The Value of a Life: Potentials and Challenges for Road Safety of Non-motorized Transport Users in Ahmedabad

Abstract

Despite its high modal share, Ahmedabad suffers from poor quality, uncomfortable and unsafe infrastructure for walking and cycling. As a result, pedestrians and cyclists have become the most vulnerable road users, accounting for 43% of the fatalities despite their significantly shorter trip lengths (JP Research India (2017) Accident research status report Ahmedabad January to July 2017). This paper aims to identify the barriers to providing safe, secure and comfortable facilities for pedestrians and cyclists in Ahmedabad. In November 2018, as the first phase of this study, a road design and safety audit was undertaken at three of the city’s accident hotspots so as to examine the situation on ground. The results of the survey revealed the appalling conditions of the footpaths and the complete absence of segregated cycle tracks in the selected accident hotspots. To understand the possible reasons for this gap, the second phase of the study mapped the roles of stakeholders involved in the allocation of road space for walking and cycling and interviewed five diverse stakeholders among them. Discussions with the stakeholders revealed three critical, interrelated issues that affected the implementation of NMT infrastructure in the city—conflicts in the technical versus socio-political decision-making on road space allocation, lack of a coordinated, multidimensional approach by the government for urban transport and skewed cultural perceptions about walking and cycling.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Road Design and Safety Audit Parameters

	Parameters	Reasoning/Description
1	Footpath/cycle track width	Minimum obstacle-free walkway width adjacent to Residential/Mixed use land uses: 1.8 m In case of commercial land use: 2.5 m This is based on the minimum width required for two people to cross paths comfortably
2	Footpath/cycle track surface	A firm, even paved and slip-resistant surface Vertical deviation not more than 5 mm Raised edge of footpath Tactile pavers laid continuously
3	Obstruction	Obstructions in the form of electric poles, trees, bins, etc. should not be within the minimum 1.8 m width of the walkway
4	Encroachment	The extent of encroachment should not rise above a level that the footpath facility becomes inaccessible/non-usable by the pedestrian
5	Potential of vehicular conflict	Footpaths to be distinctly separate from roads by raising footpaths and providing guardrails along roads where there is fast vehicle movement
6	Continuity	Raised crossings Change in level made clear using bright contrasting colors and tactile pavers Provision of curb ramps for maintaining the continuity
7	Security	Street lighting at 20–30 m, lighting fixtures of not more than 4 m height Separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic
8	Comfort	Carefully planned provision of trees to protect from inclement weather Providing seats and benches and rain shelters at regular intervals Provision of disable friendly facilities
9	Walking environment	A clean footpath free of stink This can also be subjective and pertains to the individuals’ experience

Appendix 2: Road Design and Safety Audit Survey Questionnaire for Walking and Cycling Facilities

Part 1—Facilities for walking

Indicators	(A)	(B)			(C)
	Absent: 0	Good	Fair	Poor	Total	Remark
	Present: 1	(1)	(0.5)	(0.2)	(A) × (B)
Width of the footpath		1.8–5 m	1.5–1.8 m	<1.5 m
Footpath Surface		Concrete/Paver blocks/Tar and anti-slip, tactile	Tiles	Unpaved/non-metaled surface
Height of footpath		Max <100 mm	100–300 mm	>300 mm
Obstructions (such as trees, electric poles, and signage)		No obstructions	Pedestrian has to slow down sometimes	Pedestrian has to slow down most of the time
Encroachments (by hawkers, vehicles, etc.)		No encroachment	Pedestrian has to slow down sometimes	Pedestrian has to slow down most of the time
Continuity (curb ramps, distinctive change in level)		Presence of both	Provided in some places	No continuity
Security (light poles at 20–30 m, height max 4 m)		Light poles at regular interval	Light poles less frequent	Mostly no light poles
Provision of disable friendly infrastructure		Present	Some infrastructure available	Mostly absent
Comfort (shading devices, benches and seats)		Present	Some infrastructure available	Mostly absent
Walking Environment (cleanliness and maintenance)		Well maintained	Need better maintenance	Not maintained
Availability of crossings (frequency)		Average spacing <500 m	Average spacing 500–700 m	Average spacing >700 m
Time taken for road crossing		10–30 s	30–60 s	>60 s

Part 2—Facilities for cycling

Indicators	(A)	(B)			(C)
	Absent: 0	Good	Fair	Poor	Total	Remark
	Present: 1	(1)	(0.5)	(0.2)	(A) × (B)
Width of the cycle track		1.8–5 m	1.5–1.8 m	<1.5 m
Cycle track surface		Concrete/Tar/Asphalt	Interlocking blocks	Unpaved/non-metaled surface
Height of track		Max <100 mm	100–300 mm	>300 mm
Shade		Complete	Mostly shaded	Mostly not shaded
Parking facilities		Within 250 m of the station	250–500 m of the station	Informal parking within 500 m of the station

Appendix 3: Interview Questions

To initiate the discussion on barriers to the implementation of essential NMT infrastructure, the following questions were asked to the various stakeholders.

• 1. What are the road planning, construction and maintenance projects you have worked on in the city?

• 2. Why do many of the city’s roads lack essential infrastructure such as footpaths?

• 3. While several street design guidelines from the central government are readily available, they remain unimplemented on the city’s roads. What were the barriers that prevented their implementation?

• 4. In your opinion, what are the ways to overcome these challenges?