transmogrifier how about buses at the level below? easy on the passengers. unless you are talking about long haul buses.

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

I don't think the idea was floated with bus transport in mind. but wouldn't go as far as saying this is a car-lobby thing. You do need 'corridors' to move goods, and cars/vans across and deeper into the city - basically to segregate long distance traffic from short haul ones. But these big elevated road projects should get lower priority than public transportation projects.

I am guessing that the goal of this 'road corridor' through the city would be to 1) take people going across town quickly through the heart of the city without requiring them to skirt around via ring roads, or to 2) drop people deeper into the city from outskirts. When seen that way, ICRR just by itself (an island) is pretty pointless. Like you said - it has to be networked with other 'corridors'. Connect it to something like BMIC Link road, or to that planned elevated road from Silk board junction to Shoolay circle, or an extension of the elevated road being done over Tumkur Road (Nelamangala tollway). I think CTTP does have some of these things on mind.

However, easing Frazer Town to Lalbagh road commute via BRTS route touching ICRR sounds interesting, lets see your route maps. CTTP doesn't talk of any BRTS routes inside the city (all are either on or outside of ORR) because of the assumption that dedicated lanes aren't possible in the interior city. But looking at the magic boxes, our planners should think again.

Anyway. I think its time we question each and every transportation project that doesn't do anything substantial for the cause of public transportation. I say "susbtantial" because we will be told that all new roads are available for use by the buses as well, and just that argument is not good enough.

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

SB,

 Do you have the route details for commute from Frazer Town to Lal Bagh via BRTS?

Syed 

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

tarlesubba 

I did think of buses at the level below, but that defeats the purpose of a BRTS (if the buses have to deal with traffic, lights etc.).

If you have it above grade all you need is the design to incorporate a shelter and stairs (and an elevator for the physically handicapped?). With the inner two lanes designated as BRTS, you can share the shelter and stairs with bi-directional bus flows. Traditional flyover design always leaves vacant spaces between its support pillars. These staircases could utlilise that area and connect with short-trip regular BMTC buses at grade.

transmogrifier 

PS: I tried to draw this out on Google Sketch but eventually gave up in frustration :)

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

silkboard, 

I'm beginning to feel that the best way is to work with the lobbyists and not against them. Ask Tata/AL/Volvo (and others) to compete on the BRTS angle of the bid... in return for using their higher end buses for the project (aka Curitiba, Brazil).

I also agree with you completely on how the ICRR is a double edged sword. Planners just need to play it carefully and hope that it serves the first and not the second part of your argument. One way that we can prevent everyone from coming all the way in to city using the ICRR is to limit the CBD exits (and heavily toll that exit. For e.g:

1. Cantt Station: exit/entry ramps
2. Wheeler Road: exit/entry ramps
3. Ulsoor Lake (near the Phillips office): exit/entry ramps
4. Football stadium: exit (toll)/entry ramps
5. Vellara junction: entry ramp only
6. Hudson Circle: exit (toll)/entry ramps
7. Palace Road/KG Road: exit (toll)/entry ramps
8. Palace Road/Raj Bhavan Road: entry ramp only

transmogrifier

ps: I still need to post those maps! 

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

As I was replying to silkboard, I came across this from Curitiba Brazil on Youtube (for those who have not seen it thus far.

BRTS above grade (on the ICRR) could work in the same way. The difference being the buses would flow on either end of the shelters alllowing shelters to be shared. Stairs/Elevators can connect above grade and grade levels.

transmogrifier

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

transmogrifier... (siva, bhaaLa confusing handle, spare a thought for dyslexics like me will ya?:) ) as far as possible i think it is better to keep things simple and minimize energy consumption aka operating costs. vehicles are already burning energy why should people burn up their mitochondria and paalike its cheque books? as sb keeps saying this is only necessary bcoz it can isolate long distance traffic from local traffic. long haul buses and vehicles can go up. local feeder buses and piddly autos and souped up lambrettas can stay grounded and provide direct access to shops. ps: keep at it. i find doing curves and splines a pia with GS. other wise for rapid prototyping it is fairly handy. i am also not able to get an handle on its rotation tool. i am going to get carpal tunnel before i figure that one out. they should have text interfaces. meanwhile

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

Hi All,

I think the CRR is presently shelved as it is unviable - there had been a news report earlier (when BBMP budget had been presented) that due to very high costs & difficulties with algnements, the project might be scrapped, & no allocation was made for this in the budget.

I dont know if yeddy will bring it back on line !

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

Collective wisdom (here on Praja) seems to be pointing in the direction of dropping the ICCR idea while there's more interest in the BRTS part of the same idea. I had talked (rather grandly) about the possibility of a Frazer Town-Lalbagh BRTS corridor. Some spade work and referencing portions of Naveen's excellent presentation made to BMTC have resulted in the following thoughts.

Frazer Town-Lalbagh BRTS:

Route: Assaye Rd-Annaswamy Mudaliar Rd-Bhaskaran Rd-MG Rd-FM Cariappa Rd-Richmond Circle Flyover-KH-Road-Shanthinagar Bus stand (http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/5463/frazertownshanthinagarbfa5.jpg)

Design aspects

1. At grade BRTS with birectional bus flows
2. One flyover augumentation (no other underpasses/flyovers)
3. Access gates to permit contra-flow of buses on one-ways.
4. Possible covering over of storm water drain along Assaye Road
5. Reduction in Halsur lake  area to allow for widening of Annaswamy Mudaliar Road allow BRTS.
6. Augumentation of Richmond Circle Flyover to enable contra-flow of buses on coupled with access gates.

Pros:

1. Minimal cost BRTS corridor in the heart of the city
2. Provides BRTS along a corridor not served by Metro
3. Transforming Residency Rd down ramp into a bus-exclusive ramp reduces the embarassment of having a traffic light on a flyover (there still needs to be a light though since contra-flow BRTS buses will use it... but that could be a vehicle sensor based light.

Cons:

1. Severely impacted road width along Residency Road (I don't see this as a con though. Traffic has the option of using MG Road and reduced road width can set in place a cycle of people preferring BRTS over private transport.

This obviously has a lot of issues with its design but I still feel its a workable option to  improve access to the CBD while striving to keep its original aesthetic value.

transmogrifier

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments

Transmogrifier:

BRT has faced serious setbacks in Delhi, not to mention several other cities overseas because the sight of road lane/s nearly empty, with infrequent bus movements whilst traffic is crawling adjacently is psychologically not acceptable to people within those vehicles.

Another aspect is that there will be costs & some disruption to develop BRT tracks, though costs are about a tenth or even lesser when compared with Metrorail. Nevertheless, such costs & disruption still need to be justified & must result in substantial benefits, such as reduction in car use, primarily & returns in financial terms & this is linked to patronization levels.

In Bangalore (& other Indian cities, particularly large metropolitan cities), traffic volumes already being very high resulting in indiscipline & chaos, the idea of controlling movements with gates may not work & might pose serious obstacles to other free flowing traffic. It might, in fact result in negation & cancellation of the BRT idea. This is especially true in Bangalore, with only 4-lane arterial roads, & an excessive no. of vehicles, even denser than most other Indian cities.

The only way I see BRT being pushed through, without ruffling too many feathers, is to use up only one lane, that too, an extended central median on 4-lane roads. On 6-lane (& bigger) roads, two lanes can be considered, based on these experiences, & gauging the level of resistance. By then, the Metro construction would have progressed & provision for efficient feeder services would be needed, if the Metro is to be made successful.

In Delhi, the Metro - in practical terms, has been more of a city-image builder than as a beneficial utility provider, since patronization levels are still very low & nowhere near projections or capacities. Road traffic volumes have still not come under control, though this may change by 2010 with phase-2 coming up.

TS - the clipping of NY that you posted was interesting. Instead of a row of central piers that are the hallmark of Indian flyovers, elevated roads & Metro corridors, if such steel prefabs are built with supports along the sides, the space between those supports beneath could be used for priority services such as BRT, ambulance, etc. However, there are also disadvantages - corrosion is high in the tropics, so using steel may not be a great idea. Also, road widths in bangalore may not permit such construction.

• favorite 0 Like
• | login or register to post comments