mgb-eat2

Urban Transport in India:

Beyond the Nano and Metro …and Back to the Basics

Madhav G. BadamiMcGill University

Indian Institute of Technology, MadrasFebruary 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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1971 1981 1991 2001

Mill

ion

vehi

cles

Others Goods Cars, Jeeps, Taxis M2W Vehicles

Source: MORTH, 2004.

Rapid growth nationally

M2W vehicles predominate, but …

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/Cycle 63 Single

vehicle 6

M2W 27 M2W 5M3W 2 M3W 1Car 3 Car 23Bus/Truck 5 Bus/Truck 65Delhi Traffic Police (2004), courtesy Kavi Bhalla

mgb-eat2

PM-10Daily limit exceeded most days every year

Courtesy Milind Kandlikar

mgb-eat2Courtesy The Guardian

mgb-eat2

Global Energy Consumption by Sector, 1971-2001

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

1971 1981 1991 2001

MTO

E

Industry Road Transport Residential Other

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

Energy growth most rapid in road transport until recently

mgb-eat2

Global Petroleum Consumption by Sector, 1971-2001

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

1971 1981 1991 2001

MTO

E

Industry Road Transport Other

Source: IEA, 2006

mgb-eat2

Road Transport Energy Consumption by Region, 1971-2001

0

400

800

1,200

1,600

1971 1981 1991 2001

MTO

E

OECD-NA Other OECD Asia ROWSource: IEA (2006)

All OECD – 70%; North America – 40%

mgb-eat2

UT in India – Prospects, Characteristics and

Considerations

mgb-eat2

Rapid Urbanization1950 (1) 1975 (5; 1 Asian LIC) 2000 (16; 8 Asian LIC,

3 Indian) 2015 (21; 10 Asian LIC, 3 Indian)

New York 12.3 Tokyo 19.7 New York 15.9 Shanghai 11.4 Mexico City 10.7 Sao Paulo 10.3

Tokyo 26.4 Mexico City 18.1 Sao Paulo 17.9 New York 16.7 Bombay 16.1 Los Angeles 13.2 Calcutta 13.1 Shanghai 12.9 Dhaka 12.5 Delhi 12.4 Buenos Aires 12.0 Jakarta 11.0 Osaka 11.0 Beijing 10.8 Rio de Janeiro 10.7 Karachi 10.0

Tokyo 27.2 Dhaka 22.8 Bombay 22.6 Sao Paulo 21.2 Delhi 20.9 Mexico City 20.4 New York 17.9 Jakarta 17.3 Calcutta 16.7 Karachi 16.2 Lagos 16.0 Los Angeles 14.5 Shanghai 13.6 Buenos Aires 13.2 Metro Manila 12.6 Beijing 11.7 Rio de Janeiro 11.5 Cairo 11.5 Istanbul 11.4 Osaka 11.0 Tianjin 10.3

Rapid urbanization; mega-cities; rapidly growing medium-sized cities

In 2015, Asia will likely have 160 cities with >1 m. population (30% in India)

Source: UN (1999; 2002; 2003)

Rapid urbanization; mega-cities; rapidly growing medium-sized cities

In 2015, Asia will likely have 160 cities with >1 m. population (30% in India)

Source: UN (1999; 2002; 2003)

mgb-eat2

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-eat2Courtesy Lloyd Wright and Sujit Patwardhan

mgb-eat2

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

0 10 20 30 40 50

Other

Shopping

Business

Work

Education

% Share of trips

Source: RITES/ORG 1994

mgb-eat2

Distribution of Trips by Distance in Delhi

0

20

40

60

80

100

< 2.5 < 5 < 10 < 15 < 20 < 25 > 25

Distance, km

Cum

ulat

ive

% o

f trip

sWork Education All

Source: RITES/ORG, 1994

Mean Trip Lengths

Education 3.3 kmWork 9.7 kmAll trips 6.8 km

mgb-eat2

Mode Shares in Delhi

0 10 20 30 40 50

M3W

Rickshaw

Bicycle

Car+Jeep+Van

M2W

Walk

Bus

% Share

Source: RITES/ORG, 1994.

mgb-eat2

Mode Shares in Mumbai

mgb-eat2

Mode Shares – India vs. NA

Car/M2W

Transit Cycle Walk Other

Delhi/Mumbai

15 35 3 43 4

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2.5 3.8 6.3 8.8 11.3 13.8 16.3 18.8 21.3 23.8 25

Distance, km

Jour

ney

time,

min

utes

CycleM2WCarBus

mgb-eat2

Trips by Distance, Delhi, 1994

0

20

40

60

80

100

<2.5 < 5 < 10 < 15 < 20 < 25 > 25

Distance, km

Cum

ulat

ive

% o

f trip

s

Work tripsM2W tripsAll trips

mgb-eat2

BRT vs. Urban Rail

Courtesy Aurora Fe Ables et al

mgb-eat2

BRT vs. Urban Rail

Courtesy Aurora Fe Ables et al

mgb-eat2

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

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

1971 1981 1991 2001

MTO

E

Industry Road Transport Residential Other

Energy growth most rapid in transport until recently

Road transport 80% of total transport Source: IEA (2004)

mgb-eat2

Mode Shares in Montreal

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Car/LTV

Public Transit

School Bus

Bicycle

Walk

Other

% Share

AM Peak % 24-hr %

AM Peak PT Shares

Bus 11.5%

Metro 7%

Train 0.4%