Você está na página 1de 87

RE DEVELOPMENT OF KIDWAI NAGAR (EAST) IS A PRESTIGIOUS PROJECT UNDER MINISTRY OF 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF INDIA

NBCC, A NAVRATANA CPSE UNDER MOUD,  IS THE IMPLEMENTING AGENCY  FOR THIS 
PRESTIGIOUS PROJECT
TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS

Engineering and Planning Consultants


SCOPE

PROPOSAL FOR CONNECTIVITY OF  EAST KIDWAI NAGAR

• Towards Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Setu (BBSB Setu) phase II

• Safe Pedestrian Crossing at T‐ Junction of BBSB Setu Phase 


II & Aurbindo Marg
PROJECT  STATISTICS
• Kidwai Nagar (East) has been identified as one of the colonies for redevelopment as General
Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) on 27/07/1993 under Approved Zone D in Master
Plan of Delhi by DDA .
 2444 nos. (Type‐I, Type II &  Type V quarters )
Existing structures
 3 Schools, Some local shopping markets,
(in 2013)
 Religious structures, etc.
Plot Area  • 86 Acres  (3,48,029 Sqm) 
Area under Darya Khan Tomb (schedule B)  • 14 acres 
Area under Redevelopment  • 72 acres 
FAR permissible  as per MPD 2021  • 300 (10,44,087 sqm) 
FAR achieved  • 203 (6,96,167 sqm) 
Office / commercial  complex as permissible  • 10% (1,04,412 sqm) 
Car parking provided in basement  • 10639 nos 
Total Density Achieved  • 134 DU/ Ha 
Total Ground Coverage Achieved  • 23.43% 
Existing green area  • 13% (47,000 sq M ) 
Green area provided  • 47% (1,65,000 sq M)
PROJECT  STATISTICS

Existing
Sl No HOUSING  TYPE  (IN 2013) PROPOSED

1
Type I  1336  Nil 
2
Type II  1000  780 
3
Type III  1025 
4
Type IV  1472 
5
Type V  108 1078 
6
Type VI  192 
7
Type VII  61 
Total Nos. of Units 2444 4608
SITE AND ENVIRONS

TOWARDS SARAI 
KALE KHAN

VIKAS 
SADAN

DILLI  PROJECT SITE 
TO DHAULA  HAAT SOUTH  
KUAN
EXT.

RING     ROAD 
SAFDARJANG  AIIMS 
HOSPITAL 
EARLIER APPROVED ACCESS SYSTEM

ACCESS‐1
ACCESS‐
2
ACCESS ‐ ACCESS ‐
4  3 

ACCESS‐5 

ACCESS‐8
ACCESS‐6 ACCESS‐7 
Back ground/Chronology

 In earlier approved access system 4 nos entry/exit (namely 1 to 4 ) were present towards upcoming Baba 

Banda Singh Bahadur Setu (BBSB Setu) Phase II road/flyover construction. Same was to be incorporated by 

PWD in their connectivity drawing

 While PWD submitted the connectivity drawing to UTTIPEC entry/exit no 1 & 2 were incorporated but 

entry/exit 3 & 4 were not incorporated due to some technical reason (presence of JJ cluster).

 For entry/exit 3 & 4 joint survey was conducted by UTTIPEC/PWD/DMRC/NBCC In the joint survey it was 

observed that entry/exit 3 & 4 was not possible due to presence of JJ cluster, hence NBCC was advised to 

carry out the feasibility study with alternate plan

 NBCC appointed M/s EPC  to carried out feasibility study and prepared alternate plan in concurrence with 

PWD and DMRC

 The  feasibility report was submitted to UTTIPEC which was reviewed in Working Group‐II A , 34th meeting 

held on 07.04.2016. In this meeting, group members had certain observations which were incorporated 

and presented in 35th Working Group Meeting held on 25.05.2016.
Contd.

 In 35th Working Group meeting of UTTIPEC held on 25.05.2016 in which it was recommended that 
PWD & NBCC will  integrate the safe pedestrian crossing at Aurobindo Marg T‐ Junction and will 
submit the road safety audit report for further discussion in working group meeting

 M/s EPC and M/s RITES was engaged by NBCC to prepare proposal for Safe Pedestrian Crossing and 
Conduct Traffic Safety audit at T‐ Junction of  BBSB Setu Phase II road/flyover & Aurbindo Marg. 
Same was presented in 39th Working Group Meeting held on 07.02.2017.

 The proposals of signalized at grade crossing at T Junction and underpass across Aurbindo Marg for 
safe pedestrian crossing was recommended by Working Group and it was advised that NBCC should 
submit it with the comments of all stakeholders for further consideration by Governing Body. 

 Proposed connectivity no 3 & 4, prepared in concurrence with NBCC, PWD & DMRC and Proposal of  
safe pedestrian crossing at T‐ Junction is being submitted for further consideration of Governing 
Body.
Proposed Access 3 & 4 ( Mutually agreed by PWD, NBCC & DMRC)
DETAIL OF MODIFIED ACCESSES

BUS STOP AS
PER MMI
PLAN

TWO LANE SUGGESTIVE KASHMIRI


ONEWAY CB MARKET ACCESS
MARG

Pedestrian plaza

RUMBLE
STRIPS OR
ANY TRAFFIC
CALMING
CRITICAL MEASURES
PEDESTRIAN
AREA
VIEW OF PROPOSED ACCESS NO 3
DETAIL OF AFFECTED ACCESSES (ACCESS NO 3)

NALA
VIEWS OF  PROPOSED ACCESS ‐3 FROM NMT AREA 

NALA
VIEW FROM KIDWAI NAGAR PROJECT TOWARDS  INA SIDE
VIEW FROM KIDWAI NAGAR PROJECT TOWARDS  INA SIDE

EAST KIDWAI  NAGAR 
BONDARY

INSIDE  

BACK

EAST KIDWAI  NAGAR 
BONDARY

INSIDE  
SAFETY AUDIT OF PEDESTRIAN SAFETY MEASURES AT T-
JUNCTION OF BABA BANDA SINGH BAHADUR SETU WITH
AUROBINDO MARG
STUDY LOCATION

Metro
entry/exit

Metro entry/exit
SITE APPRECIATION

Downstream Ramp of BBSB Setu (Gradient 2.56%) Upstream Ramp of BBSB Setu (Gradient 2.5%)

View of study location for pedestrian crossing View of Study location from Delhi haat
SITE APPRECIATION

U/C ramp of BSSB setu in Barapullah Drain (Gradient 3.8%) INA market

U/C INA Interchange entry/exit Existing Pedestrian activity on Aurobindo Marg


SITE APPRECIATION

Pedestrians at INA metro station NMT vehicles on C.B. Marg

View of Aurobindo Marg (near Petrol Pump) Traffic waiting on pedestrian signal on Aurobindo Marg
SITE APPRECIATION

Queue of Vehicles at Petrol Pump on Aurobindo marg Pedestrian Plaza of Delhi Haat

BBSB Setu
NBCC Delhi haat Metro U/C
Complex U/C
U/C

Aurobindo marg
A panoramic view of Aurobindo Marg with BBSB Setu and NBCC complex on LHS and Delhi haat and U/C INA
metro entry/exit on RHS
CHECKLIST 16 – SAFETY AUDIT FOR VULNERABLE ROAD USERS

Sl # DESCRIPTION OBSERVATIONS

1 Has there been a survey of non-motorised vehicle Details not available


and pedestrian flows?
2 Will there be any major conflicts between motorized Yes, Pedestrians will
traffic and pedestrians and other disabled / have conflict with traffic
handicapped road users? on elevated road while
crossing the road

3 Have pedestrians need for crossing the road and Zebra Crossings with
walking safely alongside it been adequately Pelican signals proposed
provided for?

4 Have measures been taken to reduce the accident Details not shown
risk for children going to and from roadside schools
(Pedestrian guardrail may be needed to prevent
children from running out into the road)?
CHECKLIST 16 – SAFETY AUDIT FOR VULNERABLE ROAD USERS

OBSERVATIONS
Sl. # DESCRIPTION

5. Have the need of cyclists and other non- Cyclist will cross the road
motorised vehicles been provided along with pedestrian

6. Where necessary, is fencing installed to guide Details not available


pedestrians and cyclists at crossings or
overpasses?
SAFETY AUDIT FOR VULNERABLE ROAD USERS

Sl # SAFETY ISSUES/CONCERNS OBSERVATIONS

1 Zebra crossing proposed at the merging of 2.56% Two sets of Raised Bar
down gradient / 2.5% up gradient markings proposed on
down gradients to warn
the drivers

2 It will be difficult for the speeding vehicle to stop on Pelican signal have been
down gradient proposed to stop the
traffic
SAFETY ENHANCMENT –SPEED REDUCTION BY HORIZONTAL GEOMETRY

 Design speed at the intersection shall be 40% of


approach speed

 As elevated highway design speed is 80 km/hr, speed


intersection shall be 32 km/hr

 A reverse curve of 60m radius provided 200m before


intersection i.e. a design speed of 30 km/hr

 A 15m curve provided at intersection with Aurbindo


Marg i.e. a design speed of 15 km/hr
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE (IRC 66-1976)
SAFETY ENHANCMENT –RAISED BAR MARKINGS AS PER IRC 35 (2015)
SAFETY ENHANCMENT –RAISED TABLE TOP CROSSING AS PER IRC 103(2012)

Signalized turning pockets may be provided where left-


turning volumes are high. Raised table top crossings may
also be introduced and shall invariably be provided at slip
roads, with a minimum 20-seoond pedestrian signal, to allow
pedestrian and cyclists to cross the road safely and
comfortably at the same level. Table top with flat surface will
be preceded followed by the gradient at 1:15
SAFETY ENHANCMENT –RAISED TABLE TOP CROSSING AS PER IRC 103(2012)
ESTIMATION OF PEDESTRIAN TRIPS

 Zoning of Project Site

(INA Metro stn.)

(South-ex Metro stn.)


(AIIMS Metro stn.)
ESTIMATION OF PEDESTRIAN TRIPS

 Zone‐wise distribution of Housing units and office complex

NO. OF DWELLING UNITS


FLAT TYPE
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3
Type 2 355 - 425
Type 3 683 - 342
Type 4 779 - 606
Type 5 504 630 -
Type 6 - 192 -
Type 7 - 61 -
Total 2361 883 1373

Zone No. Office Complex (in sqm)


2 52,000
3 52,000
ESTIMATION OF PEDESTRIAN TRIPS

 Assumptions for Daily Trip Estimation


Trip Factor Assumption
Average house hold size 4
Per Capita Trip Rate (PCTR) 2
Peak Hour Trip Share 10% of Daily Trips
ESTIMATION OF PEDESTRIAN TRIPS

 Assumptions for PT Trip Estimation


Type of Housing PT Share (%)
Type 2 and Type 3  80%
Type 4, Type 5, Type 6  & Type 7 40%
Office complex 70%

 Estimated Trips

Zone  Daily PT Trips Peak PT Trips Influence  Metro Station


1 11280 1128 INA 
2 8660 866 South‐ex
3 12784 1278 AIIMS 
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC VOLUME ON MAJOR ROADS

Peak Hour Traffic (No. of Vehicles) growth @5%


Road
Direction of Traffic
Name 2016 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Baba To Aurobindo marg 2882 3679 3863 4056 4259 4472 4695 4930
Banda
Singh From Aurobindo marg 1275 1627 1708 1793 1883 1977 2076 2180
Bahadur
Setu From AIIMS Ramp 1275 1627 1708 1793 1883 1977 2076 2180

AIIMS to INA 5758 7349 7717 8102 8507 8933 9380 9848
Aurobindo
Marg
INA to AIIMS 5506 7027 7379 7748 8135 8542 8969 9417

C.B. Marg To Thyagraj stadium 1386 1769 1857 1950 2047 2150 2257 2370

Source: Barapullah Phase‐1 traffic data (2013), PWD, Aurobindo Marg and CB marg traffic data (2015), RITES
ALTERNATIVE OPTION EVALUATION

1. AT-GRADE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITY

2. FOOT OVER BRIDGE OVER BBSB SETU

3. SUBWAY UNDER AUROBINDO MARG


WALKING DISTANCE MEASUREMENT FOR ALL OPTIONS

FOB
95 -110 Meter

AT-GRADE
FOOT OVER BRIDGE
SUBWAY
ALTERNATIVE OPTION EVALUATION

AT-GRADE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITY


STUDY OBJECTIVES

• Evaluation of pedestrian/vehicular delay and queue lengths for different scenarios to


analyse the requirement of pedestrian facilities for safe crossing of pedestrians
Simulation Model Development
NEED FOR SIMULATION

The micro-simulation models not only build confidence in the proposal but also:

• Model vehicular/pedestrian conflict realistically for accessing impact of


various scenarios on delay/queue lengths to evaluate guidelines as per IRC
103-2012

• Models vehicular and pedestrian behaviour accurately with scientifically calibrated


models

• Provides credibility on the estimated delays and queues, considering various


dynamic factors such as arrival rates, speeds/accelerations/

• Helps model scenarios such as violations and assessment of Intelligent transport


systems efficacy such as push button signals.

Software Used: PTV VISSIM is a microscopic, time step and behavior based simulation
model and it is the most powerful tool available for simulating multi-modal traffic flows,
including cars, trucks, buses, heavy rail, trams, LRT, bicyclists and pedestrians.
SIMULATION METHODOLOGY

Data Collection and Compilation 

Geometric Data  Traffic/Pedestrian Data 
Data Processing & Analysis
(Road Network) (Volumes, Composition)

Network Setup in VISSIM 
(Simulation Software)

Use calibrated  Calibration and Validation of the 
• AM Peak Controlled and 
parameters Simulation Model for peak hour  Uncontrolled Scenario 
year 2016
• AM Peak Controlled 
Evaluation and comparison of  Scenario and violations 
Proposed Models year 2021
• Capacity Analysis with 
Observations and  grade separated options
Inferences
MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS

Parameters
• Warm up period of Model Inputs Evaluations
900secs • Vehicular Volume • Base Model
• Driver Behavior Input • Proposed Scenario
• Conflict areas • Pedestrian Volume
• Reduced speed area Input
• Give way coding • Signal timings
• Lateral gap • Vehicle /Pedestrian
classification and
• Vehicle speed related properties
• Lane changing
distance
• Gap Acceptance
SIMULATION GLOBAL PARAMETERS

The simulation model is set to simulate 15 Minutes + 1 Hour of which first


15 minutes are modelled as buffer time for the build of the simulation model
and last 1 hour is the peak hour. All observations were taken 3600
simulation seconds of the peak hour operations.
As all micro-simulation models are stochastic in nature, there is a degree of
randomness associated with all distributions. The random seed parameter
controls the random number generator in the simulation. Simulation runs
with identical input files and random seeds generate identical results. A
micro-simulation model must therefore be run with different random seed
values to average the stochastic variations in the model. The model runs
with five different random seed values, from which the results are taken and
averaged before presentation.
ASSUMPTIONS

 Pedestrian speed -1.2 m/sec (as per IRC 103-2012)

 Pedestrian Peak Composition :


 60% Men, 30% Women, 10% Child

 Effects of pedestrian grouping, gap acceptance response to approaching


vehicle, pedestrian crossing speed variations, compliance to signals

 For all scenarios with signalized crossing for pedestrians, the green time
is kept at 20 seconds for pedestrians phase as per IRC 103-2012
guidelines
NETWORK SETUP

Data Processing & Analysis

Links And Connectors (Road Network)

Vehicle Types with acceleration and desired speed curves

Calibrated driving/pedestrian behavior parameters

Calibrated driving behavior parameters are taken from the consultants previous
simulation work. References our given at the end of the presentation
AVERAGE TRAFFIC COMPOSITION (BARAPULLAH DOWNSTREAM)

Traffic Composition

Desired Speed range
Vehicle type Mean Desired Speed Range

Car 65 Km/Hr 45‐100 Km/hr

Two Wheeler 45 Km/Hr 30‐80 Km/hr


LITERATURE REVIEW | CRITICAL GAP

Min. Gap Acceptance Time: The


vehicle/pedestrian must wait at red bar if
the current time gap is less than the value
which has been entered.

• Average gap accepted by the


pedestrians : 5.02 s to 7.19 s
based on gender and 4.73 s to
7.76 s based on age.

• Priority rules are used in Vissim


to model gap acceptance
behaviour
EVALUATION CRITERIA UNCONTROLLED CROSSING

Uncontrolled Crossing Scenario with No Signals

As per IRC 103-2012, for providing controlled crossing following criteria needs to be evaluated:

• Peak Hour volume of pedestrians(P) and Vehicles(V) : PV2 > 2x108


• Speed of approaching vehicles is more than 65kph
• Waiting time for pedestrians/vehicles becomes too long (evaluated using simulation)
• Accident data indicating more than 5 accidents per year due to vehicle collision

Table below indicate the level of service limits as per IRC 103-2012
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR CONTROLLED CROSSING

Controlled Crossing Scenario with No Signals

As per IRC 103-2012

• High pedestrians/vehicular volume increase cycle time


beyond 120 seconds (Evaluated using Micro simulation)
• Vehicular traffic demands uninterrupted flow
• At-grade crossing fails to mitigation problems related to
accident.
DELAY AND QUEUE MEASUREMENT SECTIONS

Queue counter locations

Queue Counter
TERMINOLOGY

• Vehicle delay: Average delay of all vehicles/Pedestrians

The delay of a vehicle in leaving a travel time measurement is


obtained by subtracting the theoretical (ideal) travel time from
the actual travel time.

• Average/Maximum queue length


Observations | Base Year 2016 | AM Peak Uncontrolled Scenario
AM PEAK UNCONTROLLED SCENARIO | MODEL SNAPSHOT

• Model evaluated for 3 gap acceptance levels, of 4 seconds, 5.5 seconds


and 7 seconds, with 4 seconds representing most aggressive pedestrian
behaviour

No Signals
AM PEAK UNCONTROLLED SCENARIO | ESTIMATED DELAY
AM Peak Uncontrolled Scenario | Estimated Delay | Observations

• Average Vehicular delay for all critical gap acceptance value is more than
95 seconds, with maximum estimated average delay of 111 seconds for
critical gap acceptance value of 4 seconds.

• For pedestrian movement average delay at critical gap values of 4


seconds, 5.5 seconds, 7 seconds, are 24 seconds, 26 seconds and 48
seconds respectively, for the movement from NBCC Complex to Metro
station and 24 seconds, 26 seconds and 39 seconds respectively, for the
movement from Metro station to NBCC Complex, indicating level of
service C-D

• Maximum pedestrian delay are estimated at 87 seconds for NBCC


Complex to metro station movement and 70 seconds for Metro Station to
NBCC Complex movement
AM Peak Uncontrolled Scenario | Percentile Delay Values

• For gap acceptance of 4 seconds and 5.5 seconds, 90% of the delay values are less
than 43 sec and 42 sec.
• For gap acceptance of 7 seconds, only 50% of the delay values are fit in the range
for LOS C for the movement for the side.
AM Peak Uncontrolled Scenario | Estimated Vehicular Queue Length

Average queue lengths for Vehicles at Pedestrian Crossing (in mts)


Critical Gap Acceptance Critical Gap Acceptance (5.5 Critical Gap Acceptance (7
(4 Seconds) Seconds) Seconds)
351.90 m 325.55 m 268.60 m
Observations | Base Year 2016 | AM Peak Controlled Scenario
AM Peak Controlled Scenario | Model Snapshot

• Model evaluated for cycle time 90 seconds and 120 seconds

With Signals
AM Peak Controlled Scenario | Estimated Delay

• Average Vehicular delay for both cycle time is less than 21 seconds, which is
significant improvement from value of more than 95 seconds estimated in
uncontrolled scenario
AM Peak Controlled Scenario | Estimated Delay | Observations

• For cycle time of 90 seconds is average delay is 29 second for both


movements

• For cycle time of 120 seconds, average delay increases to 37 seconds for
towards metro station movement and 41 seconds for opposite movement.

• Maximum Pedestrian delay is estimated at 54 seconds with cycle time


120 seconds,

• maximum vehicular delay at 40 seconds for cycle time 90 seconds

• It is further observed that average values indicate the 90% percentile


delay values for all the movements,
AM Peak Controlled Scenario | Estimated Vehicular Queue Length

Cycle time 90 seconds Cycle time 120 seconds


Average Queue Maximum Queue Average Queue Maximum Queue
Lengths Length Lengths Length
23.39m 120.55m 13.77m 95m
AM Peak Controlled Scenario | Estimated Queues | Observations

• Average queue lengths is estimated at more than 24m for cycle time 90
seconds

• Average queue lengths reduced to 13m for cycle time 120 seconds,

• Maximum queue length is estimated with cycle time 90 seconds at 120m

• Cycle time of 120 seconds provided overall better level of service


for vehicles,

• Cycle time 90 seconds provided better LOS for pedestrians


Comparison of Uncontrolled & Controlled Scenarios – Base year
2016
Comparing Average Queue Lengths for Vehicles

• Average queue lengths with uncontrolled scenario are very high as


compared with controlled scenario

• It is recommended to evaluate only controlled scenarios for horizon years


Comparing Average Delay

• Average delay for pedestrians is similar in both scenarios, but for vehicles average delay
reduces significantly in the controlled scenario

• Further, recommended to evaluate only controlled scenarios for horizon years


Observations | Horizon Year 2021 | AM Peak Controlled Scenario
AM Peak Controlled Scenario | Year 2021

• Model evaluated for cycle time 90 seconds and 120 seconds

With Signals and Barapullah Downstream


Volume 3679 PCU’s
Controlled AM Peak| Horizon Year 2021 | Estimated Delays

The graph above shows the average and maximum estimated delay for both
pedestrian movement and vehicular movement for the controlled scenario
AM Peak Controlled Scenario | Estimated Delays | Observations

• With cycle time of 90 seconds the average estimated delay


for vehicular movement is 86 seconds, which reduces to 37
seconds with cycle time of 120 seconds.

• Maximum delay is estimated at 142 seconds for vehicular


traffic with cycle time 90 seconds

• For pedestrian movement, the average delay is highest with


value of 42 seconds with cycle time of 120 seconds, which
indicate level of service C-D.
Controlled AM Peak | Estimated Queue Length

• Average estimated queue lengths are 175m & 60m with cycle time of 90 seconds
& 120 sec.

• Recommended to have a cycle time of 120 seconds, with 20 seconds


pedestrians phase,
Observations | Horizon Year 2021 AM Peak | Violations Scenario
Estimated Delay Controlled AM Peak

Cycle time : 120 seconds

It is observed with cycle time 120 seconds, that as violations increase the average delay for
vehicles increase, at level of 20% average estimated delay is 70 seconds which is 30 seconds
higher if no violations are observed.
Observations | Horizon Year | Capacity Analysis
OBSERVATIONS WITH CONTROLLED SCENARIO

• Need for grade separated option for the horizon years 2022-2027
• Cycle time of 120 seconds is used.

Estimated 
Average queue  Average Maximum 
Year Downstream Volumes
length(m) Queue Length(m)
Veh/Hr (PCUS)
2022 3863(3442) 69 180
2023 4056 (3615) 139 274
2024 4259 (3795) 184 325
2025 4472 (3975) 235 378
2026 4184 (4695) 249 390
2027 4393 (4930) 266 395

• The road capacity of the section is estimated near 3800 PCU/Hour with cycle
time 120 seconds
• In 2024, estimated volumes near capacity and the average queue lengths are
estimated at 184m which indicate the controlled scenario is no more suitable at-
grade pedestrian controlled crossing as higher green phase would be required
for vehicles
OBSERVATIONS WITH CONTROLLED SCENARIO

• Need for grade separated option for the horizon years 2022-2027
• Cycle time of 150 seconds is used.

Estimated 
Average Maximum Queue 
Year Downstream Volumes Average queue length(m)
Length(m)
PCU’S and (Veh/Hr)

2022 3863(3442) 34 128


2023 4056 (3615) 65 204
2024 4259 (3795) 114 283
2025 4472 (3975) 164 352
2026 4184 (4695) 182 358
2027 4393 (4930) 226 415
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Control Type Year 2016 Traffic Year 2021 Traffic (Level Year 2024 and
(Level of service (LOS)) of service (LOS)) Beyond

Uncontrolled Pedestrian LOS : C - -


Vehicle LOS: Poor

Controlled Cycle Pedestrians: LOS B Pedestrians: LOS C-D LOS very Poor
time 90 seconds Vehicles LOS : Good Vehicles LOS: Poor Vehicular Traffic
Recommended Option

Cycle Time 120 Pedestrians: LOS B Pedestrians: LOS C-D LOS very Poor
Seconds Vehicles LOS : Poor Vehicles LOS: Good Vehicular Traffic
Recommended Option

Grade - - Recommended
Separated Option
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• Uncontrolled crossing is not recommended due to high vehicular delays available

• Violations by pedestrians have significant effect on the delay for the vehicular
traffic

• Controlled crossing is required for providing better LOS for upstream volumes
more than 2400 PCU/hr on BBSB setu

• In this case, while proposing signals, the queue length for vehicles needs to be
considered as it may extend on the main carriageway of Aurbindo marg

• Continuous increase in queue length on BBSB setu (downstream traffic) for


Horizon years.

• Need for grade separated pedestrian facility after Horizon year 2024
PEDESTRIAN VULNERABILITY

As per IRC code IRC‐103‐2012, to qualify as a grade separated 
pedestrian crossing facility, a location should have: 

Where, P = Peak hour pedestrian flow and V = Peak hour vehicular


volume
The value of PV2/108 higher than or equals to 2 for any location
indicates high conflict between pedestrian across movement and flow
of traffic.
Thus, need for a grade separated pedestrian facility.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INCLUDING ACCESS 3 AND 4 WITH PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY

Access-3

Access-4

PEDESTRIAN SUBWAY DETAILS

ACCESS -4 DETAILS
ALTERNATIVE OPTION EVALUATION

FOOT OVER BRIDGE ACROSS BBSB SETU


F.O.B ACROSS BBSB SETU

Metro Station

PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT
NBCC COMPLEX

Peak hour Pedestrian Across  Peak hour Vehicular 
Location PV2/108
Volume (2021) Volume (2021)
Across BBSB SETU 1128 6828 526

 The high value of PV2/108 shows the need of grade separated


pedestrian facility.
CROSS-SECTION OF FOB OPTION

 Option for F.O.B over the BBSB Setu require minimum height of 14‐
15 meters to maintain the vertical clearance of 5.5 m free above
roadway.
SUBWAY BELOW AUROBINDO MARG

Metro Station
Metro Station

NBCC COMPLEX

Peak hour Pedestrian Across  Peak hour Vehicular 
Location PV2/108
Volume (2021) Volume (2021)
Across Aurobindo marg 1128 18055 3677

 The high value of PV2/108 shows the need of grade separated


pedestrian facility.
 Proposal may be adopted as per conclusion of all scenarios.
CROSS-SECTION OF SUBWAY OPTION

 Access to Delhi Haat and INA Metro station entry/exit


 Land requirement for Subway entry/exit
REFERENCES
1: *Marisamynathan ., Vedagiri Perumal “Study on pedestrian crossing behavior at signalized
intersections”, Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering 2014
2: *Chaudhari, Shah, Arkatkar “Examining Effect Of Individual Characteristics On Walking
Speed 1 At Un-signalized Mid-block Crossings”, 96th Annual Transportation Research
Board meeting, Washington D.C.
3. Bains M S, Ponnu B, Arkatkar S S (2012). Modelling of traffic flow on Indian expressways
49 using simulation technique. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 43, 475 493
4. Bains M S, Anshuman Bhardwaj, Shriniwas Arkatkar , S. Velmurugan (2013) Effect of 1
Speed Limit Compliance on Roadway Capacity of Indian Expressways, 2nd Conference 2
of Transportation Research Group of India (2nd CTRG)
5. Arasan, V.T., and Koshy, R. Z. (2005). Methodology for modelling highly heterogeneous
traffic flow. J. of Transp. Engg., 131, 544 551.
6. Velmurugan, S., Errampalli, M., Ravinder, K., Sitaramanjaneyulu, K. and Gangopadhyay,
S. 2010. Critical evaluation of roadway capacity of multi-lane high speed corridors under
heterogeneous traffic conditions through traditional and microscopic simulation models.
Journal of Indian Roads Congress, 71 (3), 235-264.

Você também pode gostar