COST AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF FREE PUBLIC

TRANSPORT IN PUNE, INDIA

PARISAR INTERNSHIP REPORT

AMITESH SAHA

MADRAS SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

13.07.2016

Acknowledgements:

This paper was supported by Regional Transport Office, Pune and Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Limited, Pune. We are thankful to Mr. Jugal Rathi who provided expertise that greatly assisted the paper.

We are also grateful to Dr. K.S. Hari, Assistant Professor, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, who moderated this paper and in that line improved the manuscript significantly.

We have to express out appreciation to Mr. Sujit Patwardhan, Ranjit Gadgil and Shweta Vernekar for sharing their pearls of wisdom with us during the course of this paper.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. INTRODUCTION:..............................................................................1

2. OBJECTIVE:......................................................................................2

3. LITERATURE REVIEWS:....................................................................4

4. DATA SOURCE AND METHODOLOGY:..............................................5

a) cost analysis...............................................................................6

b) benefit analysis..........................................................................7

5. RESULTS:.........................................................................................8

COST ANALYSIS.........................................................................................8

A) DIRECT COSTS......................................................................................8

1. Profit and loss accounts of public transportation system..................8

B) INDIRECT COSTS:...................................................................................9

1. Business economy of private vehicles...............................................9

2. Others.............................................................................................11

BENEFIT ANALYSIS...................................................................................12

1. Traffic Accidents..............................................................................12

2. Air Pollution.....................................................................................13

3. Ridership.........................................................................................15

4. Congestion.......................................................................................18

5. Health..............................................................................................18

6. Others..............................................................................................19

6. CONCLUSIONS:..............................................................................19

7. REFERRENCES:...............................................................................21

Note: Tables are attached separately in excel sheets.

1.INTRODUCTION :

Pune, the cultural and educational capital of the state of Maharashtra is located approximately 160 kilometers south-east of Mumbai. Pune is also known as a twin city with two municipal corporations of Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad. The major economic activities in Pune are service industries, government, construction, and more recently, information technology and biotechnology. With a total population of 5.9 million, Pune urban agglomeration is one of the

fastest growing areas in Maharashtra. The urban agglomeration of Pune including

Pimpri-Chinchwad has made a huge growth in its population in the last 15 years.

From a small figure of 4,485,000 in 2005, its urban agglomeration has grown to

over 5 million in 2015.

Public transport in Pune was mainly Bus system under PMT and PCMT until 2007.

The company, PMPML (Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Ltd.) came into

existence on 19/10/2007 when the two transport undertakings viz. PMT and

PCMT merged. Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Limited (PMPML)

operates public buses within the city and in its suburbs. The PMPML operates

the Pune Bus Rapid Transit system, the first of its kind in India, in which dedicated

bus lanes were supposed to allow buses to travel quickly through the city. In

reality, the project has turned out to be a failure receiving little to no patronage

from the local citizenry.

As of December 2015, there were 2047 public buses in Pune, out of which 1557

were on road. Compared to public buses the number of registered private

vehicles in Pune was 392313 by the end of 2015. 1095372 was the number of

average passenger per day who used public transport in December'15 on traffic.

According to ADSI REPORT 2014 there were 1433 traffic accidents by the end of

2014, out of which 1387 were by private vehicles. Increased vehicles on road

means more sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide being released in the air.

According to Maharastra pollution control board the weighted average of sulphur

dioxide was 43.22 µg/m3 (std 80 µg/m3) and NOx ( the oxides of nitrogen) was

88.48 µg/m3 (std 80 µg/m3) on air in Pune. Approximately, 83% SO2 and 85%

1

NOx have emitted from vehicles. Other than that, the rate of health diseases, the

road congestions has become terribly increased over years. The rapid growth of

private vehicles is leading to various problems to the society, environment as well

as in the economy.

2.OBJECTIVE: Public transport provides mobility to the general public, including buses and their variations. It can play important and unique roles in an efficient and equitable transport system. It can therefore have diverse impacts (benefits and costs), including many that are indirect and external (they affect people who do not currently use transit services).

High quality (relatively fast, convenient, comfortable and integrated) transit can attract discretionary travelers who would otherwise drive, which reduces traffic problems including congestion, parking costs, accidents and pollution emissions.

High quality transport can stimulate transport-oriented development where residents tend to own fewer vehicles, drive less and rely more on alternative modes than in more automobile-oriented communities. This can leverage additional travel reductions and benefits (besides just the travel shifted to transit).

Highway expansion tends to induce additional vehicle travel which increases external costs such as downstream congestion, parking demand, traffic risk, barrier effects and pollution emissions, costs that are avoided if travelers instead shift to public transit. These impacts should be considered when comparing roadway expansions with transit improvements.

These impacts and benefits tend to increase if transit improvements are implemented with support strategies such as fare free system, walking and cycling improvements, more compact development, transportation demand management programs and efficient road and parking pricing.

Since active transport (walking and cycling) and public transit are complements, transit travel tends to increase public fitness and health.

Current demographic and economic trends (aging population, rising fuel prices, urbanization, changing consumer preferences, increasing health and environmental concerns) are increasing demand for transit and transit-

2

-oriented development and therefore their benefits.

To check whether it is possible to solve issues like traffic congestion, traffic

accidents, road and parking infrastructural costs, automobile costs to consumers,

excessive energy consumption, pollution emissions etc., an hypothetical policy,

the effectiveness(cost and benefit analysis) of free public transport has been

discussed in this paper. Free public transport often called as fare free public

transit or zero fare public transport, refers to public transport funded in full by

means other than collecting fares from passengers. It may be funded by national,

regional or local govt. through taxation or by commercial sponsorship by business.

The concept of freeness is one that may take other forms, such as no fare access

via a card which may or may not be paid in its entirety by the user. There are two

types of people who use buses. The first kind always travel by bus, who can be

called captive users. The second kind lives in a dilemma in choosing a proper

mode of transportation by maximizing their utility of satisfaction levels according

to their rational parameters at given point of time. With a free public transport

two possible things can happen with the ridership. It will either increase or will be

same. There is very less chance of having no effects or negative effects with zero

transportation cost because the basic axiom of rationality is "more is better". Free

public transport will lead to price effects which will eventually make the user feel

richer by nature. With zero transportation cost, they can save the extra amount

which was used to be spent on transport and can substitute it with their preferred

bundles which will increase their ridership. So, this clears out one basic thing i.e.

people who use public transport will definitely be using it with subsidizing fare.

There is another kind of people who treat few luxuries as necessities. For those it

doesn't matter to save few bucks (whatever the internal cost is, based on fuel,

registration, insurance etc.) to risk their times or other priorities they have. So,

those people will not be using public transport whether it's free or not.

The above fact explains that automobile travel will not disappear and all travel

will not shift to public transit. However, at the margin (i.e., compared with their

current travel patterns) many motorists would prefer to drive somewhat less and

3

use alternatives more, provided they are convenient, comfortable and affordable.

Satisfying this growing demand for alternative modes can provide a variety of

benefits. When all impacts are considered, improving public transit is often the

most cost-effective transportation improvement.

Section 2 of this paper describes various literature reviews of free transport

system all over the World. Section 3 explains the detailed methodology and data

filtering procedures. Following that, section 4 gives interesting results on

efficiency and equity of free public transport system in Pune. Finally, section 5

explains the future scopes along with drawbacks of this project with concluding

remarks.

3.LITERATURE REVIEWS:

Estonia, France, Germany, Czech republic and Slovakia in Europe, Brazil and united states in Americas have many towns and cities with fare free public transport system. In 2006, among the various works, "Impact and assessment of “Free” Public Transport measures: lessons from the case study of Brussels" by Cathy Macharis, Astrid De Witte, Thérèse Steenberghen Stefaan, Van de Walle, Pierre Lannoy and Céline Polain, was assessed the effects of the introduction of a third payer system on the mobility behavior from a multidisciplinary viewpoint. This approach allowed an analysis of various effects that free public transport and, in general, price policies could entail. The concept of the “third payer system” implies that the cost of public transport is not paid by the user or provider, but partially or completely by a third party. Local authorities, other public organizations and private organizations can enter into such agreements and pay for public transport for a specific target group in a specific area. The analysis had been performed through a case study, namely the introduction of free urban public transport for students at Dutch-speaking universities and colleges in Brussels. In how far this measure contributed to a more sustainable mobility system had caused much debate. Also, not everyone was convinced that such a measure was beneficial for the society. Some people argued that there were better ways to spend the money, for instance on the quality of public transport. In order to assess whether this measure has societal benefits, a social cost-benefit analysis (SCBA) had been carried out. This analysis calculated the benefits and costs of the measure, in

4

order to find out if the balance was positive or negative. Another work by Todd Litman in December'15 on "Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs" described how to create a comprehensive framework for evaluating the full impacts (benefits and costs) of a particular transit service or improvement. It identified various categories of impacts and how to measure them. It discussed best practices for transit evaluation and identifies common errors that distort results. It discussed the travel impacts of various types of transit system changes and incentives. It described ways to optimize transit benefits by increasing system efficiency, increasing ridership and creating more transit oriented land use patterns. It compared automobile and transit costs, and the advantages and disadvantages of bus and rail transit. It included examples of transit evaluation, and provides extensive references. Many of the techniques in this guide can be used to evaluate other modes, such as ridesharing, cycling and walking. Lauren N. Gase, Tony kuo, Steven Teutsch and Jonathan E. Fielding estimated "Cost and Benefits of providing free Public transport Passes to Students in Los Angeles Country" in 2014. This article described the process used to conduct a health impact assessment of a proposal to provide free public transportation passes to students in Los Angeles County.

4.DATA SOURCE AND METHODOLOGY:

For cost and benefit analysis, we have collected data from various institutions of Pune and filtered them. From PMPML we have received depot wise statistical report for each month since august'08 to aprii'16. Along with statistical report we have got the annual balance sheet of PMPML from 2008 to 2015. Regional transport office, Pune has provided me category wise motor vehicle registrations. We have also noted air pollution data over year from Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. Accidental Deaths And Suicides in India i.e. ADSI report helped to find patterns of traffic accidents over year in Pune. PMPML records statistics from 10 depots ( Swargate, N.T. Wadi, Kothrud, Katraj, Hadapsar, Marketyard, P station, Sadguru Nagar, Bhakti-Shakti and Nehru Nagar) . Apart from their own buses, they have PPP (Public Private Partnership) buses, CNG buses( Operated by C.N.G), Hired buses, spare buses and workshop buses.

5

We have added up all the buses from all the depots and calculated average fleet on road and subtracted it from the total number of buses to get a hand on off road buses. Apart from number of buses we have sorted out total effective kms travelled by public buses, earning from sales of tickets, total number of tickets sold per month, total number of passes issued per month, total amount received from passes, total number of accidents by public vehicles, consumption of diesel in liters, consumption of CNG in kg, average passenger per day on traffic, total earnings from tickets and passes, total number of commuters (tickets and passes), and bus fares. Average passenger per day on traffic includes ticket sales, commuters passes, student passes, monthly and casual contracts, luxury services etc. 'TABLE 2. PUBLIC TRANSPORT DATA' explains the filtered monthly statistics of PMPML. We have taken average of bus fares as a variables to smoothen the calculations. 'TABLE 1. FARE STRUCTURE' gives the detailed chart of fares with the average yearly fares along with per kilometer, per stage travelling distribution. There are 21 categories of private vehicles. Motor cycles, Scooters and Mopeds among two wheelers and motor cars, jeeps among four wheelers hold a significant amount of numbers. Among other private vehicles there are taxies cabs, auto rickshaw, stage carriage, contract carriage, school buses, Pvt. sector vehicles etc. 'TABLE 4. REGISTRATION OF PRIVATE VEHICLES' gives the total number of yearly registered all private vehicles.

a) Cost analysis: We have focused only on profit and loss accounts from the balance sheet of PMPML. To calculate the direct cost, we have subtracted the revenue from selling tickets and passes, from the total revenue and got expected revenue for free public transport system. Along with revenue we subtracted the printing cost of tickets and passes, and salary of conductors from the total expenses to get an expected expense for free public transport. Salary of conductors include the salary of all those workers who works with ticket and pass system. In PMPML along with selling tickets, conductors are given works as ticket checkers, depot cashier, way bill checkers, bank cashier (who submit the amount received each day by selling tickets to bank) and blockers (who divide the tickets among buses). PMPML divide these works among the conductors according to their experience of works. Few conductors works as clerks also. There are approximately 60% of workers who works in this category. We took 45% of the total salary from the

6

administration expenses as conductor's salary. Finally, we compared the current profit/loss with the expected profit/expected loss to find the direct cost effects. 'TABLE 6. PROFIT AND LOSS' lists the profit and loss accounts. For indirect cost analysis, we mostly focused on 'business economy of private vehicles'. We used simple regression model to check whether there is any significant effect of bus fares on private vehicles. We took avg. bus fare as Independent variable and number of registered private vehicles as dependent variable. Finally, We tried to show these results in graphical analysis. Apart from business we qualitatively explained few other points which can be considered under cost analysis.

b) Benefit analysis: For each of the following variables, we first tried to find relationship using simple regression model. We have taken number of registered private vehicles as independent variable and ran the regression with each of the following dependent variables. Later, we explained results with graphical analysis to see if there is any significant result or not. 'TABLE 3. ACCIDENT DATA' explains the number of road accidents by public vehicles and the number of road accidents by private vehicles over month. To check the effects on accidents, we used number of accidents as dependent variable and ran the regression to compare the effects between private and public vehicles. Finally, we used graphical analysis to compare the above factor. 'TABLE 5. POLLUTION DATA' explains the monitored ambient air quality calculated by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. There are five air quality stations (Pimpri-Chinchward, Karve Road, Nal Stop, Bhosari, Swarget) in Pune. We took the monthly weighted average of all the stations because the dates of records are not the same for all the stations. This four stations mainly calculates SO2, NOx, and RSPM in air. According to the Central Pollution Control Board 83% SO2 is being emitted from the vehicles and 85% NOx is being emitted from the vehicles. So, we calculated 83% SO2 and 85% NOx of the weighted measures of the two pollutants in 'TABLE 5. POLLUTION DATA'. We used simple regression model and checked whether there is any significant effects on pollution. We took SO2 and NOx emission as dependent variables and ran simple linear regressions. Finally, we compared the results with graphical analysis. From 'TABLE 2. PUBLIC TRANSPORT DATA', we took the number of ridership as

7

dependent variable and avg. bus fare as independent variable and ran simple regressions. later, we used graphs to check if there is any relationship and compared them. Apart from regression analysis results, effects of health and other qualitative variables have also been discussed as there is no sufficient data available. We have also done an informal perception survey of 168 people who lives in Pune. Though the number is not sufficient, some important facts have been written at the end.

5. RESULTS: We have tabulated the cost and benefits and discussed it later.

COSTS BENEFITS

A.DIRECT COST 1. Profit and loss accounts of public transport system.

B. INDIRECT COST 1. Business economy of private vehicles. 2. Others.

1. Traffic accidents. 2. Air pollution. 3. Ridership. 4. Congestion. 5. Health. 6. Others.

COST ANALYSIS: All possible factors or variables that can affect fare free public transport system as costs are explained below.

A. DIRECT COST: 1. Profit and loss accounts of public transport system: Fare free public transport service must be fully funded from the public purse: being free, it cannot recover part of its cost from increased fare-box revenue. As patronage on the system increases, so does the cost of provision. This may create resistance to measure to improve public transport or promote public transport use.

8

FIGURE 1.COMPARATIVE PROFIT AND LOSS.

Figure 1 explains the annual profits and losses made by PMPML from july'08 to july'15. The expected profit is the amount of profit after correcting for free public transport system. From the above figure, it is clear that the public transport system of Pune has always been being ran in losses. The loss will almost be triple with an introduction of fare free public system. As of the balance sheet 2015 of PMPML, the total loss was approximately 171cr Rs. and with a free public transport system, we could expect it to be 468cr Rs i.e. almost an additional loss of 300cr Rs.

B. INDIRECT COST: 1. 'Business Economy' of private vehicles: Greater public transport means that people use fewer cars; as a result, car manufacturers and service providers (e.g. mechanics, gas stations, etc.) will have lesser sells in the city. The following is a regression result that have been drawn from Stata (a complete, integrated statistical software package). It helps to find out if there is any relationship among the variables and how they are related to support the above fact about car business.

9

-500

-450

-400

-350

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

Profits/losses (in cr.)

Expected Profits/Losses (in cr.)

From the yearly data of average bus fare and number of registered private vehicles, the above simple regression result explains the following linear relationship. Pvt. vehicles= 63091.95 + 9826.91* avg. bus fare (equation 1) The p-value for avg. fare is 0.9% which is much lower than 5% level of significance. Therefore we can reject the null hypothesis that the coefficient is not significant. The adjusted R squared is also 59% i.e. this bus fare can explain private vehicles approximately 60%. The constant i.e. 63091.95 is not significant because the p-value is greater than 5%. Hence, if the avg. bus fare becomes zero the number of private vehicles will not be 63091.95 but 1 unit change in average bus fare will change 9826.91 units of registered private vehicles with the same sign (increase/decrease).

10

_cons 63091.95 65826.88 0.96 0.370 -92563.88 218747.8

fare 9826.91 2753.834 3.57 0.009 3315.127 16338.69

noofprivat~s Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

Total 4.4229e+10 8 5.5287e+09 Root MSE = 47342

Adj R-squared = 0.5946

Residual 1.5689e+10 7 2.2413e+09 R-squared = 0.6453

Model 2.8540e+10 1 2.8540e+10 Prob > F = 0.0091

F( 1, 7) = 12.73

Source SS df MS Number of obs = 9

noofprivat~s 0.8033 1.0000

fare 1.0000

fare noofpr~s

(obs=9)

. corr fare noofprivatevehicles

FIGURE 2.TOWAY SCATTER DIAGRAM OF AVG. FARE AND NO. OF PRIVATE VEHICLES.

The above figure explains that the correlation coefficient is 0.8033 which is very high. As a result, we can conclude that fare free public transport will reduce a huge number of private vehicles. With a decreasing demand of private vehicles the manufacturers and service providers of private vehicles will face trouble in 'business economy'.

2. Others: Among other costs, crowding will be a cost to the operators. With a zero fare cost along with increasing ridership, the women, children and senior citizen people will use public transport more but for crowding they will not be comfortable with the system. A good service and maintenance will then be very much needed. The demand of fuel will be less as the number of private vehicles will fall. A good forecasting system would be very much

11

15

20

25

30

35

fare

200000 250000 300000 350000 400000no of private vehicles

needed because with an increasing demand, the public transport system should spread over more areas. The speed or frequency probably get slow because of this high demand of free public transport.

BENEFIT ANALYSIS: To find the benefit analysis, the following factors have been discussed with simple regression analysis. The regression models are mostly not suitable to find any relationship. Therefore, we used graphical analysis in support.

1. Traffic accidents: Traffic accidents have become a major issue with the growing population not only in Pune but also in India. From equation 1 it is clear that free public transport will reduce the number of private vehicles. To see if there is any positive relationship between the accidents and private vehicles the following result has been explained.

The above results tells the following linear equation: accidents= 2331.402- 0.00275* no. of private vehicles (equation 2) Though p-value is less than 5%, the coefficient is nearly zero. This implies this model cannot be explained by linear regression. Hence, the result is not valid.

12

_cons 2331.402 220.4569 10.58 0.000 1719.315 2943.488

noofprivatecars -.0027568 .00078 -3.53 0.024 -.0049224 -.0005912

accidents Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

Total 182784.833 5 36556.9667 Root MSE = 105.28

Adj R-squared = 0.6968

Residual 44332.7582 4 11083.1896 R-squared = 0.7575

Model 138452.075 1 138452.075 Prob > F = 0.0241

F( 1, 4) = 12.49

Source SS df MS Number of obs = 6

. reg accidents noofprivatecars

FIGURE 3.TRENDS IN ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Since, the data structures are different for accidents based on the periods, we compared the accidents made by public vehicles and accidents made by private vehicles with a graphical analysis. The peaks are the total number of accidents of per year. Though there is no significant trend in the accident rates over year, the number of accidents made by private vehicles compared to the accidents made by public vehicles is much higher. Therefore, a reduction of fare will reduce the number of private vehicles (equation 1) and so as the number of accidents.

2. Air pollution: The issue of transportation and the environment is paradoxical in nature since transportation conveys substantial socioeconomic benefits, but at the same time transportation is impacting environmental systems. From one side, transportation activities are mobility demands for passengers and freight, while on the other, transport activities are associated with growing levels of environmental externalities such as noise pollution, air pollution etc. To find the dependency among air pollution and vehicles we did the following regression. Here, we took private vehicles only because the ratio is too high to compare private vehicles with public buses.

13

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500au

g

dec

mar ju

l

no

v

feb

jun

oct jan

may sep

apr

aug

dec

mar ju

l

no

v

feb

jun

oct

2008TOTAL

2009 TOTAL

2010 TOTAL

2011 TOTAL

2012 TOTAL

2013 TOTAL

2014

Other on road accidents

Accidents by public vehicles

The above result tells: avg. SO2= 24.435- 0.000124* no. of private vehicles (equation 3) Equation 3 is not significant as the p-value is more than 5%. So, we will accept the null hypothesis that the coefficient is zero and hence the model will be invalid and so as the result.

avg. NOx= 40.95082-.0000129* no. of private vehicles (equation 4) Like equation 3, equation 4 is also not significant since the p-value is much higher and hence the model is not suitable. Therefore, to find the effects, the graph has been drawn based on the yearly data to find trends.

14

_cons 24.43578 2.661188 9.18 0.000 18.7281 30.14346

PRIVATEVEHICLESALL -.0000124 .0000108 -1.15 0.269 -.0000356 .0000108

AVGSO2gm3std80 Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

Total 240.176394 15 16.0117596 Root MSE = 3.9591

Adj R-squared = 0.0211

Residual 219.438758 14 15.674197 R-squared = 0.0863

Model 20.7376355 1 20.7376355 Prob > F = 0.2693

F( 1, 14) = 1.32

Source SS df MS Number of obs = 16

. reg AVGSO2gm3std80 PRIVATEVEHICLESALL

_cons 40.95082 5.469199 7.49 0.000 29.22055 52.68108

PRIVATEVEHICLESALL -.0000129 .0000222 -0.58 0.571 -.0000606 .0000348

AVGNOXgm3std80 Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

Total 949.093681 15 63.2729121 Root MSE = 8.1366

Adj R-squared = -0.0463

Residual 926.850292 14 66.2035923 R-squared = 0.0234

Model 22.2433887 1 22.2433887 Prob > F = 0.5714

F( 1, 14) = 0.34

Source SS df MS Number of obs = 16

. reg AVGNOXgm3std80 PRIVATEVEHICLESALL

FIGURE 4.TRENDS OF SO2 AND NOx EMISSION.

The above figure tells that the air pollutants SO2 and NOx is mostly mean stationary over years i.e. it fluctuates around its mean value. With a pretty small slope, the pollutants has been increased over year compared to the previous year. The main reason for having mean stationary pulses is because the data is based on weighted monthly emissions. The number of vehicles has not been constantly increased over months. It's been fluctuating over months and has been increased slightly compared to the previous year. Since the increments of private vehicles over year is much more higher than public vehicles the resultant amount of pollutants will be somehow lower with a decrease in private vehicles with a zero fare public transport (equation 1).

3. Ridership: To see how the free fare public transport would affect ridership, we have checked the relationship among avg. bus fare and the number of passengers and came up with the following result:

15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100A

ug-

08

Ap

r-0

9

De

c-0

9

Au

g-1

0

Ap

r-1

1

De

c-1

1

Au

g-1

2

Ap

r-1

3

De

c-1

3

Au

g-1

4

Ap

r-1

5

De

c-1

5

AVG. SO2 µg/m3 (std.80)

AVG. NOX µg/m3 (std.80)

ridership=1.68e^08+4977893*avg. fare (equation 5) The above linear model cannot explain the relationship between fare structure and ridership because the adjusted R squared is 0.06% i.e. fare can explain only 0.06% behavior of a change in ridership. To check the effects we put the following graphs. FIGURE 5.TRENDS OF THE NUMBER OF PUBLIC VEHICLES.

16

_cons 1.68e+08 9.90e+07 1.69 0.141 -7.46e+07 4.10e+08

fare 4977893 4037643 1.23 0.264 -4901864 1.49e+07

riidership Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

Total 3.2858e+16 7 4.6939e+15 Root MSE = 6.6e+07

Adj R-squared = 0.0691

Residual 2.6216e+16 6 4.3694e+15 R-squared = 0.2021

Model 6.6413e+15 1 6.6413e+15 Prob > F = 0.2637

F( 1, 6) = 1.52

Source SS df MS Number of obs = 8

. reg riidership fare

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

1 7

13

19

25

31

37

43

49

55

61

67

73

79

85

91

97

TOTAL NUMBER OF PUBLICVEHICLES ( PMPML,ppp,hiredetc) A+B

FIGURE 6.TRENDS OF THE NUMBERS OF REGISTERED PRIVATE VEHICLES.

FIGURE 7.TRENDS IN THE RIDERSHIP.

The above three figure can somehow explain that, though the number of registered private vehicles has been increased over year, the number of public vehicles and so as the ridership has not been increased at all over year. The peaks are the yearly totals. A decrease in private vehicles will make the ridership shift to public transport with an increase of number of public vehicles.

17

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

20

00

-01

20

01

-02

20

02

-03

20

03

-04

20

04

-05

20

05

-06

20

06

-07

20

07

-08

20

08

-09

20

09

-10

20

10

-11

20

11

-12

20

12

-13

20

13

-14

20

14

-15

20

15

-16

PRIVATE VEHICLES (ALL)

0

50000000

100000000

150000000

200000000

250000000

300000000

350000000

1 7

13

19

25

31

37

43

49

55

61

67

73

79

85

91

97

TOTAL PASSANGERS ONTRAFFIC (TICKETS ANDPASSES)

4.Congession:

A public bus can carry almost 72 passengers at a time. A public bus occupies almost 30 square meters. For the same 72 persons, an average of 1.2 persons per car gives an estimate of 60 cars that take 1000 square meters and so as for cycles it takes 90 square meters. The above picture can easily explain how a decrease in numbers of private vehicles can make a free space. With a zero transport public transport the number of private vehicles will be so low( equation 1) that the road congestions will be off a lot.

5.Health: Apart from the benefits mentioned above, health is another factor which will be more affected with a free public transport. A large part of the World believes that cars are the best mode of transportation. They pay a decent dollar to fill up their tanks, sit in traffic and waste time. None of these seems weird to them. They fail to see the consequences of this mentality. For those of us who are lucky enough to avoid accidents in the road, no one is safe from the stress and in activity that occurs during commutes to work, school, friend's house, events etc. This cause several health problems driving up our health care cost. According to Public health care survey obesity and respiratory problems has emerged as a major driving force to health care cost. The obesity rate is too much high because there's too much sitting going on. People wake up, drive to work, sit in front of a desk for eight hours, drive home, sit at a table to eat

18

or to watch TV and then they are off to bed to repeat the cycle. No matter how few minutes the doctors say to everyone that they should exercise a day, it still seems too many to fit into the daily routine. The problem is, exercise should not be something that everyone needs to fit into their day. It should be in their natural part of the day, should be something unavoidable just like it was through our evolution. With a large number of vehicles on road the RSPM (RESPIRABLE SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER) has been increasing indirectly over the natural level in Pune. In places where public transport is free and people are less likely to drive cars, the obesity rate and respiratory problems are significantly lower. With a fare free public transport, the number of vehicles will be much lower and so as the health problems.

6. Others: Free public transport will make the unemployed more enthusiastic searching jobs. Employment will somehow be positively affected that will lead poverty reduction in long term. Along with employment, street businesses will be increased with the foot traffic. A lesser car will increase the street spaces to increase cycling and walking. Businesses aren't the only ones that benefits from foot traffic. People themselves will be benefited as well. When thinking about the amount we have to pay to own a car vs. a free bus, the car is astronomically more expensive. Down payments, insurances, gasoline etc. these all extra expenses, one has to think about when owning a car. For an alternative it depends on the design of the city. For a well designed city with free public transport the cost will be zero. Besides social structures, cars don't allow you to be physically social with the outside World. you can't text, you can't call, you can't do anything but sit in your secluded box and think about all the time you are wasting. So, why would anyone choose this over the alternative? Even when travelling along, public transportation never fails to provide entertainment to everyone.

6.CONCLUSIONS:

Sustainable transport systems make a positive contribution to the environmental, social and economic sustainability of the communities they serve. Transport systems exist to provide social and economic connections, and people quickly take up the opportunities offered by increased mobility with poor households

19

benefiting greatly from low carbon transport options. The advantages of increased mobility need to be weighed against the environmental, social and economic costs that transport systems pose.

Transport systems have significant impacts on the environment, accounting for between 20% and 25% of world energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. The majority of the emissions, almost 97%, came from direct burning of fossil fuels. Greenhouse gas emissions from transport are increasing at a faster rate than any other energy using sector. Road transport is also a major contributor to local air pollution and smog. Cities with overbuilt roadways have experienced unintended consequences, linked to radical drops in public transport, walking, and cycling.

Public transportation is the absolute key to solve the climate crisis we are currently in. We have a carbon budget that's currently dwindling. Scientists are saying the worst case scenario that we have 11 years before we reach our carbon budget and get us to two degrees in global warming which every scientists have agreed is the danger zone and from which we will not recover. Therefore, automobile transportation and transportation overall is such a huge percentage of out greenhouse gases and the emissions that we omit. The only one sector where we can make the difference if we can get people out of ice, out of internal combustion engine cars and into public transportation (especially if it's electrified).

According to the informal perception survey, a greater percentage of people of Pune think that a better service quality should be consider first in case of public transportation rather than a zero fare system. Both the service quality and zero transportation are complementary to each other.

Through the evolution, more and more lower class citizens have begun to take the bus around the suburbs as the price of cars and gasoline continue to rise. On the other hand, the high class citizens have continued to buy cars. This is only because upper class citizens don't want to be considered as lower class citizens.

By raising awareness of this problem and showing people the benefit of public transportation system (as if it is not just for lower class citizens) we can get enough people on board to speed up new upgraded design of public transportation and hopefully get them to run close enough to the suburbs to make bus a more viable option than driving.

20

There was lack of suitable data to show the positive trends of various benefits with free public transportation system in Pune. A better data without any gaps would help it. The public transport system is already being subsidized. The further subsidization would not be possible with this great amount of losses. Therefore a further study regarding the ways of making up the losses is very much required. There is no cities or towns where there is fare free public transportation system in India. Therefore, this hypothetical cost and benefit analysis of free public transport system is mostly based on intuitions. The cost analysis has also been made based on approximated values mostly because of lack of efficient transparency and methodologies of the current public transportation service of Pune.

7.REFERENCES:

1. Todd Litman (2006), "What's It Worth? ", Economic Evaluation For Transportation Decision-Making, Victoria Transport Policy Institute

( www.vtpi.org).

2. Torsten Belter, Maike von Harten, Sandra Sorof (2010), "Advantages and disadvantages of free public transport services", SutraMM (http://enercitee.eu/files/dokumente/Subprojects/SUSTRAMM/SustraMM_Free_public_transport.pdf). 3. ARAI/IOCL-AQM/R-12(2010), "Air Quality Monitoring and Emmission Source Appointment Study for Pune", Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), MoEF (http://cpcb.nic.in/Mumbai-report.pdf). 4. ADSI REPORT (2008) to(2010)," Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India", National crime records bureau, Ministry of home affairs, Govt. of India (ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/ADSI/PrevPublications.html).

21

5. William R. Black (2006), "Social and Economic factors in Transportation", Indiana University, Committee on Social and economic factors in transportation (onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/millennium/00100.pdf) 6. Bhuiyan Alam, Hilary Nixon, Qiong Zhang (2015), "INVESTING THE DETERMINING FACTORS FOR TRANSIT TRAVEL DEMAND BY BUS MODE IN US METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS", Mineta Transportation Institute (transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/.../1101-transit-bus-demand-factors-in-US-metro-areas.pdf). 7. John Holemfren(2008), "Studies in local public transport demand", Lingkoping University. 8. Annual Report(2006), National Urban Transport Policy, India (www.urbantransport.kar.gov.in/National%20Urban%20TransportPolicy.pdf). 9. Giuliano Mingardo (2009), "Social cost and benefits of free public transport in Dutch cities", Erasmus University Rotterdam, Urban, Port & Transport Economics (www.tallinn.ee/eng/freepublictransport/erkner-Msc_thesis_def3). 10. Cathy Macharis , Astrid De Witte, Thérèse Steenberghen, Stefaan Van de Walle, Pierre Lannoy and Céline Polain (2006), " Impact and assessment of “Free” Public Transport measures: lessons from the case study of Brussels", Trasporti Europei n.32 (https://ideas.repec.org/a/sot/journl/y2006i32p26-48.html).

11. Pune City Census 2011 data (http://www.census2011.co.in/census/city/375-pune.html).

12. Anurag Bende (2012), "Pune overtakes maximun city in vehicle population", dna (http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-pune-overtakes-maximum-city-in-vehicle-population-1667537). 13. Dr.Jean-Paul Rodrigue(2016), "The Environmental Impacts of Transportation",The geography of transport systems(https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/ch8c1en.html.

22

14. Open Govt. data Platform India(1996), Govt. of India (https://data.gov.in/catalog/motor-transport-statistics-1996). 15. Ambient air quality monitored, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (http://mpcb.gov.in/envtdata/demoPage1.php#station4).

16. TNN, "Road accident deaths dip in 2013, but still one a day", Times of India

(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Road-accident-deaths-dip-in 2013-

but-still-one-a-day/articleshow/28353763.cms).

17. Lauren N. Gase, Tony Kuo, Steven Teutsch and Jonathan E. Fielding (2014), "Estimating the Costs and Benefits of Providing Free Public Transit Passes to Students in Los Angeles County: Lessons Learned in Applying a Health Lens to Decision-Making", NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245618/).

18. Express news service (2014-15), "PMC report card: Pollution, No. of vehicles

rise; grade falls", The Indian Express

(http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/pmc-report-card-pollution-no-of

vehicles-rise-grade-falls/).

19. "Why Free Public Transport is perhaps a bad idea" (2010), The Politics of Transports in Cities (https://worldstreets.wordpress.com/).

23