1. Traffic and Transportation
Management Plan

2. 1.Mission, Scope of Work and Background
2.Illustration of present and future traffic
conditions
3. Top Level Objectives
4. Top Level Methodology
5. Case Study Ballard Estate
6. Case Study Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus
7. Survey Findings and Phase 1 Work
8. Questionnaire
Contents

3. Mission
To ensure that Mumbai retains its numero-uno
position among all Metropolitan cities of the
world when it comes to usage of Public
Transport over private vehicles and also to make
Mumbai a pedestrian friendly city.

4. Sections 6 & 7,
Ward B
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5,
Ward A
Sections 13 & 14,
Ward B
Scope of Work

5. Background
• Visions: “… transform Mumbai into a World Class
City…with a globally comparable quality of life for its
citizens” (MMRDA, 2007)
– Quality of Life survey done by Mercer Human Resource
Consulting survey 2007 ranks Mumbai at 150 out of 215 cities
(Transportation and Traffic systems is an important parameter)

6. • Visions: “… transform Mumbai into a World Class
City…with a globally comparable quality of life for its
citizens” (MMRDA, 2007)
Background

7. Background
• Plans: Western Sea-link and
Eastern Freeway, Flyovers,
Metro etc.
- Top - Down planning approach
- Failure in capturing dynamic
evolvement of a City and
changing needs and behavior of
its citizens.

8. Background
• Framework: National Urban Transport Policy
– To bring about a more equitable allocation of road space for
people rather than vehicles.
– Encourage greater use of public transport and non-motorized
modes for commuting.

9. Equitable Road space allocation?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
in%
walk train bus rickshaw taxi two wheeler private vehicle
Percentage average trips
per day
Source: CTS 2005-08
Household Survey
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
in%
train bus rickshaw taxi two wheeler private vehicle
Modal Split without walk
Source: CTS 2005-08
Household Survey

10. Equitable Road space allocation?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
in%
Best Bus taxis two wheelers private vehicles
Percentage
Road Space on
Marine Drive
Source: CTS
Actual Counting
Survey (2005-08)
Percentage Modal Split
Source: CTS 2005-08
Household Survey
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
in%
bus taxi, rickshaw two wheeler private vehicles

11. Equitable Road space allocation?
Source: GTZ, 2007
Comparison of road space
captured by private vehicles and
bus

12. Arrival at Overall Objective
Commuters
arriving in
Fort Area
Pvt Vehicles/
Taxis
BEST Buses
Suburban
Trains/BRTS
Suburban
Trains
Pedestrians
Public
Transport
Taxis

13. Present requirement of parking spaces
Parking space required in case 5% commuters
shift from Bus to Private Vehicles
Parking space required for resident
vehicles
Parking space required for incoming vehicles in Fort
Area / South Mumbai

14. Projected requirement of parking spaces in next 5 years
Parking space required in case 5% commuters
shift from Bus to Private Vehicles every year
Parking space required for resident
vehicles
Parking space required for incoming vehicles in Fort
Area / South Mumbai

15. Projected requirement of parking spaces in next 10 years
Parking space required in case 5% commuters
shift from Bus to Private Vehicles every year
Parking space required for resident
vehicles
Parking space required for incoming vehicles in Fort
Area / South Mumbai

16. Top level objectives
•To provide a safe and comfortable walk to
commuters for short distances (10 to 15 minutes)
alighting/boarding at CST and Churchgate.
•To provide a safe, comfortable and economic Public
Transport System for commuters alighting/boarding at
CST and Churchgate beyond short distances.
•To ease the level of traffic and regulate parking
conditions on inner roads and to give due
consideration to them as public spaces.

17. Top Level Approach & Methodology
• To initiate the participation process between UDRI, public, experts
and other key stakeholders
•To provide a framework for defining policy statements for Traffic
Zones, buses, pedestrian, private vehicles, key junctions etc.
- Based on surveys, secondary data, expert inputs, top level
objectives, parameters and mission

18. Top Level Approach & Methodology
• To collect data, knowledge and experiences of transport and traffic
related parameters and their relationships (For ex.: Changing effects
on vehicular traffic and pedestrian flows after providing a dedicated
bus line)
• To identify traffic zones and provide policy and proposals
- Surrounded by main and arterial roads
- Based on land use, inner road structure, relationship with
other zones, historical significance etc.
• To develop proposals for CST, Churchgate, Pedestrian Flows and
Key Junctions

19. Identified Traffic Zones

20. Top Level Approach & Methodology
•To elaborate policies and develop proposals for each Traffic
Zone
- organisation of parking space
- organisation and restriction of traffic flows
- public transport connections
- other transport and traffic related needs

21. Top Level Approach & Methodology
•Improving and redeveloping policies and proposals in an
iterative way together with public, experts and other key
stakeholders.
• Adoption of policies and implementation of agreed proposals

22. Public (Citizen Forums and
Other Public Groups)
• Knowledge transfer about local
situation and needs.
• Implementation Agents 007
• Instruments for Acceptance and
Rejection of policies and
proposals
Institution (UDRI):
Conducting surveys, collecting
data, developing policies and
proposals, information and
knowledge disbursion, Tie-ups
with independent planning bodies
and other organisations
Other Key Stakeholders
(Transport experts, City Planners, Activists,
Transport Dept Heads and Reps etc )
• Government Dep.: Information and data
sharing, implementers
• Experts: Knowledge Transfer
• Activists: Understanding Social Consequences
and Impact on Environment

23. Case Study: Ballard Estate

24. • Policy statements:
– A sufficient number of Feeder bus stops should be made
available inside the zones adjacent to office complexes.
– Public Transport buses should have dedicated lanes on Arterial
Roads and Main Roads surrounding the zone in order to provide
an efficient service level to commuters.
– Cargo Vehicles and Pvt Buses should not be allowed to park on
inner roads.
Case Study: Ballard Estate

25. • Policy statements:
– Taxis should be parked on separate and identified Taxi Stands
only.
– Restrict movement of vehicular traffic to arterial roads so as to
provide more comfortable and safe movements of pedestrians
(commuters).
– The number of subways and FOB’s a pedestrian has to cross
should be restricted to as less as possible. Waiting time on
signals should be in favor of pedestrians rather than of vehicles.
– Residential space should not be disturbed and encroached by
office staff vehicles.
Case Study: Ballard Estate

26. Case Study: Ballard
Estate
-Comfortable walking zone in the
middle of the street
- One way loop system for
vehicular flow
- Providing additional parking
space on surrounding main road
- Parking only for residents in
western part of Ballard Estate
- Closure of secondary roads for
through traffic

27. Case Study: Ballard Estate
Proposed road space organisation

28. Case Study: Ballard
Estate
-Comfortable walking zone
in the middle of the street
-One way loop system for
vehicular flow
- Providing additional
parking space on
surrounding main road
- Parking only for residents
in western part of Ballard
Estate
- Closure of secondary
roads for through traffic

29. Case Study: Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus
• Policy statements
- Transit Zones should have Pedestrian Plazas at their
main entry and exit points, if the current amount of
pedestrian movement can not be handled by normal
junctions
- Feeder buses as well as future mass/light transit
systems connectivity points should provide easy and
direct access from the Main Station. Buses should
have easy access to arterial road

30. Case Study: Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus
• Policy statements
- Specific Areas and stops should be defined for shared
taxis/taxis and private vehicles.
- multiple taxis stops at decentralized locations (e.g.
on Subway entry/exit points).

31. • Policy statements
- Pedestrians should have priority to cross at surrounding
Key Junction Signals
- Crossing facilities should be based on existent pedestrian
flows (e.g. location of zebra crossings)
- Public Transport buses should have dedicated lanes on
Arterial Roads and main roads surrounding this zone.
Case Study: Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus

32. Short Term Proposal
-Separation of pedestrian
paths and vehicular lanes
- Reorganisation of signal
at intersection of Mint Road
/Walchand Hirachand Rd
and Bazaar Gate Road
- Mint Road becomes
Transit Street with speed
limit
- Temporal closing of
Walchand Hirachand Rd. in
peak hours

33. Short Term Proposal
-Separation of pedestrian
paths and vehicular lanes
- Reorganisation of signal
at intersection of Mint Rd
/Walchand Hirachand Rd
and WH Road/Bazaar Gate
Road
- Mint Road becomes
Transit Street with speed
limit
- Temporal closing of
Walchand Hirachand Rd. in
peak hours

34. Medium Term Proposal
-Shifting of Long distance
(train) Taxi stand to
Shaheed Bhagat Singh
CST exit:
- Creating a pedestrian
plaza in front of CST main
entry gate
- Mint Road becomes a
Transit Street and has two
dedicated bus lanes
- Two Metro subways with
their entry points at CST’ s
Pedestrian Plaza
- New parking space on
Walchand Hirachand road

35. Long Term Proposal
-Vehicular flyover on
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Rd
-Murzban Rd becomes a
pedestrian plaza
-Walchand Hirachand Rd
becomes part of an
extended Pedestrian
Plaza.
-Two new Metro subways
with two of their entry
points at CST Pedestrian
Plaza

36. Survey Findings: Feeder bus commuters
3142 3050 2737
1736
22965
16583
15262
11154
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
9:00-9:30 9:30-
10:00
10:00-
10:30
10:30-
11:00
Time ranges
NumberofCommuters
feeder bus commuters
CCH Local train
alighters

37. Survey Findings: Feeder buses usage
Percentage usage of Feeder buses
13,6
18,4 17,9
15,6
0
5
10
15
20
9:00-9:30 10:30-11:00 10:00-10:30 9:30-10:00
Time range
Percentage usage of Feeder
buses

38. Handout – Survey Findings
Survey Major Findings Limitations Next Steps
Number of
passengers
boarding and
alighting at CST
and
Churchgate. In
morning peak
hrs.
The overall results were in and around 5-10% (upper limit)
compared to secondary data available. (CTS 2005-2208
Study)
1.65964 passengers are alighting at Churchgate between
9 am and 11 am.
2.146674 passengers are alighting at CST between 9 am
and 11 am. The most busy hr is 9:00-10:00 am.
3.Fast locals at CST are heavily packed and the frequency
needs to be further increased; esp between 11:00-11:30
arrival time at CST.
4.The number of commuters arriving at ChurchGate have
a sudden drop after 10:30 am.
1.The survey was
done only in second
class compartments.
2.The density of
Women and Male
travelers was
considered at par.
3.The Number of First
class compartment
passengers was
estimated as 0.8 of
density of Second
class passengers.
Evening Surveys.
Team requirement, 6
people including 2
women , 2 days.
Distribution to
other transport
modes at CST
and
Churchgate.
10685 commuters between 9:00-11:00 am are taking the
feeder bus, i.e 16.2 % of the overall suburban train
passengers alighting at Churchgate Station.
1.Bus frequency is not in sync with alighting patterns of
commuters.
2.Bus routes were mapped.
3.Bus stop accessibility, infra conditions etc were also
mapped.
WIP : New policy and proposals specific to new bus
routes etc.
Taxis are not
counted yet.
The CST survey was
conducted but could
not be managed
because of lack of
resources.
1.Survey to count the
number of taxis at
CST and CCH during
peak hours. 8 people
, 2days
2.CST bus survey. 8
people 1 day

39. Major
Pedestrian
Flows :
Mapping of
infrastructure ,
volume, flow
and behavior
pattern of
pedestrians
alighting at
CST and CCH.
Major problems on the path are key junctions
(organization and signaling).
1.1 to 1.5 sq.mts space available for pedestrians, for all
the six major flow originating points.
2. Capacity reduction of pavements as result of hawking
is not relevant; accept at the Main Entry Gate of CST in
the evening.
3. Jay walking is present even when the pavement
conditions are very comfortable to walk. Lack of
pedestrian grading, preference to have a shortest path
walk ; maintain express walking speed etc are found to
be few reasons..
4.Parking vehicles do not dither the pedestrian to walk
on road.
The solutions include identification of specific
infrastructure, accessibility, comfort and safety conditions
on the six major pedestrian walk-ways .
Surveys to examine
the evening flows :
are only partly done .
-
Statements about
amount and volume
of flow are subjective
in nature.
Survey on evening
flows.
Survey at exit points
of CST and CCH.
Requirement for 6
major pedestrian
flows: 6 people 1
evening.
Requirement for
survey at exit points:
6 people 2 days. (not
a priority survey)
Handout – Survey Findings

40. Key Junctions:
Mapping of 4
important
junctions. Signal
timings and
pedestrian flows
at the junction.
Using this data to
create overall
policy and
specific
proposals.
Long waiting times for pedestrians (up to 2 minutes)
1.Nearby Junctions are not synchronized to
pedestrians avg walk speed. They are in
synchronization to vehicular speed. Hence large wait
time for pedestrians.
2.Location of zebra crossings not based on the
existent pedestrian flows.
3. Dangerous situations results as warning times are
short, when pedestrian signals turn to red.
4.Median Island built-ups by pedestrian are a common
feature.
The solutions include , averaging out signal times
in favor of pedestrians, providing median space
wherever applicable , arterial roads and second
priority to Public Transport, synchronized
movement of one-way traffic with nearby signals
etc.
Signal phases of
nearby junctions in
connection to each
other were not
examined.
surveys on remaining Six
Key junctions
requirement: 6 junctions ,
1 person 3 days.
Vehicular count on the key
junctions.
Requirement (not on priority)
: 8 people 6 days
Handout – Survey Findings

41. Zoning We identified the zones. And did walkthroughs in
number of zones.
The policy statements and detailed proposals are in
WIP.
Lack of local zone
based knowledge .ion
of & identification of
Key stakeholders in the
zone
Local knowledge and
Participation extremely
important to come out
with policies and
proposals.
Identification of
problems such as ,
detailed land use
,vehicular traffic ,
accessibility to public
transport , parking ,
pedestrian infrastructure
and flows , key junctions
and their alignment ,
encroachment etc .
Handout – Survey Findings

42. S. No Name of Policy/Proposal (Status) Proposed Discussion ,Meetings
1. Transit zones policy and proposals CST , short, medium
and long term ( done)
1st meeting i.e Today *
2. Transit zones policy and proposals CCH short ,medium and long
( WIP)
2nd meeting
3. Identification of zones (done) 2nd meeting
4. Key Junction Policies and specific proposals (done) 3rd meeting
5. 6 major Pedestrian flows and specific proposals (done) 3rd meeting
6. Zone wise policy making and proposals (WIP, heavily
dependent on participation level of key stake holders)
Need to identify participation levels and have
a Roadmap for further meetings.
7. Policy and proposal for physically challenged commuters (done ) Not scheduled
8. Policy for Taxis (not done ) Not scheduled
9. Policy for BEST (done) Not scheduled
10. Basic Policy for Parking (done) Not scheduled
11. Policy for Pedestrians (done) Not scheduled
12. Basic Policy for Pvt Vehicles (done) Not scheduled
13. BEST specific proposals (WIP , dependent on CST survey ) Not scheduled + BEST needs to be involved.
14. Taxi specific proposals (not done ,dependent on Survey ) Not scheduled + Cab unions need to be
involved.
15. Parameters mapping ( ongoing) Discussion limited to experts.
Handout – Phase 1 Work

43. Questions?
?

44. Questionnaire
Please fill the questionnaire and collect
your handout before you leave