COMMENTARY
As per the city’s Development Plan
Is Public Transport in
Ahmedabad Inclusive?
Bhargav Adhvaryu, Mukesh Patel
There are two types of public
transport riders: choice and
captive. Key captivity factors
could be higher generalised
costs of alternative transport and
inability to drive (age, medical
conditions, etc). In this context,
the travel behaviour of the urban
poor in Ahmedabad—most of
whom are captive riders unable
to access private transport and
therefore dependent on public
transport—is studied.
Bhargav Adhvaryu (bhargav@cantab.net)
teaches urban and transport planning at
the CEPT University, Ahmedabad. Mukesh
Patel (rp.mukeshpatel@gmail.com) is an
urban infrastructure consultant based in
Ahmedabad.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW FEBRUARY 23, 2019
P
ublic systems (including transport)
that are socially inclusive represent
a fair society. Citizens not being
able to access public transport, both mon-
etarily and physically, are excluded from
participation in the economic and social
activities in a society. In public transport
there could be two scenarios which lead
to social exclusion. First, the public trans-
port system offers poor accessibility, that
is, it does not cover the areas where the
urban poor live and work. Second, even
if the system is accessible, it is unafford-
able in terms of the generalised cost
which includes monetary cost (that is,
fuel or fare, parking, and operations and
maintenance [O&M]) and value of time.
In this article, we use Ahmedabad as a
case study. Ahmedabad was founded in the
year 1411. It is the largest city in Gujarat and
the seventh largest in India with a popu-
lation of 5.58 million (DCO 2011). Most of
the existing footprint of the city is within
the limits of the Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation (AMC). The AMC, which has an
area of 465 square kilometres (sq km), is
engulfed by the Ahmedabad Urban Deve-
lopment Authority (AUDA) area of 1,800
sq km. The city has two major bus public
transport systems: the Ahmedabad Muni-
cipal Transport Service (AMTS) running
in mixed traffic and the bus rapid transit
system (BRTS) running on dedicated
right-of-way (except at junctions and a
few other stretches), which are operated
by Ahmedabad Janmarg Limited (AJL).
Both the AMTS, which is one of the oldest
transport organisations in India, func-
tioning since 1947, and the BRTS are
wholly owned subsidiaries of the AMC. A
metrorail system is under construction
in Ahmedabad and is expected to com-
mence in 2019. There are a huge number
of para-transit vehicles in Ahmedabad
that comprise hail-and-ride autorickshaws
and shared autorickshaws (point-to-point).
In some areas, the shared autorickshaws
directly compete with public transport.
vol lIV no 8
2011 (AUDA 1997) in 1998, 32% of the city’s
population lived in slums, of which 60%
were below the poverty line (BPL). The
percentage of Ahmedabad housing cate-
gorised as slums increased from 17% in
1961 to 23% in 1971 and to 26% in 1991
(UN-Habitat 2003). Somani (2011) esti-
mates that 40% of Ahmedabad’s popu-
lation lives in informal settlements
(slums and chawls). The modal share in
Ahmedabad is 17% public transport (all
buses) and 54% non-motorised transport
(NMT) (walking and cycling) (GIDB 2001).
This suggests that a very high propor-
tion of the population cannot afford the
generalised cost of public transport.
In 2014, a study on public transport
accessibility levels (PTAL) in Ahmedabad
(Shah and Adhvaryu 2016) generated
thematic maps to visually represent acc-
essibility of various locations in the city
by public transport. However, the limita-
tion of the PTAL map is that it does not
include the second social exclusion sce-
nario in terms of whether a service
available at a particular public transport
stop goes to where one wants (within
affordable generalised cost). This study
attempts to modify the Ahmedabad PTAL
mapping with the focus on affordability
for the urban poor.
Using the 2014 PTAL study as a starting
point, we update the Ahmedabad PTAL
map for 2017. Slum and chawl locations
are then superimposed on this PTAL map.
The urban poor falling in high and me-
dium accessibility areas are surveyed to
ascertain if higher accessibility of public
transport actually translates as a reason-
able choice for their desired destinations.
The analysis is then presented, followed
by conclusions and recommendations.
Methodology
The data required to update the 2014
PTAL mapping consisted of secondary
data such as geographic information
system (GIS) shape-files for boundaries,
the AMTS and BRTS bus stops, metrorail
stations, which were obtained from Shah
and Adhvaryu (2016) and updated for
2017. For simplicity of representation,
the 10 bands originally used were re-
classified as low (levels 1–4), medium
(levels 5–7), and high (levels 8–10). The
17
COMMENTARY

Figure 1: Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTAL) 2017 with Slum and Chawl Locations Superimposed public transport accessibility areas actu-
ally translates to higher accessibility to de-
sired work destinations of the urban poor.
The survey was carried out in two
groups (Figure 2). Group 1 were those
who did not use public transport at all,
but used either private automobiles (two-
wheelers) and/or non-motorised modes
such as walking or cycling. This group
was asked the reasons for not using public
transport and what factors would make
them shift to public transport. Group 2
were those who used public transport
and it consisted of people who had no
other option but to use public transport
(captive riders), and those who used pub-
lic transport and other modes depend-
ing on their destination. This group was
asked whether the first/last mile con-
nectivity was satisfactory and whether
they had to use any mode other than
walking or cycling to access the first/
last mile. This would include those be-
ing dropped off/picked up or using para-
Legend transit to get to and from the bus stop.
High PTAL Slum and chawl AMC boundary The main reasons for Group 1 not us-
N
Medium PTAL Roads km ing public transport were either that it
0 20 was more time-consuming or it was
Low PTAL Waterbodies
inconvenient. Public transport was consid-
Source: Redrawn by authors. PTAL updated based on Shah and Adhvaryu (2016), and slum and chawl locations based on ered time-consuming because of three
AUDA (2014).
factors or their combinations: (i) public
Figure 2: Survey Groups and Key Questions for Work Travel
transport stop (origin and/or destina-
Urban poor tion) was beyond comfortable walking
27% 73% distance, (ii) there were more than ac-
Group 1 Group 2
ceptable number of interchanges to the
Do not use PT Use PT final destination, and (iii) the route was
circuitous. Stating inconvenience as a
12% 15% 51% 22% reason for not using public transport
PA only NMT only PT + other PT only was applicable especially to those carry-
ing heavy loads to work (for example,
hawkers and street vendors), including
oddly shaped objects.
Questions asked: Questions asked: The predominant reasons (of course,
• Why do you not use PT? • Is the first/last mile connectivity of adequate quality? not mutually exclusive) for not using
• What will make you shift to PT? • Do you have to use any mode other than NMT to
access first/last mile? public transport from the survey are
Key: PT — Public Transport; PA — Private Automobile; NMT — Non-motorised Transport (walk/bicycle)
other — use PA or NMT also
Valid responses: 424 (out of 511)
Source: Compiled by authors.

reclassified 2017 PTAL map with the slum different household living in slums and available at
and chawl locations superimposed is chawls). Household locations were sele- Gyan Deep
shown in Figure 1. This shows that most cted from those that live in areas with high Near Firayalal Chowk,
of the urban poor live in areas with high and medium public transport accessibil- Ranchi 834 001
public transport accessibility. Primary data ity. There was no need to survey those in Jharkhand
was collected by random sampling of 511 low accessibility areas as the study Ph: 2205640 (0651)
persons (each person selected from a focuses on whether living in higher
18 FEBRUARY 23, 2019 vol lIV no 8 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

Figure 3: Predominant Reasons for Not Using Public Transport
Inconvenient as
carrying heavy load
(10%)
Circuitous route
and many
interchanges
(28%)
Source: Compiled by authors.
shown in Figure 3. These were bus stop
beyond comfortable walking distance
from either the origin or destination
(60%), the in-bus journey was time-
consuming either because of circuitous
routes and/or many interchanges (28%),
inconvenient because they were carry-
ing heavy loads (10%), and monetarily
unaffordable (2%).
When asked what would make the
respondent shift to public transport
(Figure 4), the top trigger for the shift
was reduction in journey time (42%). This
was followed by improvement in first/
last mile connectivity (34%), fare reduc-
tion (22%), and better bus quality (2%).
This is corroborated by the survey anal-
ysis that about 88% of the respondents
did not use public transport because it
was more time-consuming either due to
many interchanges or circuitous routes
and/or poor first/last mile connectivity.
Although not an overwhelming propor-
tion, 22% of the respondents found the
fares to be higher than their willingness
to pay.
Analysing the responses of Group 2
(that is, the 73% who used public trans-
port, either exclusively or in combina-
tion with other modes), the top problem
was difficulty with first/last mile con-
nectivity. For 77%, the main problem
was the last mile connectivity while 26%
had listed first mile connectivity as the
main problem. For the former group,
this implies that although they lived in
areas that had public transport stops
within comfortable walking distances,
their desired work destinations were not
that well-connected by public transport.
Two further behavioural patterns were
Economic & Political Weekly EPW FEBRUARY 23, 2019
Figure 4: Predominant Factors for Shifting to Public Transport
Monetarily If fares are
unaffordable reduced
(2%) (22%)
If there are PT
PT stop beyond stops in walking
comfortable walk distance
(60%) (34%)
Source: Compiled by authors.
revealed from the analysis: 94% of those
who had problems with first/last mile
connectivity, had to use other mode of
travel (NMT, drop-off/pick-up, or para-
transit) for the first/last mile and a third
had faced difficulties in completing the
trip, because of long waiting times, more
interchanges, and circuitous routes. Last-
ly, only 5% were willing to pay more for
better public transport services.
Conclusions
Mapping of public transport accessibility
presents a useful but a limited view,
especially as it does not account for the
desired work destinations of the urban
poor. This study attempted to analyse
whether living in a higher PTAL area
translates into higher connectivity to the
desired destinations, and the specific
requirements and problems faced by the
urban poor regarding public transport.
The analysis revealed that 27% of the
urban poor do not use public transport.
The prime reason is the lack of first/last
mile connectivity. This is especially imp-
ortant as a significant proportion of these
urban poor— such as construction work-
ers, casual labourers, street vendors, etc—
have variable job destinations. Currently,
they make informal travel arrangements
or use non-motorised modes of trans-
port (Bhakuni 2017). For those for whom
first/last mile connectivity is not a prob-
lem, the deterrent to using public transport
is the time-consuming journey (circui-
tous routes and/or many interchanges).
About 10% of the urban poor do not use
public transport as their work required
them to carry heavy loads, which were
inconvenient and this was compounded
vol lIV no 8
COMMENTARY
If bus quality is
better
(2%)
If journey time
is reduced
(42%)
if it involved many interchanges. Inter-
views with urban poor households
revealed that those who did not use pub-
lic transport currently incurred more
cost as they have to use para-transit ser-
vices or rely on favours from family and
friends to manage their transport needs.
Four key problems emerged from the
analysis, which are discussed below along
with the recommended actions. To reduce
circuitous journeys and improve the first/
last mile connectivity, parts of existing
routes (with new bus stops) need to be
rerouted; new direct routes to specific
destinations need to be introduced; the
frequency of existing routes along with
the quality of footpaths need improve-
ment. This will require detailed choice
surveys of the desired work destinations
of the urban poor (if variable by month
or season), and road inventory surveys.
To address the problem of street vendors
being able to carry heavy loads (includ-
ing oddly shaped objects), the bus vehicle
needs modifications to create more stor-
age space. This will require detailed sur-
veys of the load-carrying needs in terms
of dimensions, types of goods, etc. The
AMTS has several types of concessional
fares, but income does not seem to be a
criterion. To make public transport more
monetarily affordable, especially for those
BPL, concession schemes need to be pro-
vided. To establish cut-off values for aut-
henticity of eligibility, transport opera-
tors need to collaborate with non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) to de-
vise a system for concessions.
Most of the captive public transport
users are usually the urban poor. In terms
of public transport network, Ahmedabad
19
COMMENTARY
has a better public transport system than
similar midsized Indian cities. However,
this study reveals that the public trans-
port system in Ahmedabad could certainly
be made more inclusive, by improving
the quality of infrastructure to enhance
first/last mile connectivity, introducing
more high-frequency direct routes, and
addressing on-board carriage require-
ments of street vendors. Finally, although
monetary unaffordability of public trans-
port is not a major concern, concessional
fares for people below the poverty line
should also be introduced.
20
References
AUDA (1997): “Revised Draft Development Plan of
AUDA 2011 AD, Part-I, Volume 2: Surveys,
Studies and Analysis,” Ahmedabad Urban
Development Authority.
— (2014): “Draft Comprehensive Development
Plan 2021,” (second revised), Part I: Existing
Conditions, Studies and Analysis, Ahmedabad
Urban Development Authority.
Bhakuni, N C K (2017): “Role of Transportation in
Labour Market Dynamics of Urban Poor: A
Case Study of Ahmedabad,” PhD dissertation,
CEPT University, Ahmedabad.
DCO (2011): District Census Handbook, Ahmeda-
bad, Directorate of Census Operations, Guja-
rat, http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/
dchb/2407_PART_B_DCHB_AHMADABAD.
pdf.
FEBRUARY 23, 2019
GIDB (2001): “Feasibility Study on Integrated
Public Transit System (IPTS) for Ahmedabad,”
Interim Report, Section-1. Prepared by Louis
Berger Group Consortium for Gujarat Industrial
Development Board.
Shah, Jay, and Bhargav Adhvaryu (2016): “Public
Transport Accessibility Levels for Ahmedabad,
India,” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol 19,
No 3, pp 19–35, https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-
0901.19.3.2.
Somani, Avanita (2011): “Slums and Incidence of
Diseases in Ahmedabad, IDRC–TTI,” Working
Paper, Institute of Rural Management Anand,
Gujarat, https://www.irma.ac.in/institute/doc/
wpr9.pdf.
UN-Habitat (2003): “The Challenge of Slums: Glob-
al Report on Human Settlements, 2003,” UN–
Habitat, United Nations Human Settlements
Programme, https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/f-
iles/Challenge%20of%20Slums.pdf.
vol lIV no 8 EPW Economic & Political Weekly