Impact Van Grote Transport Project En

8/6/2019 Impact Van Grote Transport Project En

1/74

Socio-Economic ImpactAssessment (SEIA) Methodology

for Urban Transport Projects

Presentation at Hasselt University, Belgium

13th

May 2009By:

Anvita Arora, PhDCEO,

Innovative Transport Solutions, Technology and Business Incubation

Unit, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India

ResidentRepresentative,Interface for Cycling Expertise, The Netherlands


2/74

Urbanization in India Relatively slow, yet one of the

largest urban systems 30-50% slum dwellers,

unauthorized self constructed

dwellings, close to work

Growth of informal sector often

faster than formal sector

Bicycle ownership 30-50 %

Car ownership 3-13%

Scooter/M-cycle 40-50%


3/74

147

177

28 20

6 3 3

0

50

100

150

200

< 1

Town

1-5 lakh

A & B

5-10 lakh

C

10-20 lakh

D

20-50 lakh

E

50-100

lakh

F

1 crore

G

No. Of Cities


4/74

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% share

A:0.1-

0.5

B0.1-

0.5

C:.5-1 D:1-2 E: 2-5 >5

Cit size

Modal shares in different cit

sizes(RITES, 1998)

w Tr r ThrR - haw Car TWC

Threat to sustainable scenario: Increasing car and MTW trips


5/74

Transport Modes of the Urban Poor

walk77%

cycle4%

rickshaw6%

bus8%

0thers5%

Modal Share for the poor - Delhi

walk61%

cycle6%

bus14%

train16%

others3%

Modal Share for the poor - Mumbai


6/74

Patna Jaipur

Hyderabad Lucknow

Rickshaw policies? Three wheelers paratransit?

Two wheelers/threewheelers?

Rickshaws,cycles peds?


7/74

Urban transport problems

Poor rely on non-motorized transport but their facilitationis often ignored

Small changes in public transport fare/service cansignificantly affect their mobility

Restraints on informal transport sector limits affordableservices to the poor

Dominance of private motor vehicles marginalizes NMTs

Women are badly served by transport system

Poor are more vulnerable to injuries and pollution

7


8/74

National Urban Transport Policy ( NUTP )

As per the directives of the GOI- MOUD- UT the various proposalsfor urban transport being prepared under JNNURM shouldcomply with NUTP in order to be eligible for Central Govt.funding.

The focus of NUTP is on the following strategies :1. Equitable allocation of road space with people as focus

2. Priority to the use of Public Transport

3. Integrated public transport systems

4. Priority to non motorised transport

5. Promote multilevel parking complexes

6. Create public awareness

Delhi CDP priorities and projects have been identified based on aboveguidelines of NUTP.


9/74

Delhi City Development PlanVision and Investment

1. Equitable allocation of road space with people as focus 33% modal share of pedestrians investment on pedestrian

infrastructure 0.5% of total investment

2. Priority to the use of Public Transport

60% of vehicular trips by public transport Capacity building of public

transport 3 projects LRT, Monorail, HCBS investment 42% of totalinvestment

3. Integrated public transport systems

No investment

4. Priority to non motorised transport

0.8% of total investment5. Promote multilevel parking complexes

2% of total investment

6. Create public awareness

0.2% of total investment


10/74

Where is the remaining 55% investment being made?

Increasing Road Length 32%

Flyovers 10% Road Widening 8%

Spl. Scheme for CP and old city 5%


11/74

Investments in flyovers,road expansion and

FOBs


12/74

Delhi Metro FirstPhase (2005)

65 km, projected

ridership 1.5

m/d, actual

ridership 0.4

m/d, USD 7.1mloss/yr, 100% cost

overruns

Existing Rail

Corridors,

Delhi Metro Rail System

256 km by 2021, estimated cost USD~3500 million

Final Phase

(2021), 60% residents

& 82% area not within

walking distance!!!

460 km of

arterial

roads,`10000

buses carrying6 m trips


13/74

Over crowded

buses


14/74

14

INTRODUCTION

Transport is a critical link between economic

and social development

Transport is a derived demand need based

The benefits of improving transport

infrastructure have traditionally been

measured by performance criteria, like

improved connectivity, travel time, speedsand fuel savings for the user.


15/74

15

The problem

The users are not a homogeneous group Some users may benefit, some may not, and

some may not be affected at all

Also the non-users may be impacted anexternality (+ve or ve)

Benefits and dis-benefits to users and non-

users need to be understood and internalized

by transport projects.


16/74

16

Need of Study

Transport investments advocate inclusion of socialassessment in transport projects and prioritize poverty

alleviation as an objective. Need to understand:

Users as a disaggregated mass (differentiated by

income, occupation, gender, age, ethnicity, etc.)

The gap between access availability (transport

infrastructure) and mobility issues (ability of different

groups to utilize the infrastructure) and their correlation

with poverty (especially with respect to livelihood

opportunities).A need to develop a methodological framework or model

for ensuring the inclusion of socio-economic issues of

transport planning in policies and projects.


17/74

17

The Context

Delhi Population of 13.8 million (Census, 2001).

Modal share - 62% of the vehicular trips (33% of all trips

including walk) are made by bus with an average trip length

of 10.7 Km (RITES, 1994).

Heavy investments in transport infrastructure, like grade

separated junctions, road widening and the Delhi Metro

Rail.

The Delhi Metro is a representative case study of a capital-intensive urban transport project promising to accrue

high benefits of accessibility and decongestion.


18/74

18

Objectives & Research Focus

Objectives: To understand the impact of Delhi Metro Rail on the

accessibility patterns of the urban poor.

To understand the impact of changed accessibility onmobility and the socio-economic status of the low-

income households. To develop indices of accessibility, mobility and SEWB

and to formulate an SEIA methodology.

Research focus:

To understand how accessibility and mobility affect thesocio-economic well-being (SEWB) of the urban poorand how indices of accessibility and mobility can beintegrated in SEIA methods.


19/74

November 2007 19

Hypothesis

a) Introduction of the Metro rail system in Delhi

has changed the accessibility for the urban

poor.

b) This change in accessibility has changed

the mobility profile and the socio-economic

well-being of the urban poor.


20/74

20

Case Study Target Group

Urban poor affected by the Delhi Metro RailProject

Urban poor as the inhabitants of slums in the city Urban Delhi poverty line at Rs 505.45 (USD 12.64) per

capita per month, (Saxena, 2001) For Delhi slums per capita income of less than Rs. 600 (15

USD) per month for 78% inhabitants (Anand, 2006)

Two categories of low-income householdsselected: those living in the vicinity (within 1 km) of the metro

stations, and

those relocated due to the construction of the metro.


21/74

November 2007 21

The Poor

(urban)

Geographic grouping

(slums)

Occupational grouping

(rickshaw pullers, hawkers...)

Mobility indicators

Socio-economic profile

Transport System

(urban)

Condition of Infrastructure

(urban)

Usage of Infrastructure

Accessibility indicators

Transport project

Social well-being indicators

Relationship

between

mobility

and

well-being

THEORETICAL

FRAMEWORK

(Figure 1.1)

LEGEND

Existing System

Direct Impact

Indirect Impact

Usage of Infrastructure

Relationship

between

mobility

and

accessibility


22/74

22

Methodology

Household survey based data collected for target group. Dataset used to derive indicators of accessibility, mobility

and SEWB.

The indicators aggregated into indices of accessibility,mobility and SEWB by using the Principal Component

Analysis (PCA) technique. The change in indicators and indices in the before and

after metro scenarios used to assess the significance ofthe impact of the metro project on the urban poor.

The correlation between accessibility, mobility andSEWB is modeled using linear regression to illustratethat the change in accessibility and mobility due to atransport project changes the SEWB of the community.


23/74

23

Structure

1.

Introduction2. Socio-economic impact assessment (SEIA) current

practices

3. Transport and poverty

4. SEIA methodology for urban transport projects5. Accessibility, mobility and socio-economic wellbeing

6. Case study Delhi metro rail

7. Formulation of the socio-economic impact assessment

(SEIA) model8. Conclusions, contribution and scope for future work


24/74

24

SEIA CURRENT PRACTICES

Social impacts the consequencesto humanpopulations ofanypublic orprivateactionsthatalterthe waysin whichpeoplelive, work, play, relateto oneanother, organizetomeettheirneedsandgenerally copeasmembers ofsociety.

History

SIA realized as important part of EIA since 1969 to 1980s. Partiallyforced by project failures resulting from inadequate appraisal ofprojects on narrow economic and technical criteria (Rickson et

al., 1990; Burdge, 1998).WHO has pointed out that the cost of submitting major proposals

for social impact assessment was far less than the cost ofcorrecting unforeseen negative impacts that occurred afterimplementation (Giroult, 1983, cited in Burdge 1990).


25/74

25

The Indian Scenario:The Ministry of Environment and Forests, has a separate

Environment Clearance manual for large construction projects(MoEF, 2006). However, the socio-economic aspects meritonly a 3 point write-up in Annexure II. Questions to beanswered:

7. Socio-Economic Aspects

7.1. Willtheproposalresultinany changesto thedemographic

structure oflocalpopulation? Providethedetails.7.2. Givedetails oftheexistingsocialinfrastructurearoundthe

proposedproject.

7.3. Willtheprojectcauseadverseeffects onlocalcommunities,disturbanceto sacredsites orotherculturalvalues? Whatarethesafeguardsproposed?

These points highlight the inadequacy of inclusion of SIA inlarge infrastructure projects in India and re-iterate theneed for comprehensive work on it.


26/74

26

The methodologies reviewed in this section are: The funding agencies approach

The World Bank

Asian Development Bank

The SCOPE framework

The implementing agencies guidelines The FDOT handbook

The NGOs perspective Queensland Families, Youth and Community Care,

Australia

Impact Assessment Methodologies


27/74

27

The World Bank approach: larger policy framework,

generic applicability, focus on institutional mechanisms .The ADB document: comprehensive but generic notinclude the special problems of transportation projects.

The SCOPE framework: formulation of a socio-economicframework of a community, emphasis on the need toquantify all parameters listed but no holistic assessmentdesign.

FDOT Guidelines: focus on land use impacts oftransportation projects, communities influence the use ofland and vice-versa and transportation projects influenceboth in a correlated manner.

The Australian NGO approach: emphasizes on peopleand their need and reactions, concepts like communitysensitivity indices and the vulnerable community groups.

Discussion


28/74


29/74

29

TRANSPORT AND POVERTYDefining Poverty

a multidimensional phenomenon, encompassing inability to satisfybasic needs, lack of control over resources, lack of educationand skill, poor health, malnutrition, lack of shelter, poor access towater and sanitation, vulnerability to shocks, violence and crime,lack of political freedom and voice. The World Bank (a,1999)

poverty must be seen as the deprivation of basic capabilities ratherthan merely as lowness of income (Sen, 1999).

Poverty impacts oftransport interventions

Complex because transport is an intermediate service transportimprovements reduce poverty not through increasedconsumption of transport per se but through improving the qualityand security of access to work, markets, and services, andthrough release of scarce resources for consumption andproduction


30/74

30

Issues Efficiency vs Equity: Good transport policy contributes to poverty

reduction by enhancing efficiency and equity (Gannon, et al, 2001).

Access and Livelihood needs ofthe urban poor: Urban transportinteracts with employment issues for the poor in two main ways:indirectly by providing access to employment opportunities anddirectly through employment of low-income people in the transport

sector

SOCIETY

( BAN

OO )

Access to livelihood(eg. bus, cycle, pedestrian)

Means of livelihood(eg. Rickshaw pullers)

acilitator of

livelihood (eg. Hawkers)

T NSPORT

SYSTE

DEPE DA CYCO STRUCT:

SOC

I TY TSPOR

TS

YS

T


31/74

31

Gender Bias: Women tend to have different travel needs derivingfrom the multiple tasks they must perform in their households and intheir communities (Greico et al, 1997).

Health Impacts ofTransport: Pollution (air, water, noise) effectsthe urban poor particularly severely, since they are the least able toavoid or seek protection from them (UNDP 1998). Pedestrian andcyclist are most vulnerable to road accidents.

The Shelter-transport-livelihood link:Access to affordabletransport is one of the most important factors in determininglivelihoods for the urban poor The rise of private vehicular traffic hasdecreased bus speeds and service levels drastically and made non-motorized transport dangerous and difficult. Travel for the poor hasthus become slower and more difficult even as other economic andplanning forces have caused many of them to be displaced fromcentral informal settlements to more peripheral locations (Immers etal, 1993)


32/74

32

Eviction and relocation

The central concern of the process of eviction and

relocation is the reduction in accessibility andmobility options of the urban poor, which directly

affects their livelihood and thus social well being.

Transportation

aspects of

eviction and

resettlement

People evicted

because of

transport projects

Transport

implications for

evicted people

(due to any

project)


33/74

33

ACCESSIBILITY, MOBILITY AND SOCIO-

ECONOMIC WELLBEING

Review definitions and discussions

Define Accessibility, Mobility and SEWB for

the study

Postulate indicators and indications


34/74

34

Author Year Definition/ Discussion

AccessibilityRoberts 1988 the number of trips made.

number of, and/or the ease of making journeys

Black 1981

1992

accessibility is a function of land-use intensity and transport supply

accessibility is a description of how conveniently land-uses are located in

relation to each other and how easy or difficult it is to reach these land useactivities via the transport network of both public and private transport

modes.

Ross 2000 Often understood as the ease of access to destinations, amongst otherparameters it (accessibility) encompasses ideas of costs in time and money;

extent, comfort and frequency of the public transport system; and the distanceto be negotiated to reach destinations such as shops, work places and schools

Vivier 2001 Access to urban activities for a population presupposes the existence of apublic transport service offering all city dwellers, whatever their incomelevel, age or handicaps, the possibility of getting to work or school, going

shopping and enjoying themselves.Accessibility is good when density is high because distances to be covered

are low and when public transport is fast.

Accessibility is a description of the proximity of destinations of

choice and the facilitation offered by the transport systems (including

public transport and non-motorized modes) to reach them.


35/74

35


MobilityEkeh 1974 mobility is closely linked with personal and individual freedom, and lack of

mobility is often associated with the repression of basic freedoms and even

human rightsRoberts 1988 the number of kilometers traveled

Ross 2000 The amount of travel people undertake measured by per capita vehicle

kilometers traveledA positive relationship exists between mobility and such indicators as

transport energy use, motor vehicle ownership and use, journey to workdistance, journey to work speed and general car speed.

Vivier 2001 motorized mobility, measured by average annual distances traveled by citydwellers in automobiles, motorized two-wheeled vehicles, taxis and public

transport

Litman 2003 the movement of people or goods

The mobility perspective defines transportation problems in terms ofconstraints on physical movement, and so favors solutions that increase

motor vehicle system capacity and speed

Mobility is both the ability to travel to destinations of choice and the

amount of movement necessary to do so.


36/74

36

Socio-economic well-being is defined as the status of a household

where the basic social and economic needs for survival are fulfilled

and the household has the capacity to improve its quality of life.


SEWBBauer 1966 Social indicators are statistics, statistical series, and all other forms of evidence

that enable us to assess where we stand and are going with respect to our values andgoals, and to evaluate specific programs and determine their impact.

UNStatisticaloffice, F/18.

1975 Social indicators are constructs, based on observation and usually quantitativewhich tell us something about the aspect of life in which we are interested or aboutchanges in it.

Hauser 1975 Social indicators are facts about society in a quantitative form. They involve interpretation of advance and retrogression against some norm

UNDP 1990 Human Development Index (HDI): The index is composed of three indicators:longevity, educational attainment, and standard of living,

Horn 1993 Economic and social development can be broadly distinguished but usuallyinteract and should preferably be considered together.

National level economic development indicators commonly used are GrossNational Product and Gross Domestic product. Others are National accountsSystems and Income distribution

Ed Diener 1995 The Basic Quality of Life (QOL) Index includes seven variables: purchasingpower, homicide rate, fulfillment of basic needs, suicide rate, literacy rate, grosshuman rights violations, and deforestation

Shookner 1998 Quality of Life (QOL) Index consists of Social, Health, Economic andEnvironmental indicators

INAC 2004 The Community Well-being Index (CWB) is composed of four indicators

education, labour force, income, and housing.


37/74

37

Notes on subscripts:A = access, E = egress, MLH = main line haulNMV = non motorized modes including walking, MV = motorized modes

I ica rs f Accessi ili y

Indi Typ Indi Indi i nDt t l D i di t Lower val e gives

better accessibilit

Ttotal whereT is ti e Lower val e gives

better accessibilit

Ctotal whereC is cost Lower val e givesbetter accessibilit

NA + NE , whereN is no. oftri s

NMLH

Lower val e gives

better accessibilit

DA + DE , whereD is distanceDMLH

Lower val e givesbetter accessibilit

TA + TE , whereT is ti eTMLH

Lower val e givesbetter accessibilit

CA + CE , whereC is cost

CMLH

Lower val e gives

better accessibilit

P blic Transport

Accessibilit (APT)(unit = per user)

(DA + DE )VEH, whereD is distance(DA + DE )PED

Lower value givesbetter accessibilit

SDeducation , where SD is spatialdistance


SDhealth , where SD is spatialdistance


SDservices , where SD is spatial

distance

Lower value gives

better accessibilit

SDbus-stop , where SD is spatial

distance

Lower value gives

better accessibilit

Spatio-travelAccessibilit (AST)

(unit = per household)

Sbus , where Sis service ofbuses

i.e. ti e gap between two successive buses

Lower value gives

better accessibilit


38/74


39/74

39

Indica rs f W

Ind Typ Ind Ind nNGinschool, where NG is no ofgirls

NGschoolage

Higher value shows

highersocial well being

NAliterate (>5grade), where NA is no. ofadults

NAall

Higher value shows

highersocial well beingInfrastructure rankscore * (Electricity,

water, toilet)

Higher value shows


Social Well-being (WBS)

(unit per household)

Ylo-income settlement, where Y is no. ofYdelhi

years

Higher value shows


Nworking , where N is no. people

Nall

Higher value shows

higher economic wellbeing

Itotal , where I is incomeNall

Higher value showshigher economic wellbeing

Economic Well-being

(WBE)(unit per household)

Vehall , where Veh is no. ofNall vehicles

Higher value showshigher economic well

being

* Infrastructure rank score refers to the additive score of the types of services where the service which is formallyprovided and operational is given a value of 2, that which is self obtained has a value of 1, and that which is notavailable is given a value of 0


40/74

40

Impact of Transport Project (Delhi Metro

Rail)

Change in Accessibility:

Public Transport Accessibility (APT)

The differences in indicators for both sets of Bus users and Metro

Spatio-Travel Accessibility (AST)

Direct impact change in indicators of AST of households in the vicinity.

Indirect impact change in indicators of AST of households relocated.

Change in Mobility:

Direct impact change in indicators of Household Mobility (MHH) andPersonal Mobility (MP )of households.

Indirect impact change in indicators of MHH and MP of householdsrelocated.

Change in SEWB:

Direct impact change in indicators of Social Well-being and EconomicWell being of households in the vicinity.

Indirect impact change in indicators of households relocated.


41/74

41

CASE STUDY: Delhi Metro Rail

Legend

In vicinityRelocated

Part map of Delhi showing Case Study Area of Metro Rail line

and locations of household survey


42/74

42

Bus users and Metro users

Indicator Comparability platform Percentage ofBus users

Percentageof metro

users

Dtotal (Km) Upto 20 Km oftotal daily travel distance 33% 19%

Ttotal (min) Upto 2 Hours oftotal daily travel time 57% 80%

Ctotal (Rs.) Upto Rs. 15 (0.38 USD) oftotal daily travel

expenditure

42% 2%

Na +Ne / Nmlh 2 access tripsfor every MLH trip 4% 48%

Da +De / Dmlh More distance ofAccess than MLH 3% 27%

Ta +Te / Tmlh More time ofAccess than MLH 16% 67%

Ca +Ce / Cmlh No cost ofAccessMore cost ofAccess than MLH

76%5%

22%19%

(Da+De)veh /

(Da+De)ped

No Vehicle used for Access

10 times access distance by Vehicle than by

foot

77%

5%

19%

37%


43/74

43

Household SurveyIn vicinity ofMetro line:

No significant impact on their socio-economic and travel profile.

Decrease in the availability of buses since several bus-routes wererealigned by policy to improve metro ridership.

Considering that only 8% of their trips are on bus and 77% by walk, 4%by cycle and 6% by rickshaw, it is unlikely that these trips will bereplaced by metro trips.


44/74

Relocated due to the metro line:

Significant change in their accessibility and travel profile andincome.

The increasing distance, time and cost of daily travel, along withreduced incomes has a negative impact on the households.

The land-use accessibility has deteriorated as distance to education,

health services and other urban services has increased for 52%,63% and 52% of the households respectively. The transportaccessibility has deteriorated even more as distance to bus stop hasincreased for 72% of the households and the bus frequency hasseen an average decrease from 5 min to 63 min (almost 13 times)

November 2007 44


45/74

45

Formulation of SEIA Model

The SEIA model is formulated in 3 steps

Step I: Estimating Indicators

Step II: Developing Indices

Step III: Formulating the Model

DEV

ELOPMEN

T OF IN

DICATORSIllustrated values of indicators, their change and significance of that

change due to the introduction of the metro

ACCESSIBILITY (A)

Vicinity: little change in distance to education and health services.Distance to urban services like vegetable markets, daily needsshops increased for 23.6% of the households. The bus service time-gap has decreased for 34% of households

Relocated: all the indicators have changed for the majority of thehouseholds. Values higher showing deterioration of accessibility


46/74

46

Change Category

Deducation(diff) Dhealth (diff)

Dservices(diff) Dbusstop(diff) Sbus (diff)

Households in Vicinity of metro line

Total Decrease 0.0% 3.0% 4.9% 0.5% 34.5%

No change 98.0% 93.1% 71.4% 80.3% 65.0%

Total Increase 2.0% 3.9% 23.6% 19.2% 0.5%

Households relocated due to metro line

Total Decrease 40.8% 33.8% 36.3% 13.9% 1.5%

No change 7.5% 3.5% 11.9% 14.4% 0.0%

Total Increase 51.7% 62.7% 51.7% 71.6% 98.5%

No. Indicators Significance of change for HH in metro

vicinity

Significance of change for HH

relocated

At 5% confidence

level

At 1% confidence

level

At 5%

confidence level

At 1%

confidence level1 Deducation Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

2 Dhealth Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

3 Dservices Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

4 Dbusstop Significant Significant Significant Not significant

5 Sbus Significant Significant Significant Significant

Significance ofchange


47/74

47

MOBILITY

Household Mobility (MHH)

Vicinity: some change in the indicators of PCTR for work and other

purposes but little change in the PCTR for education and the share ofNMVs in the modes

Relocated: all the indicators have changed for the majority of thehouseholds. For 49% households, the PCTR for work has increasedand for 30% of the households it has decreased. For 71% ofhouseholds, the PCTR for education does not change The PCTR forother purposes has increased and decreased equally. The share of

NMVs in the mode used has decreased for 59% of the households.

Change category PCTRwork (diff) PCTRedu(diff) PCTRothers(diff) Mnmv/Mall(diff)


Total Decrease 9.4% 3.9% 13.8% 5.4%

No change 77.8% 91.1% 81.8% 87.2%

Total Increase 12.8% 4.9% 4.4% 7.4%


Total Decrease 29.9% 10.4% 35.3% 58.7%

No change 21.39% 70.65% 29.35% 21.89%

Total Increase 48.8% 18.9% 35.3% 19.4%


48/74

48

Personal Mobility (MP)

Vicinity: minimum change in the mobility indicators regarding travelfor education (distance, time, cost). The distance, time to and cost of

trips made for other purposes has changes a little.

Relocated: mobility indicators for travel to work distance, time andcost have increased for 83%, 82% and 61% of the householdsrespectively. The distance, time for education have but not the cost.Similarly for other purposes there is more change in distance andtime than the cost of the trip.

Change

category

Dwork

(diff)

Deduc

ation

(diff)

Dother

s (diff)

Twork

(diff)

Teduc

ation

(diff)

Tother

s (diff)

Cwork

(diff)

Ceduca

tion

(diff)

Cother

s (diff)


Total Decrease 10.3% 3.9% 15.3% 13.8% 4.4% 16.3% 3.4% 0.0% 4.4%

No change 72.9% 90.6% 72.4% 69.5% 88.7% 71.9% 91.1% 100.0% 93.6%

Total Increase 16.7% 5.4% 12.3% 16.7% 6.9% 11.8% 5.4% 0.0% 2.0%


Total Decrease 14.9% 22.9% 58.2% 14.4% 21.9% 52.2% 10.4% 2.5% 12.4%

No change 2.5% 43.3% 9.0% 3.5% 42.8% 8.0% 28.4% 93.5% 65.2%

Total Increase 82.6% 33.8% 32.8% 82.1% 35.3% 39.8% 61.2% 4.0% 22.4%


49/74

49

Significance ofchange ofmobility indicators

No. Indicators Significance of change for HH in

metro vicinity


relocated

At 5%

confidence level

At 1% confidence

level

At 5%

confidence level

At 1% confidence

level

1 PCTRwork Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

2 PCTRedu Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

3 PCTRothers Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

4 Mnmv/Mall Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

5 Dwork Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

6 Deducation Not significant Not significant Significant Not significant

7 Dothers Significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

8 Twork Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

9 Teducation Not significant Not significant Significant Significant10 Tothers Significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

11 Cwork Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

12 Ceducation Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

13 Cothers Not significant Not significant Significant Not significant


50/74

50

SOCIO-ECONOMIC WELL-BEING (SEWB)

Vicinity: only two indicators IRS and Household income showchange with the introduction of the metro.

Relocated: all the indicators have changed for the majority of thehouseholds. The indicators most affected are female literacy (21%decrease), residency (100% decrease), Household income perperson (66% decrease), Infrastructure rank score (33% decrease and61% increase), and employment (8% decrease and 14% increase).

Change

category

NGinschl/

Ngschage

(diff)

NAdults>=5/

Nadults

(diff)IRS

(diff)

Yslum/

Ydelhi

(diff) W/N (diff) I/N (diff)V/N

(diff)


Total Decrease 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 9.9% 0.0%

No change 55.67% 100.00% 78.3% 100% 100% 66.01% 100%

Total Increase 0.0% 0.0% 18.2% 0.0% 0.0% 24.1% 0.0%

NA 44.33%Households relocated due to metro line

Total Decrease 20.9% 3.5% 32.8% 100% 8.0% 65.7% 5.0%

No change 41.79% 82.09% 5.97% 0.00% 78.11% 19.4% 94.53%

Total Increase 4.5% 14.4% 61.2% 0.0% 13.9% 14.9% 0.5%

NA 32.84%


51/74

51

Significance ofchange ofSEWB indicators

No. Indicators Significance of change for HH in metro

vicinity


relocated

At 5% confidence

level

At 1% confidence

level

At 5%

confidence level

At 1% confidence

level

1 NGinschl/

Ngschage

Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

2 NAdults>=5/Nadults

Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

3 IRS Significant Significant Significant Significant

4 Yslum/ Ydelhi Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

5 W/N Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

6 I/N Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

7 V/N Not significant Not significant Significant Significant


52/74

52

DEVELOPMENT OF INDICES

Principal components are calculated using PCA

Different rotations are tried to maximize loading on the principalcomponents (PC1, PC2,PCn) so that they explain maximumpercent of the total variance. Theoretically the varimax rotationmaximizes variance explained while increasing the large loading and decreasing

the smaller loadings. The higher loadings in each PC are retainedand the smaller loadings are discarded in a manner so thateach PC clubs together similar/ correlated indicators in a

logical manner. Each PC becomes a type of factor explainingthe aggregate index and each PC is independent of the others.

The loadings of the retained variables in each PC are taken asindicative weights for the indicators and calculated as a fractionof 1.

The variance explained are taken as relative weights for eachPC to aggregate them as an index.

The value of the index is calculated for each household.


53/74

53

Accessibility

A = E1(PC1) + E2(PC2)Where E1 and E2 are the eigenvalues

And PC1 = d(Dbusstop) + e(Sbus)PC2 = a(Ded) + b(Dhealth) + c(Dser)

Where a,b,.e are component loadings.

The PC1 explains accessibility provided by the bus system and the PC2explains the landuse accessibility. The PC1 and PC2 explainapproximately 55% of the total variance.

The aggregated index reads as follows for the 4 data sets:

In Vicinity-beforemetro

A = 0.49(Ded) + 0.57(Dhealth) + 0.62(Dser) + 0.63(Dbusstop) + 0.62(Sbus) 1-a

In Vicinity-aftermetro

A = 1.07(Ded) + 0.17(Dhealth) + 0.35(Dser) + 0.52(Dbusstop) + 0.52(Sbus) 1-bRelocated-beforemetro

A = 0.91(Ded) + 0.27(Dhealth) + 0.49(Dser) + 0.54(Dbusstop) + 0.52(Sbus) 1-c

Relocated- aftermetro

A = 0.34(Ded) + 0.39(Dhealth) + 0.53(Dser) + 0.72(Dbusstop) + 0.50(Sbus) 1-d


54/74

54

Mobility

M = E1 (PC1) + E2 (PC2) + E3 (PC3) + E4 (PC4)

Where E1,E2, E3 and E4 are the eigenvalues

And PC1 = b(PCTReducation) + e(Ded) + h(Ted) + k(Ced)PC2 = c(PCTRothers) + f(Dothers) + i(Tothers) + l(Cothers)

PC3 = a(PCTRwork) + d(Dwork) + g(Twork) + j(Cwork)

PC4 = Mnmv/Mall

Where a, b, .l are component loadings.

The PC1 explains the trip for education, PC2 explains the trip for otherpurposes like social, health, religious and PC3 explains the trip towork and PC4 explains only a single indicator of use of non-motorizedmodes. The PC1, PC2, PC3 AND PC4 explain approximately 65% ofthe total variance. The weight ages of the PCs imply that the trip for

education and other reasons like buying daily need supplies wouldhave a higher impact on the mobility index than the work trips, thoughthe difference is not significant. Since Mhh indicators are seen asdesirable mobility and Mp as undesirable mobility they are ascribedopposing signs in the index.


55/74

55


M = [0.53(PCTRwork) + 0.79(PCTReducation) + 0.55(PCTRothers) + 1.68(Mnmv/Mall)]

[0.65(Dwork) + 0.85(Deducation) + 0.74(Dothers) + 0.62(Twork) + 0.85(Teducation) +

0.75(Tothers) + 0.25(Cwork) + 0.17(Ceducation) + 0.63(Cothers)] ... 2-a


M = [0.53(PCTRwork) + 0.78(PCTReducation) + 0.63(PCTRothers) + 1.39(Mnmv/Mall)]


0.69(Tothers) + 0.25(Cwork) + 0.18(Ceducation) + 0.38(Cothers)] ... 2-b

Relocated-beforemetro

M = [0.67(PCTRwork) + 0.75(PCTReducation) + 0.55(PCTRothers) + 1.58 (Mnmv/Mall)]


0.70(Tothers) + 0.53(Cwork) + 0.22(Ceducation) + 0.31(Cothers)] ... 2-c

Relocated-aftermetro

M = [0.73(PCTRwork) + 0.54(PCTReducation) + 0.28(PCTRothers) + 1.23 (Mnmv/Mall)]


0.86(Tothers) + 0.84(Cwork) + 0.78(Ceducation) + 0.86(Cothers)] ... 2-d


56/74

56

SEWB

SEWB = E1 (PC1) + E2 (PC2) + E3 (PC3)Where, E1, E2 and E3 are the eigenvalues

And PC1 = e(W/N) + f(I/N) + g(V/N)PC2 = c(IRS) + d(Yslum/Ydelhi)

PC3 = a(NGinschl/ NGschage) + b(Nadults>=5/ Nadults)

Where a, b, . g are component loadings

PC1 explains economic well-being, PC2 explains condition of physical infrastructureand PC3 explains social well-being. Together, the three PCs explain 60% of thevariance. The aggregated index reads as follows for the 4 data sets:


SEWB = 0.61(NGinschl/ NGschage) + 0.42(Nadults>=5/ Nadults) + 0.83(IRS)

+ 0.61(Yslum/Ydelhi) + 0.66(W/N) + 0.65(I/N) + 0.14(V/N) 3-a



+ 0.62(Yslum/Ydelhi) + 0.63(W/N) + 0.63(I/N) + 0.19(V/N) 3-b

Relocated-beforemetroSEWB = 0.68(NGinschl/ NGschage) + 0.68(Nadults>=5/ Nadults) + 0.93(IRS)

+ 0.14(Yslum/Ydelhi) + 0.62(W/N) + 0.62(I/N) + 0.22(V/N) 3-c

Relocated- aftermetro


+ 0.65(Yslum/Ydelhi) + 0.72(W/N) + 0.67(I/N) + 0.06(V/N) 3-d


57/74

57

Significance ofchange in the Indices

No. Indices Significance of change for HH

in metro vicinity


relocated

At 5%

confidence

level

At 1%

confidence

level

At 5%

confidence

level

At 1%

confidence

level

1 Accessibility Significant Significant Significant Significant

2 Mobility Not significant Not significant Significant Significant

3 SEWB Not significant Not significant Significant Significant


58/74

58

THE SEIA MODEL

Correlation between Accessibility, Mobility and SEWB modeled in twoways

1. Correlation between the indices2. Correlation ofdependent index with independent indicators

Correlation between indicesMethods for linear correlation:

1. parametric: Pearson correlation (Continuous data)2. non-parametric: Spearman correlation (Rank order data assumed)

Data Set A & M M & S A & SParametric Nonpara Parametric Nonpara Parametric Nonpara

In Vicinity- b4 metro -0.001 0.004 0.176 0.180 0.035 0.084

In Vicinity- aft metro 0.128 0.108 0.112 0.089 0.277 0.280

In Vicinity- change -0.157 -0.202 0.014 0.114 -0.170 -0.177

Relocated- b4 metro -0.034 0.055 0.169 0.134 0.057 0.140

Relocated- aft metro 0.001 -0.049 -0.039 -0.090 -0.065 -0.125

Relocated- change 0.026 -0.027 -0.219 -0.229 0.016 0.045

TOTAL -0.223 -0.335 0.122 0.115 0.020 0.034


59/74

59

Linear regression ofdependent index with independent

indicators

This has been tried for the following equations (for all 4 data sets, and allrepeated for each set)

Indexofmobilityandindicators ofaccessibility

M = a + b(AIi) +c(AIj)++x(AIn) ..4

Indexof SEWB andindicators ofmobilitySEWB = a + b(MIi) +c(MIj)++x(MIn) ..5

Indexof SEWB andindicators ofaccessibility

SEWB = a + b(AIi) +c(AIj)++x(AIn) ..6

Indexof SEWB andindicators ofbothaccessibilityandmobility

SEWB = a + [b(AIi) +c(AIj)++x(AIn)] + [b(MIi) +c(MIj)++x(MIn)] ..7


60/74

60

Summary ofResults ofLinear regression

No. Model used Data set R2 value P value for F-test

1 Equation 4 In Vicinity- before metro 0.022 0.49

2 In Vicinity- after metro 0.020 0.553 Relocated- before metro 0.025 0.43

4 Relocated- after metro 0.051 0.07

5 TOTAL 0.103 0.00


7 In Vicinity- after metro 0.257 0.00

8 Relocated- before metro 0.200 0.00


10 TOTAL 0.202 0.00





15 TOTAL 0.037 0.00





20 TOTAL 0.234 0.00


61/74

61

Interpretation ofResultsEquation 4: no significant correlation between the index of mobility and

the indicators ofA, A does not affect M significantly.

Equation 5: there is a significant correlation between the index ofSEWBand the indicators ofM, M affects SEWB significantly.

Equation 6: there is a significant correlation between the index ofSEWBand the indicators ofA for the households residing in the vicinity butthe correlation is not significant for the households relocated

Equation 7: there is a significant correlation between the index ofSEWB

and the combined indicators ofA and M, A and M affect SEWBsignificantly.

Comparing the R2 values of all the models, the best results are given byEquation 7, implying that the SEWB is explained best when theaffects/contributions of indicators of both A and M are considered.However, it is observed that the R2 values change for the households

after the introduction of the metro. For the households located in thevicinity, the affects ifA and M on SEWB become less significant afterthe metro and for the households relocated, they become moresignificant.


62/74

62

Significance ofCoefficients (Eqn 7)

Indicator DescriptionIn Vicinity-b4metro

In Vicinity-aftmetro

Relocated-b4metro

Relocated-aftmetro

Coeff P(2Tail) Coeff P(2Tail) Coeff P(2Tail) Coeff P(2Tail)

CONST 435.2 0.006 308.1 0.019 318.2 0.013 515.5 0

A1 SDeducation -81.3 0.041 -43.8 0.123 -2.6 0.812 -10.7 0.736

A2 SDhealth -15.7 0.353 -23.0 0.153 -27.3 0.059 -11.0 0.484

A3 SDservices -69.9 0 -17.6 0.477 -1.1 0.958 -4.6 0.238

A4 SDbus-stop 65.6 0.118 30.9 0.037 295.9 0.088 5.3 0.704

A5 Sbus -0.1 0.929 1.0 0.099 4.1 0.51 -0.2 0.57

M1 PCTRwork 102.5 0 89.7 0 126.4 0 105.6 0

M2 PCTReducation 45.3 0.151 54.0 0.068 53.5 0.344 -1.4 0.966

M3 PCTRothers 31.9 0.224 45.8 0.054 56.2 0.004 31.0 0.042

M4 MNMV/Mall 59.3 0.675 25.0 0.831 -37.9 0.746 -280.3 0

M5 Dwork -4.7 0.013 -2.7 0.063 -1.8 0.426 0.3 0.581

M6 Deducation 2.5 0.814 4.0 0.704 -16.2 0.323 4.3 0.567

M7 Dothers -1.5 0.721 -2.3 0.62 -3.3 0.454 6.4 0.005

M8 Twork

0.0 0.909 0.0 0.88 -0.8 0.038 0.0 0.844

M9 Teducation -0.6 0.29 -0.6 0.274 0.1 0.912 -0.3 0.479

M10 Tothers -0.4 0.371 -0.4 0.443 -0.8 0.28 -0.9 0.038

M11 Cwork -0.9 0.558 -2.0 0.135 -1.6 0.364 -3.0 0.012

M12 Ceducation 1.1 0.9 1.5 0.861 7.7 0.631 -9.1 0.485

M13 Cothers 1.2 0.594 2.1 0.619 3.3 0.384 -6.0 0.045

Note:The indicator coefficients with P value significant at 90% confidence levels have been

highlighted as the coefficients are significant can be included in the models.


63/74

63

Interpretation ofResultsComparative study of the coefficients shows that:

Different coefficients contribute to the model significantly for differentdata sets.

The number of significant coefficients increases after theintroduction of the metro in the households both living in the vicinityand relocated due to the metro.

The PCTR for work is the only indicator that is significantly

consistent across the board. The cost of travel has no significance in explaining SEWB if

relocation not there but it becomes significant when they arerelocated.

A study of the coefficients of the combined dataset to get an overviewof whether the coefficients are +ve or ve shows that approximately

90% of the significant indicators and 72%of all indicators arecorrelated to the SEWB index in accordance with the empiricallyobserved behavior (expected indications)


64/74

64

Final Equations

The final equations derived from the application of Equation 7 using

significant indicators are illustrated below:

SEWBVb4 = 435.2 - 81.3(SDeducation) - 69.9(SDservices) + 102.5(PCTRwork)

- 4.7(Dwork) 8-a

SEWBVaft = 308.1 + 30.9 SDbus-stop) + 1.0(Sbus) + 89.7(PCTRwork)

+ 54.0(PCTReducation) + 45.8(PCTRothers) - 2.7(Dwork) 8-b

SEWBRb4 = 318.2 - 27.3(SDhealth) - 295.9(SDbus-stop) + 126.4(PCTRwork)

+ 56.2(PCTRothers) - 0.8(Twork) 8-c

SEWBRaft = 515.5 + 105.6(PCTRwork) + 31.0(PCTRothers) -280.3(MNMV/Mall)+ 6.4 (Dothers) - 0.9(Tothers) - 3.0(Cwork) - 6.0 (Cothers) 8-d


65/74

65

Interpretation ofresults- The PCTR for work most important positive determinant of SEWB.

This implies the trips to work made by a household ensure the

SEWB, The distance to work is consistently a negative indicator for

households implying that increase in distance to work willnegatively affect SEWB.

The introduction of the metro changes the indicators which affectSEWB. Also, more numbers of indicators have a significant impacton SEWB after the introduction of the metro. This implies that theintroduction of a new transport system restructures thedeterminants of SEWB, making the households more vulnerableby increasing the number of significant indicators.

HH in Vicinity:

Since bus routes and services have been affected by theintroduction of the metro, they become significant indicatorsaffecting SEWB. This implies that the introduction of a newtransport system makes the existing transport system important indetermining SEWB.


66/74

66

HH Relocated:

Travel for purposes other than work and education is affectedby the relocation. While the distance for these trips contributes

positively to SEWB, the time and cost of these trips contributesnegatively to it.

The commuting cost had no significant correlation with SEWBbefore relocation, after relocation it has a significant negativeimpact on SEWB of the households.

Ratio of NMV to all modes used has become a significantindicator after relocation. The high negative value of thisindicator implies that the reduction in this ratio (implyingreduction in use of NMV in the household) has a severenegative impact on the SEWB of the households. Since theprocess of relocation has increased distances to destinations of

choice for the household, beyond comfortable NMVdistances, this indicator implies that the modal shift from NMVto motorized modes has had a negative impact on the SEWBof the relocated households.


67/74

67

8. Conclusions

Impact ofMetro on the poor household in its vicinity

No significant impact on the SEWB and Mobility

While the landuse accessibility remains unchanged too, the

transport accessibility has changed as distance to the bus stops has

increased for 19% of the households and bus services have become

non-existent for 33% of the households.

Impact ofMetro on the poor households relocated

There is significant impact on Accessibility, Mobility and SEWB

The land-use accessibility has deteriorated as distance to education,

health services and other urban services has increased for 52%,

63% and 52% of the households respectively. The transport

accessibility has deteriorated even more as distance to bus stop has

increased for 72% of the households and the bus frequency has

seen an average decrease from 5 min to 63 min (almost 13 times)


68/74

68

The mobility of the households have increased significantly. The PCTR

for work has increased for 49% of the households and decreased for

30%, implying change in number of trips made for work in the

households. The share of NMVs amongst the mode used has decreased

for 59% of the households. The mobility indicators for travel to work

distance, time and cost have increased for 83%, 82% and 61% of the

households respectively

The SEWB indicators most affected are female literacy (21% decrease),residency (100% decrease), Household income per person (66%

decrease), Infrastructure rank score (33% decrease and 61% increase),

and employment (8% decrease and 14% increase). The indicators of

adult literacy and vehicle ownership show least change with 82% and

94% respectively in the no change category.

The results imply that relocation due the metro has had a significant

negative impact on the SEWB ofthe poor households.


69/74

69

Correlation ofSEWB to Accessibility and Mobility

SEWB is affected by indicators of both accessibility and mobility SEWB is negatively correlated to spatial distance to education, health

and other urban services

It is positively correlated to PCTR for work, education and other

purposes

It is negatively correlated to travel distance, time and cost The significance of indicators changes with change in situation like the

new metro line or relocation due to it

PCTR for work is positively correlated with SEWB and has the

highest coefficient in all datasets, indicating the mobility for work is

important in ensuring their SEWB, whatever be their situation Cost of travel has no significance in explaining SEWB of the urban

poor but it becomes significant when they are relocated and now

have to pay heavily for the travel


70/74

70

In conclusion

This study illustrates that the accessibility and mobility and hence the

socio-economic well-being of the urban poor is affected by itsintroduction in the urban transport system.

While they may not be expected beneficiaries of the project, the dis-

benefits accrued to them due to the project need to be assessed,

and hence mitigation measures planned when proposing the project.

Hence, it is important to conduct Socio Economic Impact Assessment(SEIA) studies for a new project over disaggregated groups,

specifically including impacts on the most vulnerable group the

urban poor.


71/74

71

Policy recommendations The definition of the impacted population for a transport project

should include not only the expected users but the non-usersaffected by it too.

The accessibility and mobility needs of the urban poor need to bestudied and the urban poor should be seen as captives of thesystems they are using. Introduction of any policy or project thatchanges their status has to be carefully monitored for impacts.

The cost-benefit analysis of a transport project should include thedis-benefits to non-user groups and the costs ofcompensation/mitigation measures inbuilt as part of project cost.Only then should a project be declared feasible.

The Government should constitute a statutory body responsiblefor the SEIA of all infrastructure projects before they are givenapproval for implementation. This is in keeping with the social

welfare function of the Government. All funding mechanisms for transport projects should have inbuilt

monitoring and evaluation protocols with stringent SEIAguidelines.


72/74

72

Contribution of research

This dissertation tries to understand how the SEWB of the urban poor is

impacted by large transport projects. The impact on the accessibility andmobility of the non-users of the new system is as important as the impact on

the expected users and needs to be internalized by transport projects.

The dissertation proves that the relocation of the poor is one of the most

severe negative impacts of a transport projects and needs to be taken in

account in impact assessment studies.

The dissertation has redefined the concept of mobility into its positive andnegative aspects. It has formulated indicators of accessibility, mobility and

SEWB and aggregated them into indices.

It has modeled how SEWB is affected by accessibility and mobility and, in

doing so, has formulated a generic methodology of SEIA which is applicable

in understanding the impact of large urban transport projects like

expressways, flyovers etc on the urban poor.. Different interventionscenarios can be compared for their impacts and mitigation measures

planned accordingly. This would lead to internalizing the external cost of the

impact of transport projects on the urban poor.


73/74

73

Scope for future work

Literature review has shown that even amongst the urban poor, the

women are poorer that the men, suffering from poverty of money, timeand resources. Assessing the gendered impacts of transport projectswould give additional depth to the process of SEIA.

The WHO has declared road accidents as the number one disease inthe world. The health impacts of transport need to be included morecomprehensively in the SEIA method after a necessary review of theliterature on the same.

The qualitative data about socio-economic conditions and the opinionsand choices of people are another aspect of SEIA which requiresfurther research. Different techniques like stated preference models canbe used to include qualitative data.

The benchmarking of the various parameters/indicators needs to becarried out to identify acceptable level of adverse impacts of transportprojects.

The impacts on accessibility, mobility and SEWB need to ascribedvalue in terms of money and resources to formulate compensationpackages where necessary. This study should further lead to mitigationmeasures and alternative recommendations to minimize adverseimpacts of transport projects on the urban poor.


74/74

THANK YOU

Documents

Impact Van Grote Transport Project En