CIVIC ISSUE for Intervention - PMC's plan for JM road NOT in public interest

[Rajiv Raje]

Dear all ...

Forwarding a letter from Mr. PRASHANT INAMDAR - Convenor of an NGO
called "Pedestrians First" ... The issue in subject is self-explanatory.  It only
emphasizes the the NEED to provide PMC with viable, workable URBAN
DESIGN solutions on a MICRO LEVEL. Since JM road is involved, can the
present BNCA Environmental Architecture PG batch which has studied
the JM road ( in part ) in the recent exercise take up this assignment, and
work on a more practical and acceptable DESIGN Solution to the issue ?

Rajiv Raje
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: PRASHANT INAMDAR <prashan...@vsnl.net>
Date: Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:38 PM
Subject : PMC's plan for JM road not in public interests

 

Dear All,

 

PMC has begun work on JM road as per their latest plan. ' Flower beds ' are being constructed on the right side of the road starting from Balgandharva chowk up to Natraj chowk. Existing tree guards are being demolished and new smaller ones are being constructed. Possibility of damage to tree roots exists. There will be parking on left side of road and non-segregated bus lane on the same side with only lane marking on road. Cycle track whenever provided will also be non-segregated type. Similar paln may get implemented for FC road too.

 

We are unable to understand the logic behind PMC's revised plan whereby the entire road width is being made available to motorized vehicles.  This will mean unsafe road conditions due to faster and erratic vehicle movement with mixed traffic. Pedestrians will continue to suffer being required to take life-threatening risks while crossing the road. Bus commuters will also face problems as buses may not be able to reach the curb side bus stop. Thus the one way plan will primarily serve the interests of motorized vehicles only.

 

We had a joint meeting with Mr. Vivek Kharwadkar of PMC and Mr. Manoj Patil DCP(Traffic).  However we could not get any satisfactory justification for the plan. We are of the opinion that PMC's plan is not in public interests and hence the work should be put on hold till the matter is resolved by discussions. We have sent following letter to Municipal Commissioner.

 

Regards,

Prashant Inamdar

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----

From: PRASHANT INAMDAR

To: Mahesh Zagade ; PMCMCO

Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 11:54 AM

Subject: PMC's plan for JM road not in public interests

 

Dt. 13-03-10

 

To

Mr. Mahesh Zagade

Municipal Commissioner

PMC

 

cc:

1)Mr. Dilip Band Chairman & MD, PMPML - Pl refer matter regarding bus lane

2)Mr. Manoj Patil - DCP(Traffic)

3)Mr. Vivek Kharwadkar - Addl CE, PMC (Roads)

4)Mr. Srinivas Bonala - Addl CE, PMC (Traffic planning)

 

Dear Sir,

Subject : PMC's plan for JM road not in public interests 

Reference : Our letter dt. 1-03-10

 

With reference to above and as requested by us, there was a meeting with Mr. Manoj Patil and Mr. Vivek Kharwadkar at DCP(Traffic) office on 11th March when PMC's latest plan for JM road was discussed.

 

Please note that we have been interacting with PMC and Traffic Police right from the day the one way scheme was first publicized more than one year ago in January 2009.  There have been several meetings and site visits. The last joint meeting was held on 5-10-09 at the office of  DCP(Traffic) when the one way plan layout  was discussed in detail and a six page MOM prepared. PMC officers Mr. Bonala and Mr. Latkar were present for the meeting. We had accordingly submitted layout plan drawings for re-development of JM and FC roads. However  work now undertaken by PMC is not as per the design and priorities that had been discussed jointly with PMC officers concerned and DCP(Traffic). PMC has also not discussed their latest plan prior to finalization and implementation.

 

The salient features of the plan proposed by us include -

1) Segregated bus lane on the left side - as per National Urban Transport Policy and letter dt. 13-12-07 from Secretary (Urban Development Ministry), Govt. of India

2) Two MV lanes of 3 metre width each

3) Segregated service lane of 2.75 metre width

4) Segregated cycle track of 2.5 metre width - as per National Urban Transport Policy  and letter dt. 02-01-08 from Secretary (Urban Development Ministry), Govt. of India

5) Parking on the right side only

6) Pedestrian walkway of about 6.5 metre width (including trees) on the left side and about 3.5 metre width on the right side with railings

 

The plan proposed by us is an integrated traffic solution with equitable distribution of road space for all road users (pedestrians, cyclists, buses and other vehicles) with people as focus as stipulated in NUTP. The important aspect is that all vehicles will not have access to the entire carrageway width of about 16 metres. There is clear segregation of buses, other vehicles and cyclists on road as well as provision of service lane on the right side. As a result vehicles will not over-speed, there will be better lane discipline and enhanced road safety for all users.  As there would be some resistance to new ideas due to inadequate information about the exact plan, we had also requested for public outreach so that people know in advance what exactly would be happening.

 

PMC's latest plan that is being implemented has following major differences from our plan -

1) Non-segregated bus lane with only lane marking on road

2) Three MV lanes of total 10 metre width

3) Non-segregated cycle track of 2 metre width ( in future)

4) Parking only on the left side beyond bus lane

5) Pedestrian walkway of about 6.5 metre width (including trees) on right side and about 3.5 metre width on left side

6) Brickwork flower bed at edge of walkway instead of railing

 

It is to be noted that non-segregated lanes are never respected by motorists and hence lose meaning. There will be free entry for other vehicles with serious hindrance to bus movement.  In this regard, kindly note that it has not been possible for PMC and Traffic Police to prevent entry of other vehicles even in the segregated pilot BRT lanes. It will be impossible to do so in case of non-segregated bus lane. The net result of non-segregated bus lane and parking on left side would be that the bus lane will be reduced to a service lane. Bus drivers would hence prefer to drive in the adjacent MV lane rather than the cluttered bus lane. The very purpose of bus lane would thus be totally defeated. Moreover the entire carriageway width of about 16 metres will be freely available for all vehicles. This will lead to over-speeding, poor lane discipline and highly unsafe road conditions. Pedestrians will face life-threatening conditions while crossing the road. Cyclists will not be safe in the non-segregated cycle track whenever it is provided.

 

We are also of the opinion that wider walkway on the left side as proposed by us would be more beneficial than wider walkway on the right side. Sambhaji park and Balgandharva rangmandir are located on the left side of the road and there are many people including children casually strolling in the area. Bus stops are located on the left and hence there are a large number of commuters who also use the left side footpath. Moreover, the width of footpath is reduced due to the bus stop shelters and waiting commuters. The footpath is also quite narrow near the entrance to Balgandharva rangmandir. In fact DCP(Traffic) had proposed to convert  the left turning lane between Rani Jhansi statue and rangmandir into a walkway.

 

A comparative analysis of our plan and PMC plan is attached for your perusal.

 

It is to be noted that since the JM and FC roads were made one way, crossing the road has become the most serious problem. Pedestrians are required to take life threatening risks while doing so. It is about seven months since the implementation of one way but required steps for pedestrian safety have not yet been taken by PMC and the hazardous situation persists.  Buses are seen using the central portion or even right side of the road causing unsafe conditions. Whereas the priority number 1 should hence be safe pedestrian crossings with refuges and segregated bus lane, it is surprising that PMC has thought it fit to first take up the non-priority beautification work of  flower beds which was never discussed earlier. Also it has been the experience that flower beds at road side are not maintained well and become dumping places and eyesores. It is thus a waste of public money and hence not advisable. (A few pictures of earlier flower beds are attached).

 

During the above joint meeting on 11th  March, we could not get any satisfactory logical justification for the above features incorporated in the PMC plan vis-a-vis our plan.  We are hence of the opinion that the plan being implemented by PMC is not in the larger public interests of an all inclusive integrated traffic solution. Your urgent intervention is now needed to put the re-development work on proper track. We hence request for an urgent meeting with you and urge you to put the present work on hold till the matter is resolved.

 

With Regards,

Prashant Inamdar

Convenor

Pedestrians FIRST

 

[Poorva Keskar]

Hello Raje Sir,
I agree that the students should look at dealing with live situations and respond by giving detailed(micro level) proposals which can MAKE a DIFFERENCE to the city.
Anagha,can the students (with the extended time) look into this?Raje Sir and Shirish are already involved and I think we should also arrange an interaction with Prashant Inamdar.
Cheers

--
Poorva Keskar
Head,Department of Environmental Planning and Architecture
BNCA,Pune