Lecture 6 - Case Study - Transportation - Bangalore PDF

Indo-Norway Project CLIMATRANS
Sustainable Transport Measures for Liveable

Bengaluru
Prof. Ashish Verma

Mr. Harsha Vajjarapu
Ms. Hemanthini Allirani
Transportation Engineering Lab
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore
PARTNRS :
1
Important points to be noted
• Recently approved projects such as suburban rail and airport link of metro are not included in the model
which will be incorporated in subsequent years.
• Liveability is measured in terms of reduced traffic congestion, reduced exhaust emissions, reduced
greenhouse gas emissions, reduced carbon emission intensity w.r.t. GDP growth, increased consumer
surplus of sustainable modes and improved resiliency of transportation system.
• There are also other high level of indicators like health impacts, well being, quality of life which will be
evaluated in future in another ongoing project TIGTHAT.
• After October dissemination seminar, an additional bundle focussing on electrification of vehicles with four
scenarios and each scenario with different energy mix of renewable and non-renewable sources is
evaluated.
• It is expected that the findings of this report will provide more scientific and evidence based decision
support for framing right kind of sustainable transport planning and policy measures to make Bengaluru
more liveable.
• The basic principles and developed methodology from this study can be applied to other Indian cities as
well to develop similar measures aimed at improving their liveability.
• Focus only on transport policy and planning. While transport operations and design are equally important,
they are not within the scope of this study. 2
Objectives
To develop mitigation strategies for the base year and the horizon
years 2030 & 2050 for transportation sector which are aimed at
reducing the GHG emissions, local pollutants and traffic congestion
from a baseline condition.
To identify the transportation infrastructure that is vulnerable to

climate change and assess the impacts of climate change on the
transportation infrastructure
To develop adaptation strategies for the base year and the horizon
years 2030 & 2050 to evaluate the vulnerability, scope & extent,
severity of each flood event caused by climate change to
transportation sector
Improving the overall liveability of Bengaluru
3
Liveability
 No standard definition. It changes depending on assessing parameters and goal.
 Liveability is the sum of the factors that add up to a community's quality of life - including the
built and natural environments, economic prosperity, social stability and equity, educational
opportunity, and cultural, entertainment and recreation possibilities.
 Critical factors for liveable communities are:
 Residents feeling safe, socially connected and included;
 Environmental sustainability; and
 Access to affordable and diverse housing options linked via public transport, walking and
cycling infrastructure to employment, education, local shops, public open space and parks,
health and community services, leisure and culture.
 They are needed to promote health and wellbeing in individuals, build communities and support
a sustainable society.
4
Liveability
 In this study, quantitative evaluation of sustainable transport mitigation and
adaptation measures are carried out aimed to improve the liveability of
Bengaluru in terms of;
 reduced traffic congestion (VKT)
 reduced exhaust emissions (PM, CO, NOX, HC etc.)
 reduced greenhouse gas emissions (CO2)
 reduced carbon emission intensity with respect to GDP growth
 increased consumer surplus of sustainable modes
 improved resiliency of transportation system.
5
Bengaluru is presently trapped in this “Vicious Circle of Congestion”
Increase income due to economic
growth since early 1990s
Policies discouraging car ownership
Increase Car Ownership, since car is
Policies on considered as societal symbol of wealth
Sustainable transport
Infra., Car Policies discouraging car usage
discouraging policies. More congestion and delay
More infrastructure for
sustainable transport
modes
The number and average
length of trips increases Public pressure to increase
road capacity
The Vicious
Circle of
Dedicated Lane
Congestion policies for PT and
NMT
Urban Sprawl is favoured as New road capacity in terms of

people can travel longer distances flyovers, underpasses, road
with car in the same time widening is added
Movements by car become more

Mixed Land use strategies to easy and fast Policies discouraging car
regulate urban sprawl
usage
6
Current systems and trends in Bengaluru are not sustainable
 Growth of congestion
 Growth of accidents
 Growing environmental problems
 Air quality
 Noise
 Climate change
 Growing Fuel consumption
7
Methodology & Travel Demand Modelling - BAU
PARTNERS :
8
General flow chart of Mitigation & Adaptation
START
 Socio-economic
A. Base year emissions & Future year trends
emissions & targets  Transportation
trends.
B. Scenario Formulation
Flood Maps
C. Scenario Analysis
MITIGATION ADAPTATION
D. Emissions (Mode wise) G. Flooded links
H. Design of adaptation
E. Design of mitigation policies
policies
F. Evaluating the Mitigation Policies I. Evaluating the Adaptation Policies
J. Policy bundles to mitigate emissions and adapt to

climate change.
END
9
Trip Generation
Productions data for Private Vehicles base year Attractions data for Private Vehicles in base year
90000 120000
80000
100000
70000
60000 80000
Productions
Attractions
50000
60000
40000
30000 40000
20000
20000
10000
0
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000
Employment
Population
Trip End
Mode P-A 𝑅2
Equations
Production 0.56 x POP + 1344.34 0.46
Private
Attraction 0.76 x EMP + 6877.28 0.4
Trip End equations for Private Transport 10

Trip Generation
Public Transport Productions for base year
80000
Trip End
Mode P-A 𝑅2 70000
Equations 60000
Productions
50000
Production 0.42 x POP + 4080 0.43 40000
Public 30000
Attraction 0.76 x EMP + 6231 0.4 20000

10000
0
Trip End equations for Public Transport 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000
Population
Public Transport Attractions for base year

200000
180000
160000
Per Capita Trip Rates for Private and
140000
Public Transport is 1.19
Attractions
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Employment
11
Trip Distribution
 Doubly constrained Gravity Model has been used.
 Shortest Path matrix has been created with travel time as a parameter for Private and for Transit between 384 zones.
 Shortest Path matrix is considered as impedance matrix.
Friction factor matrix is created using Gamma function and calibrating the parameters
Mode Peak Hour
K Alpha Beta
Private 196.2829 0.7192 0.0389
Public 104.9148 0.8954 0.0108
Gamma deterrence function is

f(cij) = K cij−⍺ × e−β (cij)
given by the equation
Where cij = Shortest Path Matrix (Distance)

f(cij) = Friction factor matrix (generalized cost function)
12
Trip Distribution
Peak hour Trip Length Distribution - Private Vehicles Peak hour Trip Length Distribution - Public Transport
120000 180000
160000
100000 140000
120000
No.of Trips
80000
No.of Trips
100000
60000 80000
60000
40000
40000
20000 20000
0
20-25
25-30
10-15
15-20
30-35
35-40
40-45
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
75-80
80-85
5-10
0-5
0
5-10
0-5
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
75-80
Trip Length (km)
Trip Length (km)
Calculated Trips Observed Trips Calculated Observed
Avg Trip Length – 14.10 km (Calculated) Avg Trip Length – 11.40 km (Calculated)
Avg Trip Length – 12.20 km (Observed) Avg Trip Length – 10.34 km (Observed)
13
Mode Choice Model
MNL Model for Base year
Variable Parameter value (P-value) Variable Parameter value (P-value)
ASC(Public Transit) 2.81 (0.00) Household income (walk) -0.0943 (0.00)
Number of vehicles by earners(car
ASC (Two wheeler) 3.94 (0.00) 0.374 (0.08)
and two-wheeler)
ASC (Auto) 0.307 (0.47) Age(public transit) -0. 0376 (0.00)
ASC (cycle) 6.99 (0.00) Age(walk) -0.0816 (0.00)
ASC (Walk) 7.55 (0.00) Age(cycle) -0.0275 (0.00)
In vehicle travel time (MV) -0.00635 (0.00) Gender (public transit) -0.517 (0.00)
In vehicle Travel time (cycle) -0.0781 (0.00) Gender (walk) -0.609 (0.00)
In vehicle Travel time (walk) -0.0943 (0.00) Gender (cycle) -0.536 (0.00)
Travel cost (Generic) -0.00794 (-0.00) Purpose school(Car) 2.31 (0.00)
Out of vehicle travel time (Public
-0.0635 (0.00) Purpose school (Public Transit) 1.85 (0.00)
Transit)
Household income (two wheeler) -0.0916 (0.00) Purpose-school (cycle) 0.808 (0.00)
Household income (Auto) -0.115 Purpose-school (walk) 2.11 (0.00)
Household income (cycle) -0.181
Null log-likelihood -5701.859

Final log-likelihood -2084.096
Rho-square 0.634 14
Mode Choice Model
Mode Share of BMR
Observed Modal Split Estimated Modal Split
49.7%
47%
PERCENTAGE SHARE
28.9%
26%
18.5%
15.4%
4.5%
3.7%
2.3%
4%
CAR BUS BIKE AUTO NMT
15
Travel Demand Forecast for 2030 and 2050 (BAU Scenario)
Forecasted Productions for Private and Public Transport
Mode Year Trip End Equations Productions

2030 10621961
Private 0.56 x POP + 1344.34
2050 19058681
2050
2030 9146021 Percapita Trip rates

Public 0.42 x POP + 4080
2050 15473561
Year PCTR
2030 1.08
Forecasted Attractions for Private and Public Transport
2050 1.02
Mode Year Trip End Equations Attractions
2030 10621961
Private 0.76 x EMP + 6877.28
2050 19058681
2030 9146021
Public 0.76 x EMP + 6231
2050 15473561
16
Peak Hr TLD Private Transport
180000.00
160000.00 Avg Trip Length 2008 - 14.10 km
100000.00
Trips
80000.00
PVT (2008) PVT (2030) PVT (2050)
60000.00
40000.00
Trip Distribution
20000.00
0.00
Peak Hr Forecasted TLD- Public Transport

160000
140000
Avg Trip Length 2008 - 11.40 km
120000 Avg Trip Length 2030 - 16.36 km
100000 Avg Trip Length 2050 - 18.22 km
Trips
80000
60000 PuT 2008 PuT 2030 PuT 2050
40000
20000
0
Trip Length (Km)

17
Mode Share
Estimated Modal Split for base Estimated Modal Split for 2030 Estimated Modal Split for 2050
year
2.3 3.9 5.1
15.4 16.8 19.3
17.4
28.9 23.5
3.7
4
4.6
17.27
17.87
49.7 34.53 35.73
Car 2w Bus Auto NMT Car 2w Bus Metro Auto NMT Car 2w Bus Metro Auto NMT
• BMRCL Mode share is collected from a report ‘Need for Government support for Public Transport’ by ‘CSTEP - Centre for Study of
Science, Technology and Policy.
• The ratio of BMTC to BMRCL mode share is taken out from the report and applied to the model to estimate the mode share of BMRCL
Source: CSTEP (2015). Need for Government Support for Public Bus Transport (CSTEP-Report-2015-05)
18
Trip Assignment
Private Public
2030 2030
VEHICLE KILOMETERS TRAVELLED
72
132%
VKT in Millions
48
31
55%
Private Public
2050 2050
Base Year 2030 2050
19
Emissions for Base year, 2030 and 2050 (BAU Scenario)
Pollutant Tonnes/ year (% change w.r.t base year)

Base Year 2030 2050
CO 15743 18179 (15%) 23567 (50%)
HC 7315 2930 (-60%) 3841 (-47%)
NOx 6985 28864 (313%) 22962 (229%)
17662478
CO2 695617 16782759 (2313%)
(2439%)
PM 973 2009 (106%) 1519 (56%)
20
Results and Discussions
• The total population of the BMR region in 2001 as per the census is 8.5 million and is 10.8 million in 2011. It
has been estimated that the population would reach 18 million by 2030 and 33 million by 2050.
• The study estimated that the average trip length for the year base year for BMR is 14 km and 11 km for private
and public transport respectively and has increased for the years 2030 and 2050.
• With majority of the population opting for public transport as their mode of travel, it has a mode share of
49.7 % with the least being car (2.3%). Mode share of two wheelers is 28.9%, 3 wheelers (Auto) 3.7% and NMT
share is about 15.4%.
• The total Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT) by the vehicles in the BMR region is about 31 million for the base
year and is estimated to increase about 48 million and 72 million for the years 2030 and 2050 respectively
which is about 60% growth rate of VKT in 2050 from base year.
• The growth rate of the total VKT from base year to 2030 is estimated as 56% and from 2030 to 2050 as 78%
• It is observed that for the years 2030 and 2050 under BAU scenario the vehicle volumes on the road network
are way more higher compared to the capacities. The V/C ratios are over 1.75 as seen in the VDF maps of trip
assignment.
• Green House Gas (GHG) emissions are dependent on Vehicle Kilometres Travelled. For this study 5 pollutants
namely CO, HC, NOx, CO2, PM are considered.
21
Evaluation of Mitigation Policies for Bengaluru city
PARTNERS :
22
START
Socio economic
trends.
Mitigation Step 1: Setting Baseline and Setting Target level

for sustainable transportation
Transport
trends.
Methodology Transport sector

emissions.
Flow Chart Step 2: Scenario Formulation
Step 3: BAU Step 3: Sustainable

Delphi Study
transport Scenarios
Step 4: Policy measures to achieve

target level
Travel
Step 5: Scenario Analysis Transport
Demand Emissions
Demand
Modelling
Consumer Emissions
Step 6: Appraisal of Strategies
Surplus Intensity
Step 7: Development of Mitigation

policies to improve liveability of the
city
END
23
Policy Instruments
Planning Regulatory Economic Information Technology
P Increasing network R1 Limiting parking space E1 Congestion I1 Public T1 Improvement in
1 coverage of Public Pricing information as to standards for
Transit aid them in vehicle emission
planning their
trip.
P Defining car restricted R2 High density mix building E2 Pay to park I2 Information and T2 Information and
2 zones use along main transport education Communication
corridors Technology.
P High density mix R3 Congestion Pricing E3 Fine for parking T3 Low emission
3 building use along main in no parking vehicles.
transport corridors zone
P Create walkable R4 Encouraging car-pooling E4 Taxes on
4 neighborhoods vehicles with
high emission
P Park and ride R5 Transfer Development E5 Heavy taxes on
5 Right (TDR) more than one
car per
household
P Congestion Pricing R6 Pay to park E6 Increase in fuel
6 cost
P Cycling and Walking R7 Fine for parking in no E7 Strict Vehicles
7 infrastructure parking zone inspection
R8 Taxes on vehicles with high E8 Road Pricing
emission
R9 Increase in fuel cost
R10 Strict Vehicles inspection
R11 High Occupancy Vehicle
Lanes
R12 Slower speeds and
24
ecological driving
Basic Strategies
Which role shall the different transport modes play?
•Push-and-Pull concept:
Which modes need support, which modes need restrictions?
Push: parking management, access restrictions ...

Pull: dense bus network, high quality bus services, ...
Push and Pull: separate bus lanes, priority for buses at traffic signals etc.
•To enable Bengaluru to come out of vicious circle of congestion.
25
Policy Bundles For Mitigation
• Increasing network coverage of Public Transit Planning &
Bundle 1 • Cycling and walking infrastructure Regulatory
• Additional tax on purchasing vehicles Instruments
• Additional tax on purchasing vehicles

Economic &
• Strict Vehicles inspection/ Improvement in standards for vehicle
Bundle 2 emission
Regulatory
Instruments
• Increase in fuel cost
• Increasing network coverage of Public Transit

• Defining car restricted roads Combination of
• Congestion Pricing Planning
Bundle 3 • Park and Ride Regulatory &
Economic
• Cycling and Walking infrastructure
• Encouraging car-pooling and High Occupancy Lanes Instruments
• High density mix building use along main transport corridors
Combination of
Planning
Regulatory,
Bundle 4 • Bundle 3 + All buses and cars running on electricity Economic &
Technological
Instruments
26
Increasing network coverage of Public Transit
• Links that are

Identifying over
Congested congested
with traffic
links are Identified
• More links are added in

Add more the zone that has more
productions and heavy
PT links congestion to reduce
load on other links
• New travel times are

Re obtained & these are
modelling used to re model the
flows on roads.
Variables affected:
◦ Travel cost
◦ In vehicle travel time
◦ Out of vehicle travel time (Public Transit) For 2030 and 2050, 60.1 km and 30 km of public
Transport road network was increased. 27
Defining car restricted Roads
Variables affected:
• Travel cost
• In vehicle travel time (MV)
• In vehicle travel time (Cycle)
• Out of vehicle travel time
(Public Transit)
• Heavily congested
and more pedestrian
movement roads are
considered.
Locations:
• Brigade road
• SP road
• BVK Iyengar road
• Malleswaram 8th cross
• Tulsi theatre road
28
Defining car restricted Roads
Identification of car restricted roads

• 15 such links have been identified
• Heavily congested links and more pedestrian users
Modeling private transport without cars

• Private vehicle O-D matrix without car O-D is used for modelling
• Car restricted roads are removed from the road network and car O-D
matrix is modelled with non car O-D matrix as preload
Modelling public transport with car restricted roads

• From private transport model output is private transport flows with
no cars on car restricted zones
• Public transportation is now modelled with private transport network
flows as preloads on public transport network
29
Increase in fuel Cost
DIESEL PETROL
80
Average cost/lit Linear (Average cost/lit) y = 3.6108x - 7197.9
Fuel cost + 70 70 R² = 0.8864
Travel cost in 60 60
Mode share
Avg. Cost/ litre

Avg cost per litre
50 50
analysis 40 y = 2.5507x - 5085.3 40
R² = 0.932
30 30
20 20
10
New mode 10
shares are 0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
0
obtained Year
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Year
2010 2012 2014 2016
Source: IOCL (official) website

Diesel Petrol
Year Year
O-D Matrix Projected Cost (Rs/lit) Projected Cost (Rs/lit)
changed & fed 2030 92.62 2030 132.02
into model
2050 143.63 2050 204.24
Fuel costs were increase by Rs. 10/- for 2030

and 2050 w.r.t BAU costs
30
Strict Vehicles inspection/ Improvement in standards for vehicle emission
• Vehicles older that 15 years will be removed from the OD matrix which is used
for 2030.
• This is applied for cars and 2 wheelers.
• Vehicle registered per year information of Bangalore is used for this purpose.
• Base year vehicles are projected to 2030 & 2050 and vehicles from 2015 are
used in 2030 OD matrix for this policy and 2035 vehicles for 2050.
• Due to unavailability of data, an equal share of vehicles will be removed from the
OD matrix from all zones.
31
High density mix building use along main transport corridors
Variables affected:
Assumed that10 % of the productions
are shifted to the zones where a large ◦ Zone specific trip attractions and
number of trips are being attracted. productions
◦ Travel cost
◦ In vehicle travel time
◦ Out of vehicle travel time (Public Transit)
Intra-zonal trips, Reduces travel
distance & time
Locations:
• Mahatma Gandhi Road
TDM - Trip Distribution, Mode share
and Trip Assignment • Traffic Transit Management Centres
• Madiwala
• Ring Roads (Inner and Outer)
• Intermediate Ring Road
Development focused on bus stations
where public transport accessibility
will be high
32
Park and Ride
Variables affected:
• In-vehicle time (MV)
• Out-vehicle time (Public Transit)
• Travel cost (fuel cost, parking cost, fare for metro)
• All private trips originating from the same zone as TTMC

are assumed to park their vehicles.
• Parking costs are added to travel cost and fuel cost is
removed.
• New mode shares are obtained and new OD is formed
• New OD matrix is used for modelling.
Traffic and Transportation

Management Centres (TTMCs)
are considered for applying this
policy.
33
Congestion Pricing
A congestion price of Rs.10.50 per km (T. M.,
et al., 2013) will add to the travel cost
Implementation Locations:
Krishna Rajendra M G Road

Market (K R Market)
Shivajinagar Whitefield
Silk Board junction Malleswaram
Madiwala Hebbal
Koramangala Yeshwantpur-
Rajajinagar
Variables affected: • Vehicles passing through the mentioned routes will be

◦ In-vehicle travel time (MV) charged for congesting the road.
◦ Out-vehicle travel time (public transit) • Trips in the zones where these roads are located will be
checked for their path.
◦ In-vehicle travel time (walk)
• CP is added to the travel cost in mode choice model of that
◦ In-vehicle travel time (cycle)
individual if his path falls on the CP adopted roads.
◦ Travel cost (congestion price, fuel cost, fare)
34
Cycling & Walking infrastructure
◦ Acceptable trip length of 0.75 km and 1.66 km for walking and cycling (Rahul, et al., 2013)
◦ Assumption: Motor vehicle Trips within acceptable trip distance of cycle & walk shifts to NMT.
◦ New mode shares are calculated and new OD matrix generated which feeds to the model.
◦ Policy tested within Outer Ring Road limits.
Variables affected:
◦ In-vehicle travel time (MV)
◦ In-vehicle travel time (walk)
◦ In-vehicle travel time (cycle)
◦ Travel cost (congestion price, fuel cost, fare)
35
Encouraging carpooling and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes
Sub-arterial & arterials roads and main transport corridors of Bangalore where HoV lanes can be provided
are good places to implement.
A HOV road network is created

Dabaspete – Hosur Bellary Road
Highway
Doddaballapur Road
Tumkur Road
car trips that fall on the HOV network Old Madras Road
assumed to car pool and a separate OD matrix Bangalore – Mangalore

Highway
is created from the original car OD matrix Magadi Road ORR
NICE Road
Hosur Rd
Assign the car pool trips onto the HOV network and
then assign the Public Transportation trips onto Anekal Rd
the Public transportation network with a preload Bangalore – Mysore Rd
of car pool OD.

Kanakapura Rd
Private Trip assignment with preloads as zero

and reduced road capacity.
36
Additional taxes while purchasing motorised vehicles
• This policy aims to reduce the number of motorised vehicles with higher emissions by
taxing them.
• This tax would be an addition in the Travel Cost variable in TDM model and would reflect in
the mode share.
• Life time tax (15 yrs) is converted to daily tax and added to travel cost variable.
The following taxes were considered for different vehicles
◦ Car : additional 5 % (Rs. 21/day)
◦ Two-wheeler : additional 5 % (Rs. 3/day)
37
Mode Share Comparisons between Policy Bundles & BAU
•Increasing network coverage of Public Transit Bundle 1
•Cycling and walking infrastructure
•Additional tax on purchasing vehicles
MODE SHARE - 2030 MODE SHARE - 2050

40 40
36.4
34.7 33.8
35 35
32.2
30 30
25 23.5 25 22.5
21.4
19.4
20 17.9 20 17.4 18.1
17.1
15.1 14.1 14.8
15 12.7 15
10 10
5.1 4.6 3.9 4.5 5.1
5 3.9 4 3.7 4.1 4.8 5
2.7 2.5
0 0
Car Bus Metro 2w Auto Cycle walk Car Bus Metro 2w Auto Cycle walk
BAU (%) Bundle 1 (%) BAU (%) Bundle 1 (%)
38
•Additional tax on purchasing vehicles
•Strict Vehicles inspection/ Improvement in
Bundle 2
standards for vehicle emission
•Increase in fuel cost
MODE SHARE - 2050
MODE SHARE - 2030
40 40
36.5
34.7
35 35 34.1
32.2
30 30
25 23.5 25 22.7
21.4
18.2 20 18.3
17.118
20
17.4
15.9
14.8
15 12.7 15 13.3
10 10
5.6 6.2
5.1 4.6 4.5
5 3.9 4 3.4 4.1 5 3.2
2.4 2.2
0 0

39
•Increasing network coverage of Public Transit
•Defining car restricted roads
Bundle 3
•Congestion Pricing
•Park and Ride
•Cycling and Walking infrastructure
•Encouraging car-pooling and High Occupancy Lanes
•High density mix building use along main transport corridors
MODE SHARE - 2030 MODE SHARE - 2050

40 37.9 40
34.7 35.0
35 35 32.2
30 30
25 23.5 23.4
25
21.4
20 18.6 19.2
17.1 16.4 16.2 20 17.4
15
14.8
12.7 15
11.1
10 10
5.9 6.7
3.9 4 4.1 5.1 4.6 4.5
5 2.1 2.9 5 2.8
1.8
0 0

40
VKT Comparisons between Policy Bundles & BAU
Total VKT - 2030 (millions) Total VKT - 2050 (millions)
47.5 72.5
Vehicle Kilometers Travelled ( millions)
47 72.02
47 72
46.5 71.5
4.7 % 3.2 %
46 71
45.7
45.5
45.5 70.5 70.4
70.1
45 44.8 70
69.7
44.5 69.5
44 69
43.5 68.5
Bundle 1 Bundle 2 Bundle 3 BAU Bundle 1 Bundle 2 Bundle 3 BAU
41
Emission Factors
• The principal emissions generated from transportation sector:
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
• Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
• Carbon Monoxide (CO)
• Hydrocarbons (HC)
• Particulate Matter (PM)
• The emission factors for automobiles are estimated for different scenarios for electricity generation as well as for different ranges of
electric vehicle mileage (kWh/km). An extensive study has been conducted by one of the project partners Dr. Munish K. Chandel, Centre
for Environmental Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Bombay, for estimating the emission factors for both conventional
vehicles and electric vehicles based on various scenarios.
• Renewable share of electricity in future years is assumed to increase (IEA, 2015).
• In India, the electricity is produced from following sources:

• Non-renewable sources (Coal, Heavy Fuel Oil, Natural Gas and Nuclear)
• Renewable Sources (Hydropower, Bio energy, Solar, Waste and Wind).
• The emissions for the electricity (g/kWh) are calculated based upon different energy mix scenarios. Four different scenarios assumed
based on the different projections of the energy mix in the target years are as follows:
• Scenario 1: New Policies Scenario (IEA, 2015) – Non renewable sources & Electricity (74% - 26%)
• Scenario 2: Electricity from non-renewable Sources (100 %)
• Scenario 3: Half electricity from renewable and another half from non-renewable sources (50 % - 50 %)
• Scenario 4: Electricity from Renewable Sources (100 %)
42
Emission Factors
Emission Factors for Conventional Vehicles Emission factors for Electrical Vehicles (Scenario 4)
Emission Factors for Conventional Car/Taxi E- Vehicle Emission Factors : Average City conditions
gm/km gm/km
CO HC NOx CO2 PM Vehicle Year
CO HC NOx CO2 PM
Base Year 2.444 0.267 0.344 133.576 0.0276
Base Year 0.058 0.00001 0.390 129.555 0.064
2021 0.604 0.139 0.178 144.126 0.004
Car / Taxi 2031 0.008 0.00000 0.041 0.00 0.003
2031 0.528 0.133 0.13 144.29 0.004
2050 0.008 0.00000 0.029 0.00 0.002
2050 0.528 0.133 0.020 147.116 0.0038
Emission Factors for Conventional Two-Wheelers
Base Year 0.011 0.00000 0.076 25.17 0.012
gm/km
CO HC NOx CO2 PM Two-Wheeler 2031 0.002 0.00000 0.008 0.00 0.001
Base Year 1.153 0.790 0.112 31.065 0.022917 2050 0.001 0.000000 0.006 0.00 0.000
2021 0.628 0.416 0.122 36.332 0.022882
2031 0.933 0.201 0.057 42.709 0.011 Base Year 0.021 0.00000 0.140 46.52 0.023
2050 0.994 0.099 0.06 43.61 0.004 Three-Wheeler 2031 0.003 0.00000 0.015 0.00 0.001
Emission Factors for Conventional Three-Wheelers 2050 0.003 0.00000 0.010 0.00 0.001
gm/km
CO HC NOx CO2 PM Base Year 0.508 0.0001 3.442 1144.03 0.568
Base Year 4.468 1.889 0.558 77.170 0.203 Bus 2031 0.074 0.0000 0.362 0.00 0.024
2021 1.55 0.65 0.385 85.51 0.025 2050 0.067 0.0000 0.257 0.00 0.017
2031 0.487 0.316 0.147 81.74 0.017
2050 0.302 0.206 0.084 67.53 0.011 Base Year 2.497 0.0005 16.913 5621.01 2.790
Emission Factors for Conventional Buses Suburban
2031 0.364 0.0001 1.777 0.00 0.115
gm/km Rail/Train
2050 0.331 0.0001 1.265 0.00 0.083
CO HC NOx CO2 PM
Base Year 7.997 1.601 11.955 789.182 1.38
Base Year 7.950 0.0015 53.837 17892.66 8.883
2021 3.0262 0.2711 4.6413 611.479 0.0851 Metro/Mono
2031 2.8774 0.2023 1.3189 611.151 0.0225 2031 1.157 0.0002 5.656 0.00 0.368
Rail
2050 2.8774 0.1913 0.774 611.151 0.0178 2050 1.055 0.0002 4.027 0.00 0.263
43
Emission Factors
Emission factors for Electrical Vehicles (Scenario 3)
E- Vehicle Emission Factors : Average City conditions
gm/km
Vehicle Year
CO HC NOx CO2 PM
Base Year 0.058 0.00001 0.390 129.555 0.064
Car / Taxi 2031 0.034 0.00001 0.133 67.33 0.009
2050 0.031 0.00001 0.089 59.78 0.006
Base Year 0.011 0.00000 0.076 25.17 0.012

Two-Wheeler 2031 0.007 0.00000 0.026 13.08 0.002 Emissions = VKT x Emission factor
2050 0.006 0.000001 0.017 11.61 0.001
Base Year 0.021 0.00000 0.140 46.52 0.023

Three-Wheeler 2031 0.012 0.00000 0.048 24.18 0.003
2050 0.011 0.00000 0.032 21.47 0.002
Base Year 0.508 0.0001 3.442 1144.03 0.568

Bus 2031 0.299 0.0001 1.174 594.52 0.083
2050 0.270 0.0001 0.785 527.92 0.057
Base Year 2.497 0.0005 16.913 5621.01 2.790

Suburban Rail/Train 2031 1.468 0.0003 5.770 2921.06 0.406
2050 1.328 0.0003 3.859 2593.83 0.279
Base Year 7.950 0.0015 53.837 17892.66 8.883

Metro/Mono Rail 2031 4.672 0.0009 18.368 9298.26 1.292 Source: Centre for Environmental Science and
2050 4.226 0.0008 12.282 8256.62 0.889 Engineering, IIT Bombay
44
Total Vehicular & Total Percapita Emissions
TOTAL CO EMISSIONS IN TONNES/YEAR - 2030
19155.00
18887.00
18737.00
18179.00
65 %
17136.00
17080.00
16880.00
15761.67
15167.00
14999.00
14915.00
13500.54
11447.00
11107.87
11091.00
10842.00
6450.29
B1 - S1 B1 - S2 B1 - S3 B1 - S4 B2 - S1 B2 - S2 B2 - S3 B2 - S4 B3 - S1 B3 - S2 B3 - S3 B3 - S4 B4 - S1 B4 - S2 B4 - S3 B4 - S4* BAU
TOTAL PERCAPITA CO EMISSIONS IN KILO TONNES/PERSON/YEAR - 2030

25 %
1.7941
1.7752
1.7737
1.7745
1.7722
1.7682
1.7675
1.7668
1.7654
1.7514
1.7508
1.7500
1.7486
1.3861
1.3751
1.3632
1.3394
B1 - S1 B1 - S2 B1 - S3 B1 - S4 B2 - S1 B2 - S2 B2 - S3 B2 - S4 B3 - S1 B3 - S2 B3 - S3 B3 - S4 B4 - S1 B4 - S2 B4 - S3 B4 - S4
* BAU
*Assuming electricity is purely generated from hydro power, solar and wind without using bio energy, 36% reduction in total emission is
observed even in BAU scenario itself. Additionally, with the same assumption in B4-S4 scenario, 73% reduction in total CO emissions
and 26% reduction in percapita CO emissions can be achieved with respect to BAU scenario.
45
TOTAL CO EMISSIONS IN TONNES/YEAR - 2050
23940.00
23567.00
23575.00
22891.00
21971.00
21581.00
20873.00
20190.00
19778.00
19048.00
70 %
16779.85
16440.00
15982.00
15205.00
14236.34
11939.66
7099.46
* BAU
TOTAL PERCAPITA CO EMISSIONS IN KILO TONNES/PERSON/YEAR - 2050
1.4742
1.4739
1.4736
1.4730
1.4395
1.4407
1.4404
1.4401
1.4355
1.4352
1.4349
1.4343
21 %
1.3999
1.1361
1.1267
1.1181
1.1002
* BAU
observed even in BAU scenario itself. Additionally, with the same assumption in B4-S4 scenario, 77% reduction in total CO emissions and
22% reduction in percapita CO emissions can be achieved with respect to BAU scenario 46
TOTAL HC EMISSIONS IN TONNES/YEAR - 2030
2930.00
2619.00
2618.00
2618.00
2617.00
2516.00
2515.00
2515.00
2514.00
2418.00
2417.00
2417.00
2416.00
58%
1242.22
1241.23
1241.22
1240.00
TOTAL PERCAPITA HC EMISSIONS IN KILO TONNES/PERSON/YEAR - 2030

21 %
0.5412
0.5355
0.5355
0.5355
0.5355
0.5333
0.5333
0.5333
0.5333
0.5281
0.5281
0.5281
0.5281
0.4249
0.4249
0.4249
0.4249
* BAU
*Assuming electricity is purely generated from hydro power, solar and wind without using bio energy in B4-S4 scenario, 58% reduction in total
HC emissions and 21% reduction in percapita HC emissions can be achieved with respect to BAU scenario
47
TOTAL HC EMISSIONS IN TONNES/YEAR - 2050
3841.00
3530.00
3529.00
3529.00
3528.00
3423.00
3422.00
3422.00
3421.00
3347.00
3348.00
3347.00
3346.00
80 %
777.49
776.49
776.49
775.00
* BAU
TOTAL PERCAPITA HC EMISSIONS IN KILO TONNES/PERSON/YEAR - 2050
0.3037
0.3037
0.3037
0.3037
0.2964
0.2964
0.2964
0.2964
0.2957
0.2957
0.2957
0.2957
28 %
0.2884
0.2073
0.2073
0.2073
0.2073
* BAU
HC emissions and 28% reduction in percapita HC emissions can be achieved with respect to BAU scenario 48
TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS IN TONNES/YEAR - 2030
41573.80
39193.00
35321.00
33393.40
31891.00
29502.00
28864.00
28785.00
24752.00
24733.25
24160.00
73 %
22392.00
21866.00
9127.00
8565.00
8410.00
7894.86
* BAU
TOTAL PERCAPITA NOX EMISSIONS IN KILO TONNES/PERSON/YEAR - 2030
0.3642
0.3230
30 %
0.2814
0.2816
0.2800
0.2792
0.2788
0.2768
0.2760
0.2751
0.2742
0.2734
0.2725
0.2706
0.2692
0.2673
0.1958
* BAU
*Assuming electricity is purely generated from hydro power, solar and wind without using bio energy, 91% reduction in total emission and 4%
reduction in total Percapita emission is observed even in BAU scenario itself. Additionally, with the same assumption in B4-S4 scenario, 99%
reduction in total NOx emissions and 44% reduction in percapita NOx emissions can be achieved with respect to BAU scenario 49
TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS IN TONNES/YEAR - 2050
31755.03
28567.00
28249.00
27989.00
25140.82
23314.00
23059.00
22962.00
22863.00
71 %
19156.20
18562.00
18365.00
18226.00
8559.00
8482.00
8463.00
6559.36
*
B1 - S1 B1 - S2 B1 - S3 B1 - S4 B2 - S1 B2 - S2 B2 - S3 B2 - S4 B3 - S1 B3 - S2 B3 - S3 B3 - S4 B4 - S1 B4 - S2 B4 - S3 B4 - S4 BAU
TOTAL PERCAPITA NOX EMISSIONS IN KILO TONNES/PERSON/YEAR - 2050
0.2192
0.1943
0.1724
6%
0.1255
0.1253
0.1245
0.1238
0.1222
0.1222
0.1215
0.1213
0.1207
0.1206
0.1199
0.1190
0.1187
0.1183
* BAU
reduction in total Percapita emission is observed even in BAU scenario itself. Further, with the same assumption in B4-S4 scenario, 98%
reduction in total NOx emissions and 13% reduction in percapita NOx emissions can be achieved with respect to BAU scenario 50
TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS IN TONNES/YEAR - 2030
24911799
23807104
21490912
19758040
18927930
18465358
17110948
16782759
16709721
98 %
12810981
12593851
11910317
11648704
1814859
1806496
1796600
275898
TOTAL PERCAPITA CO2 EMISSIONS IN KILO TONNES/PERSON/YEAR - 2030
228.8918
228.3808
227.1485
226.4611
225.3630
224.4290
224.3798
223.4731
223.3968
223.0334
221.4655
220.4772
219.7977
217.7097
56 %
193.1014
161.4126
99.7836
* BAU
reduction in total Percapita emission is observed even in BAU scenario itself. Additionally, with the same assumption in B4-S4 scenario, 98%
reduction in total CO2 emissions and 56% reduction in percapita CO2 emissions can be achieved with respect to BAU scenario 53
TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS IN TONNES/YEAR - 2050
25508531
23000477
22764154
22570525
18893161
17746779
17662478
17573753
17443422
98 %
12995117
12909943
12879340
12806258
3041979
2994515
2989745
311304
* BAU
TOTAL PERCAPITA CO2 EMISSIONS IN KILO TONNES/PERSON/YEAR - 2050
187.5639
186.7460
186.0062
184.4485
183.3265
182.6983
182.4935
181.8682
181.7401
181.1173
180.1537
179.5364
177.7767
171.6927
56 %
147.1870
125.0163
78.3469
* BAU
*Assuming electricity is purely generated from hydro power, solar and wind without using bio energy, 82% reduction in emission is observed
even in bau scenario itself. Further, with the same assumption in B4-S4 scenario, 98% reduction in total CO2 emissions and 56% reduction in
percapita CO2 emissions can be achieved with respect to BAU scenario 54
TOTAL PM EMISSIONS IN TONNES/YEAR - 2030
3005.67
2732.00
2469.00
2409.37
2200.00
2039.00
2009.00
1992.00
1780.29
1766.00
72%
1638.00
1522.00
1490.00
556.53
545.00
517.00
B1 - S1 B1 - S2 B1 - S3 512.00
B1 - S4 B2 - S1 B2 - S2 B2 - S3 B2 - S4 B3 - S1 B3 - S2 B3 - S3 B3 - S4 B4 - S1 B4 - S2 B4 - S3 B4 - S4
* BAU
TOTAL PERCAPITA PM EMISSIONS IN KILO TONNES/PERSON/YEAR - 2030
0.0381
0.0353
5%
0.0317
0.0276
0.0271
0.0271
0.0270
0.0269
0.0269
0.0268
0.0267
0.0266
0.0266
0.0265
0.0263
0.0261
0.0261
* BAU
PM emissions and 15% reduction in percapita PM emissions can be achieved with respect to BAU scenario 57
TOTAL PM EMISSIONS IN TONNES/YEAR - 2050
2348.50
1930.00
1913.00
1894.00
1846.66
1531.00
1519.00
1519.00
71 %
1505.00
1391.62
1170.00
1162.00
1152.00
437.57
413.00
412.00
412.00
*
TOTAL PERCAPITA PM EMISSIONS IN KILO TONNES/PERSON/YEAR - 2050
0.0184
0.0168
8%
0.0146
0.0128
0.0127
0.0127
0.0127
0.0127
0.0126
0.0125
0.0125
0.0123
0.0122
0.0122
0.0121
0.0120
0.0114
*
observed even in bau scenario itself. Additionally, with the same assumption in B4-S4 scenario, 98% reduction in total PM emissions and 20%
reduction in percapita PM emissions can be achieved with respect to BAU scenario 58
Bundle 4 – Percentage Emission Reduction
Percentage Reduction in Emissions with B4-S4 from BAU
Year/Pollutant CO HC NOx CO2 PM
2030 65 58 73 98 72
2050 70 80 71 98 71
59
•In the horizon years 2030 and 2050 there is a reduction of 4.7% and 3.2% in Vehicle kilometers travelled respectively.
•Bundle 3 (also bundle 4) which is a Combination of Planning, Regulatory & Economic Instruments showed the
maximum reduction in VKT in comparison to BAU for 2030 & 2050.
•Adding technological policy instruments further reduced emissions by a great level as seen in Bundle 4.
•Total CO2 emissions in Bundle 3 are higher than B1 & B2 due to large mode shift towards Public Transport while the
Percapita emissions seems to be reducing due to the same mode shift.
•For the horizon year 2030 and 2050 Bundle 4 - Scenario 4 showed the maximum reduction of total emissions for all
the pollutants CO, HC, NOx, CO2 and PM respectively
•Total percapita NOx values in 2050 are higher in Bundle 4 for scenario 4 because of the higher NOx values from
electric cars compared to conventional cars. Since, there is a shift towards public transportation the percapita
emissions from cars seems to be higher.
•Electrification of vehicles does more BAD than GOOD if electricity is generated from non-renewable power sources.
Nonrenewable power sources involve in high PM, NOx and CO values which leads to higher emissions.
•If electricity is assumed to be purely generated from hydropower, solar and wind without using bio energy in B4-S4
scenario, 97% & 98% reduction in total PM emissions and 15% & 20% reduction in percapita PM emissions can be
achieved with respect to BAU scenario.
60
Emission Intensity
•Emission intensity is the level of Green House Gas

(GHG) emissions per unit of economic activity.
•Carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption are

closely correlated with the size of a country’s economy.
•Carbon intensity is one of the most important indicators

which help in measuring a country's CO2 emission with
respect to its economic growth.
•INDIA’s Intended Nationally Determined

Contribution: India to reduce the Emissions Intensity of
its GDP by 33% - 35% by 2030 from 2005 Level.
61
Comparison
EMISSION INTENSITY (TONNES OF CO2/RS. CRORE) FOR 2030
60.43
57.75
52.13
47.93
45.91
44.79
41.51
40.71
40.53
31.08
30.55
28.89
28.26
4.40
4.38
4.36
0.67
REDUCTION IN EMISSION INTENSITY FROM BASE YEAR FOR 2030
711%
675%
600%
543%
516%
501%
457%
447%
444%
317%
310%
288%
279%
B1 - S1 B1 - S2 B1 - S3 B1 - S4 B2 - S1 B2 - S2 B2 - S3 B2 - S4 B3 - S1 B3 - S2 B3 - S3 B3 - S4 B4 - S1 B4 - S2 B4 - S3 B4 - S4 BAU *
41%
41%
41%
91%
*The carbon emissions intensity is increasing at the greater rate in BAU 2030 scenario because Metro is not available in Bengaluru
during base year and it is the only electricity based transportation with high emission factor values. Further, assuming electricity will
be purely generated from hydropower, solar and wind without using bio energy in BAU scenario, 39% reduction in total CO2 emission
intensity can be achieved in BAU 2030 with respect to base year. 62
Comparison
PER-CAPITA EMISSION INTENSITY (TONNES OF CO2/RS. CRORE/PERSON) FOR 2030
0.0154
0.0153
0.0152
0.0152
0.0151
0.0151
0.0151
0.0150
0.0150
0.0150
0.0149
0.0148
0.0148
0.0146
0.0130
0.0108
0.0067
REDUCTION IN PER-CAPITA EMISSION INTENSITY FROM BASE YEAR FOR 2030
94.19%
90.61%
88.76%
87.33%
87.21%
87.17%
87.11%
87.02%
87.00%
86.99%
86.94%
86.94%
86.88%
86.82%
86.78%
86.71%
86.68%
B1 - S1 B1 - S2 B1 - S3 B1 - S4 B2 - S1 B2 - S2 B2 - S3 B2 - S4 B3 - S1 B3 - S2 B3 - S3 B3 - S4 B4 - S1 B4 - S2 B4 - S3 B4 - S4 BAU *
*Assuming electricity is purely generated from hydropower, solar and wind without using bio energy in BAU scenario, 87% reduction
in total percapita CO2 emission intensity can be achieved in BAU 2030with respect to base year.
63
Comparison
EMISSION INTENSITY (TONNES OF CO2/RS. CRORE) FOR 2050
23.41
21.11
20.89
20.71
17.34
16.29
16.21
16.13
16.01
11.93
11.85
11.82
11.75
2.79
2.75
2.74
0.29
REDUCTION IN EMISSION INTENSITY FROM BASE YEAR FOR 2050
214%
183%
180%
178%
133%
119%
118%
117%
115%
60%
59%
59%
58%
B1 - S1 B1 - S2 B1 - S3 B1 - S4 B2 - S1 B2 - S2 B2 - S3 B2 - S4 B3 - S1 B3 - S2 B3 - S3 B3 - S4 B4 - S1 B4 - S2 B4 - S3 B4 - S4 BAU*
63%
63%
63%
96%
*The carbon emissions intensity is increasing at the greater rate in BAU 2050 scenario because Metro is not available in Bengaluru
during base year and it is the only electricity based transportation with high emission factor values. Further, assuming electricity is
purely generated from hydropower, solar and wind without using bio energy in BAU scenario, 60% reduction in total CO2 emission
intensity can be achieved in BAU 2050 with respect to base year. 64
Comparison
PER-CAPITA EMISSION INTENSITY (TONNES OF CO2/RS. CRORE/PERSON) FOR 2050
0.00337
0.00336
0.00334
0.00332
0.00330
0.00328
0.00328
0.00327
0.00327
0.00326
0.00324
0.00323
0.00320
0.00309
0.00265
0.00225
0.00141
REDUCTION IN PER-CAPITA EMISSION INTENSITY FROM BASE YEAR FOR 2050
98.78%
98.05%
97.71%
97.32%
97.23%
97.20%
97.19%
97.18%
97.17%
97.17%
97.16%
97.15%
97.14%
97.13%
97.10%
97.09%
97.08%
*
*Assuming electricity is purely generated from hydropower, solar and wind without using bio energy in BAU scenario, 97% reduction
in total percapita CO2 emission intensity can be achieved in BAU 2050 with respect to base year.
65
• All the policies lead to a significant reduction in the emission intensity with respect to total and per-capita CO2
emissions when compared to the business as usual scenario.
•India’s INDC are achieved even in the BAU scenario, if renewable sources such as hydro power, solar and wind
energy is used for electricity generation.
•Assuming electricity is purely generated from hydropower, solar and wind without using bio energy in BAU
scenario, there is 39% reduction in total CO2 emission intensity from base year
•Assuming electricity is purely generated from hydropower, solar and wind without using bio energy in BAU
scenario, there is 87% reduction in total percapita CO2 emission intensity from base year for BAU 2030.
•Electrification of buses and cars are leads to a great deal of GHG emissions reductions.
•The bundle 4 – scenario 4 is implemented the total emission intensity will reduce by 91% for the year 2030 and
96% for 2050.
•The bundle 4 – scenario 4 is implemented the per-capita emission intensity will reduce by 94% for the year 2030
and 99% for 2050, highlighting that electrification of vehicles is the best solution with 100% electricity
generation from renewable sources.
66
CONSUMER SURPLUS CALCULATIONS FOR
EVALUATED POLICY BUNDLES
BANGALORE
67
Consumer Surplus
• Consumer surplus is defined as the difference between the consumers’ willingness to pay in terms of travel costs
(travel time, etc.) and what they actually pay is called consumer surplus
• Calculation of consumer surplus using rule of half: The rule of one-half estimates the change in consumer surplus
for small changes in supply with a constant demand curve
When price of travel changes from Pij0 to Pij1 demand

changes from Dij0 to Dij1 as illustrated in the figure. Then
the change in consumer surplus (user’s benefit or costs)
due to a change is equal to the area of the triangle ABC
68
Calculation of Consumer Surplus
• Consumer surplus for year 2030 and 2050 for each of the vehicle types that share road network was calculated
according to the following:
Private Transport:
Where
M modes that use road network, VoT is value of travel time for mode M, Rupee/minutes
D is travel demand for mode M , T is travel time for mode M in minute
Dist is travel distance for mode M in km, FC is fuel cost, Rupee/ km
Public Transport:
Where
PT stands for public transport, VoT is value of travel time for public transport,
D is travel demand for public transport, T is total travel time for public transport
69
Evaluated Policy Bundles and Consumer Surplus
CS values for policy bundle 1 in INR (Money saved/lost) CS values for policy bundle 2 in INR (Money saved/lost)
2030 2050
8905315
2030 2050
10575917
5905996
10000000
4339886
15000000
7017061
8000000
2653559
1802367
1744438
4688861
1218246
6000000
3219426
10000000
2808634
2326226
371288
1369430
4000000
795385
2000000 5000000
0
-2000000 CAR 2 WHEELER AUTO BUS METRO CYCLE WALK 0
-511389
CAR 2 Wheeler AUTO BUS METRO CYCLE WALK

-1745531
-2055746
-239634
-4000000
-3345776
-5000000
-637551
-481141
-3494835
-6000000
-4326653
-2289581
-8000000
-7773383
-10000000
-9659330
-10000000
CS values for policy bundle 3 in INR (Money saved/lost)
15590172
2030 2050
10913948
6250640
4997541
3860041
14000000
2544438
1702241
954537
9000000
4000000
-1000000
CAR 2 Wheeler AUTO BUS METRO CYCLE WALK
-6000000
-4323922
-877167
-763426
-4494668
-5798375
-11000000
-15000000
-16000000
70
• Bundle 3 has the highest saving for public transport and NMT users and highest loss for private
vehicles and auto rickshaw users.
•People who are using private vehicles and auto rickshaw are losing about Rs. 7.4 mil. Whereas,
public transport and NMT users are saving about Rs. 6.7 mil and Rs. 3.5 mil respectively in the
year 2030.
•In the year 2050 private vehicles and auto rickshaw users lose about Rs. 23.8 mil and public
transport and NMT users are saving about Rs. 26.5 mil and Rs. 10.1 mil respectively.
71
Evaluation of Adaptation
Policies with respect to Urban
Flooding for Bengaluru city
PARTNERS :
72
Research Motivation
Causal factors:
URBAN FLOODS • Unsustainable insensitive development
• Poor sewage disposal
• Inadequate drainage network
• Solid waste dumping in drainage channels
• Reduced capacity of existing lakes
• Blocked natural drainage paths
• Increased imperviousness blocking
groundwater seepage, etc.
Consequences:
• Increased VKT and VMT
• Cancellation of trips
• Increased travel time or speed reduction
Location: Bangalore
• Deterioration of road infrastructure, etc.
73
General Work Flow
Start
Model outcome
Identify the links used most frequently Flood Maps
Overlaying the outcome of the model with flood maps to

identify the vulnerable links in the transport system
To study the characteristics (land use, type of road, capacity of the

road v/s the volume, material of the road, presence of storm water
drains on the road) of the identified vulnerable links
Formulation of adaptation policies
Evaluating adaptation policy bundles as per the characteristics of the Estimation of evaluation
vulnerable links parameters
Finalizing the best bundle for Adaptation
End 74
BMR Maps
25 year daily rainfall data (1990-2014) obtained from IMD station (BANGALORE; BNG, LAT
13.0, LON 77.6, ELEVATION 921m)
Selected Rainfall event
Rainfall Event Total Rainfall Total Duration Return Period

(mm) (T)
03-11-2015 266 4 hrs 10 100
minutes
Source: Identification of flood risk on urban road network using Hydrodynamic

Model – Case Study of Bangalore, TERI
Current scenario: Over 300mm of rainfall has

been observed only in first few days of October 2017
alone.
Source: http://ddnews.gov.in/national/bangalore-receives-
Flood Map - BMR DEM Map - BMR highest-rainfall-monsoon 75
BMR Maps
Road network with flood level
Map - BMR Flood level
Road
(m)
ISRO Road 0.42 m
Bannerghatta Road 1.8 m
Seshadri Road 0.6 m
Chord Road 0.56 m
Hosur Road 2m
Sarjapur Road 0.5 m
Percentage Share of flood depth (%)
3 2 Depth (m)
4
6
28 0-0.01
0.01-0.1
14 0.1-0.2
0.2-0.3
0.3-0.4
0.4-0.5
9
0.5-2
2.0-9.0
35
76
BAU Scenario
• The BAU network each road link is divided into multiple
small links depending on the level of flood in that Relation between Flood Depth and Travel Speed Reduction
particular link.
• Links which carry a flood depth above than 0.5 m are not TRAVEL SPEED
FLOOD DEPTH (m)
REDUCTION
considered in the BAU model.
0 - 0.1 No Change
0.1 - 0.2 0 - 25%
• Roads that are heavily flooded and the zones that do not 0.2 - 0.3 25% - 50%
have redundant roads for the trip to happen are 0.3 - 0.5 50% - 75%
considered to have no trips from those zones. Above 0.5 75% - 99%
Road Closed
• There are about 7 such zones in which the trips are
(Source: Pregnolato et al. 2016)
cancelled.
• BAU modelling is done for the base year i.e, 2008 and for
the future years 2030, 2050 for both private and public
transport networks
77
BAU - Adaptation Travel Demand Model Results
Vehicle Kilometers Travelled
VKT IN MILLIONS (KM) - BAU

BAU - No Flooding BAU - Flooding 4%
75.3
72.1
6%
50.8
48
4%
30.99
32.4
BASE YEAR 2030 2050

79
Vehicle Hours Travelled
VHT - BAU (MIL HRS)

BAU - No Flooding BAU - Flooding
14 %
19
16.6
19 %
11.3
9.5
23 %
6.8
5.5
BAS E YEAR 2030 2050 80

Average Trip Length (kms) - BAU
AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH (KM) - PRIVATE AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH (KM) - PUBLIC
BAU - No Flooding BAU - Flooding BAU - No Flooding BAU - Flooding
21.7
19 %
20.8
20.4
19 % 17 % 15 %
19.2
18.17
17.67
17.9
17.4
16.36
27 %
23 %
14.1
14
11.4
BASE YEAR 2030 2050 BASE YEAR 2030 2050
81
Avg. Daily Vehicle Speed - BAU
AVG. VEHICLE SPEEDS (KMPH) - BAU

BAU - No Flooding BAU - Flooding
27.2
25.4
26 %
23.6
34 %
44 %
20.2
16.8
13.2
BASE YEAR 2030 2050
82
Adaptation Policy Bundles
83
Adaptation Policy Bundles
Policy Bundles
BUNDLE 1
Replacement of impermeable road surface with permeable material in vulnerable areas
Slum relocation and rehabilitation Land use +
Infrastructure
Providing proper drainage facilities at vulnerable areas
Construction of redundant infrastructure
BUNDLE 2
Rerouting people during flooding Land use +
Restricting development in low lying or vulnerable areas Information (Traffic
Management)
Slum relocation and rehabilitation
BUNDLE 3
Replacement of impermeable surfaces with permeable material in vulnerable areas Infrastructure +
Providing proper drainage facilities at vulnerable areas Information (Traffic
Rerouting people during flooding Management)
84
EVALUATION READY DESCRIPTION OF ADAPTATION POLICIES
Replacement of impermeable road surface with permeable material (Porous Concrete/Interlocking Pavers) in
vulnerable areas
Impermeable
Flood depth reduces by 42% (Abbot, CL & Comino-

Mateos, L. (2003)
Advantages:
• Reduces run off

• Reduce splash and spray behind
vehicles
• Avoids reflections from the surface of
the pavement.
Permeable
85
Replacement of impermeable road surface with permeable material (Porous
Concrete/Interlocking Pavers) in vulnerable areas
Identifying • Roads with flood depth

from 0.4m - 0.5m are
vulnerable links Identified
Road Surface • Flood depth will reduce and

thus people will be able to
replaced by travel at the same speed
permeable without much variation, to
material their destinations
• New speeds are

Trip estimated & these are
assignment used to re model the
flows on roads.
86
Replacement of impermeable road surface with permeable material (Porous
Concrete/Interlocking Pavers) in vulnerable areas
Implementation Locations
Vivekananda Park Road State Bank Road Tannery Road
Ramakrishna Road 1st Main (Prashanth Nagar Elephant Cave Road
Main Road)
Temple Street Main Guard Cross Road C J Venkatesa Das Road
Bagalgunte Main Road Byrasandra Main Road Jeevan Bhima Nagar 10th
Main Road
Jeevanahalli Main Road Nehru Road Arumugam Circle
Annapoorneshwarinagar Sundaramurthi Road New Mission Road
Main Road
Madhava Rao Circle Shani Mahatma Temple Dairy Circle Flyover
Road
Dickenson Road Lady Curzon Road Halasuru Road
Central Street
Variables Affected:
• Cancelled Trips
• Vehicle Hours Travelled (VHT)
• Vehicle Kilometers Travelled (VKT)
• Average Trip Length
87

Slums in the low-lying areas are identified by
overlaying DEM map & Flood map on the zonal
map of BMR using ArcGIS
• Slums are usually found in the low lying areas
because these areas are cheaper or no development
exists there. Slum population is relocated to other areas which
are not vulnerable to urban floods within the same
• When urban floods occur, their neighbourhood gets zone or other zone
flooded with water which further blocks the roads.
• Due to this, their mobility is hindered Productions changes and the same is reflected in
OD matrix
New OD matrix is used for modelling
88
Variables Affected:
• Cancelled Trips
• Zone Specific Trip Production
No. Name of the Slum No. Name of the Slum

1 Thannirhalli 18 Appanna garden, Doddigunta
2 Muneswar Nagar( Muthyalammanagar) 19 Syed Khader Garden
3 Bundappa Huts 20 Behind KSRTC Bus stand
4 Akkiyappa Garden 21 Shettihalli
5 V.V.Giri Colony 22 Yarabnagar
6 Risaldar Road 23 Iljoor
7 Shastrinagar,Seshadripuram 24 Chikkamalur
8 Anjanappa Garden 25 Tamil Colony
9 Bakshi Garden 26 New A K Colony
10 Nagammanagar,Binnymill 27 Thattekere
11 Kadapaswamy Mutt 28 Jayanagara
12 Vinobhanagar 29 Rayan nagara
13 Chikkana Garden 30 Indira Nagar
14 Gavipura 31 Khasbag
15 Nala Road 32 Sanjayanagara
16 Krishnappa Garden 33 Veerabadranapalya
17 Sarvajna Nagar 34 Gangadharpur
89
Construction of Redundant infrastructure

Road links with no
redundancy are
identified
• Roads which have only one entry and exit and
flooding above 0.5 m are considered.
• New roads added should not fall in the flood
area. New road link is added
to the roads that are
completely cutting-off
• Zones that have NO Access to other zones have access to certain zones
cancelled trips due to flooding
Variables Affected:
Trip assignment - New
• Cancelled Trips speeds are estimated &
• Vehicle Hours Travelled (VHT) these are used to re
• Vehicle Kilometers Travelled (VKT) model the flows on roads
90
Construction of Redundant infrastructure
Locations tested:
1. Marathahalli Underpass
2. Bellari Road
3. Khodays Circle
4. Gubbi Thotadappa Road
5. Hosakerehalli Main Road
6. Kodichikkanahalli Road
7. 80 Feet Road (Sir C. V. Raman Hospital
Road)
8. Taverekere Main Road
9. Old Airport Road
10. Bannerghatta Road
And a few other locations wherever required.
91
Rerouting people in case of flooding:

• New routes are assigned avoiding the flooded routes.
• Roads above 0.5 m flooding are not considered for modelling.
• Next best route with better speeds and less travel time will be chosen for traffic movement.
Variables Affected:
• Cancelled Trips
• Congestion
92
Restricting development in low lying or vulnerable areas
Low-lying areas are identified by overlaying DEM map

& Flood map on the zonal map of BMR using ArcGIS
Assumption: Ratio of the total zonal area to the

low lying area is estimated and the same ratio is
Population is relocated to other areas which are not vulnerable used to estimated the population shifted and
to urban floods within the same zone or other zone
the productions are changed.
Productions changes and the same is reflected in OD matrix
New OD matrix is used for modelling
93
Restricting development in low lying or vulnerable areas
Variables affected:
• Cancelled Trips
• Zone Specific Trip Production
94
Providing proper drainage facilities at vulnerable areas:

• The storm water drainage system helps the water to
flow from the tertiary pipelines to the trunk line.
• In case the drains are not properly provided, the water
might stop flowing in the pipelines and thus lead to
ineffectiveness of the drainage system to seep water off
the roads.
• Storm water drains (1m x 1.5m) are provided on both

sides from flooded road to the nearest water body.
• Bangalore has about 180-200 km primary and
secondary drains which will are extended by another
110 km.
Road Width (m) % Flood reduction
3.5 74.3
5.5 47.2
7.5 37.1
*Calculated 95
Providing proper drainage facilities at vulnerable areas:
Locations where this policy is tested
 State Bank Road  Saint Mark's Road  Ayodhyarama Road

 Venkataswamy Naidu Road  Chikpete Road  Saunders Road
 K R Circle  Nrupathunga Road  CV Raman Avenue
 Benson Cross Road  Ananda Rao Flyover  Gayathri Nagar Main
Road
 Dr B R Ambedkar Veedhi  Haines Road  District Office Road
 Chord Road(D. R Bendre  Diagonal Road  Bangalore Exit
Road)
 K.H. Double Road  Coles Road  Davis Road
Variables affected:
• Cancelled Trips
• Average speeds
96
Results
Comparisons of Vehicle Kilometers Travelled (VKT):
VKT 2030 (MILLION KMS) VKT 2050 (MILLION KMS)
75.3
50.8
74.4
3%
4%
49.6
73.7
49.14
VKT (MIL KMS)

VKT (MIL KM)
73.1
48.6
72.1
48
BAU NO FLOOD BAU - B1 B2 B3

BAU NO BAU - B1 B2 B3
FLOODING
FLOOD FLOODING
SCENARIOS
SCENARIOS
97
Results
Comparison of Daily Vehicle travel speeds
AVG. DAILY TRAVEL SPEEDS (KMPH) - 2030 AVG. DAILY TRAVEL SPEEDS (KMPH) - 2050
25.4
23.6
21.3
21 %
19.1
20.2
AVG TRAVEL SPEED (KMPH)

AVG TRAVEL SPEED (KMPH)
17.6
18.7
45%
16.8
14.3
13.2
BAU - NO BAU - B1 B2 B3 BAU - NO BAU - B1 B2 B3
FLOODING FLOODING FLOODING FLOODING
SCENARIO SCENARIO
98
Results
Comparison of Avg. trip lengths
AVG . T RIP LE N GT H ( KM ) - PRIVATE AVG T RI P LE N G T H (K M) - PRI VAT E VE HI C LES -
VE HICLE S - 2030 2050
21.7
20.8
20.8
12 %
19.8
13 %
19.34
20.2
TRIP LENGTH (KM)
TRIP LENGTH (KM)
19.1
18
18.17
17.4
Private
BAU - NO BAU - B1 B2 B3 BAU - NO BAU - B1 B2 B3

FLOODING FLOODING FLOODING FLOODING
SCENARIO SCENARIO
AVG TRIP LE NGTH ( KM ) - PU BLIC VE HICLE S AVG T RIP LE N GT H ( KM ) - PU BLIC VE HICLE S -

- 2030 2050
19.2
20.4
18.7
19.8
10 %
17.9
19.4
TRIP LENGTH (KM)
11 %
TRIP LENGTH (KM)
18.34
17
Public
16.36
17.67
BAU - NO BAU - B1 B2 B3
BAU - NO BAU - B1 B2 B3
FLOODING FLOODING
FLOODING FLOODING
SCENARIO
99
SCENARIO
Results
Comparison of Vehicle Hours Travelled (VHT) Comparison of Cancelled Trips
VHT (MILLION HRS)

CANCELLED TRIPS
160786
2030 2050
18.97
144707
18.34
17.80
17.38
8%
16.61
CANCELLED TRIPS
11.32
11.16
10.67
VHT (MIL HRS)
10.25
80393
9%
9.54
0
BAU NO BAU B1 B2 B3
FLOODING FLOODING
F LOOD B 1 B 2 B 3
SCENARIO SCENARIO
100
 Identification of locations that are vulnerable to flooding using flood maps.
 It is clearly observed that the vehicle take longer paths than usual and some trips even get cancelled
during floods.
 By implementing bundle 1 there will be a substantial reduction in travel time and increased speeds
during flooding events.
 Bundle 1 also shows that the we can still nullify the trips that are getting cancelled by having a proper
resiliency in the infrastructure.
 Providing proper storm water drainage facilities on the sides of the roads helps in reducing the runoff
on the roads by a great amount.
101
Conclusions
• The mitigation and adaptation measures are quantitatively evaluated in order to improve the
liveability of Bengaluru in terms of; reduced traffic congestion (VKT), reduced exhaust emissions
(PM, CO, NOX, HC), reduced greenhouse gas emissions (CO2), reduced carbon emission intensity,
increased consumer surplus of sustainable modes and also improved resiliency of transportation
system.
• All the policies lead to a significant reduction in the total VKTs travelled when compared to the
business as usual scenario.
• Policy bundle 3 (also bundle 4) gives a substantial reduction in total VKT of 4.7% & 3.2% for 2030
& 2050 which leads to less emissions.
• Total emissions from bus are higher compared to other modes. But when emissions are estimated
in terms of per capita (per passenger km), they are considerably low.
• Bundle 3 (also bundle 4) which is a comprehensive mixture of 7 policies gives the best results with
respect to VKT reduction, Improved Public Transport Share and reduction in emissions.
102
Conclusions
• Bundle 4 is a mixture of planning, regulatory, economic and technology instruments.
• The significant reduction in emissions is observed with the implementation of bundle 4-

scenario 4 which includes the electrification of all buses and cars.
• The implementation of bundle 4 along with scenario 4 will result in considerable reduction in
emissions from transport sector. Although CO2 emission factor values are zero in scenario 4 it
is suggested that shifting towards mass transportation systems like Bus & Metro not only
reduces the emissions but also reduces the congestion on the roads by a great amount.
• The bundle 4 – scenario 4 is implemented the total emission intensity will reduce by 91% for
the year 2030 and 96% for 2050.
• A proper amalgamation of planning, regulatory, economic and technology instruments

incorporating the complete clean energy can help in improving the sustainability of
transportation systems thereby enhancing liveability of the city.
103
Conclusions
• Proper drainage facilities and using permeable roads at vulnerable locations can reduce the
surface runoff on the roads and helps in a better movement of traffic.
• In adaptation policy bundles, it is observed that implementation of policy bundle 1 is more

effective It is suggested a proper mixture of land use and infrastructure related policies can
help the city come out of the urban flooding muddle.
• Due to heavy flooding at certain locations it is observed that the trips from those zones are
cancelled. The implementation of Adaptation Bundle 1 resulted in zero cancelled trips. This
clearly states that with a proper management of land use and infrastructure policies we can
nullify the trips that get cancelled due to flooding and people can still make trips in such
extreme events.
104
THANK YOU
105

Lecture 6 - Case Study - Transportation - Bangalore 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

Lecture 6 - Case Study - Transportation - Bangalore PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indo-Norway Project CLIMATRANS

Sustainable Transport Measures for Liveable

Prof. Ashish Verma

To identify the transportation infrastructure that is vulnerable to

Improving the overall liveability of Bengaluru

Urban Sprawl is favoured as New road capacity in terms of

Movements by car become more

 Growing Fuel consumption

F. Evaluating the Mitigation Policies I. Evaluating the Adaptation Policies

J. Policy bundles to mitigate emissions and adapt to

Trip End equations for Private Transport 10

Attraction 0.76 x EMP + 6231 0.4 20000

Public Transport Attractions for base year

Mode Peak Hour

Private 196.2829 0.7192 0.0389

Public 104.9148 0.8954 0.0108

Gamma deterrence function is

Where cij = Shortest Path Matrix (Distance)

Null log-likelihood -5701.859

Observed Modal Split Estimated Modal Split

CAR BUS BIKE AUTO NMT

Mode Year Trip End Equations Productions

2030 9146021 Percapita Trip rates

Peak Hr Forecasted TLD- Public Transport

Trip Length (Km)

49.7 34.53 35.73

VEHICLE KILOMETERS TRAVELLED

Base Year 2030 2050

Pollutant Tonnes/ year (% change w.r.t base year)

Mitigation Step 1: Setting Baseline and Setting Target level

Methodology Transport sector

Flow Chart Step 2: Scenario Formulation

Step 3: BAU Step 3: Sustainable

Step 4: Policy measures to achieve

Step 7: Development of Mitigation

Push: parking management, access restrictions ...

• Additional tax on purchasing vehicles

• Increasing network coverage of Public Transit

• Links that are

• More links are added in

• New travel times are

Identification of car restricted roads

Modeling private transport without cars

Modelling public transport with car restricted roads

Avg. Cost/ litre

Source: IOCL (official) website

Fuel costs were increase by Rs. 10/- for 2030

• All private trips originating from the same zone as TTMC

Traffic and Transportation

Krishna Rajendra M G Road

Silk Board junction Malleswaram

Variables affected: • Vehicles passing through the mentioned routes will be

A HOV road network is created

assumed to car pool and a separate OD matrix Bangalore – Mangalore

the Public transportation network with a preload Bangalore – Mysore Rd

of car pool OD.

Private Trip assignment with preloads as zero

MODE SHARE - 2030 MODE SHARE - 2050

BAU (%) Bundle 1 (%) BAU (%) Bundle 1 (%)

BAU (%) Bundle 2 (%) BAU (%) Bundle 2 (%)

MODE SHARE - 2030 MODE SHARE - 2050

BAU (%) Bundle 3 (%) BAU (%) Bundle 3 (%)

• Renewable share of electricity in future years is assumed to increase (IEA, 2015).