STM Journals Peer-reviewed research from Consortium e-Learning Network

Trends in Transport Engineering and Applications Review Article

A Critical Review on Measuring Accessibility of Multimodal Transport Systems in Indian Cities

  1. Rahul Tanwar Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology Bhopal, India
  2. Pradeep Kumar Agarwal Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology Bhopal, India

Abstract

Measuring accessibility is crucial for evaluating the performance of multimodal transport systems in Indian cities. This review paper examines the methodologies, indicators, and applications of accessibility measurement in the context of developing countries, focusing on Indian urban areas. The paper discusses the challenges posed by data limitations, informal transport modes, and socioeconomic disparities, and highlights the need for adapting accessibility measures to the Indian context. Case studies from major Indian cities are presented to illustrate the application of accessibility analysis in multimodal transport planning. The review emphasizes the importance of considering accessibility in decision-making processes and provides recommendations for improving accessibility through multimodal integration, equity considerations, and capacity building. The findings contribute to the growing body of knowledge on accessibility-based planning in developing countries and offer insights for enhancing sustainable urban mobility in Indian cities.

Keywords

References (186)

  1. Census of India. Primary Census Abstract. New Delhi, India: Registrar General of India, Ministry
  2. of Home Affairs, Government of India; 2011.
  3. Pucher J, Korattyswaroopam N, Ittyerah N. The crisis of public transport in India: overwhelming
  4. Pucher J, Korattyswaroopam N, Ittyerah N. The Crisis of Public Transport in India: Overwhelming Needs but Limited Resources. Journal of Public Transportation. 2004;7(4):1-20. doi:10.5038/2375-0901.7.4.1
  5. Badami MG, Haider M. An analysis of public bus transit performance in Indian cities. Transport
  6. Res Part A Policy Pract. 2007; 41 (10): 961–981. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2007.06.002.
  7. Litman T. Evaluating Accessibility for Transport Planning: Measuring People's Ability to Reach
  8. Desired Goods and Activities. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: Victoria Transport Policy
  9. Institute; 2017.
  10. Chandra S, Bharti AK. Speed distribution curves for pedestrians during walking and crossing.
  11. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2013; 104: 660–667. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.160.
  12. Tiwari G, Jain D. Accessibility and safety indicators for all road users: case study Delhi BRT. J
  13. Transport Geogr. 2012; 22: 87–95. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.11.020.
  14. Geurs KT, Van Wee B. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and
  15. research directions. J Transport Geogr. 2004; 12 (2): 127–140. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005.
  16. Litman T. Evaluating Accessibility for Transport Planning: Measuring People's Ability to Reach
  17. Desired Goods and Activities. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: Victoria Transport Policy
  18. Institute; 2020.
  19. Cervero R. Linking urban transport and land use in developing countries. J Transport Land Use.
  20. 2013; 6 (1): 7–24. doi:10.5198/jtlu.v6i1.425.
  21. Tiwari G. Urban transport priorities: meeting the challenge of socio-economic diversity in cities, a
  22. case study of Delhi, India. Cities. 2002; 19 (2): 95–103. doi:10.1016/S0264-2751(02)00004-5.
  23. Gupta S, Vovsha P, Donnelly R. Air passenger preferences for choice of airport and ground access
  24. mode in the New York City metropolitan region. Transport Res Rec. 2008; 2042 (1): 3–11. doi:
  25. 3141/2042-01.
  26. Ewing R, Cervero R. Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis. J Am Plann Assoc. 2010;
  27. 76 (3): 265–294. doi:10.1080/01944361003766766.
  28. Sudhakara Reddy B, Balachandra P. Urban mobility: a comparative analysis of megacities of India.
  29. Transport Policy. 2012; 21: 152–164. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.02.002.
  30. Rastogi R, Rao KVK. Travel characteristics of commuters accessing transit: case study. J Transport
  31. Eng. 2003; 129 (6): 684–694. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2003)129:6(684).
  32. Mahadevia D, Joshi R, Datey A. Low-Carbon Mobility in India and the Challenges of Social
  33. Inclusion: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Case Studies in India. Lyngby, Denmark: UNEP Risø Centre
  34. on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development; 2013.
  35. Tiwari G, Jain H. Bicycles in urban India. In Burdett R, Sudjic D, editors. The Endless City. New
  36. York, NY, USA: Phaidon Press; 2008. pp. 274–281.
  37. Anand A, Tiwari G. A gendered perspective of the shelter-transport-livelihood link: the case of
  38. poor women in Delhi. Transport Rev. 2006; 26 (1): 63–80. doi:10.1080/01441640500175615.
  39. Barter P, Kenworthy J, Laube F. Lessons from Asia on sustainable urban transport. In Low NP,
  40. Gleeson BJ, editors. Making Urban Transport Sustainable. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan;
  41. 2003. pp. 252–270. doi:10.1057/9781403938954_13.
  42. Bhat C, Handy S, Kockelman K, Mahmassani H, Chen Q, Weston L. Urban Accessibility Index:
  43. Literature Review. Austin, TX, USA: Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at
  44. Austin; 2000.
  45. Kala D, Patel B. Geospatial techniques for measuring accessibility: a case study of Ahmedabad,
  46. India. J Urban Plann Dev. 2019; 145 (3): 04019011. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000515.
  47. Munshi T. Built environment and mode choice relationship for commute travel in the city of Rajkot,
  48. India. Transport Res Part D Transport Environ. 2016; 44: 239–253. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2015.12.005.
  49. Hanson S, Schwab M. Accessibility and intraurban travel. Environ Plann A. 1987; 19 (6): 735–748.
  50. doi:10.1068/a190735.
  51. Chakrabarti S, Joh K. The effect of parenthood on travel behavior: evidence from the California
  52. Household Travel Survey. Transport Res Part A Policy Pract. 2019; 120: 101–115. doi:
  53. 1016/j.tra.2018.12.022.
  54. Banister D. The trilogy of distance, speed and time. J Transport Geogr. 2011; 19 (4): 950–959. doi:
  55. 1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.12.004.
  56. Kwan MP. Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: a comparative analysis
  57. using a point-based framework. Geogr Anal. 1998; 30 (3): 191–216. doi:10.1111/j.1538-
  58. 4632.1998.tb00396.x.
  59. Astrop A. The urban travel behaviour and constraints of low income households and females in
  60. Pune, India. In: Proceedings of the Second National Conference on Women's Travel Issues,
  61. Baltimore, MD, USA, October 1996. pp. 215–246.
  62. Mohan Rao A, Ramadurai G. Measuring urban traffic congestion – a review. Int J Traffic Transport
  63. Eng. 2016; 6 (2): 286–305. doi:10.7708/ijtte.2016.6(3).01.
  64. Sarkar PP, Mallikarjuna C. Effect of perception and attitudinal variables on mode choice behavior:
  65. a case study of Indian city, Agartala. Travel Behav Soc. 2018; 12: 108–114. doi:
  66. 1016/j.tbs.2017.04.003.
  67. Mishra S, Welch TF, Jha MK. Performance indicators for public transit connectivity in multi-modal
  68. transportation networks. Transport Res Part A Policy Pract. 2012; 46 (7): 1066–1085. doi:
  69. 1016/j.tra.2012.04.006.
  70. Tiwari G, Jain D. Accessibility and safety indicators for all road users: case study Delhi BRT. J
  71. Transport Geogr. 2012; 22: 87–95. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.11.020.
  72. Balachandran BR, Arun JJ. Real-time multimodal transport data for measuring accessibility:
  73. challenges and opportunities. In: Nathanail EG, Karakikes ID, editors. Data Analytics: Paving the
  74. Way to Sustainable Urban Mobility. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2021. pp. 385–394. doi:
  75. 1007/978-3-030-55527-8_47.
  76. Srinivasan S, Rogers P. Travel behavior of low-income residents: studying two contrasting
  77. locations in the city of Chennai, India. J Transport Geogr. 2005; 13 (3): 265–274. doi:
  78. 1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.07.008.
  79. Guzman LA, Oviedo D. Accessibility, affordability and equity: Assessing 'pro-poor' public
  80. transport subsidies in Bogotá. Transport Policy. 2018; 68: 37–51. doi:
  81. 1016/j.tranpol.2018.04.012.
  82. Zegras PC, Srinivasan S, Bhattacharjee S. Household income, travel behavior, location, and
  83. accessibility: sketches from two different developing contexts. Transport Res Rec. 2007; 2038 (1):
  84. 128–138. doi:10.3141/2038-17.
  85. Maitra B, Dandapat S, Chintakayala PK. Modeling generalized cost of travel and its application for
  86. improvement of taxies in Kolkata. J Urban Plann Dev. 2014; 140 (4): 04014009. doi:
  87. 1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000210.
  88. Badami MG, Haider M. An analysis of public bus transit performance in Indian cities. Transport
  89. Res Part A Policy Pract. 2007; 41 (10): 961–981. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2007.06.002.
  90. Rastogi R. Willingness to shift to walking or bicycling to access suburban rail: case study of
  91. Mumbai, India. J Urban Plann Dev. 2010; 136 (1): 3–10. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
  92. 9488(2010)136:1(3).
  93. Mani A, Pai M, Aggarwal R. Sustainable Urban Transport in India: Role of the Auto-rickshaw
  94. Sector. Washington, DC, USA: World Resources Institute; 2012.
  95. Rahman MSU, Timms P. Pre-determined fare structure for rickshaws to integrate with mass transit
  96. using a continuous pricing strategy. Case Stud Transport Policy. 2020; 8 (1): 236–244. doi:
  97. 1016/j.cstp.2019.01.007.
  98. Chaudhry B, Yasar AUH. Paratransit: a key element in a sustainable transportation system for
  99. developing countries. In: Transportation Systems. Singapore: Springer; 2021. pp. 57–68. doi:
  100. 1007/978-981-33-4076-6_5.
  101. Gadepalli R, Tiwari G, Bolia N. Role of user's socio-economic and travel characteristics in mode
  102. choice between city bus and informal transit services: lessons from household surveys in
  103. Visakhapatnam, India. J Transport Geogr. 2020; 88: 102307. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.08.017.
  104. Shirgaokar M. Employment centers and travel behavior: exploring the work commute of Mumbai's
  105. rapidly motorizing middle class. J Transport Geogr. 2014; 41: 249–258. doi:
  106. 1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.10.003.
  107. Basu R, Bhattacharyya D. Accessibility and urban development: study of job location patterns and
  108. access to employment in Mumbai. In: Proceedings of the 48th ISOCARP Congress, Perm, Russia,
  109. September 10–13, 2012.
  110. Goel R, Tiwari G. Access-egress and other travel characteristics of metro users in Delhi and its
  111. satellite cities. IATSS Res. 2016; 39 (2): 164–172. doi:10.1016/j.iatssr.2015.10.001.
  112. Joshi R, Sharma R. Accessibility to healthcare facilities in Delhi: a gravity model approach.
  113. Transport Res Procedia. 2020; 48: 1177–1186. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2020.08.158.
  114. Adhvaryu B, Chopde A, Dashora L. Mapping public transport accessibility levels (PTAL) in India
  115. and its applications: a case study of Ahmedabad. Case Stud Transport Policy. 2019; 7 (2): 293–300.
  116. doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2019.01.003.
  117. Shah J, Adhvaryu B. Public transport accessibility levels for Ahmedabad, India. J Public Transport.
  118. 2016; 19 (3): 19–35. doi:10.5038/2375-0901.19.3.2.
  119. Puntambekar N, Agarwal A, Krishna G. Measuring and mapping pedestrian accessibility in Pune,
  120. India. Transport Res Part D Transport Environ. 2021; 95: 102853. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2021.102853.
  121. Joshi R, Joseph Y, Chandran S. An assessment of non-motorized transport (NMT) infrastructure in
  122. Indian cities for different age groups. Transport Policy. 2018; 68: 10–19. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.
  123. 2018.04.013.
  124. Agarwal OP. Urban transport. In India Infrastructure Report 2006: Urban Infrastructure. New Deli,
  125. India: Oxford University Press; 2006. pp. 106–129.
  126. Mahadevia D, Joshi R, Datey A. Accessibility and Sustainability of Bus Rapid Transit in India.
  127. Lyngby, Denmark: UNEP Risø Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development; 2013.
  128. Tiwari G. Key Mobility Challenges in Indian Cities. International Transport Forum Discussion Paper
  129. 2011/18. Paris, France: International Transport Forum; 2011. doi:10.1787/5kg9mq4fx2tb-en.
  130. Sharma R, Newman P. Can land value capture make PPP's competitive in fares? A Mumbai case
  131. study. Transport Policy. 2018; 64: 123–131. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.02.002.
  132. Chaudhari D, Hajiani ND. Assessing accessibility challenges of bus rapid transit for urban poor in
  133. Indian cities. J Transport Health. 2014; 1 (2): S31. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2014.04.020.
  134. Suzuki H, Cervero R, Iuchi K. Transforming Cities with Transit: Transit and Land-Use Integration
  135. for Sustainable Urban Development. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-0-
  136. 8213-9745-9.
  137. EMBARQ India. Integrating Land Use and Transport Planning for Sustainable Cities: A Guidance
  138. Document. [Online]. 2014. Available at https://wrirosscities.org/sites/default/files/IntegratingLand-Use-and-Transport-Planning-for-Sustainable-Cities-A-Guidance-Document.pdf
  139. Basu S, Vasudevan V. Effect of bicycle friendly roadway infrastructure on bicycling activities in
  140. urban India. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2013; 104: 1139–1148. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.210
  141. Kumar A, Ramachandran P, Srinivasan KK. Evaluating the accessibility and equity impacts of
  142. transport projects using open data: case study of Kochi metro rail, India. Int J Sustainable Transport.
  143. 2021; 15 (5): 374–386. doi:10.1080/15568318.2020.1777340.
  144. Lobo A, Shah J. GIS-based accessibility mapping tools for planning and evaluating urban
  145. transportation projects. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Innovations in Civil
  146. Engineering, 2014. pp. 107–112.
  147. Narayanan A, Niyogi D. Big data analytics for planning smart mobility: opportunities and
  148. challenges for India. In: Nathanail EG, Karakikes ID, editors. Data Analytics: Paving the Way to
  149. Sustainable Urban Mobility. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2021. pp. 395–406. doi:10.1007/978-
  150. 3-030-55527-8_48.
  151. Levinson D. Fundamentals of Transportation. Network Design Lab. [Online]. Wikibooks. 2020.
  152. Available at https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Fundamentals_of_Transportation
  153. Dhi KR, Bajracharya A, Shrestha S. Revisiting the role of transport infrastructure in trade, regional
  154. growth and governance: developing a conceptual framework including social and environmental
  155. dimensions. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (7): 2789. doi:10.3390/su12072789.
  156. Banister D. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy. 2008; 15 (2): 73–80. doi:
  157. 1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005.
  158. Mohan D, Roy D. Operating on three wheels: auto-rickshaw drivers of Delhi. Econ Polit Wkly.
  159. 2003; 38 (3): 177–180.
  160. Ravibabu K, Vandana V. Quantifying accessibility: how does non-motorized transport perform
  161. against public transport? J Public Transport. 2021; 23 (1): 1–23. doi:10.5038/2375-0901.23.1.1.
  162. Joshi S, Belsi A, Bhatt J. Investigating accessibility concerns in Indian urban mobility market: a
  163. case of Mumbai. Transport Res Procedia. 2021; 55: 1192–1199. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2021.07.108.
  164. Venter C, Mahendra A, Hidalgo D. From Mobility to Access for All: Expanding Urban Transportation
  165. Choices in the Global South. Washington, DC, USA: World Resources Institute; 2019.
  166. Gupta A, Jaiswal A, Dhiman G. Capacity building of various stakeholders involved in the transport
  167. planning process. In: Borah S, Balas VE, Polkowski Z, editors. Advances in Data Science and
  168. Management. Singapore: Springer; 2020. pp. 365–372. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-0978-0_34.
  169. Patel A, Gurumurthy KM, Prakash VLJ. Urban transport planning process and modelling
  170. techniques. In: Sustainable Urban Transport. New Delhi, India: Springer; 2016. pp. 47–66. doi:
  171. 1007/978-81-322-2785-5_4.
  172. Joshi R, Sharma R. Measuring accessibility of urban transport network: a case study of Delhi, India.
  173. Proc Inst Civil Eng Municipal Eng. 2020; 173 (2): 63–74. doi:10.1680/jmuen.18.00056.
  174. Basu R, Jana A, Bardhan R. A framework for context specific prioritizing of accessibility
  175. indicators: case study of Kolkata, India. Transport Res Part D Transport Environ. 2020; 87: 102541.
  176. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2020.102541.
  177. Jiang H, Levinson D. Accessibility and the evaluation of investments on the Beijing subway. J
  178. Transport Land Use. 2017; 10 (1): 395–408. doi:10.5198/jtlu.2017.884.
  179. Purwanto J, Woltjer J. Incorporating equity into urban transport accessibility: a systematic literature
  180. review. Transport Policy. 2021; 110: 71–85. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.05.016.
  181. Tanwar R, Agarwal PK. A rational framework to develop strategies for improvement of travel time
  182. performance of multimodal transport system. Int J Transport Eng Traffic Syst. 2023; 9 (1): 1–12.
  183. Agarwal PK, Tanwar R, Jain A. Strategies for improving travel time performance of multimodal
  184. transport system. In: Singh D, Maji A, Karmarkar O, Gupta M, Velaga NR, Debbarma S, editors.
  185. Transportation Research. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering Volume 434. Singapore: Springer;
  186. 2023. pp. 449–460.
Support