Achieving Sustainable Achieving Sustainable Transportation System ...

IISc Bangalore g

Achieving Sustainable Transportation System for Indian Cities – Issues and Strategies g

By

Dr. Ashish Verma Assistant Professor ((Dept. p of Civil Engg.) and Associate Faculty (Ci (CiSTUP) Indian Institute of Science (IISc) Bangalore – 560012, India E-mail: [email protected] Presentation at Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Bangalore, 22nd March 2013

Dr. Ashish Verma

1

Transportation Discipline y Traditionally supply

y Gradual realization of

centric

constraints

y Focus only on addition of

y Land

physical infrastructure

y Resources y Energy y Environment

2

Dr. Ashish Verma, IISc Bangalore

Indian Conditions – Adding to the P bl Problem y Heterogeneous

y Population growth

y Non-lane based

y High density growth in

y Driver behaviour

cities y Exponential E l growthh in vehicles etc.

y Poor integration between

land-use and transportation etc etc.

High transport externalities - Focus on Sustainability

3


Transportation – Externalities y Transportation Planning Effects

4

3/22/2013 3:41:35 PM

Transportation – Externalities y Transportation – Environment Interaction

5

3/22/2013 3:41:35 PM

Key Issues y Access, not Mobility y Activities tend to spread out in car-oriented cities y People have to travel more for the same level of accessibility y Moving People, not Cars y Purposeful mobility y Need to nurture public transport, giving priority to them over cars

6

3/22/2013 3:41:35 PM

Shift in Approach y Supply centric to

Demand centric – Optimize

y Traffic ff management y Demand management y Travel T l bbehaviour h i

Often too complex and beyond manual interventions by humans Technology intervention is necessary to succeed. 7


Emergence of Vehicle Telematics and ITS y Positioning

y Communications

y Mapping

y Electronics

y Remote Sensing etc.

y IT y Image processing etc.

8


Sustainability? y Development p that meets the needs of the p present

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

9

Dr. Ashish Verma

SUSTAINABILITY

3D Maatrix atrix of Sustainabi Sustainabiility ility

Dr. Ashish Verma 10

WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT ??

Source: Jeon and Amekudzi , 2005

11

Dr. Ashish Verma

Goal for Sustainable Transportation y Develop D l b tt better t transportation t ti systems, t options, ti and d

expectations consistent with the objective of securing f future social i l and d economic i development d l within i hi a sustainable environment that ensures community wellbeing.

12

Dr. Ashish Verma

Hierarchical Diagram for Sustainable Transportation

( Source: Black & Paez, 2002)

13

Dr. Ashish Verma

Economic Factors for Transportation System Sustainability S i bili

Source: Jeon and Amekudzi , 2005 14

Dr. Ashish Verma

Environmental Factors for Transportation y Sustainabilityy System


Dr. Ashish Verma

Social Factors for Transportation System y Sustainability


Dr. Ashish Verma

Are current systems and trends in Indian cities sustainable? ¾ Can be understood through issues of urbanization and motorization :

Urbanization

17

Dr. Ashish Verma

Motorization

Unsustainable T Transport

Global Urban Population Growth

Source - MOUD (2008), “Study on Traffic and Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban Areas in India”

18

Dr. Ashish Verma

Increase in population over the last two decades Cit City

1991

2001

2011

Increase in th llastt ttwo the decade

Delhi

8 41 8.41

12 88 12.88

16 31 16.31

94%

Bangalore

4.13

5.70

8.50

106%

Hyderabad

4.34

5.74

7.75

78%

Lucknow

1.67

2.25

2.90

74%

Indore

1.11

1.52

2.17

95%

Guwahati

0 65 0.65

0 89 0.89

1 30 1.30

105%

19Source : Census of India, 2011

Cities are seeing an increase in the Working Age population in the last two decades

City Bangalore Hyderabad Lucknow Indore Guwahati

Age Group 0‐14 0 14 14‐60 60+ 0‐14 14‐60 60+ 0‐14 14 60 14‐60 60+ 0‐14 14‐60 14 60 60+ 0‐14 14‐60 60+

20Source : Census of India, 2011

1981

1991

2001

35.6% 35 6% 58.9% 5.3% ‐ ‐ ‐ 45.0% 49 9% 49.9% 5.2% 35.9% 58.3% 5.8% ‐ ‐ ‐

31.1% 31 1% 62.7% 5.6% 35.9% 58.9% 5.2% 42.5%

25.9% 25 9% 67.3% 6.7% 31.1% 63.0% 5.9% 35.0% 58 6% 58.6% 6.5% 34.5% 61.0% 4.5% 26.1% 67.6% 5.1%

57.5% 34.2% 59.6% 6.2% 29.3% 65.6% 4.1%

Percentage of Population Working – There has been a substantial increase in % working women in all the cities City Delhi B Bangalore l Hyderabad Lucknow Indore Guwahati 21

Gender

1981

1991

2001

% Increase since 1991

Both Male Female Both M l Male Female Both Male Female Both Male Female Both Male Female Both Male Female

‐ ‐ ‐ 30.3% 49 4% 49.4% 8.8% 27.86% 47.47% 6.55% 29.13% 50.77% 3.84% 28.98% 48.38% 7.06% ‐ ‐ ‐

31.64% 31 64% 51.72% 7.36% 33.2% 52 8% 52.8% 11.5% 27.36% 46.02% 7.33% 27.56% 47.24% 5.01% 30.03% 49.73% 8.15% 32.20% 52.40% 8.70%

32.82% 32 82% 52.06% 9.37% 38.5% 57 6% 57.6% 17.5% 29.20% 47.30% 9.9% 27.60% 45.70% 7.20% 32.10% 51.20% 11.10% 35.10% 54.10% 12.50%

4% 1% 27% 16% 9% 52% 7% 3% 35% 0% ‐3% 44% 7% 3% 36% 9% 3% 44%

Source :Census of India data for various years

Vehicle Growth in India

55 million vehicles were plying on Indian roads in 2001 100 million vehicles were plying on Indian roads in 2011 10% growth during 1991-2001,12.3% (2001-05),16 to18% (2005-2011)

Number of Registered Cars per 1000 population Cars per 1000 Population (2011) Cars per 1000 popuulation

160 140

140.1

120

107.4

100

89.9

80

64.8

62.7

60.9

60 40

15.5

20 0 Delhi

*Estimated 23

g Bangalore

Hyderabad y

Lucknow

Guwahati*

Indore

National

Vehicle Production 19,271,808

India is sixth largest vehicle/car manufacturing industry in the world.

IISc Bangalore g

Desired Modal Shares for Indian City

City Population (in millions)

Mass Transport

Bicycle

Other Modes

0.1–0.5

30–40

30–40

25–35

0.5–1.0

40–50

25–35

20–30

1.0–2.0

50–60

20–30

15–25

2.0–5.0

60–70

15–25

10–20

5.0+

70–85

15–20

10–15

Dr. Ashish Verma

25

25

Percentage share of trips by Modes

IISc Bangalore g

Delhi

Mode

Bangalore

Mode

2011

Lucknow

2011

Mode

Indore

2011

Car/Taxi

8.9

PT

41.91%

Walk

17%

2 Wheeler

14

Car

6.62%

Bicycle

16%

Auto

2.3

2‐Wheeler

29.36%

Bus

26.9

11.56%

8%

IPT

Cycle Rickshaw

Cycle

10.7

Cycle

2.22%

8%

28 2.8

Walk

8 33% 8.33%

Auto Rickshaw Two wheeler

42%

Car/Van

5%

Metro/ Train Walk

34.3

Guwahati

Mode

Car 2 Wheeler Auto Bus Total

2008

36% 36% 10% 18% 100%

Public Transport/ Shared A t Auto

Source : Comprehensive Traffic and Transportation Plan, 2011

4%

Mode

2011

Car

5.58%

2 Wheeler

39.49%

Contract C t t Van

2.19%

Auto

2.27%

Tata Magic

4.67%

City Bus

8.56%

Chartered Chartered Bus

0.15%

School Bus 10.35% Cycle

11 93% 11.93%

Train

0.12% 26

Walk

14.69%

IISc Bangalore g

Change in Public Transport Share

Source - MOUD (2008), “Study on Traffic and Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban Areas in India”

Dr. Ashish Verma

27

Number of fatalities due to transport accidents per million p population p –Highest g fatalities recorded in smaller cities

IISc Bangalore g

Fatalities per million population

250

Number of fatalities per million population 227.4 196.1

200 150

178.2 126.6

100

80.7 56.9

50 0 Delhi

Bangalore

Hyderabad

Lucknow

Indore

Guwahati

28

IISc Bangalore g

Dr. Ashish Verma

29

IISc Bangalore g

Dr. Ashish Verma

30

Basic Strategies IISc Bangalore g

Which role shall the different transport modes play? Push-and-Pull concept: Which modes need support, support which modes need restrictions?

Push: parking management, access restrictions ... Pull: dense bus network, high quality bus services, ... P h and Push dP Pull: ll separate t b bus llanes, priority i it for f buses b att traffic t ffi signals etc. Dr. Ashish Verma

31

Public Transport Integration IISc Bangalore g

Dr. Ashish Verma

32

IISc Bangalore g

Physical Integration

Dr. Ashish Verma

33

Fare Integration IISc Bangalore g

Dr. Ashish Verma

34

IISc Bangalore g

Good Passenger Information System y

Dr. Ashish Verma

35

Good Passenger Information System IISc Bangalore g

Dr. Ashish Verma

36

Accessibility for Disabled IISc Bangalore g

Dr. Ashish Verma

37

IISc Bangalore g

Accessibility for Disabled Leeds. d UK

Brazil il

France Bogota

Dr. Ashish Verma

38

IISc Bangalore g

Dr. Ashish Verma

39

IISc Bangalore g

Dr. Ashish Verma

40

IISc Bangalore g

Dr. Ashish Verma

41

IISc Bangalore g

Dr. Ashish Verma

42

IISc Bangalore g

Dr. Ashish Verma

43

IISc Bangalore g

Dr. Ashish Verma

44

IISc Bangalore g

Dr. Ashish Verma

45

IISc Bangalore g

Dr. Ashish Verma

46

C i d Continued…. ¾Correct framing of Policy could pave a identified path to monitor transport carbon footprint and hence sequester it effectively ¾It could also help in expanding di andd redesigning d i i future cities

The Figure shows urban passenger transport emission reducing policies 47

Dr. Ashish Verma

An Inter-modal Trip

•it is important that we consider various scenarios consisting of combination of different modes and infrastructure options and adopt the one that is most sustainable in terms of both mobility/accessibility and safety. •Cities like, London, Zurich, Berlin, Paris, Munich, Hong-Kong, Bogota etc. provides good example of well integrated multi-modal transport system that provides seamless O O-D D connectivity through sustainable mode options

Transportation System Evolution with Urban Area Growth [Source: Vuchic (1981)]

Mobility Vs. Accessibility for different Modes (Ref: Chakroborty, 2009)

Balancing Access and Speed (Ref: Chakroborty, 2009)

FIELD OF ACTION: ACTION::: What can a local government do d to reduce d CO2 Residential development, Mobility in Proximity

Public transit Street infrastructure, parking and transportation management Mobility management

52

Dr. Ashish Verma

FIELD OF ACTION AS TAKEN IN GERMANY y In light of above field of action, the following slides

present a case study that highlights Strategic Transportation plan 2020 for the Region of Hanover/Germany (population 1 million), million) prepared by TU-Hamburg.

53

Dr. Ashish Verma

Field of Action: Residential development, M bili in Mobility i Proximity P i i ¾ Ʃ = -11% CO2-reduction • land use planning: Transportation-saving

residential structures as a precondition for “M bilit in “Mobility i Proximity” P i it ” • Enhancement of bicycle Use and Walking

Rental Bike System S stem 54

Dr. Ashish Verma

Field of Action: Public Transit ¾ Ʃ = -21% CO2-Reduction

• New lines (-1%), because of exellent

existing system • shorter headways (-3%) • attractive fare system (-5%) • Green Technology like Hybrid

Vehicles (-12%)

55

Dr. Ashish Verma

Field of Action: Street infrastructure, parking p manage management g ment and transportation ¾Ʃ = -11% CO2-reduction • Improved Park+Ride System (-1%) • Optimization of traffic lights ((-3%) 3%) • Introduction of 30,000 Electric Vehicles

( (-2%) ) • Increase of Parking fees +1€ (-2%) • Reduced speed limit (-3%)

56

Dr. Ashish Verma

Field of Action: Mobility management, efficient ffi i vehicles hi l ¾Ʃ = -8% CO2-reduction • Awareness Campaigns (-1%) • Car Pooling etc. (-2%) • Efficient driving (-5%) • +2000 2000 Car Sharing Cars (-1%) ( 1%)

57

Dr. Ashish Verma

S Summary off measures’’ iimpacts Residential development, Mobility in Proximity

P bli transit Public t it

Street infrastructure, infrastructure parking and transportation management

Mobility management

58

Dr. Ashish Verma

If all measures would be applied the potenzial to reduce CO2-Emissions Emissions of Road Transportation is - 45%

Comparison Annual CO2-Emissions per p person Germany 2005: 13 metric tonnes German Challenge: g Dramatic Reduction of emissons necessary

Indian Challenge: Reduction of the increase of emissions necessary

To comply with the goal to reduce the worlwide heating to 2° Celsius, Celsius the average annual CO2-Emission per person should not be bigger than approx. 2.4 metric tonnes per person until 2050

59

Dr. Ashish Verma

What can be learned from Countries that already y experienced p high g car ownershipp rates? Even the most car-oriented countries try to establish planning guidelines to reduce car use and try to enhance the use of alternative modes like bicycling.

The reason: planning that gives priority “only” to the car has not been successful in terms of sustainability. 60

Dr. Ashish Verma

Walking and Bicycle Integration with Transit y Creating a walking influence zone around metro stations and create

integrated and connected walking infrastructure. Develop social, cultural or business hubs in the influence areas. cultural, areas It will promote both walking (as access/egress mode) and ridership on transit. For example, Bangalore metro network. y SSimilarly, a y, ccreate eate cyc cyclingg infrastrucutre ast ucut e aaround ou ttransit, a s t, pa particularly t cu a y in sub-urban and residential areas, including park-and-ride at metro stations, bus stops etc. y Cycle-on-transit y to enable longg distance travel usingg cycle. y y Pedestrianization of core city areas, while they are well served by Metro rail. y What are the hurdles? y Why not have occasional Car-free days to make people understand the benefits of

pedestrianization?

y All this requires q consideration and pprovision at the pplanningg

stage only.

Integration of Cycle Rickshaws, Battery Operated Vehicles With Transit and Policy Measures y Cycle Rickshaws, battery operated vehicles like golf cart as feeder

services in low demand or residential areas where running feeder buses is in-feasible. Provision of park-and-ride during planning stage of transit. y Cycle Rickshaws and golf cart in congestion charging zones or on pedestrianized streets/zones.

Integration of Private Vehicles With Transit and Policy Measures y Park-and-Ride facility at metro stations in sub-urban locations, so

that people can travel even slightly longer distance from out-skirts areas to t reachh nearestt metro t station t ti to t parkk their th i vehicle hi l andd ttravell to city core by transit and thereby does not congest them by bringing cars all the way up to city centre. y This will also complement policies like congestion charging, pedestrianization etc.

Specific Policy Strategies for Bangalore While carrying out service and infrastructure improvements for an integrated public t transport t system t in i Bangalore, B l complimentary li t policy li measures need d to t be b introduced i t d d that can influence the mode choice behaviour of individuals towards public transport. Some such policy measures could be:a. A good Parking policy as a demand management measure rather than a supply side measure, including differential parking charges, strategizing the location (like park and ride) and availability of parking in such a way that, it discourages the use of personal vehicles in certain areas or during certain hours or days days, and encourages use of public transport. b. Creation of non-motorized transport (NMT) zones in CBD and other congested areas of Bangalore city. c. Congestion charging for personal vehicles entering busy and congested areas during peak periods. periods d. Giving priority to buses on corridors and at junctions.

64

e. Implementing CAR FREE DAY may be once or twice in a year to give a tangible feeling and understanding of what it means when streets are free of personal vehicles. Dr. Ashish Verma

65

Dr. Ashish Verma