PUNE

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

PUBLIC OUTREACH PARTNERS

SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES TRUST

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

VISION AND GOALS

02 Need for study, Vision and Goals, Study References
Stakeholder consulta on
09
INTERSECTION
Planning Of Intersec on, Design of Intersec on,
Intersec on design for pedestrians, Intersec on design for Cyclist,
Intersec on Design for Vehicles, U lity Design for Intersec ons

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

STREET HIERARCHY AND UNIVERSAL ACCESSIBILITY AND

04 STREET ELEMENTS FOR PUNE
Street Hierarchy, Proposed hierachy for Pune,
Principles of street design, Street Elements
11 DISABLE FRIENDLY DESIGN ELEMENTS
Fundamental Design Requirements, Footpath Design,
Paving blocks and Guiding blocks, Cub ramp and slope
ramp, Intersec on and Crossings, Grade Separators,
Traffic Signal, Signage and street furniture

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.

SAFETY STREET ELEMENTS

07 At Grade Pedestrian Crossing, Traffic Calming
Measures, Speed Breakers, Traffic signals,
Central Medians, Railings and Bollards 14
APPENDICES

Street Lights, Street Furniture, Signage,

Road Markings, Adver sements

Urban Street Design Guidelines for Pune

EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The Na onal Urban Transport Policy (NUTP) has been
formulated by the Ministry of Urban Development in 2006 to
transform the current urban transport system into a safe,
convenient and efficient transporta on system across all urban
areas in India. It has set the na onal guidelines for ac on
framework for urban transport in ci es.
Various studies and projects like Comprehensive Mobility Plan,
DMRC Metro Report, Hawkers policy, BRTS in the field of traffic
and transporta on have been undertaken by the Pune
municipal authority to achieve the objec ves of NUTP.
Prepara on of Urban Street Design Guidelines is also one of the
tasks iden fied by the authority in this regard. Similar efforts
have been taken by Delhi, Bangalore and Ahmedabad planning
authori es.
The mo ve of the prepara on of these guidelines is to define
and ini ate a process to ensure that appropriate street types
and street design elements will be used to create be er streets
to support transporta on objec ves for the city considering the
present and future needs.
‘If we can develop and design streets so that they are wonderful
fulfilling places to be community‐ building places, a rac ve
public places for all people of ci es and neighbourhood , then we
will have successfully designed about one third of the city directly
and will have had an immense impact on the rest.'
‐'Great streets' Allan Jacob
STRUCTURE OF USDG
MANUAL
The manual is structured into 5 sec ons cons tu ng of various
chapters giving detail descrip on on the relevant topics for the
par cular sec on.
Sec on 1: Introduc on and Context of USDG
This sec on gives an overview of the ini a ve for preparing
these guidelines. It defines the purpose , structure and the
u lity of this manual.
Sec on 2: Goal and Design Principles of USDG
This sec on highlights the need and approach for prepara on of
street guidelines for the city of Pune. It specifies the basic
principles for street design for Pune in context to various street
elements. It also includes chapter establishing the street
hierarchy network for Pune.
This sec on is a basic step to approach the guidelines and should
be referred by all those who will be making use of this manual in
any context.
Sec on 3: Design Guidance
This sec ons describes in detail about how to design the various
street elements by understanding the exis ng issues of Pune
streets. It provides defini on and purpose of every iden fied
street elements, highlights the current issue and gives design
recommenda ons for the same.
This sec on also includes reference drawing templates with
cross sec ons and plans for various RoW of streets and typical
intersec ons.
This sec on is of more u lity to the designers/planners, the
technical professionals and all those who use, work for or assess
the streets and the transporta on aspect in general in Pune like
the ci zens and ac vist organisa ons who are the stakeholders.
Sec on 4: Implementa on guidelines and recommenda ons
T h i s s e c o n p ro v i d e s re co m m e n d e d a p p ro a c h fo r
implementa on of the guidelines.
This sec on is basically for the policy makers who shall use the
recommenda ons to do the necessary policy interven ons to
accomplish the goals and objec ves of Urban Street Design
Guidelines.
 01
Streets form the nervous system of the city.
The health of the city and its inhabitants is dependent on its streets. INTRODUCTION
Describes the background for having these guidelines and
the process followed for prepara on of this document.
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of USDG
The purpose of USDG is to provide mechanism for establishing
the street system which will accommodate growth, provide
transporta on choices and keep the city liveable. Such a
system shall provide 'complete' streets which will serve all
users giving op mum priori es to every user group.USDG
intend to provide a process which dis nctly, systema cally and
comprehensively considers the needs of the motorised and
non motorised users when planning and designing streets.
USDG shall supplement the exis ng policy, legal and technical
effort to achieve improved results in maintaining consistently
be er streets within the city. It establishes a common
reference point for all those involved in the design of urban
streets so as to have effec ve collabora on amongst various
agencies and all the stakeholders to address the issues related
to traffic and transporta on. It presents guidance on how to
do things differently within the exis ng policy, technical and
legal framework. It supersedes all the studies and guidelines
done ll now for the traffic and transporta on sector for Pune.
It is designed to be a flexible document that will alter and
improve incorpora ng new treatments as appropriate a er
tes ng to address the need of me.
‘Even assuming that physical characteris cs of the street are
not important criteria for deciding what makes one street
be er than the other, one presumable wants to do ones best to
design and arrange the pieces in ways that will be be er, that
are more likely to please, upli , a ract or achieve a desired set
of values than some other arrangement.’
‐‐'Great streets' Allan Jacob
1 1
Manual Jurisdic on
USDG is applicable to all the street stretches within the
jurisdic on of PMC. These include all the exis ng roads,
proposed new roads and the road stretches proposed to be
widened within the exis ng PMC city limit as well as all those
within the extended boundaries of PMC.
Implementa on of manual
USDG is directed to all such organiza ons and professionals
who are associated with the planning, design, construc on,
approval and maintenance of exis ng and new streets within
the jurisdic on of PMC. All such professionals and depart ‐
ments of the urban local body responsible for design,
construc on, maintenance and approval of the various street
elements considered in this manual should adhere to the
guidelines and recommenda ons men oned in this manual for
the respec ve works. Local communi es, ac vist groups,NGOs
working in any field related to traffic and transporta on for the
city and all relevant stakeholders are to be encouraged to refer
this document.
Scope of Guidelines
This manual gives guidelines purely regarding the designing of
a street for appropriate alloca on of spaces and general
design specifica ons for various elements of the street. It is
recommended to refer to the IRC/STAC report of the PMC for
technical engineering aspects as regards, material, technology
and construc on procedure.
Transporta on studies and legisla on in India
and Pune
Following are some of the acts, laws and ini a ves undertaken
un l now by Central and State Government regarding the road
and transporta on sector prominently related to vehicles,road
construc on, road users. USDG has taken into considera on
the informa on and sugges ons as men oned in these
studies.
Indian Road Congress Guidelines
The Indian Roads Congress (IRC) was set up by the Gover‐
nment of India in consulta on with the State Governments
in December, 1934 and is a registered society under the
Registra on of Society Act. It is the premier body of
Highways Engineers in India. The Principal objec ves of the
India Roads Congress are to provide a na onal forum for
regular pooling of experience and ideas on all ma ers
concerned with the construc on and maintenance of
highways, to recommend standard specifica ons and to
provide a pla orm for the expression of professional
opinion on ma ers rela ng to roads and road transport
including those of organiza ons and administra on. It also
publishes Journals, monthly magazines and research
bulle ns.
Few of such journals regarding design of urban roads have
been considered in the study for USDG. USDG recommends
to follow the relevant IRC for the technical specifica ons
and details for construc on of street elements.
Motor vehicles Act
Following are some of the acts, laws and ini a ves
undertaken un l now by Central and State Government
regarding the road and transporta on sector prominently
related to vehicles,road construc on, road users. USDG has
taken into considera on the informa on and sugges ons as
men oned in these studies.
1 1
Disabili es Act
The Persons with Disabili es (Equal Opportuni es,
Protec on of Rights and Full Par cipa on) Act of 1995 has
been on the statute book for nearly 15 years. This Act has
been the basis of a largely empowering jurisprudence on
the Rights of Persons with Disabili es.
India has ra fied the UN Conven on on the Rights of
Persons with Disabili es (UN CRPD) and has undertaken the
obliga on to ensure and promote the full realiza on of all
human rights and fundamental freedoms for all Persons
with Disabili es without discrimina on of any kind on the
basis of disability. In fulfillment of this interna onal commit‐
ment, the country is obligated to enact suitable legisla on
in furtherance of the rights recognized in the UN Conven‐
on.
Accessibility' is one of the rights that is given importance
under this act which makes it mandatory to provide for
disable friendly design of public places including roads and
streets.
The Guidelines and Toolkits for Urban
Transport Development
The Guidelines and Toolkits for Urban Transport
Development were prepared by a Technical Assistance on
Urban Transport Strategy (TA 4836‐IND) funded by the
Asian Development Bank for the Ministry of Urban
Development (MoUD), Government of India. These
documents are designed to help decision makers and
prac oners in states and municipal governments who are
concerned with urban transport development in medium‐
sized ci es in India.
It consists of 5 modules addressing topics like ‐
• Comprehensive mobility plans
• Bus Rapid Transit Systems (BRTS)
• Guidelines for Bus service improvement
• Guidelines for parking measure
• Guidelines for NMT measures.
2
INTRODUCTION
The Na onal Urban Transport Policy (April 2006)
It was approved by GOI to tackle urban mobility issues to
ensure a safe and sustainable urban mobility in the coming
decades. It provides for integrated land use and transport
plans in ci es, coordinated planning for urban transport,
people oriented equitable alloca on of road space, capital
support in the form of equity par cipa on and or viability
gap funding, innova ve financing, dedicated urban
transport funds, non‐motorised transport, car restraint
measures, clean fuel and vehicle technology, private sector
par cipa on, and pilot projects in ci es to establish models
of best prac ces.
Recommenda ons of working group on 12th FYP
The Working Group on Urban Transport for the 12th Five
Year Plan has made recommenda ons on investments and
plans on 9 broad themes in urban transport which were
iden fied in line with the Na onal Urban Transport Policy
(NUTP) developed by the Government of India.
Study on traffic and transporta on policies and strategies
in Urban Areas in India ,MOUD, 2008
The study aimed at upda ng the transporta on informa on
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
this report.
Na onal Mission on sustainable habitats:
Report of the Sub‐Commi ee on Urban Transport
Under the Na onal Ac on Plan for Climate Change, the
Na onal Mission on Sustainable Habitat has been launched
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
ac on with respect to the transport sector such as evolving
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
UTIPPEC Guidelines for street design Methodology USDG AIMS TO BRING CHANGE IN
As per the recommenda ons of Na onal Urban Transport
Policy, D DA , Delhi has no fied Unified Traffic and CURRENT CONDITION OF STREETS IN PUNE.
Transporta on Infrastructure (Plg. & Engg.) Centre (UTTIPEC)
to enhance mobility, reduce conges on and to promote traffic
safety by adop ng standard transport planning prac ces.
Valida ng need for USDG Pune
Recently UTTIPEC has published street design guidelines to
promote sustainable transporta on system in the city of
Delhi. Define vision, goals and objec ves for
USDG Pune.
Urban Local Bodies Ini a ves
Following are the policies and studies undertaken by PMC
which have been considered in prepara on of this report.
• Comprehensive Mobility Plan (as it is amalgama on of all
Data collec on and analysis for Pune
previous studies)
• PMC Environmental status report
• City Development Plan
Establishing street hierarchy for Pune
• PMC Parking policy
• PMC hawkers Policy
• BRTS Opera onal Plan
Defining the principles of street design
• DMRC Metro report
for Pune
• Ring Road
Defining /detailing street elements
based on principles of street design
Street composi on‐ reference
drawings for RoW wise cross
sec ons and intersec on designs.
Implementa on strategy for USDG
Pune
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‐
ding more space, the road widths are ge ng restricted due to
space constraints within the fast expanding city. This has led to
severe conflicts amongst various a ributes like physical, social,
environmental associated with the road development as also
amongst the interests of various stakeholders.
Traffic problems, degrading environment, encroachments are
the manifesta ons of such conflicts that slowly ruins the
development of any city. With streets being the common
pla orm serving various func ons and stakeholders, the issues
are ge ng intertwined and extremely cri cal to resolve with
the changing me.
Following are the various aspects associated with the traffic
and transporta on system:
Spa al: Sprawl oriented land‐use policies, density control
are encouraging longer travel distances and locking up more
emissions and fuel use as a rebound effect.
Public Safety: With growing traffic, lack of driver discipline,
and inadequacy of the exis ng road infrastructure to handle
the ever increasing traffic, road safety is deteriora ng
rapidly. The pedestrians' and cyclists' right to safe and free
passage has become a casualty.
2 1
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.
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
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
in the city. Maintenance and upkeep of the road surface at these users. document which talks collec vely about all such street
all mes should receive higher priority than even elements for Pune city.
augmenta on of infrastructure as it affects the traffic
capacity of roads and the safety of the road users.
Environmental:The transport sector plays a crucial role in
energy use and emission of GHGs. Among transport sub
sectors, road transport is the main source of CO2 emissions
which accounts for 90 per cent of total transport sector
emissions. Integrated Energy Policy (IEP,) 2006 states that
no economic subs tutes are obvious for the transport
sector at least ll 2031‐32. Therefore, energy efficiency of
vehicles, use of mass transport, pedestrianisa on, cycling
and transport demand management measures have to get
high priority. (source :NMSH)
Social infrastructure:Transport infrastructure is devouring
urban commons and green spaces affec ng liveability of
ci es.
Streets for Streets for Streets for Streets for Streets for Streets for
Access Walking Parking Traveling Hawking Services
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

Fig no. 2.1.1

V/C ra o on major roads of Pune
Source: CTTS Report by SPAN

Ref:CTTS Report by SPAN

2 3 1 2 4
NEED FOR STUDY
2.1.2 2.1.3
Need for study ‐Analy cal Reason Need for study ‐Safety Reason 2000
Pune has witnessed high amount of popula on growth and The table here explains that if all vehicles are brought on roads Exponen al increase in number of private vehicles has
migra on over past decades. The city has high dependency on they will consume over 40% limited road space. The rate at 1500

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. 2.1.5 Fig no. 2.1.6

Percep on on the exposure to air pollu on in different modes Share of emissions in different sectors
Source:Report on Walkability Ra ng of Indian Ci es Source:Pune ESR 2012,2013

Asthama Bronchia s Insifoli s Meninjai s Pnemonea Tuberchilosis

Rise in Noise level and Air pollu on level has been cause of
number of physical and mental disorders. Roads ea ng up 1200

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

Source: Pune ESR 2012 400

200

0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

Fig no. 2.1.7

Deaths due to airborne diseases in Pune from 2003‐2011
1

Source:Pune ESR 2012,2013

2 7 2 8
NEED FOR STUDY
2.1.5
Need for study ‐Social Reason
Streets have an huge impact on our social lives too. World over Light traffic 3.0 friends
sociologists have surveyed and proved a fact that daily 2,000 v/day 5.3 acquaintances
interac on between people, communal recrea onal ac vi es
decreases as traffic and width of road increases in their
community.

Moderate 1.3 friends

8,000 v/day 4.1 acquaintances

Heavy traffic 0.9 friends

16,000 v/day 3.1 acquaintances

Fig no.2.1.8
Rela on between traffic count and social interac ons across streets.

Ref:Study by IIT Delhi and Dr. Dinesh Mohan, research by

Donald Appleyard
1 2 10
 2.2
VISION & GOALS
NEED FOR STUDY
2.1.6 Vision Goal:
Need for study ‐ Design Flaws To re‐establish streets as experien al public spaces that offer Integrate in the road design the func onal requirements of
the ci zens using all modes of transport a safe & dependable all road users and stakeholders as per priority, suitability
Exponen al increase in number of vehicles results in pressure on
commu ng experience as well as integrate in design the and need of each road user, ensuring that equitable road
road infrastructure affec ng its durability.There are many other
various func ons and aspects that are enjoyed by ci zens on alloca on happens across mul ‐stakeholders.
aspects which are also equally responsible for inefficient u lity
of the road space. Lack of maintenance, subgrade quality of city streets.
To create design guidelines for Pune city roads and streets
work, lack of technical understanding of design of road elements
that lead to the development of a more posi vely
are some of the reasons which result into non‐func onal and
experien al public realm in our streets, and safer and
unsafe spaces. Uneven surfaces,obstruc ons in vehicular and
smoother mobility corridors for all users over me.
pedestrian paths due to services, garbage, encroachments,
unlawful parking etc severely hampers the efficiency of roads.
To reinstate the posi on of streets of Pune as our dominant
and most vibrant urban public realm, through be er design.

Design for reducing / removing pedestrian‐vehicular conflict

and leading to safer & cleaner means of overall mobility.

Each year it seems to take less time to fly across the

Ref:Study by IIT Delhi and Dr. Dinesh Mohan, research by Donald Appleyard ocean and longer to drive to work Evan Esar 1996
2 11
2.3
STUDY REFERENCES

2.3.1
Secondary data
The Study will take cognizance of following ini a ves by GoI
and will also take references from Interna onal case studies.
GOI Ini a ves
Indian Road Congress Guidelines
Motor vehicles Act 1939
The Guidelines and Toolkits for Urban
Transport Development
The Na onal Urban Transport Policy
(April 2006)
Recommenda ons of working group on
12thFYP on urban transport
Study on traffic and transporta on
policies and strategies in Urban Areas in
India ,MOUD, 2008
The Persons with Disabili es (Equal
Opportuni es, Protec on of Rights and
Full Par cipa on) Act of 1995
Na onal Mission on sustainable habitats:
Report of the Sub‐Commi ee on Urban
Transport
PMC ini a ves
Comprehensive Mobility Plan
PMC Environmental status report
City Development Plan
PMC Parking policy
PMC hawkers Policy
BRTS Opera onal Plan
DMRC Metro report.
Ring Road
Indian Case studies
UTIPPEC Guidelines for street
design, New Delhi
Be er Streets, Be er ci es:
Ahmedabad
Tender Sure: Bangalore
Interna onal Case studies:
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide,
NYC
World Class Streets,NY
Abu Dhabi USDM
Be er Streets Plan, San Francisco
Design Manual for Urban Roads and
Streets.
2.3.2
Stakeholders Consulta ons
Streets are public spaces where variety of aspects governed by
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
solu on which suits all the stakeholders and in long term
improves the efficiency of the streets.
6 May 13 ‐ Introductory Presenta on to PMC Hon
Addi onal Commissioner, Road dept, NGOs, traffic police.
13 June 13 – Interac on with PMPML.
11 Aug 13 – Interac on with NGOs and ac vists working for
be er streets in Pune.
11 Sep 13 – Interac on with DCP Traffic.
13 Sep 13 – Interac on with Landscape architects, PMC
consultants.
17 Oct 13 – Interac on about status of USDG with
Addi onal city Engineers,Road dept .
23 Dec13 – Interac on with STAC Commi ee, PMC and
Submission of First dra from the regular interac ons with
• Mr Pramod Nirbhavane ‐ Addi onal City Engineer (PMC)
and his department
• Mr Jayant Dharap – Landscape architect
• Mr Chandrashekhar Ghodake, Mr Rajesh Shah – Rtd from
MERI, Senior Civil Engineer roads and bridges.
• Mr Prashant Kakade – CIRT
• 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

29 March2014 ‐ stakeholders consulta on workshop with a

sample stretch of Karve road.

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.

‘Sociability is large part of why ci es exist and streets are the

major if not the only public place for that sociability to
develop.
‘A great street should be a most desirable place to be, to spend
me, to live, to play, to work at the same me that it markedly
contributes to what a city should be.' STREET = PLACE & MOVEMENT FUNCTION

By this defini on of streets, it is evident that there are various

stakeholders for streets and their expecta ons for making of
the 'good street' differ.Such streets which sa sfy the
expecta ons for 'good street' of all or most of the stakeholders
can then be termed as ' complete streets'.

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

‘’The people of ci es understand the symbolic, ceremonial,

social and poli cal roles of streets not just those of movement
and access.’

‐ 'Great streets' Allan Jacob

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.

ROAD = MOVEMENT FUNCTION

STREET = PLACE AND MOVEMENT FUNCTION

3.2
FINDINGS OF OPINION
SURVEY
Introduc on
The results of the survey that was conducted over a period of
6 months, and answered by thousands of respondents of all
ages and backgrounds are quite interes ng.
The results indicate that the ci zens are convinced to have a
be er mobility, safety and comfort while using the streets
through the formula on and implementa on of Street Design
Guidelines.
How do you rate streets in Pune? As per the survey results,about 60% of the respondents use
private vehicles presently and the average travel commute
daily is approximately 20 kms every day.
8.8% People who are presently forced to use private vehicles due
to various unfavourable reasons are willing to use public
transport and cycles and avoid using private vehicles in future.
35.5% 55.8%
Providing equitable space on streets for public transport,
pedestrians and cyclists is thus need of the hour. These
numbers also indicate that the use of private vehicles may
drop by 50% in future based on the responses of the survey if
provisions are made for be er public transport and Non
motorised infrastructure.

Most of the respondents believe that the street in Pune need

to be redesigned to improve the condi on of traffic in general

Mode of transport used at present and preferred mode in future

Very good Good Metro 26%

0.0%
Just okay Needs redesigning
By walk 11.33%
3.7%
Age of respondent
Cycle 13.15
0.8% 1.9%
8.6%
1.65%
Auto rickshaw
2.1%
15.4%
12.32%
Car
49.7% 32.4%

2 wheeler 11.50%
25.4% 47.9%

Public transport 23.66%

12.0%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

<16 yrs <17 ‐ 30 yrs <31 ‐45 yrs Present Future

<45 ‐61 yrs >61 yrs

3 7 1 3 8
FINDINGS OF OPINION SURVEY
Origin des na on map of Pune based
on survey findings
Considering the fact that private vehicles are major cause of
conges on would you avoid using cars and 2 wheelers if
following things are provided?

Be er image of public transport 92.12% 7.88%

Safety from vehicular traffic 93.94% 6.06%

Pollu on free atmosphere 92.73% 7.27%

Separate and safer cycle lanes 84.55% 15.45%

Safe clean & shady footpaths 95.45% 4.55%

Be er availability and service

94.55% 5.45%
of public transports

0% 20% 40% 60 80% 100.00%

Yes No

Majority of the respondents are of the opinion that be er

The origin‐desitna on map based on the responses from the
survey indicate that the loca ons like Hinjewadi, Magarpa a,
Kharadi which are on the outskirts of the city and parts in
PCMC are the major employment des na ons. This is the
main reason for such lengthy average daily commute distance
of the people. Majority of these respondents who are availability of the public transport and safer, shady and
currently using private vehicles for daily commute are willing walkable footpaths will encourage them to avoid using private
to use public transport like bus/metro etc or prefer to cycle vehicle.
and walk for shorter commute.

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%

Difficult way finding 62.42% 15.45% 22.12%

Proper light for be er safety 83.23% 5.48% 11.29%
Roadside pollu on 79.39% 6.06% 14.55%

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

Lack of wider footpaths on both sides of roads 74.24% 6.06% 19.70%

Lack of wider footpaths on both sides of roads 83.64% 3.03% 13.33%

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?

Aspects affecting vehicle users Aspects for pollu on ‐ free streets

Bad road surface quality 96.45% 3.55% Be er alloca on of
93.55% 6.45%
Inadequate light and safety 73.23% 26.77% spaces for all road users

Encroachment 95.16% 4.84%

Improving walking and
Flyover loca on and design 67.74% 32.26% 94.84% 5.16%
cycle infrastructure
Chao c movement of pedestrian and cyclists 83.23% 16.77%

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%

Bus stops /wai ng passengers and hal ng buses 82.26% 17.74%

Use of public transport 93.55% 6.45%
Hal ng vehicles (double parking) 96.77% 3.23%

Parking on side of streets 85.81% 14.19%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Changing width of streets 72.58% 27.42%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Yes No
Yes No

Inspite of diver ng the resources for focusing improvements
in condi ons for private vehicles,most of the respondents are
s ll not sa sfied with current status of the streets.Bad surface
quality, encroachments and hal ng vehicles (parking) are the
major problems faced by the motorists. Other paramentes too
are found to be significantly affec ng the vehicular traffic.
This indicates that not only the engineering aspects like road
quality and material is important but considera on in street
design to address the issues like parking, signage, alterna ves
to avoid encroachment for improving the efficiency of the
vehicular traffic is necessary.
It is evident from the responses that people have understood the Public transport, walking and cycling are the sustainable
fact that providing more infrastructure for private vehicles will modes for future and designs should give equal considera on
never make streets livable and healthy. to accommodate those.
Majority of the respondents feel that be er alloca on of
spaces to cater the need and func ons of all users will make
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%

Space below the flyover goes waste 55.12% 24.03% 20.85%

Very narrow service road is le below flyover 63.60% 15.90% 20.49%

The city looks more impressive 51.94% 24.03% 24.03%

Traffic and way finding confusion is improved 62.54% 19.08% 18.37%

No provision for crossings 63.25% 16.96% 19.79%

Cyclists cannot use it 71.38% 12.37% 16.25%

Bus stop loca on shi s and
57.60% 20.85% 21.55%
public transport users suffer
Traffic overall becomes very much faster 73.14% 9.89% 16.96%

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%

Yes No Not really

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

– IRC 69‐1977: 4.1.1

Space standards for roads in urban areas states that:
In the interest of efficient road transporta on, which
Categorisa on of street in Pune
15%
effec vely serves the various landuses in an urban area and at Like most of the Indian ci es, streets in Pune have undergone
the same me ensures logical community development, it is lot of changes to adjust and adapt itself to cater to the
desirable to establish network of roads divided into different changing demands with respect to the traffic volume, traffic
classifica ons, each system serving a par cular func on or flow, extent, func ons and behavioral pa ern of the users. 26%
purpose. The principle factors to be considered in designa ng This has greatly affected the street network and its hierarchy
59%
roads into appropriate classifica ons are exis ng and leading to many traffic related issues. Presently there is no
proposed landuses, overall travel demand, pa ern of defined hierarchy for Pune Streets. Broadly streets in Pune are
movement of various modes of transporta on, sa ey of traffic classified as Major streets ‐ those with ROW greater than 12m
environmental considera ons etc. and Minor are those with ROW lesser than 12m. From the
table below it is clear that around 60% of streets in Pune are Local streets / Neighborhood Streets
Arterial/Mobility Corridor ROAD = MOVEMENT FUNCTION
Significance of Street Hierarchy: local streets , 25% are sub‐arterial streets and only 15% are
arterial streets. These arterial streets carry around 85% of Sub Arterial / Collector Distributor / feeder streets
The hierarchy establishes a pa ern to the city traffic for
traffic. Considering all this all 3 categories will have varying Main / Arterial / Mobility corridors
today and seeds the essen als for the future
approach for design.
The hierarchy defines the street with specific usage and Fig no. 4.1.1
purpose Pune Street Hierarchy as per Row
Road Width (M) Total road length (KM) Percentage Type
The hierarchy is defined based on travel behavior, road
network, accessibility and road width 7.5 444 21.50%
Local streets /
9 362 17.53% 59%
Direc ve principles of the USDG to achieve'complete streets'
Neighborhood Streets
12 419 20.30%
Designing the streets for be er mobility, safety and livebility
15 54 2.62%
of the users.
Feeder Corridors 18 245 11.86% Sub Arterial / Collector
Designing the streets to provide more and be er level of 26%
20 71 3.41% Distributor / Feeder streets
mobility choices.
24 161 7.78%
Designing sustainable streets. 30 110 5.33%
Establishing image of the city by restructuring the streets 36 80 3.86%
which form the largest public realm of the city . 40 18 0.85% Main / Arterial /
15%
42 6 0.27% Mobility corridors
45 3 0.12%
60 95 4.58%
2065
Neighborhood / Local streets
Table no. 4.1.1
Percentage of exis ng road length based on road widths for Pune. Source:ESR 2012
4 1 1 4 2
4.2
PROPOSED STREET
HIERARCHY FOR PUNE
Basis for proposed street hierarchy in Pune : Special streets
Hierarchy of roads is designed considering the exis ng traffic Streets which have specialized character or specific func ons
pa ern and the func ons of the streets that are evolved over fall into this category. Ci es being dynamic in nature, the
the past years and is not merely based on ROW. character and func ons of the parts of the city changes over
Proposed hierarchy is thus city‐specific as every hierarchy of the period giving an iden ty, character, specialized func on to
street may have similar ROW but with different func on and the streets serving the micro markets. Such streets need to
thus different design requirements have different design due to its different nature.Streets which
have gained an iden ty of serving a par cular func on like
Proposed street hierarchy in Pune : eateries, commercial ac vity and considera on of exclusively
Mobility corridors – Func oning as Arterial streets designing for suppor ng that ac vity for improving the
Feeder corridors – Func oning as Sub‐Arterial / Collector tourism poten al or create dis nct character.
streets
Neighborhood corridors – Similar in func on as Local All those streets which come under following func ons are to
streets be listed under special streets.
Special streets – Especially considered for Pune street
pa ern due to its special character Heritage – streets serving high number of listed heritage
structures.
Mobility Corridors
Comprehensive Mobility Plan of Pune establishes one level of Tourism – streets which are favored by tourists or marketed as
Hierarchy which is Mobility Corridors which are major Arterial tourism places.
corridors of the city. They are decided by thorough study of
Pune traffic pa ern, connec vity, development and Right of Public event streets – streets which generally form part of any
way. They are the roads which cater to about 80% of the traffic processions, rallies, marathon or any such public event ge ng
and are the main growth corridors. organized since past many years and giving an iden ty to the
city.
Same has been taken as a base and further categoriza on is
done. This will avoid conflict in two studies and will be simple
for applica on. Range of ROW for the street hierarchy:
>9M 9‐15M 15‐27M 30‐45M >45M
Feeder Corridors MOBILITY X X
Feeders are second most important roads a er mobility
corridors. They feed the mobility corridors.They are FEEDER X X X
intermediate between main roads and neighborhood streets. NEIGHBORHOOD X X X LEGEND
SPECIAL STREETS X MOBILITY CORRIDORS
Neighborhood Streets FEEDER CORRIDORS
These are local streets. All the other streets other than Table no. 4.2.1 SPECIAL STREETS
mobility and feeder streets are neighborhood streets. Mostly Range of RoW for proposed street hierarchy for Pune NEIGHBORHOOD/
narrow access streets which form connec vity between feeder LOCAL STREETS
roads and individual proper es or residences.It is essen al to
safeguard the privacy and calmness of these streets.
Fig no. 4.2.1
Map of Pune city showing proposed 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

Footpath ‐ side walk At Grade Pedestrian Crossings Mul u lity belts

Cycle Track ‐ NMT Traffic calming measures Planta on

Carriage way ‐ MV lane Speed breakers U lity and services

Shoulders Traffic Signals Storm water management

Parking Central Medians Garbage containers

Bus stops Railings Public toilet

Bus lanes Bollards

Mass transit system Street lights

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

Road Inventory Surveys

Road Inventory is basically compila on of informa on about A er the road inventory, the next stage is conduc ng various A er collec on of data through road inventory and the
the status and condi on of road and the surroundings before surveys. These include land surveys involving detail mapping surveys, detail data analysis is to be carried out to iden fy the
star ng the actual designing process. It requires visi ng the and traffic surveys for quan fica on of various traffic related problem areas, understand the project requirements and
site i.e stretch of the street or any intersec on under aspects. working out the solu on through detail design. It is very
considera on for inspec on and observa ons to understand important to set up a vision for any project before ini a ng
Ac vity Mapping the design process. The diagram below explains the difference
Prepara on for design stage the site condi ons and collect the data accordingly.
It includes execu ng detail topographic survey of the stretch in two approaches. We have tradi onally followed the
Road inventory is important to get informa on about the
by mapping each and every exis ng elements like conven onal approach which has resulted in unhealthy streets.
following aspects:
• Property line, footpaths and carriage ways, medians, Countries around the world have restrained from this approach
crossings, signals, street lights etc. and are now going for Sustainable approach.
Adjoining land‐use and built structures –
Referring USDG • Underground and over head u li es like electrical boxes,
Se ng Vision for design & The design of street cross sec ons and elements depend on SWD lines, chambers , garbage cans, Public toilets, Physical Dimensions Social Dimensions
templates the landuse i.e. residen al, commercial, mixed etc adjoining dustbins, etc. Mobility Accessibility
the site since it affects the requirements of the street. The • Trees, street furniture, parking, encroachments, bus stops
presence of important landmarks, heritage structures etc and also hawkers. Traffic Focus People focus
also need to be considered. Mapping is to be done by digital surveyor and file should be Large in scale Compact Urban Form
in workable formats like AutoCAD etc.
Iden fying constraints– Forecas ng traffic Mul ‐Model Travel
Design Finalisa on stage Nothing all such obstruc ons to pedestrian flow or Iden fying constraints–
Traffic surveys are required to assess the traffic Conven onal Approach Sustainable Approach
vehicular flow like encroachments or any natural constraints
like water channel, big trees etc, u li es like irriga on characteris cs of the study area. Following are some of the Segrega on Greater Integra on
pipelines, HT lines etc. These need to be mapped and important surveys required to be undertaken prior to
Design working out the conceptual design of any street or Street as a traffic Condult Street as a place
Stake Holder mi gated.
& intersec on. Demand Based
Discussion Management Based
Integra on Analyzing future poten al – • Pedestrian and Cyclist counts,
• Traffic volume counts Travel Time Mininisa on Travel me Contextualisa on
To study and analyze the future prospects of the stretch like
proposals for bus lanes, METRO, subways or any land mark • Turning movement counts Free Flowing Traffic calmed
structure which will increase the volume of traffic in future • Parking counts
• Speed and Delay Fig no.5.1
and correspondingly affect the design of the street.
• Bus passenger boarding aligh ng counts. Comparison between conven onal sustainable approach
• Alterna ve surveys – Off street parking loca ons, for street designing.
Source: Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets
alterna ve routes,connec vity improving schemes etc.
5 1 1 5 2
PROCESS FOR DESIGNING URBAN STREETS
Make the street easy to use providing a direct, simple way to move through the street Draw users together
by accommoda ng desire lines and minimizing the complexity network. The following illustra on are taken from “Making
of driving, walking, and biking, thus reducing crash risk by Safer Streets‐Nov 2013 by NYC DOT”

Accommodate desire lines

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

Minimize complexity for each user

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 BEFORE AFTER

• Sight lines for turning vehicles is impeded by parked cars • Bikers and turning vehicles share curbside lanes to increase • Large, mul leg intersec on competes for signal me • Restricted turns
• Bicyclists and pedestrians who have right of way are not visibility and predictability • Long indirect crosswalks • Some traffic approches removed from main intersec on
fully visible • Dayligh ng with extensions increases visibility for • Pedestrians crossing along unprotected desire lines with dividers or islands
• Not predictable whether traffic will turn or con nue straight pedestrians • No separa on between vehicle movements • Simplified signal ming
• Street can feel overwhelming • Street feels manageable and predictable • New shorter crossing that accommodate desire lines
• New plaza space for pedestrians to enjoy and to enhance
the loacal district
Subs tute 2 poor lanes for 3 good lanes
Expand the focus area

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
Referring USDG
for design &
templates
A er se ng up the vision or concept for any street design
project, Urban Street Design Guidelines need to be referred
at every stage for all aspects while working out the design
from conceptual level to detail design proposal.
The guidelines will not provide instant designs but they will
guide the designer to consider all necessary aspects in
depth to come up with a ra onal and sustainable solu on.
USDG has to be referred in following ways
• Mobility
• Feeder
• Neighborhood
• Special
Selec on of street template based on its right of way.
Referring the design elements to be provided from
• Mobility Elements
• Safety Elements
• Environmental Elements
Guidelines need to be supplemented with other relevant
norms like PMC ‐ STAC report, IRC , MORTH, CPHEEO etc
for detail engineering designs
5 7
USDG AIMS TO BRING CHANGE IN
CURRENT CONDITION OF STREETS IN PUNE.
Design
Stake Holder
&
Discussion
Integra on
A er Se ng of Vision and referring Urban Street Design It is very important to discuss the design with the users of
guidelines and taking cognizance of surveys and the streets. In case of streets there are mul ple users and
observa ons the design of street has to be ini ated. each user's opinion need to be respected.
Street has to be designed not just considering the cross The Authori es and decision makers should take an
sec ons but also in plan. ini a ve to invite sugges ons from people and elected
representa ves as the design stage is ini ated.
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
needs to be integrated with adjoining intersec ons, grade invited on designs.
separators, bridges etc.
• PMC road engineers.
While designing, utmost priority has to be given to safe • Traffic Police
pedestrian crossings. Zebra crossings should be • PMPML (Bus operators)
supplemented with refuge islands and should be from edge • Local elected representa ves
to edge of footpath. • Tree authority
• MSEB or electrical authority
Trees should be properly integrated in the design and • Local NGO's & Environmentalists
provision should be made for water percola on and smooth • Experts
run off.
Elements required for universal access should be integrated
in design. Hawkers, bus stops, parking should be
considered.
Design should be such that it is flexible as regards alloca on
of spaces based on future proposals spaces.
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 &

Footpath ‐ side walk

All people should be able to
move fast, safely and conveniently
Cycle Track ‐ NMT
on the streets in Pune.
Carriage way ‐ MV lane

Shoulders

Parking

Bus stops

Bus lanes

Mass transit system

6 1
6.1
FOOTPATH

Exis ng Issues:
Footpaths are missing and are discon nuous at many
loca ons

Footpaths are non walkable due to number of

obstruc ons like MSEB boxes, Water pipelines, level
differences, hawkers etc.

Footpaths are unpleasing and unclean causing discomfort

to pedestrians.

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.

A ributes of good sidewalk corridor design include:

Accessibility by all users. Streets without footpaths/traffic calming Improper surface treatment and lack of Footpath if provided are very narrow and
measures. maintenance of footpaths. cannot fun on well
Con nuity and connec vity. Ideal narrow footpath

Landscaping to create a buffer space between pedestrians

and traffic andalso provide shade.

Social space (area where pedestrians can safely par cipate

in public life).

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.

Ideal wider footpath

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.

Consistency should be maintained for design, color and

texture and level to provide clear visibility and visual
con nuity so as to get easily no ced by vehicular and
pedestrian traffic.
(Source: IRC 103‐2012 : Guidelines for pedestrian facili es)
6 5 1 6 6
6.2
CYCLE TRACK

Exis ng Issues:
Cycle Tracks are missing and are discon nuous at many
loca ons
There is no uniformity in cycle track network within city.
Lack of maintenance especially of surface makes it
uncomfortable for cyclists.
Unavailability of suppor ng infrastructure like cycle
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.

As per MOUD toolkit module 5:

Guidelines for Non motorised transport measures:
minimum width for cycle lane for one way traffic =1.2m
minimum width of cycle track for one way traffic = 1.5m
Non recommended
Cycle lane sharing carriageway No verge separa ng footpath and cycle track surface material

Faulty design of bollards on cycle tracks.

Segregated cycle track Inappropriate spacing of bollards on cycle tracks

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.

Proper gradient should be maintained with provision of

storm water drains to avoid water logging. Fig no.6.2.1
Space requirements for cycle path
Source: Culvert city bicycle and pedestrian master plan design
guidleines

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.

It is observed in Pune that Cycle Tracks are provided in many

loca ons on wider roads but its design is not appropriate thus
affec ng a proper network of cycle tracks.

Intersec ons are places where the cyclist may need to change
his direc on. But cycle tracks abruptly end or discon nue
especially near intersec ons. The con nuous network of cycle
tracks is the biggest issue for cyclists.
Recommenda ons:
It is understood that junc ons need to be wider amoun ng to
turning traffic. Cycle tracks should merge 50m before the
approach of any major junc on on Mobility and Feeder corridors
but should remain con nuous at minor junc ons along with
footpath.
Cycle tracks should be marked in green or blue color where it is
merged at the junc on to highlight cyclist priority . A stopping
bay for cyclists near the stop line of the junc on should be
marked.
The faulty placement of bollards on cycle tracks require cyclist to
li their bicycles in order to pass through it. This is also one of
the reasons that the cyclist discon nue using cycle tracks.
The height and gap between the bollards should be such that
cyclists can pass through it but other ve
hicles cannot enter.
Provision of cycle lane crossing at junc on
Introduc on
Carriage way is the reserved por on of the street only for
moving vehicles. They need to be well defined and
demarcated with lane markings. They are Divided (by
railing/median) or undivided depending on ROW for to and fro
traffic. Carriage way should not be used for parking, hawking,
walking and laying u li es.
Exis ng Issues:
Carriage way is used for many other func ons like parking,
hawking, walking, bus stops etc .
Carriageway lacks dis nct demarca on crea ng confusion
of func onality of space between carriageway, shoulder and
footpath.
Carriageway are not uniform and greatly differ in width and
number of lanes.
Varia on in surface material and subgrade technical
quali es.

Need to shi exis ng underground u li es.

6 11 1 6 12
CARRIAGEWAY
Design Recommenda ons
Width :
Width of carriageway should be uniform through out the
length of the street ll it changes its hierarchy Ideally
Carriageway widths should be increased or decreased from
intersec ons.
Carriage width should be decided based on the op mum
PPHPD (passenger peak hour peak direc on) traffic flow of
the street without compromising on pedestrian, public
transport and NMT space. Ideal cross sec ons are
recommended in this report.
Carriage way on any street should be demarcated with
Yellow color lines and reflec ve cats eye on them. Internal
lanes should be marked in white color dashed lines.
Surface quality and material:
Carriageway should have well finished and plain surface
with proper longitudinal gradient and camber to enable
water drain off. The longitudinal slopes, super eleva ons
and cambers should be designed as per IRC norms.
While deciding the surface material of the carriage way
PMC STAC commi ee report must be referred. Mobility
Corridors and feeder corridors to be in concrete . Neighbor‐
hood streets (less than 15M RoW) can be in Thin White
Topping concrete or Ultra thin white topping. Cross drains
and u lity duc ng to be covered with compact paver blocks.
Low heat absorbing & reflec ng surface materials are
recommended. Eg concrete surface reflects less heat than
Bitumen. This also enhances the life of the street.
6 13
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.
Paved shoulders should have the specifica on consis ng of Travel lane:
sub base and surfacing course and conforming to the Travel lanes should follow the recommenda ons as
relevant specifica ons of corresponding items for pavement men oned in table below.
layers.
Lanes should be well marked by thermoplas c paints, or
The level of street and storm water drain in the shoulders embedded markers
U lity services should not be placed on or beneath
should be so designed that water from the road does not
carriageways as they require digging of road for repairs and
enter into any adjoining property and also water from the
maintenance. This degrades the surface and disturbs the
pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow. They should be shi ed
TRAVEL LANE TOTAL WIDTH OF
to shoulders and in Mul ‐u lity zones demarcated on ROW (IN M) NO.OF LANES REMARKS
WIDTH (M) CARRIAGEWAY (M)
streets.
Construc on technology and material specifica on should Staggered street lights and trees in 0.6m
6 3 2 6
comply with IRC and STAC commi ee report of PMC. shoulders along both sides
Recommenda ons as per STAC Report
7.5 3 2 6 0.75m dedicated shoulder on both sides
6.3.1
Shoulders
Shoulder gives adequate support to the pavement and also 9 3 2 3 1.5m footpath on both sides
drain off surface water from the carriage‐ way to the side
drains besides safety. Where side footpath is not
constructed, normally a shoulder exists which needs 2m one side parking and 1.5m footpath
appropriate construc on and maintenance for proper 12 3 2 6 on both sides
func oning of the road.
2m parking on one and 2m cycle track
Shoulder is invariably neglected and remains without 15 3.5 2 7 on other side. 2m footpath on both sides.
outward slope for efficient draining of surface water.
The construc on of shoulder is required to be done in layers 2m footpath 1.5m cycle track and 2m
each matching the thickness of adjoining pavement layer 18 (mix use) 3.5 2 7 parking on both sides. (divided)
using selected earth/granular material. Only a er a layer of
pavement shoulder shall be laid and compacted for same 3m footpath on both sides. For heavy traffic /
matching thickness, next corresponding layers in pavement 18 (res) 3 heavy parking streets. MUB included
4 12
shall be taken up and then the shoulder. This procedure in footpath. (undivided)
shall be followed up to the surface course.
Table no. 6.3.1
Recommended space alloca on for carriageway for various RoW.
1 6 14
 6.4
ON STREET PARKING
CARRIAGEWAY

TRAVEL LANE TOTAL WIDTH OF

Introduc on 20km/hr; (In Pune The V/C ra o on Mobility corridors is
ROW (IN M) NO.OF LANES REMARKS 2‐wheelers and cars are most common private vehicles parked more than 1.5 and network speed less than 20Km/hr in
WIDTH (M) CARRIAGEWAY (M) peak hours )
on street.Autos,cabs, school buses are public and semi public
2m footpath 1.5m cycle track and 2m vehicles consuming road space for parking techno economic
21 3 4 12 Intersec ons and other cri cal loca ons should be kept free
MUB on both sides. study.
from parking and other encroachments; Parking should not
2m footpath 1.5m cycle track and 2.5m It is to be noted that provision of On Street parking is an happen for min 50m on all arms near junc ons.
21 5 2 10
MUB on both sides. addi onal facility provided by the municipal corpora on and
not the right of the ci zens. Solving on street parking issue Suitable kerbside lengths should be kept clear of parked
24 3 4 12 2m footpath 1.5m cycle track and 2.5m vehicles near bus bays
MUB on both sides. requires Policy interven on. Policy to restrain , charge and ban
parking requires a detail techno‐economic study.
2m footpath 1.5m cycle track and 2.5m No parking should be allowed on raised footpaths or other
27 3.5 4 14
MUB on both sides. 1m median. Traffic and Transporta on Policies and Strategies in Urban corridors meant exclusively for pedestrians; and vehicles
Areas in India (RITES, 1998) recommends the following parked on footpaths should be penalised.
30 3 6 18 Same as 27m sec on. MV lave made 9m
norms for on‐street parking:
on both sides. In central areas, street parking may be permi ed on one
No on‐street parking should be permi ed at loca ons on side of the road one day and on another side on another
30 3 6 18 1m central median. 3.5m footpath and 2m
primary and secondary road network where carriageway day depending on the site loca on.
MUB on both sides.
width is less than 7 meters.
Recommended min. dimensions
3 6 18 3.5m footpath, 3m service road and 2.5m
36
Street parking should not be allowed on roads where V/C Car park = 2.5m x 5m
MUB on both sides.
(volume/capacity) ra o is more than 0.8 orspeeds less than 2 wheeler parking = 1m x 2m
2 bus lanes 3m each in center separated by Cycle parking = 1m x 2m
36 (BRT) 3 6 18 divider. 3.5m footpath and 2.5m MUB on both
sides.
2 bus lanes 3m each in center separated by
36 (BRT) 3 6 18 divider. 2.5m footpath, 1.5m cycle track and 2m
MUB on both sides.
3m footpath, 1.5m cycle track and 2m MUB on
40 3.5 6 21 both sides. MV lane increased to 10.5m on both
sides. 6m bus lane in center.
3.5m footpath, 1.5m cycle track and 2.5m MUB
42 3.5 6 21 on both sides. MV lane increased to 10m on both
sides. 6m bus lane in center.

3.5m footpath, 2.5m cycle track and 2.5m MUB

45 3.5 6 21 on both sides. MV lane increased to 10.5m on
both sides. 6m bus lane in center.0.5m median
between BRT& MV lane on both sides.
Table no. 6.3.1
Recommended space alloca on for carriageway for various RoW.

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
Enforcement Issues:
Parking on footpaths and cycle tracks strictly not allowed
and be fined as per Motor Vehicle Act.
Perpendicular and aligned parking should be avoided.
Parallel car parking is to be enforced.
6 19
General Recommenda ons Should have proper water drain facili es to avoid any water
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.
The area allo ed for parking should have a clean and
leveled surface, free from water logging.
Strong enforcement for prohibi on of parking on footpaths,
cycle tracks and near bus stops.
Strong enforcement to avoid double parking or hal ng
vehicles on busy, narrow streets.
Use of bollards at the ends of the parking strips is
recommended to prohibit undisciplined parking and
Parking in front of bus stops and near bus stops affec ng the encroachment.
movement of bus is strictly not allowed.
Space allo ed for parking should be clean and have leveled
surface.
It is recommended to dis nguish the parking lane by use of
colored surface treatment,line marking by thermoplas c
paint or use of line of contras ng colored blocks.
Use of permeable grass pavers is recommended in parking
areas.
Providing proper clearance ideally in form of verge or
planta on strip between parking lane and carriageway is
recommended for safety of passengers from the moving
vehicles.
A narrow verge is recommended along the edge of the
footpath to ensure that vehicle overhangs do not intrude on
the foot way Provide 0.5 m horizontal clearance in the Edge
Strong enforcement for double parking or hal ng of vehicles zone where there is parallel on‐street parking and 0.7 m
on busy commercial streets and narrow local streets is required. clearance where there is angled parking.
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

• Near junc ons but 50 m away from the intersec on of

local and feeder roads

• Mid blocks on local streets

Capacity of auto stands should be limited to not more than

7 autos in one parking zone. A proper Auto rickshaw bay to
be designed at loca ons having many autos. Spaces should
be dedicated for auto stands near hospitals and commercial
area at places of high foo alls

Auto stands should be located alongside footpaths for

safety of passengers at me of boarding. Autos should not
be parked on footpath or cycle tracks.

Spaces allo ed for auto stands should be well demarcated

by line marking, should have leveled and clean surface and
is well lit and preferably with shaded by trees.

6 21 1 6 22
6.5
BUS LANES AND BUS STOP

General Design Recommenda ons for Bus lanes

Bus priority lane or dedicated bus lane is considered to the
most effec ve and economical way of improving public
transport for a very simple reason. Dedicated bus lane
increases the speed of the bus thereby increasing its
frequency, reducing delay and improving fuel consump on.
Also less buses are required , more people get transferred &
people find bus more a rac ve and convenient

Dedicated bus lanes are recommended on all roads with

ROW 36 m and more.
Building zone
Edge zone At loca ons where dedicated bus lane is not feasible but
Walking zone there is high necessity of having bus lane at such stretches
6.5.1 elevated exclusive bus lanes should be provided.
Bus lanes
Dedicated Bus lane provides for high capacity high quality Width of bus lane is recommended to be min 6m for 2 way
public transport system at compara vely lower costs. bus flow.

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

Proper provision for street crossing to access the median

Exis ng Issues:
bus sta ons in BRTS should be made. Signage's and signals
Exis ng streets are too narrow to accommodate bear crossings are required.
dedicated bus lanes compromising the space demands for
exis ng high traffic

No considera on to proposed BRTS corridors while

altering the exis ng road geometry or construc ng new
wider streets. Elevated BRT Track proposed in
Ahmedabad at Kalupur railway Sta on.
Altering street geometry for BRTS corrdiors on one way
streets is challenging.

6 23 1 6 24
BUS LANES AND BUS STOP
6.5.2
Bus stop
Bus stops are one of the essen al component of streets.
Loca on and design of bus stop affects the movement
pa ern of vehicles and pedestrian and other ac vi es in
general within it catchment.
Exis ng Issues:
Non uniformity in design
User unfriendly, bulky designs giving importance to
adver sement rather than comfort of users.
No considera on to signage,info display of bus system
within bus stop design.
Loca on of bus stop is irrespec ve to road geometry and
adjoining landuse.
No regula ons over mul ple,obsolete, unsafe bus stops.
No considera on to the pa ern of approach of buses,
comfort of drivers, safety of passengers.
General Design Recommenda ons for Bus lanes
Ideal dimensions of bus stop = 10M x 1.5 M x 2.2 M (min ht)
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
corridor should construct this size of bus stop.
Design should be such that they do not obstruct visibility of
surroundings and pedestrian flow on footpath.
The design should be compact, robust with an skid, leveled
floor space and with preferably can lever roof. Sufficient
shade and light.
Sea ng if provided should be compact and minimal.
Guard rails / railings at the kerb edge should not be
provided.
It should have provision for display of route info maps,
digital sign broads apart from adver sement boards.
Adver sements should not obstruct route informa on
display maps, statutory signage’s etc.
Night illumina on is a must on bus stops. Bus stops to have
emergency numbers/ police helpline numbers/ PMPML
numbers displayed.

Ideally a shady tree should be located near bus stop which

Building zone acts a landmark indica ng the loca on of bus stop and
Edge zone provides shade to the passengers.
Walking zone
Should have proper provision of storm water drain to avoid
water logging especially during monsoons. Water absorbing
soil pits can be done at bus stops. Considera on to gradient
and slopes and raised kerbs to drain offwater at the bus
stops shelters.

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.
Should not obstruct pedestrian flow or cycle movement and
conflict vehicular movement in any case.
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.
Parking should be restricted near bus stops. Ideally bus
stops can be constructed in parking space.
Bus stops to be constructed in MUB wherever provided.
Mul ple bus stops to be provided at busy loca ons where
route segrega on is possible and where frequency of buses
is high at peak hours.
Bus stops should be accessed by Zebra crossings, median
breaks, refuge islands.
Should have proper provision of storm water drain to avoid
water logging. Water absorbing soil pits can be done at bus
stops. Considera on to gradient and slopes and raised kerbs
to drain off water at the bus stops shelters.
Permanent lane marking by use of mountable kerbs to
dis nguish bus wai ng area near bus stop to ensure proper
alignment of buses. Guide rails / rumble strip / reflec ve
cays eye / lane marking should be done to help bus align the
bus stop.
Road geometry mainly road width, footpath width,
presence of parking belt, cycle track determine the
loca on of bus stop.
6 27
Depending on above factors following are the various
recommended op ons for loca ng footpaths in different
scenarios.
• Ideal typical layout for bus stop
• Bus stops on narrow roads with narrow carriageway and
footpaths
EXISTING
BUS STOP
Bus stopszone
• Building on wider roads with wide carriageway and wide
footpaths Edge zone
Walking zone
• Bus stops within MUBs
Fig. no. 6.5.1
Exis ng typical layout of bus stop in Pune
• Bus stops considering cycle tracks
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.
and bus passengers encourages bus passengers to wait on This way placing bus stop on footpath affects both pedestrians
and vehicles.
Proposed typical layout op ons for bus stop
PROPOSED
BUS STOP
Fig. no. 6.5.2 Building zone
Op on 1: Bus stop loca on for streets with 1.8 m wide Edge zone
footpath. Walking zone
To place the bus stop in the parking space. The bus stop in This arrangement helps bus to align close to bus stop & avoids
such case has to be 1.5M in width added to exis ng footpath. conflict of bus pedestrians with footpath pedestrians and
The footpath behind the bus stop to be minimum 1.8M wide. vehicles.
1 6 28
BUS LANES AND BUS STOP

PROPOSED
BUS STOP
PROPOSED
BUS STOP

Fig. no. 6.5.3

Op on 2: Bus stop loca on for streets with 1.8 m wide footpath
on narrow streets.
In cases where road is too narrow and it it is not possible to
construct the bus stop ahead of the footpath the bus stop can
be placed on the footpath but the por on of footpath at bus
stop has to be widened to 2.4 M. there should be no parking
owing to narrow width of road and footpath. Footpath to be
minimum 1.8 M wide. The design of bus stop should not
obstruct the pedestrian flow on footpath.
Fig. no. 6.5.5
Op on 4: Bus stop within MUB for wider streets with service
lanes.
In cases where road is wide enough that Mul ‐U lity Zoneis water etc this avoids services coming on footpath). The bus
provided (MUZ is a strip recommended to be provided as per stop in MUZ has to be designed as a bus bay taking space from
IRC which takes care of all u li es like electrical, telephone, service road so that buses do not conflict with vehicular traffic.

PROPOSED
BUS STOP

Fig. no. 6.5.4
Op on 3: Bus stop loca on for wider streets with wider footpaths
In cases where road is wide and footpath is also wide (min 3
M) in such cases bus stops to be placed near road side. The
6 29
PROPOSED
BUS STOP
Building zone
width of footpath behind bus stop should not be less than Edge zone
Fig. no. 6.5.6 Walking zone
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.
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

Pune is one of the 8th Metropolitan city in the country with

heavy migra on and popula on growth. To cater to ever
PROPOSED increasing need on movement of people in future many
BUS STOP studies have been carried out from past decade. Some of the
major ones are BRTS, METRO, Monorail, River Transit,
HCMTR (High Capacity Mass transit Route) or Ring road etc.
LINE PHASE DETAILS OF PHASING LENGTH
Building zone
Pune METRO – This study is carried out by DMRC (Delhi Pimpri‐Chinchwad to Swargate
Edge zone
Metro Rail Corpora on) and this ambi ous project has been Line 1 Phase I 16.5 Km
via Agriculture
Walking zoneCollege
Fig. no. 6.5.7 approved on ULB and state government level and the funding
Op on 6 :Bus stop loca on for wider streets with cycle tracks. & implementa on mechanism is being worked out. Pune will Extension from Chinchwad,
have The METRO in near future. DMRC has proposed 4 lines Phase II 11.5 Km
In cases where road is wide enough that cycle tracks and do not get affected. (In cases where cycle tracks are there Nigdi and Swargate to Katraj
parking is provided bus stops should be plaved in the parking usually BRTS bus lanes prevail, in such cases bus stops are in for METRO as shown in the picture. METRO on most of the
space so that cycle tracks, footpaths median of road so this possibility does not arrive). stretches is proposed to be elevated and will be underground Aundh to Kalyaninagar
Line 2 Phase I 14 Km
only in small core city sec on. via Shivajinagar

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

Table no. 6.6.1

Pune Metro Corridors

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.

Fig 6.6.1 Proposed mass transit systems in Pune

Source: CMP fig 8.11Pune

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

At Grade Pedestrian Crossings Make streets safe, clean,

a rac ve and comfortable
Traffic calming measures
for people to walk and drive
Speed breakers

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

Fig no. 7.1.1

Ideal design for at grade crossing showing zebra crossing and
refuge island Ref:IRC 103‐2012 and 103‐1988: guidelines for
pedestrian facili es,Report of Pedestrians First Ref:Bangalore Guidelines & Interna onal best prac ces.
7 3 1 7 4
 AT GRADE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
General Design Considera ons 7.1.1
Zebra crossing is mandatory at all Intersec on crossings Refuge Islands
Refuge islands are intermediate spaces where pedestrian
The design and dimensions of zebra crossing should comply
can wait / pause while crossing the street. These are safe
with IRC 35‐1970 Code of prac ces for road markings (with
loca ons which help pedestrians to cross the street safely
paints)
Refuge islands are to be provided at all intersec ons which
Ideally Zebra crossing to be 3m in length and 0.3m width of
requires a pedestrian to cross two way traffic and more that
each strip with 0.3m gap
3 lanes
Zebra crossings can be painted in thermoplas c paint of
Building zone The corner traffic channelizers or median spaces near
white or yellow color. Zebra crossings to be highlighted by
Edge zone intersec ons have to be treated as refuge spaces. The
reflec ve cats eye and should be easily visible with
Walking zone minimum width of refuge island to be 0.9m.
sufficient ligh ng. They should be alwaysaccompanied with
stop line
Refuge islands to be highlighted by reflec ve bollards and
signage’s and to have adequate ligh ng
Zebra crossings to be from edge to edge or footpath to
footpath connec ng refuge spaces in between
Height of refuge island to be max 150mm. Refuge islands to
avoid having sharp corners. Rounded corners are preferred
Tac le pavings should be embedded in zebra crossings to
guide disables
Refuge islands can have landscape but care to be taken that
Fig no. 7.1.2 they do not obstruct the visibility or turning space
Medians, railings or any other obstruc ons should not be
Type design of four arm channelised intersec on
placed on zebra crossings
showing arrangement of zebra crossing Light poles, adver sements etc should not obstruct the
source: IRC 103 ‐ 1988. refuge islands
Zebra crossing width 2‐4m

Max. distance between 2 zebra crossing 150 m

widths
Table no. 7.1.1
Design requirements for zebra crossing
source: IRC 103‐2012 and IRC 103‐1988
Guidelines for pedestrian facili es.

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.

Grade separators like Foot over bridges / subways work best

at mid‐block loca ons away from intersec ons

At Grade Mid‐block crossings should be staggered so that Building zone

pedestrians be oriented towards oncoming traffic Edge zone
Walking zone
Refuge Islands are must at mid block crossings for roads
with ROW 18 and more or where pedestrians need to cross
more than 3 lanes at a stretch

Raised crossing or table top crossing are also recommended

but need to be supplemented by traffic calming measure
like kerb extension. The raised crossings to be max 150mm
high to match with footpath level

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.

Motorists in Pune tend to use interior neighborhood / local

streets to bypass main street traffic. Usually they tend to
raise the speeds as there are no obstruc ons like signals,
speed breakers on such streets and has less traffic. Many
mes accidents occur when suddenly small children,
animals or other over speeding vehicles collide. To avoid Choker / Narrowing Central Island Diverters
this TCM are to be introduced. Building zone
Edge zone
Traffic Calming measures are effec ve ways of ensuring Walking zone
safety of pedestrians especially on neighborhood and local
streets.

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.

This can be broadly achieved by crea ng full or par al

physical barriers, change in alignment, varia on in surface
levels and materials and with visual barriers.

Bollards Rotary Speed Table

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.

Traffic circles are recommended on all such roads of ROW

18m and more which are newly developed on the city
outskirts wherein the traffic volume is considerably low at
present.

Ref:Bangalore Guidelines & Interna onal best prac ces.

7 11 1 7 12
CENTRAL MEDIAN, RAILINGS AND BOLLARDS
Design recommenda ons Medians to have colors which will make the median easily
Type of Width &
Central medians to be con nuous and should not have cuts visible . They should have reflec ve materials like cats eyes / RoW (M) Remarks
radium’s fi ed on it so that they are easily visible at night Median Height (M)
or breaks in between.
me. This will avoid accidents.
6 ‐ ‐ TCM – Traffic calming measures
Railings or concrete dividers to be designed in such a way
that they are easy to replace or repair but difficult to li or Owing to narrow right of way and heavy traffic in Pune and 9 ‐ ‐ TCM – Traffic calming measures
move. also the high cost of maintenance of central medians it is
12 ‐ ‐ TCM – Traffic calming measures
recommended that wide medians to be avoided, instead
Narrow central medians without landscape are preferred narrow medians with railings to be used as medians on
over wide medians with landscape as they eat up valuable 15 ‐ ‐ TCM – Traffic calming measures
streets having right of way less than 45m.The space saved in
road space which can beallo ed to pedestrians. medians to be added to footpaths. 18 ‐ ‐ TCM – Traffic calming measures

21 Railing 0.15 & 1.1 Kerb stone can be fixed at base

24 Railing 0.15 & 1.1 Kerb stone can be fixed at base

27 Railing 0.15 & 1.1 Kerb stone can be fixed at base

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

7.3.2 7.3.3 Design Recommenda ons

Railings
General Design Recommenda ons
Railings are the essen al elements of the street. It is
advisable to have railings for central medians.
If railings are to be fi ed on footpath kerb the width of
footpath has to be min 3m.
Railings need to be aesthe cally pleasing and should
enhance the look of the street at the same me their design
should be robust, difficult to tamper or break and difficult
for people to easily climb or sit on it.
Bollards Bollards can have variety of designs and shapes but the
design should not cause hindrance to pedestrians in any
Bollards are entry restric ng elements on streets whose
way.
purpose is to discourage vehicles from entering into
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
steal. eg: Concrete bollards
Exis ng issues
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.
materials fi ed on it to make it easily visible in dark.
The stainless steel bollards are o en stolen or bended due
to collision of vehicles.

The height of railings to be maximum 1.1M.

Railings to be fixed with strong concrete base and should be

con nuous. Care should be taken that they are uniform and
do not protrude out in the MV lane or BRT lane making
sharp angles and causing accidents.

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.

On streets / 0.8m 0.9m The height can be increased

refuge islands upto 1.1m in order to make
etc the bollard clearly visible.
Table no. 7.3.2
Recommenda on for loca on and dimensions of bollards.
7 15 1 7 16
 7.4
SPEED BREAKERS
CENTRAL MEDIAN, RAILINGS AND BOLLARDS
Introduc on Exis ng Issues:
Speed Breakers are induced elements on the streets whose Speed breakers are located haphazardly without scien fic
sole purpose is to calm down the vehicles or reduce their approach. Single, double or triple
speeds.
Lack uniformity in design, typology, spacing and height.
They are ideally introduced where the surrounding land use
expects low speed or where many accidents take place due Lack proper signage’s and illumina on resul ng in accidents
to over speeding. at night me.

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.

Rubber speed bumps get displaced or worn out and their

bolts remain on streets causing tyre bursts.

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.

No considera on to lights in conflict with tree branches,

hoardings, signage, buildings.

Lack of considera on to aesthe cs in design of light poles.

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

On narrow streets with narrow footpaths considera on On Central Medians(two arm

street lights) 25 ‐ 30 9 ‐ 15 2‐4 30
should be given for wall mounted lanterns.

Street light poles should not obstruct the pedestrian or

vehicular traffic flow and visibility.
In between BRT lane and MV lane 25 ‐ 30 9 ‐ 15 2‐4 30
Placement of street ligh ng should be co‐ordinated with
other street elements like trees, signage, adver sement
hoardings.
In between footpath and MV lane 25 ‐ 30 9 ‐ 15 2‐4 30
Heights of the light poles should be sensi ve to the scale of
adjacent built environment.

Pedestrian and street light should share the pole wherever In between footpath and cycle track 20‐25 6.5 – 9 1‐2 25
feasible.

It is recommended to use LED (light‐emi ng diode), metal

halide,induc on, and fluorescent lamps which create a
On footpaths for pedestrians only 15 6.5 1 – 1.5 20
rela vely white
light compared to the yellow of high‐pressure sodium
lamps.

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
Purpose of street furniture is to cater to the comfort need
of the road users especially pedestrian and cyclist.
Well placed and designed street furniture inculcates
sense of discipline among road users acts as traffic
calming measure and adds aesthe c value to the street.
Following are the commonly used street furniture:
• Sea ng/benches
• Dust bins
• Water taps
• Bollards and railing
• Signage/ info kiosks
Street Furniture brings in life on the streets and improves its
aesthe cs and usability.
Exis ng Issues:
No regula ons as regards placement and design of street
furniture.
Lack of enforcement for the provision of street furniture
Design recommenda ons
Should be of durable material, easy and cheap to maintain,
safe to use, easily available in case of repairs and replace‐
ment and aesthe cally pleasing.
Should be placed such that it does not obstruct the
pedestrian or vehicular flow.
Should be placed along all the streets. The loca on, type
and quan ty should be decided depending on the adjacent
land‐use of the roads and user ac vity.
Street furniture should be convenient to use and have
universal accessibility.
All street furniture should be placed to allow access for
street cleaning.
Street furniture is to be provided at all such loca ons having
high public ac vity and pedestrian flow like commercial
plazas public buildings, recrea onal areas, transit sta ons,
parks and gardens, educa onal ins tutes, market areas,
shopping malls etc.
Recommenda ons for Sea ng:
Benches or sea ng should be provided at the building/
frontage edge of the footpath and ideally with provision of
shade.
Where sea ng is oriented parallel to the curb, it should face
toward buildings when located in the furnishings zone, or
away from buildings when located in the frontage zone.
Where sidewalk width permits, sea ng in the furnishing
zone should be perpendicular to the curb.
Site furnishings may also be placed within curb extensions
where sidewalk widths are extended into the parking lane.
Sea ng should be designed to encourage si ng and to
discourage lying down.
Benches are recommended on all streets at adequate
intervals of maximum 200m. Sea ng capacity and intervals
should be determined considering the adjacent landuse and
space availability.
Recommenda ons for dustbins:
Size of trash bins should be such that it does not occupy
more than 2 sq.m of space of any street.
Trash bins should be located at intervals of not more than
200m.
Trash bins should be located ideally on the edge zone or
within verge between carriageway and footpath.
Design of trash cans should be such that it conceals the
li er bags, is covered,facilitates easy removal of li er and
cleaning of bins.
It is recommended to provide for separate bins for
segrega ng the wet waste and recyclable waste.
Dust bins should be placed near all transit sta ons, parking
areas and junc ons.

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.

Shor all in supply than required.

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

SIGNAGE stopping parking limit limit

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

Traffic signs has been prescribed in Motor Vehicles Act

1988. Traffic Sign serve following purpose:
•Road Safety Rules
Restriction
•Permissible Speed and Access. Compulsory ahead Compulsory ahead Compulsory Compulsory Road limit end
or turn right or turn left keep left cycle track
•Warning about poten al hazards
•Direc ons and distances of des na ons, landmarks and
suburbs.

Commonly used road signs as per IRC 67‐2010 are as CAUTIONARY

follows:

Mandatory/Regulatory Signs:In accordance with the

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, every driver of a motor vehicle
shall drive the vehicle in conformity with any indica on Narrow road Gap in median Hump road Barrier ahead
Right hand Left hand Right hand Left hand Right reverse Right reverse Cross road Left side Right side Intersection
given by the mandatory signs and not obeying these signs is curve curve pin band pin band band band road road

an offense These are generally indicated in circular form

Cau onary/warning Signs: Cau onary signs are meant for

cau oning the driver about the hazards lying ahead on the Horse Gaurded
RLY crossing
Cycle crossing Cattle Dangerous dip Speed breaker Y - intersection Staggered intersection Major road ahead Ungaurded Slippery road
RLY station
road. These signs are indicated in a triangular form.

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

Parking lot - Parking lot-

cycle taxis
Source:Pune RTO & Pune Traffic Police
Fig no. 7.7.1
7 25 7 26
SIGNAGE
Exis ng Issues:
Improper placement:
• There is no uniformity in designs of signage's.
• Many signage’s are placed closely.Many mes the old
signs are not removed and new ones are added.
• Mul ple signage o en overlap and are not properly visible
and create confusion for the road user.
7 27
General Recommenda ons:
• The placement and height of signage pole causes
hindrances to pedestrians.
Signage poles are in conflict with other adver sement
billboards, trees, traffic signals and cannot be well read by
the driver.
Source:Pune RTO & Pune Traffic Police
Signage’s should be placed such that it does not create a
hindrance or obstruct the visibility of road users.
Minimum height of any traffic sign (lowest edge) should be
2.1 m from the pavement when posted on footpaths and
sidewalks.
It should be placed on the le side of the road and
perpendicular to the line of the approaching traffic. The
nearest edge of the sign should be 1.2 m
away from the edge of the carriageway.
Minimize sign clu er by loca ng mul ple, related signs on
single poles.
Placement should be such that it is not in conflict with
services and trees on roads. MUB if provided is a good
loca on for placing signages.
Signage should follow uniformity as regards design and
pa ern for various types of signage’s so that those are easily
iden fiable and readable by the road users.
1 7
Signage should be maintained as regards pain ng and
installa ons so that they are readable and should be well
illuminated.
It is advisable to follow a pa ern of placement for loca ng
the direc onal signs. It is recommended to place direc on
signage’s at definite points near transit sta ons, bus stops
and public buildings.
Regulatory and Safety signage’s should be ideally placed
along the edge zone or kerbside of footpath so that those
are easily readable by the motorists and the pedestrians.
Direc on signage’s should be of larger sizes with readable
font sizes.
Design of signage’s should conform with IRC standards IRC
67‐2010 and Motor Vehicles act in accordance with the
recommenda ons by traffic police dept of Pune.
28
 7.8
ROAD MARKING
SIGNAGE

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 no. 7.7.2 Road Markings are done in following ways

Loca on of street furniture. • Line – Center line, Do ed line, Stop line etc
• Arrows – Straight, le , right, U‐Tern, round about
Design Recommenda ons: • Word – STOP, BUS WAY, CYCLE LANE etc
• Diagram – Cycle s, u lity box, bus box etc.
The design, colors and fonts of signage's
have to be in accordance with IRC 67 –
2010.

• IRC has listed 47 Mandatory signs, 60 Cau onary signs

and 68 Informatory signs. These have to be appropriately
used as per the requirement.

• To avoid cluster of signage's mul ple signage's should be

fixed on single pole. Old signage's should be removed and
duplica on should be avoided.

• Signage's should be placed ideally in shoulders or parking

spaces or Mul U lity Belts. If placed on footpaths they
should not obstruct pedestrian flow or access to
proper es.

Gantries / Bus poles / society names/ street names and

Informa on signs should not obstruct footpaths.

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.

Reflec ve Posts – These are plas c posts usually

painted in red, fluorescent orange or yellow color
fixed with bolts. They can be temporary or fixed
based on the requirement.

Source:IRC 35 – 1997 for road markings & UTIPPEC Guidelines.

7 31 1 7 32
 7.9
ADVERTISEMENTS
ROAD MARKING
Applica on of road marking elements Introduc on
MV Lane – Solid white and yellow lines, Do ed white line, Adver sing on streets has became an necessity in today’s
direc onal arrows, chevron markings, cays eye, reflec ve marke ng genera on. Outdoor adver sing is also an revenue
posts, rumble strips. stream for Municipal Corpora on.

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

ADVERTISEMENTS
General Recommendations:
These should be placed such that it does not cause
obstruc on to pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
No part of the structure should project on the carriageway
and footpath.
The structure should not be detrimental to safety of the
people, vehicles and adjoining property.
Should not adversely affect the aesthe cs and beauty of the
city scape and the city in general.
Should be placed such that it does not adversely affect the
beauty and unique character of important places,
landmarks, heritage sites, religious buildings and natural
elements like river, hills, trees etc.
Sky signs should not be placed beyond 40m distance from
the 'STOP' line marked at the intersec ons of roads. No
other luminaries except LED and LCD be used for
illumina on of adver sements structure.
7.10
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Traffic signals
Traffic signals at intersec on are necessary to
• To reduce traffic conflicts and delays
• To avoid accidents
• To economize on police me
• Direc ons and distances of des na ons, landmarks and
suburbs.
Traffic volume, interrup on of con nuous traffic, accident
probability determines the need for having a signalized
intersec on.
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.

Many mes signals are not synchronized

Min 3.5m
ROW 9m ‐ 18m 3m x 3m Too many signals cause chaos.
Max 18 m

ROW < 9m Boards are prohibited

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

Table no. 7.9.1

Placement and type of adver sement structure
Source:PMC Sky Sign Jahirat Niyamavali 2010 Source:Pune Traffic Police
7 35 7 36
 TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Fig no. 7.10.1
Loca on of traffic signals
In Pune Traffic lights follow primary secondary system
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.
Similarly for other arms .
This arrangement causes confusion and commuters tend to
halt ahead of the stop line blocking entry of other arms.
This also causes vehicles to halt on pedestrian zebra
crossings or cycle boxes causing inconvenience to all street
users.
7 37
Pedestrian Priority Signals.
PPS should be installed ideally at mid blocks and should be Puffin (‘pedestrian user friendly intelligent’)
regularly maintained.
Puffin crossings have sensors that determine when the
Pelican crossing is clear.
Pedestrians ac vate the crossing by pushing a bu on and Toucan
wai ng for vehicular traffic to be stopped by a red signal. Toucan (‘two can cross’) signal controlled crossings combine
pedestrian and cycle movements across the carriageway.
These are appropriate where pedestrian flows are high
and/or vehicles traveling at rela vely high speeds.
As per interna onal standards we see a very simple way of
loca ng traffic light posts.
As per the above figure there will be no duplica on of
signals, no primary and secondary but will have only one
signal per arm which will be located on the kerb side or in
median side of that arm.
Arm A will have its signals on arm A. The signal post will
have an long outreach arm over which traffic lights above
each lane will be fi ed. It will also have CCTV cameras,
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.
This will keep the pedestrian crossings free of vehicles
hal ng over it. Educa on and Awareness should be created amongst ci zens on ways of using Pedestrian priority signals
Source:Pune Traffic Police
1 7 38
 08
Ecological Street Elements
Includes introduc on to elements, exis ng issues, design recommenda ons based on
& Environment
Ecology standards and norms for all such street elements affec ng the environment of the city.
8
ESSENTIAL GOALS FOR
STREET DESIGN FOR PUNE

& Environment
Ecology

Mul u lity belts Streets to reduce impact on

natural and built environment.
Planta on
To gave green streets in the city.
U lity and services

Storm water management

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,
underground and overhead u li es like MSEB boxes, light
poles etc, parking and such other elements are organized in a
space on shoulders between footpath / cycle track and motor
vehicle lane.
MUB for streets in Nanded.
A Mul ‐U lity Belt is proposed along the stretch of the street
for incorpora ng mul ple ac vi es which happen along the
street edge

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.

Fig no. 8.1.1

Mul U lity Belt as proposed in IRC 2012
MUB for streets in Nanded.

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

Loca on of common u lity ducts and duct banks should be 27 2.5

coordinated with the loca on of planta on so trees are not
required to be disturbed during repairing and maintenance 24 2.5
of service lines.
21 1.5
Demarcated spaces for 2W and 4W parking, hawkers, bus
stops, trees, signages, u li es etc have to be done by 18 0.75
ac vity mapping, surveys and stake holder consulta ons.
<18 no
All ac vi es and sta onary elements like hawkers, trees, Table no. 8.1.1
bus stops, parkings, kiosks, temples etc need to be mapped Recommended width of MUB for various RoW.
, all underground u li es need to be mapped in order to
shi them over or underneath MUB. A er doing this the
MUB has to be designed.

Fig no. 8.1.2

Ref:IRC 103‐2012 and 103‐1988:guidelines for pedestrian facili es Recommended typical MUB
8 5 1 8 6
8.2
PLANTATION
Introduc on
Trees play an important part in the design, func on, and
aesthe c success of the street scape.
Trees are essen al on streets for following reasons:
To provide shade to road users especially, pedestrian and
cyclists.
To reduce local ambient heat and provide cooler
atmosphere
Improve quality of air by absorbing pollutants.
To reduce surface water drain off.
Make streets aesthe cally pleasing.
A regular presence of trees along the sides of street is
desirable to frame the street, calm traffic and enhance
pedestrian crossings.
8 7
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.
Inappropriate loca on crea ng obstruc on in vehicular and
pedestrian flow.
Inappropriate species as regards root system, trunk sizes,
foliage pa ern adversely affec ng the street elements.
Lack of ownership for street planta on resul ng in
negligence towards its maintenance.
Lack of exper se as regards the selec on of trees and
design of street landscape.
Lack of awareness about importance of trees as street
element.
Common issues observed due to inappropriate selec on of
species are as follows:
Conflicts between tree branches and electrical lines ,street
lights and signage’s
Damage by tree roots to roadways and sidewalks.
Underground u lity lines are o en disturbed due to
intrusion of tree roots.
Obstruc ons is caused to pedestrians and visibility is
reduced for the motorists due to the growing tree branches.
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.

Trees with overarching canopies and medium density

foliage are appropriate on wider streets, such as mixed use
streets, throughways, and boulevards. Conical Broad Upright

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

WRONG RIGHT DESCRIPTION WRONG RIGHT

Tree Planta on and Intersec ons
Tree Planta on and access to
building / property

Tree planta on should not obstruct

the pedestrain or vehicular access
to any building or property at its
entrance. Also footpath should be
con nous.

Tree Planta on and Bus stops

New Trees should be planted near

the bus stop but on other side in
such a way that they do not
obstruct the vision of bus driver or
passengers.

Fig no. 8.2.3

Tree Planta on and Street Recommenda on for planta on at intersec ons
lights
Exis ng trees on Carriage way: DESCRIPTION
New Trees should be planted At some loca ons it is seen that Exis ng trees occupy the Trees near the intersec on o en cause hindrance to traffic flow
in an alternate & staggered way space on carriage way. They are either on edge or in between obstruc ng physically and visually. Also at intersec ons many
with the street lights in such a way the carriage way. These need to be treated in following ways. important elements like signals, highmasts, police booths,
that street light does not get To be highlighted with Chevron road marking, cats eyes and crossings etc are located and as majority of pedestrains the
hidden due to tree canopy reflec ve posts so that they are visible in night.This way tend to cross the street at intersec ons the footpath kerb
accidents can be avoided.If possible they should be shi ed to should be extened. The sketch shows the kerb extension at
the edge making sure their life & growth is not hampered. intersec ons.New trees should be planted 50m away from
Fig no. 8.2.2 major intersec ons.
Recommenda ons for planta on with respect to property
access, street lights and bus stops

8 13 1 8 14
 8.3
UTILITIES AND SERVICES

Introduc on
Streets are not just movement corridors for people and vehicle
but they also carry infrastructural u li es. U li es are the
most crucial components of the street and require proper
design, placement, & maintenance . The en re health of the
city depends on these u li es and hence these need to be
studied in detail and dealt with properly.
Streets carry number of u li es. Each u lity service
installed & maintained by different departments and need to
co‐ordinate with the road department of Pune Municipal
Corpora on for installa on / up grada on or maintenance.
Water Supply – PMC ‐ Water supply Dept, Irriga on Dept
Each u lity line has its peculiar requirements. These lines need
to co‐exist on streets in proximity but without affec ng each
other. The en re life cycle of the streetdepends on the design
and placement of u li es.
Exis ng Issues:
U li es o en causing obstruc ons to pedestrians and Many mes safety of pedestrians is at stake due to broken
vehicles. wires hanging, u lity sha s open etc. The u lity covers are
not on level with pedestrian paths and cause unsafe walking
• HT Lines, Electric meters, feeder pillars etc. condi ons.
• Garbage cans,
• 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.
• Water supply ferrules, pipes etc.
U li es are not laid scien fically resul ng in over
expenditure in repairs. U li es are not mapped properly
and maintenance of one results in disturbance of other
u li es.

Sewerage – PMC Sewerage Dept. Network of overhead

Network of overhead service
lines service lines
Electrical supply ‐ MSEB

Storm water drain – PMC SWD Dept.

Telecommunica on lines – MTNL, BSNL, Reliance, Airtel,

Idea etc

Gas lines – MNGL, ONGC

Cable TV,

CCTV, Signals, Street lights, ITS etc – PMC Traffic

Department and Traffic Police.

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.

Ref : CPHEEO Norms & IRC 98‐1997 for U li es.

8 15 1 8 16
UTILITIES AND SERVICES
General Design Recommenda ons
U li es should be ideally placed below verge between
pedestrian path and carriage way or in MUB if provided.
Manhole covers and other obstruc ve u li es should be
located within the edge zone of the sidewalk so that it does
not disturb the pedestrian flow.
U li es should not be located below the carriageway.
Alignment of the electric meters,feeder pillars should be
parallel to the footpath and should placed near the building
edge so that there is adequate clearance for pedestrian
movement.
Manhole covers should be flushed properly with the surface
so as to have minimal level difference.
Road
Fig no. 8.3.1
Placement of u li es on footpaths
8 17
U li es need to be mapped scien fically and their records
should be maintained. Technologies like GPRS (Ground
Penetra ng Radar Systems) should be used.
U li es should be laid Underground. Electrical LT & HT
lines, Cable TV lines, Fiber Op c Cables etc should be
properly taken underground.
Storm water drains need to be covered and be along the
kerb of footpath or Mul ‐u lity belt. Open jalis should be
avoided.
U lity covers should be designed in such way that they are
not easily recognizable but should carry the required
informa on like u lity names, logos etc.
Ref: CPHEEO Norms & IRC 98‐1997 for U li es and pedestrian
first report
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.

Water Supply, Electricity, telecom and Gas lines work on

pressure so slope is not required but as they have
interac ve proper es need to be away from each other.

Gas lines & Electrical lines need to be away to avoid

accidents in case of leakage.

Water supply lines need to be full proof to avoid leakage

and short circuit.

HT Electrical lines and telecommunica on lines should not

be close to avoid possible electrical interference due to
induced voltage.

Following are the recommended depths of U li es

Trunk Sewer line – 2 to 6 Meters

Water supply service line – 0.6 to 1 meter , water supply

trunk line – 1 to 1.5 meters

Electrical cables – LT – 0.6 to 1 meters, HT – 1.5 to 2 meters

Telecommunica on lines – directly laid – 0.6 to 1 meters, in

concrete ducts – 2 to 3 meters.

Gas lines / combus ble materials– 2 to 3 meters

Fig no. 8.3.2 Fig no. 8.3.3

Placement of underground u li es for streets with RoW 6m to 15 m Placement of underground u li es for streets with RoW 18 m. Ref : CPHEEO Norms & IRC 98‐1997 for U li es
8 19 1 8 20
 8.4

STORM WATER MANAGEMENT

UTILITIES AND SERVICES
Design Recommenda ons Introduc on
Generally storm water is collected across the edges of the
For >18 m RoW with MUB carriageway by an inlet placed at regular intervals and
directed into storm water drainage system.

At present, the water is collected by the SWD pipes along

roads and discharged into the nallas which further discharge
the water into the river.

Natural storm water management system is to be preferred

for ecological reasons.

Exis ng issues:
Water logging especially during rains creates inconvenience
for road users, damages the road surface and affects the
traffic.

Lack of so surfaces along streets leads to water stagna on,

decrease in water percola on,deple on in ground water
table and wastage of water in general.

Pune Municipal Corpora on has prepared a DPR for Storm

Water management and has also addressed the issue in its
Sanita on Plan 2010. 28 Basins have been demarcated and an Fig no. 8.4.1
extensive study has been has done for storm water discharge. Map indica ng storm water drain basins for Pune city
PMC needs to construct SW lines where ever those are Source: PMC DPR for Storm Water Management prepared
absent. under JNNURM

SW lines need to be along both sides of the street, ideally in

the shoulder or the Mul ‐u lity belt if provided.

Care should be taken to follow the longitudinal slope of the

street and water should not accumulate at the
intersec ons.

The street should have gradient on both sides towards the

edge.

Also the footpath to have gradient slope towards the

Fig no. 8.3.4 shoulder so that water does not accumulate on footpaths or
Placement of underground u li es for streets with RoW more enters any property.
than 18 m Ref : CPHEEO Norms & IRC 98‐1997 for U li es.
8 21 1 8 22

STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Following are some of the elements which can help in natural
draining of storm water and rain water harves ng
Unpaved verge along streets
Unpaved areas below tree gra ng
Permeable paver
Pavers are brick‐like materials that are manufactured in a
variety of shapes.Pavers fit together like les and are set
with small gaps between them, crea ng grooves for water
to infiltrate the soil beneath. Other materials such as
broken pieces of recycled concrete can be used.Paved
walkways can also be removed and replaced with gravel or
mulch.
Bio‐swales
Water is retained and gets infiltrated in the bio‐swales
reducing the storm water run off volumes and peak flows.
Bio swales are connected to the main storm water drain
eitherin series (connected only at the end) or on parallel
connec on.Bio‐swales adjoining the storm water help to
drain wherein extra water can overflow within the drain.)
General Design Recommenda ons
Bio‐swales are recommended along road side plan ng
strips, within MUBs, within wide central medians and
spaces created by grade separators.
Minimum width of swales should be 1m and ideally run
con nuously along a stretch of the road.
Permeable pavers should be used for parking belts and
sidewalks and any other non‐vehicular roadway in parts or
in totality.
Ref : Interna onal Best Prac ces, Interac on with Landscape architects.
8 23
8.5
GARBAGE CONTAINERS
Introduc on Exis ng Issues:
Garbage containers on streets are one of the biggest issues
Dust bins at right places and at frequent intervals help to keep
the streets clean. Clean streets not only are important for PMC needs to tackle and biggest deterrents for pedestrians
community hygiene but also encourage people to use streets walking on streets.
for walking and socialising.
They o en are not covered , they overflow and accumulate
General Design Recommenda ons li er on streets affec ng the health of whole province .
Garbage containers to be smaller in size and should be
Permeable paving blocks Permeable paving blocks They are too large in size and o en occupy space on
covered. Two are three small containers are preferred in
place of an single big one. These are easy to maintain and footpaths & cycle tracks.
will ensure regular replacement.
The situa on becomes grave when garbage is not collected
Garbage containers should not be placed on footpaths or regularly and during rains causing many health issues.
cycle tracks. They should ideally be placed in Mul ‐u lity
belt if provided. They can also be placed in parking space Garbage containers are being removed by means of door to
with proper pla orm created for its easy li ing. door garbage collec on system but s ll many big containers
exist on streets
Bioswales Unpaved verge along streets.
If at all they need to be placed on footpaths, min 1.8m
footpath should be carved out exclusively for pedestrians
from carriageway.
Two Garbage containers in a radius of 500m are advisable
but care should be taken that they are no placed near
hospitals, heritage monuments and important landmark
buildings.
The recommenda ons for augmenta on of Solid Waste
management given in Pune Sanita on Plan 2010 should be
followed.
Fig no. 8.4.2
Structural details for pavement with permeable pavers
Door to door collec on system is ideal method of waste
collec on to discon nue prac ce of garbage containers on
streets.
Ref : PMC Sanita on Plan, SWACH & Interna onal best prac ces
1 8 24
8.6
PUBLIC TOILET
Introduc on
The provision of public toilets is a basic human right. Being
able to access a toilet is a fundamental aspect of community
development because it ensures that all people can move
freely in their city and relieve themselves with dignity. The
inability to use a bathroom, coupled with the smell of feces
and urine detracts people from the streets. A study conducted
in Chicago showed that when people have a concern about
needing a restroom on the way to work, they will be more
likely to take their cars than use public transit.
The American Restroom Associa on uses the term “restroom
challenged” to refer to those who have to go frequently or at
mes urgently. These include people with an array of normal
and medical condi ons, the disabled, pregnant women and
parents with children, and the elderly and for whom the public
toilets are very necessary.
Exis ng Issues:
Exis ng Public toilets are inadequate in terms of
numbers,capacity and reach especially for women
Exis ng Public toilets o en s nk and lack proper Sewerage
disposal system so they are o en dirty and
nonapproachable.
Many mes Public toilets obstruct footpaths and
pedestrians are forced to walk on carriage ways.
Public toilets are not friendly for people with Disability and
for old ci zens.
8 25
General Design Recommenda ons
1 toilet block should be provided at every 1.5 km on
mobility and feeder corridors. Public toilets should be
provided near transit sta ons and off street parking areas.
Public toilets need to be considered in the road design such
that it is easily accessible and aesthe cally integrated with
the surroundings.
Public Toilets should not obstruct Footpaths , cycle lanes
and carriage ways. If placed on edge of the street min 1.5m
wide footpath should be le exclusively. Public toilets
should be placed within MUB wherever provided.
Care should be taken that Public Toilets are connected to
sewerage lines and are kept clean. Sulabh or paid toilets are
be er maintained.
Since public toilets are recommended at regular walkable
intervals, the capacity can be reduced to minimize the
overall dimensions of the block.
Public Toilets can have an adjoining landscape por on
where in plants which grow on Urea can be planted.
The design and access for Public toilets should be friendly
for old people and disables.
The recommenda ons for augmenta on of Public Toilets
given in Pune Sanita on Plan 2010 should be followed.
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.‐
Ensuring Pedestrians safety is the most important aspect of
intersec ons design. Pedestrians are most vulnerable to
conflict with vehicles and hence their safety in crossing streets
at intersec ons should be given the topmost priority in design.
Following are the pedestrian safety elements required to be
introduced at all intersec ons.
Kerb Extension – maximum pedestrians cross the street from
intersec ons. In order to facilitate their wai ng and reduce the
distance for crossing the curve
por on of footpath at intersec ons should be widened. This
helps in crea ng extra space, avoids vehicles hal ng at
intersec ons, improves visibility of vehicle drivers and
pedestrians.
Refuge Islands ‐ Refuge islands should be developed at the
center of the two way street so that pedestrians cross the
stretch in safe stages. Pedestrians should have a small wai ng
space between street if they need to cross a stretch of more
than 3 motor vehicle lanes.
Channelizers – The triangular spaces formed at right and le
turning lanes at intersec ons should be reclaimed for
pedestrians as vehicles do not use them and mostly dirt gets
accumulated there. Such triangular spaces are channelizers.
They should be accessible to pedestrians as they serve as
refuge spaces.
Disable friendly access to footpaths – Footpaths should have
ramps with bollards on sides so that people can easily climb up
and vehicles cannot enter.
Con nuous Zebra crossing – Zebra crossings should have
sufficient light and be paint marked clearly from edge to edge
connec ng refuge pedestrian spaces. Stop line to be 1m
before the Zebra crossings and to have reflec ve cats eye fixed
on them to improve the visibility and define the street
crossing.
Ref: Int Best Prac ces, IRC 1994 , IRC 103‐2012
9 3
Intersec on Design for Cyclists.
Cyclists usually travel on le side of street as its the slow speed
sec on. Cyclists safety comes at stake at intersec ons as
cyclists need to turn le of right or cross the street at
intersec ons where in dedicated cycle paths or tracks need to
get merged with MV lane. Hence there is a need to design a
defined way in which cyclists movement at intersec ons will
be controlled. Following are the recommenda ons.
• Merging – De‐merging cycle lane – Cycle Tracks provided
on Mobility streets need to merge with the traffic lane 50m
before the stop line. This is required for cycles turning to
Kerb extensions other street, if possible le turning cycle lane can con nue Cycle lanes at intersec on
to be dedicated.
• Paint marking cycle priority lane ‐ Min 1.5 m paint marking
should be done on streets where cycle track is not provided.
Also when dedicated cycle lane merges with the regular
traffic lane 50m near the intersec on it needs to be paint
marked to dis nctly remind vehicles cyclist priority. Paint
marking to be minimum 1.5m wide along kerb side and be
marked in green /blue color.
• Paint marking Cycle box – A cycle box must be painted
before the zebra crossing so that cyclist get priority in front
and can safely change the lanes. Vehicles to stop before
cycle box. Width of cycle box to be min 1.5m.
Refuge islands Paint marking cycle lane
Channelisers Cycle box
Ref: Int Best Prac ces, IRC 1994 , IRC 103‐2012.
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.

Intersec ons are Signalized or non signalized Following are the

recommenda ons for Signalized intersec ons.
Turning Lane –
While designing for intersec ons traffic and turning vehicle
counts should be taken. At intersec ons where there is heavy
le / right turning traffic an extra
lane for turning should be taken from other half of the street.
This reduces the Q length of traffic and helps freeing the
intersec on faster. This extra lane should be for at least 50m
from stop line. Mere widening the
intersec ons without thought given to turning traffic will
cause bulb effect and traffic satura on.
Clear lane marking ‐
Streets sec on near intersec on should have clear signage’s
and street marking showing straight going arrows, turning lane
arrows, stop line etc. The medians, refuge islands should not
obstruct turning or weaving length of vehicles.
Posi on of signals – Provision of turning lane at intersec on
L‐Type can lever signal posts should be used and they should
be placed on kerb side of the approach arm of the
intersec on. The height of signal post should be at least 5.5 m.
This makes vehicles stop before the intersec ons and avoids
vehicles racing ahead beyond stop line.

Ideal placement of traffic signals at intersec on

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.

Size and shape – Roundabouts are ideal at intersec ons

having more than 3 arms. Roundabouts are circular in shape
but their effec veness increases if the roundabout is squarish,
or oblong in shape. Roundabout becomes more effec ve when
distance between entry and exit to roundabout increases
crea ng more space for merging and de‐merging.Roundabouts
should not be too small as heavy vehicles like buses, trucks
require large turning space.

Roundabouts should have radious of 6 m to 15m in Urban

Area. 9M and 12m radious roundabouts are suitable to mix
type of traffic. Streets having no access to heavy vehicles like
trucks and buses can have diameter of min 3m. There should
be at least 2 lanes (min 6m) at entry and exit of roundabouts.

Access ‐ Roundabouts are usually not assessable to

pedestrians but of no provision of refuge spaces is available on
streets roundabouts can be used as refuge spaces

Trea ng Roundabouts – Roundabouts can have landscape,

sculptures, public art etc but care should be taken that it does
not obstruct the visibility
of commuters and does not distract them from driving causing
accidents. Roundabouts are ideal spaces for innova ve art
installa ons.

Ref: Int Best Prac ces,IRC 65 – 1976,

9 7 1 9 8
INTERSECTIONS
U lity Designs for Intersec ons. ‐ Trees – It is not advisable to have large trees at major Exisi ng Issues
Streets are also the u lity carriers. U li es like Storm water intersec ons. Big trees need to be shi ed 50m away from
drains, sewerage, water supply lines, electrical, telephone and intersec ons on Mobility corridors however low height
gas lines are laid underneath the streets. These u li es need landscape which will not affect the traffic and pedestrian flow
frequent up grada on and maintenance. IRC has recently and underground u li es can be located near the
recommended provision of Mul u lity belt or dedicated intersec ons.
unpaved space on streets for u li es but having an dedicated
spaces for u li es at intersec ons may not be possible at busy
intersec ons of the city. Digging for u li es are major cause of
disrup on of pedestrian and traffic flows especially at
intersec ons. Following are the recommenda ons.

Providing Cross Ducts –

Intersec ons on Mobility and Feeder corridors should have
properly designed and accessible cross ducts 50m away on all
arms of intersec ons. The change in direc ons, new
connec ons, new lines and maintenance should be carried out
from these cross ducts. Except storm waterdrains other
services can be organized from these cross drains.

Raising level of Intersec ons.

It is observed many mes that intersec ons become
satura on points where rain water from all arms gets
collected. Proper storm water drain provision at edge of the
street should be done for intersec ons to avoid
water accumula on. For this intersec ons need to be slightly
raised above road level. No drainage chambers, water supply
vaults, maintenance sha s etc should be located on
intersec ons. If present should be shi ed to the edge.

U lity Shi ing ‐

U li es present at intersec ons should be properly shi ed to
the sides and cross ducts. Its is not recommended to have
electrical transformers, gas banks, garbage containers etc at
intersec 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

Introduc on Exis ng issues:

Grade Separators for vehicles are structures which are built Some mes grade separators are planned without
above or below the exis ng street / intersec on in order to studying traffic behavior which result more chaos
increase the carrying capacity and reduce the delay due to in‐spite of grade separator.
conges on of that intersec on or
stretch. Grade separators are designed as solu on for only
an specific problem area but its impact on adjoining
Elevated Grade separators are called Flyovers and below intersec ons / stretches or other modes like Public
ground are called Underpass. transport, Auto rickshaws, cycles, pedestrians etc are not
considered. This result in adding conges on to next
There are different types of Grade separators like intersec ons, shi ing bus stops and auto stands, tree
• Straight or curved (2 arms) cu ng etc.
• Trumpet – 3 arms (Y or T shaped) Pedestrian crossing in not considered
• Diamond – 4 arm In many grade separators consume lot of street space
• Clover leaf – full & par al leaving very less space for slip roads and no space for
• Raised roundabout. footpaths.
Grade separators are recommended in following situa ons
Grade separators like flyovers are designed in such a way
• When an stretch or intersec on requires to have an
that their columns cause obstruc ons to pedestrian and
access control.
vehicular movements.
• When any Mobility corridor or major street is
coming in conflict with any other dedicated line of
In some cases gaps are le in between lanes on flyovers
transport like rail.
through which water keeps on dropping during rainy
• When the adjoining land‐use and space constraints
season. Under passes too have water ‐ logging issues.
cause considerable delay to the through traffic to
such an extent that the noise and air pollu on level
of that area goes beyond warranted level. Very less considera on is given for pedestrian crossing while
• When the vehicular count of all arms of the designing grade separator. Improper treatment to service lanes
intersec on exceed 10000 PCU / Hr.
• When there is high and dispropor onate rate of In some cases the width and height of underpass and
fatal and major accidents at an interac on not flyovers cause obstruc ons to heavy vehicles.
found to respond to other traffic control or
improvement measure may warrant an grade The merging and diver ng of traffic near any grade
separator. separator is an accident prone spot in most cases.

The expansion – contrac on joints on grade separators

cause disturbance to users.

Grade separators designed on narrow streets cause

disturbance to adjoining buildings.

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.

The design of any grade separator to ensure minimum 7m

slip road and 2.5m footpath on both sides.

The design and alignment to ensure minimum conflicts to

traffic and reduc on of delays. The impact on adjoining
streets and next intersec ons also should be accounted.
Flyover
Min. width if carriageway for flyover = min 6 M (2 lane and
min 4.5 m for single lane). Turning radius to be min 12m.

Design speed to be taken as 60km/hr for mobility

corridors, 50km/hr for feeder corridors and 30km/hr for
local streets.

The gradient / slope of ramp to be 1 in 25 but in extreme

cases not less than 1 in 15. The ground
clearance to be 5.5m.

Design should consider provision of safe pedestrian

crossings. Bus stop loca ons should not be shi ed
away. Vehicular Underpass

Proper provision of street lights, storm water drains

and underground u li es to be ensured.

Fig no. 10.1.1

The Merger & Diverter blocks to be designed in such a way
that conflict is avoided.

Garware hump subway

Ref: UTIPEC Guidelines & IRC 54‐1974

10 3 1 10 4
 GRADE SEPARATORS - Vehicular
Design Recommenda ons
Countries around the world have build such massive grade Ci es like Seoul have started demoli on of such in human
Merger and Diverter blocks should be designed at in and
separators and have proved them to be an nuisance rather structures and have proved that such structures are threat to
out ends of any grade separator to avoid conflict with at
than the solu on. Huge structures like these may save some economy, safety and sustainability.
grade traffic .
me ini ally later on cause an huge burden on the city. Many
Space below the flyovers should be brought to construc ve
use. The column posi ons should not hamper traffic or
pedestrian flow.

Grade separators to have proper informatory & cau onary

signage’s. Adver sing’s and hoardings should not affect the
visibility of drivers before and on the grade separators.

The columns of flyovers to have protec on walls and should

be highlighted in such a way that they are easily visible.

Grade separators should have crash barriers on min

0.5m on both sides. The height of barrier to be 1.1m. The
barriers to be colored and highlighted by reflec ve cats
eyes.

The design of grade separators should avoid hal ng of

vehicles over them. There should be no signals and
conflic ng arms on the grade separators.

Huge & Mul level grade separators should be jus fied by

technoeconomic feasibility analysis, alterna ve analysis in
Urban areas as they require lot of space and detour for
traffic.

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

Introduc on Exis ng issues:

Pedestrian Grade Separators are structures built to facilitate Many Grade separators in Pune have been located near the
safe pedestrian crossings. They are usually above or below the Intersec ons, People prefer to cross the streets at grade in
ground and build at places where there is maximum conflict signal phases as its the easiest. The usability of Grade
between pedestrians separator is reduced.
crossing the street and vehicles. Types are
• Subway ‐ pedestrians are made to cross street Grade separators like Foot Over Bridges (FOB) are not
underground. adequately designed for convenience of old ci zens &
Subway Hump Subway disables. Some mes escalators or li s are provided but due
• Hump Subway – vehicular way is raised up or down
par ally to lack of maintenance they do not func on well.
• At – grade dedicated crossing ‐ vehicular way is
raised up or down completely Grade separators like FOB are majorly used for adver sing’s Non func onal Foot Over Bridge.
• Foot over bridge – pedestrians are made to climb and hoardings. The safety & security of ci zens comes at En re footpath is occupied
up to cross the street. stake when adver sements block the transparency &
visibility through the bridge.

Grade separators tend to eat up lot of space on edges

At Grade Dedicated Foot Over Bridge leaving no space for footpaths.

Grade separators like underground subways have issues of

Elevated water logging & darkness if not designed and maintained
Street level properly.
Height 8’
Width 8’ Provisions like ramps for old and disables, guard rails,
Pedestrian rounded corners are missing in many grade separators.
SideWalk Level Subway Original Street level Insufficient light crea ng dark unsafe
3’ ramp Emergency & Safety measures like alarms & fire areas in subways
on one hydrants are missing in many grade separators.
side 3’ below original
Stairs
street & sidewalk
5’ wide
level

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 are needed for safe crossing of
pedestrians. Following are the factors need to be
considered for loca on and design of Grade separators.
Pedestrian Grade separators to be located at mid‐blocks or
away from intersec ons. If located at intersec ons they
should be access controlled.
Exact Loca on & Volume of pedestrians crossing the street.
Whether the access route is to a school,hospital or other
local amenity. Proximity from nearest intersec on.
Priority must be given for selec on of type of grade
separator in following order.
• Dedicated At Grade crossing by changing grade of
vehicular lanes.
• Hump Subway – par ally raising the level of vehicular
lane.
• Complete Subway – making pedestrians cross the street
underground.
• Foot Over Bridge with universal access.
Type of road and number of lanes to be crossed at a stretch;
Speed of vehicles on the road and thevolume of traffic
including the propor on of heavy goods vehicles;
Use by children, elderly people, visually impaired people
and disabled people including wheelchair users, and people
with prams and pushchairs;
Natural gradient or slope of the street.
Effects of changes in structure of street over the next 15
years including any prospec ve Bus lanes or central bus
stops and its connec vity with Grade separator.
10 9 1
Pedestrian Grade separators Should have following
clear widths and height clearances.
Width of passage = min 4.5m
Width of access – min 2.5m
Ver cal Distance = min 2.75m
Ground Clearance for FOB: min 5 m
Stairs riser ht – max 150mm, Tread min 350mm
Access – two modes of access should be provided. Primary Proper light and cleanliness in the subway
with Stairs and secondary with either ramp or li or
escalators.
Visibility – Clear view from one end to other , provision of
natural ligh ng and ar ficial ligh ng of at least 50 lux.
Security‐ provision of CCTV & emergency alert alarms,
helpline numbers.
Material – use of an ‐skid walking surfaces on stairs and
passages, guard rails (ht min 1.5m for FOB), textured
surfaces and warner les for disables.
Adver sements should not block the visibility. Space for Ramp for universal accessibility and cyclists
adver sements and hoardings should be designated in
design.
The access to any type of grade separator should not
compromise on pedestrian walkways. Min 1.8m footpath
should be le along the access point to grade separator.
Universal access should be provided with provision of
ramps, signage’s and guard rails. Cyclist should also be able
to use the grade separators.
It is advisable to have ac vi es like shops in underground
subways to increase its financial viability and ensure
alertness.
Foot Over Bridge with elevator
Design of GS should be innova ve and user friendly.
10 10
 Universal Accessibility and 11
Disable Friendly Design
Provides for informa on and recommenda ons based on norms and standards for disable
Braille
friendly design to make streets of Pune accessible for all.
11.1
UNIVERSAL ACCESSIBILITY AND
DISABLE FRIENDLY DESIGN
Introduc on
Universal design is the design of products and environment to be
usable by all people to the greatest extent possible without the
need for adapta on or specialized design ‐ Ronald L. Mace
The purpose of universal design is to address through design the
needs of such people like elderly and people with disability
whose physical, mental or environmental condi ons limit their
performance.
Since streets are the common public spaces and most widely
used by all people, it is necessary to design those on the
principles of barrier free environment providing safety and
support for people of all ages, genders, disabili es etc.
As per 'Persons with Disabili es (Equal Opportuni es, Protec on
of Rights and Full Par cipa on) Act, 1995', a barrier free built
environment is essen al to facilitate the disabled.
One of the important objec ves of USDG is to make streets and
facili es on streets of Pune accessible to and usable by senior
ci zens and people with disabili es.
Office of The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabili es,
Ministry of Social Jus ce and Empowerment, Government of
India has published a report in 2001 named 'Planning a barrier
free environment 2001' which describes in detail about the
design requirements of people with disabili es for access and
movement within building and public places.
USDG considers the recommenda on from the report and
advocates referring the manual for any aspect related to
disable friendly design for streets and street elements for
Pune.
11 1 1
11.2
THE FUNDAMENTAL
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Introduc on Space allowances
People with different disabili es have different requirements. •The minimum clear floor or ground area required to
The requirements of 2 main target groups of users has been accommodate a single, sta onary wheel chair and
considered below. The requirements of the senior ci zens are occupant is 900mm x 1200mm as shown in the figure.
similar to those considered for these par cular target groups.
• A minimum clear floor or ground area of 1200mm x
For people with impaired mobility 1200mm would allow access for both forward and side
• Thresholds and changes in level should be avoided. approach.
• Ground and floor surface should be hard and even. The minimum dear floor ground area dear floor ground area
for a wheelchair to turn is 1500mm whereas it may be ideal to
provide 1800mm
• For ambulant disabled people to move securely, ground
and floor surfaces should be even and slip resistant.
• Obstacles, projec ons or other protrusions should be
Inappropriate footpath design compels to use the avoided in pedestrian areas such as walkways, nails,
carriageway making it unsafe corridors, passageways or aisles.
• Handrails should be provided on stairs and ramps.
• Res ng places, such as benches, should be provided along
ravel routes at frequent intervals not exceeding 30 m.
An old man finds it difficult to walk on uneven footpath on
waterlogged road
Photo source: Ci zen ma ers.in Bangalore)
Footpath although wide is uneven causing inconvenience in
using wheelchair Fig no.11.2.1
Space allowances for wheelchair movement
11 2
 THE FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
For People with visual impairment
In general following common design criteria should be adhered to for convenience in mobility of disables and senior ci zens
• Contras ng colors and warning blocks should be used to
aid the iden fica on of doors, stairs, ramps, passageways,
etc.

• Surfaces can be variedto indicate pathway, changes of

direc ons etc.

• Orienta on cues should be specially illuminated.

• Handrails can be used as a loca on aid.

• To minimize the risk of falls and injuries, hazards such as

posts, single steps and projec ons from walls shouldbe
avoided wherever.

Adults helped visually impaired girls during a 'White Cane
Safety Day' march in Mumbai in 2010.
Photo source:Agence France‐Presse/Ge y Images
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.
Space allowances: Most blind people in India use canes to Source of images: Design for access and mobility‐building and
navigate the streets. associated facili es, New Zealand Standard

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

Line‐type blocks indicate the

300
correct route to follow

25
5 50 25
30

Fig no. 11.3.1 Fig no. 11.4.1

Fig no. 11.3.2
Spacing of bollards Types of guiding blocks
Placement of gra ng
11 5 1 11 6
 THE FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Place to install‐guiding block for persons with impaired
vision:
• In front of an areawhere traffic is present.

• In front of an entrance/exit to and from a staircase or

mul ‐level crossing facility.

• Entrance / exits at public transport terminals or boarding

areas.

• Sidewalk sec on of an approach road to a building.

• Guiding path from a public facility to the nearest public

transport sta on.

• A distance of 600 mm is to be maintained from the edge

of footpath or any obstruc on to navigate person with
vision impaired.

• It should be placed 300 mm at the beginning and end of

the ramps, stairs and entrances.

• It should be laid 600 mm wide across the en re footpath

where the crossing occurs.

Fig no. 11.4.2

Ideal pa ern of guiding blocks for footpath
11 7
11.5
CURB RAMP AND SLOPE RAMP

Introduc on Design Requirements for curb ramp

Perpendicular curb
Curb ramps are cri cal for providing access between sidewal Curb ramps are usually categorized by their structural design
ramps with flare and level
and street for people who use wheelchairs.Curb ramps are and how it is posi oned rela ve to the sidewalk or street. The
landing
most commonly found at intersec ons, but they may also be type of curb ramp and the installa on site will determine its
used at other loca ons such as on‐street parking, loading accessibility and safety for pedestrians with and without
zones, bus stops, and midblock crossings. disabili es.
• Built‐up/Extended Curbs should not be used if they project
Design Requirements for curb ramp into a roadway, as it is dangerous for users and obstruc ve
• Curb ramps are provided where the ver cal rise is 150 mm for vehicles.
or less.
• Curb ramps should have flared sides where pedestrians are
Perpendicular curb
• It should have a slip‐resistant surface and should not to likely to walk across them and the gradient of the flared
ramps with returned curbs and
allow water accumula ng on the walking surface side should not be steeper than 1:10.
level landing
• It should not project into the road surface and should be • Returned/Con nuous Curb are an alterna ve approach
located or protected to prevent obstruc on by parked that may be used where pedestrians will not be expected
vehicles to walk across the ramp.

• It should be free from any obstruc on such as signposts, Slope Ramp

traffic lights, etc. Where the ver cal rise is greater than 150 mm, it should
cons tute a slope ramp and should comply with thestandards
• The gradient of a curb ramp should not be steeper than recommended in the manual. Diagonal curb ramps
1:10. Where there is a large change in eleva on that requires with flare and level landing
mul ple ramps and landing combina on, other solu ons such
• The width should not be less than 900 mm. as elevators should be considered.

• Warning blocks should be Installed at the end of the curb

ramp to aid people with visual impairments. Fig no. 11.5.1
Components of curb ramp
• Curb ramps do not require handrails. Source: US department of transporta on( www. wa.dot.gov)

• Curb ramp at pedestrian crossing should be wholly Diagonal curb ramps

contained in the area designated for pedestrians' use as with returned curbs and level
shown in the figure landing

Fig no. 11.5.1

Alterna ves for placement and type of curb ramps
11 9 1 11 10
11.6 11.7
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR
INTERSECTION AND CROSSING GRADE SEPARATORS
Introduc on Introduc on • Provision of tac le guiding and warning blocks along the
To facilitate safe and independent crossing of disabled people, Subways and overhead bridges should be accessible for people length of the walkway
raised crossing and refuge islands are found to be effec ve. with disabili es. This may be achieved by:
Raised crossings enable to flush the level difference between • Keeping the walkway free from any obstruc ons and
• Provision of slope ramps or li s at both the ends to enable projec ons
the sidewalk and the carriageway making it easy for the
wheelchair accessibility
disables to cross the street. Also the raised crossing help to
reduce he speed of the approaching vehicles and helps the • Providing for seats for people with ambulatory disabili es
• Ensuring that the walkway is at least 1500 mm wide at regular intervals along the walkway and at landings.
driver to have be er view of the people crossing streets.
Refuge islands help to reduce the length of the crossing Crossing showing curb ramp and refuge island
increasing the convenience of the user.Curb ramps of
recommended design are to be provided at both sides of the
raised crossings.Guide strips should be constructed to indicate
Tac le strip along zebra crossing.
the posi on of pedestrian crossings for the benefit of people
with visual disabili es. A colored tac le marking strip at least
600 mm wide should mark the beginning and the end of a
traffic island, to guide pedestrians with impaired vision to its
loca on. Pedestrian traffic lights should be provided with
clearly audible signals for the benefit of sightless pedestrians.
Push bu ons should be tac le, easy to locate and operate and
should be placed between 0.90 m and 1.20 m off the ground
for the benefit of wheelchair users.

Curb ramp , refuge island and tac le paving provided for

convenience in crossing.

11 11 1 11 12
11.8
UNIVERSAL DESIGN OF
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Introduc on
• Pedestrian traffic lights should beprovided with clearly
audible signals for the benefit of pedestrians with visual
impairments
• Acous c devices should be installed on a pole at the point
of origin of crossing and not at the point of des na on
• The installa on of two adjacent acous c devices such as
beepers is not recommended in order to avoid
disorienta on
• The me interval allowed for crossing should be
programmed according to the slowest crossing persons.
• Acous cal signals encourage safer crossing behavior
among children as well
11 13
11.9
STREET FURNITURE AND
STREET SIGNAGE FOR DISABLES
Introduc on
Disabled persons may have limita ons in the movement of
their head, or a reduc on in peripheral vision. Signs posi oned
perpendicular to the path of travel are easiest for them to
no ce. Persons can generally dis nguish signs within an angle
of 30° to either side of the centerline of their faces without
moving their heads.
Signs should be in contras ng colour and preferably be
embossed in dis nct relief to allow people with visual
impairments to obtain the informa on by touching them.
Audible signs should be installed in dangerous areas for the aid
of people with visual impairments.
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.

Principle 2: Flexibility in Use

Water Closet:
The design accommodates a wide range of individual
• WC should have clear space of not less than 900mm wide preferences and abili es.
next to the water closet.
Principle 3: Simple and Intui ve Use
• It should be located between 460mm to 480mm from the Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the
centerline of the WC to the adjacent wall and have a clear user's experience, knowledge, language skills,or current
dimension of 800mm from the edge of the WC to the rear concentra on level.
wall to facilitate side transfer.
Principle 4: Percep ble Informa on
• The top of the WC to be 475‐490mm from the floor. The design communicates necessary informa on effec vely
to the user, regardless of ambient condi ons or the user's
• Grab bars at the adjacent wall and the transfer side of the sensory abili es.
WC.
Principle 5: Tolerance for Error
• On the transfer side‐swing away/up type and on the wall The design minimizes hazards and the adverse
side L‐shape grab bars should be provided. consequences of accidental or unintended ac ons.
Fig 11.9.1
Size and layout for toilets and WC for disables Principle 6: Low Physical Effort
The design can be used efficiently and comfortably and with
a minimum of fa gue.

Principle 7: Size and Space for Approach and Use

Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach,
manipula on, and use regardless of user's body size,
posture, or mobility.

Source: The City of Vancouver Engineering Services

11 15 1 11 16
USDG REFERENCE 12
DRAWINGS
Provides for drawing templates for street cross sec ons of various widths and also for
intersec ons based on USDG principles and recommenda ons for providing guidance
for street designing.
12.1
STREET CROSS SECTIONS

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

36 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 2 2 9 9 3 3

40 3 3 1.5 1.5 2 2 10.5 10.5 3 3

42 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 10.5 10.5 3 3

45 3.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 10.5 10.5 3.5 3.5

60 3.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 10.5 10.5 4 4 7 7

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

TREES WITH TREES WITH

TREE GUARDS TREE GUARDS

CARRIAGE WAY VERGE CARRIAGE WAY VERGE

750 750
3000 3000 750 750
3000 3000

7.5 M. RoW
6.0 M. RoW STREET CROSS SECTION
STREET CROSS SECTION

TREES WITH TREES WITH

TREE GUARDS TREE GUARDS

6.0 M. RoW 7.5 M. RoW

STREET PLAN STREET PLAN

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

9.0 M. RoW 12.0 M. RoW

STREET PLAN STREET PLAN

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

FOOT CYCLE FOOT FOOT CYCLE FOOT

CARRIAGE WAY TRACK PATH MUB CARRIAGE WAY TRACK MUB
PATH PATH PATH
LANE 2500 2000 3500 3500 2000 2000 2500

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

3500 2000 3500 3500 2000 3500 SMALL

TREE
2500 2000 6000 6000 2000 2500
BROAD FOLIAGE
TREES WITH
1.8 MT. TREE
GUARDS BIG TREE BROAD
FOLIAGE
BIG 1.8 MT.
TREE TREE GUARDS
BIG
TREE

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

2500 2000 6000 6000 2000 2500

1500 1500
2500 2000 3500 3000 3500 2000 2000 2500
SMALL
TREE
600
2500 1500 2000 6000 6000 2000 2500
PARKING
+
BIG
TREES

2500 2000 3500 3000 3500 2000 2000 2500

FOOT MUB CARRIAGE CARRIAGE MUB CYCLE FOOT
PATH WAY SHARED WAY TRACK PATH
CENTRE LANE 21.0 M RoW
LANE
STREET CROSS SECTION 24.0 MT STREET PLAN
CYCLE PARKING
OPTION 2 TRACK OPTION 1
LANE

BIG
TREE

MUB CARRIAGE WAY MUB

FOOT FOOT
PATH PATH
CARRIAGE WAY

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

7000 7000 2500 2500 7000 7000

2500 2500 2500 1500 2500 2500 1500 2500

2500 2500 7000 7000 2500 2500 2500 1500 2500 7000 7000 2500 1500 2500

MUB CARRIAGE WAY

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

3000 3000 3000

2500 2000 9000 9000 2000 2500
1500 1500
3000 3000 3000
3500 2000 9000 9000
100 2000 3500

PARKING PARKING 30.0 M. RoW 30.0 M. RoW

STREET PLAN STREET PLAN
MUB
OPTION 1 OPTION 2

FOOT CYCLE CARRIAGE WAY CARRIAGE WAY CYCLE FOOT

FOOT CARRIAGE WAY CARRIAGE WAY FOOT PATH TRACK TRACK PATH
PATH PATH LANE LANE
MUB
MUB MUB

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

9000 6000 9000

2500 1500 2000 2000 1500 2500 10500 3000 3000 10500
3000 1500 2000 2000 1500 3000

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

MUB CARRIAGE WAY CYCLE

TRACK
LANE
FOOT
PATH

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

RoW wise Road Network of Pune Streets

6000 2500 3500 2500 12000 500 3000 3000 500 12000 2500 3500 2500 6000

60.0 M. RoW
STREET PLAN

4000 4000 4000 4000 4000 4000

6000 2500 3500 2500 12000 500 500 12000 2500 3500 2500 6000
SERVICE CYCLE FOOT MUB 3000 3000 MUB FOOT CYCLE SERVICE
CARRIAGE WAY CARRIAGE WAY
ROAD TRACK PATH BUS LANE PATH TRACK ROAD
LANE LANE

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

MULTI UTILITY ZONE ‐ PARKING, BUS STOP,

HAWKERS, TREES AND SERVICES.

CARRIAGE WAY

MULTI UTILITY ZONE ‐ PARKING, BUS STOP,

HAWKERS, TREES AND SERVICES.

CYCLE TRACK LANE

2500

FOOTPATH

TYPICAL T‐ TYPE INTERSECTION

CARRIAGE WAY

12 25 1 12 26
 CARRIAGE WAY

FOOTPATH

CYCLE TRACK LANE

MULTI UTILITY ZONE ‐ PARKING, BUS STOP,
HAWKERS, TREES AND SERVICES.

CARRIAGE WAY
2500

CARRIAGE WAY

2500
MULTI UTILITY ZONE ‐ PARKING, BUS STOP,
HAWKERS, TREES AND SERVICES.
CYCLE TRACK LANE

FOOTPATH

TYPICAL STAGGERED 4 ARM INTERSECTION

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

MULTI UTILITY ZONE ‐ PARKING, BUS STOP, D SE RV IC

HAWKERS, TREES AND SERVICES. ES.
9000

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

MULTI UTILITY ZONE ‐ PARKING, BUS STOP,

HAWKERS, TREES AND SERVICES.
CYCLE TR AC K LA ES.
NE
1500 CYCLE TRACK LANE FO OT PAT
TYPICAL Y INTERSECTION H
2500

FOOTPATH

12 29 1 12 30
 CARRIAGE WAY

2500 1500 2500

FOOTPATH

CYCLE TRACK LANE

MULTI UTILITY ZONE ‐ PARKING, BUS STOP,
HAWKERS, TREES AND SERVICES.

CARRIAGE WAY

MULTI UTILITY ZONE ‐ PARKING, BUS STOP,

HAWKERS, TREES AND SERVICES.
CYCLE TRACK LANE

FOOTPATH

TYPICAL CROSS ‐ TYPE 4 ARM INTERSECTION

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

BRTS BUS STOP

36000
6000

3000
RAMP

9000
3000
150

3000
9000

3000
1500 3000
2500 1500 2000

Mul U lity Zone‐ Parking, Bus Stop,

Hawkers, Trees and services

CYCLE TRACK LANE

FOOTPATH

TYPICAL ARRANGEMENT OF BRTS BUS STOP AT INTERSECTION

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

RAMP UP/DOWN OF COLUMNS/PILLARS

VEHICULAR GRADE SEPARATOR

500
7000

SLP ROAD BELOW VEHICULAR

GRADE SEPARATOR

CYCLE TRACK LANE

FOOTPATH

TYPICAL ARRANGEMENT OF GRADE SEPARATOR AT INTERSECTION

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.

• ACE shall then give final work comple on le er a er the

scru ny of work.

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.

PMC Road department to appoint the urban designer STAC Commi ee

consultants.
STAC Commi ee currently is formed by PMC consis ng of
technical experts to provide guidance for engineering and
construc on aspect of road development.
The commi ee to comprise of USDG
representa ve, representa ve from
Traffic department, PMPML, traffic
police, MSEB, city based ac vists,
environmentalist &local corporator.

It is recommended that the STAC commi ee includes

expert from field of urban design, urban planning, Approve
transporta on planning and landscape designers to review design
and approve the street design as per USDG
recommenda ons. Urban designer Tender for
firm from empaneled contractor
ACE (Roads) issue final work comple on le er. consultants

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

4.1.1 Pune street hierarchy as per RoW 7.7.1 Traffic Signs

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

6.1.1 Capacity of foopath 7.10.1 Loca on of traffic signals

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.

11.3.2 Placement of gra ng 7.5.1 Design Recommenda on for speed breakers

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.

9.1 Intersec on management matrix.

9.2 Proposed design for intersec on of varying road hierarchy.