REVIEW OF URBAN AFFAIRS
Ahmedabad’s BRT System A Sustainable Urban Transport Panacea? Darshini Mahadevia, Rutul Joshi, Abhijit Datey
The Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission and the National Urban Transport Policy have given a boost to bus rapid transit systems in many Indian cities and Ahmedabad’s Janmarg is the largest such network now in operation. This paper shows that while catering to latent transport demand, Janmarg has not promoted inclusivity or encouraged a shift away from private motorised transport. It has also given short shrift to non-motorised transport systems, which are important for inclusivity and for reducing the city’s carbon footprint. The study raises the pertinent question of whether public transport ought to be viewed as a technological fix or as part of a wider solution of urban or social issues.
This research was part of a project titled “Promoting Low-Carbon Transport in India” and is from a larger report titled “Sustainability and Social Accessibility of Bus Rapid Transit in India”. The project was managed by the United Nations Environment Programme and UNEP Riso Centre and funded by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany. The paper expresses the authors’ views and not of their institution. Darshini Mahadevia (
[email protected]) and Rutul Joshi (
[email protected]) are with the Faculty of Planning, and members of the Centre for Urban Equity, CEPT University, Ahmedabad; Abhijit Datey (
[email protected]) is a Research Associate at CUE.
56
1 Introduction
T
he Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) and the National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP) of 2006 have given a boost to urban public transport projects in general and bus rapid transit (BRT) projects in particular in various cities of India. The NUTP has emphasised safe, affordable, quick, comfortable, reliable, and sustainable accessibility to jobs, education, and recreation for India’s growing number of city residents.1 Learning from different approaches to BRT systems in different countries, the concept has been appropriated as a sustainable mode of public transport in India through the JNNURM. Since 2005, 12 Indian cities have shown interest in it and many of them are in various stages of either planning or implementing BRT systems. The BRT is essentially a bus-based public transport system, which becomes “rapid” if buses are given priority in urban traffic by allotting dedicated lanes to them and providing special signals at intersections. In the literature, it is viewed as a holistic system that can combine the goals of equity and sustainability through providing affordable mobility, infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists, and changing the conventional approach to road design and parking. A long-term view of a BRTS would include its integration with the land use plan and housing policy of a city for equitable accessibility and reducing travel distances, thereby reducing carbon emissions. By no means is a BRTS a metro on roads, as seems to be the current perception in India. Studies point to BRT systems as important transport options for equitable and sustainable urban growth (Pai and Hindalgo 2009). Research is available on the status of BRT systems and their characteristics in the Indian context (Kishore 2009; Pai and Hindalgo 2009; Tiwari and Jain 2010); their technological, institutional, operational and management issues (Pai and Hindalgo 2009; Tiwari and Jain 2010; Ponnaluri 2010); their financing (Pai and Hindalgo 2009; Tiwari and Jain 2010); and their contribution to improving mobility (Agrawal, Agrawal and Chakravarti 2010). Tiwari and Jain (2010) have also paid attention to the integration of the BRT with other modes of transport such as walking, intermediate para-transit (IPT), and non-motorised transport (NMT). However, there are no studies of BRT systems in Indian cities that look into their accessibility by different social groups, especially poor urban communities. This paper attempts to fill the gap by undertaking an in-depth analysis of the BRTS in Ahmedabad, which is currently the largest BRT network in november 30, 2013
vol xlviiI no 48
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
REVIEW OF URBAN AFFAIRS
India. We assess the Ahmedabad BRT from the standpoints of sustainability and equity, based on the claims and promises in its two detailed project reports. The study has two guiding principles – sustainable mobility and equity. Sustainable mobility (prioritising accessibility) describes all forms of transport that minimise fuel consumption and carbon emissions by minimising the very need to travel (Knowflacher 2007; Banister 2008). Knowflacher argues that traditional urban transport planning based on “growth of mobility” and “travel time saving by increasing speed” end up creating more transport, environmental, and socio-economic problems. It also creates higher mobility-oriented infrastructure and urban forms, which make it difficult for more sustainable modes to operate in cities. There is a great danger of creating the situation of “lock-in” for cities with automobile-dependent infrastructure. Transport interventions across the world are attempting to encourage accessibility, rather than travelling. In the context of climate change, the notion of sustainability has the specific goal of reducing carbon emissions. Low-carbon mobility is prioritised, involving zero-carbon modes such as walking and cycling, or shared and public modes of transport where emissions per commuter are much lower. In the context of equity, Vasconcellos (2001) argues that transport is not an end in itself. The end has to be the equitable appropriation of space and corresponding access to social and economic life. There have been massive investments in urban infrastructure in developing cities, and policy formulation has to consider whether these investments are used for the betterment of everyone in society. The idea of equity is a paradigmatic approach to policymaking where everyone’s share in the system is recognised and provided for. Since mobility is indicative of specific socio-economic situations, the transport system in a city should be inclusive and equitable. Evidence of the Ahmedabad BRTS displacing a large number of street vendors is coming in and there has been no systematic survey of these processes as yet. The exception was a study by the Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), which documented the displacement of 2,000 vendors in the first phase of the Ahmedabad BRT (Our Inclusive Ahmedabad 2010). The primary survey in this paper focuses on accessibility to Ahmedabad’s BRTS by different social groups, and the shift from personal motorised transport (PMT) to the BRTS. Section 2 places BRT in the Indian context and introduces Janmarg, the Ahmedabad BRTS. Section 3 presents the findings of the primary survey among users of the Ahmedabad BRTS. The last section discusses the findings and makes recommendations for future transport policies (particularly in Ahmedabad) with an emphasis on social equity and sustainability. 2 BRT Systems in the Indian Context
Urban India has seen a very high increase in the number of motorised vehicles in recent decades. The NUTP2 states that “while the population of India’s six major metropolises increased by about 1.9 times during 1981-2001, the number of motor vehicles went up by over 7.75 times during the same period” (2006: 1-2). The Census 2011 shows that at least 35% Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
november 30, 2013
vol xlviiI no 48
(27.76 million) of urban households had a motorised twowheeler and 9.7% (7.65 million) had a motorised four-wheeler. While, on the whole, registered motor vehicles increased by 2.4 times during 2002-11, or at the rate of 10.2% per annum, in 19 metropolitan cities for which two-time point data is available, the increase was 8.8% per annum (Transport Research Wing 2012: 3-4). In spite of such a rapid vehicular growth, the number of vehicles per 1,000 population is still low at 117 in India compared to the US (828), UK (544), Brazil (275) and South A frica (170) (MoRTH 2011). However, continued high economic growth will increase vehicle density in India in coming years. Besides motor vehicles, urban traffic in India includes high levels of NMT. Walking and cycling constitute 42% of the total trips and public transport 16% (Table 1). Walking and cycling are by no means preferred modes – they are “no choice” modes used by the urban poor. A sustainable transport paradigm would imply shifting motorised vehicle users, mainly car (16%) and two-wheeler (21%) users, to public transport while maintaining the NMT trips in a city. Walking, cycling, and public transport constitute 74% of all trips in cities with a population above eight million, and 66% in cities above four million. In cities from one million to five million, the share of motorised two-wheelers is between 20% and 29% and of fourwheelers 10% to 12%. This needs to be addressed by urban transport systems and policies, while ensuring that half the trips by walking and cycling are retained. Table 1: Modal Share in Cities of India (2007, percentage distribution in each category) City Category according to Population
Category 1a (< 0.5 million, plain terrain) Category 1b (< 0.5 million, hilly terrain) Category 2 (0.5-1.0 million) Category 3 (1.0-2.0 million) Category 4 (2.0-4.0 million) Category 5 (4.0-8.0 million) Category 6 (above 8 million) Total
Walking Cycling
34 57 32 24 25 25 22 31
3 1 20 19 18 11 8 11
2W
Public Transport
Car
IPT
26 6 24 24 29 26 9 21
5 8 9 13 10 21 44 16
27 28 12 12 12 10 10 16
5 0 3 8 6 7 7 5
2W = 2-wheelers, such as scooters and motorcycles. IPT = Intermediate public transport, such as autorickshaws. Source: Wilbur Smith Associates and Ministry of Urban Development (2008), p v.
Public transport systems in Indian cities have not kept pace with the increase in demand, compelling people to turn to either personalised modes or IPT (Ministry of Urban Development 2008), creating congestion and air pollution. More bizarre, road widening and flyover construction, not improving the public transport system, have been seen as solutions, though the NUTP takes a different view. There have been no comprehensive attempts to support municipal or state-run urban bus services, which are often erratic, depend on illmaintained bus fleets, and lack financial and human resources. Public transport fares are kept low while other opportunities for raising revenue are not explored, making it difficult to afford even routine maintenance and vehicle replacement, let alone system modernisation and expansion (Pucher, Korattyswaroopam and Ittyerah 2004). This explains the low proportion of public transport in the overall modal share in India’s cities. 57
REVIEW OF URBAN AFFAIRS
Realising the importance of public transport in cities and equity concerns, the NUTP has the following objectives. (i) To bring about a more equitable allocation of road space among various users, with people, rather than vehicles, as the main focus; (ii) To encourage greater use of public transport and NMT modes by offering central financial assistance for this purpose; and (iii) To enable the establishment of multi-modal public transport systems that are well-integrated, providing seamless travel across modes (Ministry of Urban Development 2007). Under the JNNURM’s Urban Infrastructure and Governance (UIG) component, 24.2% of the total allocations were for transport-related projects. However, 13.3% of this was for road widening and flyover building and only 8.66% for mass transit, while the rest was for parking and other small transport projects (Mahadevia 2012). In spite of the NUTP’s objectives, the largest portion of transport-related funds in the JNNURM was spent on roads. The NUTP supports BRT systems for their cost-effectiveness and many benefits as rail-based transport systems are too expensive to build and maintain in the long term. In the Indian context, this can be shown by comparing the cost of the Delhi metro project with a BRTS. The cost of the Delhi Metro Rail Corridor of 190 kilometres (Phases I and II) is Rs 29,702 crore (Singh 2011) ($5.6 billion),3 or Rs 156 crore ($29.5 million) per km. For this amount, 2,900 km of a BRT network, at the cost of Rs 10 crore ($1.93 million) per km, could have been constructed. BRT as an option is also directly linked with NMT systems. Bogotá’s BRTS’s success is attributed to the importance given to walking and cycling, along with linking the system with land use and housing policy. The NMT modes are zerocarbon and low cost and walking-cycling are the best accessegress modes for a public transit system. Successful BRT projects internationally have organised the right of way as an urban design or street design project instead of just a motorised traffic-based design. This approach is suitable for Indian cities because of the 42% share of walking and cycling. In particular, BRT systems have an advantage in the Indian context because of a multi-nuclei urban form, mixed land use, and trips distributed in multiple directions, which make average trip lengths low. This kind of urban form and land use system also make it difficult to find high ridership corridors for efficient metro rail services. With this knowledge, the NUTP recommended mandatory integration of NMT infrastructure with the BRT projects proposed in cities. Twelve cities have BRT corridors at various stages of development and operation, with 50% of the cost as financial assistance from the central government under the JNNURM. While, the Ahmedabad BRTS has taken off, others, of which we have studied Pune, Indore, and Jaipur (Mahadevia, Joshi and Datey 2012), have been subverted or sacrificed at the altar of the metro lobby. 2.1 Ahmedabad BRT System
The city of Ahmedabad is the seventh largest urban agglomeration (and fifth largest municipal area) in India with a population of 6.35 million in 2011,4 registering a growth rate of 3.5% 58
per annum in the decade of 2001-11. Among metropolitan cities, it has received the second largest per capita grant for JNNURM projects (Kundu and Samanta 2011). Of all the cities that received funds under the JNNURM for BRT projects, Ahmedabad has the largest network in operation and continues to expand it. At the time of this study, 44.5 km of BRT corridors were operational in Ahmedabad. Known as Janmarg, which means “people’s way”, the BRTS was opened in 2009, and it has won global as well as national awards as a best practice in the field of public transport. In the four since the opening of the first corridor, Janmarg carries 0.15-0.18 million passengers per day, with a daily revenue of Rs 7.5-9 lakh (Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation 2011). Ahmedabad had a bus-based public transport system, the Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service (AMTS), which began in 1947. A study in 1996 showed the AMTS had a bus fleet of 724, which operated on 187 routes, carrying 0.62 million passengers daily, earning a yearly revenue of Rs 4,759.30 lakh, and having a fleet utilisation rate between 80% and 83% (Central Institute of Road Transport 1996). The status of AMTS declined after the mid-1990s and by 2005, its bus fleet had fallen to 540 and the utilisation rate to 67.33%. The number of passengers dropped to 0.35 million per day, which meant a 44% decline. The yearly revenue was Rs 5,595.10 lakh (AMC, AUDA and CEPT University 2007), which, if adjusted for inflation, was a real decline in revenues of 27% over the period. But by the end of 2009, there was a turnaround, with the AMTS bus fleet increasing to 728, including those of private operators (Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation 2010: 2). Ahmedabad experienced a great increase in the number of motorised vehicles between 2002 and 2009 at a rate of 9.2% per annum (based on data in Ministry of Road Transport and Highways 2011: 4). Of the total 0.133 million motorised vehicles registered in Ahmedabad district during 2011, 43,000 (32%) were four-wheelers and 90,800 (68%) were two-wheelers (Thakor 2011). Ahmedabad has three different modal split estimates in three different reports that came out at three different times (Table 2). All three show the dominance of motorised twowheelers in the city’s traffic among motorised vehicles. At the same time, except the AMC-CEPT study of 2006, the others have the share of walking and cycling in the total modal share at around half, and it seems to have declined from 2000 to 2008. Although the share of motorised four-wheelers is low, it has increased over time. The share of public buses has also increased over time, but is still quite low. Table 2: City-Level Modal Split, Ahmedabad (in %) Mode Share in Earlier Studies
Walking Cycling Public Shared Auto Two- Cars- Others Total Buses Auto Rick- wheelers Vans Rickshaws shaws
LB-IPTS study 20001 37.6 13.2 AMC-CEPT 20062 Wilbur Smith Associates and MoUD (2008) 32.0
17.6 8.4 18.8 15.0
5.7 -
2.5 8.8*
25.3 35.0
2.5 3.1
0.3 100.0 5.8 100.0
15.0 11.0
-
7.0*
26.0
8.0
- 100.0
* Shared autorickshaws are assumed to be part of this as they are not mentioned separately. 1 As quoted by the detailed project report for BRTS Phase -1. 2 As quoted by the detailed project report for BRTS Phase -2.
november 30, 2013
vol xlviiI no 48
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
REVIEW OF URBAN AFFAIRS
The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) decided to construct a BRTS in 2006, coinciding with the launch of the JNNURM in 2005 and the NUTP in 2006 and the central government’s willingness to fund detailed project reports (DPRs) for the BRT systems. Ahmedabad was among the first to make use of this opportunity and submitted a DPR under the UIG component of the JNNURM. The project was approved in 2006 and work began in 2007. The sanctioned length of the project is 88.8 km and it is divided into two phases. The first phase is 58.3 km and the second 30.5 km (Figure 1). At the city level, there were expectations that roads would be well-laid, road space would be created for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vendors, on-street parking would be managed, and an efficient and reliable bus system would be provided as promised in the detailed project reports in 2006 and 2008. Figure 1: Janmarg Phases I and II Route Map Chandkheda
Naroda village
Sola RoB RTO Naroda AEC Bhopal
Kalupur Railway station Shivranjani
N Nehrunagar Maninagar Railway station
Soni ni chaali
Odhav
Narol
Phase 1 corridors (58 kms) Phase 2 corridors (30.5 kms) Source: http://www.indiatogether.org/2010/mar/eco-abadbrt.htm
The other important point that the planners of Janmarg had in mind was “completing a network and not a corridor”. Janmarg was the first BRT project that aimed at creating a city-wide network in its first proposal, rather than delineating a few isolated corridors. This approach helped to realise the project in the context of the city, rather than specific roads. It was decided to create a project on the lines of Bogotá’s Transmilenio, with bus stops in the middle of median bus lanes and closed corridors with BRT buses running in them. The system is not described here in detail, but we have elaborated the debates around it elsewhere (Mahadevia, Joshi and Datey 2012). The first BRT corridor was designed by following the idea of connecting “busy places but avoiding busy roads” so as to minimise resistance from private vehicle users, as happened in Delhi and Pune. It did not create any visible problem of congestion for private vehicle users when it began operation because it returned a similar amount of road space as it occupied. The Janmarg team has remained conscious about the branding and social marketing of the project, especially Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
november 30, 2013
vol xlviiI no 48
among the vocal middle classes who mainly drive private vehicles. This also fits into the larger politics of the state government of showcasing “development” in the city and giving all its credit to the incumbent chief minister. Janmarg could be said to be one of the most highly publicised government projects in Gujarat through advertisements in newspapers, and special articles extolling its successful use during festivals and national holidays. Above all, free rides were given on the system for the first three months after its launch. Local media frequently reported on the system, for example, future plans, facilities introduced in the corridors, the opinions of wellknown people, and so on. All this added favourably to the system’s image – locally, nationally – and internationally. Further, in this era of media and marketing, where branding and glamour have become very important for acceptability, Janmarg has worked towards achieving some of the glamour quotient the metro rail project in Delhi has. Public bus systems in India are generally associated with poor services, and Janmarg has worked hard to get rid of this image. Most stations are kept neat and clean, the frequency of buses is maintained, and support staff is always available. But there are differences in the experiences in east and west Ahmedabad – the east is a working class segment of the city while the west has residences of the elites of the state. The branding of Janmarg has created a schism between the two bus services, the AMTS and the BRTS, both owned and operated by the same entity, the AMC. While the BRTS was being associated with new, swanky services, the AMTS services became more irregular, faced financial problems and slowed down due to the increasing mixed traffic on roads narrowed by the BRTS. After Janmarg became operational, the AMTS’s situation has deteriorated, and though it has a fleet of 600-650 buses, utilisation is just 30% to 40% (Gujarat Samachar 2011). The BRTS is operated by a public sector special purpose vehicle (SPV) with bureaucrats as its office bearers, whereas the AMTS is still operated as a conventional government agency with political representatives. In the corridors where the BRT is operated, AMTS services have stopped so that the two do not compete on the same routes. There are no plans, at least in the public realm, to integrate the two in terms of road space and resource sharing, fares and ticketing, or creating one brand for public transport in the city. 3 Janmarg User Survey
Our study of the Ahmedabad BRTS was undertaken in 2011 when 44.5 km of the total planned 88.8 km was in operation. A total of 1,040 samples were drawn from 18 bus stations in proportion to the boarding reported at each station. Of this, 60% were drawn in the peak hours and 40% in the non-peak hours as per the proportion of peak-hour and the non-peak hour traffic volumes. The survey was conducted during weekdays to capture regular commuting and not weekend travel, and it was conducted on all the routes operational at the time. A onepage questionnaire that could be filled up by a passenger while waiting for a bus was used after pre-testing it. The user survey questionnaire solicited information on sex, income, age, 59
REVIEW OF URBAN AFFAIRS
occupational details, and vehicle ownership of the users, the distance travelled, the cost incurred, and the mode selected to reach the BRTS and the destination from the bus stop. It also asked about the distance travelled on the BRTS, the mode used before the BRTS, and whether the users undertook the journey at all before the BRTS. The purpose was to assess whether the system was inclusive and whether it had provided an opportunity to private vehicle users to shift to a public transport mode, thus reducing the carbon footprint of the city. However, the BRT network is still not widespread enough and well integrated with other public transit modes to induce a shift from private to public transport modes. 3.1 User Profile
Users of the BRTS comprised 72.5% males and 27.5% females, which gives a sex ratio of 379 (Table 3). Among the lowincome groups, that is, up to a monthly household income of Rs 10,000, the sex ratio was quite low compared to those with household incomes more than Rs 20,000 per month (Table 3). The sex ratio among BRTS users increased with an increase in monthly household income, indicating that the low-income women are less likely to use it. It also increased with the age group, the highest at 444 in middle-age group (41-59 years). Table 3: Income Profile and Sex Ratio of BRT System Users, Ahmedabad Household Income (Rs)
Male (%)
Up to 2,500 2,501-5,000 5,001-7,500 7,501-10,000 10,001-20,000 20,001- 30,000 30,001- 40,000 > 40,000 Total
1.7 12.7 12.1 13.9 28.2 12.5 8.0 10.9 100.0
Female (%)
1.7 9.8 8.0 11.2 27.6 16.4 8.4 16.8 100.0
Persons (%)
1.7 11.9 11.0 13.2 28.1 13.6 8.1 12.5 100.0
Sex Ratio
385 292 253 305 371 500 400 585 379
Source: Primary survey, CUE.
The use of the BRTS by low-income groups is low. Of the total users, only 13.7% belonged to households with a monthly income up to Rs 5,000. Just one-fourth of the users had monthly incomes up to Rs 7,500 and 62.2% of the users had monthly household incomes of more than Rs 10,000. Thus, the BRTS is largely being used by middle-income groups, with monthly incomes between Rs 10,000 and Rs 40,000. As per the National Sample Survey’s (NSS) consumption expenditure data of 2009-10, about 50% of urban households fall into the monthly household income category of up to Rs 5,000 (NSSO 2011). Hence, it can be safely assumed that households with incomes of Rs 5,000 per month or less are at the bottom half of the urban spectrum and do not use the BRTS in Ahmedabad to any great extent. Further, women among them use it even less. Another group that does not use the BRTS much is households with incomes more than Rs 40,000 per month, indicating that those with a propensity to use their own vehicles do not have much need of it. The largest user group of the BRTS in Ahmedabad is the youth and adult working population in the age group of 15 to 40 years, among whom the sex ratio is low at 369, which is 60
close to the overall sex ratio of 379 among users of all ages. There were hardly any children up to the age of 14 years using the BRTS and just 4.4% of the users were above 60 years. We have not probed why, but it is likely to be because of the perceived insecurity of boarding buses from the centre of the road in the absence of an effective traffic management system and also the need to change modes as the BRTS still does not have an extensive network. Workers constituted 63.8% of the users of the BRTS, but a low sex ratio of 226 indicated that working women do not find it convenient or affordable to use. In other words, just 42.7% of the female BRTS users were workers, whereas this proportion among males was 72%. In urban Gujarat, work participation rates (WPR) are high among women in the low-income population and it decreases with an increase in household income (Mahadevia 2012). Thus, among working women, the share of the low-income women is high, but they are not using the BRTS all that much. About two-thirds of the users who identified themselves as workers were employed in the private sector on a regular salary (Table 4). This was true among males as well as females. Among males, the next largest user category by employment type was high-income self-employed, and among females, public sector employees. Thus, largely, 75% of those with regular jobs use the BRTS. The proportion of casual labourers among BRTS users was low though they constitute 10% of the workers in the city (Mahadevia 2012). Table 4: Employment Profile of BRT Users by Sex, Ahmedabad Male (%)
Regular salaried public Regular salaried private Self-employed high wage Self-employed low wage Casual labour Unemployed Total
Female (%)
8.1 63.8 13.7 7.6 6.1 0.7 100.0
18.0 65.6 9.8 1.6 3.3 1.6 100.0
Persons (%)
10.0 64.1 13.0 6.5 5.6 0.9 100.0
Sex Ratio
500 232 162 49 121 500 379
Source: Primary survey, CUE.
3.2 Trip Purpose
Going to work is the single largest BRTS trip generator among males, with 55.4% of male users saying that was their purpose (Table 5). Among females, other purposes such as social, recreational, and Table 5: BRT System Trip Purpose Purpose Male Female Persons Sex Ratio religious were the largest (%) (%) (%) at 38.5%. Among those Work 55.4 35.0 49.8 239 who used the BRTS to acEducation 15.8 19.6 16.8 471 cess healthcare services, Health 2.4 4.5 3.0 722 the sex ratio was 722, indiShopping 1.7 2.4 1.9 538 Others* 24.7 38.5 28.5 591 cating that more women Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 379 did take it for this. Even in * Others includes social, recreational, and visits trips for shopping and other to religious places. Source: Primary survey, CUE. purposes, the sex ratio was higher than the average, indicating a relatively larger presence of women among social or recreational trip-makers. Different income groups use the BRTS for different purposes. The low-income groups, up to an income of Rs 10,000 per month, largely use it for going to work, whereas the november 30, 2013
vol xlviiI no 48
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
REVIEW OF URBAN AFFAIRS
higher-income groups use it more than them for going to educational institutions (Table 6). The low-income groups do not send their children to schools, which would require them to spend money on transport, and the use of the BRTS for educational purposes is quite low among them.
used either the railway or state transport to reach the BRT system. Only 2.8% used motorised two-wheelers.
Table 6: Trip Purpose by Household Income, Ahmedabad (in %)
Walking 50.0 AMTS 13.4 Autorickshaw (shared) 19.0 Autorickshaw (full fare) 3.5 Motorised 2-wheeler 2.8 Motorised 4-wheeler 0.0 State transport bus 8.5 Railways 2.8 Total 100.0
Income (Rs)
Work
Education
Health
Shopping
Others
Total
Up to 5,000 5,000 to 10,000 10,001 to 40,000 > 40,000 Total
60.6 55.0 45.5 45.4 49.8
5.6 11.2 20.1 26.9 16.8
3.5 3.2 2.9 2.3 3.0
2.1 1.6 2.3 0.8 1.9
28.2 29.1 29.2 24.6 28.5
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Primary survey, CUE.
Table 8: Mode Taken to Reach BRTS by Income Groups, Ahmedabad (in %) Up to Rs 5,000
Income Group (Rs) Rs 5,000 to Rs 10,000 to Rs 10,000 Rs 40,000
54.6 14.3 16.3 4.4 5.2 0.0 2.4 2.8 100.0
42.9 12.6 20.9 5.8 7.5 1.5 5.4 3.3 100.0
Total Above Rs 40,000
39.2 14.6 16.9 11.5 10.0 2.3 3.8 1.5 100.0
46.3 13.4 19.0 5.9 6.6 1.1 4.9 2.9 100.0
3.3 Travel Behaviour
Source: Primary survey, CUE.
First, we discuss the characteristics of access and egress trips. On the whole, 46% (50% among females and 45% among males) of the BRTS users reached the station on foot (Table 7), meaning that only those with a station within a reasonable walking distance use the system. The next highest mode (19%) used to reach stations was shared autorickshaws, which are easily available compared to buses run by the AMTS. However, 13.4% used the AMTS. To reach the BRTS station, the AMTS was used for distances of more than half a kilometre and shared or full-fare autos for distances exceeding 1 km. Females tended to use share autos (22% of them) more than males (18% of them). Since, the BRT network is connected to regional transport routes, railways, and bus, about 8% of the BRTS commuters used inter-city transport modes to access it. No one was cycling to a BRT station, perhaps because of the non-availability of cycle parking facilities.
For egress as well, walking dominated the mode to reach the destination from the station, with 64% of the users walking to destinations and there was not much gender difference here (Table 7). A much higher proportion of users walked to their destination from the station than the proportion that walked to the station from their homes. This means that users are willing to go a longer distance to reach a station if their destination is closer to where they alight. Hence, the average egress distance travelled was 1.62 km (less than the distance to reach the BRTS) and for about half the population it was 0.27 km. About 58% of the users traversed less than half a kilometre to reach their destination from the a station. But there were also a significant proportion of users who travelled more than 1 km from a station to their destination. Only a very small percentage of males cycled to their destination from the station. They rented a bicycle from a nearby shop to reach their destination. However, there are no bike-sharing or renting systems formally integrated with the BRTS as yet, although there is scope for them. The second highest mode used to reach destinations was shared autos (16.7%), followed by the AMTS (7.7%). Four-fifths of those walking to their destination from the station covered distances up to half a kilometre, and 19% walked between half and 1 km. Three-fourths of the AMTS users had to go more than 1 km to reach their destination. All those who used autos, shared or full fare, traversed more than 1 km to their destination. The average trip length was 8.7 km and the median trip length was 6.9 km on the BRTS. Just 23% travelled up to 3 km on the system and the same proportion between 3 km and 6 km. Those travelling more than 12 km on the system comprised 26%. The average total trip length, which consisted of the BRTS trip and the access and egress trips, was 12.92 km. The median total trip length (including access and egress trips) was 10.84 km. The average trip lengths at the city level were 5.4 km (AMC, AUDA and CEPT University 2007). For around 40% of all users (39% among males and 41% among females), the total trip length was up to 9 km. For 26% (28% among males and 20% among females), it was between 9 km and 15 km. This means that BRT commuters are long-distance commuters for whom using motorised two-wheelers has
Table 7: BRT System Access and Egress Modes by Sex, Ahmedabad (in %) For Access Modes
Walking AMTS Autorickshaw (shared) Autorickshaw (full fare) Motorised 2-wheeler Motorised 4-wheeler State transport bus Railways Total
Male
44.8 14.6 17.9 5.4 6.8 1.1 5.7 3.7 100.0
Female
50.0 10.1 22.0 7.0 6.3 1.0 2.8 0.7 100.0
For Egress Male Female
64.3 0.4 7.7 17.5 4.5 4.4 0.4 0.5 0.3
63.6 0.0 7.7 14.3 8.7 4.5 0.7 0.3 0.0
Source: Primary survey, CUE.
A BRT station was within half a kilometre of their homes for about half the users, which resulted in them walking to it. For 15%, the station was between half a kilometre and 1 km. The average distance to a BRTS station was 1.92 km because of outliers. The median distance was 0.38 km, which meant that half the population travelled 0.38 km or less to reach a station, which meant a walk of about five to seven minutes. Access modes differed by income. About 40% of the highincome BRTS users took either autos (shared or full fare) or private modes to stations (Table 8). Another 40% among them walked. Among the urban poor (less than Rs 5,000 per month), half walked to stations, one-third took the AMTS or a shared auto, and 11%, who were long-distance commuters, Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
november 30, 2013
vol xlviiI no 48
61
REVIEW OF URBAN AFFAIRS
become cumbersome on a daily basis. The average trip length increases with income (Table 10), indicating that the lowerincome groups travel shorter distances in general. Since most of the BRTS trips are for work, they travel shorter distances for work than the higher-income groups (Table 9).
Table 11: Distribution of Users by Proportion of Their Total Trip by the BRT System among Different Income Groups, Ahmedabad
Table 9: Distribution of Households of Different Income Groups by Total Trip Length by Sex, Ahmedabad (in %) Income (Rs)
Up to 40.00
Proportion of the Total Trip by BRT (%) 40.01 - 60.00 60.01 - 80.00 More than 80.00
Total
Up to 5,000
10.6
15.5
27.5
46.5
100.0
5,000 to 10,000
11.6
22.7
24.3
41.4
100.0
10,001 to 40,000
13.5
19.9
25.7
40.8
100.0
> 40,000
21.5
25.4
20.0
33.1
100.0
Total
13.7
20.7
24.9
40.8
100.0
Total Trip Length (in km) 6.1 - 9 9.1 - 12 12.1 - 15 15.1 - 21
> 21
12.8
21.1
21.1
9.2
11.9
13.8 100.0
15.8
20.9
18.9
11.2
18.9
7.7 100.0
10,001 to -40,000 7.1
15.0
13.6
17.2
10.9
16.3
19.9 100.0
> 40,000
8.5
18.3
13.4
15.9
7.3
20.7
15.9 100.0
Up to 5,000
3.5
31.7
10.6
6.3
0.7
47.2
100.0
All
7.6
15.3
16.6
18.0
10.3
16.8
15.4 100.0
5,000 to 10,000
2.4
25.5
14.7
5.2
2.4
49.8
100.0 100.0
9.1
24.2
30.3
9.1
15.2
9.1
3.0 100.0
20.0
18.2
3.6
5.5
5.5
25.5
10,001 to 40,000 10.7
20.0
12.0
10.7
11.3
0.0
4.2
14.6
14.6
10.5
17.5
12.9
10.1
Male Up to 5,000 5,000 to 10,000
Female Up to 5,000 5,000 to 10,000 > 40,000 All
Up to 3
3.1 - 6
10.1 6.6
Total
Income (Rs)
Table 12: Frequency Distribution of BRT System Use Per Month, Ahmedabad Income Group (Rs) Infrequent
Number of Times BRT Used Per Month Up to 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20
Total > 21
10,001 to 40,000
4.8
30.0
19.5
4.1
4.4
37.1
> 40,000
6.2
26.2
25.4
3.1
1.5
37.7
100.0
21.8 100.0
Total
4.2
28.7
17.9
4.5
3.1
41.6
100.0
18.0
17.3 100.0
Source: Primary survey, CUE.
10.4
27.1
29.2 100.0
10.5
19.9
18.5 100.0
This could be because they take it as a matter of convenience or for partial cost saving and then take other para-transit options such as shared or full-fare autos for access and egress. Table 11 shows that the proportion of users with less than 40% of the trip by the BRTS declines with a fall in income and that the proportion of users with more than 80% of their trip by BRTS decreases with an increase in income. The frequency of BRTS use is not very high among any income group. Just 42% of the users were taking it for more than 21 days in a month (Table 12), that is, on a daily basis. A large proportion (45% to 55%) used it for up to 15 times a month. This means the BRTS still has a capacity utilisation issue and it has to find dedicated commuters who use it regularly in a longterm basis.
Source: Primary survey, CUE.
3.4 Affordability
Since 23% of the users travelled on the BRTS for short distances, a similar proportion (21%) paid the lowest fare. The average trip cost on the system has been Rs 6.73.5 For the total trip, which consists of the BRT trip and the access and egress trips, 27% of users incurred a cost of less than Rs 6 per trip. But the per trip expenditure of 29% was between Rs 6 and Rs 12. The average cost per total trip was Rs 15.18 and half the users incurred a cost of Rs 11 per trip. As a proportion of income, the transport cost came to a very small percentage for all income groups, except those with a monthly income of less than Rs 5,000. So, for this inTable 10: Average Trip Length (km) and Percentage of Income Spent on Transport come group, taking this by Income Groups, Ahmedabad public transit option repIncome Group Average Trip Percentage of Length (km) Income Spent resents a substantial proon Travel portion of their income at Up to 5,000 10.9 12.7 12.7% (Table 10). This is 5,000 to 10,000 11.8 4.1 higher than the average of 10,001 to 40,000 13.6 1.5 3% at the all-urban level > 40,000 14.6 1.1 (NSSO 2011) because this All 12.9 The income data collected was by ranges, and is the average of those the mid-point in the range has been taken as the using the BRTS. But there average income. Source: Primary survey, CUE. are many low-income families who are not using the BRTS, and if they are included in the average cost calculation, it would reduce the average proportion spent on conveyance. Since travel by the BRTS is an expensive option, low-income users who use this mode prefer that a large proportion of their trip is by it. Hence, 47% of the users with household incomes up to Rs 5,000 conduct more than 80% of their total trip by the BRTS (Table 11). This is because 50% of them walk to the station, which for 70% of them is up to 1 km. In contrast, in the high-income group (with incomes above Rs 40,000), the BRTS comprises only one-third of the total trip. For 21.5% among them, it constitutes less than 40% of their total trip expenditure. 62
Source: Primary survey, CUE.
3.5 Impact of BRT System
Before the BRTS began, a large proportion of the current users (47%) were taking AMTS buses (Table 13). They shifted to the new system because AMTS services deteriorated over time and were discontinued in the BRT corridors. The shift from shared autos (which have been banned in the BRT corridors) and full-fare autos was 13%. In that sense, the BRTS is unlikely to have affected the carbon emission level as users have shifted from one public transport mode to another. Just 12% Table 13: Mode Used before the BRT System (percentage distribution by income group) Mode Used Before Up to Rs 5,000
Walking Cycling AMTS Autorickshaw (shared) Autorickshaw (full fare) Motorised 2-wheeler Motorised 4-wheeler State transport bus No trip before BRT Total
2.1 4.2 52.1 18.3 9.9 4.2 0.0 0.7 8.5 100.0
Income Group (Rs) Total Rs 5,001 to Rs 10,000 to Above Rs 40,000 Rs 10,000 Rs 40,000
1.6 1.6 46.2 17.9 13.5 6.4 0.4 0.0 12.4 100.0
0.4 0.8 48.5 9.9 12.6 12.0 2.1 0.2 13.5 100.0
0.0 0.8 35.4 9.2 17.7 16.9 3.1 0.0 16.9 100.0
0.9 1.4 46.8 12.9 13.1 10.2 1.5 0.2 13.0 100.0
Source: Primary survey, CUE.
november 30, 2013
vol xlviiI no 48
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
REVIEW OF URBAN AFFAIRS
have shifted from private motorised modes and only 1% from walking. Among the poor, 52% of the current users were taking the AMTS and 18% were using shared autos, which makes a total of 70%. Just 2% of former pedestrians in this income group have shifted to the BRTS. Among the high-income group, 35% of the current users were using AMTS and 9% shared autos. Personal two-wheelers were used by 17%, full-fare autos by 18%, and personal four-wheelers by 3%. In all, 38% who were using energy-consuming modes have shifted to the BRTS, which would have a positive environmental impact. The BRTS has induced new trips. That means that those who were not taking trips earlier have begun to do so, indicating that there is enhanced mobility of some people. This proportion was 13% (Table 14). But the enhanced mobility was more among the higher-income groups than the poor. The higher percentage of social and recreational trips in overall BRT trips coincides with BRT-induced trips and shows that the system is being used for social and recreational purposes by the middle and higher-income groups. For instance, middle-class people residing in the west can now conveniently access Kankaria lake and the recreational facilities on the east. In the case of the poor, BRT-induced trips were for only 8.5% of current users, while among high-income groups, they were for 17% of current users. Table 14: Details of BRT-Induced Trips, Ahmedabad Income (Rs)
Up to 5,000 5,000 to 10,000 10,000 to 40,000 > 40,000 Total
Male
8.0 26.0 55.0 11.0 100.0
Female
11.4 14.3 42.9 31.4 100.0
Persons
Percentage of Current Trips That Are BRT-Induced
8.9 23.0 51.9 16.3 100.0
8.5 12.4 13.5 16.9 13.0
Source: Primary survey, CUE.
3.6 Non-Fulfilment of Comprehensive Transport System Promise
In spite of building the biggest BRT network in India with high operational efficiency, Ahmedabad has failed to design and implement facilities for walking and cycling as continuous features along the corridors. Footpaths and cycle tracks were not designed and built in all the corridors, compromising safety and access for pedestrians and cyclists. Wherever cycle tracks were built, their design did not suit cyclists. Since cyclists did not feel comfortable using the badly designed tracks, it became an excuse to remove them altogether. Even accessing the stations on central medians from the sides of roads by foot is difficult and unsafe. The implemented design is devoid of safe pedestrian crossings, which were there in the detailed project reports. Currently, there are no plans for future improvement of NMT facilities. On our survey of two stretches of the BRT route, we found that only 26.2% of the total length had bicycle tracks, of which only 65% was unobstructed (Table 15). In the case of footpaths, 83.7% of the BRT track had footpaths, but only 52.5% of these were unobstructed. In many instances, pedestrians and cyclists used the mixed traffic lane because of a lack of footpaths and cycle tracks along the BRT route. Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
november 30, 2013
vol xlviiI no 48
Table 15: Status of NMT Infrastructure in Ahmedabad BRT System BRT Length Bicycle Track Status (L + R) (in km; L + R) Provided as % Obstructed % of BRT of the Total Route Provided
RTO to Naroda Danilimda CR to Kankaria TE (Loop) Total
Footpath Provided (L + R) Provided as % Obstructed % of BRT of the Total Route Provided
63
32.5
35.0
85.0
52.6
15 78
0.0 26.2
35.0
78.0 83.7
52.0 52.5
Another conflict seen in cities all over India, and in Ahmedabad, is on-street parking. The new facilities created, whether footpaths, cycle tracks, or increased road width, have been encroached on by roadside parking. Parking is seen as a “right” of motorists, instead of as an act of “privatising public space”. Much of the parking alongside BRT corridors is long-term parking, not short-term or dynamic parking. All of it continues to be free, barring a few spots where paid-parking signboards hang without round-the-clock implementation. This has become a major obstruction in efficient street management, marginalising pedestrians and cyclists. This means that future BRT plans should have paid parking policies as demand management tools as part of the integrated approach to sustainable mobility. 4 Conclusions
There were two important questions asked as part of the user survey. One, is the BRTS being used by everyone in the city (including the urban poor)? Two, has it led to a modal shift in favour of public transport to address the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions? More often than not, in situations of latent demand for public transit, any new system works. But does it mean that the new transit system will keep increasing its share of trips without including the large mass of poor and low-income commuters or without facilitating a shift from private vehicles? The main issue here is whether the new public transit system is conscious of addressing these concerns of equity and sustainable mobility. If so, what are its long-term plans? Or why are they not in the public realm? This study showed that although the BRTS is promoted as a low-cost public transport alternative in Indian cities, it is not yet accessible to the majority of the urban poor, and especially women among them. This is so even with a number of low-income group settlements that are located close to the BRT corridors. The cost of the BRTS in Ahmedabad is too high to improve the accessibility of low-income households. It is higher than the cost of the AMTS or even shared autos. Providing a public transport system may not bring about gender equity if the costs of the new system are not kept in mind. The best option at the current level of incomes in Indian cities is to ensure accessibility to opportunities for the urban poor (especially women) through better land use planning, which provides work and social service in close proximity to poorer residences, and through shelter policies that promote in situ upgrades. Otherwise, improving access to public transport for low-income groups would mean continuing with public transport subsidies for some years to come. Effective parking regulations can contribute to these subsidies if they are 63
REVIEW OF URBAN AFFAIRS
planned well. The urban poor can be the dedicated users of the BRTS if they are recognised and included in it by revising the fare system. Transport can facilitate mobility and access, and thereby enhance the livelihoods of the poor. Public transport represents a particularly important common property resource for the urban poor. Good transport facilities can enhance livelihood options and enable the poor to develop and broaden their asset base. It is important for projects such as the BRTS to be more socially inclusive by expanding its reach to the urban poor. Comprehensive walking and cycling plans can connect poor households to a large range of services and livelihoods. If walking and cycling facilities were built along the BRT corridors as promised in the project reports, it would have been another way of facilitating the mobility of the urban poor. Without a good network of walking and cycling facilities, the BRT corridors in Ahmedabad have been reduced to a bus system running on central median lanes, which is a subversion of the very idea of a BRTS. This study raises the very pertinent concern of viewing public transport as a technological fix, rather than as part of a wider urban or social solution. This results in treating the BRTS as a metro on roads with exclusive characteristics. While such exclusivity does bring a good brand image, it
Notes 1
2
3 4
5
Source: urbanindia.nic.in/moud/quickaccess/ imp_links/nutp.pdf, (accessed in July 2008). The JNNURM is a flagship national programme for urban development of the Government of India. Source: http://urbanindia.nic.in/policies/ TransportPolicy.pdf (accessed on 27 September 2012). At the exchange rate of 1 $ = Rs 53 on 28 September 2012. Census 2011 data from http://censusindia.gov. in/2011-prov-results/paper2/prov_results_paper2_indiavol2.html (accessed on 15 October 2011). These fares were subsequently revised in December 2011 and January 2013, and the new fares are not reflected in our survey as it was completed before the fare hike.
References Agrawal, A, A K Agrawal and D Chakravarti (2010): “Bus Rapid Transit Delhi: Mobility for All”, Social Research in Transport (SORT). Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (2010): AMTS Budget 2010-11, retrieved 20 December 2011, from http://www.amts.co.in/SitePage.aspx? id=45 – (2011): Janmarg-Ahmedabad Bus Rapid Transit System: Accessible Ahmedabad. AMC, AUDA and CEPT University (2007): Bus Rapid Transit System Ahmedabad Detailed Project report Phase I, retrieved 21 December 2011, from http://www.ahmedabadbrts.com/images/Ahmedabad%20BRTS%20Phase-1%20 DPR_Feb%202007.pdf Banister, D (2008): “The Sustainable Mobility Paradigm”, Transport Policy, 15, 73-80. Central Institute of Road Transport (1996): Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service – A Report on Structure and Strategies, Pune, CIRT.
64
does not necessarily attain the objectives for which the system was designed – of providing mobility to all and reducing carbon emissions. Unfortunately, the unintended message that goes out from the Ahmedabad BRTS is that it is alright to neglect walking and cycling, overlook the parking chaos, and not have affordable fares as long as buses run regularly in central median lanes. This raises the question of whether we truly have “an international best practice of BRT in the country”. Finally, top-down transportation planning has not really taken into account the needs of the urban poor in Ahmedabad despite all the rhetoric in the project reports about including the low-income groups. It has also not achieved a significant shift away from private motorised modes. In addition, both the goals of low-carbon mobility and social inclusion still remain important challenges. Since the BRT project is still in the implementation phase, there is scope for reforming its key components and making it more inclusive, and thus more sustainable. If the BRTS of Ahmedabad has to be a “best practice”, it has to widen its social reach and wean more users away from private motor vehicles; it has to have well-designed footpaths and cycle tracks; it has to implement a paid-parking regime; and it has to effectively integrate both bus service systems in the city.
Gujarat Samachar (2011): “Plight of the Red-Bus” (Translated Title), 3 November. Kishore, V (2009): “Bus Rapid Transit: The Indian Experience”, RITES Journal, July. Knowflacher, H (2007): “Success and Failures in Urban Transportation Planning in Europe: Understanding the Transport System”, Sadhana, 32 (4), 293-307. Kundu, A and D Samanta (2011): “Redefining the Inclusive Urban Agenda in India”, Economic & Political Weekly, 46(5), 55-63. Mahadevia, D (2012): Decent Work in Ahmedabad: An Integrated Approach, Bangkok: ILO AsiaPacific Working Paper Series, Regional Office for Asia and Pacific. Mahadevia, D, R Joshi and A Datey (2012): “LowCarbon Mobility and the Challanges of Social Inclusion: The Bus Rapid Transit Case Studies in India”, New Delhi, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). Ministry of Urban Development (2007): National Urban Transport Pollicy. – (2008): Bus Rapid Transit Developments in India, New Delhi, Government of India. MoRTH (2011): Road Transport Year Book (2009-20 and 2010-11), Transport Research Wing, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, Government of India. Pai, M and D Hindalgo (2009): “Indian Bus Rapid Transit Systems Funded by the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission”, Transportation Research Record:Journal of the Transportation Research Board . Planning Commission (2012): Press Note on Poverty Estimates, 2009-10, New Delhi, Government of India. Ponnaluri, R (2010): “Sustainable Bus Rapid Transit Initiatives in India: The Role of Decisive Leadership and Strong Institutions”, Transport Policy, 18 (1), 269-75. Pucher, J, N Korattyswaroopam and N Ittyerah (2004): “The Crisis of Public Transport in India november 30, 2013
– Overwhelming Needs but Limited Resources”, Journal of Public Transportation. Singh, S P (2011): Japan Again Delhi Metro’s Knight in Shining Armour, retrieved 31 October 2011, from http://www.business-standard.com/india/ news/japan-again-delhi-metro%5Cs-knightin-shining-armour/454060/ Thakor, P (2011): “More Vehicles on Ahmedabad Roads Bring Better Moolah for Traffic Dept”, Daily News Analysis (DNA), 11 November. Tiwari, G and D Jain (2010): “Bus Rapid Transit Projects in Indian Cities – A Status Report”, Built Environment, 36 (3), pp 353-62. Transport Research Wing (2012): Road Transport Yearbook (2009-10 and 2010-11), July, retrieved 21 August 2012, from http://morth.nic.in/ showfile.asp?lid=838 Vasconcellos, E A (2001): Urban Transport, Environment and Equity: The Case for Developing Countries (London and Sterling: Earthscan Publications). Wilbur Smith Associates and Ministry of Urban Development (2008): Study on Traffic and Transportation – Policies and Strategies in Urban Areas in India.
Permission for Reproduction of Articles Published in EPW No article published in EPW or part thereof should be reproduced in any form without prior permission of the author(s). A soft/hard copy of the author(s)’s approval should be sent to EPW. In cases where the email address of the author has not been published along with the articles, EPW can be contacted for help.
vol xlviiI no 48
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
