COMMENTS

A little more detailed pros/cons analysis of ped underpass vs skywalk should help. May be BBMP got some study/analysis done to compare the two.

About plans for ad supported skywalks, are they impacted by the ban on outdorr advertising or something similar announced recently by BBMP?

One problem with skywalk is - you need a certain minimum height (16 -18 feet?) to allow vehicles to pass under it. Ped underpass would require relatively less climbing (when you come out of it), so these would be more convenient for peds. Even if you go for elevator equipped skywalk (which was the plan last time we heard about it), they will be complicated to install and maintain on the bridge, footprint may be a lot larger than what you will need to install elevator in the underbridge.

Not supporting one over another, but wanted to understand the two. We may be able to get the cost equation as well if we can see the tenders etc for both.

If you ask my preference, my question is more basic? Why can't we implement signals and enforce zebra crossings to have pedestrians cross roads on level? That's the cheapest solution in most cases. I would rather use the money saved to even and widen the pavements.

• thumb_up Like
• · login or register to post comments

submitted by ssheragu

I have always maintained that pedestrian subways are definitely better than sky walks because of the tediousness of climbing. Pedestrian subways shuld have gradually slooing ramps for entry & exit

Advertisement driven skywalks should be reserved for tourist spots or a few important places and should always be provided with escalator service

silkboard's observation that both can be done away with and signals with zebra crossings can bee provided is not acceptable, as it will lead to traffic jams

Srinath Heragu

• thumb_up Like
• · login or register to post comments

agree with other. subways better.

why should pedestrians be made to expend extra energy? vehicles are already powered.

• thumb_up Like
• · login or register to post comments

I have stopped being amazed at the number of people thinking subways or foot-bridges can solve traffic snarls and problems. I request people to pause and dwell over budgets and amount of money such projects need. We talk of having escalators on our roads in open settings (without bothering to think what will happen to them given our weather - in 70s Bombay Chowpaty had one, eventually it got rusted and was removed). Theoritcally, one may want this at every major junction in a given city - is that realistically possible? How many western developed cities have these skywalks, subways and foot bridges? The answer most will agree is 'hardly any'. These are not solutions that are as simple as buying 'lollies' and its time we stop talking about them at the drop of the hat. But it's not just about costs - how many subways (other than expressways/motorways/freeways) solve the problem completely? Without lifts, disabled will still need to use the road to cross over. Only yesterday, Pune's JM Road subway was in news - reason being built at a cost, it is hardly used - most pedestrians suggested access to it was not good and it took them longer (if vehicle owners think signals cause delays and jams, its only reasonable to accept that pedestrians will also be euqally entitled to be in a hurry). One only needs to visit Mumbai's Churchgate and CST rail stations. Minute after minute, millions enter and leave - most use subways, but has that stopped people crossing at the signal controlled zebras on roads? NO. In fact without lifts and escalators, the diabled are discriminated against (totally un-constitutional).

Do Signal crossings and zebra's cause traffic jams? This is a myth. If anything they ensure traffic has evened out gaps. One has to see this to appreciate this. ONly recently I was at Picadilly, London. As busy as one can get anywhere, yet every vehicle stopped at the zebra (AND THERE WAS NO SIGNAL) - result - instead of 200 cars suddenly appearing at the junction beyond the zebra, at any point in time there were only 2 dozen or so.

There are a number of types of signal crossings which when used with signal syncronisation can improve efficacy remarkably.

One option is to use staggered signal controlled crossing - see this link for a diagram - http://www.accessco de.info/external /5_9c.htm

1. This way, traffic flows until pedestrians arrive to cross and push a button for signals to change.
2. The staggered  design also means, pedestrians have a safe place to wait in between two roads.
3. The staggered design also means that pedestrians cross half the road at a time, effectively, vehicles have to wait for only half the time (as against when there is a zebra across full stretch of the road where traffic from both ends has to stop at same time).
4. The staggered design also is better than a small gap between dividers for crossing - this is abused by cyclists and two wheelers who go through the gap. While using the basic principles, of the design shown in the above link, one can reduce width and change angles such that a motorbike cannot go across the Z shape of the staggered crossings.

But the signals themselves should be synchronised and triggered by sensors under the asphalt (vehicle actuated signals and not timer actuated signals - this I believe is being considered already as far as I remember from another post).

Silkboard is right, this money is better spent on wider sidewalks and other walk to school programmes.

• thumb_up Like
• · login or register to post comments

The ganga nagar magic underpass was of the right size for use as a pedestrian subway..we should rather use the magic structures as they can be put in place fast!

For road the max time needed was to put the access ramps in place and not the boxes themselves..

The road traffic will not be hindered for long for a ped subway, as they just got to dig-place-cover..the access steps can be built without much traffic hinderance!

• thumb_up Like
• · login or register to post comments