200 Urban Transport for Growing Cities

Bus Priority Lanes for Delhi

GEETAM TIWARI

Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Programme

Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India 110016
[email protected]

ABSTRACT

Detailed field studies in Delhi show that since bicycles and other non-motorized vehicles
use the left side of the road, buses are unable to use the designated bus lanes and are
forced to stop in the middle lane at bus stops. This disrupts the smooth flow of traffic in
all lanes and makes bicycling more hazardous. Motorized traffic does not use the curbside
lane even when bicycle densities are low. All modes of transport move in sub-optimal
conditions in the absence of facilities for non-motorized vehicles. In this paper we
illustrate that pedestrians, bicyclists and non-motorized rickshaws are the most critical
elements in mixed traffic. If the infrastructure design does not meet the requirements of
these elements all modes of transport operate in sub-optimal conditions. It is possible to
redesign the existing roads to provide safe and convenient environment to non-motorized
modes. This also results in improved efficiency of bus transport vehicles and enhanced
capacity of the corridor when measured in number of passengers per hour per lane. The
paper illustrates that the capacity achieved in a corridor by redesigning the road cross
section, which includes segregated cycle tracks, and exclusive bus lanes compares
favorably to capital intensive option like MRTS.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Buses form the backbone of the transport system in Delhi. Buses constitute less than one
percent of the vehicle fleet, but serve about half of all travel demand. Since 1992, Delhi has
turned increasingly to the private sector to help expand and improve bus service. This
decision was a response to the widely acknowledged shortcomings of public bus service,
including escalating costs, poor maintenance, high labour costs, an aging bus fleet, and erratic
service. Bus service was expanded in 1996 by adding more buses, with buses per route
increasing from 0.8 to 1.7.1 The regular fixed-route bus system now comprises about 4,000
privately operated buses and 3,760 publicly operated buses. 5,000 private charter buses that
provide point-to-point service during peak hours to subscribers who pay a monthly fee for a
guaranteed seat complement it. The schools and tourists use another 5000 buses.

Public buses provide a low level of service and comfort, with passengers often
travelling on footboards. Large-scale privatization may have increased capacity marginally,
but buses continue to be overcrowded and poorly maintained. Even though buses carry half
of all passenger travel, they receive no preferential treatment in terms of dedicated lanes or
traffic management. Many Delhi residents cannot afford to pay even the low subsidized fares.
Consider that a single one-way bus fare for people living on the outskirts of the city is $0.20-
$0.25 (Rs.8 to Rs.10), depending on the number of transfers. For the poorest 28 percent of
households with monthly incomes of less than Rs.2, 000, about US $40(ORG, 1994), a single
worker would spend 25 percent or more of their entire monthly income on daily round trip
 Geetam Tiwari 201

bus fare. For those with incomes much less than Rs 2,000, the already-low bus fare is
prohibitively expensive.2

Bus commuters and pedestrians and NMV users together form the largest group of
road users. Yet their needs for a safe and convenient infrastructure continues to be ignored. In
the name of development cities continue to invest in infrastructure which makes the
environment for pedestrian even more hostile than the present. At the bus shelters, NMV’s
using the carriageway are in direct conflict with buses and the approaching commuters. These
buses park in platoons of 3 to 6 at an interval of 30 to 60 seconds. Thus for the cyclists, every
bus shelter encountered, results in an increase in travel time and in the number of serious
conflicts. To avoid an impending conflict at the bus shelter cyclists, either wait for the buses
to clear their path or attempt to find their way slowly through a maze of buses and
commuters. At many locations the passenger cycle rickshaw is one of the most important
components of the commuting chain. The rickshaws ferry, passengers to and from the bus
shelter, saving their walking trips. Currently the contribution of the passenger cycle rickshaw
to the transportation system of the city is not recognized and thus no provision has been made
for their parking at the bus shelters, forcing them to occupy the carriageway.

Rickshaws and Non-Motorised Vehicles

Cycle rickshaws are registered separately from motorized vehicles. Current policies
regarding cycle rickshaws and other non-motorized vehicles are restrictive based on a notion
held by many that efficient (“modern”) transport systems do not include these vehicles.
Traffic management experts and traffic police have proposed area and time restrictions on the
movement of cycle rickshaws in Delhi. The government fixes the number of cycle rickshaws
that can be registered in the city (by Municipal Corporation of Delhi) and at present this is
99,000. The registration procedure requires the owner to have a valid registration card, and to
register these vehicles only during stipulated times twice a year. Not surprisingly, a large
number of cycle rickshaws are unregistered. The true number of cycle rickshaws in the city is
estimated to be about 300,000. Cycle rickshaws are also used for delivery of goods such as
furniture, refrigerators, and washing machines. Several case studies have documented the
poor, often exploitative, working conditions of cycle rickshaw operators. Contractors who
demand a fixed rental payment from the pullers, often with little regard to the state of the
equipment or the environment in which the rickshaw puller has to operate usually owns the
vehicles.

Even though rickshaws and other non-motorized vehicles are widely viewed as a
principal cause of congestion and chaos, they have been ignored in traffic planning and road
design.

INADEQUATE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE?

Delhi has an extensive road network with a total length of 26, 582 km (year 1996-97) of
which approximately 1148 km has a right-of-way 30m and greater than 30m. Nearly 500 km
of these roads already exist, remaining 852 km is proposed in new developments. Ring road
and Outer Ring road are the most important arterial roads. In general, most arterial roads are
six lanes divided roads. Average speeds have been reducing over the years. Peak hour traffic
on arterial roads crawls through bottlenecks at major intersections. However, at non-peak
hour mid block speeds tend to be much higher ranging from 50-90 km/h for buses and private
motorized vehicles respectively. This leads to higher fatality rates on one hand and on the
202 Urban Transport for Growing Cities

other longer waiting periods at junctions. It seems that problem lies with the poor
management of the corridor traffic flow and speed resulting in increased levels of congestion
are at few spots and few corridors at peak hours. The traffic system does not meet the
requirements of pedestrians, bicyclists and bus systems.

The Basic Infrastructure

The road network in Delhi is based on notional hierarchy of roads, ranging from arterial roads
designed to carry fast through traffic to collector and residential roads. However, the lack of
choice results in pedestrian's presence on all roads regardless of the hierarchy and designated
functions. The existing road design does not cater to the needs of pedestrians, bicycles, or any
other slow moving traffic. Service roads if present, are not maintained well. Footpaths are
either not present or poorly maintained. There are no specific facilities provided for buses
also, except locating bus shelters. Approach to bus shelters, bus priority lanes, continuous
pedestrian paths, lane for slow vehicles like bicycles and rickshaws etc. have not been
included in the road network designs. Consequently all road users have to share the
carriageway. This often leads to unsafe conditions for pedestrian and slow moving vehicles
and congested conditions for motorized vehicles. The per capita availability of road in Delhi
in 1997 was 2.6 meters per person. It must also be noted that almost 66% of the vehicular
fleet in Delhi consists of motorized two wheelers which take up less road space than cars and
buses. Despite this, average speeds have been reducing over the years. Peak hour traffic on
arterial roads crawls through bottlenecks at major intersections. In general, most arterial roads
are six lanes divided roads; however, the extensive road network has not been developed to
serve the mixed traffic present on the roads.

State authorities and ‘experts’ continue to plan infrastructure, which ensures fast
movement of car traffic at the cost of pedestrians, and non-motorized vehicles. Basic needs
of pedestrians are not recognized as part of urban transport infrastructure. In a recent study
(IIT, 2000) pedestrians were observed at selected junctions on a major arterial road in Delhi.
The study shows that nearly 70% pedestrians cross the road when it is safe for them to cross,
i.e. either it is green for pedestrians or green for right turning vehicles which makes half
crossing safe. The number of pedestrians waiting at the median is more than those waiting on
the side of the road; despite the absence of Pedestrian island in the median. The road median
does not provide any convenient space for waiting, however, restrictive measures for
pedestrians are instituted such as high medians (30-50 cms) and guardrails on medians.
Often, construction of pedestrian subways and foot over bridges are to ensure that the
pedestrians do not obstruct the motorized traffic and the road is available to motorized
vehicles only. These poorly located pedestrian subways continue to have low usage rate not
only because of poor location also because of safety concerns they are often locked at night.
This leaves no option for pedestrians but to either break the median fences or run across at
the risk of losing their life. Pedestrians have to contend with narrow pavements, often made
narrow to increase the width of the road to reduce congestion for cars and other motorized
traffic. Pedestrians are expected to walk among parked cars, electric and telephone poles,
traffic signs, litter bins, redundant phone boxes, and commercial waste. The situation is made
worse as a result of poor public management of streets and public spaces, including litter and
uneven pavement. It is not wrong to say that our urban streets are characterised by an absence
of design.

Presence of diverse socio-economic groups in the city is reflected in the diverse

modes of transport present on all roads. This also results in emergence of range of activities
 Geetam Tiwari 203

required by different road users. Delhi does not lack in availability of roads infrastructure in
terms of space and length. However, the complexity arises due to ht e wide variety of vehicle
types including human, animal drawn vehicles and bicycles share the same road space. With
the available right of way on arterial corridors in Delhi a much better level of service and
higher throughput can be provided only if the road space available can be used by all vehicles
much more efficiently. At present, due to lack of dedicated facilities, bicyclists have to
interact with fast moving motorized traffic. Clearly, the extensive road network has not been
developed to serve the mixed traffic present on the roads. The society pays a huge cost in
terms of worsening congestion, air pollution and traffic accidents. While the growing
congestion and air pollution affect all income groups, the middle and lower income groups
who are primarily dependent on public transport, bicycles and walking -the environment
friendly modes have to suffer the unusually high cost of traffic accidents. Commuting
patterns of low income and high-income people residing in Delhi are significantly different.
Since nearly 50-60% of the city population resides in unauthorized slum settlements having
an average income of Rs.2000/month, bicycles, buses and walking continue to be important
modes of transport.

Infrastructure for Buses

Public transport buses are the major mode of transport in Delhi. Approximately 10,000 buses
carry 6 million commuters along 600 routes everyday. However, the road design, traffic
signals, and traffic management policies are not specifically designed for bus transport
system. The design and location of the bus shelter itself does not meet the commuters
requirements of providing convenient interchange between bus routes and spaces for
hawkers. Therefore, often bus stops and bus shelters result in a major conflict zone between
commuters and moving buses while hawkers “encroach upon” the carriage-way, and bicycles
and other slow moving vehicles occupy the designated bus stops. At the bus shelters, NMV’s
using the carriageway are in direct conflict with buses and the approaching commuters. These
buses park in platoons of 3 to 6 at an interval of 30 to 60 seconds. Thus for the cyclists, every
bus shelter encountered, results in an increase in travel time and in the number of serious
conflicts. To avoid an impending conflict at the bus shelter cyclists, either wait for the buses
to clear their path or attempt to find their way slowly through a maze of buses and
commuters. At many locations the passenger cycle rickshaw is one of the most important
components of the commuting chain. The rickshaws ferry, passengers to and from the bus
shelter, saving their walking trips. Currently the contribution of the passenger cycle rickshaw
to the transportation system of the city is not recognized and thus no provision has been made
for their parking at the bus shelters, forcing them to occupy the carriageway.

Roadside vendors and services for road users

Bicycles, pedestrians and bus traffic attracts street vendors. Often the side roads and
pedestrian paths are occupied by people selling food, drinks and other articles, which are
demanded by these road users. Vendors often locate themselves at places, which are natural
markets for them. A careful analysis of location of vendors, number of vendors at each
location and type of services provided them shows the need of that environment, since they
work under completely “free market” principles. If the services provided them were not
required at those locations, then they would have no incentive to continue staying there.
However, road authorities and city authorities view their existence illegal. Often the argument
is given how the presence of street vendors and hawkers reduces road capacity. If we apply
the same principle that is applied for the design of road environment for motorized traffic
204 Urban Transport for Growing Cities

especially private cars, then vendors have a valid and legal place in the road environment.
Highway design manuals recommends frequency and design of service area for motorized
vehicles. Street vendors and hawkers serve the same function for pedestrians, bicyclists and
bus users. As long as our urban roads are used by these modes, street vendors will remain
inevitable and necessary. All modes of transport move in sub-optimal conditions in the
absence of facilities for pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles.

THE ‘CRITICAL’ ELEMENT IN CITY TRANSPORT SYSTEM

Meeting the specific needs of the most vulnerable groups in the city becomes crucial for the
efficient performance of all traffic. For low income people commuting to work-walking,
bicycling or affordable public transport are not a matter of choice but a necessity for survival.
Therefore, whether the roads have any specific facilities for these modes or not, they continue
to be used by them.

Delhi traffic laws do not segregate bicycle traffic and enforcement of speed limits is
minimal. Motor Vehicles (MVs) and non-motorized vehicle (NMVs) have different densities
at peak traffic hours at different locations in the city. The existing traffic characteristics,
modal mix, location details, geometric design, land-use characteristics, and other operating
characteristics present a unique situation where economic and travel demand compulsions
have overwhelmed the official plans. On the two and three lane roads, bicycles primarily use
the outermost lane on the left, i.e. curb side lane and MVs do not use the left most lanes even
at low bicycle densities. Bicyclists use the middle lanes only when they have to turn right.
Even at one-lane sites the bicyclists occupy the left extreme giving space to the motorized
vehicular traffic.

A study of fourteen locations in Delhi shows that maximum mixing of NMVs and
MVs occurs at the bus stops. 4 Their interaction with other MVs is minimal at other locations.
On three lane roads, the MV flow rates are close to or less than 4000 passenger car units per
hour. This is much less than the expected capacity of 3 lane roads. The flow for these urban
localities can be taken as 2000 passenger car units per hour per lane.5 Though the peak
volumes are not exceeding saturation capacities, we find the average speed remains in the
range of 14 to 39 km/h. This shows that use of the left most lane is only partially used.
However, if this space were exclusively available for bicyclists throughput would increase
because the MV traffic lane is 3.5 meters wide and ti can accommodate flow rates of at least
6000 bicycles per hour.6

Though de facto segregation takes place on two and three lane roads, an unacceptable
danger exists to bicyclists because of impact with MVs. At two- and three-lane locations, it is
a waste of resources not to provide a separate bicycle lane because bicycles irrespective of
bicycle density occupy one whole MV lane. Our data show that bicycle fatalities on two and
three lane roads are relatively high when traffic volumes are low but conflicts between MVs
and NMVs have little correlation whatsoever with fatalities during peak flows. In these
locations of "integrated" traffic on two and three lane roads, fatalities during peak hours are
low but not eliminated. On the other hand, during non-peak hours vehicles travelling at
speeds around 50 km/h or greater kill a large number of bicyclists.4
 Geetam Tiwari 205

ROAD SECTON PLANNING FOR EXCLUSIVE BUS LANE

Our studies show that on urban arterials the curbside lane (3.5 m) is used primarily by bicycle
and other non motorized traffic. Because of the presence of bicycles and NMVs in the far-
left lane, buses are unable to use this lane and are forced to stop in the middle lane at bus
stops. Motorized traffic does not use the curbside lane even when bicycle/NMV densities are
low. A segregated bicycle lane needs only 2.5 m and since most of the major arterials in
Delhi as well other Indian cities where planned development has taken place after 1960s,
have a service road, the existing road space is wide enough to accommodate a bicycle track.
This would not require additional right of way for road. A detailed study completed in Delhi,
India shows how existing roads can be redesigned within the given right of way to provide
for an exclusive lane for NMT modes (bicycles and three wheeled rickshaws).7

Detailed designs for road cross section and intersections have been prepared in Delhi
on the basis of following criteria:
1. Physically segregated bicycle tracks on routes which have >30m ROW.
2. Recommended lane width on main carria geway 3m (minimum).
3. Recommended lane width for buses 3.3 m (minimum).
4. Recommended lane width for bicycles 2.5 m (minimum).
5. Separate service lane and footpath.
6. Intersection modification to include the following:
§ Restrict free left turns
§ Modify traffic signal cycle
§ Roadside furniture to ensure safe bicycle movement and minimise interference
from motorized two wheelers

Exclusive bus lanes can be provided either as curbside bus lane (Figure1) or central
two lanes physically segregated from rest of the traffic (Figure2). Table 1 lists criteria that
should be adopted for choosing one of the two options. Figure 1 and 2 show detailed designs
where two lanes of 3m each are proposed for the main carriageway in addition to the 3.3m
wide central/curbside bus-lane. In the case of the central bus lane stretches the two 3.3m wide
lanes combine to form a 6.6m wide undivided two-way road. A 2.5 m wide cycle track is
proposed throughout the length of the corridor running adjacent to the main carriageway
(separated by a 0.4m wide divider on either side) A service lane is proposed between the
cycle track and the peripheral footpaths all along the stretch with a minimum specified width
of 3m.

The flow, speed and direction of traffic is controlled by the design of the junctions
and road surfaces. The design, of course, differs completely in the case of Curbside bus Lane
and Central Bus Lanes options.
206 Urban Transport for Growing Cities

Capacity improvement = 21000 (present) persons/hr

45000 (estimated) persons/hr
Improved safety and pollution

Fig. 1 Road layout showing exclusive curbside buslane

Fig. 2 Road layout showing central bus lane

 Geetam Tiwari 207

Table1. Criteria for site specific choice between a central bus -lane layout and a curb-
side bus -lane layout

Sl. No. Central Bus Lane Curb-Side Bus Lane

1. Excessive side-entries for vehicles Limited access to service lanes or
into service lanes or individual widely spaced entry points into
plots. adjoining area.
Rationale The high volume of turning traffic interferes with the through movement of bus
traffic if the bus uses the same curb-side lane as the turning vehicles.

2. Closely placed traffic lights for Traffic lights at larger intervals.

vehicles.
Rationale Buses using the curb-side lane are forced to stop at every red signal with other
vehicles reducing throughput and encouraging passengers to board and alight in
unsafe areas.
3. Low frequency of bus-stops Higher Frequency of bus-stops
Rationale If the frequency of bus-stops is higher a central bus-lane will create too many
pedestrian crossings defe ating the its purpose while a curb-side bus lane will
provide safer and more efficient bus -stops.

4. Higher volume of two-wheeler and Lower volume of two-wheeler and

three-wheeler vehicles three-wheeler vehicles
Rationale High volumes of two-wheeler and three-wheeler vehicles interfere with the
movement of buses in the curb-side lane especially at the bus -stops where
buses often cannot approach the designated bus-bays due to the three-wheelers
parked there and the two-wheelers trying to overtake from the left-side. Also, the
difference in sizes of these vehicles sharing the curb-side lane makes the
situation unsafe for the smaller vehicles.
E. g. Arterials through heavy commercial Highways through large institutional
land-use areas like Vikas Marg areas like stretch of Ring Road in
ITO area.

Intersection with Curb-side Bus Lane:

• An extra bay is provided for right turning traffic at junction.
• The bus lane before and after the junction are streamlined.

The Minimum left turning radius according to which the curve of the intersection is
plotted is (a) In case of buses not turning left: 7.5m with a sloped leeway of 1.5m for larger
vehicles, (b) In case of buses turning left: 14m. with a sloped leeway of 1.5m. This case
specific designing allows for control of left-turning speeds thus ensuring safety and the speed
transition between an arterial and residential road.

Intersection with Central Bus Lane Three lanes - straight, left-turning and right-turning are
provided for the vehicles before the intersection and only one after it due to dispersal of
traffic. However the single lane after the intersection is 4.5m. wide to allow for necessary
leeway. The central bus stretch becomes 3-lane wide before the junction to allow for a left-
turning lane.

The bus lane before and after the junction are streamlined The Minimum left turning radius
according to which the curve of the intersection is plotted is 7.5m with a sloped leeway of
208 Urban Transport for Growing Cities

1.5m for larger vehicles. This case specific designing allows for control of left-turning speeds
thus ensuring safety and the speed transition between an arterial and residential road.

Criteria for Locating Bus Stops Interchange should be close to their users. Bus and
paratransit stops should be near to residences to minimize walking distance, and major
interchanges should have direct pedestrian links segregated from motorized traffic.
Public transport routes should generally follow main traffic routes and boarding
points should be adjacent to and beyond intersections and linked with other parts of the
general traffic network - particularly footpaths. Measures should be taken to remove cyclist
from the main carriageway, cause they prevent the buses from parking close to the bus stops
or interchange points.
Bus and paratransit stops should be placed at points where pedestrian routes to and
from major generators converge (example: major commercial, institutional centres or next to
major intersections). Avoid locations where road safety or congestion problems are likely.
Wherever possible public transport vehicles should be provided with clearly marked
passenger pick up points or bus stops, preferably off the main carriageway (i.e. bus stops
should preferably be located on a lay by.
Lay-bys should be positioned on straight, level sections of road and should be visible
from a good distance in both directions.
Access to a lay-by should be convenient and safe for both, vehicles and pedestrians.
Advance warning signs should be erected to alert the drivers of the approach to lay-
bys and, the possible presence of pedestrians ahead.
Special facilities should be used in order to give greater priority to buses and hence to
make public transport more attractive to potential passengers. These generally set aside a
portion of the road for the exclusive use of buses, where they can maintain reasonable speeds
or reach the head of the queues at intersections
If buses stop on the opposite side of the same road, stops should be located tail to tail
as these are safer. Pedestrians will tend to cross behind the buses where approaching vehicles
on the same side of the road can see them more carefully.
Bus stops should be located beyond pedestrian crossings and after intersections to
avoid stopped vehicles masking pedestrian and other crossing activities.
Bus Stops should be placed such, around an intersection, so that the walking distance
from the crossing reduces for the commuters. The walkable distance in each direction can be
reduced to as low as 50m.’s by removing all free left turns and placing the bus stops after the
crossing (in each direction of traffic flow).

Criteria for Redesigning Bus Stops Bus stops have 2.8 m wide bus bay, 2.5 m wide bus stop
and 1 m wide foot path.
Hawkers have been provided space at the bus stop to minimize disturbance to the
regular flow of pedestrian and cyclist traffic.
The cycle track is diverted behind the bus stop in a gentle horizontal curve to reduce
conflicts of cyclists with buses. This diverted path is raised to the footpath level and can be
used by pedestrians too hence is widened from 2.5 m to 3 m.

CAPACITY ESTIMATES

If a separate segregated lane is constructed for bicycles, the curbside lane, which is currently
used by bicyclists will become available to motorized traffic. This relatively small investment
in bicycle lanes can increase the road space for motorized traffic by 50 percent on 3 lane
roads. Bicycle lanes also result in better space utilisation. For instance a 3.5m lane has a
 Geetam Tiwari 209

carrying capacity of 1,800 cars per hour whereas it can carry 5,400 bicycles per hour.
Average occupancy of a car is 1.15 persons iand bicycle carries one person. This implies that
in order to move the same number of people we would need 2.6 times the road area that
would be required for bicyclists.
Most of the major corridors in Delhi are 6 lane divided carriageways. We have
estimated the capacity of a 6 lane divided carriageway in the peak direction. Various
combinations of modal shares and road space assignments were compared to evaluate their
impact on the road capacity. Following options were considered:

Base case (Mixed traffic). The existing road space utilization pattern was taken as the base
case. Capacity of a typical 6-lane corridor in Delhi corridor in persons per hour is estimated
on the basis of average occupancy of each vehicle (Table2).

Dedicated cycle lane. The right-of-way on a 6-lane carriageway is reallocated to provide for
a separate 2.5-3 m wide bicycle track. The exclusive bicycle track can carry 4500 bicycles
per hour. This still leaves enough space for six lanes on the main carriageway. All the lanes
of the main carriageway are used by all motorized modes. If the space released by exclusive
bicycle track (equivalent of 338 bicycles ~ 169 PCU~76 buses as per Table2) is used by
additional 76 buses the congestion level and corridor speed will not have significant changes.
Table 2 shows increase in corridor capacity from 16000 to 19000. Number of bicycles and
other vehicles remain same as the base case. Buses increase by 76 additional vehicles.

Dedicated bicycle lane and high capacity bus system (HCBS). A dedicated lane is provided
for bicycles and the curbside lane is exclusively reserved for buses operating as HCBS. Other
two lanes are used by all other motorized traffic. A dedicated 3 m wide bicycle lane can carry
4500 bicycles (maximum capacity of an urban lane is 1800 PCU ~ 4500 bicycles). Exclusive
bicycle lane releases space on left most lane for buses. Therefore the maximum capacity of
the left most lane is 1800 PCU ~ 486 buses (Table2).
The results of the capacity estimation show that with the corridor capacity measured
in terms of persons/ hour in existing patterns of mixed traffic, capacity can be improved by
19% by providing exclusive bicycle tracks. If the bus occupancy is taken as 80 persons/bus
then 23% improvement in capacity can be realised by providing exclusive bicycle tracks.
Not only does extra space on the main carriageway become available to other modes, the
dedicated bicycle track also provides a higher capacity for bicyclists. Provision of exclusive
bicycle track also provides an opportunity to develop left lane as an exclusive bus lane.
Table 3 shows 88% improvement in capacity from 16000(40 persons/bus) and 26000(80
persons/bus) to 30000 persons and 49000 persons respectively. This is achieved by running
486 buses in the exclusive bus lane and 4500 cycles in the exclusive cycle lane.
Table 3 shows capacity of the main carriageway (three lanes used by motorized
vehicles). This does not include capacity provided by the cycle track. Corridor capacity
improves by 19-23% by providing exclusive cycle track. However, utilizing the full capacity
of the corridor i.e. provision of high capacity bus system in the left most lane can lead to
capacity improvement by 56-73 per cent.
It is clear that, if Delhi and other similar cities can have major improvement in public
transport capacity if facilities for non-motorized transport are considered as an integral part
of a programme to enhance road capacity. Not only are lanes designed for bicycle traffic less
expensive to build than roadways, but they also will divert pedestrians and slow-moving
vehicles from the roadway, increasing the efficiency of car and bus transport.
210 Urban Transport for Growing Cities

Table2: Capacity Estimation in different scenario

Current Exclusive Cycle track Cycle track and

provided HCBS
Vehicles/h Persons/h Persons/h Persons/h Persons/h Persons/h
Bus=40 Bus=80 Veh./h Bus=40 Bus=80 Veh./h Bus=40 Bus=80

Cars 1404 1615 1615 1404 1614 1615 1404 1615 1615

MTW 1652 3634 3634 1652 3634 3634 1652 3634 3634

BUS 248 9920 19840 324 12960 25920 486 19440 38880

TSR 454 799 799 454 799 799 454 799 799

Cycle 338 355 355 338 354 355 4500 4725 4725

Total 4096 16323 26243 4172 19363 32323 8496 30213 49653

~ 16000 26000 19000 32000 30000 49000

1 Current mixed traffic is observed modal shares on Delhi streets

2 Cycle track provided scenario includes exclusive cycle track for bicycles where max.
4500 bicycles can travel.
Space occupied b y 338 bicycles in the mixed scenario becomes available for other vehicles.
This is equialent to 338x1/2 = 169 cars = 169/2.2 = 76.8 buses. Since bicycles share the
left
Side lane with buses, therefore bicycle space is given to 76 additional buses.
However, the maximum capacity of this lane as per IRC standard is 1800 PCU or
1800/3.7= 486 buses. If we replace 338 bicycles with additional 76 buses then the existing
level of congestion and speeds will be maintained.
3 Cycle track filled to capacity ~ 4500 bicycles,and left lane filled to capacity by buses ~ 486
buses
Along with existing number of vehicles on the road gives the total capacity of the corridor

Table3: Capacity in persons/h in three MV lanes (excluding bicycles)

Bus=40 Bus=80
ExclusiveCycle Exclusive ExclusiveCycle Exclusive
Track cycle track Track cycle track
and HCBS and HCBS
Car 1615 1615 1615 1615
MTW 3634 3634 3634 3634
Bus 12960 25920 19440 38880
TSR 799 799 799 799
Total 19008 31968 25488 44928

~ 19000 32000 25000 45000

 Geetam Tiwari 211

AVOIDED COSTS DUE TO INVESTMENTS IN PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND

PUBLIC TRANSPORT FRIENDLY INFRASTRUCTURE

Detailed origin and destination studies of bicycle users show that all roads should become
NMV/public transport friendly. Since Delhi has an extensive network of arterial roads which
have wide right of way (30m to 90m), these offer the opportunity of developing a physically
segregated network. Other narrow streets, primarily residential and collector roads have to
become NMV-friendly with the help of traffic calming devices. The development of public
transport/NMV friendly infrastructure can be prioritized as follows:

Phase I: Approximately 90 kms of arterial route has been identified as carrying heavy bicycle
traffic along with large numbers of buses and trucks. A separate bicycle path on such
routes will ease the flow of buses and other motorized traffic.
Phase II: Almost 276 kms of road length has been identified as carrying fast motorized traffic
(average speeds are more than 50 kms and maximum speeds 70-80 kms) in the presence
of bicycles on the curb side of the road. A well designed network will ensure safety of
bicyclists on these routes. It will also result in improved capacities for motorized vehicles
by providing an opportunity for creating an exclusive bus lane on these routes.
Phase III: There are 368 kms of roads in the city which has more than 30 m right of way.
Separate bicycle path on these roads will ensure continuity of network.
Phase IV: Bicycle routes should be developed through parks and green belts. This would
provide additional capacity for bicycle network.

The guiding principle of the proposed design is to meet the needs of pedestrians and
bicyclists in terms of convenience, safety, and comfort. This enables the existing space to be
reorganized for giving priority to public transport-exclusive bus lanes, better designed bus
shelters, spaces for vendors, and rickshaw parking. These designs benefit all road users.

Estimated modal shifts after investment in public Transport/NMV friendly

infrastructure

If public transport/NMV friendly infrastructure is developed in the city, following change

may occur in the use of different vehicle use.

1. Short bus trips (1-6 kms) these will be primarily younger age group (15-
24years) will include school trips and leisure trips of children and young
adults. Short bus trips of working adults (24-60 years) can also be targeted for
substitution. Shift from bus trips will generate capacity in the present
overloaded bus system. It may not reduce demand for number of buses, in fact
comfortable conditions in buses may make public transport attractive to two
wheeler riders and few long trips (16-25kms) of two wheelers may move to
buses. Therefore this will result in higher share of bicycle trips (from 2.75 to 5
per cent), reduced share of motorized two wheeler trips( from 29 to 25 per
cent) and marginally higher share of bus trips( 36 to 37 per cent) .

2. Short car trips (1-6) kms of children and adults can also be targeted as in 1. If
1/3 of short car trips are replaced by bicycles, there will be an increase of 1.68
per cent bicycle trips, i.e from 5 to 6.68 per cent, car trips will reduce to
26.6%.
212 Urban Transport for Growing Cities

3. Short motorized two wheeler trips say 1/3 of short trips (1-6kms) will shift to
bicycles increasing bicycle share by 2.5 per cent from 6.68 to 9.18 per cent.
Motorized two wheeler trips will reduce to 22.5 per cent.

4. Pedestrian trips more than 1km in length of all age groups and all income
groups. This will result in marginal increase of bicycle trips because majority
of the pedestrian trips are less than 1 kms long.

Table 4 shows estimated change in modal shares of Delhi residents excluding people
living in JJ clusters. Table5 shows estimated change in modal shares of Delhi residents
including JJ clusters residents when the share of JJ cluster resident is 60 per cent of the total
population and when it is 50 per cent percent of the total population. Modal shares have been
estimated for both cases, since reliable numbers for this are not available. In both cases the
estimated modal shares indicate the reduction in car and two wheeler traffic and increase in
bicycle and pedestrians. Share of buses does not show any significant change, however the
bus ride is expected to become more comfortable and convenient.

Table 4: Estimated Change in Modal Share in Delhi

Mode Present Modal Share Estimated change in modal share

(1999)(%)** (%)
Cycle 2.75 10
Bus 36.2 37.65
Car 28.35 26.5
SC/MC 29.29 22.5
Auto 1.74 1.75
Walk 1.62 1.6
Total 100 100

** IIT survey

Table5: Estimated change in modal shares (after investment in bicycle infrastructure)

Mode % of low income population 60% Share of low income population 50%
Total trips %share Total trips %share

Cycle 6.39 27 5.72 24

Bus 7.94 34 8.08 35
Car 2.48 11 3.10 13
SC/MC 2.45 10 2.92 12
Auto 0.30 1 0.32 1
Taxi 0.00 0 0.00 0
Rail 0.25 1 0.21 1
Others 0.33 1 0.27 1
Walk 3.26 14 2.78 12
Total 23.40 100 23.40 100
 Geetam Tiwari 213

BENEFIT ESTIMATION

Increased Capacity

If a separate segregated lane is constructed for bicycles, the curbside lane, which is currently
used by bicyclists becomes available to motorized traffic. This relatively small investment in
bicycle lanes can increase the road space for motorized traffic by 50 percent on 3 lane roads.
Bicycle lanes also result in better space utilisation. For instance a 3.5m wide lane has a
carrying capacity of 1,800 cars per hour whereas it can carry 5,400 bicycles per hour.6
Average occupancy of a car is 1.15 persons 8 and bicycle carries one person. This implies that
in order to move the same number of people we would need 2.6 times the road area that
would be required for bicyclists. Given the fact that there is not much space available to
expand existing roads, the future mobility needs and projected trips can only be met by
increasing the capacity of the existing road network. This can only be achieved by
encouraging modes, which are more efficient in terms of space utilisation.
Motorized vehicles benefit because of improved capacity of the road and
improvement in speeds. Capacity estimations of a typical arterial road in Delhi (Tiwari, 1999)
show improvement in corridor capacity by 19-23% by providing an exclusive cycle track. If
the full capacity of the corridor is utilised, i.e., provision of a high capacity bus lane in the left
most lane can lead to capacity improvement by 56-73%(present carrying capacity of 23,000
passengers/h to 45,000 passengers/h).

Improved speeds

Improvement in speeds of motorized vehicles will be experienced until the corridor is full to
capacity due to realisation of induced demand. Major beneficiaries of speed improvement are
buses and two wheelers because curbside lane becomes available to them without
interference from slow vehicles. Estimations of time savings experienced by bus commuters,
car occupants and two wheeler commuters on a typical arterial corridor in Delhi10 show 48%
reduction in time costs due to 50 per cent improvement in bus speeds (from present 15km/h
to 30 km/h) and 30 per cent improvement in car and two wheelers.

Reduced congestion

Congestion has long been recognised as an environmental problem. Other than causing
delay, it causes noise and fumes and increases health risks of road users and residents. Delhi
as well as other Indian cities have invested in grade separated junctions and flyovers as one of
the major congestion relief measure at an average cost of Rs. 100 million to 300 million for
each intersection. However, detailed simulation of a major intersection in Delhi show that re-
planning the junction to include separate NMV lanes and bus priority lane can bring in 80 per
cent improvement over the present level of delays. Cost of this measure is 25 times less than
the proposed grade-separated junction. 11

Increased safety

By creating segregated bicycle lanes and re-designing intersections, conflicts between

motorized traffic and bicyclists can be reduced substantially leading to a sharp decrease in the
number of accidents and fatalities for bicyclists and motorized two-wheelers. Safety benefits
estimated for a typical arterial in Delhi show 46% reduction in accident costs. This is because
segregated facility reduces injury accidents by 40% and fatalities by 50%.10
214 Urban Transport for Growing Cities

CONCLUSIONS

Public transport vehicles and non-motorised modes are the major modes of transport for
majority of the city residents. The existing socio-economic patterns and land-use distribution
ensures NMVs presence in the whole city, and on the complete road network. The densities
and modal shares of NMVs in total traffic may differ from one part of the city to the other.
However, as long as NMVs are present on the road, regardless of their numbers, all vehicles
move under sub-optimal conditions. Efficient bus system cannot be designed without taking
care of the slow vehicles (NMVs) on the road. . It is possible to redesign the existing roads to
provide safe and convenient environment to non-motorized modes. The guiding principle of
the proposed design is to meet the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists in terms of
convenience, safety, and comfort. This requires not only altering road geometry and traffic
management policies but also legitimising the services provided by hawkers and informal
sector. The road network- straight roads and intersections- geometry has to be designed from
the perspective of the pedestrians, bicyclists and public transport vehicles. This enables the
existing space to be reorganised for giving priority to public transport-exclusive bus lanes,
better designed bus shelters, spaces for vendors, and rickshaw parking. These designs benefit
all road users. This also results in improved efficiency of bus transport vehicles and enhanced
capacity of the corridor when measured in number of passengers per hour per lane,
substantial reduction in fatalities and vehicular emissions.

Since sustainable transport systems in Indian cities demand moving a large number of
people by bus transport and NMVs, planning for NMVs is indispensable.

REFERENCES

1. RITES (1998) B. Route Rationalization and Time Table Formulation Study for Bus
System of Delhi. Delhi, India: Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

2. ORG (1994), Household Travel Surveys in Delhi, Operations Research Group, Delhi,
India, pp. 6-7.

3. IIT (2000), Road User Behavior and Traffic Violations in Delhi, report for SIAM,
TRIPP, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Delhi, India.

4. Tiwari G, D. Mohan, J.Fazio, (1998), Conflict Analysis in Mixed Traffic Conditions,

Accd. Anal. and Prev., Vol.30 No.2, pp.207-215

5. Indian Road Congress (IRC, 1990), Guidelines for Capacity of Urban Roads in Plain
Areas, New Delhi

6. Replogle M. (1991), Non-motorized vehicles in Asia: issues and strategies, The

World Bank, Washington D.C.

7. Tiwari, G., D.Mohan et al(1998) Bicycle Master Plan for Delhi, Final Report
submitted to Transport Department, Delhi Government, TRIPP, Indian Institute of
Technology, Delhi.
 Geetam Tiwari 215

8. Indian Road Congress (IRC, 1999), Guidelines for Capacity of Urban Roads in Plain
Areas, New Delhi, India,

9. Tiwari G.(1999), Planning for non-motorized traffic-A prerequisite for sustainable

transport system, IATSS Research, vol.23 No.2, pp70-77

10. Katarzyna Tota (1999), The role of non-motorized transport in sustainable urban
transport systems: A preliminary analysis of costs and benefits of non-motorized and
bus priority measures on Vikas Marg. Delhi, prepared for TERI, April

11. Kartik, V. (1998), Comparison of Alternate measures at AIIMS intersection, B.Tech.

Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi.