#WhitherHCMTR Part 4: Project should be only for public transport, says Pranjali Deshpande
Pranjali Deshpande is an architect and urban planner, attached with the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP), India. She is also leading the public transport strategy, policy, and project work for the ITDP India ProgrammeUpdated: Jan 28, 2020 17:53 IST
Pune’s HCMTR only for public transport. Is that viable?
I completely agree with this. High Capacity Mass Transit Route ( HCMTR ) should be only for public transport. Pune comprehensive mobility plan approved by the general body has set a goal of 80 per cent motorised public transport trips. If the administration provides more motor vehicle lanes, it will attract more private vehicles, thus defeating the purpose of public transport.
Neo Metro on HCMTR, instead of Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS). Is Neo Metro a viable option for Pune?
Neo Metro could be suitable for some cities, but for Pune, the best solution is BRTS with all-electric buses. Battery operated e-buses have been institutionalised in the system and hence, it is better to deploy and expand the BRTS network. Neo Metro will not provide flexibility and hence, passenger transfers will increase. Whereas, e-buses can merge to provide direct services and integrate with the Rainbow BRTS.
Width of the HCMTR: 24 metres vs 8 metres. What width will be more useful in the future?
Eight metres is sufficient for an Elevated Bus Rapid Transit System (EBRTS). Only at the stations, additional space will be needed. With articulated buses and overtaking lanes at stations, EBRTS will be able to accommodate at least 30,000 passengers in one direction during peak hours.
EBRTS? Are you further complicating the HCMTR?
HCMTR connects major mobility corridors in the city. Hence, connecting these important points by elevated bus rapid corridor will improve mobility in the system. In short, EBRTS on the HCMTR will help with better passenger convenience, easy integration with the existing system, zero tailpipe emissions and less width at a lower cost.