Reviews

Returning streets to the people

Walking and non-motorised vehicles are the major means of transport for most poor people in Asian cities. They provide access to economic opportunities, health services, and other social services essential for survival. For many people, walking is the only way of getting to work, even over long distances. Even subsidised public transport and low cost bicycles are out of reach. These people are "captive pedestrians." Those who use public transport systems also become pedestrians at least four times a day when they access those systems.

These two groups form the largest group of road users. Yet their needs for a safe and convenient infrastructure are ignored as cities continue to invest in an infrastructure that makes the environment even more hostile for pedestrians.

State authorities plan for the fast movement of cars to the detriment of pedestrians and non-motorised vehicles. Medians or central reservations do not provide any convenient space for waiting. Sometimes there are restrictive measures for pedestrians such as high medians (30 to 50 cm) and guardrails. Pedestrian subways and footbridges are built to ensure that pedestrians do not obstruct the traffic and that roads are available only to motorised vehicles. Subways tend to be poorly located and pedestrians are reluctant to use them through fear of being attacked. Road widening schemes often mean that pedestrians have to contend with narrow pavements.

The decline in the average speed of motor vehicles and increasing levels of urban pollution seem to be the two main factors influencing investment in road infrastructure. The safety and mobility needs of most road userspedestrians and bus passengersare not considered. The impact of this on traffic and travel patterns is twofold. Firstly, pedestrian and public transport journeys as a percentage share of total journeys have been reducing over the years. The only people walking and using public transport are those who do not have any other option. Secondly, pedestrians and motorised vehicles are forced to share road space, which creates suboptimal conditions for all road users.

Streets must be returned to pedestrians, not only because pedestrians make up the majority of road users, but also because the efficiency of the overall system, including the performance of motorised vehicles, depends on meeting the demand of "captive pedestrians." The experience from environments where there are "captive pedestrians" makes a strong case for rethinking the conventional hierarchy of road users. It is clear that present investment patterns, which are focused on improving conditions for cars, are not having the desired results. Congestion continues to get worse as more and more people give up walking, cycling, and using public transport, which are better for the environment. A well functioning road infrastructure must meet the needs of all road users. In the context of the current socioeconomic realities of most Asian cities, pedestrians, bicyclists and other slow moving vehicles cannot be eliminated from the urban landscape.

(Credit: NETOCNY/PANOS PICTURES) Jam tomorrow?

It is possible to design urban roads that are friendly to those who are not car users. The guiding principle of such a design is to meet the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transport users in that order.

If pedestrian friendly paths and a separate segregated lane for slow non-motorised vehicles are constructed, the curbside lane, which is currently used by bicyclists and other non-motorised vehicles, would become available to motorised traffic. This would require a relatively small investment in pedestrian and bicycle friendly infrastructure. It would also require a major shift in planning methodology and a paradigm shift in street design principles. However, cars and lorries would benefit because of the improved capacity of roads and improvement in speeds. Buses and two wheeled vehicles would also benefit as the curbside lane becomes available to them without interference from pedestrians and slow vehicles. The cost of such measures is less than the capacity enhancement measures meant for car users only.

Geetam Tiwari, transportation research and injury prevention programme. 

Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India geetamt@hotmail.com