Content uploaded by Rutul Joshi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rutul Joshi
Content may be subject to copyright.
PROMOTING LOW CARBON TRANSPORT IN INDIA
POLICY SUMMARY
Low-Carbon Mobility in India and the
Challenges of Social Inclusion:
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Case Studies in India
UNEP Risø Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development
Technical University of Denmark
This publication is part of the ‘Promoting Low-carbon Transport in India’ project
Photo acknowledgement:
All photographs are by the Centre for Urban Equity except where mentioned
Disclaimer:
The Policy Summary is based on a case study of Sustainability and Social Accessibity of
Bus Rapid Transits in India (Mahadevia, D., R. Joshi, and A. Datey. 2012. Sustainability
and Social Accessibility of Bus Rapid Transits in India. in. UNEP Risø Centre, Roskilde)
which is available online at http://www.unep.org/transport/lowcarbon/publications.
asp. The findings, suggestions and conclusions presented in the case study and this
policy summary are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any
manner to UNEP Risø Centre or United Nations Environment Programme, nor to the
institutions of individual authors.
1
T
his study assesses the current status and the progress of the Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) systems in five Indian cities, including Ahmedabad, where detailed study has
been undertaken. The main purpose of this study is to understand how these cities
in particular, and urban India in general, is transiting to the relatively low-cost and low-
carbon transport such as the BRT. The BRT efforts in Pune, Delhi, Jaipur and Indore are
discussed on the basis of the planning context, transport characteristics, users’ opinions
and assessment of the BRT project components like technical design, operations, safety
and institutional framework. Broadly, it is found that Delhi and Pune have not been
able to expand their initial ‘pilot’ BRT corridors given the lack of institutional initiatives,
adversities and controversies created by the popular media and the urban middle-class.
Jaipur is struggling between the metro rail aspirations and the lack of clarity in BRT
implementation, whereas the BRT corridors in Indore are mired with land acquisition
issues and confusion about whether to build open or closed BRT systems. The struggle
to build the BRT systems in these Indian cities increases exponentially because of
the lack of ownership of the BRT system by the planning and implementing agencies
coupled with the reluctance of private vehicle owners to share the road space with public
transport. Even after having support in the form of the national urban transport policy
and financial support from the National Urban Renewal Mission, the Indian cities are
struggling to plan or implement the BRT projects and this puts a grave question mark on
the capacity and sincerity of the Indian cities in implementing the BRT system.
1. Executive Summary
2
The Ahmedabad BRT system stands out
amongst the Indian cities to have about
45 km of rapid transit network, which
continues to expand even today.
The Ahmedabad BRT system stands out amongst the Indian cities to have about 45
km of rapid transit network, which continues to expand even today.
There is ‘network’
thinking involved in the planning of BRT systems and not ‘corridor’ thinking, which helps
the sustainability of the project. With the expansion of the BRT system, the ridership
is increasing (0.15 million) and the service is becoming increasingly popular amongst
the people of the city. However, there is a lot of scope for improvement in its planning,
design and implementation. The operational BRT corridors so far have been placed on
roads of 30 meters or more in width, and maximum road space has been left for the
mixed traffic, sometimes at the cost of cycle tracks and footpaths. In the entire BRT
system the Non-Motorised Transport (NMT) infrastructure is not given its due attention
as promised in the detailed project proposals. Furthermore, integrating the BRT system
with the regular municipal bus service
(Ahmedabad Municipal Transport
Services) is another unaddressed
concern, and in the public realm there
are no official plans currently available
for integration. Lastly, there are the
social impacts of the project that have not been addressed, such as rehabilitation of the
project-affected people on account of the corridor development. To develop nuanced
understanding about these concerns, Ahmedabad BRT users were surveyed extensively,
mainly to see how accessible the system is to everyone in the city and whether it has
resulted in any modal shift away from high-carbon to low-carbon mobility.
The survey of 1040 BRT system users in Ahmedabad showed that the sex ratio of the
working population amongst the users was just 226, indicating that working women did
not use this system much as compared to working men. The use of the BRT system
by low-income groups is also not very significant. Of the total users, just 13.7 per
cent belong to household with incomes of up to Rs. 5,000 (less than 100 US$). 62.2
per cent of users had monthly household incomes of more than Rs. 10,000 (about 200
US$). This is in spite of the fact that a large number of low-income group housing and
slums fall within a 500 metre radius, or walking
distance, from the BRT network. Many of the
BRT users are captive public transport (PT)
users who used public transport prior to the
BRT project. After the project replaced their
routes in the municipal bus service and shared
auto rickshaws, some 47 per cent of PT users shifted to the BRT, and another 13 per
cent of users shifted from the intermediate public transport (IPT) of shared or full-fare
autorickshaw. Only 12 per cent of commuters have shifted from private motor vehicles.
Only 42 per cent of the users were taking the BRT system for more than 21 days in a
month, which means that the BRT is still to find sustained ridership in Ahmedabad. In
all, the BRT is mainly serving the middle-income groups, most of which are the captive
PT users commuting longer distances. The BRT has not been able to reach low-income
groups despite such aspirations expressed in the detailed project proposal.
The BRT is mainly serving the
middle-income groups, most of
which are the captive PT users
commuting longer distances.
3
Given the finding that the urban poor of Ahmedabad do not use formal public transport
like the BRT, this study enquires more deeply into their mobility characteristics. On the
whole, conveyance forms 6 to 7 per cent of total household expenditure in urban India.
But, the bottom 40 per cent devotes just 3 per cent to travel costs. The urban poor still
do not spend as much on transport, and urban poor women in particular spend very little
on transport. In order to understand the actual expenditure and implications of a lack of
affordable travel choices, a survey of 580 low-income households was carried out from
the slums and informal settlements geographically distributed across the city. The survey
shows that urban travels by the poor in Ahmedabad are generally fewer, take more time,
travel less distance, and rely on NMTs or public modes more than the non-poor. 60 per
cent of poor working women walk to work, whereas for men 30 per cent walk and 20 per
cent cycle to work. In the absence of efficient and affordable public transport, 16 per
cent of poor people use IPT. Only 0.4 per cent of the surveyed households used the BRT
system. About 65 per cent of households preferred not to spend anything on transport.
The over-dependence on NMT means shorter travelling distances, fewer out-of-home
activities, less ability to search for and maintain employment, and lower capacity to seek
higher quality goods at a lower price. The survey showed that 72 per cent of women
and 51 per cent of men in these low-income households travelled less than 3 km. The
average trip length for these women was 3.2 km lower than the city average, and for
these men it was 5.3 km lower.
4
Overall, the top-down transportation planning approach has not really taken into account
the needs of the urban poor in a city like Ahmedabad, which is considered the ‘only
successful running BRT in the country’. It seems that all the modes favourable to the
poor (walking, cycling, shared autorickshaw, public bus) are either not being planned for
or implemented properly. Other Indian cities are struggling even to develop adequate
public bus systems, despite the fact that such systems represent very low benchmarks
of success. It would only be fair to claim that several billion dollars of JnNURM funds for
the transport projects have not facilitated the transport needs of the poor, and private
motorised vehicle ownership is being promoted by the lack of public transport services.
It is important for projects like BRT systems to be more socially inclusive, which can
be achieved by recognising and
including the urban poor. One way
of doing this is through innovating
the fare system. The sections of
the population who are unable
to ‘access the city’ are not only
‘disadvantaged commuters’, but
are also ‘disadvantaged citizens’. If an urban citizen is equipped by comprehensive
policy support related to shelter and transport then they can build their capabilities to
support their future generations. If the accessibility issues of a city were seen from a
perspective of a poor working woman then the options would be amiable enough to
take care of everyone in urban society. The foremost policy recommendation for Indian
cities is to actively follow and implement the objectives of the National Urban Transport
Policy (NUTP). The NUTP has clearly outlined the pathways for low-carbon mobility
for Indian cities. The cities should be actively encouraged to take up BRT projects and
public bus improvement projects along with plans for walking and cycling facilities. The
on-street parking policies in India also have to play an important role of being demand
management tools for use of urban space.
The top-down transportation planning
approach has not really taken into account
the needs of the urban poor in a city like
Ahmedabad, which is considered the ‘only
successful running BRT in the country’.
5
2. Background – Sustainable Transport Paradigm
T
he term ‘sustainable mobility’ (prioritizing accessibility) covers all forms of
transport that minimize fuel consumption and carbon emissions by reducing the
need to travel itself (Knowflacher, 2007) (Banister, 2008)
1
. Knowflacher (2007)
argues that the traditional hypothesis of urban transport planning, which emphasises
the ‘growth of mobility’ and ‘travel time saving by increasing speed’, ends up creating
more transport, environmental, and socio-economic problems all over the world
2
. It
also creates higher mobility-oriented infrastructure and urban form, which makes it
difficult for more sustainable modes to operate. There is a great danger of creating the
situation of being stuck with automobile-dependent urban infrastructure. The transport
interventions across the world are attempting to provide accessibility for all people,
and to facilitate their reaching their desired destinations in a timely fashion, rather than
just planning for the high speed mobility of a few. In the context of climate change, the
notion of transport sustainability becomes more specifically a matter of reducing carbon
emissions. Low-carbon mobility is prioritized – involving zero-carbon modes like walking
and cycling or any other shared or public modes of transport.
In context of ‘Equity’, Vasconcellos (2001) argues that transport provision is not an end
in itself
3
. The ‘end’ has to be the equitable appropriation of space and the corresponding
access to social and economic life. There have been massive investments in the urban
infrastructure in the developing cities and it is a timely debate in policy-making as to
whether these investments are used for the betterment of everyone in society. Without
equity, the sustainability would not be achieved in the true sense. The idea of equity
is a paradigmatic approach to policy-making where everyone’s share in the system is
recognized and provided.
The practice of transport planning in general focuses on the link between transport and
economic growth. In fact, transport does induce economic growth through investments
in infrastructure, purchase of vehicles and employment generated through both. Neo-
liberalism, which dominates economic policies in the developing world and in India,
perceives ‘growth of mobility’ and ‘freedom of modal choice’ to be inseparable parts
of economic growth and infrastructure building. Located in the neo-liberal approach,
conventional transport planning assumes that infrastructure building and provision
benefits everyone equally in the given transport system. However, such a growth-
centred paradigm of transport does not necessarily address the human concerns of
equitable development on one hand and environmental sustainability on the other.
1
Banister, D. (2008). The Sustainable Mobility Paradigm. Transport Policy, 15, 73-80.
2
Knowacher, H. (2007). Success and failures in urban transportation planning in Europe – Understanding the transport
system. Sadhana, 32 (4), 293-307.
3
Vasconcellos, E. A. (2001). Urban transport, environment and equity – The Case of Developing Countries. London and
Sterling: Earthscan Publications.
6
An increasing number of transport planners
have started believing that a transport system that
prioritizes walking, cycling, shared and public
transport is equitable as well as low-carbon.
Especially in societies experiencing high economic growth, there is a latent demand for
PMT (private motorised transport) because of newly achieved prosperity. Because of
this, there is pressure on the city governments to invest in infrastructure to facilitate the
movement of private vehicles, which the city governments are complying with after a
long lag. Cox (2010) demonstrates how there remains a bias towards prestigious mega-
projects in market-based, top-down approaches to transport provision in multilateral
projects
4
. Badami (2009) shows how this approach further facilitates motorization by not
being proactive to achieve the goals of sustainability
5
.
Furthermore, capital-intensive transport options, which are also energy-intensive, exclude
and more often than not displace the low-income populations from the urban space. In
such a context, issues of sustainability and equity are interwoven objectives of transport
initiatives and not mutually exclusive entities, especially when what is sustainable is also
equitable and vice versa. However, now there is an overwhelming consensus in the urban
transport debates that
accepts the need for more
public transport and a
reduced reliance on private
transport. However, the
debate is ongoing with
regards to the type of public transport that is equitable. An increasing number of transport
planners have started believing that a transport system that prioritizes walking, cycling,
shared and public transport is equitable as well as low-carbon.
4
Cox, P. (2010). Moving People-Sustainable Transport Development. Zed Books.
5
Badami, M. (2009). Urban Transport Policy as if People and the Environment Mattered: Pedestrian Accessibility the
First Step. Economic and Political Weekly, 44 (33), 43-51.
7
3. Introduction – The Bus Rapid Transit Debate
T
his summary report is based on a study of the assessment of the BRT systems
in India. This study of the Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) in India is conducted
based on the perspective of inclusiveness and modal shift towards public transport
from Private Motorised Transport (PMT). Four cities namely, Delhi, Pune, Jaipur and
Indore were selected to assess the macro-level issues with regards to BRTS in India. It
was not feasible to study the impact of the BRTS in these cities as they still had short
corridors and incomplete systems. These have therefore been discussed briefly as a
context of assessment of BRTS. Ahmedabad BRTS, which has the largest network
of all, was selected to assess its impact on the urban poor’s mobility as well as the
possibility of moving towards low-carbon transport. The research attempts to answer
two key questions: (i) is the BRTS accessible to the urban poor and has it consequently
improved the accessibility of the urban poor and (ii) has the BRTS led to a modal shift in
favour of public transport that address climate change objectives? In Ahmedabad, after
presenting the entire system and its overall assessment, a survey of 1040 BRTS users
was carried out. This was backed with a survey of 580 urban poor households, identified
as those living in slums or rehabilitated slums, which was carried out to understand the
travel needs, pattern and affordability of the poor. Information was collected from all the
members of the households to collect gender-disaggregated data.
In India, the National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP) emphasises public transport and
the national government has made funds available for the same through the JnNURM
8
(Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission). The NUTP aims to move away from
‘roads for vehicles’ to ‘streets for people’, and given the funding opportunities from the
national government it seemed possible to build infrastructure favouring low-carbon or
zero-carbon modes. Buses are the dominant public
transport mode in Indian cities, (Wilbur Smith
Associates and Ministry of Urban Development,
2008)
6
, which face the shortcomings of escalating
costs, poor maintenance, high labour costs,
ageing bus fleets and erratic services (Badami, Tiwari, & Mohan, 2007)
7
. In such contexts,
projects such as BRTSs provided new optimism for public transit.
Public buses are more sustainable and offer low-carbon mobility, as it is an efficient
mode in the usage of road space and engine capacity. The flexibility in routing and wide
coverage makes it especially efficient in the urban context. Public buses are ‘mass
transit’ as they carry millions of people around the globe in urban areas and elsewhere.
The efficiency of public buses is compromised when increasing numbers of vehicles on
the road slows them down. To make the ‘mass transit’ (buses) more ‘rapid’, the idea
of a bus rapid transit evolved to give priority to the bus by creating dedicated lanes for
it. In the words of Roberto Cervero, ‘BRT is a key to absorb traffic displaced by road
capacity losses’. Given the
structure of most cities
and budget constraints of
the city governments, BRT
emerges as the most cost-
effective and wide ranging option for the mass rapid transit system. There have been
many interesting examples from Latin American cities, where the BRT is often highly
developed as a comprehensive and well-integrated system.
The global literature suggests that transport systems are continuously evolving
and transport planning is a continuous process. Cities that have committed to build
comprehensive coverage of the BRT network along with good planning for integration
with other modes have been successful in providing accessibility to its citizens. Here,
the comprehensiveness of the BRT system includes a well-integrated network of
walking and cycling facilities along the BRT system and effective parking policies. In
some Latin American cities, BRTS has been seen and planned in conjunction with land
use and housing policies, making the system efficient, sustainable and equitable. The
crucial approach here has been to view BRTS projects as an exercise in appropriate
road allocation for various uses other than just a road or traffic engineering project.
There is a tendency, and hence possibility, for engineers to overlook the social
planners in transport projects.
Public buses are more sustainable and offer low-
carbon mobility, as it is an efcient mode in the
usage of road space and engine capacity.
The NUTP aims to move away
from ‘roads for vehicles’ to
‘streets for people’.
6
Wilbur Smith Associates and Ministry of Urban Development. (2008). Study on Trafc and Transportation - Policies
and Stategies in Urban Areas in India.
7
Badami, M., Tiwari, G., & Mohan, D. (2007). Access and Mobility for the urban poor in India. In A. E. Laquian (Ed.),
The inclusive city: Infrastructure and Public Services for the Urban Poor in Asia. New Delhi: Woodrow Wilson Centre.
9
4. Key Results
T
he key results are presented separately for the national (macro) level and the city
(micro or local) level. The key results also reflect on the implementation issues
with regards to the BRTS in India.
The National-Level Issues
In spite of the NUTP, the debate on the best form of public transport continues in
the Indian cities and the BRTS is compared and contrasted with the metro, the latter
being more capital intensive than the former. According to rule-of-thumb calculations,
metro rail systems would cost typically Rs. 1500 million per km (30 million US$) for
above ground and Rs. 2500 million per km (50 million US$) for underground system
whereas BRT system would cost no more than Rs. 100 million per km (2 million
US$). Due to the lower once-off and lifetime costs, the BRTS should be preferred
over the metro. Furthermore, the BRTS has more flexibility in expanding the transit
network and widening
the coverage. Given the
structure of the Indian
cities that have organically
evolved as an urban form
Due to the lower once-off and lifetime costs, the
BRTS should be preferred over the metro. The
BRTS has more exibility in expanding the transit
network and widening the coverage.
10
Table 1: Characteristics of the BRT systems of the selected cities
City
Stage of
implementation
Construction
started
Operation
started
Planned
network
(Km)
Length of
corridors
approved
by MoUD
Peak hour
average
speed
(Km/hr.)
Frequency
of buses
(seconds /
direction)
Existing
Ridership
(persons/
hour/
direction)
Planned
ridership
(persons/
hour/
direction)
Delhi
5.6 km
operational
Oct-06 Apr-08 426 NA 16-19 30-45
9,000-
10,000
20,000-
24,001
Pune
17 km
operational
2003 Dec-06 117 117.0 16-18 45-60 3,600
10,000-
15,000
Jaipur
10 km
operational
Sep-07
Partly
started
138 42.0 25 120-300
500-
1,700
–
Indore
11.5 km under
construction
Oct-07
Not yet
started
106 11.5
20
(expected)
150
(planned)
1,000-
6,000
10,000-
20,000
Ahmedabad
45 km
operational
2007 Jul-09 200 88.8 22-25 180-300
1,500-
2,000
15,000-
20,000
11
around multi-nuclei economic centres, trips are distributed in multiple directions and it
is difficult to find high ridership corridors to justify the metro rail system (i.e. 20,000
persons per hour per direction or more). Thus, bus rapid transit was positioned as
more cost-effective and relevant option. However, many cities aspire to have metro rail
systems coupled with high-end real estate development. Even in the cities where the
full-fledged BRT operations and further expansions are planned, there are aspirations
to build the metro system, as in the case of Ahmedabad, Pune and Jaipur. Sometimes,
metro systems are proposed on the operational BRT corridors posing a direct threat to
the system.
There is also an unsettled debate whether the BRTS should be an open system or
a closed system. The closed system is very much an adaptation of the metro on
roadways and hence preferred as a low-cost metro like system, as the buses run
on the dedicated or ‘exclusive BRT reserved’ corridors. The closed corridors work
in conjunction with the TOD (transit oriented development) option as in the metro.
In contrast, the open system is more flexible as it is in essence a high capacity bus
system, which is an upgrade of existing bus systems by providing them with a special
corridor to take priority over PMT and other para-transit vehicles. Meanwhile, some
of the city administrators and BRT planners have chosen closed over open systems,
and wherever the BRT projects had begun as open systems they are being converted
into closed systems. For example, the systems in Jaipur and Indore started as open
systems and are now being converted into closed systems. Delhi’s open system is
under severe criticism, firstly from private vehicle users and now from the transport
planners and road research institutes. Ahmedabad is a fully closed system. But, to get
ridership for it, the cheaper public transport system provided by the local government
is being closed down on the BRTS routes.
The JnNURM decided to fund BRT projects with comprehensive networks and with
simultaneous non-motorized transport facilities. Some cities like Pune, interested in
road projects, applied for the JnNURM funds meant for BRTS and then resurfaced
the roads while not putting in the committed BRTS infrastructure. This city has not
been able to come out of the older transport paradigm and has subverted the BRTS
completely in the process.
The City-Level Issues
The major conflicts at the city-level are the conflicts related to road space use
between the different users. Except Ahmedabad, all other BRT systems have been
criticized in the local popular media for ‘taking away the prime road space from regular
traffic’. This clearly shows that the urban opinion-making is hijacked by the vocal elite
classes who are also the owners of private vehicles and who resist more equitable
distributions of road space.
12
Policy Issues
One of the major issues observed in the cities with regards to planning the BRT systems
was the long-term commitment to the idea of BRTS. In some cases, the BRTS was
threatened by proposals for metro rail, while in the other cities BRTS projects were
threatened by a backlash in the media against the idea of this public transit mode. In the
cases of Pune and Delhi, there was lack of clarity about the institutional ‘ownership’ of
the BRT system, which resulted in operational inefficiencies. Except Ahmedabad, there
were no visible attempts to expand the BRTS network or to engage in any proactive
social marketing of the system. The Ahmedabad BRTS has claimed to ‘connect busy
places and to have avoided busy roads’, but it can also be interpreted as ‘building BRT
on the wider roads only’. Ahmedabad is expanding its network and most of the roads
have more widths than 30 meters.
There were no proactive attempts to integrate other modes with the BRTS in all cities
studied. The Delhi BRTS has provided cycle-renting schemes in some locations, but besides
that there was no attempt to link the bus corridor with other modes. In Pune, Delhi and
Jaipur, the BRTS network was not comprehensive
enough to plan any sort of integration with the
other modes. In Ahmedabad, which is the only
city where there is relatively extensive BRTS
network, there was no attempt to integrate the
BRTS with the existing municipal bus services, nor has there been any mention of such in
the public domain. These two systems have been operating parallel to each other in terms
of institutional mechanisms, fares and ticketing, and physical infrastructure.
Pune and Delhi could design and implement facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.
Especially in Delhi, the cyclists extensively used the cycle tracks. In contrast, in
Ahmedabad, in spite of building the biggest network with operational efficiency, there
has been a total failure to design and implement facilities for walking and cycling. In fact,
it was taken for granted that the new corridors would not have any cycle tracks
8
.
Implementation Issues
Each city has its unique situation regarding the failures in implementation of the projects
as planned. Various departments of the city governments are involved in implementation
of the BRTS projects, such as planning, construction and operations etc. without any
efficient coordinating mechanism.
The most difficult implementation issues are related to the sharing of the road space
amongst all users. Even if the system is designed to give priority to the pedestrians and
cyclists, it is often re-appropriated in favour of motorized vehicles. As in the case of Delhi,
There were no proactive attempts
to integrate other modes with the
BRTS in all cities studied.
8
Times of India. (2011, August 7). BRTS cycle track discarded over space security concerns.
13
the traffic police control the signal cycles at junctions, which they have designed to favour
mixed traffic more than the BRTS. The traffic police have also refused to check on the
motorized two-wheelers encroaching the cycle tracks, and regulating this has been left to
the private security guards. Sometimes, inappropriate design of infrastructure has led to
the lack of usage. In other cases like Ahmedabad, the footpaths and cycle tracks are not
designed and built on all corridors, compromising safety and access for the pedestrians
and cyclists. Wherever built, the design is not sympathetic to the cyclists to use the lanes
meant for them. It is also not clear whether they have plans to improve these facilities
or not. In Ahmedabad, the NMT infrastructure has been given short shrift (Table 2). To
assess, two stretches were fully surveyed. While only 26.2 per cent of the BRT route
length had bicycle tracks, only 65.0 per cent of these tracks were unobstructed. In the
case of footpaths, 83.7 per cent of the BRT track had footpaths, but only 52.5 per cent
of these were unobstructed. In many instances, the pedestrians are seen walking on the
mixed traffic lane on account of a lack of footpath along the BRT route (Figure 1).
Figure 1: BRTS known as ‘Janmarg’ in Ahmedabad city
Table 2: Status of NMT infrastructure in Ahmedabad BRT
BRT
length
in km
(L+R)
Bicycle track status
(L + R)
Footpath provided
(L+R)
Provided
as % of
BRT route
%
obstructed
of the total
provided
Provided
as %
of BRT
route
%
obstructed
of the total
provided
R.T.O to Naroda 63 32.5 35.0 85.0 52.6
Danilimda C.R.
to Kankaria T.E.
(Loop)
15 0.0 – 78.0 52.0
Total 78 26.2 35.0 83.7 52.5
14
Figure 2: Pedestrians and cyclists in mixed trafc on the BRT corridors in Ahmedabad
Users and Non-users of the BRTS in Ahmedabad
Two important questions are: does the BRTS offer a low-cost and affordable transport
option to low income groups (who are ‘captive’ users of public transport), and has
it offered convenient public transport to ensure a modal shift from private two and
four-wheelers to public transport? These two questions have been answered through
this research with a detailed case study of Ahmedabad City. More often than not, in
situations of latent demand for public transit, any system introduced will work. Table 3
below gives the profile of the BRT users in Ahmedabad and also indicates the impact
of the BRTS in the city in terms of its inclusiveness as well as a shift towards low
carbon transport.
The BRT system user group is dominated by males (72.5 per cent). Of the total users,
just 13.7 per cent belong to households with incomes of up to Rs. 5,000. BRTS is being
used by largely the middle-income groups, with monthly incomes between Rs. 10,000
and Rs. 40,000, within which half the users fall. The households with incomes of up to
Rs. 5,000 per month are the bottom half of the urban spectrum and they do not use the
BRTS in Ahmedabad to any great extent. Within this group, women use the BRTS even
less than men; the sex ratio (females per thousand males) amongst all users is 244,
and among those who are workers is 226. The sex ratio in the non-workers category
using the BRTS is 770, indicating that women are using the BRTS to a great extent for
other purposes than work. A very large proportion, about a quarter among the males
and about two in every five among the females use the BRTS for social purposes. It is
possible that many of such trips have been induced by a new mode of transport in the
city. For example, the BRTS connects Western Ahmedabad to the recreational facilities
located at the Kankaria Lake in the southeast of the city. In other words, the BRTS
has made the long-distance recreational facilities more accessible for the middle-class
from Western Ahmedabad and created new demand for transport. Only 42 per cent of
the users were taking a BRTS for more than 21 days in a month, which means that the
BRTS is still to find regular and sustained ridership in the city.
15
Table 3: Prole of BRT Users
Indicators Male Female Sex ratio
Income groups of the users
% among users with income less than Rs. 5,000 pm 14.4 11.5 244
% among users with income more than Rs. 40,000 pm 10.9 16.8 585
Age group
% among users in age group 15-40 years 75.9 73.8 369
Employment
% workers among BRT users 71.8 42.7 226
% among users who are casually employed 6.1 3.3 121
% among users regularly employed in public sector 8.1 18.0 500
% among users regularly employed in private sector 63.8 65.6 232
Trip purpose
% using BRT for work 55.4 35.0 239
% using BRT for education 15.8 19.6 471
% using BRT for social, religious and recreational purposes 24.7 38.5 591
Distance to BRT stops
% users Walking to BRT station from home 44.8 50.0 –
Median distance travelled to reach the BRT station from home 0.38 km
Trip cost and lengths
Average cost per BRT trip (Rs and USD) Rs. 6.73/ USD 0.15
Median cost per BRT trip (Rs and USD) Rs. 5.00/ USD 0.11
Average trip length by BRT (km) 12.92
Median trip length by BRT (km) 10.84
Modal Shift
Modal shift from AMTS to BRTS (%) 46.8
Modal shift from shared autorickshaw to BRTS (%) 12.9
Modal shift from full-fare autorickshaw to BRTS (%) 13.1
Modal shift from motorized two-wheeler to BRTS (%) 10.2
Modal shift from motorized four-wheeler to BRTS (%) 1.5
Note: Exchange rate assumed to be Rs. 45 = 1 US Dollar (USD)
46 per cent of the commuters access the BRTS by using other modes, and 50 per cent
of commuters are located within 500 metres of a BRT stop. Furthermore, the BRTS is
being used in Ahmedabad for an average travel of 8.7 km and half of the users are going
up to 6.9 km on the system. This explains that the users are long-distance commuters
given the average trip-length in the city, as stated in the AMC-CEPT study of 2006
(quoted in AMC et al 2008) is 5.5 km. The average total trip length, which includes trips
by other modes for access-egress, is up to 10.84 km for the half of the BRTS users and
12.92 km for all the BRT users. The total expenditure incurred on transport by the low
income households (under Rs. 5,000 pm), is about 12 per cent, whereas those in the
higher income groups varies from 1.0 to 2.0 per cent, indicating that even the BRTS is
an expensive option for the low income groups in Ahmedabad city.
16
Prior to the BRTS, a large proportion (47 per cent) of the current users, were taking
the AMTS (municipal) bus and because these services were discontinued on the BRTS
corridors they shifted to the BRTS. Another 13 per cent each have shifted from the
intermediate public transports of shared and full-fare autorickshaw. In total 70 per
cent of the BRTS commuters were regular users of public transport. Only 12 per cent
of commuters have shifted from private motorized vehicles. The AMTS users have
shifted to the BRTS because on certain
routes the services of the former
were discontinued. In that sense, the
BRTS would not have impacted the
carbon emission level as users have
shifted from one public transport mode
to another. The BRTS has also induced new trips, as 13 per cent of commuters were
not making the trip before the BRTS. But the higher income groups experienced the
enhanced mobility much more than the poor. And thus, it explains the new travel demand
being created for purposes such as recreational, social and shopping trips. To conclude,
BRT is mainly used by the middle-income groups and many of them have been the
previous public transit users commuting longer distance.
The Urban Poor and their Travel Demand
Since the urban poor in Ahmedabad do not really use the most important low-carbon
mobility initiative in the city, namely the BRT system, the next question was how the
BRT is mainly used by the middle-
income groups and many of them have
been the previous public transit users
commuting longer distance.
17
mobility of the urban poor is determined. In order to understand the actual expenditure
and implications of a lack of affordability on travel choices and work and housing
location choices, a survey of 580 low-income households was carried out. The samples
were taken from the slums and informal housing settlements and were geographically
distributed across the city to capture the issues emerging from the relocation of urban
poor housing on the city’s periphery.
The survey shows that the travels by the poor in Ahmedabad are mainly by walking
or by the public or shared transport modes (Table 4). 60 per cent of the poor working
women walk to work whereas in the case of men, 30 per cent walk and 20 per cent
cycle. One major difference in the males and females is the use of cycling among the
males whereas these trips are
replaced by walking among the
females. Women are culturally
restrained in using cycles. In the
absence of an extensive network
of affordable public transport,
16 per cent among women and
nearly the same percentage
among men use IPT (largely shared autorickshaws). Ironically, only 0.4 per cent of the
surveyed households used the BRTS. The poor people travel short distances and the
most essential trip purpose is work or education. The urban poor make fewer trips
per capita than the non-poor, and while the differences are not extreme it implies that
the poor work closer to home than the non-poor. The survey showed that 72 per cent
of women and 51 per cent of men travelled less than 3 km. The average trip length
for women was 3.2 km and for men it was 5.3 km. About 65 per cent of households
prefer not to spend anything on transport. The time and money costs of public transit
are higher for the poor (with a great share from a monthly household budget) than
for other income groups, which may indeed explain their short commutes or limited
mobility. Many of the urban poor suffer constrained mobility and the consequences
of this deficit mean fewer out-
of-home activities, less ability
to search for and maintain
employment, lower capacity to
seek higher quality goods at a
lower price. There are number
of concerns involved in various aspects related to the mobility of the urban poor. The
modes used by the poor are mainly the non-motorized ones of walking and cycling,
which makes them ‘vulnerable road users’ from the road-safety point of view (Wilbur
Smith Associates and Ministry of Urban Development, 2008).
Having an ‘inferior’ mode is only part of the problem for the poor. Cities in the
developing world have complex urban structures with varying costs of living and
service access close to the workplace or close to the public transit lines. Many poor
Many of the urban poor suffer constrained
mobility and the consequences of this
decit mean fewer out-of-home activities,
less ability to search for and maintain
employment, lower capacity to seek higher
quality goods and services at a lower price.
The modes used by the poor are mainly the
non-motorized ones of walking and cycling,
which makes them ‘vulnerable road users’
from the road-safety point of view.
18
Table 4: Modal Split by Sex, Surveyed households in Ahmedabad
Sex Walking Cycle Hand cart/
paddle
rickshaw
Public
bus
Shared
auto
rickshaw
BRTS Multiple
modes
M2W Auto
rickshaw
Grand
total
For main trip
Female 58.9 1.8 0.7 8.7 16.3 0.2 9.9 0.8 2.6 100.0
Male 29.7 19.5 2.7 11.8 15.6 0.5 11.7 5.0 3.6 100.0
Overall 40.4 13.0 2.0 10.7 15.8 0.4 11.0 3.5 3.2 100.0
Non-motorized modes = 55.4 Public/ shared modes = 26.9 Private modes = 6.7 100.0
After distributing multiple mode trips
Female 65 2 1 10 18 0 – 1 3 100.0
Male 34 22 3 13 18 1 – 6 4 100.0
Overall 45 15 2 12 18 0 – 4 4 100.0
Non-motorized modes = 62 Public modes = 30 Private modes = 8 100.0
Table 5: City-Level Modal Split, Ahmedabad
Mode share in earlier
studies
Walking Cycle Public
bus
Shared auto
rickshaw
M2W Auto
rickshaw
Car-van Others Total
LB-IPTS study 2000
a
37.6 17.6 8.4 5.7 25.3 2.5 2.5 0.3 100.0
AMC-CEPT 2006
b
13.2 18.8 15.0 – 35.0 8.8* 3.1 5.8 100.0
Notes: * Shared auto rickshaw is assumed to be part of this as it is not mentioned separately.
a
As quoted by AMC et al, 2007 (Detailed Project report for BRTS Phase -1)
9
b
As quoted by AMC et al 2008 (Detailed Project report for BRTS Phase -2)
10
9
AMC, AUDA and CEPT University (2007). Bus Rapid Transit System Ahmedabad Detailed Project report Phase I. Retrieved December 21, 2011, from http://www.
ahmedabadbrts.com/images/Ahmedabad%20BRTS%20Phase-1%20DPR_Feb%202007.pdf
10
AMC, AUDA and CEPT University (2008). Bus Rapid Transit System Plan Phase II Detailed Project Report. Retrieved September 12, 2011, from http://www.
ahmedabadbrts.com/images/Ahmedabad%20BRTS%20Phase-2%20DPR_April%202008.pdf
19
workers take several part-time, low-paid jobs at different locations simply to maintain
the very basic level of household income. Labour market imperfections and working in
the informal sector increase their vulnerability. Especially when the poor households
are displaced from their original location, they feel excluded from the city losing their
livelihoods and education for their children. The problem of access becomes more acute
because they are able to spend less than 5 per cent of their total household expenditure
on transport. The burden of limited mobility is borne disproportionately by women
and children. The women of lower-income households experience greater transport
deprivations as compared to men.
Overall, the top-down
transportation planning
approach has not really taken
into account the needs of
the urban poor in the city of
Ahmedabad in spite of all the
rhetoric about including the low-
income groups in the detailed
project proposals. It seems that
all the modes favourable to the
poor (walking, cycling, shared autorickshaw, public bus) are either not being planned
for or are not being implemented properly. It would only be fair to claim that several
billions of JnNURM funds for the transport projects have not facilitated the transport
needs of the poor.
It seems that all the modes favourable to the
poor (walking, cycling, shared autorickshaw,
public bus) are either not being planned
for or are not being implemented properly.
It would only be fair to claim that several
billions of JnNURM funds for the transport
projects have not facilitated the transport
needs of the poor.
20
21
5. Policy Recommendations and Overall Conclusions
T
he foremost policy recommendation for Indian cities is to actively follow and
implement the objectives of the National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP). The NUTP
has clearly outlined the pathways for low-carbon mobility for Indian cities. The
cities should be actively encouraged to take up BRT projects and public bus improvement
projects along with plans for walking and cycling facilities. The on-street parking policies
in India also have to play an important
role as demand management tools.
Those not owning private motorized
vehicles, such as the low-income group,
should be supported in continuing their
low-carbon mobility practices. The poor
working women should be specifically encouraged to use public transport. Based on these
broad recommendations, the following issues are specifically highlighted.
Planning Issues
The MoUD India has been a key promoter of low-carbon mobility projects such as the
BRT in various cities. Cities that have shown interest in building BRTS often lack the
expertise and human resources in understanding the full implications of such a project.
The cities need handholding and planning knowledge for projects as complex as BRTSs.
There is a great need to develop planning guidelines for models of BRTS in the Indian
context endorsed and commissioned by the MoUD. City officials and planners need
to be systematically trained not only about the technical aspects of the BRTS but also
about the social marketing of such projects. MoUD has conducted various training
programmes and workshops with many bilateral and multilateral agencies. However, it
has not resulted in expanding the dedicated team of experts at the central level or at the
city level to deal with the complexities of the BRTS projects. Because of this, the early
enthusiasm for the BRTS projects has not sustained in recent years.
Out of a total of 63 cities eligible for the national funds under JnNURM, only about 10 had
shown interest in building a BRTS. Out of which only four cities, namely Ahmedabad, Delhi,
Pune and Jaipur, have buses running on continuous dedicated corridors. Given the challenge
of transport infrastructure in Indian cities, many other cities should be encouraged to come
forward to upgrade their transport system. It is important that the national funds provide
positive incentives for the cities to take up low-carbon mobility projects such as the BRT. And
such incentives should become exemplary for other cities to take similar paths.
Instead of discussion and dispute around open or closed systems, the efficacy of the
BRTS would depend a lot upon how meticulously the system is designed in terms of
The foremost policy recommendation
for Indian cities is to actively follow and
implement the objectives of the National
Urban Transport Policy (NUTP).
22
level boarding, junction design, and operational planning. A system which allows easy
and faster boarding-alighting (than regular buses), minimises the waiting time of the
commuters and prioritises BRT buses at the junction is likely to get more support from
commuters. It is possible to achieve these three crucial components of the BRT in both
the systems provided it is planned and implemented for that purpose. From the urban
governance point of view, building up a transit system like BRT requires a long-term
vision and commitment of continuously investing in the system.
It is important to understand that no single PT system can cater to the needs of transit
in any city. Furthermore, different existing and proposed transport systems need to
be integrated with each other in terms of physical access, fares/ticketing, institutions
and social marketing, as some of the successful examples in the world show us. The
BRTS therefore should not be seen as one pre-fixed system and cities should be given a
chance to adapt it according to their
own needs and requirements. They
should provide easy access to the
commuters and should also remain
affordable for the economically
disadvantaged, as they are the most
dedicated users of bus systems in cities. The BRTSs have to be developed as inclusive
systems accommodating the concerns of the NMT users and informal sector, as that is
the need of many cities in developing countries.
Implementation Issues
The implementation of the BRT projects is mired by the lack of coordination amongst
various government agencies, a lack of effective monitoring from the national
The BRTS should not be seen as one pre-
xed system and cities should be given a
chance to adapt it according to their own
needs and requirements.
23
government and a lack of interest in the city administrations to implement such complex
projects on a long-term basis. The most crucial implementation aspect is a clear
institutional set-up that is fully responsible for all aspects of the transport system and
has the ability to share its vision
with other stakeholders (i.e.,
traffic police) and to take them
along in the implementation
process. The funding for the
BRTS project should be linked
with performance-based
incentives. The cities opting
for low-carbon mobility should
be given priority over other
infrastructure funds as well. National-level monitoring and handholding can also facilitate
initiatives for local cooperation between other agencies. The national-level monitoring
should also make sure that the goals of the NUTP are not compromised and all aspects
of the project, such as infrastructure for walking and cycling, are also implemented with
efficiency. The national-level monitoring should be linked with the disbursement of funds
and performance-based incentives.
One another conflict seen consistently across the cities is over on-street parking. The
new facilities created, whether footpaths, cycle tracks or increased road width, were
encroached by roadside parking. Parking is seen as a ‘right’ of the motorist instead of
being seen as an act of privatizing the public space. Much of this parking on the BRT
corridors is long-term parking and not short-term and dynamic parking. All the parking
on the BRTS corridors continues to be free and this has become the major obstruction
in efficient street management. This means that the BRTS plans should include parking
policies as part of an overall integrated approach.
Overall Conclusion
Transport can facilitate mobility and access and thereby enhance the livelihoods of the
poor. Public transport represents a particularly important physical common property
resource for the urban poor. Good provision can enhance livelihood profiles and enable
the poor to develop and broaden their asset base. For low-income people in many
Indian cities, including Ahmedabad, public transport is either unaffordable or constitutes
a substantial financial burden. It is important for projects like the BRTS to be more
socially inclusive by expanding their reach to the urban poor. The urban poor can be
the dedicated users of the BRTS system provided they are recognized and included
in the system by innovating the fare system. The lost opportunity of building walking
and cycling facilities along the BRT corridors would have facilitated the travel of the
urban poor. There is a lot of scope for improvement in Ahmedabad’s BRTS before it will
achieve low-carbon mobility and equitable development.
The implementation of the BRT projects is
mired by the lack of coordination amongst
various government agencies, a lack of
effective monitoring from the national
government and a lack of interest in the city
administrations to implement such complex
projects on a long-term basis.
Information about the project:
UNEP Transport Unit (www.unep.org/transport) in
Kenya, UNEP Risø Centre (www.uneprisoe.org) in
Denmark and partners in India have embarked on a new
initiative to support a low carbon transport pathway in
India. The three-year 2.49 million Euro project is funded
under the International Climate Initiative of the German
Government, and is designed in line with India’s National
Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC). This project
aims to address transportation growth, development
agenda and climate change issues in an integrated
manner by catalyzing the development of a Transport
Action Plan at national level and Low Carbon Mobility
plans at cities level.
Key local partners include the Indian Institute of
Management, Ahmedabad, the Indian Institute of
Technology, Delhi and CEPT University, Ahmedabad. The
cooperation between the Government of India, Indian
institutions, UNEP, and the Government of Germany
will assist in the development of a low carbon transport
system and showcase best practices within India, and for
other developing countries.
Homepage : www.unep.org/transport/lowcarbon
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE)
Transport Unit
P.O Box 30552
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel : +254 20 762 4184
Email : lowcarbon@unep.org
www.unep.org/transport/lowcarbon
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
