Session Summary

RESILIENT PUNEWorking Group (December 22, 2017)

MOBILITY

Chief Resilience Officer: Mr. Mahesh Harhare

WORKING GROUP ACTIVITIES

Identify drivers of challenges

Ask exploratoryquestions

Identify solutions

KEY TAKEAWAYSKey challenges faced by Pune’s mobility sector and their drivers

PARTICIPANTS

Mr. Prabhakar DhamaleACP, Pune Traffic Control

Mr. Srinivas BonalaChief EngineerPune Municipal Corporation

Mr. Ajay Charthankar,Jt. MD, PMPML

Ms. Sanskriti MenonProgram DirectorCenter for Environment Education

Mr. Samir SattigeriScientist & HeadSafety & HomologationCentral Institute of Road Transport

Ms. G. SubhashiniCoordinatorResearch & Consultancy CenterCentral Institute of Road Transport

Mr. D.Siddi RamuluSenior Project ConsultantLarsen & Toubro

Mr. Sujit RathiAssociate Project ConsultantLarsen & Toubro

Ms. Pranjali DeshpandeProgram ManagerInstitute of Transportation and Development Policy

Limited integration and coordination

across different forms of mobility

as well as between respective Agencies

• Limited planning around multi-modal transportation and one mode supplementing the other

• Limited integration of land-use and mobility planning• Demand/ supply mismatch with limited predictive planning• Limited coordination among key agencies - PMC, PMPML, Traffic

police, MIDC, businesses, employment centers, other forms of transport like rickshaw etc.

Limited use of public

transportation

• Limited transit options for high and middle income groups• Limited direct and indirect incentives to attract private vehicle

owners to use public transit • Poor predictability, information and communication• Operations and management inefficiencies• Vehicular use in policy prioritization over pedestrians, bus

commuters, bicycle users, pedestrians, and hawkers• Poor last mile connectivity

KEY CHALLENGES DRIVERS

Inadequate commuter

facilities

• Lack of initiatives by public agencies to enter smaller modes of transport (e.g. more frequent smaller buses)

• Lack of parking facilities, encroachment over footpaths/parking spaces

• Lack of awareness and outreach, limited focus on commuter safety

PARTICIPANTS

Mr. Jayesh AttalSenior ManagerKPIT Technologies

Mr. Gaurav KulkarniUrban Planner, IBI Group

Mr. Sunil JalihalAdvisor, Ecosystem PartnershipsYulu Bikes

Mr. Dinkar GojareEngineerPune Municipal Corporation

Mr. Indrabhan RandiveExecutive EngineerPune Municipal Corporation

Ms. B. BhargaviAssistant Manager, Pune Metro

Mr. Shevate ShramikEngineer, Pune Smart City Development Corporation Limited

Mr. Ashish AgarwalPIU Pune Municipal Corporation

Mr. Mahesh HarhareCRO- Pune

Ms. Jeenal SawlaDalberg Advisors

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Key questions that emerged out of the discussion to guide solutions for Pune’s access and mobility agenda

• What are the gaps and conflicts in the mandates of the various organizations in the Pune region that oversee mobility?

• How can integrated planning between motorized, non-motorized and pedestrian mobility be promoted? How can this be assimilated with land-use planning such that individual master planning efforts also mirror these, while prioritizing public transit?

• What is the feasibility in having a Unified Metropolitan Transit Authority (UMTA) and which nodal agency can drive the UMTA agenda for Pune? What are the constitutional barriers in conferring executive powers to UMTA?

• How can mode choice behavior be influenced, especially in shifting private vehicle users to public transport? What are some solutions around information, education and communication?

Key solutions that the CRO and his team can potentially work on

• Timely and consistent information about transit services, communicated in multiple languages, to build in reliability and predictability of public transit

• Data sharing between private providers and public agencies to promote data driven planning

• Support the formulation of a regional mobility and access mandate; and work towards enabling the local mandates to reflect this

Lack of public transport/ lack of a sustainable model

• Don't have good transport options for middle and high income groups

• Need for improvement in O&M efficiency/ management

• Lack of context appropriate public transport (e.g. more frequent smaller buses)

• Mindset that public transport needs to be subsidised

Incentivisationof private vehicularownership

• Private transport is also affordable (another incentive to use it) due to easy access to finance, competitive prices, auto industry lobbying etc.

• Lesser parking requirements in buildings• Free or subsidised parking on streets

Limited integration across different forms of transportation as well as other departments (e.g. on the issue of footpaths) (both public & private transport) & planning long-term (projecting 20-30 years ahead)

• Lack of vision to create a holistic multi-modal comprehensive plan where one form of transportation supplements the other

• Insufficient last mile options

• Supply-demand mismatch/ limited predictive planning

• Limited planning of parking spaces (i.e. need to have more and have more appropriately placed)

• Lack of continuity in leadership

• Limited incentives to use para-transit/last mile

• Lack of cohesive vision for mobility in Pune that can be a source of mandates and evaluations of different departments

• Mobility plan and initiatives stemming from it need to integrate and consider other plans (e.g. bicycle plan)

• What is required to make integration happen? Where do we need to intervene (e.g. policy, city-level clarification of mandates)

KEY CHALLENGES DRIVERS

APPENDIX 1/3

Quality upgradation of mobility and access network

• Lack of planning and appropriate design at the time of construction itself

• Lack of clear markings/poor condition of buses (i.e. poor citizen experience)

Dependence on private transport

• Lack of political will especially in implementation

• Unable to attract private transport owners to public transport

• Direct & indirect incentives (e.g. free parking)

• Lack of awareness/outreach

Inadequate commuter corridor facilities (i.e. first & last mile connectivity missing)

• Limited policy level thinking to include both core and peripheries of the city

• Perception problem among policy makers to enter into smaller modes of transport

• Lack of parking facilities, encroachment over footpaths/parking spaces

Traffic congestion

• Lack of parking spaces

• Limited of first & last mile connectivity

• Inadequate public transport

• Encroachments

Road safety

• Poor pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalks, crossings) and road design

• Poor enforcement of speed limits, especially for two-wheelers, enforcement of helmet laws and poor riding etiquettes

• Encroachment of public space by vehicular parking• Poor considerations for differently-abled individuals

KEY CHALLENGES DRIVERS

Support PMPML to improve services-Large land parcels owned by state agencies are being sold to the private sector. These parcels can instead used by land starved PMPML for parking, fleet repair/maintenance and avoid thefts. (PMPML holds 43 acres but needs 140 acres, as of 2015). 10% of the metro funds if diverted to PMPML can help scale significantly and make structural improvements to depots and systems (esp, IT), health and training of operators.

Address Pune Metro and BRT operations as a land management question.Maximize the development impacts of investments by integrating with jobs and housing.

Institutionalize collaboration between public, private and civil society. While implementation- needs more meetings,collaborations needs to be institutionalized and need to make it work on a daily basis.

Design streets to include vending zones and recognize hawkers as entrepreneurs and employment generators. If the vending zones are moved far away pedestrian traffic also reduces. Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 calls for in-situ incorporation of hawkers into street design or to identify vending zones when former not possible.

IEC- Information, education and communication.1. Information in multiple languages. Live tracking of services, availability, andtime can bring down anxiety. Information needs to be consistent to build in reliability and predictability. 2. Educate citizens about the negative impacts of private vehicle use on traffic flows and environment. Promote health benefits of NMTs.3. Communicate with citizens as consumers.

IEC cells are integral to the management functions of transit agencies and need to be institutionalized.

What is govt's job/ what can be privatized/ sub-contracted. Refer to London/Singapore/Paris/NY-Institutional frameworks and adapt it at per Indian law and local institutions and mandates.

Sharing data must be mandatory- and can be built into the MOUs / contracts. Some agencies like the PMC has open data policies whereas others like PMPML and Railways don’t share data. Agencies like the RTOdo not maintain proper data and may therefor not makeclear data-driven decisions

QUESTION : HOW DO WE PROMOTE INTEGRATED PLANNING BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT and NMT MODES?

SOLUTIONS (1. long-term or 2. high impact and easy to implement pilots)

APPENDIX 2/3

POLICY AND PLANING REFORMS

(more funding for alternative modes, changes in land use

planning practices, etc.)

CHANGES TO TRAVEL OPTIONS AND INCENTIVES

TRAVEL CHANGES

(improved walking and cycling conditions for last mile, more compact

and mixed land use development, increased road and parking fees,

reduced transit fares, etc.)

OUTCOMES

(reduced traffic congestion, road and parking facility cost savings, accident

reductions, energy conservation, pollution emission reductions, improved

mobility for non-drivers, etc.)

(shifts in travel time, route, mode, destination and

frequency)

QUESTION: HOW TO IMPROVE INSTITUTIONAL ENABLERS, ACTORS AND FUNCTIONS TO ARRIVE AT A COMMON MOBILITY AND ACCESS AGENDA ACROSS VARIOUS HORIZONTALS AND VERTICALS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS?

Land-use and mobility integration - dense mixed-use developments, safe pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, and clean, reliable, affordable and quality public transit. Most masterplans have little appreciation for public transit.But policies like no minimum parking requirements can bring alignment in desired outcomes .

Regional entities like PMRDA and MIDC can work out a common mandate and thenindividual ULBs and stakeholders PMPML, traffic police) mandates can reflect these. Important to identify institutionalbarriers/ gaps asmandates may be different and/orConflicting.

A high level coordinatingmechanism needs to be in place -Urban Metropolitan Transport Authority (UMTA) to facilitateintegration of local modes with key nodes like airports, railways stations, etc. Cities must build capacity to take all relevant decisions and come up with plansand strategies for transport in line with UMTA approvedframework/guidelines.

UMTA should facilitate co-ordination, do monitoring of goals and city’s performance, ensureregulations and standards are met, introduce new regulations and standards andeven bye-laws, bring in good governance practices like transparency andcommunity participation, advise on investment decisions and ensure a constantflow of transport revenues to the city.

UMTA needs legal backing and executive powers to drive it’s agenda.

Questions about UMTA that need to be answered-

1. Who will UMTA report to? (MPC or State govt.)2. What will UMTA’s relationship be to PMRDA?3. who will do physical infrastructure for UMTA and who will do O&M, need to be answered.

Foster better collaboration between state and central agencies. This is a challenge especially on stateand central lands that ULBs don’t have control of.

Doing monitoring and evaluation –modal shares, distances, travel time, fuelconsumed/emissions, safety, PT and NMT quality; link funding to cities with measurement and reporting of these.

SOLUTIONS (1. long-term or 2. high impact and easy to implement pilots)

APPENDIX 3/3