the urban environmental challenge in low-income countries: … · 2014-10-06 · global...
Post on 06-Jun-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
top related