Ananad vihar
- 1. MULTIMODAL TRANSIT HUB AT ANAND VIHAR, NEW DELHI ANALYSIS SUBMITTED BY: SAMRIDHI M.ARCH. SUSAP
- 2. BUS STAND 1. ENTRY FOR INTER & INTRA BUS STAND IS SAME. 2. ONE EXIT FOR BOTH TERMINALS CREATE JAM’S & CONGESTION. 3. NO PROPER PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT. CONFLICTS AT VARIOUS POINTS FOR PEDESTRAINS. 4. NO SEGGREGATION OF INTER & INTRA TERMINALS. 5. VERY CONGESTED AREA BETWEEN TWO PLATFORMS. 6. BUSES ARE STANDING AT THEIR PLACES AND ALSO IN-BETWEEN AISLES. 7. NO PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO MOVE.8. NO DROP-OFF POINT. 9. NO PROPER SITTING PLACES ON PLATFORM. 10. NO. OF BUSES ARE MORE THAN THE SPACE AVAILABLE.
- 3. METRO STATION 1. NO SEPEARATE ENTRY FOR METRO STATION. ENTRY FOR METRO-STATION IS FROM THE ENTRY FOR BUS TERMINAL. 2. NO PROPER PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY WITH BUS-TERMINAL. 3. CONNECTIVITY WITH RAILWAY STATION IS THROUGH FOOT OVER BRIDGE. WHICH HIDDEN BEHIND THE RAILWAY STATION. 4. LONG QUEUE FOR TICKETING – LESS SPACE. 5. TO REACH ON PLATFORM AFTER BUYING A TICKET, A LONG PATH HAS TO BE COVERED. 6. FEW SHOPS ARE ON GROUND FLOOR, FIRST FLOOR IS EMPTY. 7. VERTICAL CORES ARE NOT VISIBLE WHEN ENTER FROM THE GROUND FLOOR. 8. SERVICES ARE HIDDEN. 9. LIFTS ARE NOT NEAR TO STAIRCASE AND ESCALATORS. 10. DAY LIGHTING IS LESS. 11. VERY CONGESTED AREA.
- 4. RAILWAY STATION 1. SEPARATE ENTRY/EXIT. 2. NO DIRECT LINK WITH THE BUS TERMINAL & METRO STATION.LONG WALKWAYS. 3. PASSENGERS COMMUTE THROUGH PUNCTURES IN BOUNDARY WALL – INFORMAL ACCESS. 4. SPACE IS LESS FOR WAITING & TICKETING. LONG QUEUES. 5. IN FRONT OF RAILWAY STATION WIDE ROAD IS FULLOF HAVING CARS, BUSES, RICKHAWS, AUTO RICKSHAWS.
- 5. 1. CONGESTIONON ROAD NO. 56 (ONLY APPROACH ROAD TO RAILWAY STATION) DUE TO SINGLE ENTRY/EXIT TO COMPLEX, PEDESTRIAN DISPERSAL, HAWKERS AND STATION BOUND TRAFFIC. 2. LONGER WALKING DISTANCES FOR PASSENGERS TO INTERCHANGE / DISPERSAL. 3. PASSENGERS COMMUTE THROUGH PUNCTURES IN BOUNDARY WALL –INFORMAL ACCESS. 4. ENCROACHMENT-HAWKERS, GRAMINSEWA, AUTOS. 5. FOOT OVER BRIDGE TO CROSS ROAD NO. 56 OVERCROWDED. 6. OPEN TO SKY. 7. ESCALATOR FOR ASCENDING ONLY. 8. MANY LEVEL CHANGES FROM ORIGIN TO DESTINATION. 9. MIXING UP AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS WITH PEDESTRIANS CAUSING CONFLICT POINTS. 10. USERS COMPLAINED THAT FOOT OVER BRIDGE IS TOO NARROW OF PEDESTRIANS MOVING ON IT IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, AND MOST FEEL THAT IT DOES NOT TAKE THEM NEAR THEIR DESTINATION.
- 8. INCREASE THE LENGTH OF FOOT OVER BRIDGE. PROPOSED IPT INCREASE ROAD WIDTH PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT