Urban Mobility Report_Seminar_MCP I

URBAN MOBILITY INDEX Seminar Report Submitted to Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

By

SAGAR SINHA 17AR60R20

DEPT. OF ARCHITECTURE & REGIONAL PLANNING INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR November - 2017

Seminar Report

Contents

1

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 5 1.1

Aim ......................................................................................................................................... 5

1.2

Objective ................................................................................................................................ 5

1.3

Limitation ............................................................................................................................... 5

2

WHAT IS URBAN MOBILIY? ................................................................................................... 6

3

WHAT IS INDEX? ....................................................................................................................... 7

4

CURRENT SCENARIO ............................................................................................................... 8

5

4.1

Population............................................................................................................................... 8

4.2

Vehicle Share ......................................................................................................................... 8

4.3

Trip Distance .......................................................................................................................... 9

4.4

Passenger Travel .................................................................................................................. 10

4.5

Modal Share ......................................................................................................................... 11

4.6

Average Travel Speed .......................................................................................................... 13

4.7

Public Transport Mode Share ............................................................................................... 14

WHAT IS URBAN MOBILITY INDEX? ................................................................................. 15 5.1

Assessment Criteria .............................................................................................................. 16

5.1.1

Maturity Index .............................................................................................................. 16

5.1.2

Performance Index ........................................................................................................ 18

5.2

Performance of Cities around the Globe .............................................................................. 20

5.3

Transport Performance Index ............................................................................................... 21

5.3.1

Accessibility Index........................................................................................................ 22

5.3.2

Congestion Index .......................................................................................................... 23 Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 2

Seminar Report 5.3.3

Walkability Index.......................................................................................................... 24

5.3.4

Public Transport Supply Index ..................................................................................... 25

5.3.5

Safety Index .................................................................................................................. 26

5.3.6

Para-Transit Index ......................................................................................................... 26

5.3.7

Slow Moving Vehicle Index ......................................................................................... 27

5.3.8

On-Street Parking Interference Index ........................................................................... 28

5.4

Performance of Cities (in India) ........................................................................................... 28

6

CASE STUDY OF BANGALORE ............................................................................................ 30

7

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 32

8

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 34

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 3

Seminar Report

List of Tables Table 1 Assessment Criteria: Maturity Index ..................................................................................... 16 Table 2 Assessment Criteria: Performance Index ............................................................................... 19 Table 3 Urban Mobility Index by Region ........................................................................................... 20 Table 4 Transport Performance Index of Bangalore (a comparison between 2008 and 2011) .......... 30

List of Figures Figure 1 Urban Mobility ....................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2 Percentage of Urbanization .................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3 Composition of Vehicle Share................................................................................................ 9 Figure 4 Average Trip Distance .......................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5 Passenger Trips ..................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 6 Modal Share in 2007 ............................................................................................................ 11 Figure 7 Modal Share of cities ............................................................................................................ 12 Figure 8 Average Trip Length of Cities .............................................................................................. 13 Figure 9 Average Travel Speed .......................................................................................................... 13 Figure 10 Urban Mobility Index ......................................................................................................... 21 Figure 11 The Congestion Trap .......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 12 Transport Performance Index ............................................................................................. 29

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 4

Seminar Report

1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Aim To discuss the assessment indices of urban mobility.

1.2 Objective 

To study the current of urban mobility based on the indices.



To touch upon the challenge and the basic strategies that will help to improve the mobility index.

1.3 Limitation 

I will be only discussing about the indices and its weightage.



I have only considered public transport performance in the case study.

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 5

Seminar Report

2

WHAT IS URBAN MOBILIY?

It is the movement from one point to another point.

It can't be understood without the idea of fulfilling needs. It is system that goes beyond journey or a trip. It is a system that satisfies need. (Diego Hernandez, Nov 2013) It is a set of action that involve the need to define policies around the aspects associated with infrastructure, traffic management, road safety and investments. (Diego Sanchez, Nov 2013) Summarizing it, one can say, that the trips generated daily by the inhabitants of a city, and the meathod and conditions associated with such trips like    

Mode of transport selected Length of trip Time spend in transportation Money spend

Figure 1 Urban Mobility

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 6

Seminar Report

3

WHAT IS INDEX?

It is simply the process of defining and quantifying the indicators.

This process allows to obtain reliable results and appropriate to the geographical indices to temporal comparisons. In other words, urban mobility indicators favor the expansion of knowledge and expertise existing in the management and performance level, enabling the identification of problems and their operational failures. Thus, urban mobility indicators can produce adequate responses to social impacts. (SEABRA, 2013) These indicator are key element in the context of decision making, and have a few attributes such as:     

Possibility of relation between variable and constants Behavioral pattern can be thought of Should support decision in context of urban planning Should quantify sustainability Feasibility can be determined

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 7

Seminar Report

4

CURRENT SCENARIO

4.1 Population The population of India was almost 1.21 billion as per census of India in 2011 compared to 1.03 billion as per census of India in 2001 increasing by almost 17.5%. India with second largest population share 17.5% of world population.

In 2001, 28.53% of population resides in urban area, which increased to 31.16% in 2011. Out of which almost 70% of the population resides in class 1 cities1 and urban agglomeration. It is expected that it will cross 40% mark by 2030 and 50% by 2050. Whereas 52% of world population resides in urban area in 2011 and is expected to cross 67% by 2050 (Figure 2).

(Census of India, 2011) All this situation, has worsen the condition of developing countries such as India and especially in the transportation sector which is also referred as the backbone of economy of developing nations. Congestion and poor road condition as well as inadequacy of public transport in terms of quantity and quality has worsen the situation of India.

Percentage of Urbanization 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

67.2

64.4 51.0

52.1

45.0

31.2

29.4 17.5

17.3

India

Asia

1950

2011

World

2050

Figure 2 Percentage of Urbanization

4.2 Vehicle Share Growth of automobile and its affordable price has led to rise in private vehicle share especially the two-wheelers in the Indian roads. In 2011, there are 71.8% two-wheeler and 13.6% of four wheeler 1

Population more than 1,00,000. There are 468 class-1 cities. (Ministry of Home Affairs,2011)

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 8

Seminar Report leading to a total of more than 85% share of private vehicles. Whereas 1.1% are private and 5.0% of freight vehicles (Figure 3). There were 141.8 million vehicles in 2011 compared to only 55 million in 2001. (Urban Transport, 2013)

Composition Of Vehicle Share 80

71.8

66.4

70

60

52

50 36.6 30.9

40 26.8

30 20 10

18.4

8.8

11.1 5

1.3

9.1

13.8

12 1.5

6.3

13.6 1.1

5

8.5

0 1951

1971

2W

4W

1991

Buses

Goods

2011

Others

Figure 3 Composition of Vehicle Share

4.3 Trip Distance It is generally believed that there is increase in transport demand as income rises. Though the essential trips such as educational and work trips remains constant with the increase in income.

All the other trips such as shopping, personal business, leisure, social tips are variable but are smaller in number than work and educational trips.

Indian cities are mostly developed on the basis mixed land use model which allows the neighborhood to have residences, workplaces, commercial (formal and informal) as well as social and educational facilities within reach. This has ultimately led to minimizing the average trip distance between two places irrespective of city size.

As per report of National Transport Development Policy Committee in 2013, it shows that 80% of the trips are less than 10 kms and 70% is even less than 5 kms. This is due to the result of mixed land use intervention that ensure living and work space close to each other. In larger cities a good percent of population lives in slums and has low income to afford motorized transport, so they prefer to live in the nearby area and rely on non-motorized transport.

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 9

Seminar Report The average trip travel distance of India is 7.7 kms while only category 6 cities2 has average travel trip distance of 10.2 kms(Figure 4).

Trip Distance(In Kms) 12

10.4

10 7.2

8 5.77

6

4.7 3.5

4

2.4

2.5

2 0 Category 1a Category 1b Category 2

Category 3

Avg. Trip Length(in kms)

Category 4

Category 5

Category 6

National Average (7.7)

Figure 4 Average Trip Distance

4.4 Passenger Travel There were 1124.9 lakhs passenger trips per day in category 6 cities which was raised more than 13% when compared to 992.1 lakhs trips in 1991. The two major factor determining the number of trips were the availability of jobs and the high percentage of slums which has small but large number of daily trips. The urbanization is expected to cross 2054.7 lakhs passenger trips by 2031 where 600 million population will be urbanized3.

The total number of trips in 2007 was 2286.0 lakhs per day which saw a rise of 15% trips in 2011 and became 2630.4 lakhs trips per day and is expected to reach around 5000 lakhs trips per day in 2031(Figure 5).

2

Category 1a = population less than 5,00,000 in plain area Category 1b = population less than 5,00,000 in hilly area Category 2 = 5,00,000 – 10,00,000 population Category 3 = 10,00,000 – 20,00,000 population Category 4 = 20,00,000 – 40,00,000 population Category 5 = 40,00,000 – 80,00,000 population Category 6 = population more than 80,00,000 3 Crossing 40% marks in 2030. Expected population of India in 2030 is 1.5 billion (1500 million).

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 10

Seminar Report

Passenger Trips Per Day(in Lakhs) 2500 2054.7 2000 1500 871.9

1000 558.3

500

308.3 263.1 8.5 1017.2

868

498.2 427.7

469.8 433.5 403.6 210.4 183.6

Category 3

Category 4

1124.9 992.1

7.58.815.6

0 Category 1a Category 1b

Category 2

2007

2011

Category 5

Category 6

2031

Figure 5 Passenger Trips

4.5 Modal Share Modal share is the percentage of passenger using a specific mode of transport for their daily trips.

It is also referred as mode split, or mode share. For sustainable transport development of a city, it is said to have 30% of non-motorized transport and 30% of public transport.

Mode Share(2007) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

27

28

26

6 0 8 1

5 5 3

12

12

12

10

24

24

29

26

3 9

8 13

6 10

21

19

18

11

20 57

34

32

Category 1a Category 1b

Category 2

Walk

Cycle

10 9 7

7 44

8

24

25

25

22

Category 3

Category 4

Category 5

Category 6

Public

IPT

2W

Car

Figure 6 Modal Share in 2007

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 11

Seminar Report As per a report in 2007, Category 6 cities shows a large number of population (44%) relying on public transport where rest of cities show almost equal importance to the private motorized and non-motorized transport facilities and a very less share of public transport in their daily work flow.

This is a result of huge population which resulted in higher congestion of streets and lowering the average travel speed of the city (Figure 6).

Modal share of a few important cities like Ahmedabad4, Chennai5, Bangalore6, Delhi7, Mumbai8 are listed below (Figure 7).

Modal Share 100

10

17 80

20 25

60 40

8

8 17 8

14 5 6

8 7 7

6 16

35

43

45

31

14

9

7

12

6

22

22

26

21

27

Ahmedabad

Chennai

Bangalore

Delhi

Mumbai

20 0

Walk

Cycle

Public

IPT

2W

Car

Figure 7 Modal Share of cities

The above modal share can be better explained by the graph below which shows the average trip length in the city. It can easily be noticed that the share pf public transit is quite low in Ahmedabad(16%) as compared to the other cities which has more than double of it while the reliance on private transit mode is more preferred in the former(42%). This has resulted in reduction of average trip length of the city of 6.2 kms. While the cities like Mumbai has recorded the highest with an average of 11.9 kms per trip (Figure 8).

4

Population of Ahmedabad was 5.57 million as per census of India in 2011.

Population of Chennai was 7.09 million as per census of India in 2011.

6 Population of Bangalore was 8.43 million as per census of India in 2011.

7 Population of Delhi was 16.75 million as per census of India in 2011.

8 Population of Mumbai was 18.41 million as per census of India in 2011.

5

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 12

Seminar Report

Trip Lenght (in kms) 14

11.9

12 10 8

10.2

9.6

8.6

7.7

6.2

6 4 2 0

Ahmedabad

Chennai

Bangalore

Trip Length(in Km)

Delhi

Mumbai

National Average(7.7)

Figure 8 Average Trip Length of Cities

4.6 Average Travel Speed Average travel speed is the average speed in which a vehicle move in order to reach its destination from origin. Average travel speed is reduced due to many reasons, like, 

Congestion



Number of lanes and lane width



Types of vehicle, etc.

Average Travel Speed 25

21

19

20

18

16

16

Delhi

Mumbai

15 10 5 0

Ahmedabad

Chennai

Bangalore

Average Travel Speed(in km/hr)

National Average(22)

Figure 9 Average Travel Speed

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 13

Seminar Report Average travel speed of India is 22 kmph. Whereas city like Ahmedabad which rely on private vehicles has an average speed of 21 kmph, Bangalore with 18 kmph and cities like Delhi and Mumbai shows even lesser speed at 16kmph. As a result the average time spend in transportation in Delhi and Mumbai are around 60-90 minutes daily in a one side journey (Figure 9).

4.7 Public Transport Mode Share There city has multiple modes of public transport available for the movement of passengers. These include modes such as bus (BRTS or local), metro, three-wheeler auto, local trains, cabs or taxies (services like ola and uber), and other modes. The share of this transport cannot be compared between one city to another as every city has its own context of fulfillment of need as per requirement, convenience, comfort, economics and the sense of security.

Cities like Ahmedabad rely on bus services by 38% and while the other rely on intermediate transport alternatives like three-wheeler autos as the average trip distance is low. Whereas Bangalore also rely mostly on buses as the service is highly accessible, convenient and cheap. If we talk about Delhi, 37% people rely on buses and 40% of them rely on metro. This is due the number of modal change required to move from one place to another, convenience and safety.

Whereas Mumbai mostly rely on local trains and only 24% of the trips are made by bus as the total time taken by this is highly unpredictable.

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 14

Seminar Report

5

WHAT IS URBAN MOBILITY INDEX?

We have already discussed about what urban mobility is and what index is.

The spaces in which we live, work and socialize are changing. And due to this change, urban mobility has become one of the toughest challenges that cities face today as existing mobility systems are close to breakdown. The population of world is increasing day by day and it is expected that the 2/3rd of the world population will get urbanized by 2050 which in 1950 was just 1/3rd of the population.

As the cities are changing the demand of urban mobility is also changing- and so there is a need of evolving the urban mobility to fulfill such needs. The way people navigate a modern city - what we term urban mobility - poses many questions. Can a mega city occupying a fixed space reduce congestion when faced with a growing population? Can it avoid increasing journey times as more people look to travel? Can quality of life be maintained, or increased, in a city with so much more travel infrastructure? How must public and private transport flex to carry millions more in the coming years? Perhaps most importantly, how can these and multiple other questions be addressed while simultaneously facing an imperative to reduce the environmental impact of all transport systems?

There is clearly no single solution or an ideal city model that answers these questions. But this can be monitored through the urban mobility index and will helps to know the weakest and the strongest part of the development. This will help us in modeling the further policies in the goodwill of the people and will make the system more transparent. It will also help in examine the policies that we made earlier.

The overall purpose of urban mobility is to examine and assess how cities across the world are performing towards the ultimate goal of sustainable urban mobility and the meathod that they are using to achieving zero emissions transportation solutions. This will further help us to know the positive take-away that other can also apply if possible as each city respond to the same problem in many different ways.

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 15

Seminar Report

5.1 Assessment Criteria Urban mobility index can be examined on two basis, and that are: 

Maturity Index



Performance Index

Maturity Index refer to the how mature the city is? This was understood by examining the existing infrastructure with the present day infrastructure, from public transport’s share of the modal split to the use of smart card. This was allotted 58 points out of 100.

Performance Index refer to the performance of public transport on the basis of what the present day infrastructure has. This include from level of CO2 emission to density of vehicle registered.

This was allotted 42 points out of 100.

The selection of the criteria used to measure the maturity and performance of the cities under examination was governed by a desire to cover the classical areas of mobility measurements – security, quality, accessibility, affordability, sustainability, innovativeness and convenience – while finding the right balance between the supply side, and the demand side, as well as overall mobility policy initiatives. (Audenhove & Korniichuk, January 2014)

5.1.1 Maturity Index Maturity Index refer to the how mature the city is? This was understood by examining the existing infrastructure with the present day infrastructure, from public transport’s share of the modal split to the use of smart card. The maturity index is provided with 58 points out of 100 and is divided into 11 criteria. Let’s talk about each and every 11 criteria (Table 1).

Table 1 Assessment Criteria: Maturity Index

Criteria Financial attractiveness of public transport

Weightage Description 4



Ratio between the price of a 5 km journey with private means of transport and the price of a 5 km journey with public transport within the agglomeration area

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 16

Seminar Report 

Private means of transport: car or motorcycle, depending on what vehicle type dominates in modal split



Cost of journey with motorized transport based on fuel consumption and fuel price including taxes



Cost of public transport journey: ticket cost for a 5 km distance trip

Share of public transport

6



in modal split

Percentage of the total number of person trips which are made with public transport



Modal split definition: trips made by residents of the urban agglomeration; both motorized and non-motorized trips; trips for all purposes; trips on both working days and weekends

Share of zero-emission

6



modes in modal split Roads density

Percentage of the total number of person trips which are made by bicycle and walking

4



Ratio of total road length in urban area and urbanized surface area



Total road length definition: all roads open to public traffic (both paved and non-paved) incl. motorway network

Cycle path network

6

•

density

Ratio of total road length and the surface area of cycle lane and path

•

Cycle lane: A lane marked on a road with a cycle symbol, which can be used by cyclists only

•

Cycle path: An off-road path for cycling incl. exclusive cycle paths (for cyclists only), shared-use paths (for both cyclists and pedestrians)

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 17

Seminar Report Urban agglomeration

2

•

density

Use of Smart Card

Ratio of population of an urban area and urbanized surface area

6

•

Ratio of total number of transit smart cards used to the population of the area

Bike sharing

6

•

performance

Ratio of total number of bikes in bike sharing systems to the population of the area

•

Only bikes in business-to-consumer (B2C) and administration-to-citizen (A2C) schemes are considered

Car sharing performance

6

•

Ratio of total number of cars in bike sharing systems to the population of the area

•

Only cars in business-to-consumer (B2C) and administration-to-citizen (A2C) schemes are considered

•

Both free floating and station based models are considered

Public transport

6

•

frequency

Frequency of the busiest public transport line in urban area

•

Frequency of the busiest metro line taken; if metro not available – then frequency of the busiest bus line considered

Initiatives of public

6

•

sector

Strategy

and

actions

like

sustainability,

infrastructure, incentives, Alternative engines, Multimodality, etc.

Source: (Audenhove & Korniichuk, January 2014)

5.1.2 Performance Index Performance Index refer to the performance of public transport on the basis of what the present day infrastructure has. This include from level of CO2 emission to density of vehicle registered.

This was allotted 42 points out of 100 and is divided into 8 criteria. Let’s talk about each and every 8 criteria (Table 2).

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 18

Seminar Report Table 2 Assessment Criteria: Performance Index

Criteria Transport related CO2 emissions

Weightage Description 4

•

Ratio of amount of CO2 emitted by transport activities to its population

•

Data should only include burning of fossil fuel in transportation only

NO2 concentration

4

•

Annual arithmetic average of the daily concentration

of

NO2

recorded

in

all

monitoring station within an urban area

PM10 concentration

4

•

Ratio of Annual arithmetic average of the daily concentration of PM10 recorded in all monitoring station within an urban area

Traffic related fatalities

6

•

Number of deaths related to transport that is annual number of people killed as a result of transport accident that occur in an urban area

•

Fatality is counted if it occurs during a period of 30 days after the accident

Increase of share of public transport in modal split

6

Increase of share of zero emission in modal split

6

•

Increase in percentage of trips made by public transport compared to its share in the last measurement.

•

Increase in percentage of trips made by bicycle and walking compared to its share in the last measurement.

Mean travel time to work

6

•

Number of minutes it takes for a person to get from home to work everyday during a reference week

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 19

Seminar Report •

The time include waiting time, Picking up of passenger in a carpool system and spent in other activities related to getting to work

Density of vehicles registered

6

•

Ratio of number of passenger motorized vehicles in an urban area to its population

•

Non-active vehicles should be excluded from the calculation

Source: (Audenhove & Korniichuk, January 2014)

5.2 Performance of Cities around the Globe9 The result on the basis of the above 19 criteria as discussed under maturity and performance index, shows that most of the cities are badly equipped to face the challenges ahead. The Global average score10 came out to be 43.9. This shows that half of the potential that is not achieved today by apply the best practices across all operation.

The cities were selected on the following basis: •

Megacities: cluster of C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group: 40 Cities

•

World’s Largest cities as determined by GDP share: 24 Cities

•

Small Cities with good practice: 20 Cities

Taking the region wise performance Western Europe ranked the best while Middle East the worst(Table 3).

Table 3 Urban Mobility Index by Region

Region

Number of cities

Points

in Index

9

Western Europe

19

51.5

South and Eastern Europe

7

45.2

Latin America

9

43.9

Asia Pacific

28

42.8

On the basis of 19 criteria as discussed under Urban Mobility Index (Maturity Index and Performance Index) Survey was done in 84 cities

10

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 20

Seminar Report USA/Canada

13

39.5

Africa

5

37.1

Middle East

3

34.1

Source: (Audenhove & Korniichuk, January 2014)

Only 16 cities out of 84 cities surveyed has crossed the mark of 50.0. The highest score was achieved by Hong Kong 58.2 points followed by Stockholm and Amsterdam. While 25 cities performed the worst (scored less than 40) which include Delhi, Atlanta and Miami - which are developing nation (Figure 10).

70 60

58.2

50 UMI

55.6

53.2 44.4

45.6

44

47.2

47 40.6

40

40.733.5

38.9

30 20 10 0

UMI

Asia Average(42.8)

Global Average(43.9)

Figure 10 Urban Mobility Index

5.3 Transport Performance Index

The performance of public transport in India is derived on the basis of 8 criteria which are quite different from what we see in the urban mobility index. There isn’t any check regarding the maturity of the service while performance is also calculated on very different but important criteria.

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 21

Seminar Report These criteria includes from congestion to safety. These indices are derived for each cities11 and is computed to get an overall measure of the efficiency of the transportation system. The indices has some weightage which are adopted for the calculation. The indices are as follows (MOUD, 2008)): •

Accessibility Index(Weightage - 1)

•

Congestion Index(Weightage - 2)

•

Walkability Index(Weightage - 1)

•

Public Transport Supply Index(Weightage - 2)

•

Safety Index(Weightage - 1.5)

•

Para Transit Index(Weightage - 2)

•

Slow Moving Vehicle Index(Weightage - 2)

•

On-Street Parking Interference Index(Weightage - 1)

The need of this study is establish a comprehensive baseline of the traffic and establish transport scenario in urban area in India, separately for million plus and the second level city12. This will help in further development of comprehensive plans, policies and strategies for those cities. Let’s talk about each and every indices.

5.3.1 Accessibility Index Evaluating transportation in terms of accessibility the ability to reach desired goods, services and activities. It recognises the value of more accessible land use patterns and mobility substitutes as ways to improve transportation while reducing total physical travel.

Weightage allotted = 1.

There are two types of accessibility index:

11 12

•

Public Transport Accessibility Index

•

Service Accessibility Index

Study of 30 cities: as per draft report by Ministry of Urban Development in 2008 Population range: 0.5 – 1.0 million

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 22

Seminar Report Public Transport Accessibility Index is formulated as the inverse of average distance (in kms) to the nearest bus stop or railway station or metro station. Higher the index better the accessibility.

Cities like Raipur, Agra, Patna, and Varanasi do not have public transport accessibility. Whereas cities like Pune, Ahmedabad and Chennai has very good accessibility index. For cities, this average distance varies between 400m – 1500m. The study has found that the average index of the studied cities is 1.05.

Service Accessibility Index is computed as the percentage of work trips which are accessible within the reach of 15 minutes time or 30 minutes time. Higher the index better the accessibility.

In general, smaller cities have a higher index value for both the 15 minute duration and the 30 minute duration indices. This is obvious due to small size of the city has smaller trip lengths and thus congestion is also less. Cities like Chandigarh, Agra, Patna and Bhopal performed better. The study has found that the average index of the studied cities is 0.67.

5.3.2 Congestion Index Congestion levels are assessed by using the prevailing measurable average journey speed observed on major corridors. Journey speeds are easily understood by public and are applicable from both user and a roadway perspective.

Weightage allotted = 2.

The congestion Index can be formulated as follows (MOUD, 2008): Congestion Index = 1 – (A/M) Where

‌ (1)

A = Average Speed observed in major corridors in the city during the peak period.

M = Desirable ideal speed on major corridors in the city during the peak period

(assumed to be 40 kmph).

The index is formulated such that lower the index, better the city performance, i.e. lower level of congestion. The study has found that the average index of the studied cities is 0.25. Another

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 23

Seminar Report important finding shows that cities with good public transport facilities are performing better even with higher congestion index within the same city category13.

Figure 11 The Congestion Trap

5.3.3 Walkability Index A large number of trips in Indian cities are made by foot (16% - 58%), but pedestrian infrastructure, amenities and services are neglected and are not given adequate focus. For evaluation of this, walkability index is developed. There are two consideration taken into account for evaluating the index: 

Availability of footpath in major corridors



Overall facility rating by pedestrians

Weightage = 1 The above can be formulated as follows (MOUD, 2008): Walkability Index = [ ( W1 x Availability ) + ( W2 x Facility rating ) ] Where,

13

‌ (2)

W1 = W2 = 0.5 = Equal weightage

Referred to the 6 category of cities defined earlier(category 6 cities have population higher than 8 million)

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 24

Seminar Report Availability: Footpath length / Length of major roads in the city Facility Rating: Score estimated based on opinion on available pedestrian facility These facilities include: 

Availability of footpath



Footpath width



Presence of obstruction



Maintenance of footpath



Street lights



Security from crime



Walking path conflicts



Availability of pedestrian crossing



Safety of crossing

Higher the index better the pedestrian facility. All the larger cities have performed better. The study has found that the average index of the studied cities is 0.52. Though the best cities of India is far below the standards of other developed countries.

5.3.4 Public Transport Supply Index Public transport supply refer to the most common supply of buses that runs around our city. These buses plays an important role in the urban transportation system of India.

Weightage = 2 This index can be formulated as (MOUD, 2008): City bus supply index = Bus fleet (public + private agency operations) per lakh population … (3) Higher the index better the public transport supply. Cities like Amritsar, Raipur, Patna and Agra has no standard bus supply. As per CIRT (Central Institute of Road Transport) recommendation, the minimum number of bus supplied per lakh should be 40. While the study has found that the Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 25

Seminar Report average index of the studied cities is 12.7. Delhi, Bangalore and Madurai has performed very well.

Whereas all the small and the medium cities has very less bus fleet.

5.3.5 Safety Index Road accidents happen for various reasons and is increasing day by day. This accounts to multiple factors such as driver user behaviour, vehicle design, environmental features, interaction between traffic modes, etc. This index is further subdivided into two parts: 

Accident Fatality Index – It is the number of deaths in road accidents per lakh population (Weightage: 0.75)



Accident Injury Index – It is the number of injuries in road accidents per lakh population (Weightage: 0.25)

Weightage = 1.5 The index is formulated as (MOUD, 2008): Safety Index = (0.75 / Accident Fatality Index ) + (0.25 / Accident Injury Index)

… (4)

This refers that lower the index value, poor the safety condition of the city is. Cities like Mumbai, Kolkata and Patna are much safer than the other. It can also be inferred that larger cities have more vehicle, more congestion leading to less overall speed of vehicle but better traffic management system than smaller cities. The study has also revealed that the cities with public transport has better safety index as compared to cities without public transport. Though it has been found that the average index of the studied cities is 0.09.

5.3.6 Para-Transit Index Para-transit is also referred as intermediate public transport (IPT). IPT play very important role in the urban transport system of India. This is an intermediate link between public and private transport in India. Enhancing of IPT will result in promoting the mobility of urban area. It is also source of income for a large group of people.

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 26

Seminar Report Weightage = 2 The index is formulated as (MOUD, 2008): Para-Transit Index = Number of Para-Transit vehicle per lakh population

… (5)

Cities such as Pune, Raipur along with Mumbai, Patna and Ahmedabad has performed much better in this index. The study has found that the average index of the studied cities is 61.

5.3.7 Slow Moving Vehicle Index Slow moving vehicle transport system are integral part of public transport system in India. It consists of bicycle or cycle rickshaw. There are two factors that are considered in slow moving vehicle Index: 

Availability of dedicated lanes



Percentage of slow moving vehicles trips

Weightage = 2 Most of the cities in India do not have dedicated traffic lanes. The index is formulated as (MOUD, 2008): Slow Moving Travel Index = (W1 x availability of bicycle lanes ) + (W2 x Percentage of Slow … (6)

moving vehicle trips ) Where, W1 and W2 has equal weightage of 50%.

The following observation is inferred from the study, 

Cities with hilly terrains has low number of trips and hence low index



Smaller cities have higher number of trips, thus, good index



In larger cities, passenger prefer motorized transport (public or private)

Cities like Patna, Nagpur, and Raipur performs far better than Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore. The study has found that the average index of the studied cities is 0.66. Higher the value, better the performance.

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 27

Seminar Report

5.3.8 On-Street Parking Interference Index On-Street parking interference is the valuable space in the roadways being utilised for parking instead being used by motorized vehicle or non-motorized vehicle. On the other hand, on-street parking plays an important role in promoting businesses within the cities.

Weightage = 2 The index is formulated as (MOUD, 2008): Parking Interference Index = 1 / [ (W1 x major road length used for on street parking) + (W2 x onstreet parking demand on the major road) ]

‌ (7)

Where, W1 and W2 has equal weightage of 50%.

It is observed that the Index has value of small and medium size cities has lower than that of large cities. Higher the index value better is the performance of the city. The study has found that the average index of the studied cities is 1.3. Cities like Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata have performed much better than other cities.

5.4 Performance of Cities (in India) The result computed on the basis of the above 8 criteria as followed in India is given below (Figure 12). Initially all the selected transportation indices were converted to a scale of 100. The values

corresponding to various indices for a city are summed up to obtain the index for that city.

Weightages can also be given for the different transportation indices depending upon their significance. Higher the value of index, better is the transport performance of the city. It is observed that the national average performance is 375.

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 28

Seminar Report

Transport Performance Index 800 700

695

656

600 490

500 400 300

474

401

366

270

265

512 436

271

200 100

0

Transport performance index

National Average(375)

Figure 12 Transport Performance Index

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 29

Seminar Report

6

CASE STUDY OF BANGALORE

Bangalore also known as Bengaluru, is the capital state Karnataka. In 2011, the population recorded by the Census of India was 8.42 million and the metropolitan population was 8.72 million, making it third most populous city in India. It has an area of 709 sqkm.

As I have already discussed about all the 8 criteria of transport performance in India, I will only be discussing the various statistical figure related to such criteria as per 2008 and 2011(Table 4).

Table 4 Transport Performance Index of Bangalore (a comparison between 2008 and 2011)

Criteria

2008

2011

Condition

Remarks

Improved

Congestion Index

0.33

0.45

Drop in average travel speed

No

Time Travel Index

1.57

1.69

Average Travel Time has increased

No

Slow Moving Vehicle Index

0.02

0.02

No change

Same

Walkability Index

0.63

0.6

Decrease due to increase in area

No

Para Transit Index

185

190

Marginal increase

Yes

City Bus Supply Index

80

69

Decreased due to increase in population

No

On-Street Parking Interference Index

2.3

2.43

On-street parking has reduced

Yes

0.047

0.079

Improvement in fatal accidents

Yes

Public Transport Accessibility Index

1.7

1.7

No change

Same

Service Transport Accessibility Index

0.15

0.13

Work trip travel time is increased

No

Road Safety Index

Source: (UMTCL, 2011)

The above study has shown the scenario of Bangalore in 2008 and 2011. It shows that the condition has not changed much. Index of some of the criteria has changed which is a result of increase in the population of the city or the area of the city. Though a few criteria reflects that no development has done in the transportation sector.

All cities are different and respond differently for different scenarios. It is not necessary that if Delhi has resolved the issue by some meathod, Bangalore will also resolve the issue in the same Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 30

Seminar Report manner. Thus, a standardized baseline is needed to be established with a consistent meathod for collection of information that are suitable for comparing impacts and trends. Study reflects that more focus was supply oriented while it should be more towards supply management to improve the quality of urban transport in Bangalore. The need for industrial integration to achieve higher efficiency in transportation is felt.

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 31

Seminar Report

7

CONCLUSION

Policy analysis and framework of planning is need the accurate statistical figure. This is particularly important as transportation is a very diverse and accounts to indirect and long term impacts. Thus, these factor accounted above plays an important role in planning the transport network of the city.

All cities are different and respond differently for different problem. Thus, a standardized baseline is needed to be established with a consistent meathod for collection of information that are suitable for comparing impacts and trends. India is a developing nation and the cities are facing a lot of challenges. These challenges can be categorised in 3 segments and can referred as 3P challenges.

These 3P challenges have different parameters to refer. These are: 

Planet: Sustainability; public transport more environmentally friendly o Air Pollution o CO2 Emission o Noise Pollution o Increase in environmental footprint o Degradation of ecology



People: Sufficient infrastructure supply and convenient access o Traffic Security o Traffic Congestion o Traffic Chaos o Decrease in quality of life o Decrease in accessibility



Profit: Mature cities are able to implement high-end technologies o Overloaded infrastructure o Inadequate quality and quantity of public transport o Increasing private motorization o Limited parking places

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 32

Seminar Report Thus, this shows that emerging cities in developing nation has a lot of issues. But how can we manage it? Before discussing about the basic strategies that will help in development of the mobility, emerging cities has the advantage to establish sustainable mobility core that can satisfy the short term demand of the city with a reasonable cost without making the mistakes made by the developed countries. These cities can be the testing ground for the developed nation as they have very little margin of error. This will also help the developing nation as these have less margin of profit.

The strategies that can help to overcome these challenges as an emerging cities can be categories in four parts. These are: 

Improving Non-Motorized Transport o Reserving right of way o Improvement in NMT infrastructure



Improving Public Transport o Route planning and scheduling o Investment in public transport o Heavy taxation on private vehicle



Urban Structure o Zoning regulation o Floor area ratio o Improvement in land use and housing policy



Technological Advancement o Investment in research and development

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 33

Seminar Report

8

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Affairs, D. o. (2012). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2001 Revision. United Nation.

Ahmad, S., & Oliveira, J. A. (2016). Determinants of urban mobility in India: Lessons for promoting sustainable and inclusive urban transportationin developing countries.

Transport Policy 50, 106-114.

Alam, M. A., & Ahmed, F. (2013). URBAN TRANSPORT SYSTEMS AND CONGESTION: A CASE STUDY OF INDIAN CITIES. Transport and Communications Bulletin for Asia and the Pacific, 33-43.

Audenhove, F.-J. V., & Korniichuk, O. (January 2014). The Future of Urban Mobility 2.0.

(2011). Census of India.

Development, M. o. (2014). Toolkit for Comprehensive Mobility Plan(CMP). Delhi: Institute of Urban Transport.

(2013). Foundations for the construction of an index for strategic management of sustainable urban mobility. Brasilia: Thesis (Doctorate in Transport) - Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Brasilia.

Hernandez, D. (2013, November). Urban Mobility. (C. A. Fomento, Interviewer) INSTITUTE

OF

URBAN

TRANSPORT

(INDIA).

(2017,

October).

Retrieved

from

http://www.iutindia.org/UrbanMobilityIndia.aspx MOUD. (2008). Study of Traffic and Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban Areas in India. Ministry of Urban Development.

Rao, K. V. (2016). TOWARDS BETTER ACCESSIBILITY AND MOBILITY IN INDIAN CITIES. 9th Urban Mobility India Conference and Expo. Gandhinagar.

Sanchez, D. ( 2013, November). Urban Mobility. (C. A. Fomento, Interviewer)

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 34

Seminar Report Srikumar, M. (July 2017). Preparing for the Future of Urban Mobility in India. Delhi: Observer Research Foundation Report #37.

Tyrinopoulos, Y., & Antoniou, C. (2013). Factors affecting modal choice in urban mobility.

EUROPEAN Transport Research Review, 27-39.

UITP INDIA. (2017, October). Retrieved from http://www.india.uitp.org/ UMTCL. (2011). Bangalore Mobility Indicators 2010-11: Draft Final Report. Urban Mass Transit Company Limited.

(2013). Urban Transport. National Transport Development Policy Committee.

Sagar Sinha | 17AR60R20 | 35