Review of CMPs of Different Cities PDF

Final Report
Project code 2010UD03
Progress Report – 2010UD03

Review of Comprehensive Mobility Plans
© The Energy and Resources Institute 2011
Suggested format for citation
T E R I. 2011
New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute. 240pp.
[Project Report No. 2010UD03]
For more information

Akshima T Ghate
TERI Tel. 2468 2100 or 2468 2111
Darbari Seth Block E-mail akshima@teri.res.in
IHC Complex, Lodhi Road Fax 2468 2144 or 2468 2145
New Delhi – 110 003 Web www.teriin.org
India India +91 • Delhi (0) 11

Table of Contents
SECTION I - Introduction and selection of cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction................................................................................................................. 2
Objectives ................................................................................................................... 3
Methodology ............................................................................................................... 3
Report structure........................................................................................................... 4
Selection of CMPs of five cities ................................................................................. 5
SECTION II - CMP evaluation framework & Review of CMPs . . . . . . . 7

1. Framework to Review Comprehensive Mobility Plans of Cities ............................. 7
1.1. Elements of Sustainable Transport System.......................................................... 8
1.2. Sustainable Transport Plans for Cities, a Literature Review ............................. 11
1.3. National Urban Transport Policy, India............................................................. 16
1.4. National Action Plan on Climate Change.......................................................... 19
1.5. Proposed Framework to Evaluate CMPs ........................................................... 20
2. Review of Comprehensive Mobility Plan of Kolkata............................................ 26
3. Review of Comprehensive Mobility Plan of Jaipur............................................... 50
4. Review of Comprehensive Mobility Plan of Kochi............................................... 67
5. Review of Comprehensive Mobility Plan of Surat ................................................ 84
6. Review of Comprehensive Mobility Plan of Pune .............................................. 103
7. Conclusions.......................................................................................................... 120
ANNEXURE I - C i t y a n d t r a n s p o r t p r o f i l e s .................................. 122
ANNEXURE II - City-wise summary of CMP strategies and

recommendations by TERI ............................................................ 227

List of Tables
Section I
Table 1.1 Cities that had submitted their CMP to MoUD for approval (As on June 2010) 5
Section II
Table 2.1- Evaluating translation of plan recommendations into specific
projects/studies/proposals - Access and equity............................................... 32
projects/studies/proposals – Integrated land use and transport development . 34
Table 2.3 Evaluating translation of plan recommendations into specific
projects/studies/proposals – Safety and security............................................. 35
projects/studies/proposals – Promoting mass transport .................................. 38
projects/studies/proposals – Promoting NMT ................................................ 39
projects/studies/proposals – Traffic demand management ............................. 41
projects/studies/proposals – Clean alternative fuels ....................................... 42
projects/studies/proposals – Promoting efficient freight movement .............. 43
projects/studies/proposals - Equity ................................................................. 54
projects/studies/proposals - Access................................................................. 54
projects/studies/proposals – Integrated land use and transport development . 55


projects/studies/proposals – Traffic demand management ...Error! Bookmark
not defined.
projects/studies/proposals – Freight movement.............................................. 78
projects/studies/proposals - Access and equity............................................. 107
projects/studies/proposals – Safety and security........................................... 109
projects/studies/proposals – Promoting mass transport ................................ 111
projects/studies/proposals – Promoting NMT .............................................. 112
projects/studies/proposals – Promoting efficient freight movement ............ 113

List of Figures
Section II
Figure 1.1 SUT-Planning and SUT-Plan approach proposed by EC’s “Expert Working
Group on Sustainable Urban Transport Plans”............................................... 15
Figure 1.2 Development of CMP evaluation framework.................................................. 20
Figure 2.1 Integrated mobility concept proposed in Kolkata CMP .................................. 29
Figure 2.2 Translation of vision into plan strategies in Kolkata CMP ............................. 29
Figure 2.3 Evaluating consistency in vision/goal statements in CDP and CMP .............. 30
Figure 2.4 Estimated cost of identified projects/proposals in Kolkata CMP.................... 48
Figure 4.1 Evaluating consistency in vision/goal statements/key focus areas in CDP and
CMP ................................................................................................................ 71
Figure 5.1 Surat CDP – Vision and objectives ................................................................. 85
Figure 6.1 Evaluating consistency in vision/goal statements in CDP and CMP ............ 104
Figure 6.2 Framework of indicators and targets, Pune CMP.......................................... 114

Executive summary
i
In December 2005, the Government of India launched the Jawaharlal Nehru National
Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) under the Common Minimum Program, which
aimed to rejuvenate the urban milieu through implementation of a number of projects
with active private sector participation. Subsequently, in 2006, the Government
announced the first ever policy on urban transport, the National Urban Transport Policy
1
(NUTP) with a focus to promote overall sustainability of transport sector in cities. Some
of the policy objectives in the NUTP are being realized as proposals and projects under
the JNNURM, which has selected 63 cities (later made 65) in India and is implementing
an urban reforms agenda of which urban transport is a significant component. The
Mission now makes it conditional upon the cities to take up transport projects in line
with the recommendations made in the NUTP (which is driven by the principle of
moving people not vehicles), in order to receive funding and grants. Each of the cities
has to come up with a Comprehensive Mobility Plan (CMP) for the city, and currently,
many cities are engaged in the same. A few cities have already drawn up CMPs and
have submitted them to the Government of India.
It is important that the CMPs are able to guide sustainable growth of the transport sector
in the cities. Sustainability of transport system implies that every individual or
commuter category in the city is able to fulfil his or her mobility needs in a quick,
affordable, safe, reliable, comfortable, energy efficient and environmentally benign
manner (TERI, 2009) i.e. the transport system should be able to meet all the associated
social, economic and environmental sustainability goals. Since, the CMPs will be the
tools to guide the future growth of transport in cities, it becomes important to evaluate
their strategies with respect to the sustainable mobility parameters. This becomes all the
more important as Indian cities are currently facing a major transport crisis that is
marked by increasing personal vehicle use, declining public transport/ NMT use,
congestion, pollution, road accidents, etc. This study hence focuses on reviewing these
completed CMPs to assess if they promote sustainability of transport systems in the
cities.
The key objectives of the study are:

To develop a framework to review the Comprehensive Mobility Plans (CMPs).
To review a few selected CMPs and critically evaluate whether they will be able
to guide sustainable growth of transport sector in the cities.
To give recommendations for the selected cities to address the gaps between
their current transport strategies and the sustainable mobility goals.
1 www.urbanindia.nic.in/programme/ut/TransportPolicy.pdf
ii
A framework has been developed to review the CMPs. The following were taken into
consideration to develop the CMP evaluation framework:
Sustainable mobility concepts and definitions
National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP) and National Action Plan for Climate
Change (NAPCC)
Sustainable urban transport plans prepared for cities outside India
Development of CMP evaluation framework
2 *34 576 ! "%$&

# !,+-&/.0.

'()*
'()*
1
*
)* *
98 *

'('(
98:

('

.-;&<4 =5->
1. Evaluating vision statements in CDP and CMP

1.1 Evaluating city vision
An analysis should be done to check if:
A vision for future development of the city has been formulated in the CDP?
If yes, is this vision being able to encompass all three pillars of sustainability
(social, economic and environmental) and strives to achieve sustainable growth
of the city?
1.2 Evaluating the CMP vision for transport sector
An evaluation of vision statement for transport sector in CMP should be carried out to
evaluate whether the vision is in line with:
The definition of sustainable transport system as defined previously – ‘a
transport system where every individual or traveller category in a city is able to
fulfill their mobility needs in a quick, affordable, safe, reliable, comfortable,
energy efficient and environmentally benign manner’;
The key focus area of NUTP- ‘people should occupy center-stage in our cities and
all plans would be for their common benefit and well being’; and
iii
The objectives of the National Mission on Sustainable Habitat of the NAPCC i.e.
promote energy efficiency and reduce emissions from transport sector.
1.3 Evaluating consistency in vision statements in CDP and CMP
The vision defined in CMP should ideally be in consonance with the vision of overall
city development and transport sector development as defined in the CDP for the city. A
critical analysis should be made to evaluate if the visions in CDP and CMP are in line
with each other; if not, the gaps should be identified.
2. Evaluating the process of preparation of CMP

For a city transport plan to be successful in terms of reflecting and addressing the needs
and challenges of all categories of commuters, operators and planners, it is important
that the process for preparing the plan is both scientific and participatory. CMP
preparation process should be evaluated to analyze if such a comprehensive approach
has been adopted while preparing the CMP. If, yes, then are there any issues with
regard to this approach adopted for the city.
3. Evaluating the contents of the CMP

The CMP as a future guiding document for transport sector development in the city
should be able to encompass all sustainable mobility elements and translate the same
into sound strategies and actions/projects that help achieve sustainable mobility
objectives for the city. A framework has been developed to evaluate transport strategies
recommended in the CMP from the perspective of sustainable mobility parameters. The
framework is discussed below.
3.1 Sustainability indicator – Access and equity
To evaluate whether the CMP promotes access and equity, the strategies proposed in the
CMP should be evaluated to analyze if the CMP gives recommendations such us:
Promoting equitable allocation of road space
Promoting connectivity of slum/urban poor residential areas
Special recommendations for mobility of the physically challenged, women,
children and elderly
Integrated land use and transport development and promoting balanced regional
growth, in line with regional development strategies to:
o Reduce the need to travel
o Encourage walkable / cyclable communities
o Promote transit-oriented growth
o Promote balanced spatial growth
o Promote social cohesion and community liveability
iv
3.2 Sustainability indicator – Safety and security
To evaluate whether the CMP promotes safety and security, the strategies proposed in
the CMP should be evaluated to analyze if the CMP gives recommendations such us:
Providing segregated rights of way for cyclists and pedestrians
Providing safe environment for mobility of all traveller categories
Ensuring strict enforcement to reduce encroachment of footpaths
Specific recommendations for security of women, children, elderly and vehicles
3.3 Sustainability indicator – Environmental friendliness and low energy use
To evaluate whether the CMP aims to promote environmental friendliness and low
energy use, the strategies proposed in the CMP should be evaluated to analyze if the
CMP gives recommendations such us:
Promoting mass transport
Proposes public transport systems serving the entire population
Gives recommendations to improve access to public transport nodes
Suggests integration of IPT as a support/feeder to public transport systems
Suggests measures to ensure quality of public transport services
Promotes a multi-modal public transport system
Recommends use of ICT to improve delivery of public transport services
Promoting NMT
Creating safe bicycle parking spaces, facilities like shade giving landscaping,
provision of drinking water and resting stations along bicycle corridors and
pedestrian pathways
Public bicycle program – rent and use a bicycle
Preference in the allocation of parking space for non-motorized modes
Using effective traffic demand management principles and systems
Promotes smooth movement on roads
Provides for incentives for shifting to collective transport modes; disincentives
for using personal motorized transport
Encourages virtual commuting
Promoting use of clean alternative fuels like electricity from clean/renewable sources in public,
private and IPT vehicles
Subsidies/concessions on vehicle technology
Provision of supporting infrastructure to promote use of alternative fuel
technology
Promoting efficient movement of freight traffic
v
4. Evaluating the implementation mechanism proposed in the CMP
The implementation strategy of a transport plan should prioritize the urgent
projects/actions and develop sound indicators to measure performance of plan
implementation. CMP implementation strategy should be evaluated for the following:
Implementation strategy
Is a clear implementation strategy laid out in the CMP? Check if the
prioritization of the actions has been done and what is the principle for the same.
Are timelines defined for implementation of projects?
Targets and indicators
Are there any targets set to be achieved (for e.g. 60% rider ship by public
transport modes in 2015) through implementation of plan strategies? If yes, then
are these targets in line with transport vision for the city?
Does CMP formulate indicators to measure performance of plan
implementation? What is the rational to develop these indicators?
Financial strategies
What are the strategies to finance the projects?
Institutional arrangements
What are the institutional arrangements being proposed to implement the plan?
NUTP recommends setting up of Unified Metropolitan Transport Authorities
(UMTA) in all million plus cities. Is the CMP proposing setting-up of UMTA?
What is the kind of structure proposed for UMTA and what are the functions
and powers given to it?
Capacity building measures
What capacity building measures have been proposed (institutional and
individual capacity building)? Are they adequate?
Review and updating the Plan
Does the CMP propose additional targeted surveys of travel patterns, regular
household surveys to allow periodic transport planning and modelling that can
help review and update the plan periodically
Is there any indication in the CMP with regard to the time intervals at which the
CMP should be revised?
Five CMPs have been selected on the basis of criteria like population size of cities, urban
transport/public transport characteristics, etc. The selected CMPs are Kolkata, Jaipur,
Kochi, Surat and Pune. The selected plans have been reviewed as per the designed
framework in order to assess whether they will be able to guide the growth of transport
sector in a sustainable manner. The review of selected plans helped identify key
vi
issues/gaps as well as good practices, processes and strategies. Specific
recommendations have been made for each of the cities to address the identified
issues/gaps. Key findings from review of the selected CMPs are given in the table
below.
Key findings from review of CMPs

CMP Good practices/recommendations in the Gaps
CMP
Kolkata Kolkata Stakeholder engagement during plan
has a comprehensive vision statement preparation process
promotes universal accessibility Recommendations for improving
promotes transit oriented development accessibility of urban poor
gives comprehensive recommendations to Recommendations to promote
promote safety of NMT users security of transport users
gives detailed recommendations to develop Specific projects to promote NMT use
an integrated public transit system and safety of NMT users
recommends use of alternative and clean Recommendations on use of ICT to
fuels for public transport and IPT improve quality of public transit
has robust and innovative recommendations services
to reduce congestion Comprehensive package of demand
recommends a tiered model for institutional restraint measures
set-up Comprehensive strategy for
promoting use of alternative fuels
No recommendation on reducing
vehicular pollution
Lack of a clear implementation
strategy and targets to monitor plan
implementation
Jaipur Jaipur CMP- Weak vision statement

promotes the equity principles of mobility Involvement of general public in plan
promotes transit oriented development making process
recommends adequate measures and Recommendations to promote
consequent projects to provide a safe security of transport users
mobility environment Recommendations on use of ICT to
proposes comprehensive strategies and improve quality of public transit
projects that will help promote use of public services
transport Provision of supporting infrastructure
recommends provision of differential public for NMT users
transport services Comprehensive package of demand
has a well-laid out implementation plan restraint measures
has set key targets to monitor plan Promotion of alternative fuels
achievement Measures to reduce vehicular
proposes a robust three-tier institutional pollution
structure Capacity building programs
Kochi - Lacks vision for transport sector

Stakeholder engagement during plan
preparation process
Lacks equity considerations in
vii
proposed strategies
Accessibility of vulnerable traveller
categories
No emphasis on integrated land use
and transport development
Lacks comprehensive measures to
promote safety, security and
environment-friendliness of transport
system
Plan strategies will lead to promotion
of private vehicle use rather than
public modes
Lack of measures to promote NMT
Lacks clear implementation strategy,
institutional recommendations and
capacity building programs
Surat Surat CMP- Accessibility of vulnerable traveller

has a comprehensive goal statement categories
adopted a robust planning process that Recommendations to promote
included involvement of stakeholders security of transport users
promotes equity principles Comprehensive measures to promote
promotes balanced regional growth and safety
transit oriented development Projects to improve accessibility,
proposes setting-up of road safety cells quality and integration of public
makes comprehensive recommendations on transit system
institutional set-up Projects and supporting infrastructure
for NMT
Recommendations on IPT
Promotion of alternative fuels
Measures to reduce vehicular
pollution
Implementation strategy and capacity
building programs
Pune Pune CMP- Accessibility of vulnerable traveller

adopted a comprehensive, scientifically categories
sound and participatory planning process Specific projects to implement
promotes equity principles strategies related to safety
has comprehensive recommendations to Recommendations to promote
promote safety security of transport users
proposes comprehensive measures to Accessibility of public transit nodes
promote use of public transport Cycle lanes and supporting
proposes a comprehensive package of infrastructure for NMT
measures to manage current traffic situation Promotion of alternative fuels
and reduce transport demand Measures to reduce vehicular
has a clear implementation strategy pollution
proposes a comprehensive framework of Capacity building programs
indicators and targets
proposes a comprehensive institutional set-
up
viii
The study has resulted in development of a generic framework that can be used to
evaluate the mobility plans for Indian cities from the perspective of sustainable mobility
parameters. The proposed framework is comprehensive and includes most of the
sustainable mobility elements that are of relevance for Indian cities, given the current
state of affairs in their transport sectors.
This exercise had aimed to evaluate the CMPs primarily because CMPs are going to be
the policy documents that will guide the future of transport sector growth in Indian
cities. It is therefore important that these policy documents are comprehensive enough
to include all mobility concerns and guide the cities towards sustainable mobility goals.
City-specific analysis highlights some common issues in the CMPs; gaps in planning
process and plan contents that appear in most of the Plans and hence can be generalized.
These include:
Planning process/Plan
Inadequate stakeholder engagement in plan preparation process
Lack of clarity in terms like vision, goal, objective, strategy, etc.
Gaps in translation of plan recommendations into specific projects
Lack of clarity on formal linkages of CMP with other city plans like Master Plan
and CDP (how do the strategies in city plans feed into the CMP, how will the
strategies proposed in the CMP feed into future revision of city plans, etc.)
NMT
Lack of recommendations on provision of supporting facilities for NMT users
Lack of recommendations on integration of hawkers/informal sector in
NMT/road proposals
None of the plans suggest establishment of NMT cells to undertake planning and
management of NMT
Security
None of the plans suggest any measures to improve security of transport system
users, especially that of the vulnerable traveller categories
Access
Most of the Plans ignore promotion of universal accessibility
Lack of proposals on running differential transit services in cities
Public transport
Lack of proposals to improve quality of public transit services
Lack of projects to improve accessibility of public transit terminals
Lack of measures to promote integration of IPT with public transport
ITS
Lack of measures to promote use of ICT in mobility solutions like traffic
management, accident analysis, road maintenance and monitoring, efficient
delivery of public transit services, etc.
Environment
Lack of recommendations specific to environment quality improvement (clean
fuels, maintenance regime for in-use vehicles, reducing air/noise/ water
pollution)
Land use transport integration
ix
Most of the plans lack clear strategy to implement proposed transit oriented
designs
Freight
Freight proposals limited to construction of bypasses and shifting of economic
activities to city peripheries
Traffic demand management
Only a few plans give detailed parking policy/management plan
Lack of innovative solutions to restrain transport demand by private vehicles
Implementation
Lack of clear implementation strategy in many plans
Lack of a well defined framework of targets and performance indicators
Lack of identification of capacity building requirements
Lack of recommendations to establish a mechanism for periodic revision and
updating Plan
No proper communication strategy to build public support for projects to be
implemented
The above gaps need to be addressed in order to ensure development of comprehensive
plans that can promote overall growth of transport sector in a sustainable manner. A
framework/guidebook can be developed to guide the preparation of CMPs. This framework
should include all sustainable mobility parameters and guidance on how the cities could
incorporate these parameters as specific strategies and actions. Besides this, the
framework should also describe the ideal Plan preparation process that should be
followed by the cities. This framework could also be used by the approving agencies to
evaluate whether a robust planning process has been adopted and whether all
sustainable mobility parameters have been addressed in the Plan. The Ministry of Urban
Development should develop such a detailed framework/guidebook for preparation of.
In addition, it is important that cities establish a robust institutional mechanism to

ensure implementation of their CMPs in an integrated manner. The National Urban
Transport Policy encourages establishment of Unified Metropolitan Transport
Authorities (UMTAs) in all million-plus cities ‘to facilitate more co-ordinated planning and
implementation of urban transport programs and projects and an integrated management of
urban transport systems’. Operationalization of UMTAs in million-plus cities has faced
several problems like empowerment of UMTA, its relationship with the city
government, planning bodies, state government, etc. These issues have not been fully
and satisfactorily addressed till now. Most of the Plans reviewed in this study
recommend formation of unified transport bodies at the apex level to ensure co-
ordinated planning, project implementation and management in transport sector. While
some plans give some indication on the structure and functions of the unified transport
body, the others don’t detail out the same. Broad recommendations on formation of such
unified transport bodies have been given in the study.
x
SECTION I – Introduction to the study
and selection of cities
1
The first ever policy on urban transport, i.e. the National Urban Transport Policy
2
(NUTP) was announced by the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) in 2006. Its key
features include:
• Ensure coordinated planning for urban transport
• Ensure integrated land use & transport planning
• People focused & equitable allocation of road space
• Investments in public transport & non motorized modes
• Strategies for parking space and freight traffic movements
• Establish regulatory mechanisms for a level playing field
• Innovative financing methods to raise resources
• Promote intelligent transport systems (ITS), cleaner fuel & vehicle technologies for
cities
• Projects to demonstrate best practices in sustainable transport
• Build capacity to plan for sustainable urban transport
In December 2005, the Government of India launched the Jawaharlal Nehru National
Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) under the Common Minimum Program, which
aimed to rejuvenate the urban milieu through implementation of a number of projects
with active private sector participation. Cities with million-plus population, state
capitals, and cities of cultural and tourist importance were to be included under the
Mission.
Some of the policy objectives in the NUTP are being realized as proposals and projects
under the JNNURM, which has selected 63 cities (recently made 65) in India and is
implementing an urban reforms agenda of which urban transport is a significant
component. Each of these 63 cities has come up with a City Development Plan (CDP)
which is a policy and investment plan for the city for five years (2007–12). The Mission
now makes it conditional upon the cities to take up transport projects in line with the
recommendations made in the NUTP (which is driven by the principle of moving people
not vehicles), in order to receive funding and grants. For this, each of the cities has to
come up with a Comprehensive Mobility Plan (CMP) for the city, and currently, many
cities are engaged in the same. A few cities have already drawn up CMPs and have
submitted them to the Government of India.
It is important that the CMPs are able to guide sustainable growth of the transport sector
in the cities. Sustainability of transport system implies that every individual or
commuter category in the city is able to fulfil his or her mobility needs in a quick,
affordable, safe, reliable, comfortable, energy efficient and environmentally benign
manner (TERI, 2009) i.e. the transport system should be able to meet all the associated
social, economic and environmental sustainability goals. Since, the CMPs will be the
tools to guide the future growth of transport in cities, it becomes important to evaluate
their strategies with respect to the sustainable mobility parameters. This becomes all the
more important as Indian cities are currently facing a major transport crisis that is
2 www.urbanindia.nic.in/programme/ut/TransportPolicy.pdf
Final Report – 2010UD03 2

marked by increasing personal vehicle use, declining public transport/ NMT use,
congestion, pollution, road accidents, etc.
This study hence focuses on reviewing these completed CMPs to assess if they comply
with the overall sustainable mobility goals.
Objectives
1. To develop a framework to review the Comprehensive Mobility Plans (CMPs).
2. To review a few selected CMPs and critically evaluate whether they will be able to
guide sustainable growth of transport sector in the cities.
3. To give recommendations for the selected cities to address the gaps between their
current transport strategies and the sustainable mobility goals.
Methodology
1. Development of a framework to review the CMPs - The framework was developed taking
into consideration:
Sustainable mobility concepts and definitions,
NUTP and NAPCC objectives,
Sustainable urban transport plans prepared for countries outside India, and
Contents of the completed CMPs for cities.
2. Selection of CMPs - Around five plans (CMPs) were selected on the basis of criteria
like population size of cities, urban transport/public transport characteristics, etc.
The selected CMPs are Kolkata, Jaipur, Kochi, Surat and Pune.
3. Review of CMPs – The selected plans were reviewed as per the designed framework
in order to assess whether they will be able to guide the growth of transport sector in
a sustainable manner. This task includes carrying out field visits to discuss the
analysis with the local authorities responsible for plan preparation. The review of
plans indicated comprehensiveness of the framework developed at stage 1. The
framework was revised/ modified after review of CMPs in order to ensure it is
comprehensive enough to cover all relevant parameters.
4. Good practices and city-specific recommendations – The review of selected plans helped
identify key issues/gaps as well as good practices, processes and strategies. Specific
recommendations were made for each of the cities to address the identified issues/gaps.

Report structure
The report is organized as follows –
Executive Summary – Executive summary provides a brief synopsis of the study.
Section I – This section provides a background to the study and lists the
objectives and methodology for carrying out this study. It also describes the city
selection process.
Section II – The first Chapter in this section describes the CMP evaluation
framework developed for this study followed by chapters comprising detailed
analysis of CMPs of all selected cities. At the end of each CMP analysis, a
summary of good practices in the plan has been provided along with broad
recommendations to address the gaps identified during CMP review. The last
chapter in this section gives conclusions and raises overall issues and suggests
generic recommendations for improving plan preparation, implementation and
monitoring process.
Annexure I – Annexure 1 comprises of detailed city and transport profiles for
each of the selected five cities. For each selected city, demographic, economic and
physical profile is described followed by a detailed description of its transport
system - the infrastructure, vehicular growth patterns, public transport, NMT
and other key traffic characteristics of the city. This is then followed by
description of the recommendations from the city’s CMPs.
Annexure 2 – Annexure 2 provides city-wise summaries of CMP strategies and
recommendations made by TERI.

!"#$% &' ( ( )# % )
* + %, + $ + -. /
%0 -! / 0 /
/ 1
• 2 3 2
• ! +
o +
o ! +
o
4 + / % + / -! 1
5
5
* + $$-
Table 1.1 Cities that had submitted their CMP to MoUD for approval (As on June 2010)
! " ! $ ! "# %&'

# "# $ $ (
* ) , /
, ) 6 $ 7
' '4 ) '
8 4 7 89 8#
0 0 ) 0 : )
& 5 ) &9 / &
; < ; ) ;#

=( ) = )
! +
> ) > $
) 7
? 2 /
7 5
' ' 4 /
8 ) 8 , 7
?
0 ? ) 0 7 )
& ) & *
; 5 ; 4 7
= ( 7 = )::
> ) >
: )
) (
' ) ' )
8 8 7 )
0 ? : / 0 7
& # : ) &
; * ; < /
= $ ) = (
Source: Information compiled by Shakti and TERI (June 2010)

SECTION II - CMP evaluation framework
& review of CMPs

'* + $
This chapter focuses on evolving a framework to assess the Comprehensive Mobility Plans
(CMPs) from the perspective of sustainable mobility parameters.
'*'* , - $
Efficient, effective and environment friendly transport system is vital for the socio-economic
development of urban areas, which are facing an enormous increase in the demand for
passenger and freight movements. In an attempt to fill this demand supply gap in urban
transport sector, the service providers have focused only on the provision of additional
infrastructure rather than meeting the demand in a more efficient manner. The failure of
current urban transport practices to deliver socio-economic and environmental friendly
solutions has reinforced the case for sustainable provision of transport services in our cities.
'*'*'* . $
A reasonable start to evolve a framework for sustainable transport provision is to define the
term ‘sustainable transport’ at the very outset. Many organizations and researchers have
tried to define this term (box 1); most of these definitions point towards longevity of the
current transport solutions with a focus on meeting the socio-economic and environmental
goals. Although there is no universally accepted definition of sustainable transport, the
following elements are common to most definitions:
• Considering economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of developing
transport services
• Addressing mobility concerns of all vulnerable segments of the society and
developing a transport system that provides equal development opportunities to all
• Minimizing environmental impacts of transport activities
Transportation has significant economic, social and environmental impacts, and is an
important factor in overall sustainability of habitations (Litman T, 2008). Sustainability
implies that the present needs of the population are met without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs3. When applied to transportation, the word
sustainable qualifies the transport system as a system that meets the present day demands
of transport by ensuring that environmental, social, and economic considerations are
factored into the decisions so as to ensure that the future demand for mobility can be met in
a judicious manner4.
Introduction of the concept of sustainability in transport provision has lead to a paradigm
shift from the existing transport planning practices. Although less, there have been a few
initiatives by city planners to plan for equitable, efficient and environment-friendly
transport systems. City planners have now started viewing transport beyond the traditional
concept of just physical mobility to a broader concept of accessibility i.e. people’s ability to
obtain desired goods and services (Litman T, 2008).
The broad areas that any sustainable transport definition needs to cover are: (i) social, (ii)
economic, and (iii) environmental factors. The definition should essentially qualify transport
as promoting equity, fostering clean and healthy environment, promoting economic growth
3
4 ! " #$%$& ' $%%(
and a balanced system in which private vehicles, public transportation, bicycling, and
walking are all viable options for the society.
The European Council of Ministers of Transport framed a comprehensive definition of
sustainable transport (ECMT, 2004), which has also been endorsed by the Transportation
Research Board (TRB). “The definition has a broad scope and recognizes specific
transportation issues. According to this definition, a sustainable transport system:
• Allows the basic access and development needs of individuals, companies and
society to be met safely and in a manner consistent with human and ecosystem
health, and promotes equity within and between successive generations.
• Is affordable, operates fairly and efficiently, offers a choice of transport mode and
supports a competitive economy, as well as balanced regional development
• Limits emissions and waste within the planet’s ability to absorb them, uses
renewable resources at or below their rates of generation, and uses non-renewable
resources at or below the rates of development of renewable substitutes, while
minimizing the impact on the use of land and the generation of noise.”
Box 1.1 ‘Sustainable Transport’ Definitions

1. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) defines sustainable mobility as “the ability to meet the needs of society to move
freely, gain access, communicate, trade, and establish relationships without sacrificing other essential human or ecological values today or in the future.”
(WBCSD, 2001)
2. “The goal of sustainable transportation is to ensure that environmental, social and economic considerations are factored into decisions affecting
transportation activity.” (MOST, 1999)
3. Environmentally Sustainable Transportation (EST) is “transportation that does not endanger public health or ecosystems and meets needs for access
consistent with (a) use of renewable resources at below their rates of regeneration, and (b) use of non-renewable resources at below the rates of
development of renewable substitutes.” (OECD and BLFWU, 1998)
4. “An environmentally sustainable transport system:

allows generally accepted objectives for health and environmental quality to be met, for example, those concerning air pollutants and noise
proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO);
is consistent with ecosystem integrity, for example, it does not contribute to exceedances of critical loads and levels as defined by WHO for
acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone; and
does not result in worsening of adverse global phenomena such as climate change and stratospheric ozone depletion.” (OECD and BLFWU, 1998)
5. Litman ) * $%%( + , ' , - +

+ * ' *
Economics Social Environmental

Traffic congestion Mobility for vulnerable groups Air pollution
Infrastructure costs Human health impacts Habitat loss
Consumer costs (fares, automobiles, etc.) Community cohesion Hydrologic impacts
Mobility barriers Community livability Depletion of non-
renewable resources
Accident damages Aesthetics Noise
Source: Litman and Burwell, 2006
Learning from a range of ‘sustainable transport’ definitions and concepts, a definition was
adapted by TERI in its study on ‘An exploration of sustainability in the provision of basic
urban services in Indian cities’, specifically to define the term in the context of Indian cities.
This definition acknowledges that urban transport in India should cater to the social,
economic and environmental needs of growing cities. It is defines sustainable transport as ‘a
transport system where every individual or traveller category in a city is able to fulfill their

mobility needs in a quick, affordable, safe, reliable, comfortable, energy efficient and
environmentally benign manner’ (TERI, 2009).
'*'*/* . $
For this study, the definition adapted by TERI has been taken as a base to define the key
elements of a sustainable transport system, as discussed below. A sustainable transport
system in urban area:
• Provides and improves access to all travel categories (including socially vulnerable
groups) and hence promotes equity in terms of opportunities available to
individuals, companies, societies for their overall growth5. It is a balanced system
that provides all modal choices to the population i.e. choice to walk, cycle or use a
personal vehicle, public transport or an intermediate public transport (IPT) mode.
• Has minimal impact on human health. The negative externalities of a transport

system on human health include:
Diseases caused due to air/noise pollution, ozone depletion due to transport
system operations
Physical injuries/fatalities caused due to accidents
A sustainable transport system should minimize the above listed externalities to the
maximum extent possible, which implies that it should be safe and should generate least
pollution (air, noise and ozone depletion).
• Has minimal impact on environmental quality, which implies that it limits:

Air pollutants
Emissions
Noise pollution
Water pollution
Land pollution
Waste generation
Ozone depletion
• Reduces dependence on fossil fuels by various measures like:

Promoting mass transport
Promoting non motorized transport (NMT)
Energy efficiency
Ensuring smooth movement on roads
Promoting use of clean fuels like electricity (from renewable energy sources),
solar energy, hydrogen, bio-fuels, etc.
• Ensures ecosystem integrity which implies that local (sensitive) ecosystems are not
disrupted due to construction/operation of transport infrastructure/activities. It:
should not cause habitat loss (e.g. cutting of huge forest patches)
should not pollute local ecosystems (air and water)
Promotes social cohesion by conscious deigning/planning
Promotes community livability by appropriate neighbourhood design
5 + +
# + . *
Enhances and not alters the image of areas that have unique identity/cultural
heritage
Some of the elements of a sustainable transport system discussed above may assume greater
importance than the others based on a regional context. However what is important to keep
in mind is that there cannot be a single or across the board widely accepted definition for
sustainable transport. It should therefore be defined locally as per the conditions,
requirements and challenges in a particular region/country/city.
'*/* - $ 0 1
After defining the key elements of a sustainable transport system and as a next step towards
evolving a framework to evaluate the CMPs, a few sustainable transport plans of cities
outside India were reviewed. The review of these plans was helpful in terms of
understanding as to how sustainability elements can be translated into transport
plans/strategies.
'*/*'* - $ 0
The California Transportation Plan, 2025 is a strategic growth plan for city’s transport
infrastructure and system to meet California’s future mobility needs. It explores the social,
economic, and technological trends and demographic changes anticipated over the next 20
years and their potential influence on travel behaviour. It then provides a strategic plan to
cater to the changing travel needs in the most sustainable manner. The plan has been
developed through considerable public outreach and consultation. The plan envisions a
balanced transportation system that promotes sustainability. It states that “California has a
safe, sustainable, world-class transportation system that provides for the mobility and
accessibility of people, goods, services, and information through an integrated, multimodal
network that is developed through collaboration and achieves a Prosperous Economy, a
Quality Environment, and Social Equity” (California Department of Transportation, 2006).
The plan preparation process encompassed the following key stages:
Working out a city vision for future transport by extensive consultation with people
Working out a strategic action plan to achieve the vision; it essentially involved:
o Analysis and identification of the current and projected trends and challenges under
which the plan’s goals, policies and strategies will be implemented
o Establishing the guiding principles that would direct the strategies adopted; the
principles adopted were – Collaboration, Leadership, Innovation and
Communication
o Developing goals after consultation with all the system providers, managers and
users; these goals were supported with transportation policies. For each policy, the
plan identifies key partners and offers a number of implementing strategies
designed to achieve the transportation vision and goals.
o Developing performance measures and indicators to assess the performance of
services being provided. The performance measures consist of a set of objectives,
measurable criteria (indicator) to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the
transportation system, as well as the effectiveness of government policies, plans and
programs, and to gauge if and to what extent vision and goals are being achieved.
The performance measures include indicators such as changes in transportation
related injuries and fatalities, air and water quality, number or percent of system
users in various modes, travel times, fuel usage and travel quality.
'*/*/ - $ 0
The sustainable transport plan for Auckland is a ten-year programme of scoped and costed
projects and practical actions, to help city residents make safer and more sustainable
transport choices. As against the traditional transport planning approaches, this plan gives
special focus to the ‘people of Auckland’ rather than transport infrastructure and services.
The plan defines sustainable transport for Auckland as “Working with people and their
communities to improve travel opportunities and to encourage people to make fewer car
journeys” (ARTA, 2007). The plan attempts to integrate sustainable transport activities with
each other and with planned improvement of infrastructure and services. It recognizes the
importance of working with multiple agencies and developing new ways of sharing costs,
managing risks and evaluating success.
The plan is a step towards a regional transport strategy, which outlines the future of
region’s transport system and provides a framework for transport planning in the Auckland
region. The sustainable transport plan for Auckland outlines the activities that will help
achieve the regional strategy’s objectives/ targets. The proposed sustainable transport
activities are drawn after substantial amount of consultations with the people.
A few examples of evolution of sustainable transport activities from the regional objectives
have been given below:
1. Regional objective: Improved walking and cycling networks in the Auckland region to
encourage walking.
Proposed actions in the Sustainable Transport Plan:
o Walking and cycling improvements in the Central Business District (CBD) and town
centres
o Engineering improvements in roads, for e.g. in refuge islands, crossings, speed
humps, bus bays, etc.
o Constructing 50% of the proposed cycle network
Target: 15.5% of total trips by walking or cycling by 2016.
2. Regional objective: Reduction in number of car trips
Proposed actions in the Sustainable Transport Plan:
o Priority to high occupancy vehicles through dedicated Bus/High Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV) lanes
o Offering a database service and/or providing pick-up points for encouraging
ridesharing
o Providing incentives at the destination, such as a guaranteed ride home in an
emergency, and/or staff rewards for car poolers
Target: 20,000 fewer morning peak car journeys by 2016
The Auckland plan demonstrates a sustainable transport approach that is drawn from the
regional level strategies to local area level plans. The actions identified in the plan can be
easily implemented and monitored periodically so as to assess the success of the plan.
'*/*2* - $
The integrated transport plan for Rockingham city is based on the principles of safety,
efficiency, effectiveness, environmental responsibility, social responsibility and robustness,
all of which are key elements for any sustainable transport system. The plan outlines a city
vision developed with inputs from Councillors and community (Box 2). The plan process
involved:
• Formulation of a Vision – involving councillors
• Contextual analysis – review of current planning policies, strategies and
infrastructure investments
• Community consultation – community forum, meetings with local resident
associations and special interest groups, and telephone survey
• Identification of issues from community consultation
• Investigation of these issues through Network Assessment and Evaluation phase –
Road, pedestrian, bicycle, and public transport network; Strategic transport
evaluation model analysis
• Identification of key issues and prioritization of the same
• Formulation of Integrated Transport Plan – strategies and actions
• Prioritization of implementation actions – involving stakeholders
• Updating and review of plan
• Promotion of plan through a Communication plan – press releases, council
newsletters, website, brochure
Box 1.2: Vision statements, Rockingham Integrated Transport Plan

Economic
A transport system that promotes sustainable regional development and economic activity in
Rockingham through the efficient provision and operation of transport services and infrastructure, providing
a high level of access to employment, social, educational and commercial activities and the efficient
movement of freight.
Social
A transport system that provides equitable access to the city’s services, facilities and cultural activities
providing a choice of transport modes and enhancing the community’s lifestyle as well as the identity of
Rockingham.
Environmental
A balanced transport system which promotes the use of ‘green’ transport modes, minimizing pollution and
protecting Rockingham’s unique environment.
'*/*3* 4 - $
The Gold City Transport Plan is a 30-year transport master plan focusing on providing an
integrated high quality, safe and efficient transport system to serve the needs of city in a
sustainable manner. The plan is integrated with the regional plan strategies. The key
features of the plan are summarized below:
• Development of an overall vision, guiding principles and aim for city’s transport
system

• Formulation of strategic objectives that are in line with the transport vision:
Quality public transport
Co-ordinated land use and transport systems
Moderated travel demand growth
Attractive non-motorized transport
Safe and efficient road system
Efficient freight and air transport operations to support economic development
Integrated and environmentally responsible transport system
• Actions, policies and guidelines whose implementation will support the achievement
of the plan’s aims and strategic objectives
• Involvement of community in plan implementation
• Proposal for Institutional coordination and liaison – Integrated Regional Transport
Plan Implementation Group; Joint steering committee comprising representatives from
local transport authorities named as Gold Coast City transport Coordination forum;
and forum for coordination of transport planning issues by Queensland Transport
• Monitoring of targets and performance indicators through regular system
measurement
• Additionally, targeted surveys of travel patterns, regular household surveys to allow
periodic transport planning and modelling
• Periodic process for reviewing and revising plan – Regular six year review, regular
annual update of three year action plan
'*/*5* , $ 6 7,8$ 9 4 $
# - $ :%/;;3(
The Expert Working Group on Sustainable Urban Transport Plans (SUTP) was set up by the
European Commission (EC) in the context of the preparation of the ‘Thematic Strategy on
the Urban Environment’. Through the consultation of this group of highly qualified
stakeholders, the Commission sought to obtain a balanced expert advice concerning a
potential EC directive on SUTP implementation in all Member States. Expert Working
Group differentiated between SUT-Planning and SUT-Plan as indicated in figure 1.

Figure 1.1 SUT-Planning and SUT-Plan approach proposed by EC’s “Expert Working Group on
Sustainable Urban Transport Plans”
Source – EC, 2004
The expert group recommended that the SUTP policies and measures should focus on-
Reducing the need for transport – door-to-door access, land use management, promoting
mixed uses, use of information and communication technologies
Transport management – reduce congestion, rationalize use of private vehicles, modal shift,
mobility management, optimize freight transport and logistics, use of intelligent transport
systems.
Developing clean and fair transport systems – use of clean and energy efficient modes,
improvement of environment quality and road safety
Integrating transport planning with planning of other key sectors
Developing monitoring and evaluation arrangements- monitoring on the basis on
indicators, regular progress reports, evaluation by an independent agency, complementary
‘sanity check’ by involving public, stakeholders, peers.
'*/*<* 1 $ $
Review of sustainable transport plans of cities like Auckland, California, Gold Coast City
and Rockingham indicates that the general approach for preparation of Sustainable Urban
Transport Plans (SUTPs) should be as follows:

• Each city should develop a vision for its overall sustainable growth including a
vision for a sustainable transport system.
• In consonance with the city development and transport vision, the sustainable
transport plan of the city should be formulated. The proposed plan should also be in
conformity to the regional/city plans and strategies for future development of
region/city.
• In developing the plan, local community and all service providers should be
involved and their needs/concerns should be adequately addressed.
• The plan should focus on mobility of all traveller categories, should promote
balanced growth of the city and cause minimum environmental harm.
• The plan should adopt the following generic methodology:
Defining vision, guiding principles and objectives for the SUTP

Contextual analysis – Through technical studies and consultation with
community and service providers
Identification of issues
Formulation of strategies and plans
Implementation plan
Performance monitoring framework – Targets and Performance Indicators
Periodic review and revision of plan
'*2* = # - $ 0
While developing the framework to evaluate the CMPs, it is also important to ensure that
the framework includes the key suggestions of the National Urban Transport Policy
(NUTP), 2006. NUTP is a comprehensive policy document that aims to steer the transport
sector growth in cities towards sustainable pathways by emphasizing on many of the
sustainability elements of transport systems. The key features of the policy are discussed
below in order to reflect the key elements that the policy emphasizes. The framework
evolved to evaluate CMPs tries to include most of these policy points.
'*2*'* > =#-
The Government of India announced a National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP) in 2006 to
meet the challenge of India’s rapid urbanization phenomena and the resultant increase in
the urban travel demand. The policy aims at meeting the mobility needs of the current and
projected population and ensuring sustained flow of goods and people in urban areas. The
policy addresses some of the key transport problems faced by most urban areas, namely
(GoI, 2006):
• Congestion and difficulty in accessing jobs, healthcare, educational and leisure
facilities, all required to have an improved standard of living – the issue of access
and social and economic sustainability in urban areas.
• High rate of personal travel thereby increasing cost (both monetary and non-
monetary) to the urban poor, causing inequity and negative externalities to them –
the issue of mobility divide/equity.
• Threat to safety, especially to the non-motorized vehicle users, pedestrians, and
public transport users who are also pedestrians – the issue of safety.

• Increased air and noise pollution – the issue of environmental sustainability.

The policy has defined the following vision for the transport sector in cities (GoI, 2006)
• To recognize that people occupy center-stage in our cities and all plans would be for
their common benefit and well being
• To make our cities the most livable in the world and enable them to become the
“engines of economic growth” that power India’s development in the 21st century
• To allow our cities to evolve into an urban form that is best suited for the unique
geography of their locations and is best placed to support the main social and
economic activities that take place in the city
'*2*/* $$ $ =#-
The Government of India launched the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission
(JNNURM) in 2005, which aimed to rejuvenate the urban milieu through implementation of
a number of projects with active private sector participation. Cities with million-plus
population, state capitals, and cities of cultural and tourist importance were to be included
under the Mission. This major initiative sought to bring about comprehensive
improvements in urban infrastructure, by commitment of substantial funds for this purpose
and required a series of reforms that would make the investments sustainable. Some of the
policy objectives in the NUTP are being realized as proposals and projects under the
JNNURM, which has selected 63 cities (two more cities have been added recently) in India
and is implementing an urban reforms agenda of which urban transport is a component.
Each of these 63 cities has come up with a City Development Plan, which is a policy and
investment plan for the city for the next 5 years (2007-2012). Both the NUTP and the Mission
makes it conditional upon the cities to take up projects in line with the recommendations
made in the NUTP, in order to receive funding and grants. For this, each of the cities has to
come up with a Comprehensive Mobility Plan for the city.
'*2*2 > $
$ ?
,@
Road space allocation principle - focus on people and not vehicles, more space for
public transport and NMT modes
Addressing the safety concerns of cyclists and pedestrians by encouraging the

construction of segregated rights of way for bicycles and pedestrians
Strict enforcement to reduce encroachment of footpaths
$
• $ 7 7 +
2 +
• ! + 7 /
/
7 7
+

$ $
• $ + 7 /
+ +
• . 7 + 7
+ %/ 2 + %/
@ 7 @
• # 7 7 7
7 +
= -
• $ + 7( !
• 7 7 % 7+ 7 7%
+ 7/ 7 7
/
• 7 3
$ $
• * 7 7 +
7 A
7 7 %7 7
+ 7 B 7
+ 2
7 7 /
7 + 7 + + C+ %
-
7 7
7 + 3 7 + +
7
• 7 7 (,% % / 7 7
/ /
7 @ 7 +
+
$
• 7% 7
7 ) ! ) !
7 +
+ +
6 ! + . ' #/0!" + . , ,'

', 1 2 # # . + ' + . ', , '+
+3
7 7 +
+
• 7 + 7
+ 7
+ $ $
• $ + + D :
• $ + + + 7
• 6 7 7 7 ?
? B 7 7 + +
/ 7
7
$ $ $
• $ + + % A % 7
'*3* =
The Prime Minister’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) outlines the
desired actions within the transport sector that would influence energy efficiency and
would help reduce transport emissions. The component on urban transport under the
National Mission on Sustainable Habitat in the NAPCC emphasizes the need for a modal
shift towards public transport and better urban planning for reducing the need to travel and
to shorten travel distances The mitigation measures are to be supported by a combination of
fiscal and regulatory measures, including proper R&D and capacity building. Proper
transport pricing, taxes and charges, apart from raising revenue for governments, are
expected to influence the choice of transportation modes as well as the travel demand and
trip patterns. These pricing measures will also influence purchase and use of vehicles in
respect of fuel efficiency and fuel choice.
The Mission7 suggests setting up of Unified Metropolitan Transport Authorities in all
million plus cities, besides setting up of Traffic Information Management Control Centres in
all million plus cities for better traffic management to reduce congestion and idling of
vehicles. The mission supports granting financial assistance on the basis of reform based
agenda like that of JNNURM. It proposes similar dedicated central urban transport fund
through levy of cess on private vehicles and fuels and then direct the funds to states and
cities to implement transport related reforms. The mission also advocates the need for
capacity building measures in urban transport sector in order to respond to the growing
challenges in the sector.
The recommendations of the NAPCC will be taken into consideration while developing the
framework to evaluate the CMPs.
7 ! + 4 1 ' 5' + ', + +

'*5* $ + ,
Figure 1.2 Development of CMP evaluation framework
WJ DALHDIL*A3LAXJ AY7Z O P%QR

# O,U-R/V0V
EIEDHJ CHK@ A LAS(FBBACTHD*J FCE LAS(FBBACTHD*J FCE1GFL
D*LHCEMFLDTAG*J CJ D*J FCE9[ ILKHCD*LHCEMFLD
S(FCS(AMDE9[:M@ HCE E(ASDFL
?@ ABAC DE FGHEIED HJ CHK@ ADLHCEMFLDE NEDAB
V-\R<AXH@ IHDJ FC=GLHBAY-FL]
Based on the above discussion on elements of a sustainable transport system, sustainable

transport plans for cities and recommendations of India’s NUTP and NAPCC, a framework
has been developed to evaluate the CMPs being prepared for Indian cities (figure 2). The
framework is discussed below.
'*5*'* , .
'*5*'*' ,
Each city should formulate a vision for overall sustainable development. City Development
Plan (CDP) is expected to formulate such a vision for the city, which can guide all strategies
and actions for future growth of the city. To start with, an analysis should be done to check
if:
• A vision for future development of the city has been formulated in the CDP?
• If yes, is this vision being able to encompass all three pillars of sustainability (social,
economic and environmental) and strives to achieve sustainable growth of the city?
'*5*'*/ , .
In addition to overall city vision, CDP also formulates specific goals/objectives and
sometimes even vision statements for transport sector growth. The CMP is also formulating
a vision/goal to guide the future development of transport sector. The vision defined in
CMP should ideally be in consonance with the vision of overall city development and
transport sector development as defined in the CDP for the city. A critical analysis should be
made to evaluate if the visions in CDP and CMP are in line with each other; if not, the gaps
should be identified.
'*5*'*2 , $
It is believed that a vision in the right direction can yield the desired results. It is therefore
important to evaluate the vision for transport sector defined in the CMP. The vision should
be in line with:

• The definition of sustainable transport system as defined previously – ‘a transport

system where every individual or traveller category in a city is able to fulfill their
mobility needs in a quick, affordable, safe, reliable, comfortable, energy efficient and
environmentally benign manner’;
• The key focus area of NUTP- ‘people should occupy center-stage in our cities and all
plans would be for their common benefit and well being’; and
• The objectives of the National Mission on Sustainable Habitat of the NAPCC i.e.
promote energy efficiency and reduce emissions from transport sector.
'*5*/* , $ $ $
For a city transport plan to be successful in terms of reflecting and addressing the needs and
challenges of all categories of commuters, operators and planners, it is important that the
process for preparing the plan is both scientific and participatory. It should adopt sound
technical approach (data, methods and tools) and include all key stakeholders in the process
in order to address their needs and challenges. CMP preparation process should be
evaluated to analyze if such a comprehensive approach has been adopted or not. If, yes,
then are there any issues with regard to this approach adopted for the city.
'*5*2* ,
The CMP as a future guiding document for transport sector development in the city should
be able to encompass all sustainable mobility elements and translate the same into sound
strategies that help achieve sustainable mobility objectives for the city. Based on the
definition/concept of sustainable mobility, review of sustainable transport plans of cities,
recommendations of NUTP and NAPCC, a framework has been developed to evaluate
transport strategies recommended in the CMP from the perspective of sustainable mobility
parameters. The framework is discussed in the following section:
'*5*2*' A @
CMP strategies should be driven by the objective of providing and improving access (motorized and
non-motorized) to all individuals, businesses and traveller categories (including vulnerable groups,
such as urban poor, physically challenged, women, children, elderly, etc.) to schools, health facilities,
markets, recreation facilities and employment opportunities. The CMP should also target a transport
system design that considers all traveller categories equitably and is not biased towards one specific
traveller category like car users.
The term ‘Access’ used here implies both physical and financial access-
•
•
To evaluate whether the CMP promotes access and equity, the strategies proposed in the
• 7 @ 3 + %
/ ( !
• 7 + D
7 D / 7 /

+ 7( ! 7 7%
7 7 + D
% /
• # 7 + / +
7
• 7 %/ %
7 D % 7 % 7
% - + +
7
• $ 7 + 7 7
7 / % / 7 + 7 1
# +
" 7 / D
7 /
7 /
+
2 @
( 1 ( !/ + 7 +
+ -! /
E" 7 " + F -
'*5*2*/ A
CMP strategies should aim towards providing safe and secure mobility environment to all city
residents, which implies that the transport system:
•
•
To evaluate whether the CMP promotes safety and security, the strategies proposed in the
• + 7 7 7 7 / @
: +
• + 7 + + 7 % 2
2 % 7 7 % 7 7% 7 7 %
7 % 7
% -
• " 7
• / % % +
7 7 + D / % % % +
+ 7 % -

'*5*2*2 A,
CMP should aim towards having minimal impact of transport activities on environmental quality
and local ecosystems and reducing its energy consumption levels, which implies that the transport
system:
•
•
•
• !
To evaluate whether the CMP aims to promote environmental friendliness and low energy
use, the strategies proposed in the CMP should be evaluated to analyze if the CMP gives
recommendations such us:
• 7
+ 7
, + + 3
7 + % 7 ( ! /
% + @ 7 + ( !
77 7 $ ! D
77 @ + %
+ % % %
3 7 7%
7
# $ ! + + +
• 7( !
7 7 % 7+ 7 7%
+ 7/ 7 7
/
7 3
7 2
( 1 7 7 7 / E F
-! 7 7 7 / / ( !- !
+ -
• ) 7 + 7
+ 3 7 +
7 % 7% 7 7
$ + 7 + B + 7
2
o 7 A
o 7 7 %7 7 %
+

o + 7
o 7 7 /
o 7 + 7 + + C+
% -
o 7 7
" 7 + 7
• 7 + D /
% + $ !+ 7 + @
D + 7
+ 7 +
7
7
( 1 7 + + D 7 7
B % -
'*5*3* , $ $ $
! 7 2 7 : D
+ -
7 / + / 71
$
$ 7 G 2
/ -
: G
-
7 + -7- & H
0 7 7 G$ % 7
/ + G
* GI
+ G
+
I 7 : G
I 7 7 G
( )! 7 ) ! ) !
-$ 7 7 ) ! GI
) ! / / 7+ G
$
I 7 + +
7G @ G

$
* 7 + + % 7
+ / 7 7 + /
$ / 7 + /
+ G

/* $ >
8/*'? . > $
. $ %. ( 5 5
/ ( ) # / ( ( )# %
7 + @ &0
-! * 77 7
+ -
$ % ( 5 7 7
/ 7 7 - + 7 + %
$ * + 6 9 -
, $ 7 + -9 - = 5 * +
.
/*'* , .
/*'*'* , .
* 5 + 7 7 / -
8 /*/ B > . ! "# $
% & ' ( )
15 *
! + + + + @ 2 7
+ %/ / + -$
+ % / + / 7 7 /
+ 7 7 + 7% / 7 +
+ -! + 7 + -
$ + + % / + %
+ + 7 %/ 7
+ -< / + % 7 + % * 7
+ + + +
+ 2 A 7 7 -
8 /*2?4 $ . 3 E#
&' (
*+*,) 15 *
% * + 7
%/ /
@ 7 / -$
7 % % %
+ + -

$ -!
/*'*/ , $
! + 5 + 7
E 7 + A F
% A - ! +
7 / + + @
+ / + 7 + -
8/*3 B 0 0>
B $ > ?
E 7 + A 7+
7 2 % %
-
! + + 7 F +
+ F@ / + -F
4 ?
JE % 7 %/ + @ %
+ 7 A 7 5 -
J + + A 7
+ @ 5 -
J + %
7 -F
7 1
E 7 7
$ + @
$ + @
$ + + F
?
J E! A 7 +
J! + 2 0
J! % 7 +
J! 7 +
J! 7 + + ( 2
? ( ? + 7
J! % +
• To analyze and recommend development of Integrated Mass Transport System
• To recommend institutional changes and implementation mechanisms to enhance customer
experience, reduce trip lengths and transportation modes’
Source: Kolkata CMP

"+ 7 + / 7
+ +
+ % % % % -
< / + / + 7
% 7 @
-
! 7 + A - % + 7 +
@ % + 7
+ - ! 7 + +
/ % +
% / / + @ -
7 A + + D7 % + 7
+ 7 / %/
/ ( )! -
. -'
, 7 : + 7 % %
7
A + + + -!
7 / 7 7 7
+ @ 7 B
F + @ 2 %
+ %
-$ + / 7 F
7 2 % / 7 -
7 2 D @ - - 7 7 7
7% / 7 7 -$
7 7 - E % 7
/ % + / % + % 7 $ 7
! $! / % 7 7 7
F 5 * % =-
? + 7 7 / +
7 - + // +
7 - $ 5 % +
7 + / B 7 + +
+ D7 +
+ -! 7 + +
+ 7 + %
$ + 7 + +
+ 7 F 4 7 * / * 4F
7 0 7 - -
8 66***3 + 3 6
' . + 6
# +
+ + ' $% %3
9 7 )3$%% . .+ 7 * . ' ' 3

Figure 2.1 Integrated mobility concept proposed in Kolkata CMP
Source: Kolkata CMP
Figure 2.2 Translation of vision into plan strategies in Kolkata CMP
1 7 7 5

/*'*2 , " .
Figure 2.3 Evaluating consistency in vision/goal statements in CDP and CMP
Source: TERI analysis for this study

+ + *
+ 7 -' -
+ D7 *
+ -! 7
7 / + + *
- / 7 + *
7 + + 7
+ -
1
/*/* , $ $ $
! + 5 -$
+ + A 7
7 A 7 7 +
% / : % + 7
: D -4 %
7+ A 7 -
+ 7 7 7 %
/ % % %
% -! + 7
7 -I 5 %
-$ % + D +

+ / 7 / 7
+ 7 7
- % %/
/ + 7
-
2 3
& -'
/*2* ,
! 7 7 +
7 + : + -
5 / 7
/ 7 -
/*2*' A @
,
,@ 5 @ / 7
7 -$ ( ! -$ 7+
+ 7 -! 7
7 7 + % /
A + ( ! + -! / +
#. I - ! 7 7 + 7 > 1
+ 7 + = 1 B 7 2
: + 7 7
+ + 7 + 7 7
7 2 /
H 7 -8 -
@ + 2
2 + 7 @ -!
+ / + ( !
+ 7 % 7 % % -!
+ 7 + 7
+ 7 -5 7+ 7 + 7 B
+ + A / %
( ! A -
%/ 7 + 7 + 7
% %
+ + %
% +
F + -$ % 7
/ 7 % 7 /
7 1

• $ * >>0
• ( 4 7
• , +
3 >>=% - -I -* -% )
" %$
• * *
• * , 4 7 6 * , % >>=
• $ 4 7
I 7 + 7 % + D A
( ! A
B % / 7
+ 7 -!
+ 7 + + 7 + D
/ / 7
/ % + 7( !
77 ( ! + %
/ -5 7+ /
7 %( ! 7 -
& -'
4
5' #
, $ $
$ " "$ $
projects/studies/proposals - Access and equity
$
$ " "$ $
D : ! %
+ + %( ! @ / 7 7
7 : 7 ( !
7 -
$ + D : .+ + D
+ % ( ! / + 7
( ! -
7 + 3 7
7
/ 7

+ %
+ /
/ 7
: + G
1!"#$
# 6 -' -' )
7 8
6 9
6 -'
$ $ $
,
$ 7 7 7
$ - 7
7 2 7 %
( ! % 2 + % - /
7 + @ -5
+ / +
/ / + -!
7 A 7 + -$
! . * + / + 7 6 # 7/
7 7 -! +
/ + + / +
7 7- 4 7 7 / %
5 + @ 7 / 7
5 # 7 7 A 7
@ 7 7 -
( & -'

, $ $
$ " "$ $
projects/studies/proposals – Integrated land use and transport development
$
$ " "$ $
7 ! A
+ !. * !. * 7 %/ !. *
* ( : D ( D : %
+ 7
D 7 /
/ +
+ /
1!"#$
& -' 9
-'
2 :
6 -'
/*2*/ A
,
+
+ 7 % 7 2 2 -
( ! 7 B
7 + +
( ! - %( ! + +
+ A 7 / + 7 2
7 7 D 7 7 + 7
2 /- 5 / 0%
-5 7
( ! -$ 7 7 + ( ! /
+ A 7 %/ + %
-$ E 7 F
/ + +
7 .
I 7 + 7 + + %
7 7 % 7 % 7 7% +
7 -

. ( ! % 7 B
5 7+ 7
% E + +
+ F-
!$ % / 7
+ -!
/ 7 -, %+ 7 / % % % -
/ 7 % ( !
- 7 + + -
7 5 + 7 +
% F / +
- * + / 7
% -
-
& -'
4
5' # 8
, $ $
$ " "$ $
projects/studies/proposals – Safety and security
$
$ " "$ $
7 7 / : 7 % '0 / :
( ! + / '0 - / 7 7 ( ! / + %
A 7 / + 7 7 A 7 / 7 7 ( !
- / + %/ 7 7
+ /% + ( ! + A 7
( :
-
+
7
A 7
( ! 2 ( : D 7 % 7
7+ ( ! 2
% D
7 ( : -!
+ + 7

( ! 2 %
0 :
- - +
+ / /
/ / % / $
@ -
# 7 7 D 7 D ( : : + + %
7 7D 2 ( ! +
+ -
D 7
+
( : E F -
< / + % 7 :
-
7 ( 7 % 7 +
+ % +
+ 7 -!
7 / D -

( -'
6
/*2*2 A,
/*2*2*' $
,
$
7 - A + / @
+ 7 -5
A + 7 % 7
!# % % % -$ 7+
+ A
+ 7 -4 7 + %
+
+ @ 7 ;+% 7 ;;% %
;* -
10 7 ' * +
+ * ' + * + -
' # # +
38 - 4"
11 9 + , '+ * ' . . - 38 - 4"
12 " + . . . . . +
+ #+ ,38 - 4"

! 7
/ + / 7 E 7 : F
A B/ / 7
-$ 1
• 7 7E $ 7 F %
• 2 %
• + 7 + 7 %
• 7 %
• + 7 7 -
• 7 %
• /
% -
! + 7 +
+ % + 7
7 %+ % A + 7 / +
7 % -$
+
+ -
.+ % 5 F 7+ 7 + 7
A + @ -$ 7 % %
@ % + -! / + % /
/ 7+ -$ 77 7
/ ( ! $ ! -I
7 7 7 / 7
7 % + + + 7
+ - % 7 $ !
+ + + -
& -'
5' #
4#

, $ $
$ " "$ $
projects/studies/proposals – Promoting mass transport
$
$ " "$ $
* + D) : "
7 + D 7 % + B :
7 9#!% + D A -
+
7 + @ + %
@ +
/ : 7 : +
+ 7 A / : 7
7 + -
$ 7 / : $ : 7
7 % 7 % 7 B +
7 + D : -
$ + 7 ( : 7 +
% :
+ -
1!"#$
# 6 -'
8
:
-'
/*2*2*/ = -
,
%5 7 7 # I ( !
/ / + A 7 B /
( ! 7 7 / /
2 / -5
/ ( ! + @
+ 7 / -$
A + 2 7 ( !
/ 2 -$
7 ( ! -! / F
/ 7 + -

& -' 5' #

8 5' #
"+ 7
: D D
projects/studies/proposals – Promoting NMT
$
$ " "$ $
7 7 # I / : / + 7 7
( ! / '0 - # I ( ! -! / :
/ + 7 7 A + 7 7
# I -< / + %
7 +
7 %
% - -! + / :
7 7 7 ( !# I
: + - %
+ 7 D : +
7 -
7 7 # I ( : A 7 D /
( ! A 7 7 7 # I ( ! +
-
$ ( ! ( . :
/ + + / /
7 ( ! / -( D
+ 7 ( ! / - %
A / D +
/ / + $ -
! % + + 7
7 + 7
+ 7 -
6 ( ! . + 7 % @
7 + ( ! 7
7 ( ! % :
-
"A + 2 A E( F2

( ! 2 ( : D 7 % 7
7+ ( ! 2
% D
-
1!"#$
# 5' # 6
/*2*2*2 $ $
,
7 % + 7 7
+ % 7 -
5 7 + / 7 + %
+ 7 !* 7
+ + -
! 7 +
%5 + 7 :
• 7 + + 4* 7
7
• 7 + / 7 @ +
4*
• + 7 2
• 2 7 A 7 /
• + 7
• 7
• $! $ 7 !
• 7
4 % 7 % / 7
+ B 7
7 7 7- $ 7 7
7 + -
! +
+ 7 7 + 7 % +
7 % A % -$ + 7+ /
+ 7 7 + + 7 2 -< / + %
-
& -'
8

, $ $
$ " "$ $
projects/studies/proposals – Traffic demand management
$
$ " "$ $
# 7+ 7 7 +
+ 7+ + B@
+ 7
7 @ + -$
+ 7 + / +
-
! 7 / ! !?
7 $! 7 7
$! + -$ %
7E F 7
7 -
/ 7%
<.? % 2 %
7, A %
-! :
7 +
-
" .
!? /
$ + ( : 7 %
7 : D +
+ -
+ 7
+ ( :
7
< 7 7 ( :
1!"#$

& -' 9
8 6
/*2*2*3 $ 0$ -
@
,
5 7 2 + 7
-$ / )9 *
7 + ;<- $ 77
+ D )9 * 7
/ + A - / + %
+ / + 7 @ 7
D 7 7 % )9 * ;=- % 7
7 + % + 7+ 7 D @ ;,%
-% 7 7 7 - -
& -' 4# 9
, $ $
$ " "$ $
projects/studies/proposals – Clean alternative fuels
$
$ " "$ $
+ $
D )9 *
7
$ 7
/ + / + %E F
/ A% A
13
All modes of transport, existing and proposed, would use non-polluting sustainable energy sources like
electricity, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) with diesel particulate
filters (Kolkata CMP)
14
City governments, on their own, cannot take a decision to start using ULSD without consulting Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas.
15
These topics are not under the jurisdiction of city governments

+ A $
" + ( I + / 7
"$ 7D 7
: 7 %
-
1!"#$
-'
8
/*2*2*5
,
# 7 2 7 %5
7 + -$ + 7 7
% 7 + % 7 7
7 % % -
2 / + -! /
7 + -
-'
, $ $
$ " "$ $
projects/studies/proposals – Promoting efficient freight movement
$
$ " "$ $
* + 7 / 7/
7 D
% 7
7
+ % 7 7
7
%
-' 6

/*3* , $ $ $
$
! 7 -!
+ : D /
7D 2 -! 7
+ %/ @ + 7 7
-
-'
-
! 7 + 7> H 0%
/ / + + 7 + -
< / + % 7 /
/ / + : G
4 % 7 % 7
( ! % 7 % + % - - %
%
/ 7 -
-' 5
@
I 7 % 7 2
7 + B @ # -
%8 + -! 7 +
@ % 77 % * +
% + 7
+ 2 7 / % % 7 % -$
% % E7 F
7 + -
-'
5 7 2 7 / 7
7 + -$ % E !
7 % % % % %$ !
F- $ / ( )! % 77
35 ! 4 +
A 7 + -$ 77
7 +
-$ E / 5 !
4 A% 5 $ 7 ! +

/ F- ! A /
/ 2 : + -
& -'
8 5' #
$
4 7 %5
@ 7 1
• ! " 7 7 7
• $ 7 E$! F ! ! 7
• 7 7 6
• , ! 7 $ * +
• ! 7
• ! 7 !
• * + ! 7
• # ) " 7 7
• # ) "
5
$
5 + +
7 / 7 7
-$ 7 + + % 7
+ / 7 7
+ / -
/*5* C >
! + 5
: + - % /7
: 2 -!
2 7 7+
7 / + / 7 -
/*5*' 4 $ "
• 5 + +
-! + 7
7 +
+ -
• + + -$
7+ 7
7 D 7
+ -

• 5 7 7 / 5
• 7+ + ( !
• ! ( ! +
D / 7
• 7+ + 7
7 % % 9#!%
• + $ !
• ! + + 7
• 5 / 5
! 4 A% 5 $ 7 !
+ / -!
- -5 ! 4 / ) !
( )! -
/*5*/
6 + + /
+ 7 7 7
2 F 7 -
+ + 7
3 -7- + 7 + % +
% -
+ B
: + +
7 :
+ ! 7 /
7 7 / -!
-!
7 %
% 7 / D % -
5 ( !
B / + %
: -! % + :
-

$ 7 : 7 /
/ ( ! $ ! $ ! B -7- 7$ !
% 7
% -
$ ! A + + @
+ B -7- 7$ ! +
% -
( ! ( ! ( !
7 :
# + : ( !
77
* 7
+ + B -7- 7 7 7
7 % + 7 %
-
! 7 ! 7
:
+ 7 D 7 7 -
+ +
77
? 7 +
7/ -
7 +
7/ 7 : +
! 7
+
/ D
+ -

$
To ensure successful implementation, it is important that the identified projects in CMP
are also allocated budget; table 2.9 below maps the identified projects in Kolkata CMP
with budget allocation.
Table 2.9 Are identified projects in Kolkata CMP allocated budget?
# : K
6 + D 7 D K
K
9#! K
K
6 K
4 K
: 7 % 7 % 7
#
E( F2 L
K
$! L
5' #
+ / / K
4 7 L
! D 7 K
7 K
Most of the projects identified in the CMP have been allocated budget. The highest
allocation is for public transport projects followed by road projects (figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4 – Estimated costs of identified projects/proposals in Kolkata CMP
Passenger/go o ds
Truck terminals
Rail terminals
Walkways/Underpasses
Impro vement o f railway statio ns
Bus terminals
LRT
M etro rail
Sub-urban rail
Off-street parking pro jects
Area-wide traffic impro vement

schemes
Seco ndary ro ads
A rterial ro ads
Highways
B ridges
Flyo vers/Underpasses
Elevated ring ro ad
A rterial ro ads (with pedestrian and

bicycle lanes)
Expressways/Highways
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Estim ated cost (Rs. in crores)
Note- Cost estimates of all identified projects/proposals have not been given in the CMP

2* $ D $
82*'? . D $
. $ %. (
7 + / ( ) # / ( ( )# %
7 + @ -
! * / &% / /
7 + + -!
7/ % / 7 % / 7 % %
+ % 7% -! +
+ % F 7 / % 7 / 7 % 7
+ % 7 + -! 7
7 F 7 / -
$ % (
7 I * + *
-! / * 7 7
7 / - % @ ( ( )# % 7
+ : @ 7 + 7
- + +
7 7 / -
2*'* , .
2*'*' , .
82*/?B D $ . A ">
) 1 *
! + + * / +
7 / / 7
+ 7 -! +
A + + /
7 - ! + + +
% + / + 7 +
@ 7 @ - !
+ + %
/ E 99F- 4 + 7 @
% +
/ 7 7 + 7 -

8 2*2?B $ . 3 "#
)
- $ . 3 "# ;++? *+;;)

1 *
% * + +
7 + + @ - $
+ % @ %
% % -
# -!
2*'*/ , $
82*3?B 0D $
B $ > ?
E! / + 7 /
+
-F
E + % + F
?
E$ 7 +
$ +
$ +
$ 7
$ + +
# 7
# F
! / / + 7 E
F E+ F % ( )
! % & ( )! - ! + +
7 @ - $ + 7
+ -
! + % / + % 7 /
+ 7 - $ does not indicate
% % + % % %

+ -! + F
+ 7 +
-! : + 7
% @ B / + % +
7 : +
+ + -
$ 7 +
7 7 B / + % +
: + + A 7
- 7% + / 7 +
: + / 7 7
-
# > -' 5@# " 7
) 6
2*'*2 , " .
1!"#$
+ % * + +
+ B / + + - 7
+ + *
7 + 7 - -
! + / -
2*/* , $ $ $
! A -$
/ + 7 / *
+ + A + 7 -
! + / @ %
/ + :
%/ 7 -!

/ / %
77 7 F + 7 -! %
/ + % 7 7 + 7 / 7
-! 7 /
+ + -
+ / % + + A +
/ - -7
D -I + / %
@ 7 +
+ -
# 8
2*2* ,
2*2*' A @
,
,@ $ + % +
+ %/ @
7 -$ / + %
7 7 +
+ 7 %/ / + :
-! @
7 D ( !
-$ E F
E A 2 7 7 F 7 ( !% +
+ -4 % 7 +
+ ( ! @ 7
( ! -$ 7 + 0 H '0H
( ! 2 -
1 > -'
, $ $
$ " "$ $
! 7 @
D : -! + @ 7
: A 77+
+ - = H + @
B 7 : D 7+ +
-


projects/studies/proposals - Equity
$ $ " "$ $
+ @ : +
+ ( !
7 +
6 -'
-'
,
3 + / %
@ + 7 -# +
/ + 7 % + D( !%
+ 7 % - / +
-< / + %/ 7
+ 7 7 % %
% -% D 7 + -
I 7 %
+ +
-! A
/ -I 7 %/
+ A + ( ! /
% + /
7 -
2 5' #
, $ $
$ " "$ $
projects/studies/proposals - Access
$
$ " "$ $
$ + @ : ( : D D7 +
+ D + -
%( !
! 7 :
+ + 7
+ + -

( 6 -'
$ $ $
,
7 7 7
7
-$ 7
+ % + /7 / +
7 -! 7 + + / /
2 + 7 + -
! 7 + 2
+ + 7 -
$ / A + @
/ B/ / 7 + -
-'
, $ $
$ " "$ $
projects/studies/proposals – Integrated land use and transport development
$
$ " "$ $
# 7 ( : D 7 + /
A 7 + % D :
-
$ + % ( :
+ /
7 /
* + ( : D ! /
7 / -
# 7 : 2
+ 7 +

. 6 #
6 9
6 -'
2*2*/ A
,
+ / %
+ 7 % ( ! -
+ / ( ! -$
7 7 ( ! 2 % 7/ @
( ! 7 %
7 % % - -$ 7 7 :
+ % 7 7 % 7 7% 7 % - /
+ + -
! + : + : :
-$ 7 $ ! 7
-$ 7 +
/ 7 -!
7 +
-
I 7 + 7 %
- 7+
+ +
-6 -7- / * 7
7 7 /
% -
> -'
8
, $ $
$ " "$ $
$
$ " "$ $
7 7 ( ! : + A + /
% / % / -
/ + 7 7
( !

( ! 2 : ! 7 7
+ 7 ( ! - "A / / 7
7 $ %
7 + % -$ + +
:
% % - 7 % % -
7 % 7 %
7 -
-
! 7 7 :
:
7 7 % 7 % -
$# 7
/
# + ! 7 /
( ! I + + -!
! I
+ 7 / / + -
/
< / 7
" E# F
7 7
1!"#$
6 -' -'
2*2*2 A,
2*2*2*' $
,
A
B + 7 A -
6 7 %
% 2 7 -$ A
+ / -
! + 7 @ + B
7 + 7/ +
@ $! - 7
7 %
$! -

+ 7 B
+ % 7 / $ ! ( ! % +
@ 7 + %$ ! ( ! -
> -'
, $ $
$ " "$ $
$
$ " "$ $
/ : : 4#! % % %
/ + D A D + % 7 % 7%
% %
7 A 7
B : +
- /
$ # / / -
$! ( : ( : $! -
$ + ( : +
:
+ 7
( !% $ !% -
1!"#$
' -' 3
6
2*2*2*/ = -
,
% 7 7
( !/ / - + ( !
+ 7 7% 7 7
7 % + + % -4 %
/ A + + ( !-

! 7 / /
7
2 -! % / + % A +
7 7+ 7 7% + 7/
7 % 7 ( ! + + +
7 ( !-
A 5' #9
5' #
, $ $
$ " "$ $
$
$ " "$ $
* ( : $ : %7
( ! 7 7 % / % %:
+ % 7 / 7 % -
< / + % / 7 7
7 7 ( ! B
7 7
$ + + ( !
( : 7 7 + 7
( !
# 5' # 6 -' 3 5' #

# 6 5' #
2*2*2*2 $ $
,
% 7 + %
B + +
+ 7 + A 7 - +
7 7 7 ( ! -
4 % 1

• ) 7 7 7 + +
• +
• 77 % 2 /
• 7
• ) $! 7 7 3 7 2
• . / + /
• /
• # 77 +
! + !* / 7 % / + %
7 +
7 7% A% -% / / 7 + -
# -' 9
, $ $
$ " "$ $
$
$ " "$ $
! 7 7 :
7 7 ( :
7 % +
7+
( :
7 ( :
) $! 7 7 :
3 7
2
. / +
/
:
/
1!"#$

6 9
2*2*2*3 $ 0$ -
+
9 ,% (, -< / + % 7
/ / + 7
D 7 7 % % -- @ %
: D 7
- % 7 7
+ 7 7 @ -
( -'
<<<,
,
7 2 7 +
+ + 7 1
• 7 7 7 7 3
• 7 +
• * + 7
• # 7 7
> -'
, $ $
$ " "$ $
$ $ " "$ $
* + :
D 7
) #
! * +
7 + ( :
1!"#$

' 6 -'
2
6
2*3* , $ $ $
4
/ -
+ : D - 7 : D
/ 7 -
! + -!
+ % %( ! %
7 7 -!
( ! %/ 7 7 7 -
! 7 7+ A ( !
-
-' 7
#
7 + -4
' % 7 1
• 0 H '0H ( ! % +
• 7 $ !+
• H + 7 /
• M
! 7 A +
7 -
# -' :
'
@ # - 8%
: ' -! + 7 / 7
+ 1
•, + 6 / 7 7 + %
7 + ) ! 6
:
• + 7 7 :
• 7 +
-'

4
$ =% 7 + ) !
) ! /
? ? ! + D ! 9
+ + -
! 7 1
• ! ! 7 # 7 ! #
+
< + 7
I 7 / 7 + +
I 7 7 + 3
: + ! #
I 7 3
/ D+ 7
#
/ /
# 7 7 7
% 7 % + '0
B @' #( 1# - -' 4
@' #( 1# -#
@' #(
• ! 3* +
%
% 7 % + '0
/ +
3 / %
'
• ! '3$
+ / + /
7 7 + B +
% 7
# : # ! # #! 3 7%
+ % +
+ $ # /
! 3 7
I * 3

# 7 ! . #!. 3 7
#
$
! 7 7 % 7
7 % + % 7 %
-! 7 7 B
/ + A 7 + /
+ -
( -' -'
$
+ / 7
+ '0 -
2*5* C D $
! 2 7 D
-4 7
7+ 7 / + / 7 -
2*5*' 4 $ "
• 7 :
@
• + 7 7 /
7 7
• @ @ : +
+
• ! + 7 : /
7 + 7 % %
%@ 7
• + +
• / /
• / -
+ : D - 7
: D /
7
• ! 7 + 2
• 7
o ! ! 7 # 7 ! #
o ! 3* +
o ! '3$

2*5*/
Recommendations
Vision statements The vision statement in the CMP needs to be made more
comprehensive to include all parameters of sustainable mobility. This
can be done when the Plan is revised/updated
CMP needs to ensure that it helps in achieving the vision for overall
city development and transport sector set in the CDP
Plan preparation Involvement of general public needs to be ensured in plan making

process process. Future revisions in the Plan need to ensure this.
Access Provide measures/design guidelines to improve accessibility of

vulnerable traveller categories including urban poor; for e.g. ensuring
compliance of transport project designs with standards on universal
access, physical connectivity of slums by public transit routes, etc.
Land use and Undertake studies/projects to pilot the concept of transit oriented growth
transport integration in the city; translate these concepts to city land use plan.
Security Measures to promote security of transport users are needed. These may
include passenger information systems, separate coaches in public
transit modes, integration of hawkers/informal sector, etc.
Public transit ICT needs to be used extensively to improve quality of public transit
services; for e.g. using ICT to provide real time information on public
transit to users, etc.
NMT Projects for provision of supporting infrastructure for NMT users need
to be identified and implemented
A NMT cell needs to be set up and made responsible for all NMT
related planning and projects

Traffic/demand A package of demand restraint measures needs to be identified for the

management city to reduce use of private vehicles; for e.g. congestion charging in
some identified congested areas, limited availability of parking spaces,
etc.
Alternative fuels Detailed strategies need to be formulated to promote use of clean fuels
including provision of supporting infrastructure for fuel supply.
Vehicular pollution Mechanisms for monitoring performance of in-use vehicles need to be

put in place along with strict enforcement of the same.
Institutional Linkages between UMTA and STPRC are not clearly defined in the
arrangements and CMP. It is not clear if UMTA will continue or its functions will be taken
capacity building over by STPRC. The performance/functions of UMTA should be
evaluated to identify need for restructuring/merging.
The third tier (for implementation) should be regulated by and work in

close coordination with the first two tiers.
Detailed capacity building program should be proposed

$
are also allocated budget; table 3.9 below maps the identified projects in Jaipur CMP
Table 3.9 Are identified projects in Jaipur CMP allocated budget?
5' #
: + % / K
K
/ 7 7 ( ! K
: + 7 7 K
1
! 7 7
o : + K
o : 7 7 % 7 % - K
E# F 7 L
/ K
I + +
7 / L
) $! 7 7 3 7 2
: + D A D +
o #! K
o 4#! K
o 4 7 D D D K
o K
o $ K
: + 7 ( !% $ !% - K
( : K
6 + D) D#. 4 D#)4 D! K
* + D 7 K
Most of the projects identified in the CMP have been allocated budget. Public transport projects
have been allocated the highest share of the budget (figure 3.2)

Figure 3.2 – Estimated costs of identified projects in Jaipur CMP
Bus
Terminals
Truck
Parking
Parking
Inter-modal
Mono rail
Public transport
MRTS
BRTS
Bus fleet/shelters
management
Area schemes
Traffic
Traffic & pedestrian management
Footpaths/drains/Pedestrian
NMT
crossings
Flyovers/Underpass/ROBs/tunnels
Roads
New links/ring road
Road improvements
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Estimated cost (in Rs. crores)

3* $ >
83*'? . >
. $ %. ( 5 ( ( )#
5 -! 7 %
: 7 7 7 7 / -I
2 &% 7 / % %
+ %7 7 + + + -$ 7
-
% ( 5 / 5 ) * +
: 5 )* % *4 : -! : + +
5 75 -! E) $
+ $ + F : -! / 2 &
7 7 / : 7
7 -! : : 7
5 )* ( ( )# -
3*'* , .
3*'*' , .
8 3*/?B > . !"
4# 7 ) 15 *
* 5 + 7 7 /
7 7 -! + 7 +
7 / @ + / 7
/ 7 + -$ / + % A
+ 2
7 / -! +
7 7 + 7 / -
$ & -!
9
8 3*2?4 $ . 3E
) 1
5 *

6 % 5 * + 7
@ % % / 7 + 7
+ -$ 7+
7 7 @ + -
! 7 * +
7 7 + 5 -
$ -!
3*'*/ , " $
! A + 7 5
-( / % / +
+ % % +
-$ % / + % 7
+ + 7 A 7
- $ 7 7 %
7 + A
+ / 7 7 +
7 / - "A +
+ ( ! %
7 7 + % @ 7
7 / ( )! ( <
( -
& -' #
83*3 B 0 $ >
B
! + 5 -
! : + - < / + %
+ 7 A 7 7 7
@ -
$ ?
$ 7 B 7
+ B 2 + 77
2 B 7 / + -
1 : B 7 B
7 B 7 / / 7 + B
/ 7 @ / + 7 B+ B
B B B
+ / 7 / B 7
B + @
B 7 7+ B
/ -

3*'*2 , " " .
Figure 4.1 Evaluating consistency in vision/goal statements/key focus areas in CDP and CMP
1!"#$
+ D
+ * +
7 8- - ! * +
/ %/ + +
+ - I * + + 7 /
% + /
+ + +
-
5
3*/* , $ $ $
! 7 A 5 -$ %
/ + % 7 + + F A 7
7 7 7 + % /
+ 7 % + 7
: - !
7 -
# -' 3
8
3*2* ,
5 / 7
/ 7 -

3*2*' A @
,
,@ 5 + +
/ 7 @
-! F A + +
%/ @ + -
$ 7 % + %/
7 @ B / + %
/ -
& -' :
3 @ 2 2
+ 7 - 5 7 7
+ A : 7
+ + %
-4 % +
/ + + 7 -4
% 7 2
% + + 7 -
& -' 8
9
, $ $
$ " "$ $
$
$ " "$ $
* + D + ( : ( :
/
2 % +
* + :
+ D + + 7 -
& -' 6 9 6

$ $ $
,
5 7 7 +
- $ +
7 / 7 -! A + /
A / + - ! 7
7 / % 7 + / 7 / %
+ % 2 + F 4* % -! F
+ %/ A + + +
7 + A /
% % % -
& -'
3*2*/ A
,
/ 5
+ : 7 7 % + 7 7 %
7 7 7 +
-4 % 7 7
/ / + 7 -!
( ! % @ + 7
+ + + /
: D - ! / 7 + B
7 7 2 2
A + +
7 -$
+ -
$ % / 7
+ - !
/ 7 -, %+ 7 / % % % -
/ 7 % ( !
- ! 5 A + 7
+ + 7 -
-'
#
, $ $
$ " "$ $


$
$ " "$ $
+ : ! :
: +
7 % 7 @
7 +
7 -
# +
7
/ 7
/ +
1!"#$
3*2*2 A,
! / 7 + / 5 +
/ 7 7 7 -
3*2*2*' $
,
5 7 / 7
% % /
+ 5 - $ 7
+ 7 + + % /
7 7 +
- $ 7 $ !
/ /- ! 7
+ 7 7 / 7 %
7 + B
% 7% 2 7 7
% - 7 -
! + / %
: / @ 7
7 + -
6 %
+
7 / -$ / + B

+ D 7
-
! 7 B / + %
7 7+ + + - !
7 4* + /
+ 4* - ! /
7 - - 7 7 7 7
+ + 7 -!
+ 7 /
#. I / 7
- ! 7+ + +
7 7 @ -
! F +
% / + % % % -B 7
%
+ + 7
-
I 7 7 7 / 7
7 % + +
+ 7 + - % 7
$ ! + + + - %
+ %
7 $ ! / + @
+ -
( & -'
1
7 7

$
$ " "$ $
$ 7 ( : 7
/ 7
/ %
:
-
97 : :

( :
) 7$ ! ( : D
/ $ ! /
/
/
$ + / : + D ( : 7
: 7 $I ! +
/ /
# 7 . # 7
7
@
1!"#$
# 6
3*2*2*/ = -
,
! 5 + ( !
-$ / 1
• + % 7 D 7 7 % %
+ /
-
• + 7 / 3 =
! ( ! -!
7 7 7 % 7 + 7 7+ 7
7% + 7/ 7 ( ! -
& -' ) 5' #


$
$ " "$ $
+ D + : 7 D ( :
( ! 4* 7 7 % 7 % / 4* -
# + :
4*
7 : , 7
/
-(
7 7
-
3*2*2*2 $ $
,
5 77 7 + 4* 7 B/
/ + +
4* 7 7 -! + 7
7 -!
+ -
& -' 4
3*2*2*3 $ 0$ -
,
! 7 +
-I 7 7 + 7
+ % -
3*2*2*5
,
! 5 7 7
+ -! + 7
B / + % 7 -! 2
+ + / + B

/ + + -! 7 7 $I !
7 + 2 %5 5 7 / 7
7
5 - ! + 7 7
+ B / + @ + +
7 + -
-'

projects/studies/proposals – Freight movement
$
$ " "$ $
$ 7 ( :
+ # : 6
/ + +
$ 7 7 $I ! ( :
7 +
7 ( :
1!"#$
3*3* , $ $ $
$
! 7 -!
+ : %
7 2
7 7 % 7 -!
7 : % / @ 7
+ 7 -
! /
/ + % / / + /
7 -
-'
-
# -'

7 @
! @ # -8 0
: - $ 7 / ( ( ) # /
( ( )# # 6 4 7 : -4
( ( )# # 6 4 % 7 --
-' 6 4
$
& -'
4 7
# -'
$
& -'
3*5* C >
! 7+ 7 /
+ / 7 5 -
3*5*'
? ( + +
+ B +
-
+ 7 + +
+ *
6 + + /
+ 7 7 7
2 F 7 -
"@ A + %/
+ % 7
@ + -! 7
@ B -7-
@ %
( !

+ D 7 7 +
+ + 7 7 B -7- 7
: 7 / +
% + %
+ -
9 * + 7 7
7 + -
* + / 7 + 2
2 B 7 7 2
2 % @
( ! / 2 B
+ + % -
-!
7 %
% 7 / D % -
* + + 7
B 7 + + %
@ % %@ % 7
! 7 7
+
-
$ ! A + + @
+ B -7- 7$ ! +
% -
$ + : +
7+
$ 7 : 7 /
/ ( ! $ ! $ ! B -7- 7$ !
% 7
% -

( ! + 7 ( ! + B
7 7 ( !% @
( ! / 2 % +
7 % 7+ 7 7% +
7/ 7 ( ! % 7 ( !
/ % + 7 % -
( ! ( !
7 :
! 7 * + + 7 7
7
+ + B -7- 7 7 7
7 % + 7
% 7 7 % -
+ * 7
7 + 7
? 7 +
7/ -
6 7 # 7 +
7 +
7/ 7 : +
! 7
+
/ D
+
7 :
$ $ 7
7 B % 7
7 % % -
* 7 7

$
are also allocated budget; table 4.7 below maps the identified projects in Kochi CMP
Table 4.7 Are identified projects in Kochi CMP allocated budget?
• ( : K
• + D 7 D#. 4 D K
1
• +
• : 7 % 7 7 K
• #
7 K
• 97 K
• : + D : K
• D D K
• ! K
7 K
All the projects identified in the CMP have been allocated budget. However, the key issue
is the high allocation of the budget to road projects as compared to public transport and
NMT projects (figure 4.2).

Waterw ays improvements

Waterways
Jetties
MRTS
Public transport
Bus bays
Waiting sheds
NMT management
Traffic
Traffic management
NMT
Truck
Terimals
Bus
Parking amenities
Public
Public conveniences
Parking
Bridges
Flyovers/underpass
Roads
ROBs
Road
construction/improvement
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

5* $
85*'? .
. $ %. (
) * + 7 )* 7% " !
) + - ( ( )# % * /
7 + + / 7 :
@ + @ -
$ % ( + 7 +
7 7 / -! / 2
' / 7 ( ) ! % &
+ 7 + 7
+ 4#! -
5*'* , .
5*'*' , .
85*/ B . AE , / ,
CDP for Kolkata city+ has formulated a@vision to guide
F- the1future *growth of the city
! + + 2 7 @
+ - + %
+ / % +
7 + 1
• 7, /
• , , +
• $ + + +
! + / 7 0- + + +
% 7 + % + +
+ % 7 + + 7 + +
+ -$
+ 7 + @ % 7 + 7 7
-! + 7 *
/ F / + 7 % +
-
$ 1 -!

Figure 5.1 Surat CDP – Vision and objectives
1 *
85*2?4 $ . 3
# %6 + 4 7 E# *+*; ,?C D
;;<+ 3 - *+;*)
1 *
! 7 3 "# *+*;
+ + :
-F 1 *
% / + + *
/ + @ 7 / /
+ % 7
+ 7 A 0-' - !

% % 7 +
7 - ! :
* -
A 1 -!
#
5*'*/ , $
85*3 4 $ !"
:
) 1
+ 7
-$ 7 % % +
/ 7 -! 7
/ + + + @
-$ 7 +
7 7 : 7
+ -$ A 7 + 7 %
/ 7 7 /
7 -!
7 / ( )! -
1 -'
5*'*2 , " .

%7 +
/ + -! + *
+ B +
7 / -! % 7
+ 7 -! *
7 % % + @
+ D7 -
A E-! F E-' F
5*/* , $ $ $
! 7 A + A
-< / + % 7 /
+ + 7 /
+ - :
• + ! ! >> &
• * + >>=
•
• ? 3 8
• * 0
• $ 7 &
! + / 2
B / ; -
% / 7 2 -
! 7/ A + / 7
7 - % 0 7+
-! 7 77
/ + % % 7
-# +
7 % 4#! % 7 /
7-
+ 7 %/ /
7+ -
1 -'
5*2* ,
! + 7 D 7
+ +
/ -
16 44 $ * * .

85*3?> 0
A 7 1
- # 7 7 / 7
- ! / +
'- +
8- 6 2 +
0- ! 7
&- $ /
1
5*2*' A @
,
@ B @
7 ( !- $
7 2 7 / are dependent on
( ! ( ! + -< / + %
( ! + ;G -!
A + / / @
+ 7 + -!
+ +
/ + 7
+ 7 -! +
% ( ! +
+ -
4 ( ! % A +
+ A 7 / + / -$ + /
/ 7 7 % 7
A 7 / % + + /
: + -! + D A / ( !
/ / + + -
I 7 + 7 + 7
7 % % % -% -
1 -' 8
17
7 ' ', * + . + + , * - +# - + ',
/4! 3

, $ $
$ " "$ $
$
$ " "$ $
* + +
( ! 7 7 / +
( ! 4 + 7 + ( !
3 + -< / + %
4#! / : + ( !
A 7
-
( : + ( !
+
(
+ +
7 / 7
7 -
( ! + ( :
# / + $ + A 7
+ 7 + / 3
7 %
7 D#. 4D#)4D + -
% +
( ! + -!
: %
% @
+ ( ! -
-' :
6 5' # 6
$ $ $
,
7 7 7 /
7 + + 7 /

7 -$ / 7 +
+ + 7 7 / - !/
+
+ + 7 /
7 % 7 -5
7 1
• # 7 3
• # 7 34 7 2 /
• # 7 + 3 7 +
-
6 + %
+ -! / +
+ - % 7 %
+ + 7
+ % 7 % -
$ 7 % 7 7 A
+ -! / 7
- A + @ +
+ 7 / -
1 -'
4
4
8
3
, $ $
$ " "$ $
! 7 7 /
+ - -
D / + -!
D + / : %
-
1
5*2*/ A
,
7 7 + 7 -
%
+ / 7
+ 7 -$ 7 7
'0 / - 7 7 ( !
2 : / ( ! -!

/ 7 /
/ ( ! -4 %
+ /% 7 %/ 7
+ -! )!
7 %
-
-
! + 7: % + 7
7 7% 7 7 7 % 7 % -!
-
7 + % 77 /
+ ( ! -I 7 7
+ % -
, $ $
$ " "$ $
$
$ " "$ $
+ + 7
7 + ( !
/
7 7 6
7 % :
'0 +
/ -
, ( : D
7
$ + / # + :
/ 7
# $ # A
)! )!
1!"#$
6 -'

5*2*2 A,
5*2*2*' $
,
4#! + 7 + 7
+ -! #!
:
• 4
• # 7
• # 7 N4#!
• # 7 N4#!N9#!
! / + / 3
+ + + /
-! / % 7 %
) % 7 ?D % / /
/ -!
+ 4#! - ! 4#! 77
+ / / A 7
-! + ( ! %
( ! + 7 /
4#! / -
7 %
1
• $ +
• " @
• D 7 /
$ %
7 7% %@ @
7 )! B / + %
7
-! 7 7 %
7% 7 4#! $! 4#!
B / + %
-
! $ ! +
2 -! / $ ! /
-
1 -'
#
4# -' .

, $ $
$ " "$ $
$
$ " "$ $
4#!
:
$ +
( :
( ! +
( :
7
/ 4#!
/
1!"#$
1 -' H # 6 9 :
6
5*2*2*/ = -
,
/ 7 7 / 71
• * + / /
• $ 7
• + 77 7
• + 7 7 '0
• ( ! +
• $ 7 / 4#!
• $ 7 7
7 + 7 7 7 D ( !
+ 7 %
/ ( !- $ +
7 % 7+ 7 7% + 7
/ 7 7 / % -
1 -' 5' # 9
5' #

, $ $
$ " "$ $
$
$ " "$ $
+ +
7 7 +
/ ( !
7 7
6
7 % :
'0
+
/ -
, ( : D
7
( ! + ( :
7
/ 4#!
/
$ 7 7 7 =
7 + + ( !
7
1!"#$
# 5' # .
5*2*2*2 $ $
,
! + 7 7 7 % 77
7 % 2 7 7
7 7 7 7 -
! A 7 +
-
18 / .

7 3!
/ + -< / + %
@ + / +
#! -!
7 7 7
A -
! + 7 / + / 7 2
7 / 7 - :
• # 7 7
• # 7 + 7
7
• + 7 + 7
+ +
• ) D 7 7 7
• / + + / 3
7 % 7 7 7 %
/ 7 7 +
• 7 7 7
I 7 + + %
% A /
7 -
1 -'
H
#
, $ $
$ " "$ $ *
$
$ " "$ $
# :
# ( :
7
1!"#$

# 6
5*2*2*3 $ 0$ -
5
5*2*2*5
,
! + / 7 + -!
/ 1 7 7
+ -
# 1 -' #
.
, $ $
$ " "$ $
$
$ " "$ $
4 7 ( :
, 6
1!"#$
2 6 6
5*3* , $ $ $
$
+ 7 A 0
/ : : D 7 -$ %
7 #. 4D#)4 : -! : :
+ 7 + 2
7 : -
4 1 -'

-
+ 8 H ' H
-4 % 7 +
-
5
@
7 : : %
7 7 -6 7 /
: + 77 7 4#! 7 ( ( )#
7 @ B 7 !* #
: B 7B 7 +
-
7 9
6
+
7 7 7 -$
/ 7
+ : / 7
+ : 7 1
• "A : 3 : )* B 7 +
+ /
• )* :
! ) ! )! / ( )! F
) ! - )! A E + +
%
% F- $ A
7 - %
)! / + 1
• 7 + 7
• 2 7 + + /% + D
+
• 7 7 7
• 7 /
• 7
• +
• + / +

• 7 3 7
7% / /
• 7 +
• + / + / + /
• + / + 7
• 7
• 7 7 ?
• +
! )! 7
-4 )! % + 3
! ! - ! / )! /
7 + -! +
?:
•
• 6 +
• @ / + 3
0 10
! ? ? % >0&
-$ ? /
?-
$ )! ! % )* )!
7 -6
7 7 / % %
+ / 7 +
# / -
- 7
$
5
$
1 -' -'
5*5* C
! 2 7 D
-4 7
7+ 7 / + / 7 -

5*5*' 4 $ "
• / + 7 /
+
• # 7 + + /
• @ B @
7
( !
• 7 7 7 7 /
+ -$ + + + 7 /
+
7 / -$ 7 7
+ + -
• 7
• +
7 7 7 -!
) ! )! / ( )! F
) ! - )! A E +
+
% %
F- $ A 7
-
5*5*/
+ D 7 7 +
+ + 7 7 B -7- 7
: 7 / +
% + %
+ -
9 ) D :
7 7 / B -
-!
7 %
% 7 / D % -

* + :
+ 7: % + 7 7 7% 7 7
7 % 7 % -
+ -
$ : + %@ 7
( ! # + : ( !
77
: + 7 ( !
( ! ( !
7 :
$ ! + $ !
+ B -
! D * + + 7 7
7
7
+ + B -7- 7 7 7
7 % + 7
% 7 7 % -
+ * 7
7 + 7 -
? 7 +
7/ -
6 7 + # 7 +
7 +
7/ 7 : +
! 7
+
/ D
+
7 :
7 * 7 7

$
are also allocated budget; table 5.7 below maps the identified projects in Surat CMP with
budget allocation.
Table 5.7 Are identified projects in Surat CMP allocated budget?
+ 7 K
# + : K
#. 4 D#)4 D + K
4#! K
4 K
#
/ 7 K
5' #
$ 7 7 K
4 K
# %, K
All the projects identified in the CMP have been allocated budget. The highest allocation
is for road projects followed by public transport projects (figure 5.3).

Figure 5.3 – Estimated costs of major projects identified in Surat CMP
Bus
Terminals
Truck
management
Traffic
Area schemes
transport
Public
BRTS Netw ork

Khadi-NMT Dev Prog
Cycling & pedestrian

facilities
Khadi Dev
Arterial Road Development programme
Bridges/ROB/RUB/Flyovers
New roads
Improvement of existing
roads
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Estim ated cost (in Rs. crores)
Note:
• The CMP states that overlap to the tune of Rs. 600 crores between BRT roadway and
arterial roadway development is to be deducted.
• Although the CMP does not recommend LRT for the city, it indicates a cost of Rs. 1600
crores for a LRT stretch of 26 kms (if it is considered by the city authorities).
• Cost of buses in not included in the estimates.

<* $
8<*'? .
. $ %. (
( ( )# - + % 7
+ 7 7 / + 7 + 7
-
$ % (
/ I $9O 6
) $ + 9 7 7 / -
2 ' % / ( )! % & /
+ 7 / + -
<*'* , .
<*'*' , .
8<*/ B . 3E + /
CDP
+ for Kolkata city has formulated
B/ a vision2to guide
: the future +growth of the city
+ / 7 + -F 1 *
! + +
-! * + %
+ 7 7 / -$ + % %
+ + -
-!
8<*2? 7 * 3 E# / 7% %
+ B A 7
4#! #! 7 -F 1 *
! + D7 - !
% / + % 7+ 7 7 / -$ 7
+ 7 + 7 D( !D
B/ + 7 A + 7 -!
* 7 @ - -
( !-
5' # -!

<*'*/ , $
8<*3 B 0
B $ ?
E + 7 2 7 2
-F 1
+ + / / 77 ( )! - $
E + + F 7+
( ! + 2
-! + @ 7 D
+ / 2 7 %
7 F -
! + F ( ! / F
/ + -$ +
+ + A +
-
! + A + %
% % 7 % - / +
7 ( ! 7 - !
@ @
-
# -' 7
5' #
<*'*2 , " .
1!"#$
? * +
- ! ( !
+ D 7 -
1 -! -'

<*/* , $ $ $
) %
7 - ! /
+ % - ! + +
/ 7 7 1
- 2 +
-
- +
'- ! + 7 )4" 8- /
8- 7
0- +
&- * + + 7 2 7 / @
+ + 7
;- * + : + 7 / +
+ 7 B + +
=- $ 7 2 7 +
: % + % B
7 : 77
>- #
-" +
-
- 2 7 + +
77
'- # + D 77
-'
1
.
<*2* ,
! + + % A &-0 B
1
• + ( ! 7 B
• $ 7 + + B
• 7 B
• + B
• @ 7 7
7 -
! % % 7 / + /
: + -< / + %
/ 7 + + : + -!
+ +
+ / -

8<*5 $$ " $
E$ 7/ 7
4#!D D9#!D % /
+ -
" 7 @ / 7
+ 7 / +
+ 7 + + 7 + /
: 7 -6 % 7 +
77 -
+ 7 7
+ + 7 -
$ 7 /
+
+ 7 / % 7
2 7 7 / 7
7 7 /
+ 7 + / + 7 : D 7
/
$ / 7
+
# 7 7 7 7 7 7
F
<*2*' A @
,
@ -$ @
( !-
! 7 ( !/ @
+ 7 -
I 7 7 % A + %( !
+ D A / + +
-< / + %
+ + + 7 7 %
% % -!
/ 7 + B
+ 7 -
-'
8

, $ $
$ " "$ $
$
$ " "$ $
* 4#! ( :
( ! 4 7 (
( ! # #! + +
6 7 / 7
# # : ( ! :
+ D
A
1!"#$
-'
: 6 6
$ $ $
,
7 + -!
/ 7 + -
-$
7 7 7
-
-'
, $ $
$ " "$ $
5 6 #
6
<*2*/ A
,
$ 7 + % +
-$ % + 77 /
% ( ! -! 7 7 ( !
2 + %
+ % + ( ! %

7 D 7 7 % -! +
+ 77 1
• : + %
• + 7 7 7 %
• 7+ 7 7 %
• 7 7 + 7%
• + 7 7 %
• + %
• @ 7 7% -
$
7 7 + -!
7 # 7 # #
$ #$ 7 -!
/ 7 7 + :
7 + -
4 + %
7 / 2 % 7 7
+ -$ 7 % / 2
/ 7
2 A &-& - ! A +
7 + + + 2 -
I 7 7 + + 7 %
+ -
-' 5' # :
8
8<*< E C $ $
E! 2 7 2 + 7 1, %
O # 2 -
4 F ?! D# / E, M F/ / /
/ -!
7 7 , M -
F ?! 2 + +
/ -! % / -.
D % / / % 7 -.
%+ 7 / 7 -
F ? 77 % / 7D+ 7 / 7
-! 2 # M / / / -
/ %/ + # M % % / 2 -F

, $ $
$ " "$ $
$
$ " "$ $
7 7 ( ! : ( : +
7 D 7 /
7
: : ( : 7
+ + % 7 7 %
+ 7 +
7 7
$ +
7 7
# :
# :
7
# #
$ #$
" ( : (
7 /
2
" ( : 7 +
7 % :
7
7
1!"#$
6 -'
<*2*2 A,
<*2*2*' $
,
7 A 7 + =H
= H ' -$ + + 7 1
• * 7
• 7 9
• 94 N 4#!

• 94 N 4#! N # 7
• 94 N 4#! N # 7 N< 7
9#!D D # % -
+ 7 % 9 7 %
4#!% 7 7 7 %
/ 7 = H
' -! 7 &>H ' B
7 7 @ 7 D -
! + : D
1
• E 7 7 7 + /
• $ 7 7/ /
• $ + % +
• + 7
• % +
• 4
• # 2 A 7 7
• A
• ) $ 7 ! $! 7
• 7 2 + F
• + ! !$
/
• $ / + / 7
( !
• 7 7 /
• + A 7D /
#
, $ $
$ " "$ $


7 #
: D D
: 4#!% : D + 3 %
7 % % % 7 7 : %( ! :
/ % 2
% +
% + %
$!
1!"#$
-' 6 #
6
<*2*2*/ = -
,
% 7 7 ( !
@ / 2 -! 1
• 6 +
• $ / / 7
• $ 7 / /
• + ( !
• , D 7 7
• M 7 7 2
• < 7
• 2 / / %
% -! + +
7 % 7 2 % - 2 +
+ 2
• ( / 7 2 ( !
( -' 5' #9
5' #
, $ $
$ " "$ $


$
$ " "$ $
7 7 ( !% : ( : +
/ 7 /
D 7
! 7+
7
7 7
$ 7 ( :
/
2 :
1!"#$
# 6
<*2*2*2 $ $
,
/ 7 + -
! 1
• 4 7 7
• # + 7
• . /
• 7 2 3 7 % 7% 7%
2
• 7
• ) $!
• * +
! 7 + +
% 1
• E9 / 7 + +
• !"6 + 7
• ! 7 : +
• ! + 7 +
7 F

! A
7 B 7+ 7
7 -$ 7 7 7
+ 7% 7 7 % - 7 7 7D
7 + -
-'
, $ $
$ " "$ $
' 6
<*2*2*3 $ 0$ -
5
<*2*2*5
,
7+ / 7 + %
+ 7 7 7 / -!
1 % 2 +
A 77 -
-'
, $ $
$ " "$ $
$
$ " "$ $
4 :
* 2 ( :
+
! :
1!"#$
( 6

<*3* , $ $ $
$
+ 7 7 = ' -$
/ : : D 7
-
6
-
+ / 7
+ 7 &- -
-
Figure 6.2 Framework of indicators and targets, Pune CMP
@
! :
7 : -! 7
% % 7 + % 7 % + %
7
# 6
! ! /
( )! ) !
-! ! 7 7

7 / -$
1
• E 7 # 7 ! 7
• $ + % 7 . 7
• D 7
• 6 7
• 9 7 ! 7% * 7 $ +
. 7
• $ : $
• + . # 7
• . 7
• + + . F
E! + / ! A / 7 1
• 4 !
• # !
• $ I !
• "A 7
• # %4 7 < 7 /
• # / ! !
• 7
• F
! 7 A E
/ 7 -
Source – Pune CMP
- 7
$
5
$
-' -'
<*5* C
! +
: + - % /7
: 2 -!
2 7 7+
7 / + / 7 -
<*5*' 4 $ "
• ) %
7 -!
/ + % -

! + @ 7 D
+ / 2
7 % 7 F -
• @ -$ @
( !-
• + ( !
2 - 1
"
7 7 + -
7 # 7 #
# $ #$ 7
-
" 7 / 2 % 7 7
+
"A + 7 +
+ + 2 -
• +
• $ + 7 7
• 7 7 : 7+
• + / 7
• +
<*5*/
+ D 7 7 +
+ + 7 7 B -7- 7
: 7 / +
% + %
+ -
9 ) D :
7 7 / B -
+ :
-
-!
7 %
% 7 / D % -

$ : D + % 7 7 %( !
: 2
( ! $ : + 7
: + 7 ( !
( ! ( !
7 :
+ * 7
7 + 7
? 7 +
7/ -
6 7 # 7 +
/ D
+
7 * 7 7
$
are also allocated budget; table 6.6 below maps the identified projects in Pune CMP with
budget allocation.
Table 6.6 Are identified projects in Pune CMP allocated budget?
# : D K
4 7 D + D K
4#! K
4 7 K
#! K
K
$ / / K
$ K
+ K

#
+ % 7 7 % + K
# %# 7 # K
# $ #$
$! K
5' #
6 K
/ K
2 K
! K
7 K
All the projects identified in the CMP have been allocated budget. The highest allocation
is public transport projects (figure 6.3).

Traffic management ParkingFreight

Truck terminals
Parking
Others
Signages/markings
ITS
Flyovers/underpass
Road
Road
construction/improvement
Bridges
Plaza
NMT
Footpaths
Subw ays
Inland w aterw ays
Inter-modal stations
Public transport
Monorail
Metro
BRT
Bus fleet
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Estimated cost (in Rs. crores)

G*
! + 7 /
+ $ +
-! / +
+ $ %7 +
-! / 2
- % @ %
F 7 + +
-< / + %
+ 7 7 % 7 % - /
7 -
! A + 7 7
/ 7 7 / $
-$ + 7
7 / 7 -
+ 7
7 : -
+ 77 + 7 -!
7 7
7 2 -! 1
$ @ 7 7
9 + %7 % : + % 7 % -
, :
9 7 /
* / 7 % //
7 + % -
9 + 7 ( !
9 7 / D
( !D
( 77 ( ! 7
7 ( !
( 77 +
% + + 7
7 +
9 7 +
9 + @ +
9 : +
9 7 $ !/

9 $ !
7 % % 7%
+ + % -
9 + @ +
% 7 + % 7 D D/
4 A ;- # 7+
7 7 + / 7 + %
+ + 7 + 1
7 $ !
+ 7 7 7 7 7 %
% -
7 / 7 2 % 7 % -
< 7 7
+
7 + + 7
+
7
7
6 7 7
+
. / 7+ 7 D 7
9 + + + +
9 7
9 / / 7
9 7 @
9 +
7
( 7 :
! 7 7 7 + +
+ + 7 /
- / D7 + 7
-! /
7 / 7

-4 % /
/ -! /
+ 7 7 + / 7
/ + -!
) * + + / D7
+ -
4 + 77 %
7
-! ( ) ! 7 )
! ) ! "
7 6
-.
) 2 ) !
+ / ) ! %
/ 7 + % 7 % 7 + % -!
+ /-
+ / A
+ 7% : 7
-I 7+
% F -! / 7
7+ 7
-
I
B
) ) ! / ()! %
-!
7 + -6 / %
-) ! D
-! D
/ - % /
) ! -< / + %(()# ) !
: -
7 + / B
+ + A 7
+ D -!
7 / +
-$ %
, + $ + 7 7 + -
! +
7/ 7
7 7 7 F +
-

6 + %
D / 1
- F 7
7 + F 7 /
+ 7
- , + :
'- :
8- +
7 +
7 +
+
! " #
1
! ) !
7 + + D + 7 2
+ + 7 + 7- !
7 + + ) ! F 7 1
D 7 + -7- * * + %
* + %( # 7 74 ! /
7. 7 2 ! . ;0
+ D
7% % %
/ -
$ ! $ !
! * *+
!
4
I *
) * +
A
. 7 7/ 7% % + % -*;
19 ,+ : # 1 !* ," . . ; ' + ,
. . 4 " 6 + ,3
20 , ' 4 < + 7+ # 3
! + - . + # . + +
+ # + .+ + # + , + #
. :"! # +3

(,.
! + 7 ) ! F 7 7
7 ) ! -
) ! + / 7
7 7 7% : + %7 7 % + 7
: % 7 / 7 % -!
** + -! 7/
) ! -! 7 I *%
* + % - ) ! -! /
D 7 D ) ! F
/ 7-
$ %) ! /
-$ / + 7 -
< F ) ! @ + 7
7/ -) ! / 7
+ / 7 7 +
7 -
7 I *% I *% # ! % -/
/ + / A 7
: ) ! + 7 + -$ % 7
: / % / + ) ! F
+ -) ! / + : D 7
A + 7 / + +
-
+ % 7 7 7 +
) ! %
) ! -) ! + 7 F
% -$
+ @ % 7 / 7
-! ) ! 1
- ! + -) ! 7+ 7
7 + 7
-$ + : %
7 % 7 : -
- ! + : D 7
/
21 7. + .* .# #+ + # +3 ' + , +
-. * 3 3.3 . + .* .* #
-, + + + # + . * - + 3! + - .
3
22 ! + + + = ' .# + . .
. # '+ . # /4! .# # +3

- ! :
- ! + +
+ 7 7 %
7 / 7 % -
- ! + ( !
- ! : -
7- ! 7 + +
- ! +
- ! F % %
7% 7 % + % % -
! A : / 7 -
< / + % / @ + ) ! B
: 7 / @ +
) ! -) ! + + /
) ! 7 7 -! ) ! 7
: D + + 7 7/ % 7
: / + 7 ) ! -
! 7 +
+ + 7 7 ) 94 - ) 94 2 /
+ : 7
: -! 7 +
7 % 7 +
7 7 ) ! B) ! +
7 7 + -< / /
) !
+ %/
G4 %) !

/ / / / D D
7 + -
+ . ' * - 6
+
' + # + * + * 04!73 :
04!7 ., +
+ . * + , . 4"3 : .,# 04!7 ,
* + + * + 3: .,# 04!7 + .
* + - 7
1
9 + 7 7 % 7 7 % A +
+ % + A /
+ -
# +
7 / / / % /
+ 7 + 7
+ 7%
6 % + % -
* 7 + -
7 ) ! -6 7
? ? %
( #, % -/ + / ) ! -! 7
? % -/ 7 D + ) ! -
! /
;8 -! 7 -$ /
7 + + %
) 94 -23
23 + ,# ' * 04!7 + + * > 77

3! ' . , 3

! / 7 7+ 7 %
7 /- $ 7
) ! D + -
$ D + A ) ! D 3
o * 7
o " 7 7 7 /
o 9 7 / + +
7 /
/ D7
o 7
6 ) ! D B
7 D 7
o + / F * %
: +
o / / D7
o " / * % %
% -
o / 7 /
2 +
o + 7
+
o 7
o +
o : D D
:
o 7 A :
+ 7 + )*
7
o 7 3
: D + % 7 %
7
o 7 7 I *% %
% % % -/
: D + %
) ! D +
/ 7 -

o 7 + ) ! D
7 +
+ 7 -! / : D +
/ ) ! D 7
7 -
) ! + 7 -$
+ -

) ! + 7 -$
+ -

Review of CMPs of Different Cities PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of CMPs of Different Cities PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report

Project code 2010UD03

Progress Report – 2010UD03

© The Energy and Resources Institute 2011

Suggested format for citation

For more information

Progress Report – 2010UD03

SECTION I - Introduction and selection of cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SECTION II - CMP evaluation framework & Review of CMPs . . . . . . . 7

2. Review of Comprehensive Mobility Plan of Kolkata............................................ 26

3. Review of Comprehensive Mobility Plan of Jaipur............................................... 50

4. Review of Comprehensive Mobility Plan of Kochi............................................... 67

5. Review of Comprehensive Mobility Plan of Surat ................................................ 84

6. Review of Comprehensive Mobility Plan of Pune .............................................. 103

ANNEXURE I - C i t y a n d t r a n s p o r t p r o f i l e s .................................. 122

ANNEXURE II - City-wise summary of CMP strategies and

Progress Report – 2010UD03

Progress Report – 2010UD03

Table 4.4 Evaluating translation of plan recommendations into specific

Progress Report – 2010UD03

Progress Report – 2010UD03

The key objectives of the study are:

Development of CMP evaluation framework

2  *34 576 ! "%$&

.-;&<4  =5- >

1. Evaluating vision statements in CDP and CMP

2. Evaluating the process of preparation of CMP

3. Evaluating the contents of the CMP

Key findings from review of CMPs

Jaipur Jaipur CMP- Weak vision statement

Kochi - Lacks vision for transport sector

Surat Surat CMP- Accessibility of vulnerable traveller

Pune Pune CMP- Accessibility of vulnerable traveller

In addition, it is important that cities establish a robust institutional mechanism to

Final Report – 2010UD03 2

Final Report – 2010UD03 3

Final Report – 2010UD03 4

! " ! $ ! "# %&'

' '4 ) '

& 5 ) &9 / &

Final Report – 2010UD03 5

Final Report – 2010UD03 6

Final Report – 2010UD03 7

Box 1.1 ‘Sustainable Transport’ Definitions

4. “An environmentally sustainable transport system:

5. Litman ) * $%%( + , ' , - +

Economics Social Environmental

Final Report – 2010UD03 9

• Has minimal impact on human health. The negative externalities of a transport

• Has minimal impact on environmental quality, which implies that it limits:

• Reduces dependence on fossil fuels by various measures like:

Box 1.2: Vision statements, Rockingham Integrated Transport Plan

Final Report – 2010UD03 13

Final Report – 2010UD03 14

Source – EC, 2004

Final Report – 2010UD03 15

Defining vision, guiding principles and objectives for the SUTP

Final Report – 2010UD03 16

• Increased air and noise pollution – the issue of environmental sustainability.

Addressing the safety concerns of cyclists and pedestrians by encouraging the

Final Report – 2010UD03 17

6 ! + . ' #/0!" + . , ,'

7 ! + 4 1 ' 5' + ', + +

2 *34 576 ! "%$&

.-;&<4 =5->

WJ DALHDIL*A3LAXJ AY7Z O P%QR

?@ ABAC DE FGHEIED HJ CHK@ ADLHCEMFLDE NEDAB

V-\R<AXH@ IHDJ FC=GLHBAY-FL]