Urban Transport in India:

Beyond the Nano and Metro …

and Back to the Basics

Madhav G. Badami
McGill University

Indian Institute of Technology, Madras

February 13, 2008

mgb-eat2
 Outline
• The Problem -- Rapid motor vehicle
growth and impacts

• UT in India – Prospects, Characteristics

and Considerations

• Getting from Here to There – what WILL

and WILL NOT work … and WHY

• Some Questions for Thought and Debate

mgb-eat2
The Problem -- Rapid motor
vehicle growth and impacts

mgb-eat2
 Motor Vehicle Growth in India, 1971-2001

Others Goods Cars, Jeeps, Taxis M2W Vehicles

60
Rapid growth nationally
50
M2W vehicles predominate, but …
Million vehicles

40

30

20

10

0
1971 1981 1991 2001

Source: MORTH, 2004.

mgb-eat2
Population and Motor Vehicle Growth in Delhi 1941-2001

mgb-eat2
 Motor Vehicle Activity -- Impacts
• Mobility for millions; employment; technological
know-how and skills

• Serious local impacts

– Road safety, access and mobility for urban
poor and NMT
– Air pollution, noise, congestion, transport
wastes
– PRIORITIZING IMPACTS

• Regional and global impacts

– Acidification, ozone, ABC
– Climate change
– Energy security
mgb-eat2
 Road Safety
• Rising trends -- India vs. USA
• Pedestrians and cyclists worst affected
• Traffic injuries – life years lost

Victim (%) Impacting Vehicle (%)

Pedestrian/ Single
63 6
Cycle vehicle
M2W 27 M2W 5
M3W 2 M3W 1
Car 3 Car 23
Bus/Truck 5 Bus/Truck 65
Delhi Traffic Police (2004), courtesy Kavi Bhalla mgb-eat2
 PM-10
Daily limit exceeded most days every year

mgb-eat2
Courtesy Milind Kandlikar
Courtesy The Guardian mgb-eat2
 Global Energy Consumption
by Sector, 1971-2001

Industry Road Transport Residential Other

8000
Energy growth most rapid in road transport until recently

6000
M TOE

4000

2000

0
1971 1981 1991 2001

Road transport 80% of total transport Source: IEA, 2006

mgb-eat2
 Global Petroleum Consumption
by Sector, 1971-2001

Industry Road Transport Other

4000

3000
M TOE

2000

1000

0
1971 1981 1991 2001

Source: IEA, 2006

mgb-eat2
Road Transport Energy Consumption by Region, 1971-2001

OECD-NA Other OECD Asia ROW

Source: IEA (2006)

1,600
All OECD – 70%; North America – 40%
1,200
M TO E

800

400

0
1971 1981 1991 2001

mgb-eat2
UT in India – Prospects,
Characteristics and
Considerations

mgb-eat2
 Rapid Urbanization
1950 (1) 1975 (5; 1 Asian LIC) 2000 (16; 8 Asian LIC, 2015 (21; 10 Asian LIC,
3 Indian) 3 Indian)
New York 12.3 Tokyo 19.7 Tokyo 26.4 Tokyo 27.2
New York 15.9 Mexico City 18.1 Dhaka 22.8
Shanghai 11.4 Sao Paulo 17.9 Bombay 22.6
Mexico City 10.7 New York 16.7 Sao Paulo 21.2
Sao Paulo 10.3 Bombay 16.1 Delhi 20.9
Mexico City 20.4
Los Angeles 13.2
New York 17.9
Calcutta 13.1 Jakarta 17.3
Shanghai 12.9 Calcutta 16.7
Dhaka 12.5 Karachi 16.2
Delhi 12.4 Lagos 16.0
Buenos Aires 12.0 Los Angeles 14.5
Jakarta 11.0 Shanghai 13.6
Osaka 11.0 Buenos Aires 13.2
Beijing 10.8 Metro Manila 12.6
Rio de Janeiro 10.7 Beijing 11.7
Karachi 10.0 Rio de Janeiro 11.5
Cairo 11.5
Istanbul 11.4
Osaka 11.0
Tianjin 10.3

Rapid
Rapidurbanization;
urbanization;mega-cities;
mega-cities;rapidly
rapidlygrowing
growingmedium-sized
medium-sizedcities
cities

In
In2015,
2015,Asia
Asiawill
willlikely
likelyhave
have160
160cities
citieswith
with>1
>1m.
m.population
population(30%
(30%in
inIndia)
India)
mgb-eat2
Source:
Source:UN
UN(1999;
(1999;2002;
2002;2003)
2003)
 Rapidly Growing Motor Vehicle Ownership and Use
• Rapid urbanization, growing incomes, growing supply, easy credit

• “Buying a dream” – advertising (PHOTO)

• Changing family structure and gender relations

• Ownership per capita much lower than in OECD, but much higher than at
similar per capita incomes (M2W vehicles); now Nano

• Advantages of MVs, low cost of MV use (M2W vehicle), but also force of
circumstance

– People forced to live afar, priced out of land market

– Poor public transit
– Congestion, compromised access and safety
– Planning for motor vehicles, neglect of NMV

• People forced to buy and use personal MVs; Social trap

• Growth rates of M2W vs Cars vs Public transit

mgb-eat2
 mgb-eat2
Courtesy Lloyd Wright and Sujit Patwardhan
 At the Same Time … Poverty … and
High PT and NMT Use

• Growing incomes but also low affordability and high levels

of urban poverty

• Rapid urbanization – growing incomes – rapid motorization

-- mass poverty -- low motor vehicle ownership rates --
important consequences for Urban transport Outcomes

• Land use – high densities, mixed use

• Distribution of trips by purpose, distance (CHARTS)

• High PT and NMT shares (CHARTS)

mgb-eat2
 Distribution of Trips by Purpose in Delhi

Education

Work

Business

Shopping

Other

0 10 20 30 40 50
% Share of trips

Source: RITES/ORG 1994 mgb-eat2

 Distribution of Trips by Distance in Delhi

Work Education All

100
Cumulative % of trips

80

60
Mean Trip Lengths
40 Education 3.3 km
Work 9.7 km
20 All trips 6.8 km

0
< 2.5 <5 < 10 < 15 < 20 < 25 > 25
Distance, km

Source: RITES/ORG, 1994

mgb-eat2
 Mode Shares in Delhi

Bus

Walk

M2W
Car+Jeep+Van

Bicycle

Rickshaw

M3W

0 10 20 30 40 50
% Share

Source: RITES/ORG, 1994.

mgb-eat2
Mode Shares in Mumbai

mgb-eat2
 Mode Shares – India vs. NA

Car/ Transit Cycle Walk Other

M2W
Delhi/ 15 35 3 43 4
Mumbai
Canada 74 14 1 10 1

USA 84 3 1 9 2

mgb-eat2
 Urban Transport Impacts
• High levels of impacts despite low MV and high PT and
NMT mode shares

• Large exposures and high levels of poverty

– Serious health and welfare effects; poverty-impact

synergies

– Air pollution, road safety, access and mobility

• Costs, benefits unevenly distributed -- poor benefit little

from but disproportionately affected by motorization and
planning

mgb-eat2
 Urban Transport Impacts
• Proximate causes technological, but underlying
behavioural, institutional factors

– Fuel/oil adulteration; Poor maintenance; Fuel and

spares pricing

• Inadequate physical infrastructure

• Inadequate resources for policy-making, regulation,

monitoring, enforcement

– Road rules; parking; I/M; fuel adulteration

• Inadequate resources, capabilities and governance ???

mgb-eat2
 Policy-making -- Factors
• Diverse groups, conflicting objectives, differentially
affected

• Rapid motorization … but also low affordability, high PT,

NMV shares

• Traffic conditions – high density, mixed modes and uses --

effects on NMV, PT, MV

• Land use – pros and cons; inability to regulate

• Medium sized towns and cities -- challenges

mgb-eat2
 Getting from Here to There –
what WILL and WILL NOT work …
and WHY

mgb-eat2
 Urban Transport – A Major Public Concern
• Intense frustration, yet resignation

• Sense of inevitability

• Need to provide more roads for cars

• Provide everyone a car (Nano)

• Faith in technological solutions – Emission

standards, Flyovers, Metro

mgb-eat2
 Conventional UT Planning – Tightening Belts as a
Cure for Obesity …
• Inevitability presumed -- Status-quo accommodating

• Motor vehicle centred -- high value to time savings in MVs

• Narrowly focused – issues, time-frame

• “Building our way out of it” has not worked even in resource-rich
contexts – US example

• Motor vehicles become self-perpetuating

• Technological solutions futile -- vicious circle of motorization and

impacts – Jaime Lerner

• UT Planning is self-fulfilling, reinforcing – IATROGENIC -- Illich

• In Indian context, not only infeasible, but highly undesirable --

severe access loss, displacement and social disruption -- Illich

mgb-eat2
 Metro Systems in LICs –
Triumph of Hope over Experience …
• Very high capital and operating costs, disruptive, long lead times

• Restricted resources necessitate constrained network in rapidly growing

urban regions with no strong centres

• Low potential for capture beyond access distances of 500 metres; Highly
compromised access exacerbates situation

• Trip characteristics – lengths (CHART); trip chaining

• Egress times; Connectivity at trip end …

• High fares required for viability, but low affordability, discretionary travel

• Low costs, advantages of MV use (fuel, parking)

• Low ridership, little effect on congestion, at very high cost – subsidizing

the well-to-do at the expense of low-income groups

• Even in HIC’s – Flyvbjerg et al

mgb-eat2
 Door-to-Door Journey Time: Metro vs. other Modes

Source: Dinesh Mohan, 2008 mgb-eat2

 MOTORIZATION IS NOT INEVITABLE
Policy Does Matter …

Car Transit Cycle Walk Other

Canada 74 14 1 10 1

USA 84 3 1 9 2

Netherlands 44 8 27 19 1

Sweden 36 11 10 39 4

mgb-eat2
 In India – Cut Our UT Coat According to Our Cloth

• Inadequate resources, capabilities and

governance … OR misguided priorities

• Urban Transport Objectives

– Cost-effectiveness
– Safety
– Equity
– Resource use
– Environmental impact
– Well-being – Livability; livelihoods
– Reliability, vulnerability to disruptions

• Synergies; multiple groups, differentially affected

mgb-eat2
 Accessibility for All is the Key
• Not MOBILITY, or ACCESS TO MOBILITY, but ACCESSIBILITY FOR
ALL

• Problem avoidance, not end-of-pipeline cure (CHARTS)

• Equity, efficient traffic, transit viability, multiple objectives

• Public transit – Importance of buses; small and medium sized

cities; BRT (CHART)

• Curb personal MV activity

– Need to internalize Costs
– Role of variable costs in behaviour – parking control

• Strategic phasing of policies

• Land use crucially important – CHARTS

• WE HAVE A STARK CHOICE – THE TIME IS NOW

mgb-eat2
 Door-to-Door Journey Times, Delhi

120
J o u r n e y tim e , m in u te s

100

80 Cycle
M2W
60
Car
40 Bus
20

0
2.5 3.8 6.3 8.8 11.3 13.8 16.3 18.8 21.3 23.8 25
Distance, km

mgb-eat2
 Trips by Distance, Delhi, 1994

100
C u m u la t iv e % o f t rip s

80

60 Work trips
M2W trips
40 All trips

20

0
<2.5 <5 < 10 < 15 < 20 < 25 > 25
Distance, km

mgb-eat2
 BRT vs. Urban Rail

mgb-eat2
Courtesy Aurora Fe Ables et al
 BRT vs. Urban Rail

mgb-eat2
Courtesy Aurora Fe Ables et al
 Land Use is Critical

Courtesy Alain Bertaud mgb-eat2

 Land Use is Critical

Courtesy Alain Bertaud mgb-eat2

Some Questions …

mgb-eat2
Extras

mgb-eat2
 Global Petroleum and Natural Gas Consumption
by Sector, 1971-2001

Industry Road Transport Residential Other

5000
Energy growth most rapid in transport until recently
4000

3000
M TO E

2000

1000

0
1971 1981 1991 2001

mgb-eat2
Road transport 80% of total transport Source: IEA (2004)
 Mode Shares in Montreal

AM Peak % 24-hr %

Other

Walk AM Peak PT Shares

Bus 11.5%
Bicycle Metro 7%

School Bus Train 0.4%

Public Transit

Car/LTV

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
% Share

mgb-eat2