By Nitin Zamre
Globally, a variety of public transport (PT) systems have been developed and used to meet urban travel demand. These include high-capacity systems like metros, light rail transit (LRT), trams, trolley buses, bus rapid transit (BRT), etc, and the ubiquitous three- and four- wheelers (rickshaws, taxis, etc).
Urban India has been experiencing an upgrade of its PT systems to meet its rapidly-growing travel demand. The most significant upgrade is the implementation of the metro system that has redefined the standards of PT. Metros now operate in 13 cities; in 29 more, these are under construction or havebeen approved or proposed.
However, these networks have not yet achieved the expected benefits, primarily because the ridership is much lower than what was estimated. Delhi Metro—India’s largest such network —has managed just 47% of the projected ridership. Most metros have less than 15% —less than 10% for some others—of the projected ridership. This is a double whammy—not enough people enjoy the benefits, and operations become financially unsustainable. Metro systems are capital-intensive and cost about 220 crore (elevated) to550 crore (underground) per km. They create massive non-performing assets when they prove financially unsustainable. Thus, any decision to set up a metro system must be thoroughly scrutinised. A research paper published by The Infravision Foundation (in collaboration with IIT Delhi) presents a framework to understand the suitability of various PT options for Indian cities. The suitability of such systems is dictated by what urban planners call differentiated travel demand, which is characterised by the number of trips per day, distance travelled per trip, ability to spend, city population, and vehicle ownership. This demand must guide the choice of PT systems to ensure maximum benefits.Data shows that about 30-60% of urban trips are of less than 5 km and more than 75% of the trips are of less than 10 km, regardless of the city’s population density and per capita income.
Different PT systems are suitable for different travel demands. While metro systems suit long-distance trips (>10 km), bus systems, LRTs, trams, and trolley buses can meet medium-range trips (5-10 km). Intermediate public transport (IPT) systems like e-rickshaws, auto-rickshaws, and taxis can cover trips of less than 5 km for small cities and serve as feeders for larger systems.
Therefore, an integrated public transport system is essential to meet the differentiated travel demand in cities of different sizes. This integration must be at the policy, planning, operations, and infrastructure design stage and needs a strong policy and implementation framework.
For commuters, convenience and reliability dictate the preference. PT systems have a fixed route and many commuters need to make transfers in reaching their destination. Therefore, a commuter may spend significant time accessing and exiting the PT system.
In contrast, private vehicles (PVs) are under the control of the user, offering convenience, adaptability and flexibility as a door-to-door unimodal service. Rising incomes and affordability of PVs have resulted in increasing use by a large proportion of commuters for daily commutes, leading to traffic snarls and pollution. An efficient PT system, therefore, must compete with the convenience and comfort offered by personal vehicles.
So how should the city managers and urban planners plan an appropriate mobility infrastructure?
Responses to the following questions can guide them:
- How can the dependence on PVs be reduced?
- How can current PT users be retained as incomes rise and PV ownership grows?
- How can the share of PT users, pedestrians, and bicyclists be increased?
- What proportion of the population can be served by the selected PT system?
- What level of subsidy will be required to run quality PT services?The accompanying graphic shows the suggested strategies for Indian cities that are based on the existing differentiated travel demand.
The key lies in understanding differentiated travel demand and complementarity of different PT systems to provide an integrated solution at all levels—policy, planning, design, and operations.
For example, in megacities like Delhi (with about 300 km of operating metro network), the existing bus system must be strengthened. The operational integration of the bus system with the metro (common tickets, running on all arterial and sub-arterial roads, maximum frequency of 5 minutes, exclusive lanes on congested corridors) is also required. In smaller cities like Patiala (~1 million population), bus systems running on all arterial and sub-arterial roads with few sections of exclusive lanes can meet the travel demand. IPT vehicles are suitable for shorter trips in Patiala and the last-mile connectivity to bus and metro systems in Delhi.
Such a robust and scientific framework can help Indian cities and their managers provide a comfortable and accessible PT system and improve the “ease of living” for citizens. More importantly, capex-heavy metro systems are often not the right answer.
The writer is Chief Operating Officer, The Infravision Foundation
With inputs by Geetam Tiwari, TRIPP Chair professor, IIT Delhi