Where are the actual gainers of the BRTS, Ahmedabad?” · This document describes work undertaken...

"Where are the actual gainers of the BRTS, Ahmedabad?”

A study into the spatial and social distribution of benefits of transport development projects

Swati Khanna March, 2009

"Where are the actual gainers of the BRTS, Ahmedabad?”

A study into the spatial and social distribution of benefits of transport development projects

by

Swati Khanna

Thesis submitted to the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geo-information Science and Earth Observation, Specialisation: Urban Planning and Management

Thesis Assessment Board

Thesis Chair : Prof.Dr.Ir. M.F.A.M. van Maarseveen (ITC) Thesis Examiner : Dr. S.C.M. (Stan) Geertman (UU) Thesis Advisers : Drs. E.J.M. Dopheide (ITC)

Dr. Ir. M.H.P. Zuidgeest (ITC)

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR GEO-INFORMATION SCIENCE AND EARTH OBSERVATION ENSCHEDE, THE NETHERLANDS

The research presented in this thesis acknowledges the infrastructural support provided by the research project “Land, urban form and the ecological footprint of transport: application of geo-information to measure transport-related urban sustainability in developing countries with a case study of Ahmedabad, India”, which received a project grant (SP-2006-09) from Volvo Research and Educational Foundations (VREF).

Disclaimer

This document describes work undertaken as part of a programme of study at the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation. All views and opinions expressed therein remain the sole responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the institute.

i

Abstract

Emerging economies like India have been undergoing tremendous urban augmentation accompanied by growth in incomes, urbanisation and thereby supporting infrastructure like transport. These development projects are seen as means of improving the quality of life, the economy of the area as well as adding to the opportunities for the people. Large numbers of such development projects are funded by World Bank and other agencies based on ex-ante Economic, Social and Environmental Impact Assessments, quiet often done in isolation at an aggregate level. Current impact assessment methodologies in developing countries hardly investigate the distributional nature of the impacts amongst different population subgroups equally. This methodological and conceptual gap in impact assessment through conventional cost-benefit analysis methodologies does not inform the decisions makers about who gains and who loses from a policy or project. This research aims at developing and applying methods for ex-ante evaluation of the spatial distribution of the impacts of transportation projects across different income subgroups in an urban area.

Methods of assessing inequality in a society are reviewed and applied on the case study, Bus Rapis Transit System Ahmedabad. The impacts as assessed under the economic analysis of the Bus Rapid Transit System project in Ahmedabad, India and the spatial distribution of socio-economic and travel variables were used in conjunction to disaggregate the benefits and costs of the project across the different traffic analysis zones in the city area and amongst four income classes as pre-defined by the project feasibility studies. The distribution was project benefits across different income groups was then subjected to equity indicators to give a more disaggregated insight into the spatial and socio-economic distribution of the impacts of a transport project like the project studies in Ahmedabad.

The project under review is expected to increase the inequity in the society post implementation. The higher income groups are expected to gain disproportionately higher than the economically weaker sections. An economic inequity of 32.3 % is anticipated between the different income groups, higher than the existing 26.3%. A high variability of about 30 percent is expected within the different income groups. Geographic equity analysis indicates the gaining traffic analysis zones on the western part of Ahmedabad. An insight into the clustering of high percentage households of high income group and zones with higher benefits per household along the BRTS further compliment the results. The anticipated inequity from the distribution of benefits of the Bus Rapid Transit System, indicate that the public transit project is regressive in nature.

Although majority of the projects are efficiency based, yet, if the government is keen on socially equitable society, then an insight into the distributive impacts and the equity assessment of project is vital. This may aide the decision-makers in formulating policies to ensure redistribution of impacts and an equitable society.

Remaining issues to be further investigated and studied are the level to which disaggregation of the impacts should be optimally done, other population subgroups based on different socio-economic characteristics across which equity analysis should be carried out. Although this research does not address all of the shortcomings of the current assessment methods, the analysis is a significant contribution to the further development and application of spatial integrated assessment methods in transport and infrastructure projects.

Key-words: transport project, impact assessment, distribution analysis, income groups, spatial, equity

iii

Acknowledgements

The study has followed a long and winding path along which I meet many people, this formal space to acknowledge their contributions is too less. Yet I would say that the distribution of my gratitude to all these supporters from different geographic coordinates is proportionate and equitable.

Before beginning to acknowledge the incidents in geographic space, I would like to express my thanks to the Almighty for making me sail through this time period.

Having thanked God, I would like to thank my first supervisor Drs. Emile Dopheide for guiding me through the research. His inquisitive comments and directions, yet a freedom to explore the concepts and avenues not only helped me nose-dive into this research but also explore and understand few areas of economics which I would have otherwise never have thought to venture into. An inspiration right from the first day at ITC, his thought itself made me work. I would also like to express my humble thanks to Dr Mark Zuidgeest who constant encouraged me to work through and was patient enough to listen to the hallucinating ideas I had about my research. The initial brainstorming sessions coupled with the instrumental guidance during fieldwork constitute the wonderful moments of this study.

I would like to thank Ms. Monika Kuffer for her continuous support in the build-up process of the research as well as later. A special thanks to Mr. Frans van den Bosch and other members of the Ahmedabad research study for being wonderful companions during the fieldwork. A special thanks to the Prof. Shivanand Swamy, CEPT University and Mr. Sandeep, BRTS Cell who helped me gain insight into the transportation system and the BRTS project within a few meetings only. I would like to express my gratitude towards Mr. Talat Munshi and Mr. Ajay Kumar Katuri for providing priceless guidance and support during the field.

On a personal front, my first and foremost thanks go to Drs. Emile and Ms. Marie-Chantal Metz, talked me out and brought me back to work. It’s like living a second life! I would like to thank all my colleagues and course mates at ITC, in UPM department as well in other courses, for being of pillars of great support and encouragement during the entire period. My special thanks to Shubham, Anisha, Sheema, Rishida, Rashmi, Sriram, Ronnie, Adil, Theophilus Hinson and Imran for being there. A big hug to Deepty, Mousumi and Arindam for making my stay in Ahmedabad a wonderful experience. A special thanks to Ajay ‘Sir’ for his continuous encouragement throughout the research period.

Venturing out of the ITC, I would first like to thank Dr. Mahavir for introducing me to the world of GIS. Thanks to Mr. J.C.Gambhir and Prof. Ranganathan for giving me instrumental tips throughout. A smiley for Ankita, Inshu, Harpreet, Indro and Rupa for being with me through thick and thin.

I would not like to miss this opportunity to put forward my due regards and seek blessings from my Ammaji and family. A daily ‘hi’ and a dose of love and blessings from my mumma, daddy and bhaiya were incredible. Thanks to Goels, Tuckers, Seths and Khannas for being here with me, with your love from there.

Thanks Nuffic for giving me an opportunity to experience the international flavour at ITC! Cheers! Swati (Enschede, March 2009)

v

Table of contents

Abstract i Acknowledgements iii Table of contents v List of Figures viii List of Tables ix List of Maps x List of Acronyms xi

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................11.1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................11.2. Background.............................................................................................................................11.3. Justification.............................................................................................................................31.4. Research problem ...................................................................................................................41.5. The Case: Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad ................................................................5

1.5.1. The City of Ahmedabad .................................................................................................51.5.2. Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad.........................................................................5

1.6. Research objective ..................................................................................................................61.6.1. Sub-Objectives ...............................................................................................................6

1.7. Research questions..................................................................................................................61.8. Conceptual Framework...........................................................................................................71.9. Thesis Outline.......................................................................................................................10

2. Transport Project Appraisal Methods ............................................................................................132.1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................132.2. Transport Investment Appraisal and Impact Evaluation ......................................................132.3. Economic Evaluation............................................................................................................142.4. Transport Economic Evaluation ...........................................................................................15

2.4.1. Methods for Transport Project Appraisals...................................................................162.4.2. Distribution of Transport Project Effects ....................................................................16

2.5. Distribution of Tranport Project Impacts with Equity Prospects .........................................202.5.1. Equity Concepts in Transportation ..............................................................................212.5.2. Measures of Equity and equality in infrastructure services .........................................222.5.3. Pro-poor Transport Project Equity Indicators..............................................................262.5.4. z-score as Proxy Indicator ............................................................................................272.5.5. Need for further research in Distribution of Project Impacts and Equity aspects .......282.5.6. Selecting appropriate methods for impact assessment.................................................28

2.6. Methodological Framework..................................................................................................302.7. Summary ...............................................................................................................................30

3. Research Methodology and Fieldwork ..........................................................................................313.1. Research Methodology .........................................................................................................313.2. Fieldwork Data Collection: Approach and Methodology ....................................................32

3.2.1. Secondary data Collection ...........................................................................................33

vi

3.2.2. Interviews .................................................................................................................... 343.2.3. Primary Data Collection.............................................................................................. 34

3.3. Data Processing.................................................................................................................... 373.3.1. Primary Survey Dataset............................................................................................... 373.3.2. Secondary Dataset ....................................................................................................... 37

3.4. Data Quality ......................................................................................................................... 383.5. Data Limitation .................................................................................................................... 383.6. Summary .............................................................................................................................. 38

4. The Case of Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad ................................................................... 394.1. The City ............................................................................................................................... 39

4.1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 394.1.2. Location....................................................................................................................... 394.1.3. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation............................................................................ 40

4.2. The Project: Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad.......................................................... 484.2.1. Ahmedabad Urban Transport Vision .......................................................................... 494.2.2. Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad...................................................................... 494.2.3. Impact Assessment for BRTS, Ahmedabad ................................................................ 50

4.3. Summary .............................................................................................................................. 515. Distribution Analysis of Economic Evaluation: BRTS project,Ahmedabad ................................ 52

5.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 525.2. Distribution Analysis of Economic Evaluation of BRTS, Ahmedabad............................... 52

5.2.1. Discounting the Project Cash Flows ........................................................................... 535.2.2. Disaggregating Economic Evaluation I: Road Infrastructure Improvement ............... 545.2.3. Disaggregating Economic Evaluation II: Direct user benefits and costs due to the modal shift to the BRTS project.................................................................................................... 575.2.4. Conclusion: Distribution of Benefits amongst income groups ................................... 635.2.5. Distribution of Benefits across Traffic Analysis Zones.............................................. 63

5.3. Social Equity Analaysis ....................................................................................................... 655.3.1. Vertical Social Equity with respect to income groups................................................ 655.3.2. Horizontal Social Equity ............................................................................................. 685.3.3. Geographic Equity....................................................................................................... 695.3.4. Cluster Analysis between Gainers and Income Groups .............................................. 715.3.5. Summarising Distribution and Equity Analysis.......................................................... 715.3.6. Comparing the distribution of benefits with the willingness to shift.......................... 72

5.4. Summary .............................................................................................................................. 736. Implications of Distribution Analysis ........................................................................................... 74

6.1. Implications on Equity Analysis .......................................................................................... 746.1.1. Implications on Policies .............................................................................................. 746.1.2. Implications on Policies in Ahmedabad...................................................................... 756.1.3. Other Policy Implications in Ahmedabad ................................................................... 766.1.4. Implications on methods for Transport Modelling and Cost Benefit Analysis .......... 776.1.5. Implications on methods for Project Impact Assessment ........................................... 77

6.2. Implication of Level of Analysis ......................................................................................... 786.3. Implications of methods and indicators ............................................................................... 786.4. Summary .............................................................................................................................. 78

vii

7. Conclusions and Future Research Directions ................................................................................807.1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................807.2. Specific Conclusions ............................................................................................................80

7.2.1. Review of Transport Project Appraisal Methods, Distribution Analysis Methods and Equity Indicators ............................................................................................................................807.2.2. Review of Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad as the case study .........................817.2.3. Distribution Analysis of Economic Evaluation of Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad.....................................................................................................................................827.2.4. Implications on policies in Ahmedabad and strategies for ensuring transportation equity 82

7.3. Limitations of the study ........................................................................................................837.4. Future Research Directions...................................................................................................84

7.4.1. Public Acceptability – towards rational distribution of benefits considering the income growth since project inception ..........................................................................................847.4.2. Design and Implementation of distribution analysis and equity analysis ....................857.4.3. Inclusion of secondary and external effects.................................................................857.4.4. Implications of revised policy reforms implementation ..............................................85References: .....................................................................................................................................86

Appendices: Appendix I : Household Survey Format Appendix II : Percentage Distribution of Households in TAZs according to Income Categories Appendix III : Distribution of Households in TAZs according to Income Categories (maps)

viii

List of figures

Figure 1.1: Research Problem ................................................................................................................. 4Figure 1.2: Location of Ahmedabad City India ...................................................................................... 5Figure 1.3: A full-cost framework for evaluating the impacts ................................................................ 8Figure 1.4: Conceptual Framework......................................................................................................... 9Figure 2.1: Elements of Impact of a Transport Project ......................................................................... 14Figure 2.2: Lorenz curve ....................................................................................................................... 23Figure 2.3: Curves showing progressive & regressive distributions..................................................... 23Figure 2.4: Key components of the ADB Poverty Reduction Strategy................................................. 27Figure 2.5: Methodological Framework for research............................................................................ 30Figure 3.1: Research Methodology ....................................................................................................... 32Figure 4.1: Percentage distribution of Households – Income group wise ............................................ 42Figure 4.2: Modal Split of trips in AMC............................................................................................... 46Figure 4.3: Distribution of Vehicle ownership ..................................................................................... 46Figure 4.4: Vehicle Ownership per income group ................................................................................ 47Figure 4.5: Percentage trip according to income groups....................................................................... 47Figure 4.6: Declining Bus Patronage, AMTS ....................................................................................... 48Figure 4.7: Three Phases of BRTS Project, Ahmedabad ...................................................................... 50Figure 5.1: Distribution of benefits from travel time savings from road up gradation project............. 55Figure 5.2: Distribution of savings in Vehicle Operating Costs ........................................................... 56Figure 5.3: Distribution of net benefits in percentage (road upgradation project) ............................... 57Figure 5.4: Percentage Share of net benefits across income groups ..................................................... 57Figure 5.5: Distribution of savings in travel time across income groups.............................................. 59Figure 5.6: Distribution of benefits (%) from vehicle operating costs across income groups.............. 59Figure 5.7: Location of Accident Spots along the BRTS corridors ...................................................... 60Figure 5.8: Distribution of benefits from accident reduction................................................................ 61Figure 5.9: Distribution of benefits (%) from reduction in pollution across income groups................ 61Figure 5.10: Distribution of total benefits from modal shift to BRTS.................................................. 62Figure 5.11: Percentage share of benefits from modal shift to BRTS per income group ..................... 62Figure 5.12: Distribution of all net benefits across different income groups ....................................... 63Figure 5.13: Lorenz curve before and after BRTS implementation...................................................... 66Figure 5.14: (a) Clustering of HIG households (%) and Benefits/HH; (b) Clustering of EWS households and Benefits/HH................................................................................................................. 71

ix

List of tables

Table 2.1: Some of the principal effects resulting from the construction of a road ..............................15Table 2.2: Suggested Matrix for Displaying Distribution of Benefits...................................................19Table 2.3: Measures of pro-poor welfare indicators ..............................................................................26Table 2.4: Advantages and disadvantages of World Bank methods of Distribution Analysis ..............29Table 3.1: Population Statistics of surveyed TAZs................................................................................36Table 4.1: Population growth in the three zones of AMC .....................................................................41Table 4.2: Distribution of households as per income groups in the AMC zones .................................42Table 4.3: Distribution of Households under different income groups .................................................42Table 4.4: Average distance to BRTS - income groups.........................................................................43Table 5.1: Descriptive statistics for Gini Indices (%) across TAZs ......................................................67Table 5.2: Average distance of Gini value intervals from BRTS route .................................................67Table 5.3: Ratio of percentage benefits to percentage households........................................................68Table 5.4: Percentage inequity (coefficient of variation) across income groups...................................69Table 5.5: Classifications of gainers and losers from the BRTS project ...............................................70Table 5.6: Willingness to shift expressed by households in different income groups (%)....................72Table 5.7: Distribution of benefits to different income groups (%) ......................................................72

x

List of maps

Map 3.1: Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) in AMC area selected for Household Survey ..................... 35Map 4.1: Administrative Zones of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Jurisdiction (AMC).............. 40Map 4.2: Population Density (pph) distribution in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation area (AMC). 41Map 4.3: Percentage Distribution of EWS households in AMC .......................................................... 43Map 4.4: Percentage Distribution of LIG households in AMC ............................................................ 44Map 4.5: Percentage Distribution of MIG households in AMC ........................................................... 45Map 4.6: Percentage Distribution of HIG households in AMC............................................................ 45Map 5.1: Percentage distribution of total net benefits across TAZs..................................................... 64Map 5.2: Spatial distribution of benefits per household (Rs lakhs) amongst TAZs............................. 65Map 5.3: Gini Index for 196 TAZs ....................................................................................................... 67Map 5.4: TAZs classified as gainers and losers.................................................................................... 70

xi

List of Acronyms

AMC Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation AMTS Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service AUDA Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority BRTS Bus Rapid Transit System CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis EWS Economically Weaker Sections HIG High Income Group LIG Low Income Group MIG Middle Income Group TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone

“WHERE ARE THE ACTUAL GAINERS OF BRTS, AHMEDABAD?” A STUDY INTO THE SPATIAL AND SOCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS OF TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

1

1. Introduction

This introductory chapter starts with a brief description of the research field. The scientific background and the reasons for selecting the case city have been discussed in the subsequent section. With these settings, the next section defines the research problem, the aim and the sub objectives of the research. Included in it are also the rationale and research questions for each of the sub-objectives. A conceptual model structuring the diverse ideas of the research has been explained in the following section. The chapter ends by giving an outline of the thesis.

1.1. Introduction

Emerging economies like India have been undergoing tremendous urban augmentation accompanied by growth in incomes, urbanisation and thereby supporting infrastructure. Transport development projects form an integral part of this infrastructure growth trajectory. These development projects are seen as means of improving the quality of life, the economy of the area as well as adding to the opportunities for the people associated or affected by the project in one way or the other. These opportunities include new employment opportunities for local people, improved access to services and facilities, better travel access and also income generation (U.S.D.T, 2003).

However, any new project requires enormous investments either by funding agencies such as the World Bank, DFID, ADB etc. or by the national or state governments. Decision making with respect to large infrastructure projects is often partly based on ex-ante evaluations of costs and impacts thereby. These impacts include economic, environmental and social impacts, often aggregated in a cost-benefit analysis (Wee, 2007).

Conventional economic appraisal or cost-benefit analysis methods evaluate the projects based on indicators such as Net Present Value or Economic Internal Rate of Return, to justify an investment by capturing its economic value to the economy. These methods aggregate the economic effects of a transportation project irrespective of the heterogeneity of the effect’s distribution over the project participants (DFID, 2006). DFID states that there can be both gainers and losers from a project based on their capabilities and affordability and how they perceive a certain new upcoming project.

This thesis is an attempt to identify the gainers from the Bus Rapid Transit System project (BRTS), in the city of Ahmedabad. It aims at reducing the methodological gap of carrying out distribution analysis of impacts of the project within the framework of the economic evaluation, evaluating the projected (estimated) impacts for equity assessment of the intended project objectives.

1.2. Background

Investment in transport infrastructure improves mobility and is considered to have a major effect on economic activity and growth. National accounts of European Union countries show that transport sector amounted to 8% of their GDP (Quinet and Vickerman, 2004). While there is significant

“WHERE ARE THE ACTUAL GAINERS OF BRTS, AHMEDABAD?” A STUDY INTO THE SPATIAL AND SCOIAL DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS OF TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

2

evidence of the economic impact of transport infrastructure, its actual contribution to the GDP or welfare is a subject of great debate among researchers, see (Aschauer, 1989) and (Quinet and Vickerman, 1997) as cited by (Shiftan et al., 2007).

A great deal of theoretical and practical work has been conducted on the benefits and costs of public transit and its competing modes, the private automobiles. Hundreds of books, reports, and studies have addressed cost-benefit analysis, the full costs of automobile ownership, the effects of transit and autos on urban form, transportation modelling, air pollution, global warming, and other issues related to the benefits and costs of transportation projects (Transportation Research Board, 2002). However, only a small part of the work done by academics, consultants, and agencies in enumerating, classifying, and measuring the benefits and costs of transit has made its way into planning practice. Planners in transit agencies could benefit from understandable synthesis of practical methods they can use to estimate the benefits and costs of transit.

Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a policy assessment method that quantifies in monetary terms the values of all potential consequences of a policy to all members of the society. The aggregate value of a policy is measured by its net social benefits, i.e. the social benefits minus the social costs. This represents the broad objective of carrying out a CBA, i.e. to help in social decision making (Boardman et al., 2006). The application of a cost-benefit analysis is not limited to a particular sector, but is observed in each sector, like food supplies, transport, infrastructure, or any policy aimed at societal growth or benefit. The proponent of the project may be government or private sector, and in the current times of public-private partnerships, a joint venture may well propose a project which may be assessed through the cost-benefit analysis.

As discussed by Boardman et al (2006), the CBA is based on the Kaldor-Hicks Criterion which further provides basis for the potential Pareto Efficiency Rule, or more commonly referred to as the net benefits criterion: ‘Adopt only policies or projects that have positive net benefits’. Although, the Kaldor-Hicks criterion and the Pareto rule do provide a yardstick to measure efficiency, comparing the Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return, two parameters of CBA, yet the objective of equity is often neglected.

The benefits and costs as discussed above are frequently not distributed evenly across population subgroups, and decision makers are often called on to make judgments regarding the equity or fairness of transportation impacts (Transportation Research Board, 2002). While the determination of “fairness” essentially remains a value judgment, methods to calculate and describe the distribution of impacts are still being developed. The underlying concern about the distribution of impacts is that some group judged to have special standing may have impacts (benefits or costs) that are not in the same proportion as the average or aggregate impacts (Transportation Research Board, 2002).

Niekerk (2001), in his assessment of the Dutch high speed railway between Amsterdam and Rotterdam has commented that current impact assessment methodologies for environmental, economic and social impact analysis, do not suit different stakeholders equally. The author also mentions that impact assessments are unbalanced, concerning the different subjects and impact categories, quality of information, limited processes etc.


3

1.3. Justification

According to the World Bank (2005a), the identification of transport initiatives is a consequence of the interactions between transport and wages, profits, prices and land values, as well as gender and race. However, there is a concern that the standard methods of cost-benefit analysis as used in the transport sector in the World Bank, do not necessarily address all the distributional issues related to the costs and benefits of the transport interventions. In this regard, an independent committee, the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA), UK Government, published a summary report on transport and economy (Department of Transport, 2008), according to which the direct transport effects are often assessed, only of a defined area in the neighbourhood of the transport improvement. However, any transport improvement is two – way and hence not only affects the neighbourhood but also the two areas being connected, all to a different extent. Hence, the assessment of whether the economic impacts will actually benefit the intended targeted area, the impacts outside the immediate neighbourhood will need to be considered. Therefore, greater attention should be paid to the question where the impacts will occur, and on whom they will fall.

Since the impact varies over and across geographical boundaries and jurisdictional areas so will the impacts on the people, users and residents in these areas. Hence distributional analysis of the impacts will highlight the importance of considering the “winners and the losers” since the initial and final beneficiaries as well as the cost bearers may be different.

One of the major recommendations of the report by Buck Consultants Limited in 2002, as a supplement to the Overzicht Effecten Infrastructure (OEI) guide, in Netherlands was to determine how to conduct the equity analysis (the distribution of effects between CBA stakeholders). The distribution effects report (MVW, 2004a) was a methodological report, which concluded that more research was required before the guidelines could be updated.

The above discussion establishes that the distribution of costs and benefits may not be in conjunction with the aggregate picture of a positive project economic feasibility. Hence studying distributional analyses typically distinguishing project benefits and costs by travel mode (e.g. transit riders and auto users), income level and ethnicity, and location (by neighbourhood, county or state) is important. Other subgroups that may denote special standing, such as age, gender, or physical ability, may also be used, particularly if it can be shown that some group’s basic transportation needs are not being met(Transportation Research Board, 2002).

According to some of the existing methodologies developed by the World Bank (2005a), the Transport Research Board (2002) and the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2007), distributional analysis is being linked with poverty alleviation and poverty impact analysis. However, it may well be desirable to evaluate the distribution of impacts of the transportation projects across all population sections so as to promote an integrated societal development. The same is evidently stated as “While the impacts of transportation investments on local land markets have been well documented, there has been considerably less research on the actual spatial distribution of transportation investments and sources of investment funds within metropolitan areas” by Voith (1998)”. There are several methodological frameworks for distributional analysis currently developed by the World Bank (The Transport Economic Efficiency Table, Spatial Analysis, Market Analysis and Final Impacts), the Transport Research Board, Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (Economic


4

Activity and Location Impacts) and the Victoria Transport Planning Institute. Out of these, only the Spatial Analysis framework developed by the World Bank is spatial in nature, others aim at disaggregating the impacts at various levels.

The distribution of benefits from a transport project across social groups and urban space might as well have policy implications. Availability of personal transport is a function of income. In the absence of access to personal mode, people resort to a variety of forms of public transport. According to Hilling (1996) as cited in (Pacione, 2005), owing to the scarcity of public finances for transport policy options, there is little point of developing options which are unaffordable either to the society of individual users. Hence, in order to achieve the objectives of alleviating the lower sections of the society, spatial analysis in a disaggregated manner becomes essential. Spatial disaggregation along with information on nature and intensity of inequity could give an informed input for formulating area-based policies based on intra-city and inter-zonal comparisons of the deprived and the benefited (Pacione, 2005). These area based policies or corrective policies to ensure equitable redistribution of the benefits shall lead to a sustainable society.

1.4. Research problem

The existing appraisal methods for economic evaluation of transport development projects have an established limitation of not assessing the distributional nature of the economic impacts of the project spatially. Distribution of impacts or benefits for social welfare is limited at city level and often not looked into the equity aspects. The spatial analysis of impact’s distribution across geographical locations, income classes, age, gender, ethnicity, occupational status and across various categories of stakeholders beholds the successful implementation of the project with actual benefits reaching the target group. Hence, distribution analysis of these impacts as costs and benefits across society and space at a disaggregated level may well aide the decision makers in understanding the actual distribution of project benefits areally, i.e. across different areas with varying nature and intensity. This is expected to shall have a complementary input role to the current appraisal methods.

Figure 1.1: Research Problem

Social Impact Assessment

Environmental Impact Assessment

Financial Feasibility Methodological

Gap

Distribution Analysis of Impacts on

Population (How much to whom?)

Spatial Analysis Locations of Gainers

Economic Impact Assessment

Impact Assessment of Transportation Projects

Impact Assessment

Conceptual Gap


5

1.5. The Case: Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad

1.5.1. The City of Ahmedabad

The city of Ahmedabad, largest among all cities of Gujarat state, accommodating about 5 million people, has a registered vehicular strength of 1.4 Million. The rate of growth of vehicles has been about 9 to 10% per annum(GIDB, 2005). According to the GIDB, the public transport situation has deteriorated rapidly over the past decade. The end result is visible in terms of increasing congestion on the city streets and the worsening of air quality.

Recognizing these problems areas, the State and the City governments have initiated a series of measures to improve urban transport situation in Ahmedabad. One of these projects is the Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) initiated by GIDB with AMC and AUDA. The AMC area is spread over 190.84 sq km, the Ahmedabad Urban Agglomeration area is about 350 sq km and AUDA area is 1330.08 sq km(GIDB, 2005).

1.5.2. Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad

In the city of Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Services (AMTS) has been providing public transport facilities. AMTS, a municipal body, operates the services with about 550 buses of which only about 350 are on road every day. They service about 250,000 passengers per day. The service has deteriorated significantly over the years. In the light of this, Bus Rapid Transit System project is seen as a strategic intervention, which would improve public transport image, attract latent transit demand, contribute to improved transit option for people, improve air quality and help city remain a compact city. The economic analysis of the project has defined the project as economically beneficial for the city with very high economic internal rate of return and a benefit-cost ratio of 2.

Figure 1.2: Location of Ahmedabad City India Source: (Bajracharya, 2008)


6

1.6. Research objective

The main objective of the research is to examine the methods for evaluation of the spatial distribution of impacts of transportation projects across different income groups in an urban area. The case study taken up for evaluation is the Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad (Phase I and II).

1.6.1. Sub-Objectives

The research has been further sub-divided into following research sub-objectives:

1. Review methods for the distributional analysis of impacts of transportation projects.

The study looks into the social and spatial relevance of transport projects. This sub-objective reviews the existing methods and indicators used in existing frameworks. In addition to the existing methods and indicators, a review of potential indicators for assessing social and spatial equity has been done. This phase forms the basis for identifying and developing the methods for analysis and data requirements. The selected method defines the data requirements also.

2. Apply (a) selected method(s) to analyze the spatial distribution of impacts of a selected transportation project (BRTS, Ahmedabad)

The aim of this thesis is as much methodological as conceptual as emphasizing into the social importance. Hence, for practical application of these methods and indices, a live project has been selected. The Bus Rapid Transit system with its relevant envisioned aspiration to benefit the urban poor has been selected. Different datasets to extract equity indicators shall be required. Apart from developing indicators, the detailed documentation of the economic assessment of the project would additionally help in assessing the equity concerns of the project through use of some of the existing datasets.

3. Identifying the potentials and limitations of the application of methods distribution and equity analysis for transportation projects.

The critical evaluation of the methods for application of the methods of distribution analysis in evaluation of transportation projects based on literature review and the methods applied in the case study project examines the methodological and conceptual objective of the research. An insight into the implications of these outputs from the previous objectives on policies for enhancing re-distribution of benefits and equity concerns is given to conclude the research.

1.7. Research questions

In response to the objectives as recognised above, the following questions have been formulated which have been answered in due course of this research.

Sub- Objective 1: Review methods for the distributional analysis of impacts of transportation projects.

1. What are the existing methods to analyse the distribution of impacts of transportation projects spatially?


7

2. What are the existing methods to analyse the distribution of impacts of transportation projects across income groups?

3. What are the potentials and limitations of these methods of distributional analysis?

Sub- Objective 2: Apply (a) selected method(s) to analyze the spatial distribution of impacts of a selected transportation project, BRTS, Ahmedabad

1.What are the specific impacts of the BRTS project, Ahmedabad?

2.What are the major income groups for distributional analysis, their characteristics and spatial distribution?

3.What are the spatial patterns in the distribution of the impacts of the BRTS Project?

4.What are the variations in distribution of impacts across different income group(s)?

5.What are the variations in distribution of impacts within different income groups(s)?

6.What are the spatial patterns in the distribution of impacts within and across income group(s)?

7.Where are the beneficiaries of different impacts located?

8.Where are the gainers of the BRTS project located?

Sub- Objective 3: Identifying the potentials and limitations of the application of distributional analysis methods for transportation projects.

1. What are the major limitations and potential outcomes of the application of distributional analysis method, selected and developed, as highlighted by the case study, with reference to the criteria as adopted in sub-objective 1?

1.8. Conceptual Framework

In the era of growing economies and widespread urbanisation, people want to improve their standard of living, and they see the increased income as the way to achieve that goal. Developments in the transport sector are a means to improve the economic opportunities, quality of life and ultimately, income of people in a particular area (Weisbrod and Weisbrod, 1997). There are different levels of impacts and thereby, any overlap or double counting etc is taken care of in an impact assessments, see figure 3.

The Transportation Research Board (2002) discusses that the impacts of all nature are distributed. These impacts in economic analysis are studied as costs and benefits. The economic impacts vary across the different levels of government (National, State and Local government) and also these impacts have a temporal dimension.

As a more common practice, the distributional analysis of costs and benefits is done across modes and trip makers. However, the distribution of the same across income groups, age, gender and other subgroups in addition to spatial distribution is of significance considering the equity aspects. The results may give an insight into the location as well equity of impact distribution amongst the actual gainers and losers from a transport project (Leck et al., 2008).


8

The World Bank published the Economic Evaluation Notes with the financial assistance of a grant from TRISP, a partnership between the UK Department for International Development and the World Bank, for learning and sharing of knowledge in the fields of transport and rural infrastructure services. According to the Transport Research Note 5 (World Bank, 2005b), i.e. A Framework for the Economic Evaluation of Transport Projects, the World Bank has developed an appraisal guideline for the projects funded by the World Bank.

Figure 1.3: A full-cost framework for evaluating the impacts Source: Adopted from (Transportation Research Board, 2002)

In the context of developing countries and emerging economies like India, where urban development is extensive, not all projects are funded by the aide-agencies. However, considering the general methodology for carrying out an economic appraisal of a project, in particular that prescribed by the World Bank, the framework revolves around two main factors: monetising the costs and benefits and streamlining the analysis to obtain Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR). However, the distribution of these benefits and costs across user groups, stakeholders and the geographic area is an important factor for determining the efficiency of a project, yet excluded from the current framework for the appraisal.

Barone and Rebelo (2003) studied the impact of Metro’s Line 4 on the urban population in the São Paulo Metropolitan Region and were convinced that due to varying nature of benefits like reduced travel times, affordability, positive environmental impacts, changes in housing conditions and growth of local economic activities along the line, the influence on different sections of the society varied. Such studies could be useful for the decision makers to take valued judgements on the project appraisals.

Gannon and Liu (1997) also support the fact that the impacts of transport development projects varies across income classes and although, most of the projects which get a go-ahead based on Economic Internal Rate of Return and Net Present Value are often pro-higher income classes, yet one of the major concern still remains that one specific group is in a win-win situation. The impact of a transport development project on gender groups and especially the urban poor should be ideally an integral part of the appraisal framework.


9

The conceptual framework for this research aims at bringing together the missing aspect of spatial analysis and the equity aspects of distribution of impacts across income subgroups at a disaggregate level together while evaluating the impacts of a transportation project. This combination of social and spatial analysis of the distribution of the impacts would help us in identifying who and where are the gainers from the project.

Figure 1.4: Conceptual Framework

The benefits in terms of savings in travel time, savings in the vehicle operating costs and savings due to reduction in the number of accidents with varying fatality rates are the major impacts in terms of monetary gains for users of a transport system. Together with environmental savings such as savings due to reduction in pollution (emissions from vehicles), these benefits are estimated at a city level or project area level. The framework developed aims at distributing these amongst the population subgroups at household level based on different income levels. Besides distribution across population, distribution across spatial units such as traffic analysis zones is also considered as an essential component to assess the integrated impact distribution across the income subgroups with spatial dimensions. The disaggregated levels of impacts then contribute to the evaluation of the social and spatial equity aspects of the project using equity indicators. The equity indicators reflect the variability or inequality in the distribution of the benefits (impacts) across population (households). Comparing this distribution with a base scenario or level of variability in distribution of income is significant in identifying the gainers and losers. The losers may not be termed as absolute losers; however, their gains from the project are such that they may be defined as relative losers when compared to those groups which gain significantly high from the project.

Economic sustainability in the society is an important component of the overall concept of sustainability. The efficiency and equity criterion are significant criterions which are integral to the

Spatial Unit of Analysis– Traffic Analysis Zones

Population subgroups - Income groups

Economic Impacts User Benefits – Time

savings, Vehicle Operating Cost savings, benefits from

accident safety

Environmental Impacts Pollution reduction (as part

of economic analysis)

Transport Impact Assessment

Equity Indicators (to identify the gainers and

losers of the project)

Social and Spatial equity analysis

Impact distributionacross the sub-group

with spatial dimensions

Policy Implications

Bridging the methodological and conceptual gap


10

inception, design and development of transport projects. The results of using equity indicators in transport benefits distribution highlight either of the win-win or win-lose scenarios. This insight into the possible distribution scenario may be used to formulate, refine and reform policies to enable redistribution of benefits and impacts on the different income groups and spatial units. The utility of these equity indicators as a potential input into the entire transport planning and appraisal framework due to their quality results and implications on policies is seen as an essential step in envisaging a sustainable city.

1.9. Thesis Outline

This section presents a tentative sketch of contents of different chapters included in the thesis.

Chapter 1: Introduction

This chapter would introduce the research and highlight its theoretical, conceptual and methodological aspects. It would also define the research problem, objectives and specific research questions along with a methodology to achieve the same.

Chapter 2: Transport Project Appraisal Methods

The main aspect that the thesis looks into is the distribution of the impacts of a transportation project to people and over space. This chapter provides a complete appraisal of literature in this field. The variety of approaches and methods used for distribution analysis, areas of focus and the trends during the past few years have been investigated and critically analysed to select the methods. (An) Appropriate method(s) have been selected to apply to the case project, Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad.

Chapter 3: Research Methodology and Fieldwork

The chapter details out the process flow for the research, the datasets used and their sources. The limitations with respect to the data availability and data quality are also described. Since a primary survey was carried out, a detailed section on the same is presented.

Chapter 4: The case: Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad

This chapter begins with an overview of the socio-economic descriptive and urban transport systems in Ahmedabad. It further describes the salient features and status of the project BRTS, Ahmedabad.

Chapter 5: Analysis of the Economic Evaluation of BRTS project

Chapter 5 is the crux of the research with detailed description of the economic evaluation of the project case. It further looks into the distribution and disaggregation of the various project impacts. The chapter presents and discusses the results from the equity analysis of distribution of impacts. It concludes with the comparison of the results from the distribution analysis with the outputs on peoples’ willingness to adopt use the BRTS as a mode from the household survey.


11

Chapter 6: Implications of Distribution Analysis

In continuation of the previous chapter, a detailed discussion on the implications of the results obtained has been scripted initiating with a discussion on the possible policy implications of distribution analysis based on literature review. It also deals with sub-objective 3 of discussing the potentials and limitations of the application of distribution analysis methods for transportation projects.

Chapter 7: Conclusions and Future Research Directions

The last chapter summarizes the key findings and gives recommendations for potential future research.


12


13

2. Transport Project Appraisal Methods

Understanding the fundamental concepts of economics of development projects, in particular transport projects is indispensable for the distribution analysis that this research envisages. This chapter starts with a synthesis of appraisal frameworks and methods used in existing analysis of projects. Distribution amongst population sub-groups and over space being the main theme of the research, literature from previous researches and current active institutional members in the field have been summarised in the subsequent section. The chapter concludes by reviewing some of the indicators used to summarise the distribution and look into the equity aspects of the distribution. Researches focussing on themes similar to the indicators selected in this research have been emphasised.

2.1. Introduction

A smart consumer investigates all costs and benefits of each option prior to making a major purchase decision. Before buying a car, one wants accurate information on its fuel, insurance, maintenance and repair costs. Similarly, before buying a train or airline ticket, one wants to know about all fees and taxes, and whether tickets can be changed or refunded. One also wants information on the reliability, comfort and safety of each option.

According to Rietveld (2003), just as consumers need accurate and comprehensive information when making personal travel decisions, government and other funding agencies expect an accurate and comprehensive information on the full economic, social and environmental impacts (benefits and costs) associated with each option when making transport policy and planning decisions.

Economic, social and environmental changes are inherent to development(Hay, 1993). While development aims to bring about positive changes, sustainability in the society is aimed at ensuring long –term benefits and minimising the adverse impacts. There are often conflicts between transport objectives. For example, some congestion reduction strategies degrade walking conditions or increase pollution emissions. Conversely, some emission reduction strategies increase consumer costs or traffic congestion. Such tradeoffs must be considered in transport planning and policy making. Any development project should aim at increased well-being and greater equity in serving the basic needs for the present and future generations(Hay, 1993).

2.2. Transport Investment Appraisal and Impact Evaluation

Developments in the transport sector are a means to improve the economic opportunities, quality of life and ultimately, income of people in a particular area (Weisbrod and Weisbrod, 1997). According to Nijkamp et al (2003), apart from the well-being objective of any transport development project, investment appraisal is an important issue in transport planning and policy. These compare the projected stream of benefits from a project with the initial and future costs. These benefits and costs are actually the impacts of the project quantified in monetary terms.


14

Figure 2.1: Elements of Impact of a Transport Project Source: Adopted from (Weisbrod and Weisbrod, 1997)

Any of the impacts resulting from the transport development is not mutually exclusive. There are always interactions between the economic, fiscal, environmental and social impacts. These are visible across the entire range of stakeholders like the government, users and operators besides the groups and organisations which become a part of this vicious circle owing to the multiplier and interactive effects(Gannon and Liu, 1997).

The impacts in any transport appraisal or evaluation framework are studied primarily as costs and benefits. These costs and benefits may not primarily include all the impacts, e.g. environmental impacts may not be covered in the economic or financial costs and benefits (Willis et al., 1998). Similarly, cultural impacts and impacts on the society are primarily covered under the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) while the environmental impacts are studied under the Environmental Impact Assessment (Transportation Research Board, 2002). Nevertheless, as discussed before, none of the impacts are mutually exclusive. Hence, it is important to capture all the impacts irrespective of their nature. Practically, it’s seen to be impossible, owing to governmental and departmental procedures. There are certain standard methods and procedures outlined for economic, environmental and social impact assessments. However, these are hardly overlapped and seen in conjunction, which in turn leads to a certain group being seen as a beneficiary from a project, although it might be losing on other fronts. Hence a holistic nature of impact assessment over different societal groups is essential(Grigalunas et al., 2005).

2.3. Economic Evaluation

The evaluation of projects is not straightforward. It involves the assessment of the net value of projects and policies. As Nijkamp et. al. (2003) discuss that , a major scope of evaluation of a project is to identify the key consequences of the proposed project and consider the quantitative information


15

about them. Secondly the various types of effects i.e. economic, environmental and social should be comparable so as to make a choice between different project alternatives based on same criteria. In the transport sector we value projects in terms of their net worth, the difference between the value of their benefits and their costs, both measured so far as is possible in terms of monetary units. This disarmingly simple statement leads to a many questions; evaluation by whom, for whom, from what perspective, at what stage.

When we focus on economic evaluation vis-à-vis the financial evaluation, it is said that that the economic appraisal lies at the interface between technical work (engineering, planning, and economics) and political decision-making especially for public projects. This is a pivotal position which requires not only that evaluation should be technically sound, but also that it must be capable of explanation and communication to the decision-makers and map on to their information needs (Klein, 2007).

One of the features of transport decisions is that they typically impact on many parties – transport operators, individual transport users, local residents and businesses, land and property owners, national and local taxpayers. Each of these stakeholders will seek to assess the impact of a project from their own interest. But the perspective of transport evaluation needs to be a social one, that is, one which takes account of significant impacts of the project or policy whoever is affected. These transport projects need not only be hard infrastructure projects. Cheung (2006) studied the socio-economic advantages of the nationwide-smart card for public transport in Netherlands. The cost-benefit analysis into the project revealed large scale benefits as compared to the investment costs for the project.

2.4. Transport Economic Evaluation

According to the World Bank (2005b), economic evaluation is a comparative tool. It considers the difference between alternative states of the world (such as Do-Something against Do-Minimum) and the cost and benefits of a project or policy intervention. Nijkamp et al (Nijkamp et al., 2003) emphasise that for public investments, social welfare maximisation is the steering objective rather than profit maximisation. Hence, the complexities of estimating the principal effects of the transport projects and the projects economic appraisal have gained attention in transport literature. The author lists out some of these impacts resulting from transport projects e.g. from the construction of a road project. These are as shown in table 2.1 as follows.

Table 2.1: Some of the principal effects resulting from the construction of a road Traffic economy and road maintenance

Environmental and land – use effects

Regional development

Traffic Safety Travel Time Comfort Vehicle Costs Maintenance User benefits

Noise Air pollution Barrier effects Water pollution Vibrations Landscape/scenery Nature conservation Land development

Regional economic growth, employment and trade balance Effects for trade, industry and tourism

Source: adopted from (Nijkamp et al., 2003)


16

Considering the wide range of effects from a transport project, the project appraisal techniques should be such that the final impact is adeptly structured. The development of transport appraisal methods was widely researched between 1960s and 1970s wherein estimating the monetary values of different impacts were a major area of research e.g. valuing time and safety (Grant-Muller S. M. et al., 2001).

Another important aspect of transport project appraisals according to World Bank (2005b) is that economic evaluation should reflect human behaviour and be evidence-based as far as is reasonably possible. So knowledge of the factors which drive behaviour, and the way in which transport improvements are likely to impact is important. Thereby, economic evaluation needs to be holistic in nature, that is to say, it needs to cover economic, social and environmental impacts of projects and policies in a coherent and consistent manner.

2.4.1. Methods for Transport Project Appraisals

Todd Litman (Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2007), describes several specific techniques are used for transportation economic evaluation.

1. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis compares the costs of different options for achieving a specific objective, such as building a particular road. The quantity of outputs (benefits) are held constant, so there is only one variable, the cost of inputs.

2. Cost-Benefit Analysis compares total incremental benefits with total incremental costs. It is not limited to a single objective or benefit. For example, alternatives may differ in construction costs and the quality of service (speed and safety) they provide.

3. Lifecycle Cost Analysis is Benefit-Cost Analysis that incorporates the time value of money. This allows comparisons between alternatives that provide benefits and costs at different times. For example, one option may cost more but be quicker to implement than another.

4. Least Cost Planning is a type of Benefit-Cost Analysis that considers demand management on equal terms with capacity expansion.

5. Multiple Accounts Evaluation incorporates both quantitative and qualitative criteria, and can be used when some impacts cannot be monetized.

6. Other evaluation techniques measure physical impacts and outcomes, such as health, longevity, education levels, crime and personal satisfaction with life, without converting them into dollar values.

Of these, Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is the common basis for most transport project appraisal frameworks (Vickerman, 2007). However, CBA is often linked to certain limitations such as unavailability of accurate estimates of shadow prices for various effects and the method’s often implicit assumption that the different type of effects can be traded of an a monetary basis (Rietveld, 2003).

2.4.2. Distribution of Transport Project Effects

Of the above listed methods, Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is the most commonly applied method of economic evaluation of impacts of a transportation project. As discussed by the World Bank (2005b),


17

welfare is measured using the surplus criteria – consumer surplus and producer surplus – plus changes in external impacts (e.g. environmental) and government impacts (e.g. tax revenue). Consumer surplus is the difference between the maximum willingness to pay and the market price. While for a tradable commodity market transactions determine willingness to pay, willingness to pay for a non-tradable commodity is determined using preference revelation methods e.g. valuing travel time savings using stated or revealed preference (Cherchi and Polak, 2005). The use of willingness to pay means that income can influence the absolute level of benefit as those on higher incomes are often willing to pay more for a unit of benefit than someone on a lower income (Quinet and Vickerman, 2004).

The aim of the CBA is to identify the effects of a project and then to express the resulting changes of social welfare in monetary units. An investment is socially desirable only if the combined monetary value of the changes in welfare is higher than the investment costs of the intervention. If an investment meets this criterion it is said to be economically efficient (allocatively). The CBA also provides a number of useful indicators that include the Net Present Value (NPV) and the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) which are used to inform decisions (Boardman et al., 2006).

Bristow and Nellthorp (2000) have discussed the varying range of costs and benefits included in appraisal and the degree of consensus on their measurement and valuation. The authors introduce the recent developments in transport project appraisals wherein the multi-modal approaches and multi-criteria analysis have been included.

The distributional issue that arises is that economic efficiency indicators are affected by income, through willingness to pay. As such the use of pure economic efficiency indicators as decision tools can lead to a potentially vicious circle being created where investments actually widen the income gap (Loveless, 2006). Although umpteen researches has been done to analyse the distributive economic development impacts such as employment gains, business gains etc (Yi, 2006), the distribution of effects analysed under a cost-benefit analysis is still a wide stream of research.

2.4.2.1. Methods for Distribution Analysis of Transport Economic Impacts

The research field of studying the distributional analysis of transportation impacts is not new. There are several methodological frameworks for distributional analysis currently developed by the World Bank (The Transport Economic Efficiency Table, Spatial Analysis, Market Analysis and Final Impacts), the Transport Research Board, Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (Economic Activity and Location Impacts) and the Victoria Transport Planning Institute. Out of these, only the Spatial Analysis framework developed by the World Bank is spatial in nature, others aim at studying the impacts of transport development projects at various levels. These methods have been discussed below:

a) Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) Table

The Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) distribution analysis requires no more information than is required for the economic appraisal itself. The World Bank (2005b) indicates that the reporting of cost benefit analysis should always include a TEE table. Asian Development Bank (1997) sets out a methodology for a TEE distribution analysis. The approach requires that the net project benefits for the economy (economic net present value, or the NPV) be allocated to different groups affected by the project. The mechanism suggested by the (ADB, 1997) can be expressed in the following way:


18

)( fineconfinecon NPVNPVNPVNPV −+= (1)

where

NPVecon is the net present value for economic cash flows NPVfin is the net present value for financial cash flows

Net benefits of the project comprise the financial flows; including incomings (e.g. revenues, loans, grants etc.) and outgoings (e.g. principal repayment of capital, interest payments, construction and operations and maintenance costs etc.); and the flows created by divergences between economic and financial prices. The distribution analysis requires the identification of winners and losers from financial transactions and again the winners and losers from the divergences between economic and financial values. No extra information is required for the TEE distribution analysis beyond that required for a good conventional financial and economic appraisal. In equation 1, while NPVfin results from the financial analysis, the NPVecon results from the economic appraisal.

The disaggregation of the net benefits could be based on the following categories:

1. For general case: disaggregation among project operating entity, workers of the project,

consumer of the project outputs, input supplier, lenders of the project and government

(representing the rest of the economy);

2. For poverty: disaggregation by the income levels of the beneficiaries;

3. For gender or ethnic groups: disaggregation by gender or ethnicity of the beneficiaries;

4. For spatial subdivisions: disaggregation by spatial subdivisions;

5. For international or sub-regional project: disaggregation by participating countries.

The TEE table looks at distribution of impacts, net impacts i.e. at an aggregate level over the group. It does not look into the disaggregated benefit distribution to different income groups across the project area.

b) Spatial Analysis

Spatial analysis assumes that a transport improvement will be used by people located on the line of the route and that the areas through which the route passes; it is those people who will benefit. Availability of data on zonal population and socio-economic characteristics, and measures of zonal accessibility change make this approach feasible. Obvious disadvantages are whether the users are representative in income of the zonal population, whether fare policies will deter the poor, and in the cases of large high quality urban schemes whether the landless poor will be displaced by property development. An example of this approach is the work by Barone and Rebelo (2003) for the São Paulo Metro Line 4.

Another form of spatial analysis is the display of the users’ benefits (arising from operating costs and time savings) by zone for different options along with the per capita income figures, benefits per capita and benefits per head per capita income (Refer table 2.2). This method is data intensive and is therefore often only suitable in an urban context.


19

Table 2.2: Suggested Matrix for Displaying Distribution of Benefits

Source: Distribution of Benefits and Impacts on Poor People(World Bank, 2005a)

c) Market Analysis

According to the World Bank guidelines (World Bank, 2005a), there is no guarantee that the beneficiaries of the final impacts of a transport project (e.g. those with increased profits) will be those who either travel on the scheme or transport their goods via the project. A key determinant regarding whether or not the travellers hold onto their benefit ultimately will be dictated by market conditions. The market analysis looks into the benefits outside the transport market as well, i.e. user benefits pertaining to freight operators as well.

d) Final Impact Analysis

The most complex approach to understanding the distribution of the final economic impacts of a transport project is to attempt to forecast them directly. Two approaches have been suggested by the World Bank, a micro approach and a top-down forecasting approach(World Bank, 2005a). Micro-approach is where benefits from increased opportunities in health, education and employment are estimated minus the costs incurred to achieve them. This approach is often complemented by market research. The top down forecasting approach is the one where a Land Use Transport Interaction (LUTI) model or a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model is constructed fully representing all sectors of the market and their interaction with the market.

2.4.2.2. Distribution of Secondary Impacts of Transport Projects

Transit improvements can also provide significant environmental benefits, such as reduced air, water, and noise pollution when auto use decreases. These effects are difficult to monetize and are often evaluated according to their distribution spatially. When measuring these impacts, vehicle fleet mix (types of buses, rail, and autos), local and regional traffic conditions, roadway types, existing environmental conditions, and built environment factors (adjacent land uses and population densities), all of which can greatly affect the benefits that are realized are taken into account(Voith, 1998).

Analyses of air pollution typically consider levels of five standard pollutants identified by the Environmental Agencies and include both local analyses (based on project-specific land use and traffic data) and area-wide analyses, using emission algorithms developed by Environmental Agencies. For air pollution in particular, the analysis timeframe is important in that it will incorporate assumptions regarding general growth in vehicle miles traveled and also removal of older, more polluting vehicles.

Zone Zone population

Average per capita zonal income

Total users’ benefits

Benefits per head

Benefits per head per capita income

N1 P1 I1 B1 B1/P1 B1/(P1*I1) N2 P2 I2 B2 B2/P2 B2/(P2*I2) … … … … … … Nn Pn In Bn Bn/Pn Bn1/(Pn*In)


20

Noise pollution is more localized than air pollution, and costs can vary substantially as a function of adjacent land use density, mitigation measures (e.g., sound walls), existing ambient conditions, and the nature of the noise (frequency, time of day). Compared with other types of impacts, noise impacts (costs) are likely to be relatively minor unless a large project is constructed that causes new noise in heavily populated areas with relatively low existing noise levels.

Water pollution arises from vehicle exhaust, tire wear, oil leaks, and numerous other sources. While some researchers have estimated these costs at a national level in the aggregate, there are no reliable figures that disaggregate costs by mode or local area. Based upon the national estimates, however, these costs are likely to be very small per vehicle-mile of travel and can probably be dropped from the analysis unless special conditions exist.

Finally, the cost of accidents is another factor that is not perceived by users. An example of this type of cost might be publicly borne accident response costs.

2.5. Distribution of Tranport Project Impacts with Equity Prospects

Equity vis-à-vis inequity means different things to different people; be it inequity encapsulating ethical concepts such as desirability of a particular system or simply mean differences in income, access and means of services. According to Atkinson (1983), this subject is a matter of great debate.

Inequality is often studied as part of a broader analysis covering poverty and welfare, here concepts are distinct. Inequality is a broader concept than poverty as it is defined over the whole distribution, and not only the population defined a below a certain poverty line.

According to Litchfield (1999), the incomes at the top and in the middle of the whole distribution may just be as important to us in perceiving and measuring inequality as those at the bottom. Most of the measures of inequality are driven largely by incomes in the upper section of the distribution.

In infrastructure development projects, as per the methods of project impact assessment on income groups, Poverty Impact Analysis is the most common method. Indicators of impact on poor, i.e. the population identified as poor based on certain attributes or as defined by a certain poverty line, are defined by the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and the DFID. However, it is well known that the impacts of any project are distributional owing to the purchasing power, income distribution, accessibility etc (McGrail, 2008). Therefore, the concepts of vertical as well as horizontal equity (discussed in section 2.5.1) are of great relevance in assessing the impact of any development project.

Teubel (2000) assesses the welfare effects and distributional impacts across different income groups amongst commuters for the city of Dresden. The author uses a combination of discrete choice modelling and welfare estimation in assessing the distribution of impacts on different groups. The emphasis is primarily on congestion and other travel variables.

Considering the spatial nature of any transport project, it is evident that apart from societal equity, spatial equity is also significant (Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2007). The spatial nature of these projects might as well bring in societal inequity owing to location of the people who benefit from the project, in terms of property values, better access to services, employment etc. However, these factors may bring in double counting of the impacts as well as require exhaustive data collection.


21

2.5.1. Equity Concepts in Transportation

The study of transportation equity confronts issues associated with the distribution of transportation resources and costs, with a concern for fairness to individuals and groups. According to Levinson (Levinson, 2008a) central issue for transportation, not just because it is ‘right’ but also because it is efficient if we actually want to implement projects. Robert Bullard and Glenn Johnson (Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2007) have identified three broad areas of transportation inequity in incongruent outcomes in transportation planning, operation and maintenance, and infrastructure development. These are:

1) Procedural Inequity: The process by which transportation decisions are made may not be equitable. The process should be uniform, fair, and consistent and must involve diverse public stakeholders. Procedural equity analysis considers whether the rules apply equally to everyone.

2) Geographic Inequity: Transportation resource decisions have geographically distributive impacts. Some places (metropolitan areas, rural areas, central cities, suburbs, etc.) may benefit more than others. Geographic equity analysis is concerned with the degree to which transportation resource decisions disproportionately favour one geographic area or spatial location over another.

3) Social Inequity: Transportation resource decisions have socially distributive impacts across population groups. Concerns focus on the degree to which wealthier and more educated segments of society receive disproportionately more benefits, the burdens fall more on people of colour and those with lower socioeconomic status.

In this research, emphasis is given to social and geographic inequity. Geographic equity in the research refers to equity amongst the traffic analysis zones and social equity refers to the equity amongst the different income groups (applied in chapter 5) However, Todd Litman (Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2007) identifies three types of transportation equity, as follows:

1) Horizontal Equity: This is the fairness of cost and benefit allocations among individuals and groups who are considered comparable in wealth and ability. The most straightforward approach to this form of equity analysis assumes that consumers “get what they pay for and pay for what they get.” Geographic equity analyses, especially donor/receiver analysis, and procedural equity analyses would fit within this category.

2) Vertical Equity with Regard to Income and Social Class: This form of equity explicitly considers how benefits are allocated to income and social classes. Concerns may focus on improving benefits to lower income and other socially disadvantaged groups. The primary focus is on social inequity, but procedural and geographic inequity may also be applicable here.

3) Vertical Equity with Regard to Mobility Need and Ability: This form of equity assumes that all individuals should have at least a minimum level of access, even if people with special needs require extra resources. Attention here tends to be focused on access for physically disabled people to public facilities, as well as support for transit and special mobility services. Procedural, geographic, and social inequity may all be relevant here as well.

Considering the definitions above from the referred literature, for this research, the concept of horizontal equity and vertical equity with regard to the income groups has been looked into.


22

In another research, Vasconcellos (2005) has discussed the equity scenario in São Paulo wherein he has looked into the transport metabolism, social diversity and equity amongst different income groups and has thereafter commented on the policies which give rise to inequity and the pre-cautionary measures for policies. Hay (1993) has conceptually looked into the transport economic principles of formal equality, substantive equality, least social cost and profit maximization.

2.5.2. Measures of Equity and equality in infrastructure services

Specific techniques can be used to quantify equity in transport projects. One approach is called the Dalton Principle according to which resource transfers from high to lower income people that maintain their overall income ranking is considered to improve equity. Some of the methods commonly used are discussed in the following sections.

2.5.2.1. Gini coefficient and Lorenz Curve

The Gini coefficient is a measure of statistical dispersion most prominently used as a measure of inequality of income distribution or inequality of wealth distribution. It is defined as a ratio with values between 0 and 1. A low Gini coefficient indicates more equal income or wealth distribution, while a high Gini coefficient indicates more unequal distribution. A 0 value corresponds to perfect equality (everyone having exactly the same income) and 1 corresponds to perfect inequality (where one person has all the income, while everyone else has zero income). The Gini Index is the Gini coefficient expressed as a percentage. Gini for N elements from poorest to richest is calculated as follows.

� �= =

−−=Ni Nk

totaltotaliiK AEAEEG..1 ..1

) )*/(*))(*2((1 (2)

where Ai is ‘people’ (amount of individuals in group i of a society), Atotal =�i=1..N(Ai); Ei is ‘wealth’ (total wealth owned by that group i of a society), Etotal=�i=1..N(Ei); N: amount of groups (quantiles, percentiles) in the society; G is the ‘Gini coefficient’ measure for society.

The Gini coefficient's main advantage is that it is a measure of inequality by means of a ratio analysis, rather than a variable unrepresentative of most of the population, such as per capita income or gross domestic product. It can be used to compare income distributions across different population sectors. The Gini coefficient can be used to indicate how the distribution of income has changed within a country or city over a period of time, thus it is possible to see if inequality is increasing or decreasing.

However, it may be noted that the Gini coefficient of different sets of people cannot be averaged to obtain the Gini coefficient of all the people in the set: if a Gini coefficient were to be calculated for each person it would always be zero. Too often only the Gini coefficient is quoted without describing the proportions of the quantiles used for measurement. As with other inequality coefficients, the Gini coefficient is influenced by the granularity of the measurements. For example, five 20% quantiles (low granularity) will usually yield a lower Gini coefficient than twenty 5% quantiles (high granularity) taken from the same distribution. This is an often encountered problem with such measurements.


23

Lorenz curve (see figure 2.2) as a principle is used as a measure exclusively for income inequality assessment. However, Gini’s index has often been used in the health sector to assess the use of certain services by the population. An alternative of Lorenz curve used in health services sector is the Concentration Curve and Concentration Index.

The Lorenz curve is a graphical representation of the proportionality of a distribution (the cumulative percentage of the values). The horizontal axis represents the cumulative percentage of the population studied ordered from poor to rich, while the Y axis represents the cumulative percentage of studied variable like income, wealth etc. The Lorenz curve is compared with the perfect equality line, which is a linear relationship. The perfect inequality line represents a distribution where one element has the total cumulative percentage of wealth while the others have none.

Figure 2.2: Lorenz curve Source: http://www.rrh.org.au

The Gini coefficient is defined graphically as a ratio of two surfaces involving the summation of all vertical deviations between the Lorenz curve and the perfect equality line (A) divided by the difference between the perfect equality and perfect inequality lines (A+B).

Levinson(Levinson, 2008b) in an attempt to measure equity in transportation defines the role of Gini coefficient of concentration and the Lorenz curve in measuring the equality in the distribution of a good other than income. The author also discusses the use of ‘H’ Statistic of entropy measurement as well as the redundancy statistic ‘R’ as indicators of equity (these have not been included for this research). Gini coefficient is generally considered as a measure of evaluating vertical equity.

Figure 2.3: Curves showing progressive & regressive distributions Source: Affordability and Subsidies in Public Urban Transport: What Do We Mean, What Can Be Done?(Estupiñán et al., 2007)


24

(Teubel, 2000) summarizes the use of Atkinson’s Index (Atkinson, 1983) a the welfare measure used dually as indicator of inequality too. The Atkinson measure expresses the inequality-aversion of the society.

The Gini coefficient and Lorenz curve can further reflect the nature of distribution of the benefits form the project. This can be termed as progressive or regressive distribution (Estupiñán et al., 2007). This should not be confused with the base and ‘with project’ scenario assessments. Figure 2.3 gives an example where two curves are graphed. The curve above the 45º line shows a progressive distribution of benefits, since X % of poorest households receive more than X % of the total benefits whatever value of X is chosen. The curve below the 45º line shows a regressive distribution of benefits since poorer households now receive less than a proportional amount of the benefit.

2.5.2.2. Coefficient of variation

According to Johannes et al (2001), the coefficient of variation shows the percent of variation of a variable around its mean (i.e. the average). It is computed by dividing the variable's standard deviation by its mean. The value of the coefficient of variation ranges from zero to 1.0, or from zero to 100 if shown in percentage terms. The higher the value of the coefficient of variation, the greater the variation, or level of inequality, that exists in a variable. A coefficient of variation of 10 or less is generally considered to indicate an acceptable level of equity. This method can be used to evaluate horizontal equity. It may be represented as follows:

100/)(

_

2__

X

nXXV r

r� −= (3)

where V is the coefficient of variation ___

X is the mean Xr is the is individual value n is the number of values.

Komives et al (2005) has used an interesting summary measure of the distributive incidence defined as the percentage of the policy or subsidy accruing to poor households over the percentage of the population represented by poor households. This can used to measure the incidence of distribution of transport benefits as well.

Apart from the above listed inequality measures pre-dominantly used in transport or other infrastructure services equity assessment methods; several other measures are available which may prove to be more efficient than these. One of such measures is the Coefficient of concentration, calculated by summing up the differences between the absolute income and population for each group, and halving the result. This gives the inequality in the scale of 0 to 100 (Smith, 1994). Other important indicators of inequality which can be used for transport project evaluations for equity are Theil’s Index, Hoover’s Index, Plato Inequality Index and Redistributive Aggression in order of complexity. Theil’s and Hoover’s Index are discussed below.


25

2.5.2.3. Theil’s Index

Derived by econometrician Henri Theil, Theil’s Index is a statistic used to measure economic inequality. Member of the family of Generalized entropy indices like the Mean logarithmic deviation and the half of the squared coefficient of variation, Theil’s Index is also decomposable index (Shorrocks, 1984). The Theil’s index of inequality may be written as follows.

yy

yy

nT i

n

i

i ln11�

=

= (4)

where

T denotes the overall income inequality index, Theil’s Index

n is population size

y corresponds to average income per capita

yi is the income of the ith individual.

According to Novotný (2007), if a population can be territorially divided into k regions (generally k symbolizes mutually exclusive and exhaustive subpopulations), then T can be itemized as:

WByy

yy

yy

nyy

yy

nn

Tj

ijn

i

ijjk

j

jjk

j

jj

+=+= ��===

)ln1()ln(111

(5)

where

G is the Gini Coefficient

nj refers to the population size of the jth region

yj is the mean income of the jth region

yij corresponds to the income of the ith individual in the jth region

B is the subgroups’ averages

W is the sum of inequalities within particular subgroups.

Hence Theil’s Index can be used as social inequality measure (between population sub groups) as well as a spatial inequality measure. One of the advantages of the Theil’s index is that it is a weighted average of inequality within subgroups, plus inequality among those subgroup, hence it can be decomposed to a subgroup level. It is the property of decomposability of the Theil’s index which the more popular Gini coefficient (Gini Index) does not offer.

2.5.2.4. Hoover’s Index

The Hoover’s Index is equal to the portion of the total community income that would have to be redistributed (taken by force from the richer half of the population and given to the poorer half) for there to be perfect equality. It can be graphically represented as the longest vertical distance between the Lorenz curve, or the cumulative portion of the total income held below a certain income percentile, and the 45 degree line representing perfect equality.


26

�=

−=N

i total

i

total

i

AA

EEH

121

(6)

where

H is the Hoover’s Index

Ei is the income in the ith quantile

Ai could be the amount (absolute or relative) of earners in the ith quantile

Etotal then would be the sum of incomes of all N quantiles

Atotal would be the sum of the income earners in all N quantiles.

2.5.3. Pro-poor Transport Project Equity Indicators

As discussed before, the distribution of project impacts i.e. benefits and losses (costs) are generally related to the income of the users, which includes all income categories, the rich and the poor. The World Bank (2005a) in an attempt to study the impact of the transport development projects, has listed out several measures to study impact on poverty. These are described in the table below.

Table 2.3: Measures of pro-poor welfare indicators Method Description Suitability

Poverty Impact Ratio (PIR)

A simple ratio that informs whether the project will improve, maintain or worsen the income gap.

Straight forward method utilising CBA data appropriate for a typical transport project.

Coefficients of Income Distribution (CID)

Three alternative indicators similar to the PIR. These are:

• CID = No. of low income persons/Total number of beneficiaries

• CID = Value of Net Benefits to Low Income Persons/Economic NPV

• CID = Value of Net Benefits to Low Income Persons/ Economic NPV – net government income.

Straight forward method utilising CBA data appropriate for a typical transport project.

Progressivity and Regressivity

Detailed analysis on the financial implications of a project. It pays particular concern to the financial impacts of a project on different income groups of society.

Appropriate for analysing a change in policy. Can require detailed data analysis (e.g. income distributions).

Method for rapid assessment of the gains by the poor in a workfare programme

A method that reflects the income generated by the poor from providing labour to an infrastructure project as well the benefit they would receive from the project (once opened).

Rapid assessment of workfare programmes (e.g. for maintenance or construction of transport projects) where there are data, resource or time constraints

Source: Distribution of Benefits and Impacts on Poor People, World Bank (2005a)


27

The above described methods of measuring poverty impacts of projects focus on the poor as defined by the poverty line in the contextual study area. However, these impact measures also look at the overall cumulative impacts of the projects. The disaggregated impact across the geographical/administrative sub-divisions again requires a previously done spatial analysis of the project impacts. Even then, only the distribution of project impacts, how they benefit the poor may not be a wholesome analysis of these impacts. This requires an analysis and measurement of impacts across all categories of a defined social group, i.e. income, ethnicity, social rank, gender etc.

Figure 2.4: Key components of the ADB Poverty Reduction Strategy

The Asian Development Bank (1997), in its pro-poverty approach to all projects has identified a poverty reduction framework. In every evaluation, it aims at looking into the impact on the poor, i.e. measuring the poverty reduction per se. However, as per the literature review, it is aptly clear that the impact is distributional over the entire society, and also the overall benefit of the society should be taken into account. Hence the impact analysis should be conducted across all income groups.

2.5.4. z-score as Proxy Indicator

In the absence of required datasets, z-score technique was used to construct proxy indicators. The z-score is one of the standardization techniques used widely in construction of indices of health and deprivation (Yang and Onis, 2008). The technique indicates the ‘true’ position of one spatial unit of observation to the central tendency of the variation of value of observation in one spatial scale of observation. The arithmetic mean is generally used as the central tendency measurement.

This method shows the ‘distance’ of the observation to the average of all observations stated in unit of standard deviation of the observation. So, the z-score will indicate the distance of each observation in standard deviation to the central tendency of the variable in one spatial scale of observation. The z-score will have negative value if the observation is less than the average and positive when vice versa. The z-score transformation is such that if every item in a distribution is converted to its z-score, the transformed scores will necessarily have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. Hence, the z-score transformation is especially useful when seeking to compare the relative standings of items from distributions with different means and/or different standard deviations(Field, 2005).

z-score is represented as follows.


28

σ

��

�

�

��

�

�

−

=

�=

n

xx

z

n

ii

i

i

1

(6)

where: i=1…..n is the unit of observation (TAZ) zi is the z-score for i-th TAZ Xi is the value of the variable under study for i-th TAZ Xi is the mean value of the variable for all the TAZs in AMC � is the standard deviation of the variable for all TAZs in AMC

Onis and Blossner (2003) expressed the advantages of interpreting the indicators in terms of z-scores. The author says that the z-score is linear and therefore a fixed interval of z-scores has a fixed range of values. z-scores have the same statistical relation to the distribution of all reference variables; hence can be compared across indicators. The above characteristics of z-scores allow further computation of summary statistics such as means and standard deviations. Since z-score is a linear standardisation index, the original value or unit of the variable is lost.

Under the current research, z-score technique has been used in evaluating spatial equity across the traffic analysis zones for “without BRTS” and “with BRTS” scenario.

2.5.5. Need for further research in Distribution of Project Impacts and Equity aspects

As discussed above, there exists heterogeneity in the distribution of impacts of a transport development project, be it across income groups, gender, ethnicity, employment groups etc. However, income groups define the affordability and accessibility of the people to the services. This can be assessed by the influence, income and hence the presumed expenditure on transport by a particular household has on the transport access and movement of different genders, especially women, the employment group to which the household belongs and thereafter to the socio-cultural status of the household. Hence, not only the impact on poverty should be assessed or measured, it is important to look at the distribution of these impacts holistically so as to identify who is the net beneficiary from the project. This is owing to the fact that every project has its own benefits and costs, therefore how these benefits and costs finally define who is the net gainer or loser from a project.

2.5.6. Selecting appropriate methods for impact assessment

Based on the review of the existing methodologies for impact assessment of the transport projects, following issues need to be considered into while defining the strategic method for identifying the gainers and losers of the project through distribution of different impacts.

• Study area contexts-extent, profile • Understanding of diversification amongst stakeholders • Spatial Correlation of the impacts • Correlation between magnitude of impacts


29

• Relationship between impacts and the attribute of stratification of the population

Considering the above factors, and the below mentioned advantages and disadvantages of the existing methods of project appraisals, a methodological framework integrating the societal equity as well as spatial equity approaches, has been developed. The advantages and disadvantages of the existing methodologies can be listed as follows:

Table 2.4: Advantages and disadvantages of World Bank methods of Distribution Analysis Method Advantages Disadvantages

TEE Table Disaggregates the net benefit for an aggregate population under different income groups. It looks into spatial disaggregation, but at administrative sub-divisions.

Disaggregation is not extended to spatial location of the populations. Hence, difficult to assess horizontal as well as vertical equity. The spatial disaggregation may not correlate with population distribution due to non-availability of figures at same spatial unit.

Spatial Analysis

Assumes that the population along the transport development route would only benefit from the benefits. Benefits across different zones are studied with respect to their socio-economic aggregate figures.

Disaggregation of the benefits across the zones with respect to the distribution of income groups/sub-groups in the zone is not looked into. The method is data intensive and is applicable to urban context.

Market Analysis

Looks into the indirect/multiplier effects of the transport development. User’s benefits as indicated by the market, in terms of benefits/profits to freight operators, markets etc are used. Extremely data intensive and not very applicable for societal equity analysis.

Final Impact Analysis

Has Micro and macro approach and hence, two ways at evaluating the economic impacts Micro approach is advantageous to evaluate the impact on population accessibility to various services like health, education etc as a result of the development project.

The Micro approach is based on market research and extensive surveys Macro research is based on complex Land Use-Transport Models and CGE Modelling, specific techniques and detailed framework for their application are not yet developed.

Source: Distribution of Benefits and Impacts on Poor People, (World Bank, 2005a)


30

2.6. Methodological Framework

Based on the literature review pertaining to different methods of evaluating transport project impacts, a methodological framework for integrating current methods with the societal equity analysis across different income groups and their spatial variation has been developed.

Figure 2.5: Methodological Framework for research

2.7. Summary

The chapter describes and enlists the existing methods used in transport project appraisals, especially economic appraisals. The methods used by the World Bank and the Transport Research Board are found to be the most common ones, however, the spatial nature or analysis in any of the projects is limited. In addition to the spatial analysis, selective indicators are used to analyse the projects for social equity. The level of analysis is primarily city or individuals. However, the concept of area based analysis and thereafter the concept of ecologically fallacy at city level is highest especially in heterogeneous metropolitan cities. Therefore, additional indicators are reviewed which can be decomposed to further disaggregate level e.g. the Theil’s Index. The chapter concludes with a broad methodological framework for distribution analysis. Sections of the framework have been detailed further in chapter 3 on research methodology.

Economic Impacts User Benefits – Time savings, Cost savings, accident safety

Environmental Impacts Pollution reduction, landscape initiatives

Socio-cultural Impacts Impact on cultural, heritage,

social locations/values

Spatial Unit of Analysis-Traffic Analysis Zones

Population sub groups –

Income Groups

Impact distribution across the sub-group with spatial

dimensions

Bridging the conceptual and methodological gap

Transport Impact Assessment

Spatial and societal equity analysis

Spatial Equity

Indicator using Z-statistics

Policy Implications

Social Equity Indicator- Gini - Theil’s - Hoover - Ratio of Benefits (%) to Population(%)


31

3. Research Methodology and Fieldwork

Research Methodology framed on the basis of literature review was a major input into identifying the data requirements. Fieldwork in Ahmedabad (17th September 2008 up to 17th October 2008) formed an important part of this research. Activities conducted in the field have been discussed in this chapter. The first section gives an overview of the complete methodology followed by fieldwork and the levels at which the data were collected. Details of household survey or collection of secondary data have been explained subsequently. The chapter concludes by reflecting on the quality of data collected and its implications on the research.

3.1. Research Methodology

The research methodology as shown in figure 3.1 below, lists out the various steps that would be essential to answer each of the previously listed research questions. The main objective of this research is to evaluate the distributional nature of the impacts of the BRT project in Ahmedabad, spatially, across the population groups as well as over the geographical locations. The major data sources are the assessments reports of the project like EIA, Economic Appraisals, and Socio-economic reports etc. The understanding of both the concepts involved and their applicability was reasoned with the literature review. The economic impacts on users have been derived from the Economic Evaluation Report and the Corridor Assessment Reports, and other impacts from additional Impact Assessment and Project Reports. The secondary data would be primarily used for the research, but certain variables and additional data has also been derived from the Household and Stated Preference Survey in selected TAZs. Finally the distribution of impacts of the BRTS across various income groups has been done applying the selected methods of distributional analysis. The distribution analysis is done in two steps i.e. social equity analysis and spatial equity analysis.


32

.

Figure 3.1: Research Methodology

3.2. Fieldwork Data Collection: Approach and Methodology

The collection consisted of primary and secondary data in Ahmedabad. For primary data collection, a household survey was conducted in the selected traffic analysis zones (TAZs) corresponding to the integrated Phase I and Phase II of the BRTS project in Ahmedabad. Various secondary data sources have also been referred to in the study. These are the reports conducted as feasibility studies and working papers published for the Integrated Public Transport Project (IPTS), Ahmedabad, Bus Rapid Transit Project (BRTS), Ahmedabad and the MRTS Study, Ahmedabad.


33

3.2.1. Secondary data Collection

The secondary data collected during the fieldwork related to the following:

Design Report on Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad (2005, 2008)

The working papers on Conceptual Design of the System, Environmental Impact Assessment Report, Economic Analysis, Vehicle Technology, Bus Station Design, Land Use Restructuring, Road Utilities, Road Way Design and Junction Management along with the Ahmedabad BRTS Project Design report.

Household Interview Survey Report, Feasibility Study on IPTS, Ahmedabad (GIDB, 2001)

In 2001, GIDB had initiated a feasibility study on an Integrated Public Transport System in Ahmedabad. It consisted of the BRTS, upgrading of the existing AMTS services and the MRTS project. It consists of data collected from a household survey, and analysis of the relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of the population, and the characteristics of urban travel in Ahmedabad.

Environment Task Report, IPTS Feasibility Study, Ahmedabad (2002)

The report highlights the IPTS feasibility with regard to the environmental and social conditions in the city. It also touches upon the pollution and vehicular emission data in the city.

Bus Loading and Unloading Surveys, IPTS Feasibility Study, Ahmedabad

The information form the Bus loading and loading survey done on different bus routes in Ahmedabad in 1999, has been captured in this report. It gives an overview of the bus system performance in Ahmedabad.

Socio-Economic and Land use Studies, IPTS Feasibility Study, Ahmedabad

This section of the IPTS feasibility study gives a reflection of the socio-economic variables in the base year, 2001 and the projected variables in 2035. According to these baseline and forecast studies, the Urban Transport Model and IPTS feasibility was carried out.

Interim Report, Feasibility Study on IPTS for Ahmedabad

This report gives a comprehensive overview of the transport situation in Ahmedabad as observed and analysed at the baseline year.

Road User Costs for IPTS, Ahmedabad

The report on Road User Costs discusses the methodology and the price, cost and other inputs to derive the economic and financial road user costs. This data has been further used in the economic analysis of the BRTS project, Ahmedabad.

Economic Analysis of BRTS Project

The economic evaluation spreadsheet and economic analysis summary for Phase I and II of BRTS project, Ahmedabad was obtained from Prof. Shivanand Swamy and BRTS, Cell respectively.


34

3.2.2. Interviews

Interviews were conducted with the project heads and other officials working in the project. These included, Prof. H.M. Shivanand Swamy, Project-in-charge, Ms. Shreya Gadepalli, Consultant ITDP, BRTS Project and Mr. Sandeep, BRTS Project team official.

3.2.3. Primary Data Collection

Household surveys were conducted in few areas to study the socio-economic and household characteristics of the urban population in Ahmedabad. The survey also included questions regarding their travel behaviour and how they perceive the upcoming BRTS project in the city. The survey also included a choice set to study the willingness of the people to shift to BRTS from their current mode for their current trips (Bajracharya, 2008). However, these surveys were conducted on a stratified population, as per the income groups pre-defined in the BRTS Report (2005).

3.2.3.1. Survey Area Selection

The unit of study is the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). There are 196 TAZs delineated within the Ahmedabad Municipal jurisdiction area. The BRTS project has recently undergone slight modification in the Phase I corridor in the north near Sardar Nagar. Hence, for the purpose of selection of TAZs for household survey and willing to shift survey (Stated Preference method); following considerations were taken into account:

1. The TAZs should not be along the BRTS Phase I route.

2. The TAZs should be equally spaced from the city centre and should follow the phase II of the BRTS project.

3. TAZs off the complete BRTS route i.e. Phase I and Phase II should also be taken up so as to study the differences between the on route and off route located TAZs.

4. The TAZs should sample the population from all the four pre-defined income groups1 i.e. Economically Weaker Sections or EWS (income < Rs2. 2500), Lower Income Group or LIG (income Rs. 2500-Rs. 5000), Middle Income Group or MIG (Rs 5000-Rs. 10000) and High Income Group or HIG (Income > Rs. 10000).

Reconnaissance Survey and Google Earth Satellite Imagery were used to identify the appropriate TAZs and areas for the survey. Eight TAZs were surveyed in the process; these are TAZ no. 4, 8, 23, 51, 63, 142, 147 and 157. These TAZs are located on BRTS Phase II route (refer map 3.1). The surveyed TAZs had following population statistics.

1 The income group classification is the same as defined by BRTS Report {GIDB (2005) Bus Rapid Transit System. Ahmedabad, CEPT University.} 2 Exchange Rate : US $1 = Rs. 48.83. Rs refers to Rupee (INR)


35

Map 3.1: Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) in AMC area selected for Household Survey

3.2.3.2. Sampling Strategy

The selected TAZs had all four income group populations. The areas resided by different income groups were identified based on reconnaissance survey, talking to the local people, and visual interpretation using satellite imagery.

A total of eight TAZs were surveyed, primarily located close to the second phase of the BRTS project. Since the survey was focused on income groups, the total of 40 samples per TAZ was stratified into these four income groups, and hence 10 samples each were collected for each income group from every TAZ. The houses were randomly selected from the identified clusters of income group houses. The Household was surveyed, only if the respondent was the head of the household or eldest in the family present but more than 20 years of age. In total, 320 households were surveyed.

157 147 142 8

51

63

4

23


36

Table 3.1: Population Statistics of surveyed TAZs

TAZ No. Number of Households EWS LIG MIG HIG Total

4 1070 3211 2141 459 6881 8 535 1988 459 382 3364

23 252 755 503 84 1594 51 261 1044 522 1958 3785 63 85 262 262 262 871

142 1775 1268 761 127 3931 147 2135 879 251 100 3365 157 729 1251 208 98 2286

Source: BRTS Project database, (BRTS Cell), Ahmedabad

3.2.3.3. Household Survey Questionnaire Design

The survey questionnaire consisted of questions on the socio economic parameters, trip characteristics, usage, attitude and perception of the current AMTS and other modes of public transportation services, their expectation from the public transport services, their willingness to pay for the desired service. The survey had a concluding section based on Stated Preference Technique including choice sets where in the main attributed for comparison was given as travel time and travel costs.

• Socio-economic parameters

The data collected includes household information such as household size, monthly household income, occupation of an individual, sex, age and household vehicle assets – ownership and availability.

• Travel Characteristics

The study collects travel/trip data for all the major travel trips i.e. educational and work trips depending upon whether a person is a worker or a student. The questionnaire includes questions on origin, destination, trip length, travel time, mode used for the trip and expenses per trip.

• Opinion and Attitude on Public Transport

This section of the questionnaire aims at gaining an insight into peoples’ opinion towards public transport system, their preference towards the attributes they feel important for and expect from public transport systems and their willingness to pay for these additional attributes as facilities. Options in terms of factors of existing fares for buses are given for selection. The section is followed by a choice set.

• Choice Sets

A combination of revealed and stated preference survey was constructed to study peoples’ current mode of travel and their willingness to shift to the newly proposed BRTS being implemented in three phases based on a set of attributes for the new system (Bajracharya, 2008). A similar set was successfully used by Bajracharya (2008) for estimating the transport ecological footprint for Ahmedabad.


37

• Attributes for selecting preference

The main attributes produced as options to the user for comparison of the two modes are travel time and travel cost for the daily trips.

Revealed Choice: This is the current mode which the person is using for his/her trip. The attribute values for the mode and trip are obtained from the respondent.

Stated Choice: The hypothetical alternative of BRTS option is given to the interviewee and the attribute values are derived based on the reference to the proposed design specification of the BRTS for the same trip (Bajracharya, 2008).

The objective of the study is to find out whether a person is willing to shift to the BRTS, based on proposed characteristics. As discussed by Bajracharya (2008), since the objective is to know only the willingness to adopt a new mode, so only one choice card is given. The respondent was then asked to choose from one of the two available options based on his preference. For each household, all the workers and students, present at home were offered the choice set. An example of the choice sets is appended along with the questionnaire.

3.3. Data Processing

The primary and secondary survey datasets were processed and prepared for analysis in further stages. These processing steps have been discussed in the following sections.

3.3.1. Primary Survey Dataset

The collected information through questionnaires was converted to digital format in SPSS. The output was obtained in the form of point data with survey data obtained through questionnaires as attributes.

3.3.2. Secondary Dataset

The secondary data collected in the form of reports was used for reference. A personal geo-database was created out of the raw data collected from the BRTS cell. This included following feature classes.

1. TAZ shape file with attributes (household numbers under the four income groups, population projections, trip data, and vehicle ownership, average income per household, total income per household and modal split of trips) was made, cleaned and processed for topology.

2. BRTS System, AutoCAD drawing was converted to vector format shapefile – polyline. This included Phase I and II corridors with major and minor data.

3. Accident locations identified in the BRTS project report (GIDB, 2005) were digitized as point data and the attributes attached. The attributes allotted to point data included type of vehicle involved and fatality of the accident.

4. The economic analysis excel spread sheet was reviewed and cleaned for final benefits from the project.


38

3.4. Data Quality

The data that was obtained during the fieldwork had different sources. The datasets obtained from BRTS cell and the BRTS and IPTS reports has different formats. The classification of the attribute data of TAZ as defined in the Households Interview Report (IPTS) and the reports and studies of BRTS project varied. The vector and geographic data was available in different formats, ARC Info, AutoCAD, and EMME. These datasets were brought together in a single format. Due to different sources and different formats, the quality of the data at the traffic analysis zone level was an important point of consideration and concern during the research.

3.5. Data Limitation Initially, the research was proposed to be carried out at Enumeration Block level which is a substantially disaggregated level to map distribution of households and population. However, lack of required datasets at the desired level of enumeration block required the study to be carried out at the TAZ level.

3.6. Summary

The major source of data is the data on traffic analysis zones collected for the IPTS study. The TAZ dataset included variables like income, households and their classification into the defined income categories. Another important dataset is the economic analysis spreadsheet obtained from BRTS Cell strictly for research purpose3. The data collected from household survey provides information about the socio-economic character and travel behaviour of the population in the respective traffic analysis zones. The stated preference survey helps to know the choice-making behaviour i.e. willingness to shift of the individuals from the current mode to the proposed new BRTS as mode.

The secondary data has been used for carrying out the distribution analysis whereas the primary survey data inputs have been used to compare the outputs of the distribution analysis with the peoples’ willingness to shift to the proposed BRTS system.

3 The Economic Analysis spreadsheet was obtained from BRTS cell, Ahmedabad for research purpose only. Hence the same has not been reproduced as such. However, the outputs from the research based on the spreadsheet if cited in any further research, should acknowledge the BRTS cell.


39

4. The Case of Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad

This chapter gives an overview of the city of Ahmedabad, its demography, socio-economic characteristic and current urban transport system. The chapter further enlists the salient features ofthe case project, the Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad.

4.1. The City

Ahmedabad is one of the blooming cities of India. Located in the state of Gujarat, western part of India, Ahmedabad has been an important economic, trade and industrial centre of India. With the increasing opportunities, rising foreign trade investments and growing interest of commercial industries like the ‘Nano Project’ of the Tata Automobiles, the city is growing leap and bounds with rapid urbanization.

4.1.1. Introduction

The city of Ahmedabad was founded in 1411 AD as a walled city on the eastern bank of the river Sabarmati, now the seventh largest metropolis in India and the largest in the state. The urban agglomeration (UA) population has increased from 3.31 Million in 1991 to 4.5 million in 2001.

Historically Ahmedabad has been one of the most important centres of trade and commerce in western India. The city was once famous as the ‘Manchester of India’ on account of its textile industry. It had as many as 66 mills employing a workforce of over one hundred thousand persons. It lies in the cotton belt of Gujarat, 552 km north of Mumbai and 96 km from the Gulf of Cambay. It has three major industrial estates within its municipal limits. It is also a major industrial and financial city contributing about 14% of the total investments in all stock exchanges in India and 60% of the total productivity of the state. A private company operates a thermal power plant in the city.

Ahmedabad is the home of several scientific and educational institutions of national, regional and global importance. The city has a great architectural tradition reflected in many exquisite monuments, temples and modern buildings.

4.1.2. Location

Ahmedabad City is located between 22o55’ and 23o08’ North Latitude and 72o30’ and 72o42’ East Longitude. The city is devoid of any major physical features except for the river Sabarmati, which is cutting the city into two parts: eastern walled city and western Ahmedabad on either side of its banks(GIDB, 2005).

The Ahmedabad-Mumbai Golden Corridor has long been recognized as an important development axis in western India. The city acts as a terminal, rather than as an intermediate node in this linear influence. It has seven major roadways, one expressway and five rail networks. A new corridor


40

between Ahmedabad and Pune has recently emerged, connecting the city to other metropolitan cities including Vadodara, Surat and Mumbai. All these factors have resulted in the axial growth of the region.

4.1.3. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is the local governing body of Ahmedabad providing basic amenities and services to the city.

4.1.3.1. Administrative Zones of AMC

The Greater Ahmedabad Urban agglomeration covers an area of about 4200 sq. km of which about 190 square kilometres is under the jurisdiction of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC). The area within the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation limits consists of following three zones. Also see map 4.1:

1. The traditional city centre (Walled City) within the fort walls with relatively high-density development, large concentration of commercial activities and narrow streets,

2. The eastern sector (AMC East) accommodating large and small industries and low income residential areas, and

3. A well planned western sector (AMC West) with wide roads accommodating major institutions and high-income residential areas

Map 4.1: Administrative Zones of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Jurisdiction (AMC) Source: BRTS Cell, Ahmedabad

AMC East

AMC West Walled

City


41

4.1.3.2. Demography

The population in the AMC limits increased to 35.15 lakh in 2001 from 28.77 lakh in 1991. Following table shows the growth of population over the years.

Table 4.1: Population growth in the three zones of AMC

Source: BRTS Report, (GIDB 2005)

The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) area has a population density of 184 persons per hectare. Population density in AMC area is depicted by map 4.2.

Map 4.2: Population Density (pph) distribution in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation area (AMC) Source: BRTS Report, (GIDB 2005)

Administrative Unit Population 1981 1991 2001

AMC (total) 2159127 12876710 3520085 Walled City 476138 398410 372633 East AMC 1122073 1902868 2521013 West AMC 463922 575433 675362

Population Density


42

EWS31%

LIG41%

MIG21%

HIG7%

4.1.3.3. Socio-Economic Status

The economic status of the population within AMC jurisdiction is best described by the table 4.2. As per the BRTS project report (GIDB, 2005) the above discussed income classes have been categorized into the following income groups.

1. Economically Weaker Sections or EWS (income < Rs. 2500)

2. Lower Income Group or LIG (income Rs. 2500-Rs. 5000)

3. Middle Income Group or MIG (Rs 5000-Rs. 10000)

4. High Income Group or HIG (Income > Rs. 10000).

Table 4.2: Distribution of households as per income groups in the AMC zones

Source: BRTS Report, (GIDB 2005)

Distribution of households under different income groups in across the AMC area can be represented by the following maps.

Table 4.3: Distribution of Households under different income groups

Income Group Number of Households Percentage of Income group households (%) EWS 220090 31 LIG 300714 42 MIG 152072 21 HIG 48014 07 Total 720890 100 Source: BRTS Report, (GIDB 2005)

All of the above income groups have households distributed across the city’s 196 traffic analysis zones (GIDB, 2005). For TAZ wise percentage distribution of households, refer map 4.3 – 4.6. Appendix III presents the distribution of number of household in 196 TAZs. ). The distribution revealed by figure 4.1 indicates that lower income group and the economically weaker sections together constitute about two-third of all the households located within the AMC jurisdiction. The higher income group constitutes only 7% of the total number of households.

Figure 4.1: Percentage distribution of Households – Income group wise

Percentage Households under different categories of Monthly Household Income (in Rs.)

Part of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC)

< 2500 (EWS)

2501-5000 (LIG)

5001-10000 (MIG)

>10001 (HIG)

Walled City 18 36 30 16 East AMC 34 43 18 4 West AMC 28 46 22 4


43

4.1.3.4. Location of income group households w.r.t. BRTS

The average distance of the EWS groups from BRTS route (Phase I and II) is approximately 867 m which is the highest amongst the four income groups. The HIG are located closest to the BRTS route. The LIG are also located closer to BRTS whereas the middle income groups have an average distance of 783 m from the BRTS route.

Table 4.4: Average distance to BRTS - income groups

Income Category Average Distance to BRTS route (in m)EWS 867 LIG 713 MIG 783 HIG 708 Source: Author’s Construct

Map 4.3: Percentage Distribution of EWS households in AMC Source: Household Interview Survey Report, GIDB (2001)


44

Map 4.4: Percentage Distribution of LIG households in AMC

Source:

Household

Interview

Su

rvey Report, GIDB(2001)


45

Map 4.5: Percentage Distribution of MIG households in AMC Source: Household Interview Survey Report, GIDB(2001)

Map 4.6: Percentag

e Distribution of HIG households in AMC Source: Household Interview Survey Report, GIDB (2001)

4.1.3.5. Land Use and Economic Activities

As cited by the Louis Berger Study on IPTS Feasibility for Ahmedabad (GIDB, 2005), the land use in 1997, more than one third (36%) of the total area is under residential use, followed by 15 percent of the area under the industries. Large tracts of land (23.44%) are lying vacant, mostly in the newly acquired area of the AMC. Only 9.5 percent of the total area is under transportation network as against the norm of 15-18 percent as specified by UDPFI norms.

The city of Ahmedabad has had great importance in the economy of Gujarat owing to the large concentration of economic activities and their high growth rates and productivity. Ahmedabad accounts for 7% of the state’s total population and around 20% of its urban population. In 1995, with 7 % of the total population, Ahmedabad contributed to 17 % of the state income(GIDB, 2005).

Ahmedabad has a strong industrial base of traditional manufacturing, especially textiles, plastics, machinery and basic metals and alloys. Ahmedabad city accounts for 21.5% of factories in the state employing 18% of workers. Over the years, a gradual shift has been noticed from manufacturing oriented industries to services oriented economic scenario. The tertiary sector is gaining, in terms of share which includes business and commerce, transportation and communication, and other services.


46

23%

8% 10%

59%

No Personalised Vehicle BicycleTwo Wheelers Cars

4.1.3.6. Transportation System

The nature and location of economic activities in relation to houses determine the travel demand in a city. Ahmedabad city is well connected by an expressway, several national and state highways, the broad-gauge and meter-gauge railways and an international airport. The city transportation system is predominantly dependent on roadway systems. Vehicular growth has been rapid. The network is experiencing heavy congestion. Consequently air pollution has become severe.

4.1.3.7. Vehicle Composition

Ahmedabad district has a total number of 14.9 lakh motor vehicles registered in the year 2004. Of this 73% were two wheelers. The district, which accommodates 11% of the state population accounts for about 21% of the vehicles registered in the State. This high density and rapid growth of vehicles have worsened the transport situation to a significant extent (GIDB, 2005).

Figure 4.2 shows the modal split of trips respectively in Ahmedabad.

Figure 4.2: Modal Split of trips in AMC Source: BRTS Report, GIDB (2008)

4.1.3.8. Vehicle Ownership and Income

Vehicle ownership, mode choice and expenditure on transport are dependent on the income levels of the household. The income data available from 2000 study reveals that nearly two third of the population of Ahmedabad falls under the category classified as economically weaker section and low-income group. There are a large number of households with low-income and hence the dependence on walk and bicycle continue to be significant. Bus as mode of transport also has a potential.

Despite the progress in the economy, large numbers of households (31%) still do not own motorized vehicles. Of these 8% do not own any vehicle while another 23% own only bicycles. This clearly emphasizes the need for building facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. This is also a group who are captive to public transit. About 60% own two wheelers and another 10% own cars. Refer figure 4.4 and 4.5.

Figure 4.3: Distribution of Vehicle ownership

25%

2%6%

3%

8%0%18%

38%

2-wheelerCarShared auto-rickshawAuto rickshawBus/Staff Bus/SchoolTrainCycleWalk


47

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

EconomicallyWeaker Sections

Low Income Group M iddle IncomeGroup

High Income Group

Walk

Bicycle

T-W(Driver)

T-W(Passenger)

Car Driver

Car Passenger

Auto Rickshaw

Taxi

Public Bus

Staff Bus

School Bus

School Rickshaw

Truck

Share Auto Rick.

Other

Train

Source: IPTS Study

Trave l M ode

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

W alk Cy cle 2 W Car Auto B us Train

Y r. 2000

Y r.2003

Bus RidershipYr.2000 8.5 lakhs/d Yr.2003 5.6 lakhs/d---------------------------

Reduction 2.9 lakhs/d

Trave l M ode

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

W alk Cy cle 2 W Car Auto B us Train

Y r. 2000

Y r.2003

Bus RidershipYr.2000 8.5 lakhs/d Yr.2003 5.6 lakhs/d---------------------------

Reduction 2.9 lakhs/d

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EWS<=2500

LIG 2501-5500

M IG 5501-10000

HIG>=10001

Total

Car+Motor Scooter+BicycleNo Vehicle

Source: BRTS Report, GIDB (2008)

Figure 4.4: Vehicle Ownership per income group Source: BRTS Report, GIDB (2008)

Figure 4.5: Percentage trip according to income groups Source: BRTS Report, GIDB (2008)

4.1.3.9. Public Transport

The Western part of the city has developed as a mainly residential area and the eastern part has the industrial estates. Because of this, the traffic flow is very heavy from west to east in the mornings and vice-versa in the evening, which causes serious traffic congestion and frequent traffic, jams on the city roads during morning and evening peak periods. Lately, road widening of the major radial roads has been undertaken which has helped ease the traffic flow to some extent

In the city of Ahmedabad,

AMTS has been providing

public transport facilities.

AMTS, a municipal body,


48

operates the services with about 550 buses of which only about 350 are on road every day. They service about 250,000 passengers per day. The service has deteriorated significantly over the years Over the years, the AMTS has seen a rapid decline in its ridership levels, on account of stiff competition from rising two-wheeler ownership levels, lack of route rationalization and inability to upgrade its infrastructure to cater to the existing public transport demand in the city. The inability of AMTS to cater to the city’s demand has resulted in people shifting to auto-rickshaw, the shared auto-rickshaw.

Figure 4.6: Declining Bus Patronage, AMTS Source: BRTS Report, GIDB (2008)

AMTS extends its operations over an area of 250 sq.km. with a fleet of 540 buses per day. The existing AMTS route structure falls short of catering to these new developments. Moreover, in catering to a large area, the services are spread thinly and buses have to cover large distances irrespective of a sustainable demand along the route throughout. This has also led to longer journey times and waiting times at the bus stops. AMTS route lengths average about 17 kms and range from 5 kms to 57 kms. About 55 per cent of buses operate on route having lengths of 10 to 20 kms, having a running time of 30 to 90 minutes. The average speed of an AMTS bus is 15km/hr and the average waiting time at bus stops is around 15 minutes. Moreover the inefficient road network and buses plying on parallel routes have worsened the situation.

4.2. The Project: Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad

The city of Ahmedabad has received major growth impetus in the recent past resulting in rapid urbanization. The city population is expected to at least double during the next 2 decades. The city has maintained compact urban structure with high densities and mixed land uses, a result of sound planning traditions of Gujarat. Maintaining this is a challenge, when development pressure is high. The character of the city’s economy is also changing. Employment concentration in the central city is on the decline, both in terms of size and quality. While household incomes are on the increase, large segment still earn incomes which restricts their disposal income. Relatively better off households have been acquiring personalized vehicles. Large number of poor cannot afford ownership of vehicles


49

or take a ride on the public transport. They either make do with bicycles or limit their labour market space to small (walking) distance. This also means earning below potential.

Other concerns include the following:

1. The city has maintained a compact urban form and maintaining the structure is a key challenge. There is a need to balance the transport and circulation systems to maintain the structure. This is critical in the context of the developments between Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar such as GIFT and several other SEZ’s. The spatial policy and more importantly the development controls will need to be revisited. Parking will be a key focus area.

2. The concern is also in terms of improving mobility in the walled and old city which presents a decline in terms of density. The Development Plan 2011 proposes an increase in residential areas from 35 percent to 44 percent; about 77.75 ha of closed textile mills (in Eastern Ahmedabad) lying unused is proposed to be redeveloped.

3. Making public transport affordable: The proposed developments and pricing of services will need to be designed considering the fact that a large section of the population still belongs to low and middle income groups and has affordability constraints.

It is expected that by 2025 roughly 40% of the trips would be by public transport from a level of 18% as of now. This would mean a three fold increase in the buses on the streets from a current level of 1080 buses. The additional public transport will need to be accommodated within a marginally improved network and it is expected that the proposed development controls and parking regulation would increase the space available for public transport. Bus Rapid Transit System is one of the tools being used to attract users of other modes and will also fill the gap in public transport. Affordability will also be an issue, as the proposed system will also need to compete with the intermediate public transport systems.

4.2.1. Ahmedabad Urban Transport Vision

In line with this, the trans-vision of Ahmedabad captioned as ‘Accessible Ahmedabad’ is to redesign the city structure and transport systems towards greater accessibility, efficient mobility and lower carbon future.

The vision envisaged by the City Development Plan aims at reducing need for travel, reducing the length of travel and promoting use of public transport and NMV and reducing automobile dependence. Bus Rapid Transit System is one of the components of this vision.

4.2.2. Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad

Bus Rapid Transit system was proposed by AMC as a viable transit option for Ahmedabad In the year 2005. The first phase of the project covering 58 kms is under advanced stage of implementation. The primary objective of identifying and developing phase 2 corridors is to complement the 58 km of phase 1 being built now and to make more areas of Ahmedabad accessible through BRT. Phase 2 corridors attempt to link more destinations and also access the central areas of the city. The outlying suburbs which are developing rapidly are also linked with the BRT network.


50

The guiding principles for identifying the BRTS corridors are:

1. They should access EWS areas and provide more options for the lower income group

2. They should link more destinations (residential hubs, commercial hubs, educational institutes and

transport hubs)

3. They should have potential for new development and redevelopment (transit oriented development)

4. They should be feasible to implement

5. They should provide system wide impact and

6. They should access critical destinations, yet not pass through congested streets.

Figure 4.7: Three Phases of BRTS Project, AhmedabadSource: BRTS Cell, Ahmedabad

Third phase proposal connects the city with the state capital and the emerging business district of Greater Ahmedabad, GIFT city. Under the project, special emphasis is being given to promotion of non-motorized modes like cycling by providing exclusive lanes (bicycle plan), area development initiatives, and preparation of a road safety plan in addition to several other initiatives.

4.2.3. Impact Assessment for BRTS, Ahmedabad

Bus Rapid Transit Plan for Ahmedabad is a multifaceted project which integrates land use and transport, various forms of public transport services as well as other motorized and non-motorized modes through various physical, operational and policy interventions to achieve the objective of making Ahmedabad an accessible and competitive city. Given this multi-dimensional nature of the project, anticipated impacts are numerous, some measurable and some qualitative in nature. Economic Evaluation has been dealt with in detail. Environmental and Social Assessments are more of mitigation plans envisaging the possible impacts. However, these have not been mapped, quantified or


51

qualified. Significant benefits to road users as part of economic evaluation are anticipated due to improvements as mentioned below.

The BRT project in Ahmedabad includes up-gradation of 217 kms of road network from the present partially developed divided / undivided carriageway, open for mixed traffic to a fully designed street with:

• physically segregated road space for buses, bicycles, pedestrians and for mixed traffic,

• adequate lighting and other roadway operational infrastructure,

• road user amenities such as toilets, kiosks, telephone, etc., and

• space for parking to be operated as paid parking facility.

The benefits are in the form of savings in vehicle operating costs and travel time savings from this up gradation project as well as from the shift estimated towards the BRTS Project are included in the Economic Evaluation. The savings from reduction in number of accidents and pollution (due to emissions) are included in the economic evaluation of benefits from the BRTS Project.

4.3. Summary

Ahmedabad, in spite of the growing population, number of vehicles especially cars and two-wheelers is still one of the cities with a good standard of living index. However, with the future projections of population and the vehicles on roads, Ahmedabad is projected to face severe problems of congestion, inefficient mobility, reduced air quality etc. To counter these issues along with the ever reducing share of public transport in the modal split of trips, the city is envisaged to have restructured and upgraded transport system with new elements like the BRTS project. Although significant shift is expected to the BRTS (Bajracharya, 2008), the equity concerns of the project are not evaluated.

The next chapter discusses the economic analysis as carried out by the BRTS Cell, Ahmedabad and thereafter look into the disaggregation and distribution of these benefits as included followed by equity analysis.


52

5. Distribution Analysis of Economic Evaluation: BRTS project,Ahmedabad

The chapter is an account of the application of the methods and indicators as identified in chapter 2 to analyse the distribution of the project impacts. The economic analysis of the project is discussed in details followed by the disaggregation and distribution of different project benefits across the income groups spatially. Further section deals with the results on equity analysis of the Bus Rapid Transit System in Ahmedabad. The chapter concludes with the comparison of the outputs from economic analysis and indices with the information and data from household survey.

5.1. Introduction

The Bus Rapid Transit System for Ahmedabad is a part of the city’s vision as defined by the City Development Plan, Ahmedabad (AMC and AUDA, 2006). A bus rapid transit system plan has been prepared for Ahmedabad. The project is under implementation with infrastructure development for the bus system already under progress and the procurement of special buses financed under the BRTS plan initiated. The project is approved under the Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) as per the suggestions of the City Development Plan. . The plan proposes to upgrade about 60 kms of existing ROW completely such that middle two lanes are made exclusively for buses, lanes for bicycles and pedestrians are also provided along with lanes for private vehicles. This facility along with other complimentary measures is expected to improve the bus patronage in Ahmedabad from the present 7% to 40%.

To complement the feasibility of the implementation of the project, Economic Evaluation of the BRTS project including the road improvement and infrastructure upgradation has been carried out. The Economic Evaluation of the BRTS, Ahmedabad project quantifies the impacts of the project. As per the data available from the BRTS Cell, two sets of economic evaluations have been carried out. These are:

1. Economic Evaluation I: Road Infrastructure Improvement

2. Economic Evaluation II: Direct user benefits and costs from the shift to the BRTS project

5.2. Distribution Analysis of Economic Evaluation of BRTS, Ahmedabad

As discussed in chapter 2, the research focuses on two forms of analysis of distribution of the project’s benefits; i.e. Social Equity Analysis i.e. distribution across income groups and Geographic/Spatial Equity Analysis i.e. across different zones in the project area. As part of the research, Social Equity includes Vertical Equity (amongst income groups) and Horizontal Equity (within income groups). The geographic equity has been evaluated using the Z-score transformation as discussed in chapter 2.


53

The economic evaluation for the BRTS project was carried out as per the guidelines mentioned in the Manual on Economic Evaluation of Highway Projects in India (Indian Road Congress, 1993).

The economic analysis of the project includes quantification and monetisation of the benefits and costs included in the cash flows. However, for the purpose of this research only the benefits have been looked into. This is due to the fact that the costs included in the analysis are the capital costs and the operation and maintenance costs which are being borne by the government under the JNNURM. Hence, the liability of the common man to pay these costs directly is not feasible. Therefore, only the benefits expected to be accrued by the people residing in the city are considered for the research.

The analysis of the economic evaluation has been carried out step wise, beginning from discounting the cash flows, to disaggregation from city to Traffic Analysis Zones and further carrying out the social and geographic equity analysis.

5.2.1. Discounting the Project Cash Flows

Before working on the disaggregation of the aggregated benefits or distribution of them across the population income groups, two common data processing steps carried out for all the categories of benefits included:

Real Discount Rate: Inflation refers to a general increase in prices throughout the economy. Inflation should be separated from and not be confounded with the time value of money. The real discount rate is simply the nominal rate with the effect of inflation removed.

pIi

++=+

111 (7)

where I is the nominal interest rate i is the real interest rate p is the inflation rate.

In the project’s economic analysis, nominal interest/discount rate is assumed to be 12 % in compliance with the rate prescribed by the Planning Commission, India (Murthi et al., 2007). Ascertaining that the inflation rate used in the economic analysis is 5% per annum, the real discount rate is estimated at 6.6 %.

Real Cash Flows: All the cash flows were converted to real prices. The cash flow in real prices is the nominal cash flow corrected for inflation as given in equation:

treal pCFCF

)1(nominal

+= (8)

where CFreal is the cash flow in real prices CFnominal the cash flow in nominal prices p the annual inflation rate t the number of years.


54

Discounting: The real cash flows have been discounted to the present values using the real discount rate of 6.6%. The discounted cash flows have been used for further analysis.

ti)(11DF+

= (9)

where

i is real discount rate t is the number of years DF refers to discount factor

Using the discount factor, the projected future values of benefits were discounted to the present values using the following equation:

FV x DF PV = (10)

where

PV is Present Value of Benefit DF is the discount factor as calculated using equation (9) FV is the Future Value (estimated)

5.2.2. Disaggregating Economic Evaluation I: Road Infrastructure Improvement

The economic evaluation of road infrastructure improvement includes the benefits and costs accrued from the road improvements carried out as part of the overall Transport Strategy for Ahmedabad which shall be utilised by BRTS. The project involves a number of stretches which are being improved and upgraded to accommodate the BRT route.

The benefits quantified as part of the analysis include the travel time savings and the vehicle operating costs savings which have been calculated for years 2006 to 2026. An EIRR of 49% is estimated for this evaluation.

5.2.2.1. Benefits from Travel Time Savings

As per the economic evaluation spreadsheet, an 8% growth per annum in vehicles is assumed, the value of time for passengers for different modes is estimated from the current wage rates, and thereafter travel time savings are estimated. The value of passenger time for various modes has been assumed as follows:

1. Cars – Rs. 54 per hour 2. Buses – Rs. 35 per hour 3. Two-wheelers – Rs 28 per hour

a) Methodology for disaggregation

After discounting the benefit values from 2006 to 2026, the benefits have been added to achieve the total present value of the benefits from the travel time savings through road up-gradations. The total present value of benefits is distributed amongst TAZs assuming the benefits from road improvements shall be equally accessed by all vehicles across all TAZs through which these roads and streets cross.Per TAZ benefits as estimated, are then divided amongst the different income groups based on


55

ownership of vehicles and the trips made by different modes respectively. The value of passenger time has been applied to these travel time savings.

b) Results and discussion

Since the savings are accrued to the passengers, the value of time for passengers of different modes in addition to the trips made by different income groups by different modes account for the variation in the distribution of the benefits in every TAZ respectively. Since the value of passenger time is maximum for cars which find considerable ownership in high income households, major percentage of benefits are seen towards the western side of AMC area which also has higher number of car trips. The benefits to weaker sections of the households are owing to the benefits from savings in bus travel timings and to some extent from two-wheelers which benefit the lower and medium income groups primarily.

Figure 5.1: Distribution of benefits from travel time savings from road up gradation project Source: Author’s Construct

Figure 5.1 illustrates the distribution of benefits from travel time savings from road improvements amongst the different income groups. According to figure 5.1, middle and higher income groups incur higher percentages of benefits as compared to population percentages whereas much more benefits are incurred to the lower and economically weaker sections. This variation is brought in primarily due to the value of passenger time for different modes.

5.2.2.2. Savings in Vehicle Operating Costs

These are estimated by first estimating the current vehicle operating costs which include the fuel consumption, maintenance and repair, costs and depreciation of vehicles and costs of tyres and other parts. The vehicle operating costs have been calculated as per the guidelines laid out in the Manual on Economic Evaluation of Highway Projects in India by the Indian Road Congress (1993).

The travel time savings and the vehicle operating cost savings are calculated for different modes for the years 2006 to 2026.


As in the case of travel time savings, after discounting the benefit values from 2006 to 2026, the benefits have been added to achieve the total present value of the benefits from the savings in vehicle operating costs through road up gradations. The total present value of benefits is distributed amongst

7%

26%

48%

19%

EWS LIG MIG HIG

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

EWS LIG MIG HIG

Percentage of Population Percentage of Benefits from Travel Time Savings

%


56

TAZs assuming the benefits from road improvements shall be equally accessed by all vehicles across all TAZs through which these roads and streets cross. Per TAZ benefits as estimated, are then divided amongst the different income group based on ownership of vehicles and the trips made by different modes across different TAZs.

b) Results and Discussion

Since the savings in vehicle operating costs accrued to the road users shall be mainly incurred by the private modes, minimum percentage of benefits across all TAZs are observed for the economically weaker sections which are captive to walking, bicycling or public transport as the major source of transport. Maximum benefits are incurred by the middle income groups along the BRTS route as well as at distance from it. This is owing to the higher ownership of vehicles amongst the income group whereas benefits for the higher income group are concentrated primarily in the western AMC area.

Figure 5.2: Distribution of savings in Vehicle Operating Costs Source: Author’s Construct

The EWS group with approximately 30% of the population gains only 6% of the benefits whereas the middle and high income groups gain 40% and 28% respectively. This pertains to the vehicle ownership patterns in the different income groups.

5.2.2.3. Conclusions

The disaggregation of the benefits in the above sections was done in terms of percentage considering the unit value of benefits in both categories as Indian Rupee (INR). Distribution of benefits from economic evaluation of road improvement projects, across income groups and traffic analysis zones indicates, EWS group getting the least benefits from the project in terms of savings (7%). Maximum benefits are gained by the middle income group, to the tune of 43% as against its population group size of 21%. Higher income group is the other major gainer with 24% benefits as compared to its small group size of just 7%.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

EWS LIG MIG HIG

Prcentage of Population Percentage of benefits from Savings in Vehicle Operating Costs

6%

26%

40%

28%

EWS LIG MIG HIG

%


57

Figure 5.3: Distribution of net benefits in percentage (road upgradation project) Source: Author’s Construct

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EWS LIG MIG HIG

Travel Time Savings Savings in Vehicle Operating Costs

Figure 5.4: Percentage Share of net benefits across income groups Source: Author’s Construct

As regards the distribution of both the categories of benefits combined across different income groups, figure 5.4 shows the percentage break-up of these benefits for the four income categories. . The higher income group has higher share of benefits from vehicle operating costs savings whereas the division is 50-50 for LIG and EWS groups.

5.2.3. Disaggregating Economic Evaluation II: Direct user benefits and costs due to the modal shift to the BRTS project

The Direct User benefits from the modal shift to the BRTS are estimated as follows. The benefits include the Travel Time Savings, the savings in Vehicle Operating Costs, Savings from Accidents and Savings from Pollution reduction. The analysis has been done for the time period 2006 to 2035. However for the purpose of this analysis, only cash flow from 2006 to 2026 have been included to correlate with the first part of economic analysis. An EIRR of 74% is estimated from the BRTS project as a result of shift from various modes to BRTS.

05

101520253035404550

EWS LIG MIG HIG

Percentage of Population Percentage of Benefits under EE I

EWS7%

LIG26%

MIG43%

HIG24%

EWS LIG MIG HIG

%

%


58

The analysis starts with the estimation of the traffic diverted from bicycles, two-wheelers, auto-rickshaws and buses to the proposed BRT system. No shift from cars to BRT is assumed as part of the analysis. Total traffic for different years under different modes is estimated and thereafter, the total diversion in traffic from the current mode to BRT is estimated based on travel speeds.

The diversion estimation from current modes to BRTS has been done based on the guidelines laid in the Economic Evaluation Guidelines for Highway Projects by the Indian Road Congress (1993). The equation applied for estimating modal shift is as follows:

�

� �

+=

Speed)Avg. / Speed(BRTS 1100 x TrafficTrafficDiverted modecurrent modecurrent (11)

5.2.3.1. Benefits from Travel Time Savings

The travel time savings as a result of the modal shift from current modes to BRTS is estimated based on the equation described in section 5.1.3. Since the current modes are known and the diverted traffic is known, travel time saving factors have been estimated for shift from current mode to BRTS mode. These factors of travel time savings have then been used to estimate and distribute the travel time savings amongst the 196 the TAZs and percentages assumed amongst different income groups. Value of time for different income groups has been utilised to value these savings in travel time units. The values of travel time as used are:

1. HIG – Rs. 60 per hour 2. MIG – Rs. 46 per hour 3. LIG – Rs 38 per hour 4. EWS – Rs 20 per hour


The benefits from travel time savings due to modal shift from current modes to BRTS is estimated for the city overall. However, distribution of these savings based on expected shift from different TAZs is also a part of the analysis. The same distribution has been taken as reference for other benefits too.

b) Results and Discussions

The influence of the modes considered for contributing to the shift towards BRTS and the value of travel time for different income groups can be seen as a major factor influencing the results for distribution of benefits from travel time savings amongst different income groups. In spite of a very high value of time, the higher income group incurs a decently low (10%) benefit although the same is higher compared to its total share in the population. Middle and lower income group are the major gainers with MIG gaining much more than its population percentage. The EWS group too gains a decent percentage of gains although the same is well below 31% population in the group. These stakes may be attributed to cars being not considered to have a shift towards BRTS. Also, two wheelers, buses and autos from which the shift is expected are frequently used by the middle and lower income groups in addition to the EWS section of the population. The EWS section gain primarily from the modal shift assumed for bicycles and buses.


59

Figure 5.5: Distribution of savings in travel time across income groups Source: Author’s Construct

5.2.3.2. Benefits from Vehicle Operating Costs

The savings in vehicle operating costs (VOC) are calculated by estimating the savings accrued due to diversion from the current mode i.e. two-wheelers and three wheelers to the BRTS. The VOC for bicycles is assumed to be negligible and no shift is presumed from cars to the BRT. These VOC savings are distributed amongst different TAZs.


These benefits then distributed in the same proportion as the vehicle ownership in different TAZs, trips per mode and the diversion estimated from different modes as in the economic analysis.


The benefits from savings in vehicle operating costs are highest for the middle income group with a share of 43% whereas the higher income group garners 19% of the benefits. Economically weaker sections (EWS) still garner only 6% of the benefits since the modes currently used are bicycles, bus or walking. High percentage share of middle and lower income groups can be attributed to the high ownership of two-wheelers which are expected to give high shift towards BRTS (Bajracharya, 2008).

Figure 5.6: Distribution of benefits (%) from vehicle operating costs across income groupsSource: Author’s Construct

05

101520253035404550

EWS LIG MIG HIG

Percentage of Population Benefits from savings in vehicle operating costs

EWS6%

LIG32%

MIG43%

HIG19%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

EWS LIG MIG HIG

Percentage of population Benefits from Travel Time Savings

EWS20%

LIG30%

MIG40%

HIG10%

%

%


60

5.2.3.3. Benefits from reduction in accidents

These benefits are calculated from the savings due to reduction in accidents with different degrees of fatality. These are calculated for the defined period from 2006-2035 in the economic analysis. The benefits have been calculated by estimating the annual loss due to different types of accidents occurring in the city.

Figure 5.7: Location of Accident Spots along the BRTS corridors Source: BRTS Report (GIDB,2008)


The project aims at reducing the accidents by 60 % along the BRTS corridor over the project period (GIDB, 2005). Assuming this, the accidents on the corridor at all spots are reduced by 60% in number. Based on the type of vehicle involved in the accident and the type of fatality, the savings as assumed in the economic analysis are attributed to the reduced accident. The benefits due to savings from accident reduction are then distributed amongst the income groups in the TAZs with centroids within 4 kms buffer from the proposed BRTS route which is the average trip length for modes in Ahmedabad.


The vehicles involved in the accidents are primarily two-wheelers, cyclists and pedestrians, together constituting about 91% of the accidents(GIDB, 2005). The rest are either three-wheelers or public transport passengers. Out of these, about 67% of the accidents occur on the proposed BRTS corridor. The distribution of savings from reduced accidents amongst various modes is reflected by the figure below. Maximum benefits from accident reduction are gained by the lower income groups (42%) followed by the economically weaker sections (35%) whereas HIG together with MIG gain only 20% in all. This is one of the benefits where the weaker sections gain the most due to the number of modes involved in the accidents.


61

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

EWS LIG MIG HIG

Income Category of Households

Perc

enta

ge (%

)Percentage of Households Percentage of Benefits from accident reduction

EWS35%

LIG45%

MIG15%

HIG5%

Figure 5.8: Distribution of benefits from accident reductionSource: Author’s Construct

5.2.3.4. Savings from Pollution Reduction

Savings in pollution are calculated by estimating the net reduction in emissions per 1000 litres each year and thereafter estimating the per annum savings @ Rs. 38.4 lakh per unit of reduction.


After discounting the benefits to the present values, these benefits in total were distributed amongst the TAZs lying within a distance of 500m on either side of the proposed BRTS route. In absence of any spatial data on current pollution and pollution reduction, this method is found to be the most optimal to distribute these benefits. The benefits distributed to different TAZs are then equally distributed amongst the income groups within that TAZ.


The distribution of benefits out of reduction in pollution i.e. reduction in emissions from vehicles, is proportional to the number of households under different income groups within the threshold distance of 500m. This has resulted in distribution almost proportional to the percentage of households in different TAZs. Further disaggregation of TAZs would have been more beneficial in this case, wherein households within a specific distance could have been traced. Figure 5.7 shows minute difference between the population share and the share of benefits form pollution reduction for each income group.

Figure 5.9: Distribution of benefits (%) from reduction in pollution across income groupsSource: Author’s Construct

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

EWS LIG MIG HIG

Percentag of population Benefits from pollution reduction

EWS30%

LIG43%

MIG21%

HIG6%

%


62

5.2.3.5. Conclusions

Distribution of benefits from economic evaluation of BRTS implementation i.e. due to modal shift from current modes to BRTS, across income groups and traffic analysis zones indicates, EWS group getting approximately a quarter of the benefits in terms of benefits (21%). Maximum benefits are gained by the middle income group, to the tune of 38% as against its population group size of 21%. Lower income group is the other major gainer with 31% benefits as compared to its relatively larger group size of 41%.

Figure 5.10: Distribution of total benefits from modal shift to BRTS Source: Author’s Construct

As regards the contribution of the four categories of benefits combined across different income groups, figure 5.9 shows the percentage break-up of these benefits for the four income categories. The travel time savings is the major category of benefits followed by benefits from accident reduction. Vehicle operating cost savings are minimal owing to a limited shift from private modes to BRTS is assumed. The higher income group has higher share of benefits from vehicle operating costs savings whereas the division is 50-50 for LIG and EWS groups.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EWS LIG MIG HIG

Travel Time Savings (Shift to BRTS)

Savings in Vehicle Operating Costs(Shift to BRTS)

Savings from pollution reduction

Savings fromreduction in accidents

Figure 5.11: Percentage share of benefits from modal shift to BRTS per income group Source: Author’s Construct

EWS21%

LIG31%

MIG38%

HIG10%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

EWS LIG MIG HIG

Percentage of Population Percentage of Benefits under EE II

%

%


63

5.2.4. Conclusion: Distribution of Benefits amongst income groups

Distribution of benefits across income groups is a major source of input for social equity analysis. The following figure 5.10 represents the distribution of total benefits from the two economic evaluations combined as against the percentage share of population under the four income groups in Ahmedabad. As we see, the major portion of benefits to the four income groups is dominated by the benefits from the roads and infrastructure upgradation. Both the savings from travel time and vehicle operating costs constitute a minimum of 80% benefits for all income groups, the least being for EWS (78%). HIG households incur the maximum benefits considering the small population of about 7%. Travel time savings from the modal shift to BRTS is the maximum for the EWS group whereas the least for the HIG group. This is because hardly any shift from the cars is assumed towards BRTS whereas a good percentage shift from the buses, bicycles and two-wheelers is expected towards BRTS.

Figure 5.12: Distribution of all net benefits across different income groupsSource: Author’s Construct

5.2.5. Distribution of Benefits across Traffic Analysis Zones

The distribution of benefits across the income groups at TAZs gives an overview of the spatial distribution of benefits amongst income groups. However, for the purpose of analysing geographic equity, the benefits across the four income groups in different TAZs are aggregated. Map 5.4 gives distribution of percentage of total benefits across the 196 traffic analysis zones. This aggregation includes the benefits from the two economic evaluations i.e. the benefits accrued from the following:

1. Travel Time Savings (Base Infrastructure project) 2. Vehicle Operating Cost savings (Base Infrastructure project) 3. Travel Time Savings (modal shift to BRTS) 4. Vehicle Operating Cost savings (modal shift to BRTS) 5. Pollution reduction 6. Reduction in accidents

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4

Travel Time Savings(Base infrastructure)

Savings in Vehicle Operating Costs(Base infrastructure)

Travel Time Savings (Shift to BRTS)

Savings in Vehicle Operating Costs(Shift to BRTS)

Savings from emission reduction

Savings fromAccident reduction

EWS LIG MIG HIG

Households

%


64

TBi = TTSi-base + VOCi-base + TTSi-Shift + VOCi-shift + PRi-shift + ARi-shift (12)

where

TBi is the total benefits for i-th TAZ i is the TAZ number TTSi-base is the travel time savings from base infrastructure for i-th TAZ VOCi-base is the savings in vehicle operating costs (VOC) from base infrastructure to i-th TAZ TTSi-Shift is the travel time savings from modal shift to BRTS for i-th TAZVOCi-shift is the savings in vehicle operating costs (VOC) from modal shift to BRTS to i-th TAZ PRi-shift is the savings due to reduction in pollution due to modal shift to BRTS for i-th TAZ ARi-shift is the savings due to accident reduction due to modal shift to BRTS for i-th TAZ

The benefits from above categories were summed arithmetically to obtain percentage distribution across all TAZs as shown in map 5.1. To obtain a further insight into the distribution of benefits across TAZs in relation to the distribution of population in TAZs, map 5.2 represents the benefits per household for each TAZ. These range from a maximum of Rs. 106.11 lakhs per household to a minimum of Rs. 1000 per household.

Map 5.1: Percentage distribution of total net benefits across TAZs Source: Author’s Construct

BRTS Route

Total Benefits (%)


65

Map 5.2: Spatial distribution of benefits per household (Rs lakhs) amongst TAZs Source: Author’s Construct

5.3. Social Equity Analaysis

With the implementation of the Bus Rapid Transit System Project, the above discussed benefits are expected to be accrued by household populations in different traffic analysis zones (196 zones). Based on the review of the different methods of evaluating equity in infrastructure projects in chapter 2, following results have been obtained.

5.3.1. Vertical Social Equity with respect to income groups

Vertical Social Equity refers to the equity amongst the four income groups present in Ahmedabad as per the IPTS study (GIDB, 2005). The research looks into vertical social equity amongst different income groups through the Gini coefficient supplemented by the Lorenz Curve, the benefits to population ratio indicator and the Theil’s index.

5.3.1.1. Gini Index and Lorenz Curve

Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality used for measuring income inequalities. Gini as well as certain modified adaptations have been used in studies related to infrastructure and services. For


66

Ahmedabad, existing Gini Index is not available (EMBARQ, 2009). However, for the purpose of this research Gini Index for Ahmedabad was calculated equal to 26.3% using the income intervals4 for the four income groups. 26.3 % is sufficiently good Gini value for a millennium bloomer city like Ahmedabad. Secondly, using the distribution of net benefits from the two evaluations combined across the four income groups, Gini Index was calculated equal to 32.2%. This is supported by the Lorenz curve exhibited in figure 5.13. This difference in the value of Gini Index and the drop in the Lorenz curve indicate an increase in inequity amongst the income groups in the city. The increased area between the Lorenz curve and the line of perfect equality indicates an increased inequity amongst the income groups (households) after the implementation of the BRTS project.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100Cumulative percentage of households

Poor to rich

Cum

ulat

ive

perc

enta

ge o

f ben

efits

BRTS Scenario Equity Scenario Current Scenario (income)

Figure 5.13: Lorenz curve before and after BRTS implementation Source: Author’s Construct

However the fact that the benefits from a project are compared against the current incomes of the population is a limitation. This is because the savings from the BRTS project would eventually add to the income of the population. Also, the project shall have additional benefits in terms of income generation, increased access to services and employment opportunities which are not accounted for in the economic evaluation.

Further an attempt was made to calculate the Gini index for all TAZs individually using the benefits gained by different income groups across different TAZs. The Gini index varied from as low as 3 to as high as 42 (refer table 5.1). Although these values cannot be averaged to get the Gini value for the city, yet the coefficient calculated for different TAZs might be helpful in formulating area based policies to optimize the redistribution of the project benefits. Map 5.3 exhibits the Gini Index values for different TAZs.

4 Gini Index calculated for grouped data with unbound intervals of income classes


67

Table 5.1: Descriptive statistics for Gini Indices (%) across TAZs

Table 5.2: Average distance of Gini value intervals from BRTS route

Source: Author’s Construct

It is observed that the variation in Gini values is quiet high in the lower levels i.e. 10.01-20.00% wherein the effect on population densities and the composition of income households plays a significant role.

Map 5.3: Gini Index for 196 TAZs Source: Author’s Construct

Minimum: 3Maximum: 42Sum: 4713.00Mean: 24.05Standard Deviation: 7.80

Gini Intervals

CountsAverage Distance to BRTS route (in m)

Minimum Distance (m)

Maximum Distance (m)

Mean Distance (m)

Standard Deviation

0-10.00 14 794 126.22 1951.88 794.00 611.92

10.01-20.00 24 986 142.68 3647.64 985.99 943.81

20.01-30.00 124 7546 93.30 18532.34 754.10 1682.04

30.01-40.00 33 8186 105.36 6192.90 818.31 1050.68

>40.01 1 3886 - - - -


68

5.3.1.2. Ratio of Benefits to Population

The ratio of percentage of benefits gained by an income group to the percentage population of the group is a good indicator as it compares the proportion of benefits to population in the most simplified manner. A ratio closer to 1 indicates an equitable endowment of benefits to the group, whereas a ratio much higher than indicates a proportionately very high endowment. Interpretation of this indicator is such that for perfect equity situation, ratios for all income groups would be equal to 1. However, for a closer to equitable scenario, the ratios should decrease from poorer to richer income groups. The following table illustrates the distribution of benefits across populations of different income groups for the BRTS scenario. For the BRTS scenario it is seen that the ratio of percentage benefits to percentage households is actually increasing as we move towards higher income groups. This shows a regressive tendency of the project wherein the higher income groups gains much more benefits as compared to its population percentage such that the ratio is as high as 3.32.

Table 5.3: Ratio of percentage benefits to percentage households

Income Group % Benefits /% Households EWS 0.25 LIG 0.63 MIG 2.07 HIG 3.32



The Theil’s Index defines an overall 67% inequality as a result of the project. However, considering the decomposable nature of Theil’s Index, into inequality amongst the groups and within the groups, the inequality amongst the groups is equal to 37%. This 37% is the vertical inequality between the four income groups. Considering the additive property of Theil’s Index, 30% defines the horizontal inequity within the different groups on the whole. The 37% vertical inequity between the different groups as indicated by the Theil’s index may not be directly comparable to the Gini Index.

5.3.2. Horizontal Social Equity

Horizontal equity refers to the equity within a particular group of population. This is primarily measured to observe the variation in the endowments within a group. The indicators used to measure horizontal equity within the four income groups are presented below.

5.3.2.1. Coefficient of Variation

Coefficient of variation defined in simple terms as the standard deviation of the population divided by the mean of the population. The statistic for the four income groups as calculated is listed in the table below.


69

Table 5.4: Percentage inequity (coefficient of variation) across income groups

Income Group Inequity within the income group (%) EWS 36 LIG 25 MIG 31 HIG 48


These values indicate that after the implementation of the BRTS project, there is 36 % inequity within the EWS group whereas highest inequity is still experienced by the HIG group at 48%. Comparing these percentages with the average distance of the respective income group from the BRTS, it is observed that LIG population with approximately 713m distance from BRTS has an inequity of 25% whereas the HIG group with a comparable average distance from BRTS (705m) has an inequity of 48% which is quiet high.


As already mentioned in 5.3.1.3, the Theil’s Index indicates 30% inequity within the different groups. This 30% is the contribution that the different groups give to the overall inequity in the society. The Theil’s Index fails to give a sub-group wise inequality measure as highlighted by the coefficient of variation.

5.3.3. Geographic Equity

Geographic equity amongst the TAZs has been measured using the statistics of coefficient of variation and z-score.

5.3.3.1. Coefficient of Variation

The coefficient of variation gives a simple statistic of 40% inequity amongst the TAZs for the variable ‘average benefits per household’. However, this coefficient of variation cannot be further decomposed or inequity index be given for any of the TAZs. Hence, the statistics of z-score has been used.

5.3.3.2. Using z-score as proxy indicator

For the purpose of measuring geographic equity, z-scores are calculated for the variable “average income per household” as an indicator for “without BRTS” scenario and “average benefits per household” as an indicator for “with BRTS” scenario respectively. The difference between the z scores of the current income per household and the benefits per household i.e. �z value is used to identify the varying intensity of gains by the TAZs.

The change in z-scores (�z) for every TAZ between the two scenarios showed variations in the extent of gain in the proxy indicator for spatial equity. As discussed in chapter 2, the z-score is either positive or negative indicating the distance of the spatial unit’s observation value from the mean in terms of standard deviations. Also the �z values obtained have a positive or negative value indicating differences between the two z-scores for average household incomes and average benefits per household. Therefore categories of �z values can be indicated as follows to identify the gainer and the loser TAZs (losers to be read as ‘relative losers’ as compared to absolute gainers). Refer table 5.5.


70

These TAZs in turn exhibit the locations of the gaining and losing households on an average since the z-score is a standardized value of the selected variables per household unit.

Table 5.5: Classifications of gainers and losers from the BRTS project

Gainers (+�z) i.e. zb > zi Losers (-�z) i.e. zb < zi

1) When zb > 0 and zi > 0 (+ to +) 1) When zb > 0 and zi > 0 (+ to +)

2) When zb > 0 and zi < 0 (- to +) 2) When zi > 0 and zb < 0 (+ to -)

3) When zb < 0 and zi < 0 (- to -) 3) When zb < 0 and zi < 0 (- to -)

where zb is z-score for Average Benefits per Household and zi is z-score for Average Income per Household


Comparing the z-score change between the two z-scores, it is observed that the traffic analysis zones in the western zone of AMC are the major gainers from the project (refer map 5.4). Referring back to map 4.6 in chapter 4, it may be noted that these TAZs (gainers + to +) have a high percentage of higher income group households and are located along the BRTS corridor. The location of higher income groups is reflected by the gainer (+ to +) category highlighting that these TAZs have average household income higher than the mean average household income for all the TAZs taken together and after gaining benefits from the BRTS project, the TAZs are better endowed in terms of gains.

Map 5.4: TAZs classified as gainers and losers Source: Author’s Construct


71

5.3.4. Cluster Analysis between Gainers and Income Groups

Identification of gainers in society i.e. the higher and middle income groups and the location of gainer TAZs in section 5.3.3.2 are two exclusive outputs. To gain a visual insight into the location of the gaining income groups, cluster analysis was performed which showed that there is a clustering of the traffic analysis zones identified as gainers and the TAZ identified as gainers. This high-high (High percentage of HIG households and High benefits per household TAZs) clustering is seen in western part of Ahmedabad (refer figure 5.14 (a)) whereas the low EWS household percentage and low benefits per household clustering is seen towards the north (refer figure 5.14 (b)).

Figure 5.14: (a) Clustering of HIG households (%) and Benefits/HH; (b) Clustering of EWS

households and Benefits/HH

5.3.5. Summarising Distribution and Equity Analysis

The benefits from the two economic analysis are dominated by those due to the base infrastructure project. The benefits from the base infrastructure project are primarily gained by the higher and middle income groups, substantially high as compared to their household percentage. However, relatively less inequity in the distribution of benefits due to modal shift to the proposed BRTS is observed. The weaker sections gain about 21% benefits as compared to their percentage of households. Overall the households belonging to the weaker sections gain substantially less in proportion to their percentage in the city, this shows up further in the change in the Gini value for the city which indicates that the project is regressive as far as the distribution of these benefits is concerned. The regressive nature of the project and presence of high levels of inequity are reflected by the trend in the ratio indicator (percentage of benefits to percentage of households). Horizontal equity is observed to be maximum in higher income groups. The geographic inequity is quantified by the inequality measure of coefficient of variation (40%). However, the spatial distribution of this inequity is useful in identifying the gainer and loser traffic analysis zones (geographic /spatial units) from the project. The identification of these gainer and loser TAZs is a proxy visualization of identification of gainer and loser households in totality.

(a) (b)


72

5.3.6. Comparing the distribution of benefits with the willingness to shift

As discussed in chapter 3, household survey was conducted in eight traffic analysis zones which included a stated preference survey indicating willingness to shift from the revealed mode to the proposed Bus Rapid Transit System in Ahmedabad. The following section compares the distribution of benefits to the different income groups in these eight zones with the willingness to shift as expressed by the sample households from the four income classes (EWS, LIG, MIG, HIG) as defined by the BRTS project.

5.3.6.1. Willingness to shift

The willingness to shift from the current mode to the proposed Bus Rapid Transit System in terms of household percentages has been analysed income group wise (see table 5.6). In general terms, the lower and middle income groups express a willingness to shift at a higher percentage than the higher income groups. The EWS group shows willingness to shift from the walking mode to BRTS. However, the higher income group shows relatively very low percentage to shift to BRTS. These are primarily those households which sometimes use bus or two-wheeler as mode of transport. No willingness to shift from cars across any income groups was observed in the sample.

Table 5.6: Willingness to shift expressed by households in different income groups (%)

TAZ No. EWS LIG MIG HIG 4 31 45 69 6 8 24 42 64 13 23 34 26 35 10 51 17 34 58 8 63 11 21 71 17 142 43 46 75 21 147 39 40 52 11 157 17 38 38 7 Source: Stated Preference survey on willingness to shift

However, the distribution of benefits in the above TAZs (table 5.7) shows variations across income groups, not explicitly defining any discrete relationship between the distribution of benefits and willingness to shift.

Table 5.7: Distribution of benefits to different income groups (%)

TAZ No. EWS LIG MIG HIG 4 13 25 44 18 8 28 24 17 32 23 13 26 46 15 51 3 8 10 79 63 1 11 29 59 142 41 19 30 10 147 68 18 14 0 157 39 42 19 0

Source: Author’s construct


73

5.4. Summary

The distribution of benefits estimated in the economic evaluation of the BRTS project for Ahmedabad has been studied for social as well as spatial equity. The vertical equity indicators highlight that the higher income group accrues large proportion of the benefits as compared the groups’ proportion of households in the city. The economically weaker sections in the city gain the least when compared to other group’s gains. The Gini Index and Lorenz curve indicates an increase in the inequity of distribution of wealth (income in base case and benefits in BRTS case). Inequity due to BRTS is also shown by the Theil’s Index. The ratio indicator of percentage benefits to percentage households supports the inference of the Theil’s and Gini Index that the project is regressive. The ratio increase as we move up the income class indicating that the group with higher incomes gain more. Hence, vertical inequity as an outcome of the BRTS project is observed. The horizontal equity is expressed by the Theil’s Index and Coefficient of Variation, though the same are not very strong indicators to measure horizontal inequity. Spatial inequity across the TAZs is primarily a function of the distribution of benefits across income groups. However, using z-score technique to gain an insight into the TAZ which have gained in terms of benefits per household identify the gaining and losing TAZs between the base and the BRTS scenario. The higher income groups are the major gainers across the income groups while economically weaker sections gain the least. Spatially, the traffic analysis zones in the western part of Ahmedabad, gain the most and the same are found to be clustered with the TAZs with a high percentage of higher income group households. Hence, it may be concluded that the higher income groups in the western Ahmedabad gain the most from the project.


74

6. Implications of Distribution Analysis

This chapter outlines the policy implications as a result of the insight gained through the results and outputs of distribution analysis. The chapter discusses the potential interventions so as to ensure that redistribution of benefits amongst the lower income groups to improve equity.

6.1. Implications on Equity Analysis

Chapter 5 revealed the types and levels of inequity in Ahmedabad based on distribution analysis of the benefits of Bus Rapid Transit System project. Based on the results and outputs, a review of the available literature on policies and interventions to promote equity in transport projects was done. The following sections discuss some of the most relevant policy reforms and strategies to make the project economically equitable.

6.1.1. Implications on Policies

Economic efficiency is often the central focus in transport sector operations. This emphasis is considered important for most transport infrastructure projects because they tend to involve large capital investments. However, this emphasis should not be an exclusive one. Many projects based on high economic efficiency, often tend to neglect the equity aspect of the same project. Equity is an important component in the overall concept of social sustainability. Hence, is considerable emphasis is also given to the economic equity criterion, then the more the city curbs the inequality at growth stage, more sustainable its future may be envisaged. Particularly, if the government is committed to pursue the socially equitable policies, good insight into the distribution impacts of new policies and projects is paramount.

Some of the strategies to promote equity in transport projects are discussed below.

6.1.1.1. Planning and Allocation of Resources

Planning methodology are agreed to have certain biases in favour of certain socio-economic groups and modes. The allocation of resources in the most equitable and cost effective way is one of the methods of redistributing the benefits of any transport policy. Although the most appropriate method of allocating resources is measuring them per capita, however, the same can be allocated to groups with appropriate weight to their demands and needs. An important point of consideration is the need assessed for different income groups which shall directly influence the allocation of transport resources.

6.1.1.2. Introduction of betterment charges

General transport policies of congestion charges involve the user benefitting from the use of space to pay for the service utilized. This in turn helps generate revenue to redistribute the benefits to other groups. The inclusion of charges on vehicles which benefit the most out of improvements in and (or) introduction of transport systems, shall reflect the costs imposed to generate revenue to contribute to


75

capital costs. This cost levied as charges shall reduce the net benefits of the project or policy to the higher income groups which earn the maximum due to their value of travel times.

6.1.1.3. Pricing Reforms and Fare Policy

Pricing reforms like subsidised prices for using alternatives modes and subsidised fares increase the affordability and hence accessibility of the lower income groups to the transportation systems. These will lead to improving vertical equity by increasing mobility of lower income groups even if the higher income groups do not show an inclination towards the public transport. This can be done by structuring the fare policy so as to benefit the economically weaker sections of the society.

6.1.1.4. Incentives to Reduce Travel

Vehicle-sharing is convenient and feasible for people making trips from same origins to same destinations or destinations in the same direction. Promoting vehicle- sharing at personal level as well as a service provision by private companies can lead to improvement in vertical equity amongst groups.

6.1.1.5. Compact Cities Land Use- Transport development

Promoting an integrated, smart and inclusive development with accessible land uses through different modes including the more affordable ones like the public transit, walking and bicycle can develop strong routes which reduce the cost of operation of vehicles as well as lead to reduction in travel time savings. In developing cities, the poor households live in residential locations far from their workplace. This restricts their range of employment opportunities and hence a compact land use development shall introduce the new public transit modes as an option for them to travel short distance at low fares.

6.1.2. Implications on Policies in Ahmedabad

Considering the win-win regressive scenario as discussed by Gannon and Liu (Gannon and Liu, 1997), the distribution of project benefits for BRTS, Ahmedabad reveals a similar scenario where the rich gain disproportionately higher than the poor. All the equity indicators support the regressive nature of the project. Although the prime focus of the project is not social equity, one of the components of the Urban Transport Vision for Ahmedabad (AMC and AUDA, 2006), envisages that the BRTS project shall provide access to the economically weaker sections and provide options to the lower income group. According to the project reports, the ring-type transit route improves the accessibility of the urban poor, and the project is well in tune with its objectives. However, as discussed before, besides targeting special groups, considering the distributive nature of impacts on the social sustainability i.e. social equity may provide valuable insight if the government wishes to pursue socially equitable policies.

The inequitable distribution of benefits across the income groups in Ahmedabad is expected to contribute to the increased inequity in the city. The discussion in previous sections and the highlights from the project analysis could be a basis for a review of the current BRTS as well as could contribute to the review or formulation of additional policies aiming at socially equitable society. Some of these


76

policies could be based on the general idea discussed in section 6.1.1. Some of the strategies to increase the equity could be as follows:

1) Review of the BRTS Mobility Plan: The project is well-designed aiming at improved access, integrated area development, introduction of bicycle – mobility plan etc. A review of these plans in terms of their actual benefits to the different income groups could contribute to the formulation of area specific plans for bicycle mobility and restricted land use development so as to ensure maximum benefits to the poor. Improved access through cheaper intermediate modes of transport attracting more people from the weaker sections to the BRTS could be looked into.

2) Subsidised fares for the poor to include use of public transit as an affordable travel option could be one of the policies. This may eventually lead to the redistribution of the expenditures of the poor households on transportation.

3) Promotion of non-motorised transport options such as bicycles in accordance with the BRTS plan could lead to cutting down of travel expenditure and hence redistribution of the net benefits from transportation to the poor.

4) Government regulations such as regulation on emissions may lead to a progressive society. Emission regulations make owning and using a motor-vehicle expensive. Such regulations could decrease vehicle ownership amongst all income groups and especially across the lower income groups. Only higher and middle income groups owning cars and two-wheelers primarily shall eventually pay for the emissions.

5) Since the richer groups have highest ownership of vehicles, hence a charge on their use of the improved infrastructure could contribute to the redistribution of benefits in the transportation system.

Hence, subsidised fares for poor, betterment charge on the vehicles to promote shift to the BRTS and generate revenue for the betterment and better flexibility offered to all households in making their decisions, may make the eco-friendly and social project of BRTS, Ahmedabad a more lucrative and equity-oriented project too.

6.1.3. Other Policy Implications in Ahmedabad

The selection of benefit or resource allocation strategy for benefits/income or resources to overcome inequity which is expected from the analysis, may again bring in the distributional effects on the poor. This is because the value of the resource or benefit is an influencing factor. An equal benefit allocation to all households may put the households belonging to the lower income group in a disadvantageous situation. It may therefore require, distributing different amounts of benefits to different groups reflecting their need for welfare, travel and income. This could bring in not only the income subgroups in population, but also other vulnerable groups that may be important from the perspective of the policy maker.

A transport project has several indirect benefits too especially due to multiplier effects like land values, property values, and additional employment opportunities along the BRTS route which may add to the distribution of benefits or welfare from the project. Hence, not only the distribution of the benefits or costs covered under the economic evaluation, but also other impacts like property values


77

and employment gains must be considered in a holistic manner to optimize the equitable distribution of benefits in the society.

6.1.4. Implications on methods for Transport Modelling and Cost Benefit Analysis

Available literature highlights the bias in the transport demand modelling wherein the modelling is based on demand and thereby the appraisal in terms of cost benefit analysis is done based on demand modelling. However, mobility includes the component of need which is quiet different from demand and therefore the author prescribes mobility-based transport modelling also as a significant input. Evaluation of transport systems shall then be based on the mobility based demand modelling which shall appropriately input the requirement of the lower income groups also. Yet, the monetary values assigned in CBA influence the distribution of benefits. Currently the value of travel time for higher income groups is high and declines with the decline in income. Hence, the application of value of time as an inverse function to the groups’ mobility gains could also be evaluated, which shall involve the principle of diminishing marginal benefits.

6.1.5. Implications on methods for Project Impact Assessment

Ramjerdi (2006) evaluates different equity measures for assessing the accessibility for the Oslo city and region. Levinson (2008a) used several equity measures to identify winners and losers in transportation in case of Oslo. Although several measures for equity analysis are available, yet some of them are dependent on scale and some of them on incomes and population. This governs the decomposability of the indicators to different scales. However, equity is not only with respect to income. The same may also be measured amongst the different social classes, amongst genders, age groups etc. therefore, equity analysis should be an integral component of the evaluation of any transport proposal such that the different dimensions of social sustainability are assessed complementing the economic and financial sustainability of the project.

Conventional cost-benefit analysis does not take distributive impact into account and hence does not inform the decision-makers of the social groups that stand to gain and lose as a result of their decisions. Nor does it inform the decision-makers of the effect of projects on the poor. The distribution analysis method using equity indicators provides a potential methodology to gain an insight into the same. Hence, these potential input indicators may be used in a rigorous way by extending the conventional cost-benefit analysis framework to cover distributional outcomes and display the same in an effective manner, able enough to contribute the outcomes to the decision makers.

This processed methodology to cover the distributive impact analysis in CBA as well as integrated project assessment, could be used to evaluate different alternatives for a policy or a project. In cases, where a project or policy option is already decided, the equity indicators and models discussed and applied in this research could be used to evaluate the impact of policy instruments and strategies to redistribute the benefits as a measure to decrease inequity. Indicators like Gini Index and ratio of percentage of benefits to percentage of households or populations could be effectively sued to evaluate social inequity. The use of z-score is seen as a potential indicator to locate the spatially, the gainers and losers from the project. Use of multivariate clustering to relate the distribution of benefits with the gainers of the same, complements the identification of gainers and losers and their location.


78

6.2. Implication of Level of Analysis

In growing cities and urbanizing world, the concept of ‘ecological fallacy’ coined by Robinson (1950) holds rue to a large extent. Ecological Fallacy refers to an error in interpretation statistical data, whereby inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.

The analysis of distribution of project benefits within the scope of research is limited to the Traffic Analysis Zone level. However, it may be noted that the TAZs are of varying significant sizes and are heterogeneous in composition of households belonging to different categories. This again brings in the concept of ecological fallacy due to the heterogeneous composition of population with heterogeneous levels of needs and affordability. The next level of disaggregation after city to TAZ level may be the TAZ to Enumeration Block (EB) level. Although the population distribution at EB level is available, lack availability of income data and other variables at EB level, posed a limitation.

Although some of the researches have tried to evaluate the equity measure vs. accessibility measure approach (Ramjerdi, 2006), the two are said to have different outputs and implications. Equity measures lend an additional benefit for inter-group inequality measurement which is a significant component of sustainability. Hence, equity measures for different levels of aggregation should be used for equity analysis.

6.3. Implications of methods and indicators

The disaggregation and distribution of benefits as quantified under the BRTS economic evaluation is based on correlation between various travel and socio-economic variables. However, a disaggregated input to formulate an aggregated economic analysis would have been a more appropriate approach to analyse the distribution of the impacts, specifically across the population sub-groups. An input from a stated preference survey at TAZ level stratified according to the population sub-groups under consideration should have been an appropriate approach. Bajracharya (2008) in his research used stated preference survey for the calculation of ecological footprints through the willingness to shift estimation. The survey was based on household survey in the TAZs along the route at the time of construction of the BRTS route. However, it may be noted that impacts of transportation improvements are distance dependent (Leck et al., 2008). The variations in the willingness to shift shall be appropriately captured only when stated preference is done at varying distance from the route.

6.4. Summary

The application of methods and indicators to identify who are the gainers and losers and where they are located, brings into forefront the possible implications these indicators can have on policies. Policies to redistribute the benefits and to promote equity in the society as well as the project policies can benefit from this distribution analysis. Furthermore, the introduction of these indicators and methods as potential input complementing the conventional cost-benefit analysis in the overall impact assessment framework may help the decision-makers to formulate projects and policies which besides efficiency gains and increased accessibility, may also give significant weight to equity concerns of the society.


79


80

7. Conclusions and Future Research Directions

The concluding chapter presents a review of the research, an insight into the research objectives and presents major recommendations for further research in view of the limitations and conclusions from this research.

7.1. Introduction

The research examines the distribution of impacts in terms of benefits from a transport development project, taking the Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS), Ahmedabad as the case study. The distribution of impacts across the income groups as well as spatially, affects different households differently according to their socio-economic characteristic and their location. The principal focus therefore is on the distributional analysis of benefits amongst different households which indirectly affect the welfare of those households.

This chapter summarises the conclusions from the research. It begins with the review of some specific conclusions that emerge from the various analysis undertaken (section 7.2). Section 7.3 identifies the contribution of this research to existing knowledge. This is followed by a discussion on the limitations of the research and some practical issues regarding the application of distribution analysis methods and indicators. The chapter ends with a discussion on some of the possible directions for future research.

7.2. Specific Conclusions

The following paragraphs summarises the conclusions of the research sections dealt in chronological order.

7.2.1. Review of Transport Project Appraisal Methods, Distribution Analysis Methods and Equity Indicators

The existing frameworks for transport project appraisal with focus on distribution analysis and indices for equity analysis were reviewed for gaining insight into the theory and the current trends in such analysis. Equity analysis includes social as well as spatial equity analysis. The major findings from the reviewed literature in this area are:

1. A transport project has wide-spread impacts over environment, economy, social impacts as well as cultural impacts. The appraisal of projects includes an integrated impact assessment wherein the impacts are estimated and evaluated for the city as a whole. Out of these, economic impact evaluation is most often conducted through a cost benefit analysis.

2. Equity is multi-dimensional. It can be reviewed as social equity and (or) geographic equity. Equity has further two dimensions: vertical and horizontal. Vertical equity dimension deals


81

with unequal treatment of dissimilar groups, and is in line with the polluters pay principle. Horizontal equity dimension deals with equal treatment of individuals or households that are deemed equal by some standard.

3. There are various measures available to determine the progressivity or regressivity of a project. Some of these measures may not be directly applicable and thus require slight modifications to adapt to the subtleties of distribution of different goods.

Majority of current studies on transportation equity do not consider the distribution of benefits across households grouped according to income characteristics. The different dimensions of equity reveal different insights into distribution of wealth or income using the available indicators. Hence using the available indicators to look into the equity of transport projects may contribute to the methodological and conceptual gap identified in the research problem in chapter 1.

7.2.2. Review of Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad as the case study

This aspect was covered under chapter 4 of the research and provided an insight into the Ahmedabad city’s socio-economic and demographic profile as well as an overview of the urban transport system in Ahmedabad. Some of the major highlights from the review are listed below.

1. Ahmedabad is a rapidly expanding city with increasing developments, urbanization and proliferations supported by domestic as well as foreign direct investment. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) governs an area of about 190 sq. km. and has a population of about 3.5 million.

2. Under the Jawaharlal Nehru urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), the city has been granted funds for urban development and renewal. Under this mission and as an integral part of the urban transport vision for Ahmedabad city and the Ahmedabad Urban Agglomeration area, Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) has been proposed.

3. Based on feasibility studies for assessing an Integrated Public Transport System (IPTS) for Ahmedabad, the city households can be divided into four income groups namely Economically Weaker Sections, Lower Income Group, Middle Income Group and Higher Income Group..

4. The project envisages at influencing all income groups of the society and especially providing access to economically weaker sections of the society and increasing mobility of lower income groups.

5. The BRTS has been proposed to be implemented under three phases. The system shall be integrated with the proposed metro system and rail corridor. This project also included upgradation of roads and development of road infrastructure.


82

7.2.3. Distribution Analysis of Economic Evaluation of Bus Rapid Transit System, Ahmedabad

The methods and indicators reviewed in literature review were applied to the case study to evaluate the distribution of project’s impact across income groups as well as across the TAZs followed by equity analysis. Major conclusions and highlights from the section are discussed below.

1. The Economic Evaluation of the BRTS project consists of two projects; infrastructure improvement project and the BRTS implementation (considering modal shift from current mode to the proposed BRTS).

2. In absolute terms, the share of benefits from infrastructure improvement in terms of travel time savings and savings from vehicle operating costs is substantially high as compared to the aggregate benefits estimated from the modal shift to BRTS.

3. The result of distribution of benefits highlights that the economically weaker sections group inspite of a high percentage of households, gains a meagre share of benefits as compared to the reverse scenario for the higher income group.

4. The value of equity measure, Gini Index increases from 26.3 to 32.2, indicating an increase in the inequity post-BRTS implementation.

5. The ratio of percentage of benefits gained by each income group to their respective percentage of households in total shows a regressive nature of the project.

6. Horizontal equity is measured using coefficient of variation and Theil’s Index which indicate higher percentage of inequity amongst the households.

7. Geographic equity amongst the TAZs is measured using the z-score as an indicator. Although the coefficient of variation indicates a 40% inequity amongst the TAZs, the same is visualized using standardized Z score. Clustering of high Benefits per household TAZs with TAZs with high percentage of higher income group households is also observed.

The higher income group households come out as clear gainers with substantially high proportion of benefits as compared to the economically weaker sections. In addition to this, the inequity in the society is expected to increase post BRTS implementation. Geographically the gainers are located with significant clustering in western part of Ahmedabad along the BRTS route.

7.2.4. Implications on policies in Ahmedabad and strategies for ensuring transportation equity

Chapter 6 discusses the policy implications and strategies for ensuring equity in transportation provisions. Some of the major policy reforms and strategies discussed are:

a) Introduction of betterment charges to recover the cost of service provision from major beneficiaries such as four-wheeler owners and higher income group households.

b) Subsidised fare policy and discounts to the lower income groups to attract them to the proposed system and increase their mobility.


83

c) Promoting modes like bicycles and public transport modes by giving incentives and related facilities.

d) Providing options in transportation with affordable fares (subsidised, if necessary) so as to increase the accessibility as well as mobility of the households and increase the catchment of lower sections of the income class.

e) Planning smart, inclusive and compact cities promoting optimized travel between opportunities like health, education and employment so as to reduce travel demand, reduce trip distances and hence expenditure on transport so as to contribute to the welfare of the households.

7.3. Limitations of the study Some of the limitations of the research are listed below.

a) One of the most important limitations of the distributional analysis in this research is the exclusion of the project costs as given in the economic analysis. Although the project costs included the capital costs and the operation and maintenance costs, which did not have a per capita or per household or spatial reference, costs borne by the people due to the project implementation were not included. The inclusion of the costs borne by the people would have had a significant impact on the distribution of the benefits as done currently. Whether the BRTS project remains regressive when the costs incurred by different households under different income groups is included, depends on how these costs were calculated across different income groups. Also, what costs contribute to the revenue generation due to taxes on those who incur maximum valued gains, could influence the progressivity and regressivity of the project.

b) The analysis had only considered the benefits included in the economic evaluation of the project as modelled by the project coordinators. The benefits thus include only those of the first order i.e. the travel time savings, vehicle operating cost savings, the savings from accidents and the savings from reduction in pollution. Secondary effects could be substantial too. These include the employment effects, if some groups are more likely to face increased employment prospects due to reduced travel costs and time; effects of the policy on other goods, and how this will affect consumption decision for these goods; and the interaction with the other policies to include economy wide impacts. These issues are important, however, consideration of all secondary effects was beyond the scope of this research.

c) The distribution of benefits in welfare analysis depends on the savings with respect to the original costs and price elasticity. However, possible increase in income may result in different perspective towards the BRTS. A sensitivity analysis can be carried out with various projected income growth paths and resulting benefit distribution.

d) The research focused on the distributional analysis resulting from the direct benefits through the introduction of the BRTS project in Ahmedabad. The implicit assumption in such an approach is that the welfare of the households depends only on the use of the BRTS. This ignores the possibility that the benefits of the project can ultimately result in the mobility of the households. The increased mobility could significantly affect the household’s accessibility to opportunities, especially for the poor and thus have an effect on the well-being of the households. Estimating the nature of such effects and their distribution across different income groups is a rich area for further research.


84

e) Other External effects: Associated with reduced travel times and pollution reduction, are other benefits like reduction in congestion, reduction in carbon emissions due to traffic as well as travel. Effects of relocation and rehabilitation are also not included in the research.

f) Non-availability of baseline reference

The equity measures calculated for social equity did not have a base reference with the same variable used. Implication of comparing the post BRTS equity measure (calculated using benefit distribution) with the equality measure of income may be significant considering the pure “income” nature of one and the “goods” nature of the other.

g) Level of disaggregation

The distribution analysis carried out at traffic analysis zone level is an intricate aggregation of a heterogeneous mix of households with varying income groups. The net level available is the enumeration block level each of which consists of a few hundred households. This level of disaggregation is significant to test the scale-variance in the equity measure used.

h) Use of equity measure

Literature review presents a number of equity measures with different levels of complexity and pros and cons. The research owing to limitation of time has used only a limited number of equity measures to explore the utility and implications of distribution analysis of the project impacts.

7.4. Future Research Directions

The limitations in section 7.3 and the policy implications discussed in chapter 6 identify significant avenues for further research. Future research should attempt to rectify some of the current limitations, thus the issues previously discussed in section 7.3 are all potential directions for future research. Effects of income changes and inclusion of secondary effects in distribution analysis are important areas of research. In addition, the following research topics could further enhance the understanding of the distribution and equity analysis in the transport development sector.

7.4.1. Public Acceptability – towards rational distribution of benefits considering the income growth since project inception

The current research uses the average speed model for distribution of the benefits. However, the use of discrete choice modelling using stated and revealed preference survey with a sample across the project area may give more accurate distribution of benefits. Although Bajracharya (2008), used the discrete choice modelling for calculating the transport ecological footprint, he used income classes different than those used by the BRTS project cell, Ahmedabad. Since it did not have an analysis related to the pre-defined classes, his sample population was independent of the same. The current research uses the income levels defined by the BRTS project report. Therefore, as discussed under limitations, two of the limitations may be overcome using Bajracharya’s research and this research. Application of effect of income change on redistribution of households under new income classes and relating the same to the predefined classes to carry out distribution analysis using the methods and indices as discussed in this research.


85

7.4.2. Design and Implementation of distribution analysis and equity analysis

The distribution and equity analysis can be carried out independently for transport projects as well as, as an integral part of the complete impact assessment of the projects. This calls for a review of the frameworks currently used for project appraisals consisting mainly of cost-benefit analysis. Implementation of this methodology over different sectors within transportation sector can be an avid area of research. In addition to this, the implementation implications on policies need to be further investigated considering the institutional frameworks and governance statutes for policy implementation.

7.4.3. Inclusion of secondary and external effects

As discussed before, inclusion of secondary impacts and benefits like increased accessibility to opportunities like health, education, employment and land values, staying clear of double counting effects, can have influence on the distribution ratio of benefits. Hence, an investigation into the same may be taken up.

7.4.4. Implications of revised policy reforms implementation

Although chapter 6 discusses certain policy implications and strategies to improve equity in the society, a validation of the same through redistribution of benefits on implementation of the described and additional strategies is one of the most interesting areas of research. This can eventually use the current methodology and aim at optimizing the equity ratios through policy reforms.


86

References:

AMC & AUDA (2006) City Development Plan, Ahmedabad 2006-2012. Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.

ASCHAUER, D. A. (1989) Is Public Expenditure Productive? Journal of Monitory Economics, Vol. 23, 177-200.

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (1997) Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Projects. Manila, Asian Development Bank.

ATKINSON, A. B. (1983) The Economics of Inequality, Oxford, Clarendon Press. BAJRACHARYA, A. R. (2008) Impact of modal shift on the transport ecological footprint: a case

study of the proposed bus rapid transit system in Ahmedabad, India. Urban Planning and Management. Enschede, ITC.

BARONE, M. & REBELO, J. (2003) Potential Impact of Metro's Line 4 on Poverty in the São Paulo Metropolitan Region (SPMR). Washington D.C., World Bank.

BOARDMAN, A. E., GREENBERG, D. H., VINING, A. R. & WEIMER, A. L. (2006) Cost-Benefit Analysis, Concepts and Practice, New Jersey, Prentice Hall / Pearson.

BRISTOW, A. L. & NELLTHORP, J. (2000) Transport project appraisal in the European Union. Transport Policy, 7, 51-60.

CHERCHI, E. & POLAK, J. (2005) Assessing User Benefits with Discrete Choice Models: Implications of Specification Errors under Random Taste Heterogeneity. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1926, 61-69.

CHEUNG, F. (2006) Implementation of Nationwide Public Transport Smart Card in the Netherlands: Cost-Benefit Analysis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1971, 127-132.

DE ONIS, M. & BLOSSNER, M. (2003) The World Health Organization Global Database on Child Growth and Malnutrition: methodology and applications. International Journal of Epidemiology, 32, 518-526.

DE VASCONCELLOS, E. A. (2005) Transport metabolism, social diversity and equity: The case of São Paulo, Brazil. Journal of Transport Geography, 13, 329-339.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (2008) Transport and the economy: summary report (SACTRA). Leeds, Government of United Kingdom.

DFID (2006) Appraisal of investments in improved rural access Part 1: Mini Guides. Department for International Development.

EMBARQ (2009) India Transport Indicators. The WRI Centre for Sustainable Transport. ESTUPIÑÁN, N., GÓMEZ-LOBO, A., MUÑOZ-RASKIN, R. & SEREBRISKY, T. (2007)

Affordability and Subsidies in Public Urban Transport: What Do We Mean, What Can Be Done? Washington D.C., World Bank.

FIELD, A. (2005) Discovering statistics using SPSS, London etc., Sage. GANNON, C. & LIU, Z. (1997) Poverty and Transport. Washington D.C., The World Bank. GIDB (2005) Bus Rapid Transit System. Ahmedabad, CEPT University. GRANT-MULLER S. M., MACKIE P., NELLTHORP J. & A., P. (2001) Economic appraisal of

European transport projects: the state-of-the-art revisited Transport Reviews, 21, 25. GRIGALUNAS, T., OPALUCH, J. & CHANG, Y. (2005) Who Gains from and Who Pays for

Channel Deepening?: The Proposed Delaware Channel Project in Delaware. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1909, 62-69.

HAY, A. (1993) Equity and welfare in the geography of public transport provision. Journal of Transport Geography, 1, 95-101.

HILLING, D. (1996) Transport and Developing Countries, London, Routledge. INDIAN ROAD CONGRESS (1993) Manual on Economic Evaluation of Highway Projects in India.

Second ed. New Delhi, Indian Road Congress.


87

JOHANNES, B., D'ARTIS, K., CARSTEN, S. & MICHAEL, W. (2001) Methodology for the Assessment of Spatial Economic Impacts of Transport Projects and Policies. EERI Research Paper Series. Brussels, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute.

KLEIN, N. (2007) Spatial Methodology for Assessing Distribution of Transportation Project Impacts with Environmental Justice Framework. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2013, 46-53.

KOMIVES, K., FOSTER, V., J., H. & Q., W. (2005) ‘Water, Electricity and the Poor: Who benefits from Utility Subsidies?, Washington D.C., World Bank.

LECK, E., BEKHOR, S. & GAT, D. (2008) Equity impacts of transportation improvements on core and peripheral cities. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 2, pp. 153-182.

LEVINSON, D. M. (2008a) Identifying Winners and Losers in Transportation Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1812, 179-185

LEVINSON, D. M. (2008b) Identifying Winners and Losers in Transportation. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1812, 6.

LITCHFIELD, J. A. (1999) Inequality: Methods and Tools. World Bank. LOVELESS, S. (2006) Sharing the Wealth: Case Study of Targeting Transportation Funding to

Economic Development in Low-Income Communities. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1960, 23-31.

MCGRAIL, K. M. (2008) Income-related inequities: Cross-sectional analyses of the use of medicare services in British Columbia in 1992 and 2002. Open Medicine (Online), Vol 2, 8.

MURTHI, K. R. S., SANKAR, U. & MADHUSUDHAN, H. N. (2007) Organizational systems, commercialization and cost–benefit analysis of Indian space programme. Current Science,93, 11.

NIEKERK, F. (2001) Fitting impact assessments into planning processes - The case of Dutch high-speed railway. IN VOOGD, H. (Ed.) Recent Developments in Evaluation Groningen, Geo Press.

NIJKAMP, P., UBBELS, B. & VERHOEF, E. (2003) Transport Investment Appraisal and Environment. IN HENSHER, D. A. & BUTTON, K. J. (Eds.) Handbook of Transport and the Environment. Oxford etc.

NOVOTNÝ, J. (2007) On the measurement of regional inequality: does spatial dimension of income inequality matter? The Annals of Regional Science, 41, 18.

PACIONE, M. (2005) Urban Geography: A global perspective, Oxon, Routledge. QUINET, E. & VICKERMAN, R. (Eds.) (1997) Post Evaluation of the Japanese Railway Network:

1875-1940, London, Macmillan. QUINET, E. & VICKERMAN, R. (2004) Principles of Transport Economics, Northampton,

Massachusetts, Edward Elgar. RAMJERDI, F. (2006) Equity Measures and Their Performance in Transportation. Transportation

Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1983, 67-74. RIETVELD, P. (2003) Winner and losers in Transport Policy: on Efficiency, Equity, and

Compensation. IN HENSHER, D. A. & BUTTON, K. J. (Eds.) Handbook of Transport and the Environment. Oxford etc.

ROBINSON, W. S. (1950) Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals. American Sociological Review, 15, 351-357.

SHIFTAN, Y., SHARABY, N. & SOLOMON, C. (2007) Transport Project Appraisal in Israel. IN TRANSPORT, M. O. (Ed.). Government of Israel.

SHORROCKS, A. F. (1984) Inequality Decomposition by Population Subgroups. Econometrica, 52,1369-1385.

SMITH, D. M. (1994) Geography and Social Justice, Oxford, Blackwell. TEUBEL, U. (2000) The welfare effects and distributional impacts of road user charges on

commuters - an empirical analysis of Dresden. International Journal of Transport Economics, 27, 231-255.

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD (2002) Estimating the Benefits and Costs of Public Transit Projects: A Guidebook for Practitioners, Washington D.C., National Academy Press.


88

U.S.D.T (2003) Economic Analysis Primer. IN TRANSPORTATION, U. S. D. O. (Ed.). U.S. Department of Transportation.

VICKERMAN, R. (2007) Cost – benefit analysis and large-scale infrastructure projects: state of the art and challenges. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34, 598 – 610.

VICTORIA TRANSPORT POLICY INSTITUTE (2007) TDM Encyclopedia. Victoria, Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

VOITH, R. (1998) Transportation investments in the Philadelphia metropolitan area: Who benefits? Who pays? And what are the consequences? Pennsylvania, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

WEE, B. V. (2007) Large infrastructure projects: a review of the quality of demand forecasts and cost estimations. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 34, 611-625.

WEISBROD, G. & WEISBROD, B. (1997) Assessing the Economic Impact of Transportation Projects. Transportation Research Board.

WILLIS, K. G., GARROD, G. D. & HARVEY, D. R. (1998) A review of cost-benefit analysis as applied to the evaluation of new road proposals in the U.K. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 3, 141-156.

WORLD BANK (2005a) Distribution of Benefits and Impacts on Poor People. Notes on Economic Evaluation of Tranport Projects. Washington D.C., World Bank.

WORLD BANK (2005b) A Framework for the Economic Evaluation of Transport Infrastructure Projects. Notes on Economic Evaluation of Transport Projects. Washington D.C., The World Bank.

YANG, H. & ONIS, M. D. (2008) Algorithms for converting estimates of child malnutrition based on the NCHS reference into estimates based on the WHO Child Growth Standards. BMC Pediatrics 8, 19.

YI, C. (2006) Impact of Public Transit on Employment Status: Disaggregate Analysis of Houston, Texas. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,1986, 137-144.


89

Appendices

Appendix I: Household Survey Format

Public Transport and People: A Study for Ahmedabad HOUSEHOLD SURVEY FORMAT

Dear Respondent,

This survey is a part of the academic research being carried out by a student, Ms. Swati Khanna, a student at International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, Netherlands. The study deals with studying the Public Transport Services in Ahmedabad. It is assured that your response and opinion shall be kept strictly confidential and would be used for academic purpose only.

Thanking you for your cooperation.

Area Location: ________________________________ Date:________

Enumerator: _____________________________

Form No.: _______________________________ TAZ No. :________________________________

Housing type (slum/chali/plot/apartment/bunglow) Remarks: ________________________________

Housing Condition: (old/new/dilapidated/kutcha/pucca) Remarks:________________________________

“WH

ER

E A

RE

THE

AC

TUA

L GA

INE

RS

OF B

RTS

, AH

ME

DA

BA

D?”

A S

TUD

Y INTO

THE

SP

ATIA

L AN

D S

OC

IAL D

ISTR

IBU

TION

OF B

EN

EFITS

OF TR

AN

SP

OR

T DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT P

RO

JEC

TS

91

I. General

1.Inform

ation of Household and Fam

ily Mem

bers

a)N

ame of the respondent:___________________________________________

b)A

ddress: _______________________________________________________ (Mark approxim

ate location of house on map)

c)H

ouse ownership: O

wned / R

ented (tick) d)

Num

ber of family m

embers (household size): ________

e)

Total Household Incom

e (Rs./m

onth) : Rs. ______________________

S.No.

Relation with Respondent

Sex

Age

Highest Education attained (code)

Occupation (code)

Distance to workplace/ School (km)

Destination (location/address of work/school)

Modes Used (write codes)

Primary Mode used (code)

Approx. Time taken by primary mode (in minutes)

Approx. cost per trip for using Primary mode (Rs.)

Income (Rs./month) (code)*

1

2

3

4

5

Codes

Relationship w

ith respondent C

ode SEX

Code

OC

CU

PATIO

N

Code

Mode/Prim

ary mode

Code

Wife

1 M

ale M

G

overnment Service

1 W

alk 1

Husband

2 Fem

ale F

Private Service 2

Two – w

heeler/motorcycle

2

Children (son/daughter)

3 Business

3 C

ar 3

Daughter-in-law

4

Highest Education attained

Code

Labourer/Daily W

ages/Maids/G

uard/Drivers

4 AM

TS Bus 4

Father/Mother

5 Illiterate

1

Unem

ployed 5

Auto-rickshaw

5

Others (specify)

6 U

pto Class I (Pre-prim

ary) 2

Student

6 Shared Auto

6 C

lass I – V (primary)

3

Housew

ife 7

Bicycle 7

Class V – X (Secondary)

4

Others (specify)

8 O

ther (specify) 8

Class X-XII (Senior Secondary)

5

Vocational Training/Polytechnic

6

INC

OM

EC

ode 5000-10000

3 G

raduate 7

< 2500

1 10000-15000

4 Post-G

raduate/Technical Edu. 8

2500 - 5000

2 >15000

5

* If daily or hourly, mention in R

s./day or Rs./ hour


93

9 Vehicle Ownership Which of the following vehicles do you have at home?

10 Monthly expenditure of Household What is your monthly expenditure (In Rupees) Total Household Expenditure (Rs.)

Expenditure On Public Transport (Rs.)

Expenditure on Maintenance/Fuel of owned vehicles (Rs.)

Expenditure on Childrens’ School Vehicle Trips (Rs.)

11 Which market/shopping area do you use most often? ___________________ What is the distance of the market from your home? _______________________

12 Which Recreation area do you visit most often? ________________________ What is the distance of the that area from your home? _______________________

13 Public Transport (includes AMTS Buses, Mini-buses, Auto-rickshaw)a) Do you use Public Transport? Yes/ No (tick) b) If yes, how often do you use Public Transport? (Please tick in appropriate cells, check for all

modes)

AMTS Buses AMTS Mini-buses Auto-rickshaw Daily Once a week Once a month Never

Type No. of

Vehicles Owned (O)/ Available (A)

How often used? (per Day or per

week?) Car/Jeep Scooter/motorcycle/moped Bicycle Taxi Three-wheeler Others (Specify) No Vehicle


94

c) (For persons who use Public Transport) Why do you use public transport for travel purpose? (First let the respondent answer, let him/her give both positive and negative feedback later you may give him options as mentioned below to take an opinion on them)

• _____________________________ • _____________________________

• _____________________________ • _____________________________

• _____________________________ • _____________________________

d) (For persons who do not use Public Transport) Why don’t you use public transport for travel purpose? (First let the respondent answer, let him/her give both positive and negative feedback later you may give him options as mentioned below to take an opinion on them)

• _____________________________ • _____________________________

• _____________________________ • _____________________________

• _____________________________ • _____________________________

e) What is your opinion on the following components of Public Transport? Please Rank the following components

Mode you use: _________ (bus/auto) (Tick the choice under Level and Rank the factor 1-10 as per respondent’s opinion, PLEASE do not suggest to the respondent)

Component Level Rank

1.Travel Time (in-vehicle + waiting time) More Less 2.Frequency of service/Reliability High Low 3.Travel costs/fares High Low

4.Free parking close to bus stops Available Not available

5.Condition of vehicles Good Poor

6.Safety/Security Safe Unsafe

7.Choice of routes (bus routes) More Less

8.Schedule of Buses

9.Comfort/Availability of Seats Yes No

10. Information about the services Available Not Available

f) What factors other than above, e.g. environment etc. do you consider when deciding upon public transport/bus service? (First let the respondent answer, let him/her give opinion, later you may give him options as mentioned below to take an opinion on them)

• _____________________________ • _____________________________

• _____________________________ • _____________________________

• _____________________________ • _____________________________


95

Do you consider the following? Component Yes No Noise reduction Air Pollution Reduction Reduction in Traffic congestion Safety Comfort Low accident risk

g) Would the following influence your decision to use Public Transport System/Bus services?

S.No. Component Yes No 1. Parking near bus stop 2. Information availability 3. Announcement system 4. Off-board ticketing System 5. Closed and Air-conditioned shelter 6. Low-step buses, comfortable to get into the bus 7. Only Sitting buses (full availability of seats) 8. Proper signage and signals

14 Willingness to pay for desired services (as discussed above) How much are you willing to pay for the above mentioned package/services?

Tick the chosen option If the fare is Very likely Likely Unlikely Definitely Not

4 times the current bus fare 3 times the current bus fare 2 times the current bus fare Same as the current bus fare


96

II: Choice Set

In this section, choose the choice set offering the comparison between the main mode you are using for your daily trips and the proposed BRT system. Select the desired OPTION as per your judgment of the total set of attributes for each choice.

Please proceed to next page and follow the choice set that applies to you. Fill the values in the blank spaces, either on your own or referring to the table provided below, as per the given indication.

Choice sets may be for following modes: Choice Set #

Comparison between BRT and …

1 Motorcycle/scooter 2 Car 3 Auto-Rickshaw 4 Shared Auto 5 Bus 6 Bicycle 7 Walking


97

S. No. of Household member See Page 2:

CHOICE SET

STATED Mode : Proposed Bus Rapid Transit REVEALED Mode : ________________________ Purpose of Trip: Home to Work/Shopping/Recreation/Others(Specify)____ Distance of Trip: ______________________

Choices: OPTION 1 OPTION 2

Mode for travel ------------------

BRT Remarks

Service Frequency * Every 4 mins Every 2 mins

Off-Peak Hour Peak Hour

Time to get from home to transit or Revealed mode

------------------ (as reported)

------------------ (as reported)

500 m walking at 3 km/hr

Travel Time (in-vehicle)

------------------ (as reported)

------------------------ (as derived from the table based on distane)

Time to get from transit or Revealed Mode to destination

------------------ (as reported)

------------------ (as reported)

500 m walking at 3 km/hr

Cost/trip ------------------ (as derived from the table)

Rs. 5 to 10 / trip

Min. Rs. 5 for distance <=5 km

Additional Costs: Ownership cost, Depreciation, Parking costs *

Yes No

Your choice: (Please circle) OPTION 1 OPTION 2

Additional Remarks:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*For AMTS Buses: Service Frequency is around every 5 to 10 mins


98

Travel times for BRT Distance Covered (Km)

Travel time at Average journey speed of 30 km/hr (Mins)

1 2 2 4 3 6 4 8 5 10 6 12 7 14 8 16 9 18 10 20 15 30 20 40 25 50 30 60 35 70

��

�

Petrol-Engine Diesel-Engine1 5 32 9 73 14 104 18 135 23 176 27 207 32 238 36 279 41 3010 46 3415 68 5020 91 6725 114 8430 137 10135 159 117

Distance Covered

(Km)

Total Cost [Fuel + Maintenance Cost]

(Rs)2 - Stroke 4 - Stroke

1 2 22 4 33 6 54 8 75 10 96 13 107 15 128 17 149 19 1610 21 1715 31 2620 42 3425 52 4330 63 5235 73 60

Distance Covered

(Km)

Total Cost [Fuel + Maintenance Cost]

(Rs)

��


99

Appendix II: Percentage Distribution of Households in TAZs according to Income Categories

Percentage of Households TAZ_NO Population Density EWS LIG MIG HIG

1 400.00 0.00 60.00 40.00 0.00 2 419.00 0.00 42.80 57.20 0.00 3 453.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 4 549.00 15.55 46.66 31.11 6.67 5 752.00 0.00 37.48 50.08 12.44 6 530.00 15.90 59.10 13.64 11.36 7 508.00 41.68 41.68 16.65 0.00 8 826.00 33.33 44.34 11.16 11.16 9 655.00 28.13 37.48 24.99 9.39

10 623.00 27.11 35.59 35.59 1.71 11 663.00 29.44 35.28 35.28 0.00 12 247.00 39.98 33.36 26.65 0.00 13 732.00 40.91 54.51 0.00 4.57 14 1507.00 26.93 50.00 21.15 1.93 15 1663.00 29.42 58.82 11.76 0.00 16 370.00 45.45 45.45 9.11 0.00 17 2543.00 27.26 63.63 9.11 0.00 18 819.00 38.24 41.17 20.59 0.00 19 1436.00 32.36 44.11 23.52 0.00 20 2082.00 16.64 83.36 0.00 0.00 21 810.00 40.00 48.88 11.12 0.00 22 517.00 12.51 49.96 25.02 12.51 23 200.00 15.81 47.37 31.56 5.27 24 588.00 39.99 39.99 20.02 0.00 25 116.00 0.00 33.33 33.33 33.33 26 630.00 33.33 33.33 33.33 0.00 27 176.00 51.71 34.48 10.36 3.45 28 482.00 20.01 48.89 28.88 2.23 29 634.00 24.91 50.18 24.91 0.00 30 1022.00 20.03 59.94 20.03 0.00 31 522.00 29.40 47.07 17.67 5.86 32 694.00 35.72 42.84 10.72 10.72 33 725.00 7.12 92.88 0.00 0.00 34 258.00 36.25 37.51 21.25 5.00 35 255.00 0.00 44.42 33.33 22.25 36 167.00 33.37 16.63 33.37 16.63 37 269.00 0.00 16.65 66.71 16.65 38 172.00 12.83 30.77 30.77 25.63 39 152.00 17.94 28.21 41.02 12.83 40 194.00 27.02 40.54 27.02 5.41 41 177.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 42 145.00 10.54 31.56 31.56 26.34 43 245.00 3.57 39.28 42.85 14.30 44 83.00 30.44 39.12 28.26 2.18 45 212.00 12.51 37.49 43.74 6.26 46 218.00 10.01 30.00 40.01 19.99 47 216.00 2.78 25.00 47.22 25.00 48 168.00 0.00 58.33 25.02 16.66 49 191.00 0.00 0.00 25.05 74.95


100


50 56.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 51 77.00 6.90 27.58 13.79 51.73 52 115.00 20.06 0.00 39.97 39.97 53 93.00 0.00 0.00 74.95 25.05 54 381.00 57.11 42.89 0.00 0.00 55 288.00 14.32 14.32 28.52 42.84 56 128.00 23.33 35.00 21.66 20.00 57 125.00 12.49 12.49 12.49 62.52 58 359.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 59 32.00 23.08 23.08 23.08 30.77 60 145.00 26.67 43.33 16.68 13.32 61 114.00 11.11 11.11 61.13 16.66 62 55.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 63 62.00 3.00 30.33 33.33 33.33 64 64.00 14.29 42.86 0.00 42.86 65 129.00 10.51 31.58 31.58 26.32 66 54.00 14.29 42.86 42.86 0.00 67 74.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 68 74.00 11.10 55.59 22.20 11.10 69 77.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 0.00 70 268.00 14.90 42.55 40.43 2.12 71 380.00 0.00 13.34 59.99 26.67 72 90.00 0.00 24.94 75.06 0.00 73 388.00 0.00 41.66 50.04 8.30 74 305.00 0.00 25.00 66.69 8.31 75 187.00 25.00 39.99 14.99 20.02 76 86.00 16.67 45.83 20.82 16.67 77 198.00 8.33 41.67 41.67 8.33 78 321.00 3.13 40.61 37.51 18.75 79 295.00 2.38 45.24 21.44 30.94 80 224.00 10.15 37.68 42.03 10.15 81 67.00 25.00 40.39 30.77 3.85 82 420.00 15.38 26.92 46.15 11.54 83 315.00 21.66 31.67 26.66 20.01 84 144.00 34.55 47.27 16.36 1.81 85 580.00 29.03 38.71 22.57 9.68 86 266.00 0.00 9.98 60.02 30.01 87 48.00 19.99 60.02 19.99 0.00 88 142.00 40.00 44.01 7.99 7.99 89 93.00 41.67 25.01 33.31 0.00 90 2090.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91 16.00 0.00 39.97 60.03 0.00 92 409.00 47.61 38.10 14.29 0.00 93 257.00 29.17 45.84 20.83 4.16 94 319.00 31.48 55.56 9.26 3.71 95 198.00 22.24 66.64 11.12 0.00 96 471.00 24.61 56.93 18.46 0.00 97 237.00 12.50 40.00 42.51 5.00 98 289.00 50.00 41.67 8.33 0.00 99 188.00 43.75 37.52 12.51 6.23


101


100 118.00 65.39 30.78 3.83 0.00 101 107.00 69.99 30.01 0.00 0.00 102 234.00 24.24 30.29 33.34 12.12 103 489.00 27.27 36.37 21.21 15.15 104 354.00 38.47 30.79 15.37 15.37 105 48.00 26.98 52.38 17.46 3.18 106 233.00 11.07 44.46 44.46 0.00 107 0.00 30.15 41.27 25.39 3.18 108 940.00 38.14 33.90 21.19 6.78 109 464.00 18.96 46.54 25.87 8.63 110 549.00 45.46 42.04 12.50 0.00 111 224.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 112 415.00 38.98 50.84 8.48 1.70 113 347.00 39.53 44.18 15.12 1.17 114 213.00 31.57 47.38 21.05 0.00 115 626.00 44.99 44.99 7.51 2.51 116 1173.00 66.63 25.01 8.36 0.00 117 71.00 62.49 24.98 12.53 0.00 118 40.00 37.51 62.49 0.00 0.00 119 198.00 33.41 0.00 66.59 0.00 120 407.00 20.03 39.92 20.03 20.03 121 92.00 26.48 47.05 26.48 0.00 122 74.00 35.72 50.00 14.28 0.00 123 92.00 28.56 57.12 7.16 7.16 124 168.00 12.01 63.99 16.00 8.00 125 24.00 32.00 39.99 28.01 0.00 126 861.00 14.87 56.75 21.62 6.75 127 654.00 17.57 55.41 24.33 2.70 128 342.00 51.72 37.93 10.34 0.00 129 337.00 24.62 40.00 30.00 5.38 130 414.00 44.12 38.24 11.76 5.88 131 267.00 41.67 33.31 16.66 8.36 132 48.00 22.50 40.00 30.00 7.51 133 153.00 17.86 39.28 35.72 7.14 134 45.00 6.27 68.71 18.76 6.27 135 53.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 136 104.00 45.45 34.10 20.45 0.00 137 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 138 21.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 139 349.00 31.43 48.58 16.19 3.81 140 620.00 15.19 50.64 31.65 2.53 141 206.00 39.51 41.97 17.28 1.24 142 241.00 45.15 32.26 19.36 3.23 143 624.00 46.66 33.32 13.35 6.67 144 282.00 36.67 45.33 15.33 2.67 145 221.00 59.96 40.04 0.00 0.00 146 397.00 53.33 36.66 6.66 3.34 147 192.00 65.39 26.92 4.62 3.07 148 230.00 48.93 40.43 6.39 4.25 149 75.00 53.57 21.42 21.42 3.58


102


150 299.00 45.71 42.85 2.86 8.57 151 490.00 46.24 35.48 13.98 4.30 152 444.00 35.84 47.17 15.10 1.89 153 394.00 33.33 44.12 18.63 3.92 154 364.00 30.62 40.81 26.53 2.05 155 261.00 23.63 45.46 27.28 3.63 156 384.00 37.21 51.16 11.64 0.00 157 99.00 33.32 55.18 9.51 1.99 158 208.00 47.17 41.52 9.43 1.88 159 70.00 54.54 36.39 9.08 0.00 160 69.00 31.59 36.84 28.94 2.63 161 235.00 36.37 47.73 15.90 0.00 162 482.00 24.56 47.37 28.07 0.00 163 598.00 31.77 35.29 23.53 9.41 164 411.00 22.57 54.85 16.12 6.45 165 285.00 20.84 62.50 14.58 2.08 166 403.00 28.45 45.69 20.69 5.17 167 319.00 53.41 34.09 7.96 4.54 168 169.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 169 461.00 22.22 51.85 18.51 7.41 170 559.00 38.24 44.11 14.71 2.94 171 338.00 54.55 27.27 18.18 0.00 172 31.00 11.10 66.69 22.21 0.00 173 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 174 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 175 280.00 53.84 38.47 7.69 0.00 176 227.00 35.72 44.29 17.13 2.86 177 244.00 25.48 43.14 27.45 3.93 178 211.00 33.92 53.58 10.71 1.79 179 252.00 38.47 42.27 11.55 7.70 180 66.00 25.04 62.44 12.52 0.00 181 263.00 33.33 48.15 14.81 3.71 182 275.00 20.89 47.77 28.36 2.98 183 321.00 11.76 35.28 41.19 11.76 184 312.00 10.52 52.64 10.52 26.32 185 20.00 52.95 29.42 14.70 2.94 186 13.00 57.81 28.13 12.50 1.56 187 75.00 33.38 16.62 50.00 0.00 188 76.00 44.99 24.99 20.00 10.02 189 39.00 66.67 22.25 11.08 0.00 190 30.00 38.47 57.69 3.84 0.00 191 34.00 28.55 50.00 7.17 14.28 192 354.00 26.66 31.11 17.78 24.45 193 41.00 43.34 39.99 13.33 3.35 194 42.00 21.05 47.38 31.57 0.00 195 113.00 41.67 33.31 16.65 8.36 196 264.00 4.65 41.86 37.21 16.29


103

Appendix III: Distribution of Households in TAZs according to Income Categories

Where are the actual gainers of the BRTS, Ahmedabad?” · This document describes work undertaken...

Documents

Transcript of Where are the actual gainers of the BRTS, Ahmedabad?” · This document describes work undertaken...