Dr. V. Setty Pendakur

Non-Motorised Urban Transport in India

Homepage Manual Contents

Paper No. 870131

Dr. V. Setty Pendakur
University of British Columbia
Cancouver, Canada. V6T 1W5

Transportation Research Board
67th Annual Meeting
January 11-14, 1988
Washington, D.C.

Excerpt from: Bicycle Reference Manual for Developing Countries. Edited by Barbara Gruehl Kipke, April 1991.

India had 12 cities with more than one million persons in 1981 and will have 24 cities of this size by the year 2000.
Non-motorised transport modes (walk, bicycle, cycle rikshaw and tonga) are important components of the urban transport systems in India. These trips ranged from 26% (Bombay) to 56% (Bangalore) in large cities and 56% (Vadodara) to 69% (Jaipur) in small cities.
Urban poverty persists in India. Data from 9 cities indicate that non-motorised transport is quite significant and particularly so to the urban poor.
While transport modernisation will take place gradually, urban planners must incorporate non-motorised trips as an integral part of analysis and transport planning.
Key words: non-motorised transport, walk trips, bicycles, cycle rikshaws, transport policy, India.

Despite various efforts to modernise urban transport systems in India, the non-motorised modes persist. The primary reason for such survival is that these modes are cheap and often as efficient as motorised modes. The poor walk and/or bicycle, not for keeping fit, but primarily to save money.
Modernising urban transport systems and providing additional transport supply is quite costly. However, the allocations for urban transport have been in the order of 10%-15% of the estimated needs during VII five year plan (1982-87) and there is no reason to believe that allocations will expand during the 1987-92 period (1). This means that the non-motorised transport modes are here to stay for the time being.
Four large Asian countries - Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and Pakistan - contain about two-thirds of the world's absolute poor (2). India displays economic vitality and dire poverty concurrently. Recent estimates of poverty based on definition of 2100 daily calorific intake as suggested by the National Planning Commission of India indicate that 60%-70% of urban residents are poor (3). For example, Bombay is a very wealthy city with GNP which exceeds that of several Asian countries. Yet, in 1981, 71% of Bombay households had a monthly income of less than U.S. $50, which is below the poverty line accepted by the government.
In 1981, India's population was 665 million, of which 24% was urban. The urban population is expected to increase to 28% (280 million) of a total of 1.0 billion by 2001. There were 12 cities with a population of 1/2 to 1 million in 1981. Their number is expected to increase to 24 by 2001.

Urban travel data for large and smaller cities is presented in Tables 1 and 2. Large cities have mature and diverse transport modes. These systems are generally overcrowded throughout the day. Among the large cities, Bombay alone has a good network of commuter trains. In other cities, public transport means primarily buses. Non-motorised modes varied from a low of 26% in Bombay to 62% in Ahmedabad.
In smaller cities, the trip lengths are smaller. In these cities, non-motorised trips are a higher proportion and varied from 56% in Vadadora to 69% in Jaipur. These trips decrease with the increase in the city size. Mode choice and city size relationships are shown in Figure 1.
Walking is the most dominant mode: 15% in Bombay, 43% in Bangalore and Ahmedabad. The choice of walking trips is influenced by trip lengths, climate, alternative transport and their cost, and the poverty levels. Bicycle trips amounted to 10% in Bombay and 26% in Jaipur. Bicycle is popular among the poor, if they can afford to own one and also, in general, among the students.
Urban travel mode choices by the poor are presented in Tables 3 and 4. The relationship between income and mode choice is presented in Figure 2. Although mode choices are influenced by trip lengths, climate and cost of other alternatives, income is the dominant determinant of mode choice. With increasing incomes, people shift to more comfortable and convenient motorised modes.

Urban transport systems in India function in an environment characterised by large scale poverty resulting in an inability to pay, and lack of adequate financial resources to create additional transport supply. These conditions are changing slowly but are not expected to change drastically over the next 20 years. On the other hand, urban transport policy goals and planning principles in India are heavily biased in favour of motorised vehicles, ignoring the non-motorised modes used by a large segment of the population (4,5, 6). It is as if these modes (walk, bicycle, cycle rikshaw) did not exist and if they did, they would somehow disappear during the next forecast/plan period.
This is not unique to India. In many developing countries, the policy goals are to eliminate/abolish the non-motorised modes and assume" that they will fade of their own accord (7, 8,9, 10). While transport modernisation must take place, and will take place with increasing incomes, it is important to plan and accomodate appropriately these modes in the interim. The interim period is certainly longer than 20 years especially if the projected levels of poverty are considered (2, 3,11).
Urban transport policy issues and conclusions are presented in Tables 5 to 8. Urban transport systems in India are characterised by high use of walk and bicycle modes, practically overloaded public transport, and lack of financial resources to make quantum jump improvements. Furthermore, the majority of the urban dwellers are poor and they are the primary users of non-motorised transport. These differences require different approaches to transport analysis and development. For example, it should be mandatory to require assessment of impacts on the poor whenever new transport investments or regulations are proposed. Emphasis should be placed on non-transport solutions to transport problems.
Some key areas needing further research are:

1. Applicability of the concept of equal and universal value of time - Do time savings have equal monetary value or benefit to all persons? What increments of time savings are significant to whom?
2. Road user space and cost allocation - How do we establish priorities for vehicle mix and cost allocation?
3. Modal Efficiency - If bicycles are energy efficient and are universally available even to poor households, do we encourage bicycle ownership and use?
4. Transport Modernisation - What are the most suitable strategies for transport modernisation without increasing the Cost of transport?

1. Adkar, K.K. Seventh Plan Review: Urban Transport. New Delhi: National Planning Commission, 1983.
2. World Bank. World Development Report 1978. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, August 1978.
3. Gupta, S.P. et al. Poverty: Its Measurement and Regional Dimension. Bombay: The Center for Monitoring the Indian Economy, February 1984.
4. Pendakur, V. Setty. Urban Growth, Urban Poor and Urban Transport in Asia. Yancouver, B.C.: The University of British Columbia, The Center for Human Settlements, 1986.
5. Pendakur, V. Setty. "Urban Transport Planning and the Urban Poor", Journal of the Indian Roads Congress. 45:2. September 1984.
6. Pendakur, V. Setty and A.K. Sarkar. "Urban Transport and the Urban Poor" In V. Setty Pendakur and O.P. Dwivedi (ed). South Asian Horizons, Volume 3. Ottawa: Canadian Asian Studies Association.
7. Pendakur, V. Setty. Urban Transport in ASEAN, Singapore: Institute of South East Asian Studies. 1984.
8. Maunder, D.A.C. and D.C. Jacobs. Transport Problems of the Urban Poor in Delhi. Crowthorne, U.K.: Transport and Road Research Laboratory, 1982.
9. Pendakur, V. Setty and N.S. Srinivasan. Urban Transportation: An overview of Problems Issues and Policies. Journal of the Indian Roads Congress, 46:1, October, 1985.
10. UNCHS. Transportation for Urban and Rural Areas, with Emphasis on Groups with Limited Resources. Nairobi: U.N. Commission on Human Settlements, Report of the Executive Director, HS/C/5/4, May 1982.
11. Planning Commission. Report of the Task Force on the Projections of Minimum Needs and Effective Consumption Demand. New Delhi: Planning Commission, Government of India, 1977.

Fig 1. Urban Travel Patterns
Population: Non-motorised Mode
Missing figure. If you are interrested in this figure, please write me an email.

Fig 2. Urban Travel Patterns
Income: Mode Choice
Missing figure. If you are interrested in this figure, please write me an email.

Table 1. Urban Travel
Large Metro Areas, 1981

Population: (millions)	Bngire	Bmbay	Delhl	Madras	Ahmed
	2.9	8.2	5.7	4.3	2.5
Non - Motorised Trips	55.7%	26.0%	46.5%	41.0%	61.6%
Walk	43.4	15.0	28.7	20.0	43.2
Bicycle	12.0	10.0	14.8	20.0	18.0
Cycl Rkshw	0.1	1.0	3.0	<0.1	0.2
Tonga	0.3	<0.1	<0.1	0.2	0.2

Table 2. Urban Travel
Small Metro Areas, 1981

Population: (millions)	Visakhapatnam	Vadadora	Jaipur	Patna
	1.3	0.8	1.0	0.9
Non-Motorised	59.1%	55.9%	69.0%	66.3%
Trips	42.4	40.1	39.5	35.8
Walk	11.6	15.1	26.5	12.5
Bicycle	4.6	0.5	2.7	17.6
Tonga	0.5	0.2	0.3	0.4

Table 3. Urban Travel
by the Poor

	Dakshin puri	Shakar pur	Poonna mallee
Mnthly Inc/cap	117 Rs	193 Rs	161 Rs
Distance to CBD	14 km	8 km	21 km
Non-Motorised Trips	72%	52%	50%
Walk	58	43	35
Bicycle	14	5	15
Cycle Rikshaw	<1	4	<1

Table 4. Urban Travel
by the Very Poor

	Nand Nagri	Kesava Perumal	1200 Slums (Average)
Mnthly Inc/cap	91 Rs	54 Rs	84 Rs
Distance to CBD	25 km	5 km	N/A
Non-Motorised Trips	47%	71%	84%
Walk	42	41	78
Bicycle	3	21	5
Cycle Rikshaw	2	9	1

Table 5. Non-Motorised Urban Transport
Policy Issues: Walk Trips

1. 15% to 43% of all trips are by WALK.
   • provide adequate and continuous footpaths.
   • provide safe and convenient crossings.
2. 35% to 78% of all trips by the POOR are by walk.
   • The poor walk primarily to save money.
   • encourage short trips:
   • provide adequate housing near employment centers.
   • decentralise work places:
   • reduce need for long trips.

Table 6. Non-Motorised Urban Transport
Policy Issues: Bicycle Trips

1. 10% to 27% all trips are by BICYCLE.
   • provide adequate and continuous cycle paths.
   • provide safe and convenient Interchange systeme when sharing the same road.
2. Encourage easy availability of bicycles.
   • increase production of cycles.
   • Installment purchse; Cycles for-hire.
   • encourage short trips:
   • provide adequate housing near employment centers.
   • decentralise work places:
   • reduce need for long trips.

Table 7. Non-Motorised Urban Transport
Policy Issues: Cycle Rikshaw

1. Cycle Rikshaws are a significant part of the urban transportation systems, particularly in smaller urban areas.
   • 1% to 18% of all trips are by cycle rikshaw.
2. Modernisation and motorisation of rikshaws will take place in the long run. Until that time, they are required by the public.
   • remove regulatory barriere to new supply.
   • provide new supply where there is demand.
   • research as to how the productivity of the rikshaw can be increased economically.

Table 8. Non-Motorised Urban Transport
Policy and Planning Issues

1. Highest priority be given to moving people, using the most common modes, icluding walk, bicycles and pubilc transport.
2. Design guidelines be developed for handling safely and adequately mixed traffic: walk, bicycles and other traffic.
3. Urban planning methods require reduction of trip lengths, particularly to work places.
4. Urban transport studies must include data and analysis of walk and bicycle trips.