 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Home | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Urban
Transport in India Dr Geetam Tiwari, Transportation Research & Injury Prevention Programme, Indian Institute of technology (IIT), Delhi Introduction Indian cities of all sizes are facing the crisis of urban transport. Despite investments in road infrastructure and plans for land use and transport development, all face the problem of congestion, traffic accidents and air pollution and the problems continue to grow. Large cities are facing a rapid growth of personal vehicles (two wheelers and cars); and in medium & small cities, different forms of intermediate public transport provided by informal sector are struggling to meet the mobility demands of city residents. Several attempts have been made by planning authorities and experts to address these problems. In 2006, a National Urban Transport Policy has been adopted by the Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation. Land use master plans prepared for most metropolitan cities have a brief chapter on urban transport. However, planning and development of road infrastructure, regulations for private or public vehicles, licensing procedures, and operations of state transport undertakings continue to be in isolation. Despite increasing investments in road infrastructure, clean fuel policies, and metro construction in few cities, travel conditions for an average citizen have not changed. Therefore, with increasing urbanisation and urban travel demands the business-as-usual scenario must change. Urban travel demand has to be understood in the context of differentiated urban growth. Large differences in income levels and social disparities characterise our cities. This has led to the development of 'cities within cities'. Each level of the city with its own level of technology and land-use patterns exists in close geographical proximity with others of different patterns. This is reflected in travel and traffic patterns existing in cities. The same road space gets used by modern cars, buses, along with locally developed vehicles for public transport (three wheelers), scooters & motorcycles, bicycles, rickshaws, animal and human driven carts. This requires careful understanding and innovative solutions to meet the diverse demands. Policy framework for optimal modal mix in this context should promote innovations in road designs, institutional modifications, vehicles designs and innovative financial schemes. Heterogeneous Traffic Urban transport in Indian cities is heterogeneous, reflecting the heterogeneity in the socio-economic and land use patterns. It is dominated by walking trips, non-motorised modes such as bicycles and rickshaws, and depending on the size of the city, motorised para-transit and public transport. Generally, in all cities, two wheelers have been growing at a rate of 15-20% per year. Cars have been growing at a rate of 10-15% per year. Up to 80% of the registered vehicles are motorised two-wheelers (MTWs). Cars account for 5-20% of the total vehicle fleet1. Characteristics of urban transport in Indian cities changes with the city size. Share of motorised trips increase with city size as shown in Table 1. However, low cost modes which include walking, non-motorised rickshaws and cycles continue to play an important role. Share of walk trips ranges from 37% in a city of 100,000 population to 28% in megacities with a population of 10 million. Share of cycles and other non-motorised vehicles reduce with increase in city size; however, since each public transport trip involves at least two walking trips, importance of non-motorised trips remains in all cities. Low cost trips including public transport trips range from 65% to 82%.
This pattern is not expected to change significantly in the near future as evident from the travel data from Delhi. If Delhi with highest number of private vehicle ownership (cars and two wheelers) has 82% trips by low cost modes, dependence on low cost modes will remain much higher in other cities despite growth in private vehicles. Role of Informal Sector and Para-Transit Table 2 shows that cities with poor public transport system have higher availability of para-transit and private modes. In some cities, private buses have been introduced recently, but predominantly bus transport operation is under public sector. IPT modes like tempos, autos and cycle rickshaws assume importance to meet the travel demand because of the lower level of bus availability in medium size cities in India like Hubli, Varanasi, Kanpur and Vijayawada, etc. Public transport is the predominant mode of motorised travel in megacities. Buses carry 20%-65% of the total trips excluding walk trips. Despite a significant share of work trips catered by public transport, presence of different types of vehicles create complex driving environment. Preference for using buses for journey to work is high by people whose average income is at least 50% more than the average per capita income of the city as a whole2. A survey result shows that nearly 60% of the respondents find the minimum cost of journey to work trips by public transport (less than Rs. 2 per trip) unacceptable3. Even the minimum cost of public transport trip accounts for 20 to 30% of the family income of nearly 50% of the city population living in unauthorised settlements. This section of the population is very sensitive to the slightest variation in the cost of public transport trips. In outer areas of Delhi, NMVs and pedestrians on some of the important intercity highways with comparatively long trip lengths show that a large number of people use these modes not out of choice but rather lack of other options. Public transport trips will be in the range of 25-35% of total trips4. Since every public transport user is also a pedestrian at the time of access and egress, walking trips will constitute 50-60% of total trips. Despite high share of walk trips and trips by non-motorised modes, transport infrastructure does not include any facilities for these modes. With the exception of few cities, most of the major road networks have not been provided with footpaths.
Alternate Transport Solutions Different Indian cities are either implementing or looking at new transport systems - be it a metro, high capacity buses or the sky bus. The argument given for introducing new technologies are for serving high density demands expected on few corridors in the city. However, for an efficient and successful transport system, the first requirement is to meet the demand for safe, convenient, clean and affordable mode of transport, which can provide door-to-door service at anytime to reach various destinations from home. If a person has to walk more than a kilometre to reach a metro station, then metro is not the preferred mode of transport. Table 3 presents a summary of different systems.
High capacity systems like metro and LRT have low social cost in terms of energy consumption and pollution; however, this is true only when the system runs to its capacity. System demand is dependent on the ease of access, low fares, and dependability. Metro being a capital-intensive system (Rs. 200-300 crores/km) cannot meet the mobility requirements of majority of the city residents because Indian cities cannot afford the extensive city network. For the same price, 30-50 kms of bus network can be developed including modern buses. The cost of single metro trip is at least Rs. 45, which is too expensive for majority of the public transport commuters. Since car and personal two wheelers provide flexible door-to-door service, it is not easy to attract these users to Metro, even if they can afford the cost. Metro ticket has to be subsidised at least 10-15 times more than a bus ticket for the same journey. Efficiency and viability of these systems has to be judged in terms of how well they can serve the individual trip, how many people can benefit for the same investment, and how flexible is the system in meeting the changing demands of the city. Metro, LRT and sky bus, all three being capital intensive systems, cannot match the extensive coverage provided by road-based systems. Both require high density of population who can afford the price of metro living along the corridor. This is not the case in most Indian cities; therefore such technologies will have to depend on buses, three wheelers and rickshaws to increase their catchment area. Metro systems are successful in cities with high-density central business district or very high-density residential and commercial development, often high rise development like Hong Kong, along the metro line. A large number of people should be able to access metro without depending on feeder mode. Only long distance travellers (trip length at least 15 kms) are likely to use feeder mode. Therefore, in order to realise the social benefits of metro systems, the city structure has to change completely. System will need subsidies to earn operating cost from fare box revenues if the user's (household) income is less than Rs. 40,000-50,000 per month. The advantage of road based mass transport system is that at a cost of 1/10th -1/20th of the cost of other mass transport system, a high quality public transport system can be provided within a walking distance. Since the catchment area of road system depends on the extent of the road network, road based system is capable of reaching almost 80% of the city population. Access to this system includes improved and safe pedestrian paths. Because of this, it can match the convenience and flexibility provided by private modes. Therefore, we can expect a high demand and, thereby, better capacity utilisation of this system. One of the major drawbacks of rail based systems all over the world including Kolkata, Chennai and Delhi has been low capacity utilisation. Even if better feeder trip system is planned, capacity utilisation is not expected to change because only long trips (longer than 15 kms) will benefit from these systems. Bogota and Curitiba, both considered model public transport system, have decided to expand their BRT system in order to cover the whole city by public transport which does not require subsidy, restricts car usage, and has made major impacts on safety, pollution and energy consumption. Several Indian cities have constructed and made plans for new flyovers. The justification for flyover construction is to reduce long delays at intersections and provide uninterrupted movement to long distance traffic. Flyover construction cannot provide long-term solution because it improves journey time at a small section of the road for cars, which are only 20-25% of the total commuter trips in a city like Delhi. In other cities, car trips are less than 20%. It does not have any benefits for bus commuters because bus stop locations are shifted away from the intersection increasing the walking distance for changing the buses going in different directions. With increase in speed, bus commuters as well as other pedestrians find it difficult to cross the road. Thus, flyovers result in short term benefits to the car users and two wheeler users at the cost of increasing traffic hazards and inconvenience to the other road users. It also encourages people to use cars and two wheelers and move away from public transport, walking and bicycling. This results in more vehicles, congestion and pollution on the roads. The congestion levels have worsened over the years in many of these cities. Priorities for Urban Transport in India
At present, the masses i.e. majority of the city commuters are using buses, para-transit, cycles, rickshaws and walking. Therefore, the minimum steps required to address the immediate needs of these commuters are:
Streets must be returned to pedestrians not only because they are the majority road users, but also because the efficiency of overall system, including the performance of motorised vehicles, depends on meeting the demand of 'captive pedestrians'. The experience from environments where 'captive pedestrians' are present makes a very strong case for rethinking conventional hierarchy of road users. Pedestrians, bicyclists and non-motorised rickshaws are the most critical elements in mixed traffic. If the infrastructure design does not meet the requirements of these elements, all modes of transport operate in sub-optimal conditions. These users have opted for walking, cycles or public transport because it is needed for their very survival. They are willing to defy the formal street design, which is hostile to them. Reversal of current trend is possible. It is possible to design pedestrian, bicycle and public transport friendly urban roads without increasing the right of way of existing arterial roads in cities. The guiding principle of such a design is meeting the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists and public transport commuters in that order. It includes services provided by vendors and the informal sector as legitimate, productive economic activities. If pedestrian friendly paths and a separate segregated lane along with spaces for hawkers are constructed for slow non-motorised vehicles (NMV), the curbside lane, which is currently used by bicyclists and other NMVs, becomes available to motorised traffic. This requires a relatively small investment in pedestrian and bicycle friendly infrastructure; however, this needs a major shift in planning methodology and paradigm shift in street design principles. This leads to multiple benefits5. Motorised vehicles benefit because of improved capacity of the road and improvement in speeds. Major beneficiaries of speed improvement are buses and two wheelers because curbside lane becomes available to them without interference from pedestrians and slow vehicles. Cost of such measure is less than the capacity enhancement measures meant for car users only.
Bicycles, pedestrians and bus traffic attract street vendors. Vendors often locate themselves at places, which are natural markets for them. A careful analysis of location of vendors, number of vendors at each location and type of services provided demonstrates the need for their presence6. If the services provided by them were not required at those locations, then they would have no incentive to continue staying there. However, road authorities and city authorities view their existence illegal. Often the argument is given how the presence of street vendors and hawkers reduces road capacity. If we apply the same principle that is applied for the design of road environment for motorised traffic, then vendors have a valid and legal place in the road environment. Highway design manuals recommend frequency and design of service area for motorised vehicles. Street vendors and hawkers serve the same function for pedestrians, bicyclists and bus users. As long as our urban roads are used by these modes, street vendors will remain inevitable. Therefore, design standards are required to integrate street vendors in the road design. Conclusion At present, most Indian cities have desirable modal shares. The challenge is to preserve them in future amidst growing car and motorcycle ownership rates. If these have to be preserved and encouraged, then clean technology alone is not sufficient. It may have adverse effect of increasing use of two wheelers, force people to use bicycles in a hostile infrastructure. Both may lead to increase in accidents and possibly harmful emissions. Sustainable transport needs inclusive cities. Inclusive cities are also safe cities. It is going beyond physical infrastructure. It is also providing opportunity for honest living. Inclusive streets ensure not only safe mobility - reduced risks of traffic crashes, but also reduced street crimes and better social cohesion, and make public transport attractive and the preferred choice for commuting. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||