Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI) City Comparisons & Way Forward

PROF. H.M SHIVANAND SWAMY, CEPT UNIVERSITY

DHAKA – SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 Purpose

‐ Discussion of Results from 5 Cities

‐ Reflections on the Methodology

‐ Application in Other Cities Summary

Extent to which transport plans Geometric Extent to which transport plans Extent to which transport Bandung cover , Dhaka Geometric Ho Chi Minh Geometric cover public transport, plans cover public transport, intermodal facilities and mean: 46.42 intermodal facilities and mean: 47.76 intermodal facilities and mean: 24.97 infrastructure for active modes infrastructure for active modes infrastructure for active… 100.00 100.00 Greenhouse gas emissions from Modal share of active and 100.00 Modal share of active and 90.00 Greenhouse gas emissions from 90.00 Modal share of active and Greenhouse gas emissions transport 80.00 public transport in commuting 90.00 public transport in transport 80.00 public transport in commuting from transport 80.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 commuting 60.00 60.00 60.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 40.00 Convenient access to public 40.00 Convenient access to public 40.00 Convenient access to public Air quality (pm10) Air quality (pm10) Air quality (pm10) 30.00 transport service 30.00 transport service 30.00 transport service 20.00 20.00 20.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Investment in public Public transport quality and Investment in public Public transport quality and Investment in public Public transport quality and transportation systems reliability transportation systems reliability transportation systems reliability

Operational costs of the Traffic fatalities per 100.000 Operational costs of the public Traffic fatalities per 100.000 Operational costs of the public Traffic fatalities per 100.000 public transport system inhabitants transport system inhabitants transport system inhabitants Affordability –travel costs as Affordability –travel costs as Affordability –travel costs as part of income part of income part of income

Extent to which transport plans Extent to which transport plans Surabaya cover public transport, Geometric Surat cover public transport, Geometric intermodal facilities and mean: 35.01 intermodal facilities and mean: 60.92 infrastructure for active modes infrastructure for active modes 100.00 100.00 Greenhouse gas emissions from 90.00 Modal share of active and Greenhouse gas emissions from 90.00 Modal share of active and transport 80.00 public transport in commuting transport 80.00 public transport in commuting 70.00 70.00 60.00 60.00 50.00 50.00 40.00 Convenient access to public 40.00 Convenient access to public Air quality (pm10) Air quality (pm10) 30.00 transport service 30.00 transport service 20.00 20.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00

Investment in public Public transport quality and Investment in public Public transport quality and transportation systems reliability transportation systems reliability

Operational costs of the public Traffic fatalities per 100.000 Operational costs of the public Traffic fatalities per 100.000 transport system inhabitants transport system inhabitants

Affordability –travel costs as Affordability –travel costs as part of income part of income Multi‐City – Normalised Values

Bandun Surabay Sl. No Indicator Dhaka HCMC Surat g ‐ N a

The extent to which transport plans cover public transport, 69 44 88 94 intermodal facilities and infrastructure for active modes 1 75

2 Modal share of active and public transport in commuting 18 96 23 1 24 3 Convenient access to public transport service 13 46 70 91 91 4 Public transport quality and reliability 89 12 18 1 92 5 Traffic fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants 88 95 76 82 87 6 Affordability – travel costs as part of income 91 61 93 85 93 7 Operational costs of the public transport system 12 34 0 58 21 8 Investment in public transportation systems 59 100 27 100 63 9 Air quality (PM10) 71 9 69 60 37

10 Greenhouse gas emissions from transport 81 94 86 100 93 T Average 46 49 43 35 61 Summary Bandung Dhaka Ho Chi Minh Surabaya Surat ‐ Extent to which transport plans cover public transport, intermodal facilities and infrastructure for active modes 100.00 Greenhouse gas emissions from 90.00 Modal share of active and transport 80.00 public transport in commuting 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 Convenient access to public Air quality (pm10) 30.00 transport service 20.00 10.00 0.00

Investment in public Public transport quality and transportation systems reliability

Operational costs of the public Traffic fatalities per 100.000 transport system inhabitants

Affordability – travel costs as part of income Summary 1. Ambitious Plans –backed up by investments! 2. PT & Active Mobility Share –Low to moderate 3. PT system are accessible in most cities. 3. Dhaka high share of PT & Active Mobility Share –But Poor accessibility; Poor Quality 4. PT systems –are rated well (quality & reliability). Inadequate quantity –High Quality! 6. PT systems are affordable 7. Subsidies are inevitable. But a minimum level of recovery (65%!) 8. Level of investments ‐ Moderate to high 5. Cities are safe!!! 9. Poor Air Quality 10. Lower GHG Emissions percapita !! Indicator 1: Extent to which transport plans cover public transport, intermodal facilities and infrastructure for active modes

• Public Transport & Active 1. Bandung Mobility Focus • Medium Term Development Plan 2013‐18 • Single source • Bandung Urban Mobility Plan 2031 • Mobility Plans –Dhaka • The Strategic Plan Of The Transportation department Of Bandung City 2013‐2018 (2015), Ho Chi Minh (2013), 2.Dhaka Surabaya (2016) and Surat • Revised Strategic Transport Plans (RSTP) – 2015 (2018) 3. Ho Chi Minh • Multiple sources ‐ Bandung (2013‐18) • Transportation development planning of Ho Chi Minh city by 2020 with a vision after 2020 • Mobility plans 4. Surabaya • Land use plans • Strategic PT plans • Transport plan of public transport, intermodal and active transport facilities. – 2016 • DPRs 5. Surat • Other Policy Documents • Comprehensive Mobility Plan ‐ 2046 Multiple sources ‐ Bandung • Validity of Plans (date) • Mere intention vs Budgetary commitment Indicator 1: Extent to which transport plans cover public transport, intermodal facilities and infrastructure for active mode Definition: The extent to which the Data Source: city’s most current comprehensive transport or master plan covers the Recent transportation plan (less four aspects than 10 years) I) walking networks, II) networks, ‐ Objectivity III) intermodal transfer facilities and ‐ Budgetary Support IV) expansion of public transport mode ‐ Formal Approval Indicator 2: Modal share of active and public transport in commuting

% Without Sl. No City IPT % With IPT 1Bandung 0.7 10.3 2Dhaka 73.1 87.1 Ho Chi 3Minh 28.5 28.5 4Surabaya 11.2 11.2 5Surat 29.0 52.2 • Inclusion taxi or unofficial motorized para‐transit (auto‐rickshaw, mini‐bus, tuk‐tuk, etc) * Share of active mobility –30‐50% (expected) Indicator 2: Modal share of active and public transport in commuting Definition: Percentage of commuting Data Source: trips using active and public travel modes ‐ Modal Split data from transport plan is to be (= using a travel mode to and from work used. and education other than a personal motorized vehicle). ‐ Trip rates of each mode for Educational and Work trips are analysed to derive the modal ‘Active transport’ means cycling and share of active and public transport walking. ‐ HH Survey ‘Public transport’ includes public bus, BRT, tram, rail, scheduled ferry. ‐ Sample Size It does NOT include taxi or unofficial ‐ Sample Selection motorized para‐transit (auto‐rickshaw, min‐bus, tuk‐tuk, etc)

Inclusion of taxi or unofficial motorized para‐transit (auto‐rickshaw, min‐bus, tuk‐tuk, t ) Indicator 3: Convenient access to public transport service

• Maximum Headway stipulated (20mins) Accessibility to Public Transport • Peak ? 100% 90% • PT Network coverage 80% 70% (%) • Population Density 60%

50%

Coverage 40%

PT 30%

20%

10%

0% Bandung Colombo Dhaka Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Kathmandu Surabaya Surat

City

What about Informal PT? Routes & Coverage Data ? Indicator 3: Convenient access to public transport service Definition: Proportion of the population Data Source: that has convenient access to public transport, defined as living 500 meters or ‐ PT Agencies (Routes & Frequency) less from a public transport stop with minimum 20‐minute service. ‐ Population Density Maps (Census) Public transport is a shared passenger transport service available to the general public, excluding taxis, pools, hired ‐ IPT Routes buses and para‐transit (same delimitation as used for public transport in indicator 2. If possible, the measure is measured for the general population as well as for vulnerable groups (women, elderly, and persons with disabilities) Indicator 4: Public transport quality and reliability

• Quality of PT Public Transport Quality and Reliability

100%

90% (%)

80%

70% Reliability

and

60%

50% Quality

PT 40%

30% Bandung Colombo Dhaka Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Jakarta Kathmandu Surabaya Surat

City What about Informal PT? Indicator 4: Public transport quality and reliability

Definition: The degree to Data Source: which passengers of the A survey on the quality and reliability public transport system are of the public transport service is to be done. Sample Size 250‐300 satisfiedwiththequalityof service while using the different modes of public ‐ May be included as part of HH Survey transport Indicator 5: Traffic fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants 9 Cities

Traffic Fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants

18

16 inhabitants

14 100,000

12 per 10

8 Fatalities 6

4

2

0 Bandung Colombo Dhaka Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Jakarta Kathmandu Surabaya Surat City

MAX RANGE 35 ! Indicator 5: Traffic fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants 16 Cities

• Max. Range? • Min –0 and Max 35

Fatalities per lakh Sr. No. City Traffic Fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants Population

1 Bandung 4 16

2 Colombo 15 14 inhabitants 3 Dhaka 1.2 12

4 Hanoi 8 10 100,000 5Ho Chi Minh 8 8 per 6 Jakarta 2 6 7 Kathmandu 6 4 8 Surabaya 6 Fatalities 2 9 Surat 5 0 10 2 11 Bangkok 7 12 1 13 1 City 14 1 15 5 16 1 Maximum Range – 10! Indicator 5: Traffic fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants Definition: Fatalities in Data Source: traffic (; rail, etc.) in the Traffic Fatalities Data. Compilation of fatal deaths in accidents over years from urban areas per 100.000 respective police department inhabitants. As defined by the WHO, a death counts as ‐ Change Max Range Limit as 10 related to a traffic accident ‐ Fine‐tuning data (Population, Fatalities, if it occurs within 30 days Reference Area and time adjustments) after the accident Indicator 6: Affordability –travel costs as share of income

Affordability • Minimum wages of poorest 20%

quartile of population of 18%

different cities 16% (%) 14%

12%

10%

Affordability 8%

6%

4%

2%

0% Bandung Colombo Dhaka Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Jakarta Kathmandu Surabaya Surat

City Indicator 6: Affordability –travel costs as share of income Definition: Cost of a Data Source: monthly network‐wide Monthly pass data of all the public public transport ticket transport network. Income data from the national covering all main modes statistical agency, economic in the city, compared to department or similar mean monthly income for the poorest quartile HH Survey of the population of the Minimum Wage & Avg Travel Costs city. Indicator 7: Operational costs of the public transport system

• Ranges Operational Costs of Public Transport 120 • Max 175 Min 22 110 100

90 Ratio 80

70

60 Recovery

50 Box

40 Fare 30

20

10 Bandung Colombo Dhaka Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Jakarta Kathmandu Surabaya Surat

City ‐ How much to recover? Subsidy is a necessity ‐ Private operators –why do they operate with losses? Indicator 7: Operational costs of the public transport system Definition: Data Source: Annual Reports or financial Ratio of fare revenue accounts of the local public to operating costs for transport providers, ITS public transport database from transit agency systems (‘Fare box ‐ Public Agency ratio’) ‐ Private Operator ‐ IPT Indicator 8: Investment in public transportation systems

• Investment Sources Investment in Public Transportation System • Local / City 60.00%

• Public+Private 50.00% (%)

• Sub‐ National / National 40.00% PT

in • International 30.00% • Ranges

Investment 20.00% • Max 50 Min 0 10.00%

0.00% Bandung Colombo Dhaka Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Jakarta Kathmandu Surabaya Surat

City Investments from all sources Sgregation Indicator 8: Investment in public transportation systems Definition: Investment Sources Share of all transport ◦Local / City investments made by the city ◦Public+Private that is directed to public transport. The investments are ◦Sub‐ National / National likely to vary from year to year ◦International in a pattern that may be sensitive to the profile of individual projects. The value is therefore averaged over a period of five years. Indicator 9: Air quality (PM10 and PM 2.5)

• PM 2.5 OR PM 10 ?? Air Quality (PM10) 150

130

)

3 110

(µg/m 90

70 Quality

Air 50

30

10 Bandung Colombo Dhaka Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Jakarta Kathmandu Surabaya Surat

City Do we adopt PM10 or PM2.5? How do we compare, in case PM2.5 not available? Indicator 9: Air quality (PM10) Definition: Data Source: Public expenditure accounts of Annual mean levels of the city and/or regional fine particulate government as appropriate matter (PM10 and PM 2.5) in the air (population weighted) compared to the health threshold Indicator 10: Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2eq tons/year)

GHG Emission from Transport GHG Emissions 1 Bandung 0.53 0.9 0.8 2 Colombo 0.63

capita) 0.7 3 Dhaka

0.16 per 0.6 4 Hanoi (tons

0.33 0.5

5 Ho Chi Minh 0.38 0.4 Emissions 6 Jakarta 0.79 0.3 7 Kathmandu 0.31 GHG 0.2 8 Surabaya 0.0019 0.1 0 9Surat 0.18 Bandung Colombo Dhaka Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Jakarta Kathmandu Surabaya Surat City Data Source –Travel dairy based Vs Energy Consumption based Estimates for passenger and freight –would Indicator 10: Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 eq tons/ year) Definition: CO2 Data Source: ‐ Fuel sale statistics for the equivalent city area may be available emissions from from national energy transport by statistics or databases. urban residents ‐ Traffic counts and per annum per emission factors capita. Summary Common Units –Say US $ Congestion Inclusion Emphasize Formal Approval of the plan Access Include Informal PT in Indicator –2 ‐ % workers having job location within 30 min travel time from home Include above implication on 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 Investment Adequacy Fatality –Maximum Range – Change 10 Fatality/Million VKT Thank You