The Urban Environmental Challenge in Low-income Countries:

The Case of Urban Transport in India

Madhav G. Badami

School of Urban Planning andMcGill School of Environment

Institute for Social and Health PolicyOctober 27, 2009

mgb

Outline• The Urban Environmental Challenge in LICs

• The Case of Urban Transport in India

– Rapid motor vehicle growth and impacts

– Characteristics and Considerations

– Motor Vehicle Focused Planning is Counter-productive

– The Critical Importance of Pedestrian Accessibility as the Foundation of UT Policy and Planning

– Photo Tour of Indian Streets

– Some Questions for Thought and Debate

– Policy Research Agenda

mgb

Total versus Urban Population Growth

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Urban Population

Total Population

About 50% of world population is now urban

Source: UN (2002)

Percentage Distribution of Urban Population in HICs and LICs

Source: UN (2002)Source: UN (2002)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2030

2000

1975

1950

%

DC’s

LDC’s

1950-90 Urban population grew three-fold globally; grew five-fold in LICs

Rapid Urbanization -- Megacities

1950 (1) 1975 (5; 1 Asian LIC) 2000 (16; 8 Asian LIC, 3 Indian)

2015 (21; 10 Asian LIC, 3 Indian)

New York 12.3 Tokyo 19.7 New York 15.9 Shanghai 11.4 Mexico City 10.7 Sao Paulo 10.3

Tokyo 26.4 Mexico City 18.1 Sao Paulo 17.9 New York 16.7 Bombay 16.1 Los Angeles 13.2 Calcutta 13.1 Shanghai 12.9 Dhaka 12.5 Delhi 12.4 Buenos Aires 12.0 Jakarta 11.0 Osaka 11.0 Beijing 10.8 Rio de Janeiro 10.7 Karachi 10.0

Tokyo 27.2 Dhaka 22.8 Bombay 22.6 Sao Paulo 21.2 Delhi 20.9 Mexico City 20.4 New York 17.9 Jakarta 17.3 Calcutta 16.7 Karachi 16.2 Lagos 16.0 Los Angeles 14.5 Shanghai 13.6 Buenos Aires 13.2 Metro Manila 12.6 Beijing 11.7 Rio de Janeiro 11.5 Cairo 11.5 Istanbul 11.4 Osaka 11.0 Tianjin 10.3

Rapid urbanization; mega-cities

Rapidly growing medium-sized cities -- in 2015, Asia will likely have 160 cities with >1 m. population (30% in India)Source: UN (1999; 2002; 2003)

Rapid urbanization; mega-cities

Rapidly growing medium-sized cities -- in 2015, Asia will likely have 160 cities with >1 m. population (30% in India)Source: UN (1999; 2002; 2003)

Global Urbanization Trends• By around 2030:

– Asia’s urban population -- twice total population of Europe, North America and Japan

– Asia’s urban population, which tripled between 1960 and 1990, will almost triple again, to 2.4 billion (nearly the total global population in 1950)

– Nearly 1 in every 3 people globally will be in an Asian city

– At that point, Asia will be only 54% urban

– Megacities with high poverty levels -- half of all poor households will be urban, and concentrated mainly in South Asia

Source: UN (1999; 2002)Source: UN (1999; 2002)

mgb

Urban Environmental Impacts in LICs• Rich country cities vital to ecological sustainability, but the UE challenge

primarily in LICs

• “Modern” superimposed on traditional risks -- Very poor water, air quality; sanitation, housing; solid waste disposal

• Very high exposure and impacts … Poverty-pollution-health care synergies

• High local pollution levels, impacts despite low or similar activity and consumption levels

• Technologies improving, BUT …

– Per capita consumption low but growing (energy, motor vehicles)– Inadequate urban infrastructure – Delhi versus London– Institutions and Governance

• Concentration of activity causes problems, but easier to address – cities are optimal scale – economies of scale – high densities – “cauldrons of creativity”

• Solutions should be sensitive to CONTEXT

The Case of Urban Transport in India

mgb

Motor Vehicle Growth

Source: OECD (2005) LIC MV Population 35% now, likely 50% by 2040LIC MV Population 35% now, likely 50% by 2040

mgb

Motor Vehicle Growth -- BRICPassenger cars (stock per 1,000 pop.)

0 200 400 600

India

China

Brazil

Russia

BRIC, avg

US

G7

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit (2008)

Annual passenger car registrations ('000)

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Forecast

Source and forecast : Economist Intelligence Unit (2008)

G7

US

BRIC

Courtesy Christian Krelling

mgb

Motor Vehicle Growth in India, 1971-2001

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1971 1981 1991 2001

Mill

ion

vehi

cles

Others Goods Cars, Jeeps, Taxis M2W Vehicles

Source: MORTH, 2004.

Rapid growth in cities, nationally

M2W vehicles predominate, but …

mgb

Road Accidents

• Rising trends -- India vs. USA• Pedestrians and cyclists worst affected• Traffic injuries – life years lost

Delhi Traffic Police (2004), courtesy Kavi Bhalla

65Bus/Truck5Bus/Truck23Car3Car1M3W2M3W5M2W27M2W

6Single vehicle63Pedestrian/

Cycle

Impacting Vehicle (%)Victim (%)

mgb

Road Traffic Injuries – A Public Health Crisis

Source: WHO, 2002

mgb

Road Traffic Injuries – A Public Health Crisis

Source: WHO, 2008

mgb

Road Traffic Injuries – A Public Health Crisis

Source: Nantulya and Reich, 2002

mgb

Urban Air Pollution

Daily limit exceeded most days every year

Courtesy Milind Kandlikar

mgb

Road Transport Energy Consumption Growing Most Rapidly Outside OECD

Urban Transport in India –Characteristics and

Considerations

mgb

Rapidly Growing Motor Vehicle Ownership and Use

Advantages –M2W vehicles

Family structure

Gender relations

Growing supply

Easy credit

Buying a Dream

Urbanization

Incomes

High ownership/useat low incomes

Housing affordability/Poor PTPoor access/safety

MV focused planning

mgb

mgb

mgb

If you had a car or scooter … would you bother with the bus … let alone walk ?

Courtesy India Today

mgb

Access Loss is Most Serious Impact

• Access loss due to MV activity, also accommodative “planning” – pedestrian a third-class citizen

• Serious equity impacts -- User on non-user externality – road safety

• Exacerbates other impacts, Vicious Circle – Unviable NMT Increased MV use – School children, elderly Congestion, Air pollution, energy Unviable NMT Unviable PT Increased MV use

• Adverse implications for all, including MV users

mgb

PT Mode Share, 1994 vs. 2007

0 20 40 60 80

< 0.5

0.5 to 1

1 to 2

2 to 4

4 to 8

> 8

Urb

an P

opul

atio

n, m

illio

n

% Mode Share

1994 2007

RITES, 1994; Wilbur Smith Associates, 2008

mgb

Walk Mode Share, 1994 vs. 2007

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

< 0.5

0.5 to 1

1 to 2

2 to 4

4 to 8

> 8

Urb

an P

opul

atio

n, m

illio

n

% Mode Share

1994 2007

RITES, 1994; Wilbur Smith Associates, 2008

Motor Vehicle Focused Planning Is Counter-productive

mgb

Urban Transport – A Major Public Concern• Intense frustration, yet resignation

• Sense of inevitability

• Provide more roads for cars

• Provide everyone a car (Nano)

• Faith in technological solutions – Emission standards, CNG, Flyovers, Metro

mgb

“Building our way out of it” ?? US Urban Congestion Outpaces Road Supply

Source: Texas Transportation Institute, 2007

mgb

“Building our way out of it” ?? US Urban Congestion Outpaces Road Supply

Source: Texas Transportation Institute, 2007

mgb

“Building our way out of it” – Loosening Belts as a Cure for Obesity …

• Has not worked even in resource-rich contexts –US EXAMPLE -- CHARTS

• Futile but also Counter-productive, IATROGENIC –VICIOUS CIRCLE of motorization and impacts

• In Indian context, infeasible, but also highly undesirable -- severe access loss, displacement and social disruption – Ivan Illich

• MV centered planning inappropriate in NA, where MV ownership high, even more so in LICs

• Not Personal MVs, but their excessive use, is the problem

The Critical Importance of RESTORING

Pedestrian Accessibility in Indian Cities

mgb

Rapidly Growing Motor Vehicle Ownership and Use At the Same Time … Poverty …

And High Density, Mixed Land Use …

Large Share of Short/Medium Distance Trips

0

20

40

60

80

100

< 2.5 < 5 < 10 < 15 < 20 < 25 > 25

Distance, km

Cum

ulat

ive

% o

f trip

s

Work Education All

Source: RITES/ORG, 1994 for Delhi

Mean Trip Lengths

Education 3.3 kmWork 9.7 kmAll trips 6.8 km

mgb

Large Shares of Walk and PT Trips -- Delhi

Wilbur Smith Associates, 2008, for MoUD, GoI

0 10 20 30 40 50

Walk

Cycle

PT

IPT

M2W

Car

% Mode Share

mgb

Large Shares of Walk and PT Trips -- Mumbai

mgb

Pedestrian Accessibility for Problem Avoidance

• Not MOBILITY, or ACCESS TO MOBILITY, but ACCESSIBILITY, particularly PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY

• Problem avoidance, not end-of-pipeline cure

• Providing for Non-Motorized Modes Will Address Multiple Impacts, Benefit All

0

20

40

60

80

100

<2.5 < 5 < 10 < 15 < 20 < 25 > 25

Distance, km

Cum

ulat

ive

% o

f trip

s

Work tripsM2W tripsAll trips

mgb

The Benefits of NMT Infrastructure

Source: Whitelegg 1993Source: Whitelegg 1993

Refuse distance – depends on income and quality of pedestrian environment

mgb

Traffic engineering and management

Technologies for per-vehicle impacts

Cost-effectiveQuality Public Transit

Pricing of Road UseVariable costs -- Parking

Accessibility – NMT Infrastructure

Land Use-Transport Integration

Cure

Prevention

Co-ordination across functions, scales, agencies

mgb

Photo Tour -- Issues• Multiple use(r)s – pedestrians, cyclists, MV users, PT users,

merchants and hawkers, elderly and young

• Multiple inter-locking issues – electrical and other services, garbage, parking control, PT access, tree cover

• Urban morphology – hard medians; 4-way stops for M2W vehicles

• Poor design and construction – evaluation of investment outcomes

• Pedestrian accessibility is not merely side-walks; seamless, safe and convenient pedestrian connectivity

mgb

Some Questions for Thought and Debate• What will Indian cities look like as vehicle ownership approaches

rich country levels? What will it take to address the likely impacts?

• Why are pedestrians third class citizens in a nation of pedestrians – despite mode shares, potential, benefits

• Is it that we do not know; we can’t do; OR we don’t care

• Is it the lack of “Political will”?

• Pedestrians don’t count ? – Most who WALK don’t have a SAY; Those who have a SAY, don’t WALK

• Decision makers’ “Windshield view” reinforced by public sense of inevitability, indifference -- no pedestrian constituency -- but ALSO Conventional UT Policy and Planning

• Policy analysis – HOW should we work to contribute to changing the status quo?

mgb

Policy Research Agenda• Peter Rogers -- WHAT and HOW should we conduct research

• Counterfoil research – assumptions underlying conventional policy and planning

• Political economy – decision-maker perspectives, agendas, priorities; budgetary allocations; policies, codes and practices

• Transport planning education and training -- implementation; Expensive, inappropriate options --Pedestrian Subways, over-bridges, air-conditioned bus shelters

• Role of the media – analysis

• Engagement with the public and decision-makers

• Action research

• Survey of (short-distance) trip-making – effects of MV activity and planning on pedestrian accessibility

• Critical evaluation of codes, practices

• Neighbourhood or corridor accessibility plan

• Urban poor – urban transport impacts, needs

mgbCourtesy Sudhir Gota, CAI-Asia