7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

1/22

IRC 103-1988

GUIDELINES

FOR

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

2/22

~RC 103-1988

GUIDELINES

FOR

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

3/22

IRC 103-1988

First published : February, 1989

(Rights ofPublication and ofTranslation are Reserved)

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

4/22

IRC : 103-1988

CONTENTS

Clause No.

I. General

2. Introduction

3. General Principles

4. Footpath (Side-walk)

5. Pedestrian Guard-Rails

6. Pedestrian Crossings

7. At-Grade Pedestrian Crossings

(Pedestrian Cross-walks)

8. Grade Separated Pedestrian Facilities

Page

1

2

3

3

4

7

7

13

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

5/22

IRC :103-1988

GUIDELINES FOR PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

1 . GENERAL

1.1. Guidelines for pedestrian facilities were under theconsideration of the Traffic Engineering Committee.The Committee in their meeting held at Calcutta on the1st November, 1980 constituted a Subcommittee under theconvenorship ofShri K. S. Logavinayagam with S/Shri A. K.Bandhopadhyaya, P. S. Bawa, P. S. Majumdar, S. M. Parulkar,

R. P. Sikka and C. Ramdas as the members to take up at thefirst instance preparation of the warrants for pedestrian gradeseparations and design of railing barriers.

Accordingly, the draft documents on (1) Criteria for fixingof railing barriers and its design. (2) Warrants for pedestrian

crossing facilities and (3) Warrants for pedestrian grade separationwere finalised by the Subcommittee. These were then consideredby the Traffic Engineering Committee in their meeting held atGandhinagar on the 29th September, 1982. It was decided torevise the documents on the basis ofthe comments received.

Shri J. B. Mathur of Indian Roads Congress redrafted thedocument and combined the above three documents into onecohesive document and this was placed before the Traffic Engi-neering Committee (personnel given below) at their meeting held

at New Delhi on the 12th June 1987 The Committee approved

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

6/22

IRC : 103-1988

1.2. The guidelines as finalised by the Traffic EngineeringCommittee were considered by the Specifications & StandardsCommittee in their meeting held at New Delhi on the 9th Novem-

ber, 1987 and it was decided to revise the document in the lightof the comments of members. For this purpose, a WorkingGroup was constituted under the convenorship of Shri R. P.Sikka with 5/Shri A. Sankaran, D. Sanyal, K. Arunachalam andDr. M. S. Srinjvasan as members.

1.3. The guidelines finalised by the Working Group wereapproved by the Highways Specifications & Standards Commit-tee in their meeting held at New Delhi on the 24th November,1988. The guidelines got the approval of the Executive Com-mittee by circulation and the Council in their meeting held at

Sheo Nandan PrasadDr. S. P. PlaniswamyDr. S. P. Raghava ChariV. S. Rane

Prof. M. S. V. RaoK. Suryanarayana RaoProf. N. RanganathanDr. 0. S. SahgalID . V. SahniDr. A. C. SarnaR. K. SaxenaH. C. SethiH. N. ShahR. P. SikkaR. Thihlainayagam

V. V. ThakarD. 1. Vaidya

Prof. Dinesh MohanP. G. ValsankarC.E. (NH) Kerala (V. S. Iyer)Director, Transport ResearchDivisionMOST (R. C. Sharma)The Chief, Transport &

Communication Board,B.M.R.D.A.(R. Y. Tambe)SE., Traffic Engg. & Manage-ment Cell, MadrasThe President, IRC & DG(RD)(K. K. Sarin) Ex-officioThe Secretary, IRC

(Ninan Koshi) Ex-officio

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

7/22

IRC :103-1988

instance IRC 70-1977 Guidelines on Regulation and Control ofMixed Traffic in Urban Areas and IRC: 86-1983 Geometric

Design Standards for Urban Roads in Plains. Recommenda-tions in this regard are consolidated here, adding supplementaryinformations.

3 . GENERAL PRINCIPLES

3.1. Pedestrian facilities should be planned in an integratedmanner so as to ensure a continuous pedestrian flow. It shouldbe useful therefore to look at pedestrian needs for an area as awhole and prepare an overall strategic plan.

3.2. The basic aim should be to reduce pedestrian con-flicts with vehicular traffic to the minimum. Efforts should bemade to create such conditions that pedestrians are not forcedto walk in unsafe circumstances, and that the motorists respectthe position of pedestrians.

3.3. While planning, the convenience of pedestrians shouldbe a paramount consideration. Otherwise, the facilities provided

will not be fully used.

4. FOOTPATH (SIDE-WALK)

4.1. In order to be effective, the side-walks should beprovided on both sides of the road and above the level ofthe

carriageway separated by non-mountable kerbs. Height ofthekerb at the edge should, however, not exceed the height of non-mountable kerbs, as this might otherwise detract pedestriansfrom getting on to the side-walks.

4 2 The width of side walks depends upon the expected

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

8/22

IRC : 103 198 8

4.3. For side-walks in shopping areas, the width should beincreased by I m which is treated as the dead width. in other

situations where side-walks pass adjacent to buildings and fences,the dead width can be taken as 0.5 m. For areas of heavypedestrian activity such as bus stops, railway stations andrecreational area, the width of side-walk should be suitablyincreased to account for accumulation of pedestrians.

4.4. In purely residential areas, and special cases like shop-

ping centres and industrialJoffice complexes, different principleswill apply to side-walk design than the capacity considerationsgiven in Table I. Enhancement of environmental values andsafety are the governing criteria in pedestrian sensitive situationssuch as these and layouts need to be carefully planned keepingthese points in view.

5. PEDESTRIAN GUARD-RAILS

5.1. Pedestrian guard-rails are an important design ele-n~entto prevent indiscriminate crossing and spilling over ofpedestrians on to the carriageway. Their judicious use can helpto ensure that pedestrians cross the streets at predetermined and

safe locations. As the guard-rails would confine the movementof pedestrians to the footpath, it is obligatory that sufficientwidth of footpath be made available for the use ofpedestrians.

5.2. Design

The design of guard-rails should be neat, simple in appea-

rance and, as far as possible, vandal proof. Two aspects whichneed special consideration are the height of hand-rail and theobstruction to visibility. The height should be sufficient so as todeter people from climbing over it. The visibility of the app-roaching vehicles by the pedestrians as well as the visibility of

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

9/22

001,

_______

0

__________

0

iIiI~~J

H

_~

8

0~s,

L

_____

__

It)

.--~

.-

oI

____

~-

0

L

~1-iie~~

Id

~

5

2In

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

10/22

IRC :103-1988

5.3. Application

Use of pedestrian guard-rails could normally be consideredunder the following situations

(a) Hazardous locations on straight stretches

In particularly busy reaches where the road is congested and vehiclesmove at a fast pace, guard-rails should be provided on both sides ofthe carriageway so as to channelise the pedestrians on to the planned

crossing locations.

(b) At Junctlons/Intersecflons

Railing barriers should be provided to prevent people from crossingthe junctions diagonally at signalised intersections. The barriermust open only at planned crossing facility (at the zebra crossing).

At unsignalised junctions they should be provided for sufficientlength to guide the pedestrians to the nearest planned pedestriancrossing.

(c) Schools

Provision of guard-rails near schools where children would other-wise run straight into the road is essential. Ifthere is a pedestrian

crossing or a school crossing patrol nearby, the guard-rails must beextended upto it.

(d) Bus stops, Railway stations, etc.

Provision of guard-rails along side-walks with suitable access at busstops, railway stations and other areas ofheavy pedestrian activitysuch as cinema houses, stadiums, etc. is recommended for guiding

pedestrians safely in such areas.

(e) Overpass, Subway, etc.

Guard-rails may be necessary at these locations in order to compelthe pedestrians to use the facilities provided for them

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

11/22

IRC: 103-1988

5.5. Maintenance

Railing barriers should be painted periodically, especiallyafter the monsoon, for increased life and better appearance.Broken barriers must be promptly replaced.

6. PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

6.1. Where complete segregation of pedestrians fromvehicular traffic is not possible, some form of planned roadsharing principle must be applied. Being the most vulnerableroad user, pedestrian should increasingly be given the placeand time to legally claim the right to cross the road. Pedestriancrossings are to be provided where they will be well used. Hence

it is necessary to follow certain criteria for establishing the rightofpedestrian crossing at a particular location.

6.2. Types ofPedestrian Crossings

Pedestrian crossings could be broadly classified as

(i) At-grade crossings; and(ii) Grade separated crossings.

6.3. At-grade pedestrian crossings are those where thepedestrians cross the carriageway at the same level as that ofvehicular movement. Grade separated crossings are those where

the pedestrians are required to cross the carriageway at a leveldifferent from that ofvehicular movement. Thus, the latter maybe in the form ofa pedestrian subway or a foot over bridgeacross the road.

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

12/22

IRC :103.1988

tially increase the walk distance of pedestrians. Adequate visibi-lity, freedom from obstructions and sufficient space for waitingare the other important requirements for location of cross-walks.

7. 1. At-grade Pedestrian Crossing at Intersections

At-grade pedestrian crossings could be uncontrolled orcontrolled. Uncontrolled crossings are those where the pedestrian

cross-walk is marked by studs or paint line but not controlledby any system ofsignals or a zebra form of crossing. Provisionofuncontrolled pedestrian crossings must, as far as possible, beavoided except where the intersection itself is left uncontrolledbecause of extremely low volumes of both vehicular and pedes-trian traffic even during peakhours and where accident records

do not indicate any need to segregate vehicular traffic from crosspedestrian traffic.

7.2. Controlled Crossings

Controlled form of crossing is achieved normally throughprovision ofzebra crossings whether at a unsignalised or signal-

ised intersection. Once a pedestrian is on a zebra crossing, hegains priority of movement with respect to vehicular traffic.

Pedestrian crossings must inevitably be integrated with theoverall design of the intersection.

7.2.1. Zebra crossing: A zebra crossing is a clearly speci-lied pedestrian track across the carriageway and is delineatedwith the help of alternate black and white stripes.

A zebra crossing must always be accompanied by aSTOP li IRC 35 1970 C d f P i F R d

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

13/22

IRC: 103-1988

of 2.0 m to 4.0 m. For divided carriageways, the crossingshould, as far as possible, proceed uninterrupted through the

median strip. In the event of the median strip being used aspedestrian refuge, adequate width of median must be provided.In case of raised medians, such portion could be suitablydepressed with curb height not exceeding 15 cm.

7.2.4. Guard-rails and lighting: Guard-rails in the vicinity

of zebra crossing should be of sufficient length to deter pedes-trians from crossing the road at any arbitrary point along theroad. Night time visibility ofzebra crossing is of vital impor-tance and this can be achieved through proper lighting of theintersection area. Fig. 2, gives a typical layout ofzebra crossingat an intersection controlled by channelisation only.

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

14/22

1RC : 103-1988

7.2.5. Zebra crossing a t signalised intersections: Unlike inthe case of unsignalised intersections where the pedestrian usesthe zebra crossing through judicious gap selection, a signalisedintersection could allow exclusive time slots for movement ofcross pedestrian traffic. In the case of intersections controlled

by two phase signals, an all red phase could be inserted toease pedestrian movements. In case of intersections controlledby three or four phase signals, zebra crossings could be utilisedin such a manner that pedestrians could move across the roadin a direction parallel to the movement of vehicular trafficduring a particular green phase. If exclusive time slots formovement of pedestrians is not available, use of zebra crossingsat such locations would also warrant judicious gap selection. Itis a good idea to install a flashing warning signal for pedestriansand left turning vehicular traffic at such intersections that permituninterrupted infiltration to the left for vehicular traffic. Thephysical design features ofzebra crossings at signalised intersec-tions will be similar to those at unsignalised intersections. Fig. 3,shows zebra crossings and other details for a typical four armsignalised intersection.

7.3. Mid-Block Zebra Crossings

7.3.1. Uncontrolled crossings: Mid-block zebra crossings areto be provided only when the distance between two consecutiveintersections is more than 300 m and simultaneously, there is a

genuine demand for such a facility (e.g. shopping or commercialarea being located within this area).

It must be noted that mid-block crossings are more difficultl d f l t i i f ddi i l f

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

15/22

IUCCs

Cs

CCa

Ca

0UI.UNCsC0C

aC0UUC

-

a)

CEC-

cC

I-

C-.

0CCs

U,

a)

~0U

1-~

en

1

1

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

16/22

CROSS SIGN

SIGNAL

BR A CROSSING

U,

0

-U ;

0~

0I-

U,

R IA N

FLASHING SIGNAL CROSS SIGN

Fig. 4. Mid-block~ebra crossing across two way Street

PEDESTRIAN CROSS SIGN

FLASHING SIGNAL

BRA CRO SSiNG

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

17/22

IRC: 103-1988

operation of mid-block crossings. All other physical design con-siderations in this case remain same as in the case of zebra

crossings at intersections.

7.3.2. Controlled crossings: Control measures at mid-block crossings may be warranted when one or more ofthefollowing conditions exist

(i ) Peak hour volumes ofpedestrians (P) and vehicles (V) are such that

PV

2 > 10~for undivided carriageways, and PV > 2x 1 0 8 for divided

carrigeways;(ii) Approach speeds of vehicles exceed 65 kph;

(iii) Waiting time for pedestrians/vehicles becomes too long;

(iv) Accident records indicate 5 or more injuries to pedestrians in a year

due to collision with vehicles.

The control measure usually adopted in such cases is atraffic signal with exclusive pedestrian phase. In certain cases,where the warrants are met only during peakhours, police controlcould also be introduced. Pedestrian operated pelican signalscould also be introduced at such locations where the vehicularvolume is too large even though the volume of pedestrians maybe low. Unless judiciously used, pelican crossings are known tocause undesirable impediments to the flow ofvehicular traffic.

8 . GRADE SEPARATED PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

8.1. Warrants

Provision ofa grade separated pedestrian facility may bewarranted at locations where one or more of the following con-ditions exist:

ti ) Volumes of pedestrians and vehicular traffic are so large that inser-

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

18/22

IRC :103-1988

8.3. Selection ofType ofFacility

Any grade separated pedestrian facility will almost alwaysentail a departure from the normal travel line of pedestrianswhich will tend to be along the most direct and shortest routebetween two points across the carriageway. This means thatcertain changes in pedestrian travel behaviour will have to bebrought about if these facilities are to be effectively utilised.While selecting a particular type offacility, therefore, the behavi-

oural pattern ofpedestrians, site constraints (inclusive of possiblemaintenance problems and difficulties in shifting of services),topography, the cost implications and the environmental andaesthetic aspects, etc., must all be kept in view. As a general rule,at a given location the pedestrian subway will be usually costlierthan a foot over bridge. Even recurring cost ofmaintenance of a

subway is much higher. Experience, however, shows that a sub-way usually proves to be much more acceptable to the users thanan F.O.B. A major reason for this could be that the energy ex-pended in negotiating an F.O.B. is usually much more comparedwith that required to negotiate a subway. Aesthetically, a footover bridge may often cause problems of blending with the

surrounding environment and could also affect the privacy ofresidential units. Treatments required to improve aesthetics insuch cases are usually costly. On the other road, subways, ifproperly maintained, could become a source of revenue throughrentals for display windows, etc. These various pros and consshould be suitably considered in each case. In contrast to normal

situations use of foot over bridges might be particularly meaning-ful in certain special circumstances, where for example, thesecould be elegantly integrated with elevated walk-ways at terminalareas, central business districts and important multistoreyedshopping complexes

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

19/22

IRC : 103-1988

arms are to be connected through a p~d~striansubway, the lay-out of this facility would largely depend upon the intersection

geometry and angles of intersection. Away from the intersection,a pedestrian subway usually takes the shape of a straight tunnelacross the carriageway.

Good alignment, both horizontal and vertical, helps tomake a subway attractive. It is important to avoid recesses or

dark corners within the subway so that the users could feel safeinside. Similarly, abrupt bends in the alignment, includingstairs or ramps, must be avoided. Access to subways should bestraight, convenient and in the direction of major pedestrianmovement. Wherever possible, ramps could be provided asaccess facilities. A gradient of I in 10 should be regarded as

maximum allowable gradient for such ramps.

8.4.2.1. Dimensions: For reasons of economy it will bedesirable to adopt a rectangular subway section. The minimumwidth of pedestrian subway is 2.5 m and the vertical clearenceshould not be less than 2.5 m. However, experience showsthat in order to get rid of the adverse tunneling effect, it willbe preferable generally to increase the width of the subwayto about 4.0 m and wherever possible upto 6.0 m. Adequateprovision must be made for housing display windows, etc., if suchappurtenances are to be provided within a subway. In case suchdisplay windows are provided, the width ofthe subway should

be increased suitably to account for dead width. At locationseaten ag to very large volumes ofpedestrian traffic, e.g. at exitsfrom suburban railway stations, subway width should be fixed oncapacity considerations, see pam 85.

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

20/22

!RC : 103-1988

equipment and pump se~

~eoo ~3300 _________

Cross section at xx

20001 3300 ieco. 1

i0

)0~Vertical drop of vent.duct 300x600

tmp pump

lectricol D. B.

entilolion duct

3300

~o0

4

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

21/22

IRC : 103-1988

8.5. Capacity

Capacity ofgrade separated pedestrian facilities should beworked out as per guidelines given in 1RC: 70-1977 i.e. 50persons per minute per metre width on the level or upto 1 in 20gradient; and 35 persons per minute per metre width on steps orramps over 1 in 20 gradient.

Uo

7/27/2019 IRC_103-1988

22/22

4

I

U-

I.,C)

4.

or

z~

zUi

I.-

L

A

J

U)

~i~r

1

~9

z~Z~

Q~~

Ui

If).

I.fl

r~.

00~

0>.~

toa,

1

T

~.-

~