urban Designer firms will present the Head ‐ ACE( Roads)
• The role of ACE will be to appoint an Urban Designer Dra design to the expert commi ee. the consultant
firm from empaneled consultants,review the design shall modify the designs as per the sugges ons of the The commi ee to comprise of
process, approve the dra and final design report, Capacity building of expert commi ee ll he gets final approval. USDG representa ve, representa ve
ini ate the tendering process and finally give the work department engineers from Traffic department, PMPML,
comple on le er. for understanding • The ACE (roads) to tender the approved designs to the traffic police, MSEB, city based
USDG. contractor and give instruc ons for ensuring that the ac vists, environmentalist &local
• The role of the USDG cell is to ensure that the process work is in compliance with the USDG recommenda ons. corporator.
and the proposed design as worked out by the
appointed consultant is in compliance with the • The appointed consultant to supervise the street Approve
recommenda ons of USDG before approving the dra ACE Road department ‐ construc on work and present report of compliant and design
design proposal. incharge of USDG non compliant areas to ACE (roads)
Urban designer Tender
A er approval of dra design proposal by the USDG cell, • Appointed consultant to highlight his non compliant
Approve Appoint firm from empaneled for contractor
the consultant shall then prepare detail design and project areas sta ng valid and prac cal reasons and get an NOC
design consultants
report including cos ng and phasing of the project and from ACE (roads). ACE to issue copy of NOC to AMC Urban designer firm from
submit to ACE and concerned Authori es. (roads). empaneled consultants
Urban designer Tender Timely review of the proposed and
USDG cell and ACE to give final work comple on le er a er firm from empaneled for contractor submi ed designs to finalise the
• ACE (Roads) to issue final work comple on le er.
proper scru ny of work. consultants appointment of the consultant.
13 3 1 13 4
IMPLEMENTATION OF URBAN
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PUNE
Graphical representa on Op on 6 Graphical representa on
Op on 5
PMC has to approve USDG in its General Body and then PMC has to approve USDG in its General Body and then
formulate an Ci zens Cell headed by MC, PMC. formulate an Ci zens Cell headed by MC, PMC.
PMC to approve USDG in PMC to approve USDG in
The ci zens cell will of comprise of USDG representa ve, general body meeting ACE(Street Designs)will be a qualified experienced senior general body mee ng
local corporator and representa ve of NGO working for the person with proper know how of city's transporta on
traffic sector in Pune. infrastructure.
PMC ‐ Crea on of new post of
The ci zen cell to meet once a month to discuss only PMC ACE (SD) to appoint qualified internal team of young ACE(street designs)
designs of streets prepared by appointed Urban Designer / Forma on Architects, civil engineers, traffic planners etc and external Forma on
firms. commi ee of experts from varied departments and ci zens
• The appointed Urban Designer firm will present the Dra Ci zens' cell representa ves. PMC internal team
design to the ci zens cell. Head ‐ Addi onal Municipal Head ‐ ACE(street design)
Commissioner, PMC. The ci zens cell Any street design assignment to have designs ve ed and Architects, civil engineers, traffic
• A er taking the sugges ons the consultant to modify the to comprise of USDG representa ve, inspected by ACE (SD) who will co‐ordinate with ACE planners etc and external commi ee
designs ll he gets final approval from the ci zens cell. local corporator and representa ve (roads) and both will jointly approve the designs. of experts from varied departments
of NGO working on traffic in Pune. and ci zens representa ves.
• The ACE (roads) to tender the approved designs to the Once the designs are approved the appointed consultant
contractor and give instruc ons for being complaint with has to prepare detail designs, phasing and cos ng and
USDG report. Approve ACE, (Roads)
Approve present report to ACE (SD) and ACE (roads).
design
design
• The appointed consultant to supervise the street Appointed consultant has to submit report of non USDG
construc on work and present report of compliant and Urban designer ACE, (Roads) compliant areas sta ng valid and prac cal reasons to ACE
non compliant areas to ACE (roads) (SD) who has to give NOC to the same. Urban designer ACE, (Roads)
firm from empaneled Tender for
consultants firm from empaneled Tender for
contractor
• Appointed consultant to highlight his non compliant consultants
Urban designer firmcontractor
from
Appointed consultant to submit report of each stage of
areas sta ng valid and prac cal reasons and get an NOC construc on to ACE (roads) with copy to ACE (SD) empaneled consultants
from ACE (roads). ACE to issue copy of NOC to Ci zens Timely review of the proposed and Timely review of the proposed and
cell and MC. submi ed designs to finalise the submi ed designs to finalise the
ACE (roads) and ACE (SD) jointly to issue comple on
appointment of the consultant. appointment of the consultant.
cer ficate.
• ACE (Roads) & Ci zens cell to issue final work comple on
le er.
13 5 1 13 6
IMPLEMENTATION OF URBAN
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PUNE
Graphical representa on
Op on 7 Stakeholders' consulta on conducted with PMC representa ves, ci zens and other agencies.
PMC has to approve USDG
PMC Road Department shall undertake the capacity building PMC to approve USDG in
program for Assistant Engineers ,Junior Engineers, all Deputy general body mee ng
City Engineers and other concerned authority to make them
acquainted with the USDG process and recommenda ons and
train them for its proper implementa on and execu on.
PMC
PMC Road department to include STAC COMMITTEE for
implementa on of USDG.
13 7 1 13 8
URBAN STREET DESIGN GUIDELINES AIMS TO BRING CHANGE IN CURRENT CONDITION OF STREETS IN PUNE.
APPENDICES
Fig no. Descrip on Fig
Fig no.
no. Descrip
Descrip on
on
2.1.1 V/C ra o on major roads of Pune 6.5.5 Op on 4: bus stop within MUB for wider streets with service lanes.
2.1.2 T rend and type of road accidents from 2001‐12 6.5.6 Op on 5:bus stop within MUB adjoining footpath for wider streets
2.1.3 Trends in changing pa ern of Mobility of Pune city. 6.5.7 Op on 6 :bus stop loca on for wider streets with cycle tracks.
2.1.4 Noise levels in commercial and residen al areas from 2008‐2012 6.5.1 Proposed mass transit Sytems in Pune.
2.1.5 Percep on on the exposure to air pollu on in different transport modes 7.1.1 Ideal design for at grade crossing showing zebra crossing and refuge island
2.1.6 Share of emission in different sectors 7.1.2 Type design of four arm channelized intersec on showing arrangement of zebra crossing
2.1.7 Deaths due to airborne diseases in Pune from 2003‐2011 7.1.3 Mid‐block crossing curb extensions provide be er visibility for motorist and pedestrians
2.1.8 Rela on between traffic count and social interac ons across streets. 7.2.1 Types of traffic calming measures
4.2.1 Map of Pune city showing proposed street hierarchy 7.7.2 Loca on of street furniture
5.1 Comparison between conven onal sustainable approach for street designing. 7.7.3 Placement of signage
6.2.1 Space requirements for cycle paths 8.1.1 Mul U lity Belt as proposed in IRC
6.2.2 Ways of segrega ng cycle tracks from pedestrian paths 8.1.2 Recommended Typical MUB
6.5.1 Exis ng typical layout of bus stop in Pune 8.2.1 Schema c representa on of typology of trees
6.5.2 Op on 1: bus stop loca on for streets with 1.8 m wide footpath. 8.2.2 Recommenda ons for planta on with respect to property access, street lights and bus stops
6.5.3 Op on 2: bus stop loca on for streets with 1.8 m wide footpath on narrow streets. 8.2.3 Recommenda on for planta on at intersec ons
6.5.4 Op on 3: bus stop loca on for wider streets with wider footpaths 8.3.1 Placement of u li es on footpaths
APPENDICES
Fig no. Descrip on Table no. Descrip on
8.3.2 Placement of underground u li es for streets with RoW 6m to 15 m 2.1.1 Rela on between number of vehicles and average speed
8.3.3 Placement of underground u li es for streets with RoW 18 m. 2.1.2 Road space u lised by registered vehicles by March 2013
8.3.4 Placement of underground u li es for streets with RoW more than 18 m. 2.3.1 List of reference documents for secondary data.
8.4.1 Map indica ng storm water drain basins for Pune city 4.1.1 Percentage of exis ng road length based on road widths for Pune.
8.4.2 Structural detail for pavement with permeable pavers 4.2.1 Range of RoW for proposed street hierarchy for Pune
9.1 Various forms of planned of interesec ons 6.3.1 Recommended space alloca on for carriageway for various RoW.
9.2 I of ntersec on with varying road hierarchy 6.4.1 Recommended parking op ons as per RoW
10.1 The Merger & Diverter blocks to be designed in such a way that conflict is avoided 6.6.1 Pune Metro Corridors
11.2.1 Space allowances for wheelchair movement 7.1.1 Design requirements for zebra crossing
11.2.2 Detectable reach of a cane user 7.3.1 Recommended type of TCM based on ROW
11.3.1 Spacing of bollards 7.3.2 Recommenda on for loca on and dimensions of bollards.
11.4.1 Types of guiding blocks 7.6.1 Recommenda on for street ligh ng.
11.4.2 Ideal pa ern of guiding blocks for footpath 7.10.1 Placement and type of adver sement structure
11.5.1 Components of curb ramp 8.1.1 Recommended width of MUB for various RoW.
11.5.2 Alterna ves for placement and type of curb ramps 8.2.1 Recommended size of tree trunk and grates
11.9.1 Size and layout for toilets and WC for disables 8.2.2 Recommended loca on and placement of trees on streets.