Presentation by Prof Geetam Tiwari on Pro-poor and Green (low carbon) Urban Transport at the UMI 2011. This accompanies the video recording of the talk available in 2 parts at http://youtu.be/bBKL56t06ck (Part 1) and (http://youtu.be/Xt9TsUKShV4 Part 2). Prof Tiwari talks about the nature of urban India which has seen more growth in the number of smaller towns than mega cities; the lack of attention on the transportation needs of the smaller towns; who are the urban poor and their preferred modes of transport; the need to support low carbon transport (non-motorized and public transport); why life cycle costs of infrastructure must be included in cost benefit analysis. Prof Tiwari points out that in the past few years attention has been only on technological inputs and not enough on NMT, PT or land use and shelter policies - that is to say, efforts so far have not been pro-poor. Inclusive transport requires that attention be paid to non motorized and public transport, which are the preferred moes of transport of the poor. They are captive users becuase they have no other choice. They may shift to carbon intensive modes when they are able to, partly also because of hostile existing NMT and PT. Indian cities are already compact and mixed use, often by violating formal plans, and we should see how this can be formalized. The challenge is how to retain low carbon modes of transport for most of the population (as their choice) and how to effect the shift from high to low carbon modes for the smaller percentage who do use private motorized. Prof Tiwari presents case studies (Delhi, Pune, Patna) to see how modal share might change with improvements in PT, PT and NMT, and NMT alone. Prof Tiwari also presents a brief overview of govt policies on urban transport and orbanization over the last 6 decades and the link between shelter policies, slum rehab and transportation. She ends by saying that the investments in urban transportation infrastructure in the last decade has been neither green nor pro-poor.

1. Pro-poor transport policy
Towards Green Economy
Geetam Tiwari
MoUD Chair Professor
Department of Civil Engineering/Transportation Research and Injury
Prevention Program (TRIPP)
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (IITD)
UMI 2011/ EST 4-6 December, 2011, Delhi India

2. Green Economy
Focus on Low Carbon Transport
Access to goods and services for all
inhabitants of the urban area
Global concern of CO2 and local health
concerns
IIT Delhi 2010

3. 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 384 468
(100,000 +) (70 % of urban pop.)
No. of UAs/Cities 35 53
(1 million +) (43 % of urban pop.)
No. of Mega Cities 3 3
(10 million +) (13 % of urban pop.)
Greater Mumbai: 18.4 m 30-60% poor
Delhi: 16.3 m
Kolkata: 14.1 m

4. who are the urban poor
Urban poor are:
 the slum dwellers
 the pavement dwellers
 living on the urban periphery, squatting on vacant
lands
 those employed as casual labour
 those recent migrants from rural areas,
particularly those coming from small and
marginal farm and landless labour households
 Seasonal migrants
 those with no or low education and no or low
skills

5. Travel patterns of Urban poor and
others (Delhi 2001)
Bus, twheelers and cars
Bicycle, Bus, walk

6. Travel patterns of Urban poor
Delhi low income households(2011)
Cycle Car Other
Rickshaw 3% 6%
4%
Cycle Car Other
Rickshaw 0% 2%
Bicycle 1% Bus Walk
2% 23% 49%
Bus
8%
Bicycle
15%
Walk
87%
Employed persons
Walk 49%
Bus 23%
Bicycle 15%
Unemployed persons
Walk 87%
Bus 8%
Bicycle 2%

7. Travel patterns of Urban poor
Delhi low income households(2011)
Motorcycle
Car
1%
Cycle 4%
Bicycle Bus Rickshaw Other
1% 5% 7% Walk
13%
34%
Bus
27%
Walk Bicycle
86% 22%
Employed Females Employed Males
Walk 86% Walk 34%
Bus 13% Bus 27%
Bicycle 1% Bicycle 22%

8. What is low carbon transport?
Desirable Least carbon
emissions &
level of maximum
mobility accessibility
NMT
Transport system that encourages the use of
low carbon emitting modes of transport i.e. Public
NMT and Public transport. transport

9. Factors Impacting Emission Levels
Technological
changes
+Life cycle
cost of
infrastructure
Planning and
Policy
initiatives

10. Possible LC Scenarios
Reserving Improving Change in
Improving
ROW Non- operation plan
Policy changes public Tax policy
motorized
Investment transport Investment
trends transport trends
Urban R&D
Land use Technological Tax policy
Shelter policy structure changes Other charges

11. 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 Retain Shift Improve
plan

12. Expected Outcome of LCMP
 Propose strategies and plans to
 EncourageNMT and public transport users to
shift from captive to choice users
 Encourage the use of NMT and public transport
by the potential users
 Technological improvements to reduce emissions
from motorized transportation
 Reflections on land use and shelter policy
 Evaluate the impact of strategies, plans and
projects on emissions, accessibility, and social
sustainability

13. Scenario development
 Three scenarios
 Improving only bus infrastructure
 Improving both bus and NMT infrastructure
 Improving only NMT infrastructure
 For each scenario
 Maximum Shift Scenario and
 Minimum Shift Scenario

14. Share of
Maximum shift scenario Share of
trips longer
trips
shorter
than 5 km
than 5 km
1. Improving only bus shifting to
shifting to
bus
infrastructure NMT
50% of the
 Longer trips shift to the use of
long trips
bus Scenario 1 made by 0%
 Existing use of bus for shorter MTW and
trips continues IPT
50% of the 30% of the
2. Improving both bus and long trips short trips
Non-motorized transport Scenario 2 made by made by
infrastructure MTW and bus, MTW
IPT and IPT
 Longer trips shift to the use of 30% of
bus the short
 Shorter trips shift to walking and trips made
Scenario 3 0% by
cycling
motorized
3. Improving only NMT Note: transport
infrastructure Modal shift does not occur from four-
wheelers

15. Minimum shift Share of
Share of
scenario trips longer
trips
shorter
than 5 km
than 5 km
shifting to
1. Improving only bus bus
shifting to
infrastructure NMT
20% of the
 Longer trips shift to the use of long trips
bus made by
 Existing use of bus for shorter Scenario 1 MTW and 0%
5% of the
trips continues long trips
2. Improving both bus and made by IPT
10% of the
Non-motorized transport short trips
infrastructure Same as in
Scenario 2 made by
Scenario 1
 Longer trips shift to the use of bus, MTW
and IPT
bus
Same as
 Shorter trips shift to walking and
in
cycling Scenario 3 0%
Scenario 2
Note:
3. Improving only NMT Modal shift does not occur from four-
infrastructure wheelers

16. Resulting Emissions and Modal Share( minimum
shift )
100% 540 100% 250
90% 90%
530 Cars 80% 200 Cars
80% 70%
70% 520 60% 150
60% 510 50%
50% MTW 40% 100 MTW
500 30%
40% 20% 50
30% 490 10%
20% Auto 0% 0 Auto
480
scenario 1
scenario 2
scenario 3
baseline
10%
0% 470
Bus Bus
baseline scenario scenario scenario
1 2 3
NMT NMT
Delhi Patna
Maximum decrease in total emissions
100% 350
90% 300 Cars is in scenario 2 for all the three cities.
80%
70% 250
60%
50%
200
150
MTW The result highlights the need of NMT
40%
30%
20%
100 Auto infrastructure along with improved bus
10% 50
0% 0 Bus service in the cities to reduce
scenario 1
scenario 2
scenario 3
baseline
NMT
emissions in all the cities.
Per capita Maximum impact of the strategy can
emissions
Pune
be realized in Patna followed by Pune
and least being in Delhi.

17. CO2 Emissions in Maximum and Minimum Shift
Scenario
25%
20%
15%
10%
5% OSS
LSS
0%
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Delhi Pune Patna
• Maximum reduction in CO2 is in Patna and least in Delhi.
• Three mega cities of India – contribute to 50% of the total emissions
• Need to emphasize on megacities to reduce maximum amount of Co2
emissions
• Need to focus on large cities to get maximum benefit

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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 !!