**2. India's urban mobility challenges**

Bourgeoning travel demand, rapid motorization, rise in personalized vehicles, dwindling share of public transport, congestion, degradation environmental quality, rising number of road accidents and fatalities, fragmented institutional arrangements and chronic under-investment in transport infrastructure pose major hindrances to urban mobility. These are linked to the trends and patterns of urbanization, concentration of productive economic activity, income distribution structure in cities and motorization.

#### **2.1 Urbanization trends and patterns**

Urbanization in India is characterized by rising urban population and increased density in large cities. This has led to a rapid growth in travel demand. **Tables 1**–**4** present the trends and patterns of urbanization in India.

While the number of cities/towns in India increased by 3 times, urban population rose by 13 times between 1901 and 2011. This reflects the concentrated pattern of urbanization. In 2011, the number of urban agglomerations (UAs) /towns was 7935 as against 5161 in 2001. While the number of statutory towns rose from 3799 to 4041 between 2001 and 2011, the number of census towns experienced a


#### **Table 1.**

*India: Total, rural and urban population (in million) and level of urbanization (percentage) 1901–2011.*

phenomenal jump from 1362 to 3894. About 30 percent of urban population growth in the last decade is accounted for by census towns.

**Table 2** presents the distribution of urban population between size classes of towns in India from 1901 to 2011. It reflects a top-heavy urban structure, highlighting the increasing density of large cities. **Table 3** presents the trends in metropolitan population in India and reflects a similar trend.

There are large interstate variations in urbanization patterns in India, having differential implications for urban transport demand and strategy. Among the states, Delhi was the most urbanized in 2011, with 97.5 percent urbanization level, followed by Goa (62.2 percent), Mizoram (52.1 percent) and Tamil Nadu (48.4 percent). **Table 4** presents the percentage of urban population in 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001 and 2011, and decadal annual exponential growth in urban population for 1971–81, 1981–91, 1991–2001 and 2001–11.

India's urban population is projected to more than double between 2011 and 2050 – from 377 million to 814 million. With an estimated rural population of 860 million in 2014, the country would still have 810 million in villages in 2050 [5]. Thus, India would confront the dual challenges of urban and rural development for many decades. The country has to address not only the problems of transportation within cities, it will have to connect villages to cities and towns providing efficient transport services to rural areas.

#### **2.2 Population density in urban areas**

Census of India 2011 data reveals that not only many cities, but also urban agglomerations or regions in India have a population density of more than 10,000 – with central city areas being denser than peripheries. **Table 5** provides data on densities of 10 urban districts in India with the highest population density. A simple conclusion from international comparisons relating to population densities of urban regions is that the density patterns of many cities and urban districts in India overwhelmingly support a public transport-led urban development strategy.


**Table 2.** *India: Number of* 

*agglomerations/towns*

 *and percentage*

 *of urban population*

 *by size classes of towns 1901–2011.*

*Smart Growth and Transit Oriented Development: Financing and Execution Challenges in India DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95034*

#### *Smart Cities - Their Framework and Applications*


#### **Table 3.**

*India: Number of metropolitan cities and their share in urban population 1901–2011.*



*Smart Growth and Transit Oriented Development: Financing and Execution Challenges in India DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95034*

*Note: a) The figures for the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh for the 1970s and 1980s pertain to the undivided states as existed during that time. The figures for the1990s are, however, for the new states and hence these figures are not temporally comparable.*

*b) In the absence of the Census data for total and urban population for the year 1981 in case of Assam, the urban and total population growth rates have been assumed to be constant during 1970s and 1980s. The same has been assumed for 1980s and 1990s for Jammu and Kashmir. The percentage of urban population has been arrived for Assam (1981) and Jammu and Kashmir (1991) based on these assumptions.*

*c) Goa in 1971 and 1981corresponds to Goa, Daman and Diu.*

Source: *Census of India for different years [4].*

#### **Table 4.**

*India: Level of urbanization and growth in urban population across states and union territories 1971–2011.*

#### **2.3 Composition of urban population**

Apart from the trends and patterns of urbanization and population density, the composition of population and income distribution structure in urban India also favors the use of public transport for living and working. An overwhelming majority in cities belongs to the poor, low and lower-middle income groups. The Global Wealth Report 2015 published by Credit Suisse suggests that more than 90 percent of the adult population in India fall below the bottom of the wealth pyramid (less than \$10,000). The middle class population in India, defined as those with annual wealth of about Rs.61,480 or \$13,662 is estimated at 23.6 million [6]. About one-fourth of urbanites have been identifies to be below the poverty line. An equivalent number are slum dwellers. More than 65 percent of urban households lives in two rooms or less.

**Table 6** presents a picture of urban poverty vis-à-vis rural poverty in India based on the Rangarajan Committee report. According to the Committee, a person spending less than Rs.1407 per month or Rs.47 a day was considered poor in cities in


#### **Table 5.**

*Most densely populated districts of India 2011.*


#### **Table 6.**

*India: Rural and urban poverty estimates 2009–10 and 2011–12.*

2011–12. The number of urban poor was estimated at 102.5 million, accounting for 26 percent of the urban population in the same year.

Census 2001 estimated the urban slum population in India at 42.6 million. It reported that 41.6 percent of slum population in the country lived in metropolitan cities. Mumbai had the largest number of slum dwellers, accounting for 54 percent of the population. Census 2011 has placed the number of slum-dwellers in India at 65.5 million. It further reveals that 46 million-plus cities contain 38 percent of the slum households. 9 metropolitan cities have more than 30 percent of households in slums, with Visakhapatnam topping the list at 44.1 percent, followed by Jabalpur Cantonment Board (43.1 percent) and Greater Mumbai (41.3 percent). Among the largest municipal corporations, apart from Greater Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai have reported more than 25 percent of households living in slums.

The trends of urbanization, patterns of population density and state of slums, poverty and housing in cities suggest that the demographic and income distribution structures of urban India are overwhelmingly suitable for a public transportation-led model of urban development. Transportation planners and traffic engineers advocate the following strategies for urban transportation depending on their peak hour per direction traffic (PHPDT) that significantly depend upon the density of commuters:

PHPDT Recommended strategy

10,000 - 15,000 Bus and Dedicated Busways

*Smart Growth and Transit Oriented Development: Financing and Execution Challenges in India DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95034*

15,000 - 30,000 Light Rail Transit

> 30,000 Heavy Rail Mass Transit

Based on the above criteria and other factors, many cities in India qualify for light rail transit and heavy rail transit. The largest metropolitan cities also need high speed rail connecting them to sub-urban centres and regional towns.

## **2.4 Trends in motorization**

The number of registered motor vehicles in India increased from 0.3 million in 1951 to 55 million in 2001 and 210 million in 2015. While the share of two wheelers rose from 8.8 percent in 1951 to 73.5 percent in 2015, the share of busses declined from 11 percent to 1 percent. **Table 7** presents the trends in the number of motor vehicles and the composition of the vehicular population for the period 1951–2015.

The population of motor vehicles reported by million-plus cities in India in 2015 was 66.24 million. Among these, Delhi had the highest number at 88.51 lakhs, followed by Bengaluru (55.60 lakhs), Chennai (49.34 lakhs), Ahmedabad (34.20 lakhs), Greater Mumbai (25.71 lakhs), Surat (24.59 lakhs), Hyderabad (23.69 lakhs), Pune (23.37 lakhs), and Jaipur (22.49 lakhs). The largest number of twowheelers in 2015 was in Delhi at 56.98 lakhs, followed by Bengaluru (38.41 lakhs), Chennai (35.16 lakhs), Ahmedabad (24.32 lakhs), Surat (19.13 lakhs); Pune (17.65 lakhs); Hyderabad (17.08 lakhs); Jaipur (16.58 lakhs) and Greater Mumbai (14.70 lakhs). Considering the quantum of cars in 2015, Delhi had 27.30 lakhs, followed by Bengaluru (10.89 lakhs), Chennai (8.60 lakhs), Greater Mumbai (7.97 lakhs), Kolkata (5.41 lakhs), Ahmedabad (5.26 lakhs), Hyderabad (4.02 lakhs) and Pune (3.75 lakhs). **Table 8** shows the number and share of two wheelers and cars in the population of motor vehicles for metropolitan cities as of 31st March 2015.

**Table 9** presents the growth of motor vehicle population in 22 metropolitan cities in India over the period 2005–15 for which data are available. As the table


Source: *Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, New Delhi: Road Transport Year Book (2013–14 and 2014–15) [8].*

#### **Table 7.**

*Total number of registered motor vehicles in India (in million) 1951–2015.*


*Smart Growth and Transit Oriented Development: Financing and Execution Challenges in India DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95034*


Source: *Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, New Delhi: Road Transport Year Book (2013–2014 and 2014–2015) [8].*

#### **Table 8.**

*Share of two wheelers and cars in total number of registered motor vehicles in million plus cities of India as on 31st March 2015.*



**Table 9.**

*Growth in number of registered motor vehicles in select metropolitan cities 2005–2015.*

shows 16 out of 22 metropolitan cities recorded more than 10 percent annual growth over the period; 3 cities had an annual growth rate exceeding 20 percent.

The car-penetration rate defined as the number of cars per 1000 persons is very small in India compared to that in developed countries and several developing countries. **Table 10** compares data on Gross National Income (GNI) and vehicular penetration rates for select countries with those for India.

The data in the above table suggest that with the rise in GNI, following structural transformation and economic growth, the vehicular penetration rate, with attendant problems of congestion, pollution, noise and carbon emissions in cities, will lead to increased demand for road space and public transport, including rail-based transit.

Ironically, many of India's urban mobility problems can be traced to the lack of an appropriate planning model and public transport development strategy rooted in the economics of cities. In particular, cities have not exploited the links between


*Data relates to 2012.*

*\*\*Date relates to 2011.*

Source: *Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India, New Delhi: Road Transport Year Book (2013–2014 and 2014–2015) [8].*

#### **Table 10.**

*Vehicular penetration rates in select developed and developing countries 2013.*

*Smart Growth and Transit Oriented Development: Financing and Execution Challenges in India DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95034*

agglomeration externalities and transportation in their spatial planning and development models. Land use planning and transportation planning have been pursued as disjointed exercises in India. Cities had land use planners, but no transport planners. As a result, they have not been able to harness the power of city externalities to guide transport-land use integration and local economic development, address congestion and raise resources to finance public transport. The trends of urbanization, metropolitanization and motorization; patterns of population composition and densities in cities; abysmal state of urban transport with no robust model of financing in sight; emerging energy security and environmental concerns; andthe demands of inclusive economic growth in India call for exploring the principles of New Urbanism, Smart Growth and TOD for restructuring urban planning.

### **3. New urbanism, smart growth and TOD**

New Urbanism and Smart Growth emerged in the last four decades in the United States, Europe and other developed countries in response to their problems of urban sprawl, a consequence of automobile-dependency. They are rooted in a search for alternatives to low-density, single-use and spread-out patterns of urban expansion, increasing traffic congestion and air pollution, and adversely impacting the environment and quality of life.

New Urbanism is a design-oriented with architectural roots. Promoted by architects, it is focused on neighborhood design. Smart Growth is policy-oriented with environmental roots. Spearheaded by planners, it is centered on promoting guided development. Smart Growth is not so much concerned with urban design as it is with growth promotion. It elevates the discourse on urban planning from growth control to issues of how and where growth should be accommodated. It calls for public subsidies for growth, such as infrastructure facilities and land use incentives. Both New Urbanism and Smart Growth advocate TOD.

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) owes its origin to the paradigms of New Urbanism and Smart Growth. It is an urban planning and development approach aimed at creating vibrant, livable and sustainable communities by concentrating growth around one or more transit stations or within a transit corridor. It emphasizes compact, walkable, mixed-use communities with access to high quality transit services within a walking distance. TOD principles are not new; they were introduced by many cities in North America and Australia into their planning models after World War II. However, TOD as a specific policy paradigm has taken root only in the last twenty years.

The concentration of development based on a TOD approach acts against urban sprawl and uneconomic extension of costly infrastructure, catalyzes external economies of agglomeration, mitigates congestion diseconomies, and assists in the mobilization of resources through increases in land and property values and other tax bases. TOD enables lower-stress living without complete dependence on a car for mobility. It is environment-friendly and inclusive. The poor, who do not own automobiles benefit significantly when included under a TOD scheme. As an instrument of inclusive regional and urban planning, TOD promotes the inclusion of the poor in the urban development process. The economic, social and environmental benefits of TOD are briefly presented below:

#### *TOD: Economic Benefits:*

The economic benefits of TOD include reduced congestion, agglomeration economies, resource mobilization for financing infrastructure, reduced costs of development, efficiency of investment, etc.

Reduced Congestion: TOD reduces the need to travel and, thus, reduces congestion and stress levels.

Agglomeration Economies: TOD, if designed properly, can augment agglomeration economies by enhancing access to the economic mass and facilitating the collocation of productive economic activities in nodes with potential to engineer growth. These economies lead to benefits of backward and forward linkages, market access, sharing of common infrastructure facilities and resources, specialized labour pooling, human capital accumulation, knowledge spillovers and networking. They lead to economies of sharing, matching and learning; they promote specialization, diversity and competition.

Increased Revenue Yields: Properties around transit hubs are accorded higher values. These higher property values could be converted into revenue for the government through value capture levies.

Efficiency of Investment: TOD directly fosters patronage for growth and helps to optimize existing transit and connectivity infrastructure. It maximizes the efficiency and carrying capacity of the transportation network.

TOD: Social Benefits.

Affordable housing and public transport are key enablers of social inclusion. They increase the accessibility to jobs, health care, education, recreation and sociocultural interactions.

TOD: Environmental Benefits.

Public transport can help to reduce the proliferation of personal vehicles and thus, reduce the level of emissions. This reduction could be quite significant, especially during the peak hours.

The success of TOD depends on its design. **Box 1** presents some key principles to guide TOD designing.

#### 1. Multimodal Transit Station.

Transit is the focus of TOD.Transit facilities should not be designed in isolation, rather it should connect the neighborhoods. Further, it should include a mix of modes like two wheelers, car, bicycles, BRT, LRT and NMT.

2. Interconnected Streets.

Such a pattern not only decreases congestion but also encourages mixed use development along with enhanced travel choices.

3. Mixed Use Development.

A compact structure involving diverse land use pattern can benefit residents as well as workers to meet their daily requirements including work, shopping and leisure.

4. Walkability.

In order to encourage walking it is important to design a pedestrian-friendly structure. Such a structure must include sidewalks, shaded pedestrian routes, benches to rest and safe crossing points at transit stations.

5. Compact Development.

In order to be successful, the structure needs to be compact. The extent of neighborhoods around transit nodes is based on a comfortable walking distance from edge to centre (approximately 400 to 800 meters in radius).

6. Street-facing Buildings. Streets can be better defined by placing the buildings near them. Street front retail should be

provided to humanize the building wall and activate the sidewalk.

7. Urban Place-making.

A successful TOD design works on developing public spaces in the neighborhood. It is important for improving social interaction and strengthening community bonds and participation.


A beautified street pattern equipped with pedestrian utilities improves the desire to walk and makes it pleasant while shortening the sense of distance.

*Smart Growth and Transit Oriented Development: Financing and Execution Challenges in India DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95034*


#### **Box 1.**

*Transit-oriented development: design principles.*

While the principles of Smart Growth and TOD originated in developed countries in response to their problems of sprawl, the paradigms make good sense for developing countries like India. However, TOD policies have not been implemented in an appreciable way in India. Only recently Delhi and Haryana have brought out planning guidelines for TOD, calling for the integration of transportation and land use. Bengaluru, Mumbai, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Ahmedabad. Hyderabad, Naya Raipur and Bhubaneswar have embarked on programmes to promote transit-oriented planning and development. TOD presents significant opportunities to India to make the country's urbanization process efficient, inclusive and sustainable. However, the execution of TOD and financing of transit investments are key challenges for Indian cities. Apart from the principles of sustainable development, successful international practices of transport-land use and integrationapproaches to financing public transport investments can guide the design of TOD in India. Section 4 refers to some oft-cited examples of successful international practices of TOD. Section 5 presents the broad approaches to financing of public transport, including transit to guide Indian cities to draw lessons for TOD.
