Prof. Shivanand Swamy
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CRDF, CEPT University, Ahmedabad
Towards Decarbonisation of Urban Transport
Opportunities to decarbonize Urban Transport through interventions in Travel Demand Management
September 23, 2020
UNESCAP
THE SYNERGY EFFECT
PROJECTING EMISSION LEVELS IN INDIAN CITIES
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport
22.3%24.3%
24.3%
46.4%
46.4%
46.4%
1.5%
6.9%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
Impact of Vehicle Technology Impact of Public Transport + Vehicle Technology Impact of Density + Public Transport + VehicleTechnology
%a
ge
CO
2 S
avin
g (
co
mp
are
d t
o c
um
ula
tive
im
pa
ct)
Impact of Density Impact of Public Transport Impact of Vehicle Technology Synergy
Swamy H.M Shivanand, Gautam IP, Lohia SK , Bhakuni Nitika, “Promoting Sustainable urban growth in Indian Cities” The Journal of Governance
Volume 4,January 2012 (69-85) (20 cities – analysis)
Estimating Emissions GHG UNDER VARIOUS SCENARIOS
Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport
Base Year
2011
Future Year
2031
71941
46189
3240530027
Swamy H.M Shivanand, Gautam IP, Lohia SK , Bhakuni Nitika, “Promoting Sustainable urban growth in Indian Cities” The Journal of Governance
Volume 4,January 2012 (69-85)
Prof. H M Shivanand Swamy | Centre of Excellence in Urban Transport, CEPT University | 07 September, 2020
Covid 19 “Disruption”
Reverse Flow to
Tier-2 & Tier-3 cities
Impacts
Largest disruption of the last 100
years- Instantaneous and of this
magnitude with global impact
Unattractive and
Unsafe PT for “Choice
Riders”; Travel if
“Unavoidable”
Instant adaptation
to WFH & flexi
work timings
Trip substitution via
digitalisation
Instant adaptation to
new technologies &
tools;
Disruptions give an opportunity for
innovations - need to arrest
positive changes and mitigate the
negative
Cycling emerging as the
“Choice”
Low Pollution
Swamy HMSS & Laghu Parashar
Reconfiguring Mobility Landscape
• Ensure that gain due to change in travel
behaviour sustains
• Reset priorities, standards and focus on
quality (with quantity)
• Ensure robust digital infrastructure,
especially in T-2 & T-3 cities
• Bring cities & people closer
• High-speed/semi-high speed rail
connectivity for region (Build Rail & Not
Highways)
• Bus integrated collective mobility
system
• Raise and priortise funds- “who should pay”
to create affordable infrastructure
• Build capacity of the cities/states
Guiding Principles for “New Normal”
Swamy HMSS & Laghu Parashar
10
05
Years
BAU Pre- Covid
Do-nothing Post - Covid
Desired New Normal Post - Covid
NN
D I S S E R T A T I O N 2 0 0 7 - 0 9 Lavinder Walia, IP 0907
PUSH and PULL - BOTH NEED TO BE PUT IN PLACE
S E R V I C E E L A S T I C I T Y
25
6 6 8
17
73
109
152
172
227
0
50
100
150
200
Crowdnessdecrease
Decrease in In-vehicle time
Decrese in Out-vehicle time
Decrease in tansitfares
Connectivityincreases- new
fleet
Well connected Subsidised fares Increase in Fuelprice
Levyingcongestion
charge
Increase inparking fares
No shift
Existing Public transport New Public transit Personal vehicle No shift
I M P R O V E D S E R V I C E L E V E L S N E W
T R A N S I T
A D D I T I O N A L C O S T N O
S H I F T
▪ Service elasticities of existing public transport is very inelastic
▪ For car users, service elasticity is zero, which means demand is perfectly inelastic, it will not change whatever may be the change in the service
levels.
SERVICE ELASTCITIES OF TWO
WHEELERS
▪ -0.0009 for decrease in
crowdedness level
▪ -0.01 for decrease in In-vehicle
time
▪ 0 for decrease in transit fares
▪ -0.024 for increase in connectivity-
new fleet
Where e = elasticity Δ Q = Change in demand
P = base price Δ P = Change in price
Q= base demand
e = Δ Q
Δ P
P PPQ
P E R C E N TA G E C H A N G E I N D E M A N D B Y
P E R C E N TA G E C H A N G E I N P R I C E
(0.88%)(2.2%)
(2.6%) (2.6%) (3.5%)
(7.5%)
(32.2%)
(48%)
(67%)
(75.7%)
(24.3%)
SOURCE: Computations from S.P. surveys, 2009
Investing Right
Symbolic/Status vs Meaningful Contribution!!!
Transit Systems: MRTS and BRTS
Metro Rail – Elevated/UG Mono Rail - Elevated
LRT Rail, At Grade
BRTS – Segregated Corridor (At Grade)
Tram, At Grade
Ridership Forecasts & Actuals – Metro Rail Global
10
Systems Study Ridership v/s Forecast
Three federally funded US Transit
Systems
Wachs (1986) 47% to 68% below
forecast
% metros in developing cities
worldwide
Halcrow Fox
(1990)
50% to 90% below
forecast
10 federally-funded US transit
systems
Pickrell (1990) 28% to 85% below
forecast
6 Asia rail concessions Halcrow (2004) 25% to 50% of forecast
Bangkok Sky Train: (24 kms) UNESCAP
(2014)
Actual 1.8 lakh v/s
forecast of 6.5 lakh
-72% below forecast
Invest in Bus ways in Cities and Railways for regional Connectivity
CityCommence
ment Year
Proposed
Network
Length (2016) -
km
Operational
Network length
(2016) - km
Estimated Daily
Ridership (2016)
Actual Daily
Ridership
(2016)
Actual Daily
Ridership
(2017)
% Ridership
Achieved
Delhi 2002 193 213.00 22.00 26.61 24.20 118%
Mumbai 2014 11.4 11.40 6.00 2.77 3.80 46%
Jaipur 2015 12.06 9.63 2.10 0.25 0.18 12%
Chennai 2015 43.80 20.00 7.56 0.12 0.30 2%
Bengaluru 2011 72.09 30.30 14.80 1.75 3.20 12%
Chennai*2015 173.01 45.10 8.89 1.15 13%
Lucknow* 2016 107.98 22.90 6.44 0.67 10%
Kochi*2017 39.07 24.80 4.68 0.6 13%
Hyderabad*2017 188.00 69.21 10.89 4.9 45%
11
Source: Compiled from different sources,1. Delhi: UNEP, 2014, “PROMOTING LOW CARBON TRANSPORT IN INDIA”2. http://www.delhimetrorail.com/otherdocuments/SustainabilityReport2014-15.pdf3. http://www.jaipurmetrorail.in/pdf/DPR%20Phase%20I.pdf4. Mumbai Phase I Metro DPR5. Chennai Metro Phase I DPR Summary6. http://www.bmrc.co.in/pdf/phase2/phase2forweb.pdf• Multiple sources; Estimated & Actual Ridership figures refers to 2019
Main reason for short fall – optimism in mode shift from personalised vehicles
Ridership Forecasts & Actuals – Metro Rail India
Travel Demand – Mode Shifts To BRTWe need to replace bus with a better bus!!!!
• Mode Shift – From private cars/modes - Global• Metrobús (BRT, Istanbul) 4-9% (Yazici et al., 2013) (Alpkokin &
Ergun, 2012)
• Stombuss (Blue buses) (BRT, Stockholm) 5% (Finn et al.,2011)
• Trans-Val-de-Marne (BRT, Paris) 8% (Finn et al., 2011)
• BRT Line 1 (BRT, Beijing) 12% (Deng & Nelson, 2013)
• Jokeri line (BRT, Helsinki) 12% (Finn et al., 2011)
• TransJakarta (BRT, Jakarta) 14% (Ernst, 2005)
• Adelaide – 40% (Prayogi, 2017)
• Sydney – 9% (Prayogi, 2017)
• Mode Shift – From Public /Para Transit• Ahmedabad – 91% (53% bus & 38% shared auto-2015)
(CEPT, 2015)
• Indore - 72% (2013) (WRI, 2013)
• Surat - 77% (Mainly from shared auto) (CEPT, 2019)
• Hubli - Dharwad – 94% (2019- From bus) (CEPT, 2019)
• Pune – 92% (2011) – (Bus & Shared Auto) (ITDP, 2012)
• Lagos – 93% (Dayo, 2018)
• Guangzhou -91% (Bus – 81%, MRT-10% - 2010) – 2013 -82%(54+28) (ITDP, 2016)
Access Mode
Access
Share
Previous
Mode
Same TripWalk >10min 34.8 1.8
Trams/Subway 3.5 6.1
Commuter Rail 0.3 0.7
IFTT Bus 22 55.7
Pvt Public Bus 9 18.1
Service bus 0.2 0.4
Dolmus/Mini Bus 25.5 9.4
Sub Total Bus 56.7 83.6
Taxi 3.4 1
Private Car 1.3 4
Total 100 97.2
Induced/ Growth - 2.8
Total 100 100
12
ISTANBUL METRO BUS – 2010Source: Ingvardson, Jesper Bláfoss; Nielsen, Otto Anker
Bogota – TransMilenio
• Phase -1 Network – Dual Carriageway December 2000
• BRT 41 Kms – 470 Articulated Buses
• Feeder – 309 Km – 235 conventional feeder buses (Free)
• 4 terminals; 57 stations
• Phase – 2 2003 – 41km (3 stages 13+18+10)
• Demand projections
• Estimated ridership at 673,000 passengers per weekday. - on the first day of operation (December 18, 2000), the system carried 19,000 people. (16400/km)
• Ridership steadily grew throughout 2001 and 2002, & by October 2002 the system was carrying around 770,000 passengers/day. May 2003 - 792,000.
• When the first part of the Phase II busway opened in late 2003, ridership rose to over 900,000 passengers per day. (17000/km)
• Ridership is currently 1,050,000 passengers per day (January 2006) and is expected to rise to 1.4 million passengers
Travel Time Savings
• Phase I, equating to a 32% reduction in average travel times for transit users (Yepes, 2003)
• Overall, TransMilenio has reduced average travel time in the city by 13 minutes per trip (Martínez, 2005).
13
• Public Transport share - from 64 % in 1999 to 70 % in 2005 (6% increase)
• TransMilenio share - only 27% of the city’s total transit trips
• The proportion of non-motorized trips has increased from 8% in 1999 to 15 % in 2005
• During the same period the proportion of personal vehicle trips has reduced from 18 % to 11 %.
• 9% of surveyed riders stated that before TransMilenio they made the same trip by private car.
• Access Mode: Mainly by 2 methods - Connecting through other buses, or by Walking
Other Supportive Initiatives
• Feeder System (Free)
• Car use restrictions; 40 % of cars are banned from using roads in the peak periods (7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 to 7:00 p.m.)
• Bikeway construction – 20km
• Public areas construction (walkways, green space, road dividers, sidewalks)
• TOD
• Single fare favouring poor bus users
BRT as a Quality PT Option. BRT is my City Bus14
Bogota – TransMilenio
Delhi - Network and Ridership TrendsDelhi Metro
• Started in 2002 (25km) & carried less than 1.5 lakh passengers per day for the first 4 years
• Crossed 2 lakh daily passengers only in the fifth year
• With network expanding to 69 km, the ridership started to increase.
• With network length of 190 km, Delhi Metro is servicing 25 lakh passengers per day (2013)
• With network length of 348 km, Delhi Metro is servicing 46-57 lakh passengers/ day (2019-20)
Ridership /Km
• Starting ridership per.km was below 2500/km till 2005 (first 4 years) with 25 km network
• Total boarding increased but remained below 6000/km till 2007 (6th year)
• Crossed 8000/km mark in 2010 (9th year) with 146 kms under operation
• Crossed 10000/km mark in 2012 (10th year of operation)
• Crossed 15000/km mark in 2019 (17th year of operation)
DHAKA BRT3 N: (Pass/km)
BUET – 2021 -20222 to 21840 /km; 2026- 24460 to26418/km; 2031–29990 to 32300/km
Delhi Metro Ridership, Network Length & PHPDT – RAMP-UP
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
Len
gth
(km
)
Daily R
iders
hip
Ridership Length
Network Length vs. Daily Ridership
Network Length vs. Max. PHPDT
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
Len
gth
(km
)
Max P
HP
DT
Max PHPDT Length
Source: DMRC
INVESTING RIGHT
CELEBRATING SUCCESS
Integrated Transport
BRTS in Jakarta, Indonesia
Source: www.itdp.org
BRTS in Hanoi, Vietnam
Public Bike Sharing, Bandung
Source: https://www.infobdg.com/v2/bandung-bike-sharing-mulai-dioperasikan/
Trash for ticket, Surabaya, Indonesia
Source: https://phys.org/news/2019-08-trash-tickets-indonesia-plastic-bus.html
Dhaka City -Strategic Public Transport Network
INTEGRATED MRT and BRT Lines
Mini Bus based on App booking, Ho Chi Minh
Source: https://vnexplorer.net/ho-chi-minh-city-proposes-new-minibus-service-with-app-booking-
a202063427.html
3000 CNG Public Transport fleet, Tehran
Source: https://www.gnvmagazine.com/en/flota-de-autobuses-de-teheran-equipada-con-500-tanques-de-gnc-2/
Legend: BRTS
HMC
CITY BUS SERVICE
INTERCHNANGE
Regional
Urban
Zonal
DEPOT
BRTS Depot
CBS Depot Planned
INTERCHANGES for
seamless travel
Also, decentralizing
city
Regional: 3
Urban: 5
Zonal: 7 DEPOT for regular
bus maintenance
Distributed across
city for managing
Dead-km
BRTS: 2
City Bus: 9 planned Metro-Rail planned
with an integrated
approach
Mobility Plan
approved in 2017-18
Parking Policy
approved in 2018
Integrated Fare –
Open Loop Card
BRTS towards Sustainable
Mobility
Planned Network: 102 km
Operational Network: 102 km
Operational Fleet: 166
Pax per day: 105,000+
Phase 1: 30km under JnNURM
(50% Centre, 20% State & 30%
SMC funds)
Phase 2: 72km + 30km 100%
SMC’s own funds High Mobility Corridor to
revive old city economic
growth
Planned Network: 12 km
Stations: 22
Headway (peak): 3-4min
Service: 24 hoursCity Bus Service to connect the
last mile
Planned Network: 515 km
Operational Network: 230 km
Operational Routes: 32
Operational Fleet:275
Total Urban Coverage 94%
Investing on Right Path : Sustainable Public Transport
Solutions Comprehensive Planning
26
PLANNING FRAMEWORK – LAND MANAGEMENT (+TOD+LVC)
Development Plan” (Macro Level) (Since 1954)
Zoning ProposalsRegulation for DevelopmentCity level Transportation and infrastructure planning andimplementation
“Town Planning Schemes” (Micro Level) (since 1915)
Local Area Plan” (Micro Level) (Since 2014)
Land reconstitution
Neighborhood level road network , social and
physical
infrastructure
Financing of neighborhood level infrastructure
Detailed area level plan with urban design
interventions
Planning for TOZ
Amendment in Gujarat Town Planning & Urban
Development Act, 1976
‐Local Area Plan
Celebrating Bus Service: Sustainable Public Transport
ServicesPlanning for Seamless Transit Infrastructure (Intracity + Intercity + Sub-Urban + Regional Services)
Dharwad
BRT
Depot
Hubli
BRT
Depot
Multilevel
Dharwad
BRTS
Terminal
Hosur
Interchan
ge
Foot Over
Bridges
for BRT
Station
Terminal for Sub-Urban
Services
BRTS
Station
FOB with Lift
Feeder Bus
Terminal
Regional Bus
Terminal
Drop off bay
for Pvt. veh
Land
reserved for
TOD with
Park & Ride
infrastructur
e
City Bus
Depot
Celebrating Bus Service: Sustainable Public Transport
ServicesFrom two lane undivided SH to India’s highest capacity BRT between twin city
Incentivizing, Pricing, Institution Building
However is there is need for subsidies to promote them?
* Interest @10% pa, equated annual instalments for 100% cost
** Diesel price of Rs 79/litre and FE of 2.2 km/litre for Diesel Bus and Electricity at Rs 8 / unit and FE of 1.1 unit / km for the 12
m E bus. While electricity is available at concessional rate in many states at around Rs 4 per unit for EV Charging, taxes and
fuel adjustment charges bring it up to level of Rs. 8 per unit.
The two key costs of capital and energy costs in Diesel and Electric buses almost cancel each other out. Cost
differences in other costs such as manpower, insurance, maintenance are negligible. This shows that the case for
need for subsidies in E Buses is not strong.
Diesel High Quality (12 m) E – Bus (12 m)
Capital Cost of Bus (Rs lakh) 75 190
Charging Infra Per Bus (Rs lakh) - 8-12
Total Average Bus Cost (Rs lakh) 70 200
Depreciation + Interest Cost pa over 10
years* (Rs lakh)11.5 32.5
Capital Cost /Km@72000 km pa Rs 16/ km Rs 45/km
Energy Cost Per Km ** Rs 36/km Rs. 9/ km
Other Costs per km # Rs 23/km Rs 21/km
Total Cost per Km Rs 75/km Rs. 75/ km
FAME Schemes have not delivered to expectations - Infrastructure
• FAME I : Subsidy available on procurement of Electric Buses. (Around 640 buses)
• On 15% localization: 60% of Purchase cost or Rs. 1 Crore whichever is lower
• On 35% localization: 60% of Purchase cost or Rs. 1.5 crore whichever is lower
• Upto 10% of eligible incentive as subsidy on the purchase of charging equipments.
• FAME II : Subsidy upto 40% of estimated cost of E Bus including charger (7000 buses)
Scheme Buses Sanctioned Total Buses Ordered Conversion Proportion
FAME I 640* 417 (most in operation) 65%
FAME II 5600 2488 ** (orders placed) 45%
*Includes initially sanctioned 25 buses to HP before FAME I, 390 to 11 cities sanctioned under FAME I, and 225 additional buses sanctioned under FAME I to cities of Mumbai,
Navi Mumbai, Bangalore, J&K, Kolkata and HP. ** Excludes 900 E-Buses for which some authorities have been given more time to complete tendering. Source: DHI review
meeting Aug 2020.
Bus Price (Bus + Charger) (Rs Lakh) 10-12 m Bus 8-10 m Bus
Price before Subsidy 190+10 130+10
Subsidy under FAME II 55 45
Price after Subsidy 145 85
FAME II Status (As of Aug 2020)
Private Vs Public (Kochi City, India)
MODE INSTITUTION FLEET FARE SETTINGCOST(in INR
per day)
REVENUE(in INR per
day)
SURPLUS/
DEFICIT
per day
Auto
Rickshaw
JDI (Joint Declaration of Intend)
signed to form as a single body and
10,000 autos under 6 unions of total
18,360 autos
18,367 • Minimum Fare Rs 20 for 2.25 Km, with Rs 8 per Km
after minimum fare.
INR 350 to
400
Rs 750 to
1000NA
Ferry
System
Kerala State Water Transport
Department (KSWTD) – 5 divisions6
• Fare/Km is 50 Paisa and Access Fee of Rs2
• Minimum Fare distance -4Km & stage distance -
2Km
Rs
1,95,248
per day
Rs 46,630 per
day
INR 0.15
million
Private
Bus
(1 Million)
•Private Bus Operators
Association(PBOA)
•1000 Private Buses 7 Unions
1137
• Fare per Km is 70 paisa & Access Fee of Rs4.5
• Minimum fare distance - 5Km and stage distance -
2.5Km
CPKM:
Rs37EPKM: Rs49
INR 3.35
million
KURTC
(48k)
Kerala Urban Road Transport
Corporation (KURTC)
48 A/C
5 Non- A/C
• Fare per Km is 85paisa per Km for Non-A/C service
and Access Fee is Rs6
• Fare per Km : Rs 120 paisa per Km for A/C service
and Access Fee is Rs14
CPKM: Rs
69
EPKM for
AC:45 & Non
AC: 27
INR 1.56
million
KSRTC
(28k)
Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation (KSRTC)139
• Fare per Km : Rs 70 paisa per Km & Access Fee is
Rs 4.5
• Min.Fare for 5 Kms & stage distance of 2.5Kms
CPKM: Rs
85EPKM : Rs 41
INR 3.15
million
Metro
system
(60k)
Kochi Metro Rail Limited-KMRLOperational
length : 18.6Km
(as on 2018)
•Min. Fare: Rs10
•Max.Fare: Rs50 Fare per Km: Rs 2.7
CPKM: Rs
6,376
EPKM: Rs
2,950
INR 1.96
million
Source: Integrated Transit System: A Case of Kochi; Dennis Jose and H.M
Shivanand Swamy
MEASURING IN MANAGING
SUSTAINABLE URBAN TRANSPORT INDEX (SUTI)
Contact:
Madan Bandhu Regmi <[email protected]>
10 SUTI Indicators
34
No IndicatorsMeasurement
WeightsRange
units MIN MAX
1Extent to which transport plans cover public transport, intermodal
facilities and infrastructure for active modes0 - 16 scale 0.1 0 16
2 Modal share of active and public transport in commuting Trips/mode share 0.1 10 90
3 Convenient access to public transport service % of population 0.1 20 100
4 Public transport quality and reliability % satisfied 0.1 30 95
5 Traffic fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants No of fatalities 0.1 35 0
6 Affordability – travel costs as part of income % of income 0.1 35 3.5
7 Operational costs of the public transport system Cost recovery ratio 0.1 22 175
8 Investment in public transportation systems% of total
investment0.1 0 50
9 Air quality (pm10) μg/m3 0.1 150 10
10 Greenhouse gas emissions from transport CO2 Eq. Tons 0.1 2.75 0
SUM 1.00
SUTI Aggregate Score – 15 citiesSr. No. Phase SUTI Cities SUTI Agg. Score
1 2017 Jakarta 57.88
2 2017 Hanoi 26.77
3 2017 Kathmandu 47.8
4 2017 Colombo 32.7
5 2018 Bandung 49
6 2018 Surabaya 46.3
7 2018 Dhaka 40.1
8 2018 Ho Chi Minh City 54.3
9 2018 Surat 61.1
10 2018 Suva 53.9
11 2019 Bhopal 42.33
12 2019 Khulna 49.99
13 2019 Tehran 50.54
14 2019 Thimphu 54.46
15 2019 Ulaanbaatar 34.54
57.88
26.77 47.8
32.7
49
46.3
40.1
54.361.1
53.9
42.33
49.99
50.54
54.46
34.54
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Jakarta
Hanoi
Kathmandu
Colombo
Bandung
Surabaya
Dhaka
Ho Chi Minh CitySurat
Suva
Bhopal
Khulna
Tehran
Thimphu
Ulaanbaatar
SUTI Agg. Score
Min. Max.
0 100
Investment in PT Systems (Indicator 8) – 15 cities
Sr. No. Phase SUTI Cities
Investment in Public
Transport Systems
(% of total transport
investment)
1 2017 Jakarta 62.3
2 2017 Hanoi 2.0
3 2017 Kathmandu 17.8
4 2017 Colombo 24.8
5 2018 Bandung 29.5
6 2018 Surabaya 50.0
7 2018 Dhaka 92.6
8 2018 Ho Chi Minh City 13.0
9 2018 Surat 32.8
10 2018 Suva 25.0
11 2019 Bhopal 15.2
12 2019 Khulna 31.2
13 2019 Tehran 21.0
14 2019 Thimphu 30.1
15 2019 Ulaanbaatar 0.9 Min. Max.
0 50
62.3
2.017.8
24.8
29.5
50.0
92.6
13.0
32.8
25.0
15.2
31.2
21.0
30.1
0.90.0
10.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
100.0Jakarta
Hanoi
Kathmandu
Colombo
Bandung
Surabaya
Dhaka
Ho Chi Minh CitySurat
Suva
Bhopal
Khulna
Tehran
Thimphu
Ulaanbaatar
Investment in Public Transport Systems (% of total transport
investment)
GHG Emissions (Indicator 10) – 15 cities
Sr. No. Phase SUTI CitiesGHG Emissions (tons per
capita per annum)
1 2017 Jakarta 0.79
2 2017 Hanoi 0.33
3 2017 Kathmandu 0.31
4 2017 Colombo 0.63
5 2018 Bandung 0.53
6 2018 Surabaya 0.18
7 2018 Dhaka 0.16
8 2018 Ho Chi Minh City 0.38
9 2018 Surat 0.18
10 2018 Suva 0.67
11 2019 Bhopal 0.44
12 2019 Khulna 0.06
13 2019 Tehran 1.23
14 2019 Thimphu 0.56
15 2019 Ulaanbaatar 1.17 Poor Good
2.75 0
0.79
0.33
0.31 0.63
0.530.18
0.16
0.38
0.18
0.67
0.44
0.06
1.23 0.56
1.17
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40Jakarta
Hanoi
Kathmandu
Colombo
Bandung
Surabaya
Dhaka
Ho Chi Minh CitySurat
Suva
Bhopal
Khulna
Tehran
Thimphu
Ulaanbaatar
GHG Emissions (tons per capita per annum)
Summary
• We have inherited sustainable practices such as TOD-Mixed use, walking and bicycle and other non-motorised mobility systems. We maintain/grow mode shares of these.
• We are forced to change our behaviour by external factors resulting in reduced mobility. We need to continue these practices into future.
• Technological innovations have given birth to new forms of mobility systems and management practices. We need to promote them.
• We need to invest in systems which Contribute (Bus-Bicycle-Walk)
• Focus on institutions, financing and pricing
• Measuring is managing!!
