Successfully reported this slideshow.

Pro-poor Transport Policy Towards Green Economy


Published on

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 (Part 1) and ( 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.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Pro-poor Transport Policy Towards Green Economy

  1. 1. Pro-poor transport policy Towards Green Economy Geetam Tiwari MoUD Chair ProfessorDepartment 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. 2. Green EconomyFocus on Low Carbon TransportAccess to goods and services for allinhabitants of the urban areaGlobal concern of CO2 and local healthconcerns IIT Delhi 2010
  3. 3. The Urban IndiaIndicator 2001 2011Total population 1.02 b 1.2 bUrban population 286 m 377 m% urban population 28 31% urban growth rate 31.5 31.8Number of towns 5161 7935No. 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. 4. who are the urban poorUrban 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. 5. Travel patterns of Urban poor andothers (Delhi 2001) Bus, twheelers and cars Bicycle, Bus, walk
  6. 6. Travel patterns of Urban poorDelhi 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 personsWalk 87%Bus 8%Bicycle 2%
  7. 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. 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. 9. Factors Impacting Emission LevelsTechnologicalchanges +Life cycle cost of infrastructure Planning and Policy initiatives
  10. 10. Possible LC ScenariosReserving Improving Change in ImprovingROW Non- operation planPolicy changes public Tax policy motorizedInvestment transport Investmenttrends transport trends Urban R&DLand use Technological Tax policyShelter policy structure changes Other charges
  11. 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 sectorLow carbon mobility Retain Shift Improve plan
  12. 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. 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. 14. Share ofMaximum shift scenario Share of trips longer trips shorter than 5 km than 5 km1. 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 the2. 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 motorized3. Improving only NMT Note: transport infrastructure Modal shift does not occur from four- wheelers
  15. 15. Minimum shift Share of Share ofscenario trips longer trips shorter than 5 km than 5 km shifting to1. 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 trips2. 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. 16. Resulting Emissions and Modal Share( minimumshift )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 emissions100% 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. 17. CO2 Emissions in Maximum and Minimum ShiftScenario 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 !!