Amit Arora Dr. Sanjay Gupta

School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi (India) May 7-8, 2015

1

Context Typology of residential development in India Delhi- case study neighborhoods Physical and travel attributes Findings Summing Up

2

• Indian cities are sprawling resulting in replacement of walk trips of traditional compact cities with motorised modes of transport.

• There is an increasing contribution of short distance trips towards greenhouse gas emissions.

• Present planning focus is on city transport plans and it overlooks requirements at a neighborhood level.

• This study analyses travel patterns within different neighborhoods in Delhi and attempts to relates with it with physical attributes

3

4

Traditional versus sprawling neighborhood

5

•Walkability •Quarter mile walking radius •Income •Caste •Population density •Suburban neighborhood •New urbanist neighborhood Neighborhood definition as per the Delhi Master plan Hierarchy of urban development centers based on •Size of population •Amenities •Layout plan

6

•Single family/ multi family •Plotted housing •Group housing •Mix development

7

•Built environment- diversity, distance to amenities •Parking •Socio economic characteristics •Attitudinal factors •Residential self selection •Availability of transport system Limited research in Indian conditions/ developing countries on non- motorized modes (low carbon modes)

8

Area : 1500 sq km approx. Population (2011) : 16.3million Density: 9048 persons/sqkm

9

Per capita Trip Rate (PCTR) and Self containment Index

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Self Contained Index

PCTR

plotted plotted/group group housing

10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Cycle(%)

Two Wheeler(%)

Car(%)

plotted plotted/group housing group housing

11

12

Area- 5924 ha

Population- 1300,000 Population density 19000 persons

per sq km

10

22

18

Source: Dwarka Zonal

Development Plan

14

Layout 1 Layout 2

Source: Zonal plan for Dwarka

Layout 3

15

16

18

20

21

22

Land use related Density Diversity Design- amenities; site and street design; safety Destination accessibility

Connectivity related Block- length, size, density Intersection density, street density Transport infrastructure-footpath road density, bike lane

Modes studied car, two wheelers, rickshaw and pedestrian

24

Entropy Index : The entropy index is a measure of “evenness”—the extent to which groups are evenly distributed among organizational units

Pi – Proportion of each land use from the Total Value K – total no. of land use Centeredness : Accessible distance to various facilities = Average Distance to facility n { ∑(Weighted average distance to facility n in Each Clusters with in Neighborhood)}, n = Type of facility

25

Layout 1 Layout 2 Layout 3

Layout 1 Layout 2 Layout 3

Entropy 0.57 0.31 0.63

Ce

nte

red

ne

ss school 400 400 350

shopping 200 450 300

health 600 300 500

bus stop 200 500 300

park 326 360 364

26

11% 3%

18%

51%

10%

7%

% share of trips by mode

Walk

Cycle

Cycle rickshaw

Car

Bus

Two

14%

19%

13%

45%

9%

% share of trips by Purpose

Work

Education

Health

Shopping

Social

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44

Trip

s

Distance (in Km)

Comparison of NMV trips and MV trips

NMV

MV

27

0

50

100

150

200

250

female

Male

Distribution of trips by Gender

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1- 4 km

0.6 km-1 km

0-0.5km

Trip distribution for different trip lengths, by mode

walk 36%

2 wheeler 13%

rickshaw 30%

car 17%

bus 1%

Distribution for access and dispersal trips by Mode

walk 47%

2 wheeler 7%

rickshaw 5%

car 41%

Mode wise distribution for shopping trips

Source: Primary survey

Almost 35% of the trips are 0-1km trip length.

28

Neighborhood

Layout 1 Layout 2 Layout 3

Travel Characteristics, trip length 0-4km, intra neighborhood trips only

Total population surveyed 100 138 65 Total Trips 281 405 186 PCTR 2.81 2.93 2.86 Intra neighborhood trips 0-4km

197 290 74

% Motorised trips 62 54 26

% Non Motorised trips 38 46 74

The share of Non Motorized (NMT )trips varies from a low of 38% to high of 74% based on sector physical attributes- Diversity, Centeredness, NMT network etc.

29

Empirical studies reveal that physical layout of neighborhood impacts the use of sustainable low carbon modes

Mobility levels ( average trip length) tend to increase with decrease in diversity ( entropy)

Use of low carbon modes and mobility levels tend to vary across and within various housing neighborhoods

30

Poor layouts with low level of diversity and sub optimal centeredness tend to increase dependence on motorized modes

The availability of parking was found to be a deterrent for the use of MT modes

Variety in uses and cost of products was an important factor Attitudinal survey revealed individual preferences

Safety- actual and perceived Infrastructure- availability versus actual usability Prestige

31

Low carbon neighborhoods are emerging needs of cities in developing countries like India which are on the threshold of huge motorization levels and consequent rising GHG emissions levels

There are inherent advantages of compact neighborhood designed on principles of diversity and centeredness

There is a need to conduct empirical studies in various housing typologies to establish thresholds of desired diversity levels and centeredness to promote low carbon mobility

32