"Magic" Mistakes Done .. BBMP must think and step forward

I agree - we should pause, gather data, extrapolate for next 15-20 years, design well and execute well. 

I think this is a great technology. Only, BBMP has not applied it correctly. In the case of Cauvery u/p, if you don't consider other design flaws, if not the width, atleast the length of the u/p could have been more. It would have allowed vehicles taking U-turn on the top, more space to maneuver. Now only one bus can move at a time on top of the u/p.

Underpasses with magic boxes - some one must have done a Power point presentation to the BBMP. Can we do a design analysis and then build underpasses? I guess building interchanges at these junctions with provisions  to build road over road and accomodate railway network should be the goal. Underpasses cannot withstand the pressure if we have to build a road over it. This quickfix solution will further dampen the prospects of building better infrastructure.

 BBMP should stop and rethink before executing another disaster.

Hi Praveen,

thanks for yr post. Technically, increasing width is difficult & time consuming, as also expensive. Many factors are involved - such as road width & space available (one has to think of service exits by the side also to provide outlet/s for other traffic flow directions), crane handling capacity & anchoring facilities when lifting /placing (higher the width, stronger the elements will have to be & consequently, heavier the sections), etc. I have physically not seen the spot - you may have & therefore, may be in a better position to comment if width can indeed be increased.

If there are constraints, the width is bound to be narrow & even if this slows down the bus or other public transport vehciles, it's an acceptable delay. Allowing all types of vehicles & sundry is inviting trouble as it will prove insufficient very soon with induced traffic - more corridors you open to private traffic, more private traffic you invite - this is an accepted reality worldwide. Hence, right at the beginning, they should have announced a signal free corridor only for public transport & airport connectivity buses, as also emergency services such as ambulances & police /essential services.

If this had been the focus, we would not be debating so much about it & all wud have accepted that the best way to get to the airport is by using the vajra buses, which wud have priority of passage thro' these magic boxes.

As for pedestrian cross overs - skywalks with elevators is the only answer, in my opinion as pedestrians detest going down & up stairways - this should have been focussed on at the inception & locations away from the magic boxes selected /finalised & built seperated from them.

navshot,

Good point, & I know you are right - trying to make dedicated bus lanes when traffic volumes are very high is unviable & will end in failures. It is like putting the cart before the horse.

For a BRT system to evolve, subtle stage by stage changes /additions /improvements wud be required, atleast for our cities, where people are used to their private vehicles & will create an uproar if road space is taken away.

This was an excellent opportunity to start providing some priority of passage for public transport by announcing that the narrow magic boxes, being very narrow as they are, wud only be for public transport, emergency services & for airport bus connectivity.

Once bus services have been streamlined with priority passage thro' these magic boxes, the next stage can be implemented, which is providing lanes where road width is abundant & available. Thus, a semi-BRT would now be operational. It may not be possible to provide dedicated lanes on all roads due to narrow road widths, & so buses will now be operating in mixed traffic conditions on some roads & on dedicated lanes  where roads are wide. This will sway many motor vehicle users to start using public transport & it will start becoming more & more preferable (as it will reach you to your destination faster). Traffic volumes may also start dipping provided traffic restraints are also simultaneously pushed (such as high parking & fuel costs, congestion pricing, etc) & more road space will become available, whilst public opinion will also start favoring BRT as they will start seeing it as better than private commuting, with signal delays, etc.

Only then can full BRT with continuous networks of dedicated busways be considered. However, our authorities have been trying to make full BRTs out of nothing, & such attempts will keep resulting in failures, whilst public also starts disapproving & thinking that "BRT is not for our city".

The roads are not widened everywhere. Esp. where we have one and a half lanes, it remains so and will be so in the foresee-able future.

The "narrowest" stretch of the road would dictate the volume of traffic that can flow (using the data network model ) on that stretch.