Re-Imagining Inclusive Urbanisation - People Building Better Cities

Geetam Tiwari

Geetam Tiwari

MoUD Chair Professor Department of Civil Engineering/Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Program (TRIPP)

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (IITD)

Inclusive Transport: An Essential Component of

Inclusive Urbanization

Global Studio 2012, January 7-9, Bhopal

The Urban India Indicator 2001 2011

Total population 1.02 b 1.2 b

Urban population 286 m 377 m

% urban population 28 31

% urban growth rate 31.5 31.8

Number of towns 5161 7935

No. of UAs/Cities (100,000 +)

384 468 (70 % of urban pop.)

No. of UAs/Cities (1 million +)

35 53 (43 % of urban pop.)

No. of Mega Cities (10 million +)

3 3 (13 % of urban pop.)

Greater Mumbai: 18.4 m 30-60% poor Delhi: 16.3 m Kolkata: 14.1 m

Urban poor in Delhi Symbiosis between formal and informal sectors ~90% people are employed in

unorganised sector( 2002)

48% unorganised sector is dependent on “own business”-vendors etc.

50% women have daily wage jobs

Women are either domestic workers, self employed, or street vendors.

52% women walk to work

Women have longer work days than men

Identification of Informal Land Use

Identification of Informal Land Use

Residential Area

Office Complex

School Complex Guess what’s this?

Travel patterns of Urban poor and others (Delhi 2001)

Bus, twheelers and cars

Bicycle, Bus, walk

Travel Patterns of Urban Poor

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

<10,000

10,000 - 25,000

>25,000

Source: Transport Demand Forecast Study by RITES, 2008

Travel patterns of Urban poor Delhi low income households(2011), Employed and Unemployed

Walk 87%

Bicycle 2%

Bus 8%

Cycle Rickshaw 1%

Car 0%

Other 2%

Walk 49%

Bicycle 15%

Bus 23%

Cycle Rickshaw

4%

Car 3%

Other 6%

Employed persons Walk 49% Bus 23% Bicycle 15%

Unemployed persons Walk 87% Bus 8% Bicycle 2%

Travel patterns of Urban poor Delhi low income households(2011), Women and men

Employed Men Walk 34% Bus 27% Bicycle 22%

Employed women Walk 86% Bus 13% Bicycle 1%

Walk 86%

Bicycle 1%

Bus 13%

Walk 34%

Bicycle 22%

Bus 27%

Cycle Rickshaw 5%

Car 4%

Motorcycle 1%

Other 7%

Activities Low Income Informal Neighborhood

� Self planned � Land squatting � Proximity to formal sector � Travel not mere means but as part of

activity

Characteristics of Informal settlements (Urban Poor) �  Location

� wrt access to employment(formal and informal)

�  Activity Planning � Combining production and consumption activities

�  Space usage � High intensity of space usage through multiple use

% Workers in informal sector Male Female Persons

55th Round 67.5 68.7 67.7

61st Round 73.7 63.5 71.7

There is increased informalisation of urban employment

IIT Delhi 2010

Sustainable Transport

Organising transport such that the consumption of energy , environment and land does not endanger the opportunities of future generations to reach at least the same welfare level as those living now.(Scarce resources) Access to goods and services for all inhabitants of the urban area Global concern of Co2 and local health concerns

Delhi/India Climate Policy projects �  Metro extension �  BUS corporatisation �  AFCS �  Flyovers, ROBs, RUBs �  Street lighting

Pedestrian and bicycle facilities missing !

Current (GREEN)TRANSPORT projects �  CNG in Public Transport: Initial outcry Bus travel becomes expensive and fleet size reduces �  Metro : Strong support from media PT becomes expensive, poor household relocated �  BRT(peds, bicycle): Strong opposition from media Bus travels faster than car, car lanes congested

Converting walking trips tp motorised trips- buses, RTVs, LCVs

Long cycling trips

Time poverty of women increases

Opportunity for “self employed” business reduces

Large numer of people relocated for metro and other development projects

Distance to main road after relocation

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Site NumbersDi

stan

ce (m

ts)

OriginalRelocated

Distance to bus-stop after relocation

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Site Numbers

Dist

ance

(mts

)

OriginalRelocated

• Rehabilitation of slums results in converting nmv trips to mv trips

•  avg. distance to main road before relocation< .5 km.

• avg. distance to main road after relocation>2 kmn

• Avg. distance to bus stop 200 m before relocation

• Avg. distance to bus stop 1 km after relocation

• Minimum distance to bus stop before 10m, after 1km

More people travel longer distances in planned settlement

Daily Travel Distance per person (cumulative)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

<=1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Travel Distance (Km)

No.

of

peop

le (

perc

enta

ge)

Before relocationAfter relocation

Increase in travel cost and travel time

Daily Travel Time per person (cumulative)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

15 45 90 150

210

270

330

390

>7hr

s

Travel Time (min)

No.

of p

eopl

e (p

erce

ntag

e)

Before relocationAfter relocation

Daily Travel Expenditure per person (cumulative)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

0 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 >50

Travel expenditure (INR)

No.

of p

eopl

e (p

erce

ntag

e)

Before relocationAfter relocation

0102030405060708090

100

Modal share

0.05-0.1

0.1-0.5 .5-1 1.0-2.0 2.0-5.0 >5.0

City population (million)

walk Cycle Rick-shaw Three Public Transport Cars MTW

Urban Mobility PT and NMV based, MTW majority personal vehicles

60-30% carbon neutral trips

Increase in PT will increase CO2 Emissions!

Indian context/ Pro Poor �  NMT and Public transport is used by people who do not have other

choice: CAPTIVE USERS �  Captive users may shift to carbon intensive modes because of

�  Existing hostile NMT and public transport infrastructure �  Increase in income levels & changed aspirations

�  Short trip lengths due to compact city structure resulting in high percentage of potential users of NMT

Land use policy with regards to low income/informal sector???

Low carbon mobility plan Retain Shift Improve

Urban Transport and Urbanisation �  I. 1950-1970

� < 20% urbanisation, focus rural development, masterplanning initiated in some cities( US aided)

� Central govt initiative for shelter policies, 1956 Slum Area clearance act passed

�  NMV share ~60 % urban transport

Urban Transport and Urbanisation -2

�  II. 1970-1990 �  Formation of slums recognized as a problem(formation of TN

Slum Clearance Board, 1971) � Controlled by ruling party: orientation away from eviction and

resettlement � WB entry into Urban sector funding(1975) � Delink the TNSCB from political influence deregulation of

markets,privatisation of municipal services, cost recovery, land tenure

Urban Transport and Urbanisation -3 �  II. 1990 onwards

�  Extending banks recommendation from Chennai to other cities: create serviced plots in large scale sites, increase the interest rate for that slum dwellers paid for mortgages

�  1980- city beautification scheme, slum eviction throughout the city, parking lots made in place of slums

� WB records show improved slums for76,000 households, at less than half the cost of tenement construction

IIT Delhi Oct-09

RTI in Urban areas 15% of RTI deaths in the country occurred in cities with a population of more than a million ~ transport infrastructure investment accompanied with increase in fatalities rate Highest increase in cities close to the National highways

Possible Impact on CO2 (woodcock J et al, Lancet, 2009) London  Popula+on London Delhi 2006  =  7.5m  2030  =  9.0m Delhi  Popula+on 2004  =  14.8m 2030  =  26.0m Aggregate  

Transport  CO2  Emissions

Transport  CO2  Emissions  Per  Person  (tCO2/  person)

CO2  Emissions  Reduc;on  on  1990  (%)

Aggregate  Transport  CO2  Emissions

Transport  CO2  Emissions  Per  Person  (tCO2/  person)

CO2  Emissions  Increase  on  1990  (%)

(tonnes) 2006  London  2004  Delhi

9,647,900 1.3 -­‐2.50% 6,146,651 0.4 97% 2010  BAU 9,935,897 1.3 0% 8,268,298 0.5 165% 2030  Scenario  1  BAU

10,381,318 1.2 4.80% 19,550,693 0.8 526% 2030  Scenario  2  LCD

6,480,565 0.7 -­‐39% 17,069,668 0.7 447% 2030  Scenario  3  AT

6,120,306 0.7 -­‐43% 10,458,736 0.4 235% 2030  Scenario  4  ST

3,608,226 0.4 -­‐65% 9,327,207 0.4 199%

Government initiatives(2001-2010) Exclusive visions, exclusive clubs

�  4378 urban agglomerations and towns identified by census in India. 2/3rd of the urban population lives in small and medium size cities.

�  Mumbai first(Mckensy 2003), Taskforce report metro,flyovers, sky train to transform the city, closing the doors to new migrants with cutoff dates for rehabilitation

�  JNNURM scheme by Government of India (GoI) has identified 63 cities (phase I) emphasis on macro level infrastructure .

�  Of the identified 63 cities �  BRTS corridors have been planned and approved for 9 cities, �  bus procurement has been sanctioned for 53 cities �  and other projects related to infrastructure expansion have been approved for 21

cities �  12th Plan document: Cities >2 million population to have metro

Neither green nor pro poor !!

Inclusive rd section: Bus, bicycle, three wheelers, street vendors A.N.Junction , Delhi, 2008 2 bus platforms (near side of junction) capacity:TU of 10 vehicles,at grade crossing

Line capacity: 9000 prs/h Peak demand: 6000 prs/h

Design of street vendors �  Street vendors spaces defined by benches and bollards

located outside pedestrian path and cycle track

Pro poor trasnport possible:Bicycle lanes, pedestrian paths

IIT Delhi January 08

Development and modernity is associated with technology (fuel, automobile, metro rail)

External financing favours large construction projects ( metro vs

buses) Zero emission modes, walking and cycling have no “market value”

i.e. financing through land development or loans not possible, hence no takers!

Successful public transport projects are those which do not affect the

cars adversely not just benefiting the public transport users!

Urban Transport challenges