2 and 3 Wheelers in India

TwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelersinIndia
June2009
FINALREPORT

InnovativeTransportSolutions(iTrans)
Pvt.Ltd.,TBIU,IITDelhi,NewDelhi.

For:
InternationalCouncilforClean
Transportation(ICCT)
&TheInstituteforTransportand
DevelopmentPolicy(ITDP)

Final Report P a g e |2
TableofContents
1 Background...................................................................................................................7
2 AnIndustryOverview.................................................................................................12
2.1 DrivingForcesofTwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelerIndustries........................................14
3 GovernmentPoliciesTowardsTwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelers..........................................16
3.1 GovernmentIncentivePolicy..............................................................................17
3.2 TaxPoliciestowardsTwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelers.................................................18
4 RegulatoryFrameworkatPolicyandIndividualLevels..............................................19
4.1 RegulationsRelatedtoUsers.............................................................................19
4.2 RegulationsRelatedtoEmissions.......................................................................22
4.3 MethodstoEnforcetheEmissionRegulations...................................................25
4.4 CurrentFuelUsageandEmissions.....................................................................28
4.5 AlternativeFuelTechnologiesAvailable............................................................30
5 TrafficFlowsandCongestionData................................Error!Bookmarknotdefined.
5.1 TrafficFlows.......................................................................................................31
5.2 CongestionData.................................................................................................32
5.3 MeasuringTrafficFlows.....................................................................................33
5.4 RoadSpaceRequirementsandTravelTimeforDifferentModesofTrafficin
DifferentTypesofLocations...........................................................................................39
6 TrafficDemandModelingMethodsSpecifictoTwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelersand
HeterogeneousTraffic........................................................................................................46
6.1 CurrentModellingPracticesFollowedinIndia...................................................46
6.2 ErrorsinCurrentModelling,ApplicableforTwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelerTraffic....47
7 Road/IntersectionDesignGuidelines........................................................................49
8 ConflictswithOtherVehicles,BicyclesandPedestrians............................................53
9 SafetyDataandPreventionMeasures.......................................................................56
9.1 IndiainComparisonwithDevelopedCountries.................................................56
9.2 SituationinIndia................................................................................................57
9.3 FatalityIndexforVariousCities.........................................................................58
9.4 PreventionMeasures..........................................................................................60
10 ModeShareandModePreference............................................................................63
I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

10.1 ModeSharesofDifferentCategoryCities..........................................................63
10.2 TripLengthsofVariousCities.............................................................................64
10.3 AdvantagesProvidedbytheTwoͲWheelers......................................................64
10.4 ThreeͲwheelerModeShareandThreeͲwheelerIndexinVariousCities............65
10.5 TimeSeriesDataonTwoͲWheelerandThreeͲWheelerModeShare.................68
10.6 PurposeWiseTripsforVariousModes...............................................................73
11 Parking........................................................................................................................75
11.1 ParkingPolicy(NUTP).........................................................................................75
11.2 CityParkingPolicy..............................................................................................75
11.3 NewVehicleParkingSchemes............................................................................76
11.4 ExistingPracticesandDrawbacks......................................................................79
11.5 RecommendationsforFutureParkingStudies...................................................80
12 NoisePollutionandControlTechnologies..................................................................81
12.1 LegislationsonNoiseControlinIndia................................................................81
12.2 AmbientNoiseStandards(NoiseRules,2000anditsAmendments).................81
12.3 NoiseControlandRegulationProcedures..........................................................83
13 PolicyRecommendations............................................................................................85
13.1 SafeandEfficientUseofTwoͲWheelers............................................................85
13.2 SafeandEfficientuseofThreeͲWheelers...........................................................90
14 References..................................................................................................................91

ListofFigures
Figure1PercentDistributionofUrbanTripsbyMeansofTravelforSelectedIndian
Cities,2006...........................................................................................................................9
Figure2GrowthofIndia'sMotorVehicleFleetbyTypeofVehicle,1981–2002(in
Millions)................................................................................................................................9
Figure3SalesTrendsofDifferentVehicleTypes..............................................................13
Figure4VehicleCategoryWiseMarketShare(2007Ͳ08)..................................................14
Figure5RegulatoryFrameworkforAutomobilesinIndia.................................................20
Figure6TypicalCertificateIssuedafterPollutionCheck...................................................28
Figure7HomogeneousTraffic...........................................................................................41
Figure8NonͲHomogeneousTraffic(Delhi,India).............................................................42
Figure9ProportionofRoadUsersKilledandImpactingVehiclesonSampledNational
Highways............................................................................................................................55
Figure10ProportionofVehiclesRegisteredinIndia,Germany,JapanandUSA..............56
Figure11ProportionofDifferentTypesofRoadUsersKilledinDelhi,Mumbai,National
HighwaysinIndiaandinHighlyMotorisedCountries.......................................................57
Figure12ComparisonofThreeͲWheelerIndexofVariousCities......................................67
Figure13PeakͲHour,TwoͲWheelerVolumesatFiveIntersectionsSelectedinDelhi……69
Figure14PeakͲHour,ThreeͲWheelerVolumesatFiveIntersectionsSelectedinDelhi....70
Figure15TwoͲWheelerModalSharesatFiveIntersectionsforFiveYearsinDelhi.........71
Figure16ThreeͲWheelerModalSharesatFiveIntersectionsforFiveYearsinDelhi.......72

ListofTables
Table1AutomobileProductionTrends............................................................................12
Table2AutomobileDomesticSalesTrends.......................................................................12
Table3DomesticMarketSharefor2007Ͳ08forVariousVehicles....................................13
Table4RoadUserTaxinDifferentStates(AsaPercentageofVehicleCost)...................19
Table5EmissionNormsforTwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelersinIndia(Fuel—Petrol)................23
Table6EmissionNormsforTwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelersinIndia(Fuel—Diesel)................23
Table7EmissionStandardsforinusePetrol/CNG/LPGDrivenvehicles...........................24
Table8EmissionStandardsforInͲUseDieselVehicles......................................................24
Table9CategoryWiseFuelConsumption/Day(inKiloLitres)..........................................29
Table10CategoryWiseEmissions/Day(inTons)..............................................................29
Table11TrafficFlowsandVehicularModalSplitsofSelectedCities................................31
Table12ExpectedAveragePeakͲhourVolumeͲCapacityRatioforCitiesbyCategory
UnderDoNothingScenario...............................................................................................32
Table13PCUValuesatIntersections(IRCSP41:1994).....................................................34
Table14PCUValuesforMidBlocks(IRC106:1990).........................................................34
Table15ModalShareofTraffic(Chennai,2006)..............................................................35
Table16PCUValuesObservedatVariousVolumeLevels.................................................35
Table17PCUValuesDevelopedforTwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelersUnderVariousRoad
Conditions..........................................................................................................................36
Table18PCUValuesofTwoͲWheelersatDifferentAreaOccupancyValues...................38
Table19PCUValuesfromIRC106:1990...........................................................................39
Table20CapacitiesofRoadsofVariousWidths................................................................40
Table21CapacityVsFlowObservedinDelhi....................................................................42
Table22PCUValuesfromIRC86:1983.............................................................................50
Table23PCUValues(IRCSP41:1994)..............................................................................51
Table24ConflictsofTwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelerswithOtherVehiclesisDelhi...................53
Table25ShareofMotorisedTwoͲWheelers(MTW)andThreeͲWheeledScooter
Rickshaw(TSR)inIndianCities(14)....................................................................................58
Table26ProportionofRoadUsersKilledatDifferentLocationsinIndia.........................58
Table27AverageFatalitiesPerMillionPopulationPerYearinVariousCitiesinIndia...59

Table28ModeShare(%)Ͳ2007(WithWalk)...................................................................63
Table29ModeShare(%)Ͳ2007(WithoutWalk)................................................................63
Table30AverageTripLengthsofDifferentCategoryCities..............................................64
Table31NumberofAutoRickshawsintheSelectedCities..............................................66
Table32AverageModalShareofTwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelersattheFiveIntersections
0bserved.............................................................................................................................72
Table33ModeSplitfortheWorkTripsofVariousCities..................................................73
Table34ModeSplitfortheEducationTripsofVariousCities..........................................73
Table35ModeSplitfortheSocialandRecreationTripsofVariousCities........................74
Table36EquivalentCarSpace(ECS)byTypeofVehicle...................................................76
Table37NoiseLimitsforVariousLandͲUsePatterns........................................................82
Table38NoiseLimitsforTwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelersofDifferentEngineTypes...............82
Table39NoiseLevelsNearHospitalsinDelhi...................................................................83


1 Background
India,likeotherdevelopingcountries,ischaracterizedbyitsrisingpopulation,mounting
urbanization and motorization, and low perͲcapita income. Its total urban population
burgeonedoverthepastthreedecades,risingfrom109millionin1971to160millionin
1981(+47%),217millionin1991(+36%),and285millionin2001(+31%)(Census,2001).
The largest cities have grown especially fast. By 2001, India had three mega cities:
Mumbai(Bombay)with16.4millioninhabitants,Kolkata(Calcutta)with13.2million,and
Delhi with 12.8 million. Chennai (Madras), Hyderabad, and Bangalore each had more
than 5 million residents. And the populations of 35 metropolitan areas exceeded one
millionresidentseach,almosttwiceasmanyasin1991(Census2001).Therapidgrowth
of India's cities has generated a corresponding growth in travel demand and increased
levelsofmotorvehicleownershipanduse.
AsIndiancitieshavegrowninpopulation,theyhavealsospreadoutward.Alack
of effective planning and landͲuse controls has resulted in rapid, rampant sprawl
extending beyond old city boundaries and into the distant countryside. This greatly
increased the number and length of trips for most Indians, forcing further reliance on
motorizedtransport.Longertripsmakewalkingandcyclinglessfeasible,whileincreased
motor vehicle traffic makes walking and cycling less safe. Most public policies in India
encourage sprawl and new commercial development often takes place in distant
suburbs. For example, Tidal Park is a software center on the outskirts of Chennai;
GurgaonisalargenewindustrialareaoutsideDelhi;andPimpriͲChinchwadisacenter
outsidePune(Bertraud,2002).Similarly,Bangaloreisplanningseveraltechnologyparks
onitsfringeaswellasseveralcircumferentialhighwaysinthesuburbs,bothofwhichwill
induce further decentralization. In most cases, there is inadequate transport
infrastructure to serve these new suburban developments and the residences located
around them. Ramachandran (1989) characterizes Indian suburbs as an “uncontrolled
mixofindustrialdevelopment,dumpsandobnoxioususes,“withthe”extensionofurban
settlement causing conditions in the overtaken villages to deteriorate, both physically
and socially.“ This leapͲfrog development, typical of suburban sprawl, tends to follow
majorhighwaysoutofIndiancitiestothedistantcountryside.
LowͲdensity decentralization causes enormous problems for public transport. It
generateslessfocusedtripsalongwellͲtraveledcorridorsand,thus,ismoredifficultfor
transporttoserve.InIndia,ithasledtorapidgrowthincarandmotorcycleownership
anduseandresultantcongestedroadwaysthatslowbuses,increasebusoperatingcosts,
and further discourage public transport use. As cities grow and trip distances become

longer, walking and cycling

account for about half of all
trips in mediumͲsized cities
and about a third in the
largest cities. There is
considerable variation,
however, even within cityͲ
sizecategories.Amongmega
cities, for example, walking
and cycling are much less
common in Mumbai than in
Delhi, perhaps due to
Mumbai's superior public
transport system. Among
smaller cities, Kanpur and
Lucknow have much higher
proportions of walking and
cycling than Pune, which has
a very high level of
motorcycle ownership and
TrafficCongestioninanIndianCity

useduetoitslargemiddleclass,aswellasanextensivecharterbusservicesorganizedby
Pune's industrial firms for their employees. By comparison, residents of Kanpur and
Lucknow have lower incomes and a resultant much lower level of motorcycle use and
minimal bus service. Instead, they rely on a mix of paratransit modes such as auto
rickshaws, cyclerickshaws,jeep taxis, andtempos(largeautorickshaws).( J.Pucheret
al.,2005).
Asof2006,privatemotorizedtransport(mainlycarsandmotorcycles)accounted
forasmallbutrapidlygrowingpercentageoftravel,about10–20%ofalltrips(seeFigure
1).Figure2dramatizestherapid16Ͳfoldgrowthofmotorcycleownershipbetween1981
and 2002. Private car ownership increased almost sevenͲfold during the same period.
The sprawling, lowͲdensity development around Indian cities makes cars and
motorcycles increasingly necessary, especially given the unsatisfactory alternative of
slow,overcrowded,undependable,anddangerouspublictransportservices.Atthesame

Figure1PercentDistributionofUrbanTripsbyMeansofTravelforSelectedIndianCities,2006.
Modal Split of various cities
100%
90%
80%
IPT
70% Car
60%
Public transport
50%
2-Wheeler
40%
30% NMT
20%
Walk
10%
0%
Hyderabad (6.38)
Bangalore (5.70)
Kolkata (13.2)
Kanpur (2.72)
Delhi (12.9)
Ahmedabad (5.41)
Chennai (6.56)
Mumbai (16.4)
Pune (3.76)
Lucknow (2.24)

Source:VariousCDPSfromhttp://www.jnnurm.nic.in/nurmudweb/missioncities.htm

time, rising incomes among India’s middle and upper classes make car and motorcycle
ownership increasingly affordable. Cars which cost upward of $6,000 and motorcycles
whichrequireanoutlayofaround$1,000arethetwomajorchoicesforprivatevehicle
ownershipandservetwodifferentsectionsofthemarket.Levelofservice(comfort)and
travel time are the principal priorities for those in the high income population group,
while initial capital investment and operating costs are the major deciding factors for
thoseinthemiddleincomeclass.Becauseofthis,carsandtwoͲwheelershaveseparate
nichemarketsand,ingeneral,theyarenotcompetitors.TheTataNano,thenew$2,500
car launched by Tata, aims to capture some of the twoͲwheel market. However, its
success will hinge on whether consumers are willing to pay its operational and
maintenancecoststhataregreaterthanthoseofatwoͲwheeler.
ThethreeͲwheelersontheotherhandprovideforthemobilityneedsofpeople
not owning a private transport mode and inadequately served by the public transport
system.Theyarediscussedindetailinthefollowingsection.
ThreeͲwheeled scooter rickshaws (TSR) play an important role as paratransit
modes in most cities in India. According to official statistics, 86,185 were registered in
Delhiin2001.Thenumberregisteredin1996was80,208and87,785in1999

Final Report P a g e | 10
Figure2GrowthofIndia'sMotorVehicleFleetbyTypeofVehicle,1981–2002(InMillions).
(Source:J.Pucheretal.,TransportPolicy12(2005)185–198)
Note:“OtherMotorized”includestractors,trailers,motorizedthreeͲwheelers(passenger
vehicles)suchasautorickshawsandothermiscellaneousvehiclesthatarenotseparately
classified.

(Mohan et. al. 2003). It is estimated that the population of Delhi increased by 20%
between 1996 and 2001, but the above statistics show that the availability of TSRs
increased by only 7% in the same period. Also, they have unique safety and pollution
problems. They have high emission levels but cannot be substituted easily by modern
vans or buses because of economic and financial constraints. However, the threeͲ
wheeledscootertaxisarenowcomingequippedwithfourͲstrokepetrolenginesorCNG
engineswhichmakeemissionsperpassengerlessthanthoseofcars.Yet,researchinto
safety, efficiency and environment friendly technologies for these vehicles is not a
priorityinIndiaoranyothercountry.
According to Mohan and Roy (2003), TSRs should be the preferred personal
transportation mode and should be encouraged in urban areas provided they run on
LPG/CNG or fourͲstroke petrol engines equipped with catalytic converters. Ample
availabilityofTSRs(andtaxis):
x EncouragespublictransportusewhichcaneasilygetpassengersfrompointͲtoͲpoint
inahurry
x EncouragesnonͲownershipofprivatevehiclesbecausepointͲtoͲpointtransportation
iseasilyavailableforspecialoccasions.


AThreeͲWheelRickshawinNewDelhi

x TSR/taxi drivers do not cheat when supply is abundant and fare structure is
reasonable,sopassengersarenotscaredofhasslesandarguments.
GreateruseofTSRsreducestheneedforparkingplaces.Aprivatecarneedsaminimum
of two parking places – one at home and one at its destination. Whereas, a TSR just
needsoneparkingplaceinthecityandifitdoes10tripsaday,itreducestheneedfor
nineparkingplacesathomeandthedestination.
A TSR is preferable to a car, can carry the same number of people on average,
takes oneͲthird the parking area and one half of the space on the roadway. Since its
weight is oneͲthird of that of a car, it is responsible for less deterioration to the road,
requireslesstire/rubberuse,andtakesoneͲthirdthenationalresourcestoproduce.All
this reduces indirect pollution. Since TSRs have a small engine (175 cc vs. 800 cc for
Maruti), they pollute much less per passenger than most cars. Their small engine size
holds speeds to roughly 50 km/h, in keeping with urban speed limits. This also helps
control the speeds of others. Because of lower speeds and lighter weights, they can’t
easily produce fatal accidents among pedestrians and bicyclists. Therefore, TSR use
shouldbeencouragedasmuchaspossibleinurbanareasofIndia.

2 AnIndustryOverview
ThemotorvehicleindustryinIndiaunderwentaseaofchangeduring1985Ͳ1991
wheneconomicreformsaimedatencouragingcompetitionwereintroduced.Duringthis
period,thetwoͲwheelerindustrysawthelargestproliferationofbrandsintheconsumer
durables industry. From then on the rate of growth of twoͲwheelers increased rapidly
overthenexttwodecades.(Pucheretal,2005).
Thefollowingtablesshowtheproductionandsalestrendsofvariousautomobiles
inIndia.

Table1AutomobileProductionTrends
YearofObservation,(NumberofVehicles)
Category 2002Ͳ03 2003Ͳ04 2004Ͳ05 2005Ͳ06 2006Ͳ07 2007Ͳ08
Passenger 723,330 989,560 1,209,876 1,309,300 1,545,223 1,762,131
Vehicles
Commercial 203,697 275,040 353,703 391,083 519,982 545,176
Vehicles
ThreeͲ 276,719 356,223 374,445 434,423 556,126 500,592
wheelers
TwoͲ 5,076,221 5,622,741 6,529,829 7,608,697 8,466,666 8,026,049
wheelers
GrandTotal 6,279,967 7,243,564 8,467,853 9,743,503 11,087,997 10,833,948
Source:http://www.siamindia.com/

Table2AutomobileDomesticSalesTrends
YearofObservation,(NumberofVehicles)
Category 2002Ͳ03 2003Ͳ04 2004Ͳ05 2005Ͳ06 2006Ͳ07 2007Ͳ08
PassengerVehicles 707,198 902,096 1,061,572 1,143,076 1,379,979 1,547,985
CommercialVehicles 190,682 260,114 318,430 351,041 467,765 486,817
ThreeͲwheelers 231,529 284,078 307,862 359,920 403,910 364,703
TwoͲwheelers 4,812,126 5,364,249 6,209,765 7,052,391 7,872,334 7,248,589
GrandTotal 5,941,535 6,810,537 7,897,629 8,906,428 10,123,988 9,648,094

Thesalestrendsshownabovehavebeenrepresentedinthefollowingfigure.


Figure3SalesTrendsofDifferentVehicleTypes

From the total numbers, the percentage share of each vehicle type is calculated and
presentedinthefollowingtable.

Table3DomesticMarketSharefor2007Ͳ08forVariousVehicles
VehicleTypeMarketShare
CVs 5.05%
TotalPassengerVehicles 16.4%
TotalTwoͲwheelers 75.13%
ThreeͲwheelers 3.78%
Thefollowingfiguregivestheabovedataasapiechart.


Figure4VehicleCategoryWiseMarketShare(2007Ͳ08)
DomesticSales
ThecumulativegrowthofthepassengervehiclesegmentbetweenMarchandApril2007
was 20.70%. Passenger cars grew by 22.01%, utility vehicles by 13.21% and multiͲ
purposevehiclesby25.20%infiscalyear2006Ͳ07.
Thecommercialvehiclessegmentgrewby33.28%.Growthofmediumandheavy
commercial vehicles was 32.84% and light commercial vehicles recorded a growth of
33.93%.
ThreeͲwheelers sales grew by 12.22% with sales of goods carriers increasing by
13.52%andpassengercarriersby11.33%duringMarchandApril2007comparedtothe
correspondingperiodthepreviousyear.
ThetwoͲwheelermarketgrewby11.42%duringMarchandApril2007overthe
same period last year. Motorcycles grew by 12.79%, scooters by 3.48%, and mopeds
registeredagrowthof6.95%.
(Source:www.siamindia.com)
2.1 DrivingforcesofTwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelerIndustries
ThemarketfactorsthatdrivedemandandinfluencecustomerpreferencesfortwoͲandͲ
threeͲwheelersarediscussedbelow.

TwoͲWheelers
Three major forces have bearing on this industry: the manufacturers, financial
institutions and the regulators (Ministry of Environmental Regulations and civil society
groups).

Manufacturers: Producers launch various models and lobby government to provide
betterfacilitiesfortwoͲwheelers.

FinancialInstitutions:Thesefirmsdrivethemarketbycreatinglowinterestloanswhich
inturnallowmorepeopletopurchasetwoͲwheelers.

MinistryofEnvironmentRegulationsandCivilSocietyGroups:Therearenoregulations
on twoͲwheeler ownership/sales in a city with the exception of rules governing
emissions.India’semissionnormsareamongthemoststringentintheworld(Iyer,BAQ,
2008).Therefore,theMinistryofEnvironmentalRegulations,whichsetsemissionnorms,
andcivilgroupslikeCentreforScienceandEnvironmentandothersuchNGOsthatlobby
forstricternormsalsoadduptothedrivingforcesoftheindustry.

ThreeͲWheelers
ThethreeͲwheelerscatertothemobilityneedsofthosenotusingprivatetransportand
not being served by the existing public transport system. In this way, they serve the
needs of a section of the society by acting as cheap taxis. They have smaller engine
capacitiesandhighermileageratesthantheregularcartaxis.
ThemajordrivingforcebehindthethreeͲwheelersisthepolicymakerswhodecide
various issues, such as the total number allowable in the cities and fare policies, etc.
There is a general tendency among policy makers in various Indian cities to phase out
threeͲwheelerswhichtheyseeascompetitiontopublictransport,airpolluters,slowand
unsafe. This informal transport alternative is not always backed by sufficient data to
counter these claims. Also, the fact that threeͲwheelers cater towards mobility of a
particularsectionofthepopulation(i.e.,thosenotusingprivatetransportortheexisting
publictransportsystem)isalsoignoredwhileformingthepolicies.


3 GovernmentPoliciesTowardsTwoͲandͲThreeͲ
Wheelers
Indiaisafederalstate,whichmeansthatthetotalpowersonvariouspolicymattersare
sharedbetweenthecentralornationalgovernmentandthestates.Generally,policieson
variousissuesaredevelopedbythecentralgovernment,butimplementedbythestates.
Regulating a particular mode of transport by specifying limits in a city, such as
implementing helmet laws or regulating emissions, are in the hands of the state
government,resultinginvaryingpoliciesfromstatetostate.
The transport sector policies in India are made by two ministries of the
government:
1. MinistryofShipping,RoadTransport&Highways(MoSRT&H)
2. Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation (under whichUrban
transportisasubdivision)
In the various policies of these ministries, no specific guidelines for twoͲandͲthreeͲ
wheelersarementioned.Rather,thepolicymeasuresareaimedatincreasingmobilityby
encouragingpublictransportandnotencouragingtheuseofprivatemodesoftransport
(NUTP,2005).SincetwoͲwheelerscomeunderthecategoryofprivatelyownedvehicles,
the policies are indirectly designed to discourage twoͲwheeler usage. Among private
transportrules,nospecificpreferenceforatwoͲwheeleroveracaroracaroveratwoͲ
wheelerismentioned.TwoͲwheelershavebenefitsintermsofroadspace,cost,mobility
and release of green house gases. However, safety, emissions and equality of the
problemsassociatedwithtwoͲandͲthreeͲwheelersneedtobeaddressed.
ThreeͲwheelers in India act as intermediate public transport (IPT), a feeder
systemtopublictransportinlargecities.Theyaretheonlyavailabletransportforpeople
notowningvehiclesinplaceswherepublictransportisunavailable.Asuccessfulpublic
transport system with high ridership requires a good network of threeͲwheelers.
However, the policy guidelines of the ministry of urban development (as given in the
NationalUrbanTransportPolicy(NUTP),2005)encouragepublictransportwhileignoring
any mention of threeͲwheelers. The policies of other ministries such as issuing lowͲ
interest loans to the poor are encouraging people to buy more threeͲwheelers as
employment opportunities. The following sections discuss the various government
incentivesandthetaxpoliciestowardtwoͲandͲthreeͲwheelers.

3.1 GovernmentIncentivePolicy
Incentives are provided in the form of low interest loans to buy new vehicles. The
government,throughvariouspublicsectorbanks,givesloanstopeopleatinterestrates
about half to oneͲthird less than that of private financiers. The various policies of the
governmenttowardthevehicleloansareexplainedbelow.

TwoͲwheelerLoans
Aloanofupto90%oftheonͲroadpriceofthevehicleorRs.60,000,whicheveris
less,canbereceivedataninterestrateof13.25to16.25%.Therepaymentperiodvaries
from1to5years,basedontheinterestrate.Theeligibilitycriterionforthisisthatthe
grossannualincomeofthepersongettingtheloanshouldnotbelessthanRs.60,000/Ͳ.

FourͲwheelerLoans
A loan of up to 90% of the onͲroad price of the vehicle or three years gross
income of the loan seeker, whichever is less, can be borrowed from banks at interest
ratesof11.75to13.5%,dependinguponthebank.Thelifeoftheloanvariousfrom1to
6yearsbasedontheinterestrate.Theeligibilitycriterionisagrossannualincomenot
lessthanRs.1,00,000/Ͳandalso,thepersonclaimingtheloanshouldhavearesidential
telephoneintheirname.
In the case of secondͲhand fourͲwheelers, loans are given only for vehicles less
thanthreeyearsold.ThemaximumamountoftheloanisRs.5.00lakhs.Themaximum
repaymentperiodisfiveyears.

ThreeͲwheelerLoans
The loan policies for threeͲwheelers are similar to the ones for two and fourͲ
wheelers.However,asameasureofpovertyalleviationandemploymentgeneration,the
governmenthaswaivedtherequirementofsecuritydepositsfortheunemployedpoor,if
theyprovidetheappropriateincomecertificate.ThishasleadtoanincreaseinthethreeͲ
wheelerownershipofpeoplewithlowincomes.

IncentivestoWomen
Toimprovethestandardoflifeforwomen,thegovernmentprovidesloansata
special interest rate 1% less than that charged men. The rest of the requirements are
identical.



AFourͲWheelRickshaw

PrivateFinanciersandGrievancesofThreeͲWheelerOwners
Theinterestratesonloansreceivedfromprivatefinanciersisintherangeof30
to40%,buttherequirementsforobtainingaloanarelessstringentthanthatofferedby
publicsectorbanks.Also,publicsectorbanksdonotloanmoneyforsecondͲhandthreeͲ
wheelers.Therefore,anyonewantingtobuyanewthreeͲwheelershouldfirstbuyanold
oneandexchangeitforanewone.Ingeneralthesecondhandortheoldvehiclecosts
aroundRs.100,000/ͲandanewonecostsaroundRs.300,000/Ͳ.Also,thistransactionis
done through private dealers who charge around Rs.25,000 to Rs. 50,000. Hence the
totalcosttobuyanewthreeͲwheeleraddsuptoaboutRs.450,000.Outofthis,loans
fromthepublicsectorbanksaregivenonlyforthenewvehicle,i.e.,Rs.100,000/Ͳ.This
practiceforcespeoplebuyingthreeͲwheelerstoobtainloansfrom privatefinanciersat
high interest rates. As a result, operators who own a fleet of threeͲwheelers and rent
themeverydayfinditeasiertobuynewthreeͲwheelersthanindividualswantingtobuy
theirown.
3.2 TaxPoliciesTowardsTwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelers
TheroaduserͲtaxontwoͲandͲthreeͲwheelersiscontrolledbystategovernmentswhich
eachhavedifferentrates.StatescollecttheroadusertaxfortwoͲwheelersasalump
sumforaperiodof15yearsatthetimeanewvehicleisregistered.Somestatescollect


Table4RoadUserTaxinDifferentStates(AsaPercentageoftheVehicleCost)
State 2ͲWheelerTax 3ͲWheelerTax
AndhraPradesh 9% 9%
Delhi 2% 2%
Karnataka 9% 9%
MadhyaPradesh 5% 6%
Orissa 5% 5%
<50cc 1.50%
Punjab Rs150/Yr
>50cc 3%
UttarPradesh Rs1600(around4%) Rs380/Yr
TamilNadu 6% Rs280/Yr
Bihar Rs900Ͳ1500* Rs990Ͳ1920*
*ͲͲExactamountdependsontheweightofthevehicle
Source:http://www.morth.nic.in/related_catmain.asp?rellinkid=27&langid=2

taxonthreeͲwheelersonayearlyorquarterlybasis.Thefollowingtablegivesthetaxin
someselectedstates,togetanideaofthevariationsintaxcollectedindifferentstates.
A vehicle registered in one state which later needs to operate in a different state is
subjecttothatstate’sregistrationandroadusertax.
4 RegulatoryFrameworkatPolicyandIndividualLevels
Theregulatorypoliciesdevelopedbythecentralgovernmentwillbediscussedin
section4.1.Theremainingsectionsdiscusstheireffectonindividualusers.
4.1 RegulationsRelatedtoUsers
InIndia,therulesandregulationsrelatedtodrivinglicenses,motorvehicleregistration,
traffic control, construction and maintenance of motor vehicles, etc., are governed by
theMotorVehiclesAct1988(MVA)andtheCentralMotorVehiclesRules1989(CMVR).
The Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways (MoSRT&H) acts as a nodal
agencytodeviseandimplementprovisionsoftheMotorVehicleActandCMVR.


Figure5RegulatoryFrameworkforAutomobilesinIndia

Source:http://www.siamindia.com/scripts/regulatoryframework.aspx

Inordertoinvolveallstakeholders,MoSRT&Hhasestablishedtwocommitteestoadvise
onissuesofsafetyandemissions,namely:

x CMVRͲTechnicalStandingCommittee(CMVRͲTSC)
x StandingCommitteeonImplementationofEmissionLegislation(SCOE)
CMVRͲTechnicalStandingCommittee(CMVRͲTSC)
ThiscommitteeadvisesMoSRT&HontechnicalaspectsrelatedtoCMVR.Itiscomprised
ofrepresentativesfromvariousorganizations,includingtheMinistryofHeavyIndustries
and Public Enterprises (MoHI&PE), MoSRT&H, Bureau Indian Standards (BIS); testing
agencies such as Automotive Research of India (ARAI), Vehicle Research Development
and Establishment (VRDE), Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT); industry
representatives from Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM), Automotive
Component Manufacturers Association (ACMA) and Tractor Manufacturers Association
(TMA); and representatives from state transport departments. Major functions of the
committeeare:

x To provide clarity and interpret the central motor vehicle rules which have
technicalbearingonMoRT&H.

x To recommend international/foreign standards that the government can use in
lieu of those set out under the CMVR permit use guidelines for
components/parts/assemblies.
x Tomakerecommendationsonanyothertechnicalissueshavingdirectrelevance
totheimplementationoftheCentralMotorVehicleRules.
x To recommend new safety standards for components for notification and
implementationunderCentralMotorVehiclesRules.
x Tomakerecommendationsonleadtimeforimplementingsafetystandards.
x TorecommendchangesinCentralMotorVehicleRulesinviewofmodificationsin
automobiletechnologies.

CMVRͲTSC is assisted by another committee called the Automobile Industry Standards
Committee (AISC), comprised of members from various stakeholders, in drafting
technicalstandardsrelatedtosafety.Thecommittee’smajorfunctionsare:
x Preparenewsafetystandardsforautomotiveitems
x Reviewandrecommendamendmentstoexistingstandards
x RecommendadoptionofsuchstandardstoCMVRTechnicalStandingCommittee
x Recommendcommissioningoftestingfacilitiesatappropriatestages
x Recommend the necessary funding of such facilities to the CMVR Technical
StandingCommittee,and
x AdviseCMVRTechnicalStandingCommitteeonanyotherreferredissues

The National Standards for Automotive Industry are prepared by Bureau of Indian
Standards (BIS). The standards formulated by AISC are also converted into Indian
Standards by BIS. The standards formulated by both BIS and AISC are considered by
CMVRͲTSCforimplementation.
(http://www.morth.nic.in/index2.asp?langid=2&sublinkid=204)
StandingCommitteeonImplementationofEmissionLegislation(SCOE)
Thiscommitteeconsidersissuesrelatedtoemissionregulations.Itsmajorfunctionsare:
x Todiscussfutureemissionnorms
x TorecommendnormsforinͲusevehiclestoMoSRT&H
x Tofinalizethetestproceduresandtheexecutionstrategyforemissionnorms
x AdviseMoSRT&Honanyissuerelatingtoimplementingemissionregulations.
BasedontherecommendationsfromCMVRͲTSCandSCOE,MoSRT&Hissuesnotification
fornecessaryamendments/modificationsintheCentralMotorVehicleRules.


Inaddition,otherministries,includingMinistryofEnvironment&Forest(MoEF),Ministry
ofPetroleum&NaturalGas(MoPNG)andMinistryofNonͲconventionalEnergySources,
arealsoinvolvedinshapingregulationsgoverningemissions,noise,fuelsandalternative
fuelvehicles.
These are policies of the government and hence affect users at aggregate levels.
Regulations related to individual users are explained in following sections. Emission
regulations on new and in use vehicles are detailed initially, followed by methods of
enforcement.Theactualemissionsareexplainedinsection4.4.Aftertheregulationsare
inplaceandiftheemissionscannotbeadequatelycontrolled,alternativetechnologies
mustbeexplained.Thoseavailabletechnologiesarediscussedinsection4.5.
4.2 RegulationsRelatedtoEmissions
Since the twoͲwheelers (75% in 2007Ͳ08) and threeͲwheelers (4% in 2007Ͳ08)
constituteabout80%ofthetotalnumberofvehiclesinIndia,theiremissionsalsoforma
significant proportion of total vehicle pollution. The primary pollutants are particulate
matter,hydroͲcarbonsandnitrogenoxide.Leftunchecked,thesepollutantscanproduce
serioushealthconsequences.
EmissionStandardsbytheGovernment
The emission standards were first adopted in 1991 and have been continuously
upgradedsincethen.Thefirstmajorrevisionoccurredin1996,thesecondin2000,the
thirdin2005andthenextin2010.
The following table provides the chronological order of emission standards and
alsovariouspollutants.Thesenormsarefornewvehicles.



Table5EmissionNormsforTwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelersinIndia(Fuel—Petrol)
YEAR PETROL2ͲW PETROL3ͲW
CO HC+Nox CO HC+Nox
1991 12to15 8to9 30 12
1996 4.5 3.6 6.75 5.4
2000 2 2 4 2
2005* 1.5 1.5 2.25 2
2010* 1 1 1.25 1.25
*DF 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
DF*:DeteriorationFactor,Note:Allunitsareingm/km
(Source:N.V.Iyer,ManagingTwoͲandThreeͲWheelerEmissionsͲͲNationalWorkshopontheImprovement
ofUrbanAirQualityofPakistan,13Ͳ15December,2004,Lahore,Pakistan)

Table6EmissionNormsforTwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelersinIndia(Fuel—Diesel)
YEAR DIESEL2and3Wheelers
COHC+NoxPM
1991 14.3 20
1996 5 2
2000 2.75 0.97 0.14
2005* 1 0.85 0.1
2010* 0.5 0.5 0.05
*DF 1.1 1 1.2
DF*:DeteriorationFactor
(Source:N.V.Iyer,ManagingTwoͲandͲthreeͲwheelerEmissionsͲͲͲNationalWorkshopontheImprovement
ofUrbanAirQualityofPakistan,13Ͳ15December,2004,Lahore,Pakistan)


Thefollowingtablesgivethestandardstobefollowedbyvehiclesalreadyinuse.

Table7EmissionStandardsforInͲUsePetrol/CNG/LPGDrivenVehicles
VEHICLETYPE CO,%vol HC,ppm
2&3 wheelers (2/4Ͳstroke), 4.5 9000
preͲ2000
2&3 wheelers (2Ͳstroke), 3.5 6000
postͲ2000
2&3 wheelers (4Ͳstroke), 3.5 4500
postͲ2000
Bharat Stage II compliant 4Ͳ 0.5 750
wheelers
4Ͳwheelers other than 3 1500
BharatStageIIcompliant
(Source:N.V.Iyer,EnvironmentFriendlyVehicles–theIndianExperienceͲ,NationalWorkshoponUrban
Air Quality Management and Integrated Traffic Management for Karachi, September 13 Ͳ 14, 2006,
Karachi.)

Table8EmissionStandardsforInͲUseDieselVehicles
Methodoftest Maximumsmokedensity
Lightabsorptioncoefficient,
HartridgeUnits
(1/m)
Freeaccelerationtestfor
turbochargedengineand 2.45 65
naturallyaspiratedengine
(Source:N.V.Iyer,EnvironmentFriendlyVehicles–theIndianExperienceͲ,NationalWorkshoponUrban
Air Quality Management and Integrated Traffic Management for Karachi, September 13 Ͳ 14, 2006,
Karachi.)

Maximumlimitsforcriticalingredientslikebenzeneinpetrolhavebeenspecifiedat5%
m/minthecountryand3%inthemetropolitanareas.Toaddresstheexcessivepollution
inthefourmetrocitiesofDelhi,Mumbai,KolkataandChennai,0.05%sulfurcontentin
petrolanddieselhasbeensetsince2000Ͳ2001.Thebenzenecontenthasbeenfurther
reducedto1%inDelhiandMumbai.

Theseprogressivelyrigidstandardsresultedinsignificanttechnologicaladvancesandthe
introductionofexceedinglylowemissionvehicles.Thisarrestedfurtherdeteriorationof

air quality, but resulted in insignificant reductions in ambient pollution levels of PM10
andCO.(Note:SignificantcontributionsofPM10comefromdieselvehiclesandCOfrom
passengercars)
Also, the benefits obtained from cleaner, new vehicles are negated by the pollution
contributedbylargenumbersofoldervehiclesthatarepoorlymaintainedandhaveno
emissioncontrols(Source:N.V.IYER,2001).
4.3 Methodstoenforcetheemissionregulations
Twolevelsofchecksareneededtoensurethattheabovementionedstandardsaremet:
1. Verifythatvehiclemanufacturersarecomplyingwithemissionstandards
2. Confirmthatownersaremaintainingtheirvehiclesuptotherequiredstandards
Theenforcementmethodologyisexplainedinthissection.

1. Checkonthemanufacturers:
Thisisgenerallydoneinthefollowingways:

TypeApprovalandConformityofProduction(COP)Tests
Thesetestsaredoneoneachvehiclecomingoutofthemanufacturingplanttoensure
tail pipe emission standards are being met. Once new vehicles are sold, emission tests
arenotrequiredforthefirstyear.

TypeApprovalTests
Allnewvehiclesneedatypeapprovalcertificatestatingthatthemodelisamongthose
listedinRule126(A)oftheCentralMotorVehicleRules(CMVR),1993.Thistestneedsto
be carried out by a governmentͲrecognized testing agency (eg iCAT in Manesar,
Haryana).

ConformityofProduction(COP)Test
ThesameagencythatdoesthetypeapprovalgenerallydoestheCOPtest.However,the
manufacturercangotoanotheragencyifdesired.TheCOPperiodforavehicle/engine
modeliseverysixmonthsfromApriltoSeptemberandOctobertoMarch,orproduction
of 25,000 vehicles/engines if the vehicles are anything other than twoͲandͲthreeͲ
wheelers. However, if production of a model including its variants in a year (i.e. two
consecutive COP periods of six months each) is less than 5,000 in the case of other
vehicles(otherthantwoorthreeͲwheelers)theCOPintervalshallbeoneyear.

The sampling size is one day’s average production, subject to a minimum of 10 and
maximum of 100. For lowͲvolume production vehicles (<250 numbers in six months)
sampling size shall be minimum 5 numbers for Bharat Stage II/ Bharat Stage III
vehicles/engines.IncaseofCBUBharatStageII/BharatStageIIIvehicles,whereimport
islessthan5numbersatatime,thesamplesizemaybelimitedtothree.
If the vehicle/engine meets the requirements of COP, the test agency issues a
COPcertificatetothemanufacturer.Thecertificatewillcoverthevehicle/enginemodel
anditsvariantsplannedorproducedduringtheCOPinterval.Thetestagencywillalso
sendthecopiesofthecertificatetoothertestingandnodalagencies.
If the vehicle/engine fails to meet the requirements, the testing agency sends
copies of the test report to the nodal agency and the manufacturer.The nodal agency
makesadecisionandconveysittothemanufacturerandtestagencieswithinfourweeks
of its report and after calling for a standing committee meeting to advise the nodal
agency.Thevehicle/enginemanufacturergetsanopportunitytoappealhiscasebefore
thecommittee.Basedoncommitteerecommendations,thenodalagencymaywithdraw
thetypeapprovalcertificateandissueastopͲworkorderonthevehicles/engines.

FuelEconomyLabelingofVehicles
Fuel economy labels are affixed to manufactured products to describe energy
performance(usuallyintheformofenergyuse,efficiency,orenergycosts).Theselabels
giveconsumerstheinformationnecessarytomakeinformedenergyefficientpurchases.
InIndiathisisonlymandatoryforafewitemslikeairconditionersandrefrigeratorsbut
notforvehicles.Inthecaseofvehiclesa“voluntarydisclosureoffueleconomy”method
is followed. The vehicle manufacturer displays the fuel economy label along with the
vehicle’smodelname,fuelused(Petrol/Diesel/CNG)andthemileage(certifiedkmper
litre).

StandardTestConditions
Approved agencies conduct tests on all the vehicles under "standard test conditions".
Amongmanyparameters,standardtestconditionsinclude:twopersonsinthecar/twoͲ
wheeler, air conditioning switchedͲoff (for cars); standard (nonͲadulterated) fuel; gear
changesinapredeterminedpatternandatpredeterminedaccelerationlevels;standard
airpressureinthetires;windspeed;etc.Testconditionsatthecertificationagencyare
identicalforallvehicles,irrespectiveofmanufacturer,sothecustomercanmakecorrect
comparisons of fuel efficiency, across car models. Some test centers like iCAT are

authorizedtocarryoutthesetestsandonlylabelingdonethereisvalid(MarutiSuzuki
IndiaLimited,2008).

2. CheckontheUsers
The following measures have been adopted for the inͲuse vehicles. (Source: N. V.
Iyer,2006,Karachi)

SoundInspection&MaintenanceProgram
TocheckthatthevehiclesareobservingtheprescribednormsthePUC(Pollutionunder
Control)certificateismandatoryforallthevehicles.Allvehiclesarerequiredtopassan
emissioninspectioneveryyearandobtainacertificatethatstatesallemissionstandards
arebeingmet.

ThePUCcertificateisissuedafterthefollowingprocedure:
Statetransportdepartmentsauthorizesomeemissionscheckingcentersinvariouscities.
Thesearegenerallyplacedinfuelfillingstationsormobilevansthatcontaintherequired
equipmentfortesting.ThepricechargedforthisisnominalatRs.35/Ͳ(lessthan$1U.S.).
Figure6showsanexampleofatypicalPUCcertificateissuedinDelhi.Eventhoughthe
certificate is for 2004, the same procedure is still followed even with exceptions for
changesintheprescribedstandards.
Thiscertificateisvalidforoneyear.Adatedphotographofthevehiclesnumberplate
is placed on the certificate as a benchmark for calculating the mandatory oneͲyear
period.Ifthemeasuredlevelofpollutionfromthevehicleisgreaterthantheprescribed
limit, the owner is supposed to get the vehicle repaired and apply for a new PUC
certificate.
– However, the present system has the following failings and hence needs to be
improved:
o No government supervision of the large number of privately owned
centers
o Noqualityassurancetoverifycorrectnessofcertificates,testequipment
notcalibratedperiodically
o Certificateissuingsystemnotfoolproof
o Fraudulentpracticesfollowedbymanycenters,certificatesissuedwithout
testing
o Testcentersareallowedtocarryoutrepairs;thiscreatesvestedinterests
o Noisepollutioncausedbythevehiclesisuncheckedduringthetest.

Figure6TypicalcertificateIssuedAfterPollutionCheck

IntroductionofPreͲMixedTwoͲStroke(2ͲT)Oil
• AtpresentonlythecityofDelhihasmadethismandatory.Othercitiesneedto
followtheexampletoachievelesseremissions.
PhasingOutOldVehicles
• Replacingthesewithnewonesmeetinglatestemissionstandardsor
• Replacingbythoserunningonalternatefuels
Upgradingoldvehicles
• Retrofitwithcatalyticconverters(effectiveonlyonpostͲ1996vehicles)
4.4 CurrentFuelUsageandEmissions
The following tables give the total fuel being consumed in various cities in India. The
citiesarecategorizedaccordingtotheirpopulation.

Table9CategoryWiseFuelConsumption/Day(InKiloLitres)
City Population
Car 2W 3W Bus Total
Category (inlakhs)
1 <5 36 8 5 6 55
2 5Ͳ10 603 414 362 280 1,659
3 10Ͳ20 1,003 1,058 602 376 3,039
4 20Ͳ40 436 393 393 140 1,362
5 40Ͳ80 921 901 553 833 3,208
6 >80 4,782 1,605 2,869 7,442 16,697
Source:MoUDreport,2008
Table10CategoryWiseEmissions/Day(inTons)
City Population
Car 2W 3W Bus Total
Category (inlakhs)
1 <5 6 3 0 0 10
2 5Ͳ10 90 133 24 21 268
3 10Ͳ20 158 342 125 27 652
4 20Ͳ40 64 127 37 9 238
5 40Ͳ80 143 300 143 60 647
6 >80 556 365 451 375 1747
(MoUDreport,2008)

CarsandtwoͲwheelersconsumethemajorityofthefuelforallcitiesinCategory1to5
andaccountforapproximately65to90%ofthetotalemissionsproducedbyallmodesof
transport.InCategory6cities,whilecarsandtwoͲwheelersaccountforlessthan50%of
the total fuel consumption by all modes, the total emission produced by these two
modesismorethan60%.Thisisduetohighlevelsofcongestionresultinginslowspeeds
andthushigheremissions.
InCategory5and6cities,intermediatepublictransportvehiclesaccountfor18to23%
of the fuel consumption, respectively, while they contribute to approximately one
quarterofthetotalemissionsbyallvehicles.
It is expected that mandatory fuel economy standards and an official fuel economy
labeling program will help in reducing these emissions (Centre for Science and
Environment,2008).

4.5 Alternativefueltechnologiesavailable
Adopting strong emission standards and enforcing them is one way of controlling air
quality. Another way is to explore the possibility of alternative fuels and technologies.
Thissectiondiscussesthevariousoptionsavailableintermsoffueltechnologies.
TwoͲwheelersarenotattractivecandidatesforfuelchanges.However,thethreeͲ
wheelerscanbesuccessfullyconvertedtoCNG(India)andLPG(IndiaandThailand).The
followingarethefeaturesoftheseconversions:

CNGAutoͲRickshaw:
x UsesafourͲstroke,aircooled,sparkͲignitedengine
x HasaCNGcylinder(22Ͳliterwatercapacity)abletohold~3.5kgofCNGat200bar
pressure
x Deliversafuelefficiencyof~45kmperkgofCNG
x Complieswithallnotifiedsafetystandards
x IsprovidedwithathreeͲliter“limpͲhome”petroltank
x PricedatUS$2,000,about25%higherthanthecorrespondingpetrolversion(12,5%
higherwithDelhiincentives)

LPGautoͲrickshaw:
Opinion is divided on whether LPG is a truly environment friendly alternative to
advancedenginetechnologyandcleanfuels.Thisisbecausethetotalhydrocarbon(THC)
emission of an LPG vehicle is higher (~15 to 30%) than that of corresponding petrol
vehicleandalsothecarbonmonoxide,nitrogendioxideandnitricoxideemissionlevels
are comparable to those of corresponding petrol versions. Users also may not be
attractedtoLPGifthefueleconomybenefitistoosmall.Theotherdangerofpromoting
LPG in India is that LPG for kitchen use attracts a subsidy (price ~Rs. 24/kgͲUS$ 0.60,
subsidy~Rs.17/kgͲUS$0.42/kg).SincetheautoLPGpricewouldbebasedonmarket
forces,itspriceislikelytobehigherandvariable.

Theotheralternativesavailableintermsofthefueltechnologyare
ElectricthreeͲwheelerautoͲrickshawprogram
ElectrictwoͲwheelerscooterprogram

However, largeͲscale commercial production and usage is yet to be achieved in this
segmentandhencenoconclusionscanbedrawn.
(IYER,2001;Georgeetal.,2002)

4.6 TrafficFlowsandCongestionDataͲTrafficFlows
VehiculartrafficflowsandtheirmodalsplitsobservedintheCBDareasofsomeselected
cities are presented in this section. The ranges given here are collected from traffic
volume count surveys done in these cities as a part of various comprehensive mobility
plans,BRTfeasibilityplansandotherstudies.Sinceavarietyofvehicletypesmakeupthe
totaltraffic,themodalsplitisalsopresentedtogetanideaofwhichvehiclesareactually
contributing to the flows mentioned. Since this study is specific to twoͲandͲthreeͲ
wheelers, only their modal splits and that of cars, the other major personalized mode,
arepresentedseparately.Allothervehiclesareputtogetherintheotherscolumn.

Table11TrafficFlowsandVehicularModalSplitsofSelectedCities
City Population CBDͲMidblock 2W 3W Car Others* Total
(inmillions) Flow(pcu/day)
Delhi >10 50,000Ͳ60,000 6 8 18 86 100
Hyderabad 5Ͳ10 50,000Ͳ60,000 24 9 12 67 100
Pune 2Ͳ5 40,000Ͳ50,000 45 9 15 46 100
Jabalpur 1Ͳ2 30,000Ͳ40,000 37 2 2 59 100
Rajkot 1Ͳ2 30,000Ͳ40,000 35 1 16 64 100
Patna 1Ͳ2 30,000Ͳ40,000 20 10 12 70 100
Vijayawada 1Ͳ2 30,000Ͳ40,000 29 25 7 46 100
*Othersincludepublictransport,nonͲmotorizedtransport,andothermodeslike
tractors,goodsvehicles,etc.
Sources:TRIPPReport,2008

As a city’s population increases, the traffic in the CBD also swells because a large
populationmeansalargercityandmorebusinessactivity,leadingtomoretrips.Also,for
thefourcitiesinthesamepopulationrangeofonetotwomillion,theflowsarealsoin
thesamerange,i.e.30,000to40,000PCU/day.Thissuggeststhatthetrafficpatternin
cities with similar populations is comparable. Also, apart from Rajkot, with a threeͲ
wheeler use of 1%, and Vijayawada, having a high threeͲwheeler usage of 25%, all the
other cities have a similar threeͲwheeler modal share between 8Ͳ10%, which is also
observedinthemodalsharesection10.1.

TwoͲWheelerModalShareTrends
InthecaseoftwoͲwheelers,eventhoughthereisnoexacttrend,thegeneralinclination
isthattwoͲwheelermodalsharesgrowwithcitysizebutafteracertainpointdecreaseas

citysizeincreases.Thiscanbeattributedtoshorttriplengths(DiscussedinSection10.2)
in smaller cities that grow as the cityͲsize increases, resulting in longer trips that
encourage people to shift to motorized transport. Since twoͲwheelers are more
affordable to middle income Indians (which constitute a high proportion of the
population)peopleshiftfromNMTtotwoͲwheelers.Asthecitysizeand,hence,thetrip
lengths increase more people prefer the comfort cars provide in the tropical Indian
conditionsandhigherspeedsthatleadtolessertraveltimes.Section10.3presentssome
otheraspectsregardingthetwoͲwheelermodalshares.
4.7 TrafficFlowsandCongestionDataͲCongestionData
The volume/capacity (V/C) ratio measures congestion in various cities. For 2007, it is
calculatedbytakingpeakͲhourvolumecounts(fourhoursinthemorningpeakandfour
hours in the evening peak) at screen line (imaginary lines cutting across the major
arterialsconnectingtheCBD)pointsofvariouscities.
The following table gives the average V/C ratios in the arterials of cities
categorizedaccordingtotheirpopulation.ThefutureV/Cratiosofthesecitieshavealso
been estimated for a doͲnothing scenario, i.e. assuming that the vehicles grow at the
samerateandtheroadinfrastructureremainsthesame.

Table12ExpectedAveragePeakHourVolumeͲCapacityRatioforCitiesbyCategoryUnderDoͲ
NothingScenario
City Population
Category (inmillions) 2007 2011 2021 2031
CategoryͲ1 <0.5 0.24 0.33 0.69 1.48
CategoryͲ2 0.5Ͳ1 0.73 0.78 1.2 1.64
CategoryͲ3 1Ͳ2 0.81 1.24 1.8 1.97
CategoryͲ4 2Ͳ4 0.97 1.05 1.16 1.32
CategoryͲ5 4Ͳ8 1.12 1.51 2.01 2.54
CategoryͲ6 >8 1.21 1.79 2.4 2.9


It can be observed that in some cities the V/C ratios are greater than 1, which means
vehiclesexceedtheroadcapacity.Thismaybeduetotworeasons.
i) Roadsoperatingatlevelofservice(LOS)F:IRC106definesthisasthestateof
forced or breakdown flow. This state occurs when the amount of traffic
approaching a point exceeds the amount that can pass through it. Queues,

which operate in extremely unstable, stopͲandͲgo waves, form in such
locations. Vehicles may progress at a reasonable speed for several hundred
meters and may then be required to stop in a cyclic fashion. Due to high
volumes,breakͲdownsoccurandlongqueuesanddelaysresult.Theaverage
travelspeedsarebetween25and33%offreeflowspeed.
ii) Useofincorrectcapacityvalues:Thecapacitiesofvariousroadsarespecified
in terms of pcus/hr/lane. However, the PCU values adopted are static
throughoutthenetworkandthereforemightnotberepresentingthearterial
trafficcompletely.IfthePCUvaluesareincorrect,thecapacityvalueswillbe
wronglyestimatedandthisleadstoincorrectV/Cvaluesincreasingmorethan
1inlargecitiesandV/C’sinsmallcitiesintherangeof1.24.Thistranslates
intoacalculationthat76%percentofroadspaceisunused
4.8 MeasuringTrafficFlows
Appropriatemethodologiesmustbeadoptedbeforeaccuratemeasuresoftrafficvolume
can be obtained when planning, designing and operating a road system. Expressing
trafficvolumeasthenumberofvehiclespassingagivensectionofroadperunitoftime
is inappropriate when several types of vehicles with widely varying static and dynamic
characteristics are present in the traffic stream. This problem can be addressed by
convertingthedifferenttypesofvehiclesintoequivalentpassengercarsandexpressing
thevolumeaspassengercarunit(PCU)perhour.
PCUvalues:
The PCU has been defined by the United Kingdom Transport and Road Research
Laboratoryasfollows:
Onanyparticularsectionofroadunderparticulartrafficconditions,iftheaddition
ofonevehicleofaparticulartypeperhourwillreducetheaveragespeedofthe
remainingvehiclesbythesameamountastheadditionof,sayxcarsofaverage
sizeperhour,…thenonevehicleofthistypeisequivalenttoxPCU.(Arasanetal.,
2008)

TheIndianRoadCongress(IRC)setstheparametersrelatedtoroadsandpublishesthem
ascodesofpracticeintwoofitscodebooksͲͲIRCͲSP41andIRC106.IRCSP41givesthe
PCU values of atͲgrade intersections and IRC 106 gives the PCU values at midͲblock
sections.Inbothcases,therecommendedPCUvaluesaretentative.Thefollowingtables
givethevaluesinthesecodes.


Table13PCUValuesatIntersections(IRCSP41:1994)
VehicleType PCUvalue
TwoͲwheelers 0.5
ThreeͲwheelers 1

Table14PCUValuesforMidͲBlocks(IRC106:1990)
%Modeshare Lessthan5% 10%andabove
TwoͲwheelers 0.5 0.75
ThreeͲwheelers 1.2 2.0
Thevaluesforpercentagetrafficcompositionbetween5%and10%willbeinterpolatedtheabovevalues.

Also, these code books state that the PCU value varies as a function of the physical
dimensionsandoperationalspeedsofthatparticularvehicleclasses.Speeddifferentials
inurbanareasaregenerallylow andhence PCUvaluesarepredominantlyfunctionsof
the physical dimensions of vehicles. However, empirical evidenceshows that there are
other factors influencing the PCU value of a vehicle. Research done in India on PCU
valuesandextractsfromthepaperspublishedinpeerreviewedjournalsarediscussedin
thefollowingsection.
FactorsInfluencingPCUValue
i. EffectofRoadWidth
Sikdar et al.(2000) found that road width influences the PCU values. If traffic
volume and its composition remain unaltered, an increase in road width will provide
more freedom for vehicles to choose their speed. By the same logic, the PCU for
individualvehicleswillincreasewithroadwidth.
Also,PCUforavehicledecreaseswithanincreaseinitsproportioninthetraffic
stream.Foragivenroadwidth,increaseinvolumewillcausemoredensity.Duetothis,
vehicles will move at reduced but uniform speed resulting in lower speed differences
betweenacarandavehicletype.ItwillresultinasmallerPCUvalueforthevehicletype.

ii. EffectofTrafficVolume
Arasanetal.(2008)foundthatthePCUvalueofavehicletypevariessignificantly
with variation in traffic volume. Their paper proposes that the PCU value of any mode
increases with a rise in the total traffic volume and after a certain level, reduces with
furtherincreaseinvolume. Hence,itisappropriatetotreatthePCU value ofavehicle
typeasadynamicquantityinsteadofconsideringitasafixedone.

The authors also found that PCU values can be accurately estimated through
comprehensive study of the interaction between vehicles in traffic. Study of vehicular
interactionunderheterogeneoustrafficconditionsinvolvesmodellingthetrafficflowat
the microͲlevel, over a wide range of roadway and traffic conditions, as well as the
collection of extensive traffic data in the field. A study was carried out in the city of
Chennaiandtheresultsobtainedareexplainedbelow.

Table15ModalShareofTraffic(Chennai,2006)
Mode %Volume
BusesandTrucks 3
Bicycles 10
MotorizedTwoͲwheelers 41
MotorizedThreeͲwheelers 16
Cars 28
LightCommercialvehicles 3
Source:Arasanetal.,RoadandTransportResearch,March2008.

Table16PCUValuesObservedatVariousVolumeLevels
Volume PCUValue
(veh/hr) M3W M2W
500 1.1 0.29
1000 1.4 0.43
1500 2.07 0.55
2000 1.55 0.53
2500 1.07 0.52
3000 0.79 0.42
3500 0.7 0.38
4000 0.58 0.36
Source:Arasanetal.,RoadandTransportResearch,March2008.

ThestudyshowsthatthePCUvaluesincreasewithanincreaseintrafficvolume
and,afteracertainlevelisreached,reduceswiththeincreaseinvolume.Atlowvolume,
spacing (both longitudinal and lateral) between vehicles is greater; cars (the reference
vehicles) are able to maneuver through the gaps easily facilitating fast movement. An
increaseintrafficvolumeatthisstagesignificantlyreducesspacingresultinginasteep
reduction in speed. This trend continues up to a certain volume at which the speed of

thetrafficasawholedropsand,consequently,thespeeddifferencebetweencarsand
other vehicle types narrows. At this stage, a further increase in volume results in a
relativelylowerrateofchange(decreases)inthespeedofcarsandinarelativelylesser
impact, due to the introduction of the subject vehicle. This results in the decreasing
trendofthePCUvalueofthesubjectvehicleathighervolumelevels.

iii. EffectofTrafficDensity,ModalSplitandLaneWidth
In a separate study carried out in Delhi by Tiwari et al. (2008), traffic density,
modalsplitandlanewidthwerefoundouttobeaffectingthePCUvalueandPCUvalues
forIndianhighwaysbasedonempiricaldataaredeveloped.Trafficdataiscollectedand
analyzed for various locations, traffic densities and lane widths and PCU values for
modesarederived.ThePCU valuesfortwoͲwheelersandthreeͲwheelersdeveloped in
this study, along with the average percentage composition of these modes, are
presentedinthefollowingtable:

Table17PCUValuesDevelopedforTwoͲWheelersandThreeͲWheelersinVariousRoad
Conditions
%2W 2ͲW %3W 3ͲW
RoadType
Composition PCU Composition PCU
Singlelane 43 0ͼ25 6 1ͼ34
Intermediatelane 23 0ͼ51 7 1ͼ31
Twolaneswithoutpaved
18 0ͼ91 2 9ͼ16
shoulders
Twolaneswith1ͼ5mshoulders 10 2ͼ81 15 2ͼ15
Twolaneswith2ͼ5mshoulders 24 2ͼ29 3 18ͼ66
FourͲlanesdivided 20 1ͼ99 4 11ͼ44
Source:Tiwarietal.,2008.

Thestudy’sauthorsfoundthatPCUvaluesofmotorizedthreeͲwheelershaveveryhigh
valueswhenthemodalshareofthreeͲwheelersbecomeslessthan5%.Thisshowsthat
vehicleshavingmuchloweraveragespeedsthantheothervehiclesinthetrafficstream,
affectthecapacityoftheroadevenatlowdensities.Also,observersfoundthatthe85th
percentileroadwidthoccupiedbyeachmodevariesbasedonthewidthoftheroadand,
hence,thePCUvalueisdifferentfordifferentroadwidths,i.e.lesserroadwidthsforce
vehiclestoformtighter85thpercentilewidthsandhenceoccupylessspaceandvehicles

occupymoreareaonwiderhighwaysasisevidentfromthehigherPCUvalueonwider
highwaysascomparedtosinglelanehighways.
Theabovevaluesarederivedfromthedataatruralandsuburbanhighways,where
freeflowhighspeedtrafficexists.Thereforeinatypicalurbanscenario,wherethetraffic
is of the forcedͲflow, lowͲspeed type, these values may not be applicable directly and
somecorrectionsaretobemadetogetthecorrectvalues.

iv. EffectofAreaOccupancy
Mallikarjuna et al. (2006) studied traffic behavior as a threeͲdimensional
phenomenon, including twoͲdimensional for the roadway (longitudinal and transverse)
andonedimensionforthetimeandfoundthattheareaoccupancyofavehiclehasan
effect on the PCU value. Area occupancy expresses how long a particular size of the
vehicle is moving on a section of the road. It is measured over time and over space
(length and width of the road). In this study the entire road width, irrespective of the
number of lanes is considered as well as different sizes of vehicles. The following
equationhasbeenusedtocalculatetheareaoccupancyofavehicle.

Where,
ʌAisareaoccupancymeasuredoverspaceandtimeacrosstheentireroadwidth
Listhelengthoftheroadsectionunderconsideration
xi denotes the distance between the vehicle and any of the two reference lines,
measuredalongtheroadlength
L–xidenotestheactualdistancetraveledbytheithvehicleovertheobservedroad
section
wiisthewidthoftheithvehicle
W is the width of the road and it is assumed to be constant for the entire road
section
Tisthetimeperiodofobservation

Cellular Automata models have been developed for modeling traffic because they are
more representative of mixed traffic than regular car following and lane changing
models. In this model the gap acceptance parameters and speed variation parameters
aretakeninsuchawaythattheyrepresentmixedtrafficconditions.Fromthesemodels,
the PCU values for trucks, buses and twoͲwheelers at different area occupancy values

have been developed. The PCU values for twoͲwheelers at various modal shares are
presentedinthefollowingtable.

Table18PCUValuesofTwoͲWheelersatDifferentAreaOccupancyValues
%No.of Area
PCE(max) PCE(Min)
2W Occupancy
0.036 0.1 0.1
10 0.038 0.44 0.1
0.05 1 0.52
0.029 0.1 0.1
20 0.038 0.76 0.1
0.05 0.79 0.53
0.028 0.1 0.1
40 0.038 0.46 0.1
0.05 0.46 0.34
0.025 0.1 0.1
60 0.038 0.48 0.12
0.05 0.88 0.12
0.021 0.22 0.22
80 0.038 0.6 0.25
0.05 0.87 0.25
0.021 0.26 0.26
100 0.038 0.45 0.36
0.05 0.6 0.36
Source:Mallikarjunaetal.

Observersreportthat,dependinguponthetrafficconditions,thetwoͲwheelerPCUvalue
rangesfrom0.36toeven1insomeinstancesandhenceastandardvalue,asadoptedin
the current code books, will not be correct. Also, the PCU value decreases with the
increaseinproportionoftwoͲwheelersinthetrafficstream.
FromalltheabovestudiesitcanbeconcludedthatthecurrentlyadoptedPCUvalues
do not represent the actual situation in the field and, hence, a more robust way of
estimatingthePCUvaluesneedtobedeveloped.However,thefactorslistedabovemay
notbeallinclusiveandtheremaybeotherfactorsaffectingthePCUvalue.Thisrequires
extensivestudiestofindtheexactfactorsinfluencingthePCUvaluesandbasedonthe

findingsofthestudy,PCUvaluesofvariousvehiclesundervariouscircumstancesneedto
bedeveloped.
4.9 RoadSpaceRequirementsandTravelTimeforDifferent
ModesofTrafficinDifferentTypesofLocations
Theroadspacerequirementsarecalculatedintermsofthepassengercarunits(PCU)of
vehicles. IRC 106 states the Guidelines for the Capacity of Urban Roads in Plain Areas.
ThisdiscussesthebasisofthePCUvaluesadoptedtofindthecapacitiesofurbanroads.
Itstatesthat“thePCUvalueisafunctionofphysicaldimensionsandoperationalspeeds
of respective vehicle classes. In urban situations the speed differential among various
classesisgenerallylow,andassuchthePCUfactorsarepredominantlyafunctionofthe
physicaldimensionsofthevariousvehicles.Nonetheless,therelativePCUofaparticular
vehicletypewillbeaffectedtoacertainextentbyincreaseinitsproportioninthetotal
traffic”anditrecommendsthefollowingPCUvaluesbeadopted.

Table19PCUValuesFromIRC106:1990
Percentagecompositionof
Vehicletype vehicletypeintrafficstream
Lessthan5% 10%andabove
TwoͲwheelers
0.5 0.75
(Motorcycleorscooteretc.)
ThreeͲwheeler
1.2 2.0
(AutoͲrickshaw)
PassengerCar
1.0 1.0

LightCommercialvehicle
1.4 2

TruckorBus
2.2 3.7

Cycle
0.4 0.5

CycleRickshaw
1.5 2

HandCart
2 3

Thevaluesforpercentagetrafficcompositionbetween5%and10%willbeinterpolatedtheabovevalues.


However this may not be true all the time. The assumption that speed differentials in
urbanareasareminimalisquestionable.Also,variousresearchershaveshownthatthe
PCU value depends on many other factors apart from the physical dimensions and
proportionofvariousvehicleclasses.Thereforetheroadspacerequirementsvaryfrom
onelocationtoanother.Extensiveempiricaldataneedstobecollectedandmodeledto
knowtheroadspacerequirements.
CapacitiesofRoadswithStandardLaneWidths
IRC 106 guidelines, Table 33, states the capacities of various types of roads specified
here.Allthecapacitiesgivenareintermsofthenumberoflanesinaparticularroad.The
standard lane widths followed are 3.75m for single lane roads and 3.5m per lane for
roadswithtwoormorelanes.

Table20CapacitiesofRoadsofVariousWidths
RoadType Capacity
(BothdirectionsCombined) (PCU/hr/direction)
1ͲLane 350
2ͲLanesUndivided 750
2ͲLanesDivided 750
3Ͳlanes 1000
4ͲLanesDivided 1800
6ͲLanesDivided 2700
(Source:IRC106)

However,theactualcapacitiesinthefieldcanbedifferent,mainlyfortworeasons.First,
atmanylocationsinIndia,thelanewidthspecificationsarenotfollowedandmanyroads
withwidthsnotconformingtothe3.5mperlanestandardareconstructed.Second,the
capacitieslistedaboveassumethatvehiclesobservethelanedisciplines.Duetomixed/
nonͲhomogeneoustrafficconditions,asexplainedinthefollowingfigures,lanediscipline
israrelyfollowedinIndiaandsotheactualcapacitiescanbedifferenttothose
mentionedinTable33.


HomogeneousandNonͲHomogeneousTraffic
Homogeneoustraffichasstrictlanedisciplineandtraffictypeswhosephysical
dimensionsdonotvarymuch.ThisisillustratedinFigure7.

Figure7HomogeneousTraffic

Source:Tiwarietal.,2007

NonͲhomogeneoustrafficisusuallyrepresentedbypassengercarsandheavyvehicles.as
wellasmotorizedtwoͲwheelers,motorizedthreeͲwheelers,minitrucks,minibuses,
bicycles,pedestrians,animals,animalͲdrawncarts,andvendorpushͲpullcarts.There
physicaldimensions,operational,andaccelerationanddecelerationcharacteristicsvary
greatlybecausenonͲmotorizedtrafficentitiessharetheroadwithmotorizedvehicles.
Further,inthistrafficsoupmotorizedtwoͲwheelersthattypicallyhave100ccengines
operatingsidebysidewithpassengercarsthattypicallyhave1,200ccengines.Afacility
hasnonͲhomogeneoustrafficwhenitspeakhourvolumehaslessthan85%passenger
carsandhaslessthan90%passengercarsandheavyvehicles(Tiwarietal.2008).Figure
8showsatypicalnonhomogeneoustrafficconditionobservedinDelhi,India.


Figure8NonͲHomogeneousTraffic(Delhi,India)

Source:Tiwarietal.,2007.
ActualCapacitiesObservedonIndianRoadswithNonͲStandardLaneWidths
TocomparetheactualflowandthecapacityvaluesgiveninIRC106,observationsfroma
studydoneontwointersectionsonthearterialsofDelhiareselectedandthepeakhour
volumecountsonthefourapproachesofeachofthesetwointersections.Thefollowing
tablegivestheroadwidths,actualflowandthecapacitiesofeachoftheroadsaccording
toIRC106.

Table21CapacityVs.FlowObservedinDelhi
Nameofthe Approach Approachroad No.ofLanes Capacity Totalincoming
Intersection Nos. width(m) marked (pcu/hr) flow(pcu/hr)
1 7 2 1800 1430
2 10 2 1800 2593
IIT 3 14 3 2700 4200
Intersection 4 14.5 3 2700 4018
1 9.5 2 1800 1561
2 11 2 1800 2121
NehruPlace 3 11.5 3 2700 4049
Intersection 4 11 3 2700 2598
Source:TRIPP,IITDelhi.

Outoftheeightapproaches,onlyonehaslanewidthsmarkedaccordingtotheIRC
guidelineof3.5mperlane.Atalltheotherlocationsthemarkedlanewidthsdonot
conformtostandardspecifications.Also,convertingthetrafficintoPCUsandcomparing
theactualtrafficwiththeroadcapacities,accordingtoIRC106,showsthatinsevenof
theeightapproaches,thevolumeoftrafficisexceedingcapacity.Thisclearly
demonstratesthefactthewithinthe2/3lanesprovidedmorethan2/3vehiclesare
passingbecausevehiclesarefailingtofollowinglanedisciplineswhichleadsto,better
useofavailableroadspace.
Theproblemofunmarkedstandardlanewidthsisnotaseriousonebecause
peoplearenotgoinginthemarkedlanesanyway.However,incorrectcapacity
standards,ifany,needtobecorrectedbecausepeoplemayoverestimatetherequired
roadspacebecauseofthelessercapacitiesgiveninthecodebooks.

Suggestionsforcorrectpredictionofcapacities:
Thecontinuityequationoftrafficflowforhomogeneoustrafficis
k=q/us
whereq=trafficflowacrossalaneorlanes(vehicles/h)
us=spacemeanspeed(km/h)
k=trafficdensityinalaneorlanes(vehicles/km)
The above equation assumes constant spacing and constant speed, i.e., under
uncongestedconditionswithmoderatetoslightlyhightrafficvolume.

Since maximum flow in any section gives the capacity of that particular section, if the
aboveequationisvalidatedfornonͲhomogeneousconditions,byvaryingkandusbased
ontheactualroadconditions,capacityofaparticularroadcanbeascertained.However,
the equation is for homogeneous traffic and the capacity is to be found for nonͲ
homogeneoustraffic.Thisneedstobedonebyfindingcommonalitiesexistingbetween
theories of homogeneous and nonͲhomogeneous traffic and deriving the required
parametersfromthosecommonalities.
Tiwarietal.(2008)presentonesuchstudydoneonthevalidationofcontinuityequation
fornonͲhomogeneoustraffic.Inthisstudy,thevalidationisdonetakingtrafficdensity(k)
as the parameter. A modified continuity equation is used in this study to reflect nonͲ
homogeneous traffic in such a way that the parameters are adjusted but the traffic
characteristicsmaintainthebasicrelationshipasintheoriginalequation.
Herethetotaldensityistakenintermsofsumofindividualdensities,whereindividual
densitiesarevehiclesofaparticulartype(mode)perunitarea.Flowistakenintermsof

number of vehicles of the mode considered for density and speed as the space mean
speedofthesamemodeofvehicles,whichcrossthetotallengthoftheareaconsidered
indensity.
Theequationsusedhereare:
ForIndividualModeDensities:
Kj=(qj/W)/us,j
Where,
j=trafficentitytype,e.g.,2=heavyvehicle,3=motorizedthreeͲwheeler
kj=averagenumberoftrafficentitiesoftypejperunitareaofhighway,e.g.,motorized
twoͲwheelers/(kmm)
W=crossͲsectionalwidthformeasuringflow,e.g.,m
Flowqj=NumberoftrafficentitiesoftypejcrossingthecrossͲsectionallineofwidthW
duringatimeinterval,e.g.,nonmotorizedtwoͲwheelers/h;and
Speed us,j=space mean speed of traffic entities of type j that completely traverse the
lengthofthehighwayarea(km/h)(thespacemeanspeedofnonͲhomogeneoustrafficis
theweightedharmonicspeedofeachtraffictype’sspacemeanspeed)
AnassumptionhereisthatWisconstantthroughoutthehighwaysegmentforalltraffic
entitytypes.
TotalDensityofallmodes,i.e.sumofdensitiesofindividualmodes,sinceallthemodes
usethesameavailableroadspace.
N
knt ¦k
j 1
j
Where,
knt=averagenumberofnonͲhomogeneoustrafficentitiesperunitareaofhighway,e.g.,
entities/(kmm)
andN=totalnumberofentitytypesinthenonhomogeneoustrafficstream.

TheaveragedensityfromactualdensitiesobservedonamidͲblocksectioninthefieldis
comparedtothedensityderivedfromflowsandspacemeanspeeds.Itwasfoundthat
thesetwomatcheachotherfortheaboveequations.Therefore,byusingtheabove
modifiedequations,continuityequationisalsovalidundernonͲhomogeneous
conditions.

Theactualconcernhereistofindoutthecapacity,whichisthemaximumtotalflowina
section.Theflowequationtobeusedis:
N
qnt qj
W
¦W
j 1
Where,qnt=Totalnonhomogeneoustrafficflow.
qnt/W=flowperunitwidth
Themaximumtotalflowisthesumofmaximumflowsofeachmodederivedby
maximizingtheflowequation.Inthiswaymaximumflowperunitwidthisderivedwhich
givesthecapacityperunitwidth.
ThisgivesonemethodoffindingthecapacitiesoflaneswithnonͲstandardlanewidthsin
nonͲhomogeneoustrafficconditions.


5 TrafficDemandModelingMethodsSpecifictoTwoandͲ
threeͲwheelersandHeterogeneousTraffic
5.1 CurrentModelingPracticesFollowedinIndia
The modeling method currently adopted in India is largely the fourͲstep process,
exceptinsomeresearchinstitutionswherediscretechoicemodelingandactivitybased
modelingareadopted.Thegeneralpracticetobefollowedcurrentlyistomodelthepeak
hourtrafficusingsoftwarelikeTransCAD,CUBEVoyager,TRIPS,etc.
Theprocedureforthisisasfollows:
i. TripGeneration:Derivingthetripgenerationequations(tripproductionandtrip
attraction) from household interviews (HHI) and preparing the production and
attractiontableforallthezonesofthecityfromthoseequations.
ii. TripDistribution:Distributingthetripsamongzonesusingthegravitymethodfor
tripdistributionandcalibratingitbasedonobservedtriplengthsinthecity.
iii. Mode Choice: Mode choice modeling by techniques like revealed/stated
preference surveys is not carried out in detail in most of the referred studies.
(Comprehensive Mobility Plans of Jabalpur, Rajkot, BRT Feasibility studies of
Vishakhapatnam, Vijayawada). The mode share derived from the HHI data is
appliedforthewholecity.(Insomecases,itistakenzonebyzoneandinothers
attheaggregatelevelforthewholecity).
iv. Trip Assignment: Trip assignment techniques like user equilibrium generally are
used to assign the trips on the network using the shortest path algorithm. The
shortest path is decided either on distance or time as criterion (as specified by
theuser).Thesoftwareinitiallyassignstripstoaparticularpathandbasedonthe
capacity of the roads, delays are calculated and alternative paths are explored
iterativelybeforeconvergingontoasinglepathforeachtrip.
However,thissoftwarehassomeinherentfeatureswhichdonotexactlyreflectthe
mixed traffic conditions. Thereby implying that, the twoͲwheelers and threeͲ
wheelersarenotproperlyaccountedforinthemodelingprocess.Theseaspectshave
beenlistedbelow.NospecificmethodologyfortwoandthreeͲwheelersisadopted.
PCUvalueisassumedtobetakingcareofthem(IRCͲ106).

5.2 ErrorsinCurrentModeling,ApplicableforTwoandThreeͲ
WheelerTraffic
1. PCU Value Constant for the Entire Network: For traffic assignment, originͲ
destination(OͲD)matricesofvariousmodesaccordingtotheirmodalsharesare
prepared and while assigning the matrix to the network, the PCU values of the
modesarespecified.Therefore,thePCUvaluesgivenherearestaticthroughout
thenetwork.Asspecifiedinsection5.2.2,thePCUvaluesneedtobedynamicfor
themtoberepresentativeoftheactualconditions.Thisimpliesthatthecorrect
PCUvaluescannotbeincorporatedinthepresentmodelingprocedures.
ProbableSolution:Ifmodelingsoftwareacceptsaprogramwhichtakesdynamic
PCU values as a function of the different variables on which it depends, this
problemcanbeovercome.However,thecurrentmodelingpackageslikeEmme3,
TransCAD(whichareamongthemostusedsoftwaresinIndia)donothavesuch
features and hence more research needs to be done before a solution can be
found.

2. ModalShareConstantfortheEntireNetwork:Themodalsharespecifiedinthe
OͲDmatrixisgenerallycalculatedattheaggregatelevelfortheentirenetwork.
However, this might not be true under actual conditions where there is an
elevated chance that the modal split is different in different locations. In some
areas, the proportion of cars may be more and in some other areas, the
proportionoftwoͲwheelersandthreeͲwheelersmaybemore.
Probable Solution: To counter this, from the data collected through household
interviews,separatemodesharesforallthezonesshouldbecalculatedandmode
choice modeling carried out. This must be used while forming the OͲD matrix.
However,thereisnoreportofsuchworkdoneinIndiaasperthedataavailable
forthecurrentstudy.

3. LinkSpeedsbutnotVehicleSpeedsareConsidered:Thespeedofthevehiclesis
taken in terms of link speeds. This assumes that the speed differential among
variousvehiclesisnegligibleandhencethelinkspeedwillbethespeedofallthe
vehicles.Thismaybetrueforhomogeneoustrafficconditionswherethenumber
ofmodesinthetrafficisfew.Butinmixedtrafficconditions,withthepresenceof
twoͲwheelers, threeͲwheelers and cars which have different engine capacities
andalsowiththepresenceofnonͲmotorizedtransportontheroad,thismaynot

betrueallthetimeand,hence,givinglinkspeedsinsteadofvehiclespeedsleads
toerrorsinthemodelingresults.

ProbableSolutions:
i. Ifsegregatedlanesfordifferentvehiclesareprovided(eg:BRTsystems),the
errorisminimizedtosomeextentbecauseheavyvehiclesusethebuslanes,
NMT usesthebicycle lanes andsoon.In thiscase,thespeedsofcars,twoͲ
wheelers,threeͲwheelersandothermotorizedmodes,ifanyaresharingthe
roadmightnotbehighlydifferenttoeachother.
ii. Even though macroscopic modeling software does not have the option of
modeͲwise speeds, microscopic simulation software like VISSIM, AIMSUN
havethisoption.Thereforemacroscopicmodelingcanbeusedfortheentire
network to get a general idea of traffic loads at various points and at the
critical locations; microscopic simulation can be carried out to get accurate
results.

4. People DoNotUsetheShortestPathAvailable:Thealgorithmsusedinvarious
modeling software assign the OͲD matrix to the network based on the
assumption that people use the shortest path to reach their destinations.
However, research shows that people do not always use the shortest path
availableandtheyarelikelytousesomemajorcorridorsalongtheirrouteevenif
this increases their trip lengths. This may be due to reasons such as lack of
knowledgeoffamiliaritywithshorterrouteswhichmaypassthroughunpopular
areas, superior Level of Service (LOS) on the major corridor, presence of gated
communitieswhichdonotallowexternaltraffictopassthrough.Ideally,tosolve
thisproblem,thelinksofthenetworkneedtobegivenpriority.
Probable Solution: There are no conclusive method for nullifying this error and
furtherresearchneedstobedoneouttodiscoverasolution.

Even though the problems mentioned are faced in some other countries where
solutionshavebeenfound,thosesolutionsneedtobeadaptedtoIndianconditions
andincorporatedinthedesignstandardssothattheyareavailabletopeopledoing
macroscopicmodelingforcities.


6 Road/IntersectionDesignGuidelines

ThedesignguidelinesforroadsinIndiaareformulatedbytheIndianRoadsCongress
(IRC). The following four codes are found to be giving the road/intersection design
guidelinesspecifictotwoͲandͲthreeͲwheelers.
i. IRC3Ͳ1983givesthe”dimensionsandweightsofroaddesignvehicles”
ii. IRC 86: 1983 gives the geometric design standards for midͲblocks or through
sections
iii. IRCSPͲ41:1994givesthe”designguidelinesforatͲgradeintersections”
iv. IRC92Ͳ1985givesthe”guidelinesforthedesignofinterchangesinurbanareas”
The salient features in these guidelines, which are applicable to twoͲandͲthreeͲ
wheelersarediscussedbelow.

i. IRC3Ͳ1983,givesthedimensionsandweightsofroaddesignvehicles’.
Threevehiclestakenasastandardfordesignare:
i) Singleunit(meaningonepassengercarunit)
ii) SemiͲtrailer
iii) TruckͲtrailercombination
TwoͲandͲthreeͲwheelersarenotmentionedamongthedesignvehicles.ThePCUvalueis
assumedtobetakingthemintoaccount.However,asexplainedinthePCUsectionthese
valuescanbewronginsomecircumstancestherebyimplyingthattheguidelinesmight
notbeaccurateinallthecases.

ii. IRC 86: 1983 gives the geometric design standards for midͲblocks or through
sections:
Forthispurposealltheurbanroadshavebeendividedintofourcategories:
1. Arterial:Ageneraltermdenotingastreetprimarilyforthroughtraffic,usuallyon
acontinuousroute.
2. SubͲarterial:Ageneraltermdenotingastreetprimarilyforthroughtraffic,usually
onacontinuousroutebutofferingsomewhatlowerleveloftrafficmobilitythan
thearterial.
3. Collectorstreet:Astreetforcollectinganddistributingthetrafficfromandtothe
localstreetandprovidingaccesstothearterialstreets.
4. Localstreet:Astreetprimarilyforaccesstoresidence,businessorotherabutting
property.

Based on these road classifications, parameters like the design speed, right of way
(ROW), sight distance, and horizontal and vertical alignment parameters are
recommended.Also, thecrosssectionalelementsofroadsliketheroadwidths,design
traffic volume, carriage width, footpath and bicycle track provisions are specified. The
designtrafficvolumeismentionedintermsofPCUandthePCUvaluesfortwoͲwheelers
andthreeͲwheelersareasmentionedbelow.AsexplainedinthePCUsection5.2.2,these
valuesmightnotbecorrectunderallcircumstancesandhenceneedtoberevised.

Table22PCUValuesFromIRC86:1983
ThreeͲwheeler(AutoͲrickshaw) 1.00
TwoͲwheeler(Motor/Scooter) 0.50

Thedesignspeedistheprimarycriterionforallthestandardsdevelopedandthedesigns
will comprise all vehicle types, thereby implying that the twoͲwheelers and threeͲ
wheelers are also taken into account. Also, whenever the length of wheel base of a
vehicle isrequired,it isnormallytakenas6.1mor6.0mforcommercialvehicles.Since
the lengths in case of twoͲandͲthreeͲwheelers are less than this, they are being
accommodatedinthedesign.
In all the cases, no separate design standards for twoͲandͲthreeͲwheelers’ specific
environmentsaredeveloped.Atentativepassengercarunit(PCU)valueisdevelopedfor
variousvehicles(inallthecasesandtheyusethesamePCUvalues)andthetrafficfrom
allthemodesisconvertedtotheseunits.Therestofthedesignisdevelopedassuming
that a certain number of cars use the road and a certain level of service (LOS) and
dimensionsareavailable.SincethePCUvalueitselfcanbewrong(explainedinsection
5.2.2),thewholedesignprocessislikelytobeinaccurate.

iii. IRCSPͲ41:1994takesthefollowingasdesignparameters:
- Designspeed
- Designtrafficvolume
- Designvehicle
- Designradiusofcurvesatintersection
- Widthofturninglanesatintersection
- Acceleration/decelerationlanes
- Superelevationandcrossslope
- Visibilityatintersections
- ChannelizingIsland

- Curb
- Trafficrotary

Among all the parameters, the design vehicle,design speed and the traffic volume are
the central parameters and, based on their values, the other parameters’ values are
specified.Theseparametersarediscussedindetailinthissection.

DesignVehicle
ThecodespecifiesthattheintersectionsalongthearterialsandsubͲarterialsintheurban
areas and those in theCentral Business District (CBD) need to be designed for a single
unit truck (with allowance for turning vehicles encroaching on the other lanes in the
CBD). A single unit truck has the dimensions of 2.58m width and 9m length. Since the
twoͲwheelers and threeͲwheelers have lesser dimensions compared to a single unit
truck,anintersectiondesignedforsuchavehicleisassumedtobeabletoaccomodate
thetwoͲandͲthreeͲwheelers

DesignSpeed
Adesignspeedof80kmphforarterials,60kmphforsubͲarterials,50kmphforcollector
streetsand30kmphforlocalstreetsarerecommended.SincethedesiredspeedsoftwoͲ
wheelersandthreeͲwheelersarelessthan60kmpheveninarterials,thedesignspeed
specifiedinthecodescatertothemalso.

TrafficVolume
AsexplainedintheTrafficFlowsandCongestionDataSection,thetrafficvolumeshould
notbetalliedasthetotalnumberofvehiclespassingapoint,butshouldbecountedas
totalPCUspassingthroughapoint.ThismakesthePCUvalues veryimportant andthe
accuracyofthePCUvaluesdeterminestheaccuracyoftheintersectiondesign.ThePCU
valuesrecommendedinthecodearegiveninthetablebelow.

Table23PCUValues(IRCSP41:1994)
ThreeͲwheeler(AutoͲrickshaw) 1.00
TwoͲwheeler(Motor/Scooter) 0.50

iv. IRC92Ͳ1985givestheGuidelinesfortheDesignofInterchangesinUrbanAreas
In this book, various guidelines on when to construct an interchange and what
factorstoconsiderͲͲterrain,trafficcomingin,importanceoftheintersection,etc.ͲͲare

discussed. Also, the types of interchanges for various situations and their geometric
details are specified. However, all the vehicles are divided into two categories ͲͲ
motorizedandnonͲmotorizedanddesignsaredevelopedforthem.But,inmixedtraffic
conditionstwoͲwheelersandthreeͲwheelersformahighproportionofmotorizedtraffic
and based on their vehicle capabilities, speeds, etc. the interchanges designed for cars
and trucks can become nonͲnegotiable. For example, if the vertical curves are banked
veryhigh,carswithenginecapacitiesof800ccandabovemaybeabletonegotiateit,but
twoͲwheelerswitha100ccenginecanfinditdifficult.


7 ConflictswithOtherVehicles,BicyclesandPedestrians

A traffic conflict is defined as a situation in which two road users approach each
other in such directions and with such speeds as to produce a collision unless one of
them performs an emergency evasive maneuver. More rarely, a traffic conflict may
involveasingleroaduseronacollisioncoursewithafixedobstacleorananimal.(The
WayForward,2005)
Thenormallanewidthsare3.5mperlaneandthemaximumwidthofanyvehicleis
2.4m.AlsotypicalurbantrafficisdistinguishedbymixedͲuse,inclusiveoftwoͲandͲthreeͲ
wheelerswithwidthslessthanorequalto1.5m.Thisleadstomorevehiclesusingthe
road than there are available lanes during periods of heavy traffic. Because of this
phenomenon,vehiclestrytooutmaneuvereachother.
AlargeshareofnonͲmotorizedvehicles(NMVs)andmotorizedtwoͲwheelers(MTW)
make up the transport system of Indian cities. In such cities, 45% to 80% of the
registered vehicles are MTWs. Cars account for 5% to 20% of the total vehicle fleet in
mostLMClargecities.Theroadnetworkisusedbyatleastsevencategoriesofmotorized
vehicles and NMVs. Public transport and paraͲtransit are the predominant modes of
motorizedtravelinmegacitiesandcarry20%to65%ofthetotaltripsexcludingwalking
trips.Othermodesmakeupfortherestofthetrafficandsetthestageforconflict.
AstudydoneinDelhiobservedtheconflictsbetweenvariousvehiclesundermixed
trafficconditionsandreportedtherelationshipbetweenfatalcrashesandconflictrates
atmidͲblockin14locationsinDelhi.Thedata revealedthatthepresenceofonlyafew
nonͲmotorizedvehiclesisenoughtocauseconflictswithmotorized.Whilethestudydid
not provide a conclusive relationship between midͲblock conflicts and fatal crash sites,
animportantconclusionisthattrafficͲplanningemphasisonconflictratesmaynotresult
inreducingfatalitiesonurbanroadsalongmidͲblocksegments.
From the total conflict data, the conflicts involving twoͲandͲthreeͲwheelers are
separatedandarepresentedinthetablebelow.

Table24ConflictsofTwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelerswithOtherVehiclesinDelhi
Car Bus 2W 3W Bicycle Total
3W 24% 17% 17% 25% 17% 100%
2W 22% 27% 18% 13% 20% 100%
Source:Tiwarietal,Accid.Anal.andPrev.,Vol.30,No.2,pp.207Ͳ215,1998


TheresultsshowthatmostconflictsinvolvethreeͲwheelersengagedwithother
threeͲwheelers,followedbythreeͲwheelersinconflictwithcars.TwoͲwheelersaremost
often involved in skirmishes with buses followed by cars, bicycles and other twoͲ
wheelers.ThiscanbeexplainedbythespeedsoftwoͲwheelers,busesandcarsthatcalls
for segregation of this heavy traffic by methods like exclusive bus lanes. The
phenomenon of vehicles colliding most with like vehicles is thought to be due the
process of natural segregation. Even without segregated lanes for different modes,
vehicles are aligning themselves into clusters of their own. For example, all NMTs
operateintheleftmostlanes,busesintherightmostlanesandcarsandtwoͲandͲthreeͲ
wheelersinthemiddleisacommonphenomenon.
Figure9showstheconsolidatedresultsofadetailedstudydonein14locations
on national highways around the country (Reference). This demonstrates that even on
nationalhighwaystwoͲwheelersconstituteover20%ofthefatalitiesandallvulnerable
roadusersputtogether,whichincludesthethreeͲwheelers,constitutemorethan65%.
Figure 9 also indicates that trucks are involved in the vast majority of fatal
crashes. In the absence of detailed multiͲdisciplinary crash investigation data, we can
only surmise that this disproportionate involvement must have to do with a higher
presenceoftrucksonnationalhighwaysandthegreatermassoftruckscomparedwith
otherroadusers.Intheeventofacrash,theroaduserwithalowermassusuallysuffers
moresevereinjuries.



Figure9ProportionofRoadUsersKilledfromImpactingVehiclesonSampledNational
Highways

(Source:TheRoadAhead,DineshMohan)


8 SafetyDataandPreventionMeasures
8.1 IndiainComparisonwithDevelopedCountries
RoadtrafficcrashesarechieflycausedbyahighͲenergytransferbetweentwovehiclesor
byahighͲspeedvehiclehittingalowspeedvehicleorapedestrian.Therefore,thetype
of vehicles on the road is important in determining the crashes caused and the
preventive measures needed. The following figure compares the type of vehicles
registeredinIndiaascomparedtosomedevelopedcountries.

Figure10ProportionofVehiclesRegisteredinIndia,Germany,JapanandUSA

(Source:MohanD.,2004)

Theabovedatashowsthatthecarpopulationasaproportionoftotalmotorvehiclesis
muchlessinIndiathaninthehighlymotorizedcountries(HMCs)(13%vs.56to80%)and
that the proportion of motorized twoͲwheelers (MTW) is much higher (70% vs. 5 to
18%).InFigure8,thefatalitiesinIndiaarecomparedtothesecountriestoseewhether
thedifferenceinthenumberofvehiclesiscausinganychangeinthenumberoffatalities.


Figure11ProportionofDifferentTypesofRoadUsersKilledinDelhi,Mumbai,National
HighwaysinIndiaandinHighlyMotorisedCountries

*ͲͲAveragefor14locations,MTW–motorisedtwoͲwheelers
(Source:Worldreportonroadtrafficinjuryprevention,2004)

This figure shows that pedestrians, bicyclists and MTW riders, who constitute the
vulnerableroadusers(VRUs),constitute60to80percentofalltrafficfatalitiesinIndia.
Thisflowslogicallyfromthefactthatthisclassofroadusersformsthemajorityofthose
ontheroad.Inaddition,becausemetallicorenergyabsorbingmaterialsdonotprotect
VRUs,theysustainrelativelyseriousinjuriesevenatlowvelocitycrashes.
However,thefactthatthedifferencesinfleetcompositionsareaffectingthetrafficand
crashpatternsenormouslycannotbedenied.Therefore,thepreventivemeasureswhich
are applicable in the HMCs might not be of the same use in India and the situation in
Indianeedstobelookedatseparatelytounderstandthepreventivemeasuresrequired
here.
8.2 SituationinIndia
Table18showsthenumberoftwoͲwheelersandthreeͲwheelersasaproportion ofall
vehicles registered in Indian cities. Studies from different cities also show that bicycles
constitute10%to35%ofalltripsinmostcitiesofIndia.Thisshowsthatthevulnerable
roadusersconstitutethevastmajorityoftrafficontheroadsinIndiancities.


Table25ShareofMotorisedTwoͲWheelersandThreeͲWheeledScooterRickshaws(14).

(Source:MohanD.,2004)

Table26showstheproportionofdifferentroaduserskilledinDelhiandMumbai.Inboth
cities,thecaroccupantsconstitutelessthan5%ofallthefatalitiesandvulnerableroad
users more than 80%. Similar data for all cities are not available, but considering that
road user proportions are similar in most cities, we can safely assume that fatality
patternswillalsobesimilar.

Table26ProportionofRoadUsersKilledatDifferentLocationsinIndia
%Fatalitiesofvariousmodes
Location Truck Bus Car 3ͲW 2W Rickshaw Bicycle Pedestrian Total
Mumbai 2 1 2 4 7 0 6 78 100
NewDelhi 2 5 3 3 21 3 10 53 100
Highways* 14 3 15 0 24 1 11 32 100
(*ͲAverageof14locations,tractorfatalitiesnotincluded)
(Source:Worldreportonroadtrafficinjuryprevention,2004)
8.3 FatalityIndexforVariousCities
A fatality index has been developed for various cities to compare the situation across
differentcities.Theaveragenumberoffatalitiesperonemillionpeopleperyearistaken
as the indicator. Table 27 gives the values for various cities in India. All the cities are
segregatedintofivecategoriesbasedonpopulation.Thefatalitiesarecollectedandthe
averageofallthecitiesistakentogetageneralpictureofthefatalitiesinvarioustypes
ofcities.

Table27AverageFatalitiesPerOneMillionPopulationPerYearinVariousCitiesinIndia
CategoryͲ CategoryͲ CategoryͲ CategoryͲ CategoryͲ
CityCategory
1 2 3 4 5
Population(inmillions) <1 1Ͳ2 2Ͳ5 5Ͳ10 >10
2W 260 110 140 80 80
2002 3W 70 20 40 20 10
Accident Total 10 10 10 10 0
data: 2W 270 120 140 90 80
Fatalities 2003 3W 110 20 50 20 10
per Total 0 10 10 10 0
1,00,000 2W 270 110 160 90 80
population 2004 3W 90 30 50 30 20
(Time Total 10 0 0 10 0
Trends) 2W 310 320 50 30 80
2006 3W 90 80 30 10 20
Total 20 20 0 0 0
Source:MinistryofurbanDevelopment(MoUD)report,2008

The data here shows a continuous increase in the number of fatalities in cities with a
populationoflessthantwomillion.However,incitieswithapopulationgreaterthantwo
million,thenumberoffatalitiesisreducedbetween2004to2006.Thiscanbeattributed
to increasein trafficand higherV/C ratios, leading to reduction in average speeds and
hence reduction in the number of fatalities. No data on time trends of modal split are
availableandhencenocorrelationbetweenmodalsplitandmodeͲwisefatalitiescould
beobtained.
Itisalsoobservedthat,thetwoͲwheelerscontributetobetween17and51%of
total fatalities while the threeͲwheelers contribute to roughly 3 to 8%. Hence, threeͲ
wheelersarerelativelysaferandimmediateconcentrationonthepreventivemeasures
shouldbeputontwoͲwheelers.Thesearediscussedinthefollowingsection.

CausesofAccidents
Empiricalresearchshowsthatthefollowingaresomeofthemajorcontributorstoward
accidentsinIndia:
x Motorized vehicles colliding with pedestrians and nonͲmotorized vehicles in urban
areas

x Speed differentials between diverse vehicles operating on the roads under mixed
trafficconditions
x Nighttimedriving
x WrongͲwaydriversondividedhighways
x Unsafevehiclefrontdesigns
(Source: Road Safety in India: challenges and opportunities, Dinesh Mohan, Omer
Tsimhoni, Michael Shivak, Michael J. Flannagan, Report No. UMTRIͲ2009Ͳ1, January
2009)
Theseaspectsneedtobetakenintoconsiderationwhileplanningthesafetymeasuresor
the accident prevention measures. The following section discusses the prevention
measureswhicharecurrentlybeingdiscussedandtheoneswhicharerecommendedfor
futurediscussion.
8.4 PreventionMeasures
The road safety measures to be taken up by the central government come under the
DepartmentofRoadTransportandHighways.ThedepartmenthassetupaRoadSafety
Cell, to take care of matters relating to the National Road Safety Plan. It prepares and
implements the Annual Road Safety Plan. It also compiles road accident data and
interactswithstatesonissuesofroadsafety.

SchemesUndertheRoadSafetyCell
ThefollowingimportantactionplansareadministeredbyRoadSafetyCell:
x Publicityprogram
x GrantsͲinͲaidtovolunteerorganizationsforroadsafetyprogram
x NationalHighwayAccidentReliefServiceScheme
x Refreshertrainingforheavyvehicledriversinunorganizedsector
x Settingupmodeldrivertrainingschools
(Source:MORTH,2008(http://morth.nic.in/index1.asp?linkid=77&langid=2))

ActivitiesImplementedbytheRoadSafetyCell
As a part of the above plans, the following activities have been taken up by the Road
SafetyCell(AnnualReport,2008):
x A public awareness campaign was carried out in the electronic/print media. The
campaign included calendars depicting road safety messages, broadcasts of radio
jingles, computerized animation displays, etc. Television spots on road safety are

telecastontheNationalNetworkofDoordarshan.Thejinglesindifferentlanguages
arebroadcastonvariouschannelsofAllIndiaRadioinordertocreateawarenesson
variousaspectsofroadsafety.Publicitymaterialslikecalendars,pamphlets,posters,
etc. are supplied to NGOs and to transport and police authorities in states/union
territoriesfordistribution.
x GrantsͲinͲaidweresanctionedto120NGOsforundertakingroadsafetyprograms.
x ThenineteenthRoadSafetyWeek,withthetheme“DrivetoCare!NottoDare!”was
observed throughout the country involving state governments, voluntary
organizations,vehiclemanufacturers,stateroadtransportcorporations,etc.
x More than 59,000 drivers were trained during 2008Ͳ2009 under the scheme of
refreshertrainingtoheavyvehicledriversintheunorganizedsector.
x Assistance for setting up model drivers' training schools is being provided to state
governments/NGOs. A new school has been sanctioned for Nagaland during the
periodunderreport.AnothernewdrivingtrainingschoolforMadhyaPradeshisalso
underprocess.
x Cranes and ambulances are provided under the National Highways Accident Relief
ServiceScheme(NHARSS)tostates/unionterritoriesaswellasNGOsforclearingthe
accident sites and to take accident victims to the nearest medical centers. During
2007Ͳ08, 31 cranes were provided to various states / UTs. It is expected that 71
ambulanceswillbeprovidedtothestates/UTs/NGOsduringthecurrentyear.
x AnationalawardonroadsafetyisgiveneveryyeartoNGOsaswellasindividualsfor
commendableworkinthefieldofroadsafety.TheawardamountforwinnersisRs.1
lakhforNGOcategoryandRs.50,000fortheindividualcategory.Fortherunnersup
the amount is Rs. 30,000 under the NGO and Rs. 15,000 under the individual
category.

ReviewoftheAboveActivitiesTakenUpandSuggestionsforFutureActivities
x While activities like grants to NGO and, cash awards to people doing good work is
appreciated,investmentsinactivitieslikepublicawareness,safetyweeks,anddriver
education need to be reviewed. Empirical evidence shows that these activities are
not likely to be effective in improving safety. (Sources: The Way Forward, 2005)
Therefore,divertingthesefundstoactivitiesrecommendedbyexpertsonroadsafety
andinjurypreventiontechniquesseemsthemostlogicalwaytoapproachimproving
wellbeing.
x The safety measures specific to twoͲandͲthreeͲwheelers mentioned in this section
are:

o Trafficcalmingduringoffpeakhours,whenthespeedsarelikelytobehigherand
crashprobabilityincreases
o Placingroundaboutsatintersections
o Restrictifreeleftturnsatintersections
o Enforceofhelmetlaws
o Pedestrianfriendlyfrontendsofvehicles
o Improvingthecrashworthinessofvehicles
o Makevehiclesmorenoticeabletoreducenighttimecrashes
o Randomalcoholbreathtesting
o Restregulationsfortruckdrivers
o Mandatoryuseofheadlightsduringdaytime.
(Mohanetal,2009)


9 ModeShareandModePreference
9.1 ModeSharesofDifferentCategoryCities
Thefollowingtablegivesthemodalsplitofthetripsmadeinvariouscities,categorized
accordingtopopulation.

Table28ModeShare(%)Ͳ2007(WithWalk)
Population
CityCategory Walk Cycle 2ͲW 3ͲW PT Car
(inmillions)
<0.5withplain
CategoryͲ1a 34 3 26 5 5 27
terrain
<0.5withhilly
CategoryͲ1b 57 1 6 0 8 28
terrain
CategoryͲ2 0.5Ͳ1 32 20 24 3 9 12
CategoryͲ3 1Ͳ2 24 19 24 8 13 12
CategoryͲ4 2Ͳ4 25 18 29 6 10 12
CategoryͲ5 4Ͳ8 25 11 26 7 21 10
CategoryͲ6 >8 22 8 9 7 44 10
National
28 11 16 6 27 13
Average
Table29ModeShare(%)Ͳ2007(WithoutWalk)
City Population Mini Car/Jeep/ Comm.
Category (inmillions) Bus* Bus Van 2W 3W vehicles NMT
<0.5 with
CategoryͲ1a plainterrain 9 4 17 30 14 9 17
<0.5withhilly
CategoryͲ1b terrain 6 15 40 33 0 5 0
CategoryͲ2 0.5Ͳ1 7 2 17 32 20 6 16
CategoryͲ3 1Ͳ2 6 4 19 33 20 5 14
CategoryͲ4 2Ͳ4 6 2 23 36 16 4 13
CategoryͲ5 4Ͳ8 9 2 20 37 21 4 7
CategoryͲ6 >8 12 3 31 23 23 3 4
(*ͲIncludingandtouristandeducationpurposebuses)
(MoUDreport,2008)

9.2 TripLengthsofVariousCities
Triplengthplaysanimportantroleinmodechoice.Theaveragetriplengthsoftheabove
categories of cities are given in Table 30. As the population of the city increases, the
averagetriplengthsgetlonger.Sincetheaveragetriplengthsincitieswithpopulations
greaterthan2millionisgreaterthan5kms,usingnonͲmotorizedtransportlikebicycles
leads to long travel times and increased use of motorized transport like twoͲwheelers
andcars(Tables11,24,25).

Table30AverageTripLengthsofDifferentCategoryCities
Population
CityCategory (inmillions) AverageTriplength(km)
<0.5millionwith
CategoryͲ1a plainterrain 2.4
<0.5millionwith
CategoryͲ1b hillyterrain 2.5
CategoryͲ2 0.5Ͳ1 3.5
CategoryͲ3 1Ͳ2 4.7
CategoryͲ6 >8 10.4
(MoUDreport,2008)
9.3 AdvantagesProvidedbytheTwoͲWheelers
The twoͲwheeler modal shares in vehicular traffic were briefly discussed in Section 5.1
whereitwasobservedthat,forallthecitieswithpopulationlessthan8,000,000,twoͲ
wheelerscatertobetween30and37%ofthetotalmodes.Theaveragetriplengthsin
cities with population less than 8,000,000 are less than or equal to 7.2 kms. For trip
lengths of this range, twoͲwheelers provide users with the following advantages when
comparedtopublictransport:
i. Doortodoorservice,
ii. Lesserorcomparablecostcomparedtopublictransportforshorttrips
iii. Easymaneuverabilityinhightrafficconditions,
iv. Easier trip changing compared to public transport (eg. home, work, shopping,
home)
ThereductioninthenumberoftwoͲwheelertripsforcitieswithpopulationgreaterthan
8,000,000canbeexplainedbytheiraveragetriplengthof10.4kms. Forsuchlongtrip

lengths, people are likely to choose a mode which is either more comfortable or less
expensive or more time saving. The people opting for higher comfort shift to cars and
peopleoptingforcheapermodesshifttopublictransport.
9.4 ThreeͲWheelerModeShareandThreeͲWheelIndexinCities
Fromthemodeshare(withoutwalking)(Table30),itcanbeobservedthatforallcities
with population greater than 500,000 the threeͲwheeler mode share is consistently in
therangeof16to23%,aroundtwicethemodeshareforpublictransport.Incitieswith
populationlessthan500,000andinplainterrain,thethreeͲwheelermodeshareis14%,
whichcanbeexplainedbyshorttriplengthsandthelesserrequirementofparaͲtransit.
Inhillyareaswithpopulationlessthan500,000,threeͲwheelermodeͲshareiszero,which
canbeexplainedbythedifficultyinoperatingthethreeͲwheelersinhillyterrain.

ThreeͲWheelerAvailabilityIndexofCities
TheavailabilityofthreeͲwheelersorthefleetsizeofthreeͲwheelersplaysanimportant
role in determining the number of people opting to use them. Therefore, an index
indicating the number of threeͲwheelers available in a city as a function of their
populationhasbeendevelopedandisexplainedbelow(table31).

ThreeͲwheeleravailabilityIndex=numberofthreeͲwheelersregisteredper
1lakhpopulation


Table31NumberofAutoRickshawsintheSelectedCities
S.No City No.of3Ws(2005) No.of3W/lakhpopulation
1 Gangtok Nil 0
2 Panaji 293 302
3 Shimla Nil 0
4 Pondicherry 2017 397
5 Bikaner 4125 645
6 Raipur 7478 1040
7 Bhuvaneshwar 3421 405
8 Chandigarh 7256 751
9 HubliͲDharwad 8407 868
10 Guwahati 5567 525
11 Amritsar 9903 913
12 Trivandrum 7152 637
13 Madurai 6361 537
14 Agra 4884 357
15 Bhopal 11620 797
16 Kochi 12742 701
17 Patna 16302 888
18 Varanasi 12221 645
19 Nagpur 10666 505
20 Jaipur 12513 467
21 Kanpur 5252 193
22 Surat 19512 631
23 Pune 44590 1062
24 Ahmedabad 43865 739
25 Hyderabad 48898 766
26 Chennai 45016 642
27 Bangalore 77375 897
28 Delhi 104747 756
29 Kolkata 41946 285
30 Mumbai 156261 883
(MoUDreport,2008)


Figure12ComparisonofThreeͲWheelerIndexofVariousCities
City wise 3W Index

Average Index
3W Index (No. of 3W per 10 lakh population) 125
100
75
50
25
0
Trivandrum
Hyderabad
Pondicherry
Mumbai
Bikaner
Gangtok
Raipur
Chandigarh
Jaipur
Bangalore
Kolkata
Shimla
Amritsar
Agra
Patna
Nagpur
Kanpur
Surat
Pune
Ahmedabad
Panaji
Madurai
Bhopal
Kochi
Varanasi
Chennai
Delhi
Guwahati
Bhubaneswar
Hubli Dharward
Name of the City

TheautorickshawpopulationinselectedcitiesispresentedinFigure12.Citiessuchas
Gangtok and Shimla do not have auto rickshaws. For other cities, the number of auto
rickshawsper100,000populationrangesbetween190inKanpurto1,060inPune.Pune
hasthehighestnumberofautorickshawsper100,000population.
Also, from the graph it can be observed that there is no particular relationship
betweenpopulation(indirectlythesizeofthecity)andtheavailabilityofthreeͲwheelers.
Majormetrocitiesgenerallyhavehighernumberofautorickshawscomparedtosmaller
cities because they act as a feeder service to public transport and also because of the
endͲtoͲendservicetheyprovide,whichisnotalwayspossibleforthepublictransport.It
is observed that cities without public transport have a higher number of IPT vehicles.
Hence the number of threeͲwheelers in any city is based on the local conditions, like
financial options and road infrastructure. National policies are not having a uniform
effectthroughoutthecountry.
However, the numbers given here may not accurately give the actual number of
threeͲwheelers operating on the roads (Ref: Autofuel policy study, CRRI). A large
percentageofthevehiclesregisteredwiththeRTOswerefoundtonotbeoperatingso
vehicleownershipdoesnotnecessarilytranslateintovehiclesontheroad.

9.5 TimeSeriesDataonTwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelerModeShare
ThedataprovidedherewascollectedduringaresearchprojectdonebyTRIPP,IIT
Delhifrom2002to2006.Fiveintersections,amongthebusiestinDelhi,wereselected
fromvariouspartsofthecity.Abriefintroductiontotheimportanceofthese
intersections,theirconnectingroadsandthelandͲusepatternoftheareaisgivenhere.

AurobindoIntersection
OnAurobindoMarg,theroadalongwhichthisintersectionisplaced,aresomevery
importantplacesinDelhi.Fewoftheimportantonesareshoppingareas(DelhiHart,
GreenPark)hospitals(AIIMS,Safdarjung),educationalinstitutions(IITDelhi,NCERT),
residentialareas(HauzKhas,GreenPark)andtouristspots(QutabMinar).

HazratNizammudinIntersection
ThiscrossingisonMathuraroadgoingtowardNoida,MathuraandAgra.Thisjunctionis
themainentranceforNizammudinRailwayStationandanadjacentaheavyresidential
area.

ISBTintersection
ThisintersectionisonabusyringroadinNorthDelhineartheInterStateBusTerminal.
OneoftheroadsconnectsSahadrainEastDelhiandGhaziabadtotheringroad.The
DelhiUniversitycampusalsoisverynearthisjunction.

ITOintersection
ITOhasthehighestvolumeatthecorrespondingtimeintervalsofthefiveselected
intersections.ThisareaishometosomeveryimportantofficeslikeDelhiPolice
Headquarters,DDA,InstituteofEngineersandTheTimesofIndia.Withina1.5Ͳkilometer
radiusoftheintersectionareIndiaGate,PragatiMaidan,SupremeCourt,DaryaGanj,
DelhiGate,NewDelhiRailwaystation,ConnaughtPlaceandYamunaBridge,Delhi
Secretariatandtheringroad.

PunjabiBaghIntersection
ThiscrossingisontheringroadandisusedbycommutersgoingtoRohtak.Aheavy
residentialareathatcreateshightrafficvolumesislocatedonbothsidesofthecrossing.

Thedatacollectedduringthemorningpeakof9to10a.m.wasanalyzed.These
intersectionsareevenlyspacedoutaroundthecity,soitisunlikelythatduringthepeak
hour,thesamevehiclesarecountedmorethanonce.
Figure13givesthevariationofthetotalvolumeoftwoͲwheelerspassingthrough
thesesectionsduringthepeakhour.

Figure13PeakHourTwoͲWheelerVolumesattheFiveIntersectionsSelectedinDelhi
Time Series Peak Hour 2W Volumes
8000
7000
6000
2-Wheeler Volume
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Aurobindo Chowk H. Nizamuddin ISBT ITO Punjabi Bagh
Location
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Source:TRIPP,IITDelhi

Atthreeofthefiveintersectionsconsidered,thetwoͲwheelervolumescontinuously
increasedoverthefiveͲyearperiodwhileatISBTintersection,thevolumein2006
remainedalmostthesameasin2002.InthecaseoftheITOintersection,thetwoͲ
wheelervolumesincreasedbyabout2,000veh/hr(4,324to6,873)fromtheyear2002to
2003andhaveslightlyreducedinthelateryears.ButITOstillhasthehighesttwoͲ
wheelersamongalltheintersections,followedbyPunjabiBagh.


Figure14PeakHourThreeͲWheelerVolumesattheFiveIntersectionsSelectedinDelhi
Time Series peak Hour 3W Volumes
2500
2000
3-Wheeler Volume
1500
1000
500
0
Location
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
(TRIPP,IITDelhi)

Atfourofthefiveintersections,thenumberofthreeͲwheelerscontinuouslyincreasing
increaseduntil2005andthendecreasein2006.Thiscanbeattributedtotheage
restrictionsandtherestrictiononthetotalnumberofthreeͲwheelersinthestatebythe
Delhigovernment.
ThepercentageoftwoͲandͲthreeͲwheelersinthetotaltrafficisdiscussedinthe
followingsections.Figure15givesthemodalshareoftwoͲwheelersatthefive
intersections,inthefiveyearsobserved.


Figure15TwoͲWheelerModalSharesatFiveIntersectionsforFiveYearsinDelhi
2W Modal Share in Delhi
50
50
44 43 45
42 43 42 43
41
40
40 38
37 37 37
35 36
34 35
33 33
33
% 2W in Traffic
31
30 30 30
30
20
10
0
Location
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
(TRIPP,IITDelhi)

ThestudyrevealednopatternsthatshowthemodalshareoftwoͲwheelersischanging
withtime.ThethreeͲwheelermodalsharesareshownintheFigure16.


Figure16ThreeͲWheelerModalSharesatFiveIntersectionsOverFiveYearsinDelhi
3W Modal Share in Delhi
20
18 17
16 15
14
14 14 14
14 13 13 13 13
13 12
12
12 11
% 3W in Traffic
11 11
10 10
10 9
9
8
8
7
7
6 6
6
0
Location
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
(TRIPP,IITDelhi)

ThestudyshowsthemodalshareofthreeͲwheelersintraffichasincreasedmarginally
overtheperiodofobservation.TogettheoverviewofthemodalsharetrendsoftwoͲ
wheelersandthreeͲwheelersinthecity,theiraverageistakenforeachyear.The
averagevaluesofmodalsharesarepresentedinthefollowingtable.

Table32AverageModalShareofTwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelersattheFiveIntersections
Average
ModalShare YearofObservation
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
%2W 36 38 38 38 38
%3W 10 10 11 13 12

ThetwoͲwheelermodalshareremainedalmostconstantthroughoutthestudywhilethe
shareofthreeͲwheelershasfluctuatedwithinarangeof3%.
Inconclusion,itcanbesaidthatovertimethemodalshareoftwoͲandͲthreeͲwheelers,
isstayingatrelativelythesameproportionthoughthetotalvolumeofvehicles/flowis
increasing.

9.6 PurposeWiseforTripsforVariousModes
Inthissection,datafromfoursamplecitiesͲͲDelhi,Hyderabad,PuneandPatnaͲͲwere
selectedfromfourpopulationcategoriesandanalyzedtogetapictureofhowtripsare
distributed.
WorkTrips
Thefollowingtablegivesthemodesplitofthefourcitiesforworktrips.
Table33ModeSplitfortheWorkTripsofVariousCities
Population
City Bus Car 2W 3W Cycle Walk Train Total
Category
Delhi >10million 14 17 20 10 18 4 18 100
Hyderabad 5Ͳ10million 36 4 48 4 5 3 0 100
Pune 2Ͳ5million 23 19 11 5 19 7 16 100
Patna 1Ͳ2million 5 15 18 5 13 41 3 100
Source:DMRCreport:RITES,2001,BRTSMasterPlan,Pune,PrimarySurveyͲPatna,
2009,HyderabadMMTSReport,L&TRamboll

Except in Pune, twoͲwheelers are the preferred option for trips to work in the cities
studied. This can be attributed to their affordability and the various advantages
mentionedinsection10.3providedbythetwoͲwheelers.
EducationTrips
Thefollowingtablegivesthemodesplitofthefourcitiesforeducationtrips.

Table34ModeSplitfortheEducationTripsofVariousCities
Population
Category
Delhi >10million 15 5 2 23 9 46 0 100
Pune 2Ͳ5million 6 7 11 17 17 26 15 100
Patna 1Ͳ2million 31 3 7 23 14 0 21 100
Source:DMRCreport,RITES,2001,BRTSMasterPlan,Pune,2008CMPPatna,2009,
HyderabadMMTSReport,L&TRamboll

AmongeducationtripsinHyderabadandPatna,schoolbusandpublictransporthadthe
highestusage,whereasinDelhiandPune,threeͲwheelershavethehighestshare.Even

in Patna, the share of threeͲwheelers is high at 23%. This is because children and
studentsinmostIndiancitiesusethesameautorickshawwhentheyhavesimilarorigins
anddestinations.
SocialandRecreationalTrips
All the other trips, apart from work and education, are grouped into social and
recreationaltrips.Themodeshareofthesetripsisgiveninthetablebelow.

Table35ModeSplitfortheSocialandRecreationTripsofVariousCities
Population
Category
Delhi >10million 18 21 9 22 4 3 24 100
Pune 2Ͳ5million 11 15 21 23 6 14 11 100
Patna 1Ͳ2million 14 19 15 17 15 0 20 100
Source:DMRCreport,RITES,2001,BRTSMasterPlan,Pune,2008CMPPatna,2009,
HyderabadMMTSReport,L&TRamboll

PublictransportuseforsocialandrecreationtripsislowwhileuseofthreeͲwheelersand
personalized modes like cars and twoͲwheelers is high. This is because comfort is the
firstpriorityforsocialtripsandcostissecondary.

In conclusion, the data presented here indicates that twoͲwheelers mainly serve those
goingtowork,whilethreeͲwheelersareusedforeducation,recreationandshopping.

10 Parking
Thissectiondiscussescurrentparkingpoliciesandgovernmentplans,existingstandards
andtheirdrawbacksandtherecommendationsforfutureworkinthisarea.
10.1ParkingPolicy(NUTP)
ThefollowingguidelinessetoutbytheMinistryofUrbanTransportintheNationalUrban
Transport Policy (NUTP), act as a broad framework within which parking strategies are
developed:
x Levy a high parking fee that truly represents the value of the land occupied to
makepublictransportmoreattractive
x Provideparkandridefacilitiesforbicycleuserswithconvenientinterchanges
x GradedscaleparkingfeesshouldaimtorecoverthecostoflandͲusedforparking
andelectronicmeteringshouldbeusedwidely
x State governments should amend building bylaws in all million plus populated
citiessothatadequateparkingspaceisavailable
x Bylawsshouldcontrolparkinginresidentialareas
x MultiͲlevel parking complexes should be mandatory in city centers that have
highͲrise commercial complexes and will be given priority under the national
urbanrenewalmission(NURM)

Inadditiontotheaboveguidelines,acityͲspecificparkingpolicyisalsooutlinedbelow:
10.2CityParkingPolicy
The policy states that each city should develop a comprehensive mobility plan or
transportmasterplanthatincludesastrategyforparkingcontrolswithinthecityand
conforms to the national policy outlined above. The following list provides a
summary of components typically used by cities worldwide. The design of parking
measuresshouldconformtotheadoptedstrategyofthecity.
Componentsofparkingstrategy:
x StrategyconsideringlocationandlandͲuse
x CharacteristicsofonͲandͲoffstreetparking
x SelectionofonͲstreetparkingoptions
x Potentialforprivatesectorinvolvement
x Pricingstrategies

x Additionalconsideration

The policy also mentions that parking controls are an effective tool for restricting
excessive use of private cars. Public transport and nonͲmotorized transport (NMTs) for
shorter trips can be encouraged by restricting the number of parking spaces. No twoͲ
wheeler and threeͲwheeler parking strategy is explicitly proposed but it is understood
thatthepolicytiltsmoretowardencouragingpublictransport(ofwhichthreeͲwheelers
areasubsetandactasintermediatepublictransport(IPT).However,nospecificstance
toencourageordiscouragetwoͲwheelersistaken.SincecarsandtwoͲwheelersareboth
private modes of transport, it is understood that both are encouraged to a lesser
degree..
IRC SP 12:1973 gives the ”Tentative Recommendations on the Provision of Parking
SpacesforUrbanArea.”OnlytheareatobeearmarkedforparkinginvariouslandͲuse
types are specified but the proportion of parking area for transport modes is not
specified.Theequivalentcarspace(ECS)ismentionedforvariousvehiclesasprovidedin
thetablebelow.

Table36EquivalentCarSpace(ECS)byTypeofVehicle
VehicleType ECS
Car/Taxi 1
twoͲwheeler 0.25
AutoRickshaw 0.5
Bicycle 0.1
Source:MoUDGuidelines,June2008.

Thisinherentlyassumesthattheamountofparkingprovidedwillbelocationspecificand
is left to the discretion of the parking provider to divide the land for various modes.
However, this may lead to a disproportionate allocation of land. Also, all parking
standardsarerecommendedintermsofcarspacesprovidedaspartofthebuiltuparea.
Inacountrywherefewerthan13%ofthepopulationowncars,thismayleadtooverͲ
estimationofrequiredparkingarea.
10.3NewVehicleParkingSchemes:
TheNUTPsetsoutspecificstepsinvolvedfromplanningtoexecutionofanewparking
scheme.Thisincludes:
a. Studiestoevaluatethesuitabilityofascheme

b. Stepsinvolvedinthedesignprocess
c. Financialoptionsfornewparkingplaces

Thesestepshavebeenexplainedindetailinthefollowingsections:
(MoUDGuidelines,2008)

1. StudiestobeConductedtoEvaluatetheSuitabilityofaParkingScheme

Thefollowingchecklistmaybeusedtoassessthesuitabilityofaparkingscheme(Y\N).

x IsthenumberofonͲstreetparkingspacesappropriatetoencourage
publictransportuseandtopromoteanattractivepedestrianenvironment?

x IsthenumberofoffͲstreetparkingspacessufficienttoprovideabalance
wherethereisareductioninonͲstreetspaces?

x ArepublicoffͲstreetparkingfacilitieslocatedwithinanacceptablewalking
distanceofactualdestinations?(forshortͲstayparking–i.e.lessthenfour
hours–acceptablewalkingdistancerarelyexceed500meters.)

x Isprioritygiventoresidentsandshortstayparking?(Computerparkingcan
beaccommodated,butitshouldnotbeattheexpenseofresidentsandshort
stayvisitors.)

x Doestheparkingschemedividethecityintocoherentzones,withregulation
appropriatetotheparticularcircumstancesofeachzone(i.e.thestrictest
regulationsareusuallyrequiredinareaswiththehighestparkingvolumes).

x IstheregulationandtariffforpubliconͲstreetparkinghigherthanfor
offͲstreetparking?

x Isthereadequateenforcementtoensurecompliancewiththeparking
regulations?



2. Stepsinvolvedinthedesignprocessofavehicleparkingscheme

The selection and subsequent design of an appropriate city parking scheme requires a
number of stages, summarized below. In each of the steps, the heading indicates the
worktobedoneandthepointsbelowitindicatethebasisuponwhichtheworkistobe
done:

Step1: Diagnosetheexistingsituation
a. Parkingsupplyinventory
b. Parkingutilizationstudy
c. Demandanalysisandprojections

Step2Considerpotentialmeasures
a. Supplymeasures
b. Demandmeasures

Step3Selectappropriatemeasures
a. Comprehensivemobilityplan

Step4Designappropriatemeasures
a. Consultwithstakeholders

3. FinancialOptionsforNewParkingPlaces
Public private partnerships (PPP) are being explored as attractive options to high cost,
multiͲlevelparkingincitycenterswhenthemunicipalityalonecannotmeetconstruction,
development and maintenance needs. In this model, a private entity obtains the right
from a government agency to provide a service under market conditions. The
arrangementallowsassetownershiptoremaininpublichands,butnewinvestmentsin
addition to operation and maintenance becomes the responsibility of the private
operator.

Theabovepracticesarefornewparkingprovisions.Inalreadydevelopedparkingareas
whichownedbythemunicipalities,theoperationandmaintenanceworkisalreadybeing
leasedtoprivateentitiesmanycities.

10.4ExistingpracticesandDrawbacks
IRCSP12gives”TentativeRecommendationsontheProvisionofParkingSpaces
forUrbanAreas.”ItspecifiesthespacefordifferentlandͲusesintermsofsquaremeters
orcarspaces.ThefollowingaretheparkingspacesrecommendedfordifferentlandͲ
uses.

1Residential
(i)Detached,semiͲdetachedandrowhouses:
Plotareaupto100squaremeters Noprivateorcommunityparkingspacerequired
Plotareafrom101to200square
Onlycommunityparkingspacerequired
meters
Plotareafrom201to300square
Onlycommunityparkingspacerequired
meter
Plotareafrom301to500square MinimumoneͲthirdoftheopenareashouldbe
meters earmarkedforparking
Plotareafrom501to1,000 MinimumoneͲfourthoftheopenareashouldbe
squaremeters earmarkedforparking
Plotareafrom1,001square MinimumoneͲsixthoftheopenareashouldbe
metersandabove earmarkedforparking
(ii)Flats
Onespaceforeverytwoflatsof50to99squaremetersormoreoffloorarea.
Onespaceforeveryflathaving100square meters ormoreoffloorarea.

(iii)Special,costlydevelopedarea:
Onespaceforeveryflatof50to100squaremeters offloorarea.
Oneandahalfspacesforeveryflatof100to150squaremetersoffloorarea.
Twospacesforeveryflatofabovea150squaremetersoffloorarea

(iv)MultiͲstoried,grouphousingschemes:
Onespaceforeveryfourdwellings,exceptincitieslikeKolkataandMumbaiwherethe
demandmaybemore
(IRCSP12)

2OfficesͲͲOnespaceforevery70squaremetersoffloorarea.

3IndustrialPremisesͲͲOnespaceforupto200squaremetersofinitialfloorarea.
Additionalspacesattherateofoneforeverysubsequent200squaremetersorfraction
thereof.
4ShopsandMarketsͲͲOnespaceforevery80squaremetersoffloorarea.
5RestaurantsͲͲOnespaceforevery10seats
6TheatresandCinemasͲͲOnespaceforevery20seats
7HotelsandMotels
(i)FiveandFourstarhotelsͲͲOnespaceforeveryfourguestrooms
(ii)ThreestarhotelsͲͲOnespaceforeveryeightguestrooms
(iii)TwostarhotelsͲͲOnespaceforevery10guestrooms
(iv)MotelsͲͲOnespaceforevery10beds

Itisalsospecifiedthattheminimumcarparkingspaceis3m*6m,whenindividual
parking space is required and 2.5m*5m when parking lots for community parking are
required. The truck space is specified at a minimum of 3.75m*7.5m. No other space
requirementsarespecified.
The scope of the book itself states that “The recommendations are only tentative
andreasonablerelaxationfromthesemaybeallowedinparticularcircumstances”.Asa
resulttheenforcementoftheseguidelinesisdifficult.
No data exists on segregating parking space between cars and twoͲwheelers. .
Further research is needed before concluding whether it is done according to some
principleorbasedonthejudgmentoftheparkingspaces’owner.
10.5RecommendationsforFutureParkingStudies
Inconclusion,parkingisoneareainwhichverylittleresearchhasbeendone.
Therefore,littleevidenceisavailableaboutconditionsontheground,theproblems
facedbypeople,authoritiesandtheoneswithlicensesofparkingspaces.Itisstrongly
recommendedthataresearchprojectlookingatparkingissuesincitieswithvarying
population,sizeandothersuchlocalissuesshouldbetakenupasearlyaspossible.


11 NoisePollutionandControlTechnologies
ThissectiontakesupnoiselegislationsandstandardsinIndia;howwelltheyarebeing
implementedandpossiblewaystoreducenoisepollutionlevels.
11.1LegislationsonNoiseControlinIndia
FollowingarevariouslawsinIndiarelatedtonoisecontrol.
1 Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 (Noise Limits for Motor Vehicles (revision) Ͳ
2000)
2Air(Prevention&ControlofPollution)Act,1981
3FactoriesAct,1948
4MotorVehiclesAct,1988
Section119specifiesthateverymotorvehiclebefittedwithanelectrichornand
any multiͲtoned horns that produce shrill, loud or alarming noises are not
permissibleunderlaw.Butthislawisnotenforcedproperly
Section120requiresthateverymotorvehiclebefitted
With a muffler device which reduces the noise that would otherwise made by
escapeofexhaustgasesfromtheengine.
Italsospecifiesthateverymotorvehicleshallbesoconstructedandmaintained
astoconformtothenoisestandardsformotorvehicles.
5IndianPenalCode–Sections268,290&291
6CriminalProcedureCode–Section133
7LawofTorts
8LocalActs/Rulesregulatingloudspeakersetc.

Among all the regulations in the above mentioned legislations, the one’s which are
relevanttothisstudyareexplainedbelow.
11.2AmbientNoiseStandards(NoiseRules,2000andits
Amendments)
NoiseStandardsforVariousLandͲusedevelopments
In these standards, various areas have been categorized by landͲuse and
individuallimits.



Table37NoiseLimitsforVariousLandͲusePatterns
Category of Area / LimitsindB(A)Leq
Zone Daytime Nighttime
Industrialarea 75 70
Commercialarea 65 55
Residentialarea 55 45
SilenceZone 50 40
Note:Ͳ
1. Daytimeshallmeanfrom6a.m.to10p.m.
2. Nighttimeshallmeanfrom10p.m.to6a.m.
3. Silencezoneisanareacomprisingnotlessthan100metersaround
hospitals,educationalinstitutionsandcourts,religiousplacesoranyother
areawhichisdeclaredassuchbythecompetentauthority.
4. Mixed categories of areas may be declared as one of the four
abovementionedcategoriesbythecompetentauthority.
(Source:www.cpcb.nic.in)
NoiseLimitsforVehiclesatManufacturingStage
The following table gives the noise limits specified for twoͲandͲthreeͲwheelers as a
function of their engine capacities. These limits are specified to discourage users from
operatingvehicleswithoutpropermufflersystems.

Table38NoiseLimitsforTwoͲWheelersandThreeͲWheelersofDifferentEngineTypes
Sl.no. Typeofvehicles Noiselimitsdb(a)
1 TwoͲwheelers
1.1 Displacementupto80cc 75
1.2 Displacementmorethan80ccbutupto175cc 77
1.3 Displacementmorethan175cc 80
2 ThreeͲwheelers
2.1 Displacementupto175cc 77
2.2 Displacementmorethan175cc 80
(www.cpcb.nic.in)

Extensive checks need to be carried out as to whether these limits are enforced. Even
though nationwide data is unavailable, there are some numbers from various hospital
locationsinDelhi.Thepeakhourlevelstherearepresentedbelow.

Table39NoiseLevelsNearHospitalsinDelhi
Noise level (dB) Ͳ Noiselevels(dB)Ͳ
Location day night
AIIMS 87 77
Jai Prakash Narayan
hospital 83 103
KalawatiSaranhospital 83 103
GuruTegBahadurhospital 82 102
DrRMLhospital 71 Ͳ
Safdarjunghospital 88 Ͳ
LNJPhospital 80 90
MoolChandhospital 60 69
(www.cpcb.nic.inͲ2007)

Hospitalscomeundersilencezonessonoiselevelsthereshouldnotexceed50decibels
duringthedayand40decibelsatnight.However,theactuallevelsobservedarehigher
duringthenightandinbothtimeperiodsaregreaterthantheprescribedlimitsatallthe
locations. The higher noise levels at nightcanbe attributed to increased movement of
heavy vehicles (trucks, trailers, etc.), which are banned in the city during the day. This
shows that the noise limits are not being observed and further reduction in the noise
produced by traffic is to be achieved. The following section discusses the control
measuresthatcanbeadoptedinthisregard.
11.3NoiseControlandRegulationProcedures
Reductionintheambientnoiselevelscanbeachievedbythefollowingmeasures:

Advancednoisecontroltechnologiesinvehicles
Varioustechniquesfornoisecontrolareavailableandshouldbeconsideredatthedesign
stage.Mostnoisesources(exceptforaerodynamicnoise)areassociatedwithvibrating
surfaces. Hence the control of vibration is an important part of any noise control
program.

Betterenforcementofnoiselaws
Stricterlawsfornoiselevels,theissuanceofmorepollutioncertificatestoviolatorsand
greaterenforcementoftheselawsarerequired


12 PolicyRecommendations
Thissectiondiscussestherecommendationsonthemixofpoliciesneededtopromote
safeandefficienttwoͲwheeleruseinurbansettingsofIndia.Thissectionisbasedon
opinionscollectedbyexpertsinvolvedinresearchonissuesrelatedtotwoͲwheelersand
threeͲwheelersandispresentedundertwoheadings,oneaboutthesafeandefficient
useoftwoͲwheelersandoneforthesafeandefficientuseofthreeͲwheelers.
12.1SafeandEfficientUseofTwoͲWheelers
SafeUseofTwoͲWheelers
PoliciesrecommendedtoimprovethesafetyoftwoͲwheelerusersare:
a. NotificationofHelmetLawinallStates
Helmetlawsfallunderthejurisdictionofstategovernments.Andnotallstateshavenot
havedeclaredthathelmetusageismandatory.Eveninstateswhereitismandated,it
appliesonlyforthedriversbutnotforthepillionriders.Researchshowsthathelmets
greatlyreducetheprobabilityofafatalityintwoͲwheelercrashes(WHOReport,2004).
Hence,itisrecommendedthathelmetlawsbemandatoryforbothdriversand
passengersinallstates.
b. SegregationofHeavyTraffic
Inurbanmixedtrafficconditions,twoͲwheelershavethemostconflictswithbuses
(Table21).Thiscanbeattributedtothedifferenceinmassbetweenthetwovehicles.
Therefore,itisrecommendedthatseparatebuslanesareprovidedwhereverpossibleto
reduceconflicts.
c. DaytimeHeadlightUsageforTwoͲWheelers
Researchshowsthatturningontheheadlightsduringdayreducesroadtrafficcrashes
(WHOReport,2004)andhencethisruleisrecommendedtobeimplementedinIndia.
d. MakingTwoͲWheelersMoreVisible
TwoͲwheelersarelessdiscernibleatnight,afactthatleadstoaccidents.Stepstakento
improvethisarelikelytomakethemsafer.
e. DiscouragingBiggerEngineSizesbyHigherTaxation
Themotorcyclesalestrendsshowthatmoreandmorenewvehiclesarebeingsoldwith
higherenginepowers(Iyer,2008).Higherpoweredenginesleadtohigherspeedsand
arelikelytocausemoreaccidentsandgreaterpotentialcosttothesociety.Thecurrent
taxationsystemdoesnothavedifferenttaxesfordifferentenginesizes.Bylevying
progressivelyincreasingtaxeswithincreaseinenginesizes,thiscanbeovercometo

someextent,assumingthathighertaxesdiscouragepeoplefromgoingforhigher
poweredengines.
f. TrafficCalming
Trafficcalmingatlocationswithahighincidenceofaccidentsleadstolowerspeedsand
lessprobabilityofaccidents.Thisisrecommendedtobeimplementedatasmanycritical
locationsaspossible.
g. ProgressiveIncreaseintheUseofDiskBrakes
Diskbrakesareasuperiortechnologytodrumbrakes,whicharethemostcommonly
usedbrakesinIndia.Diskbrakesarecurrentlyusedonlyinsomehighendmotorcycles,
probablyduetocostconstraints.Superiorbrakingtechnologyleadstoreduced
accidents.Progressiveintroductionofdiskbrakesystemsinallthemotorcyclesis
recommended.
h. IntroductionofChildren’sHelmets
Atpresent,onlyadulthelmetsareavailableinthemarketleavingchildrenwithno
option.MeasurestointroducechildͲsizedhelmetswillreducefatalitiesamongchildren.
EfficientUseofTwoͲWheelers
ThecurrentoccupancyvalueofcarsinPatna(populationintherangeof1to2million)is
2.03,whilethatoftwoͲwheelerswithaPCUvalueof0.5to0.75hasanoccupancyvalue
of1.30(Source:PrimarySurvey).Thevaluesofothercitiesfollowasimilarpattern.This
indicatesamoreefficientusageofroadspacebythetwoͲwheelers.Evenatsignalized
intersections,duringredtimes,itiscommontofindtwoͲwheelersweavingthroughthe
gapsbetweenbiggervehiclestocometothestartofthequeueandtheyarethefirstto
clearthequeueduringgreentimesasaconsequence.Thisisanotherinstanceof
efficientspaceutilizationbythetwoͲwheelers.
InthiswayindividualtwoͲwheelersarealreadyusingtheavailableroadspace
efficiently.Iftheissueisbetteruseofroadspace,thesolutioncanbeoftwotypes:
a. ReducingTwoͲWheelerUsage
PoliciesaimedatreducingtheusageoftwoͲwheelersaltogetherandpromotingpublic
andnonͲmotorizedtransportasanalternativeisthebestidea.Currently,twoͲwheelers
chiefadvantagesaretheirendͲtoͲendserviceandthetraveltimetheysave.Providing
goodpedestrianandnonͲmotorizedvehicle(NMV)infrastructure,likefootpathsand
bicycletracks(currentlynonͲexistentinmostofthecities),islikelytoprovidethesame
advantagesastwoͲwheelers.ThiswouldattractsomeofthetripscurrentlymadebytwoͲ
andͲthreeͲwheelerstononͲmotorizedmodes.ThetripsstillmadebytwoͲwheelersare
theonestheuserfindsbetterevenaftertheNMVfacilities.TheNMVfacilitiesarelikely

toshiftshorttrips,whilelongtripscanbeshiftedfromtwoͲwheelersbyprovidinga
reliableandefficientpublictransportsystem.
b. PromotingTwoͲWheelersasanAlternativetoCars
ThesecondbestoptionistopromotingtwoͲwheelersasanalternativetocars.Inthe
presentscenariocarsandtwoͲwheelerscatertotwodifferentnichemarketsandsteps
shouldbeidentifiedandimplementedtoconvertatleastsomeofthecaruserstotwoͲ
wheelers.
c. ImprovedTrafficManagement
PCUvaluesanddesignguidelines
AsexplainedinChapter5,theexistingPCUvaluesanddesignpracticesfollowedin
Indiaareerroneousandadetailedstudyofwaystocorrectthemneedstobe
undertaken.
RoadandIntersectiontrafficmanagement
Undertheexistingsystem,normaltrafficengineeringdutieslikesignalsystemsat
intersectionsandtrafficcirculationsatrotaries,etc.arelefttothetrafficpolice.This
resultsinsuboptimalusageofurbanroadspace.Thesepracticesneedtobereviewed
thoroughlyandnewandefficientpracticesshouldbeintroduced.
d. ParkingIssues
ParkingisaproblematicissueinIndiancities.Andproperscientificstudiesarefew.
PracticesmoresuitedtoIndiantrafficconditionsneedtobedevelopediftheroadspace
fortwoͲwheelersistobeusedmoreefficiently.
e. PoliciestoReduceEmissions
Emissionstandardsbasedpolicies:Thistopichasbeendiscussedseparatelyforold
andnewvehicles.
NewVehicles
Emissionstandardsfornewvehicles(basedonatypeapprovalprocess)tendtobethe
drivingforcetostimulatecleanervehicletechnologies.Experience,bothinandoutside
Asia,demonstratesthatthisisthemosteffectivemethodtoreduceaverageemissions
overtime.Thereisaneedtoconstantlyupgradetechnologytoimproveefficiencyof
twoͲwheelers.
Introduction of new technologies should neither be accomplished through promotion
nor through a ban on specific technologies. Introduction should be achieved through
“TechnologyForcing”standardsforemissionsandfuelefficiencywithdueconsideration
tocostͲbenefitratios.Thishelpsindustryfindwaystoimproveitstechnologytomaintain
the standards. However, emissionͲbased measures are more difficult to monitor than
technologyͲbasedoptions.

Newstandardsshouldbe”fuelͲneutral,”i.e.thesameforallfuelsandglobally
harmonizedasfaraspossible.Thishelpsusersselecttheirpreferredfueltypewhile
conformingtothestandards.Increasedeffortsarerequiredtoadoptalternative
propulsionsystemsandfuels.
StricteremissionstandardsareapparentlypushingIndianmanufacturerstobuildmore
fourͲstrokeenginevehicles,thoughchangingcustomerprofilesandpreferenceshave
alsoplayedapart.
InͲUseVehicles
ThereisaneedtotakeurgentstepstowardsintroducingeffectiveInspection&
Maintenance(I&M)systemsfortwoͲwheelers(seediscussionofcurrentdrawbacksin
Section4.3).Wherethesesystemsexistbutarenoteffective,improvementsshouldbe
soughtandbasedontheeffectivesystemcurrentlyusedincountrieslikeTaiwan.
ImplementationofI&MsystemandotherinͲusevehiclemanagementsystemsshouldbe
backedupbyprogressivelyrefinedfiscalinstruments.Stepsneedtobetakentoreduce
noiseemissions,theoneissuewhichismostneglected.
Vehicleinspectionwillbeineffectiveifthevehiclesthatfailarenotrepairedpromptly.
Theavailabilityofadequatelyequippedandtrainedmechanics,whichareinshortsupply
due to the introduction of increasingly sophisticated fourͲstroke technologies, is a
prerequisiteforasuccessfulI&Mprogram,
It is necessary to ensure that fuels and lubricants (particularly for twoͲstroke engines)
shouldbeofspecifiedqualityandwithoutadulteration.Solutionssuchasphasingout,
upͲgrading and conversion of old vehicles to alternative fuels, appear to have limited
possibilitiesandmaybeusedtospecificlocationsandconditions.

TechnologyͲBasedPolicies
Thefollowingtechnologybasedpoliciesarerecommendedtoreduceemissions.
BantwoͲstrokeenginesgreaterthan10yearsoldfromurbanareas:
This has been taken up in Delhi for threeͲwheelers. TwoͲstroke engines pollute more
thanfourͲstrokeengines,asituationthatincreaseswithage..Sincebanningtwostroke
engines would deny pointͲtoͲpoint access for millions of people, older vehicles which
pollutemorearerecommendedtobeexcluded.InDelhi,thediesel/petrolusingthreeͲ
wheelers having an age greater than 10 years were banned in March 2000 and are
mandated to use cleaner fuels. A similar policy for twoͲwheelers can be taken up in
urbanareas,wheretheconcentrationofemissionswillbehightoreducetheiremissions.


BanNewTwoͲStrokeEngineVehicles
ThisislikelytohavelesssocioͲeconomicimpactthanbanningallsuchvehicles,sincethe
costdifferencebetweennewtwoͲandfourͲstrokeenginesisnotsignificant.Ifoperating
and maintenance costs are included, the cost of twoͲstroke engine may even be more
thanafourͲstrokeengine.
Alltheabovemethodsarebestpursuedifthefollowingconditionsaremet:
i. Alternatives for the vehicles being removed are readily available and marketͲ
tested.
ii. These alternatives areaffordable,which may require thelowering or elimination
ofimportdutiesorothertaxesonnewvehiclesand
iii. Sufficient credit exists for vehicle owners and drivers to finance the purchase of
thenewervehicles.
EconomicandFiscalinstruments
Whetherornottechnologyspecificmeasuresareadopted,economicpolicyoptionsexist
to encourage removal of older and more polluting vehicles from polluted cities. These
optionsarediscussedbelow:
Taxincentivesforvehiclerenewal
The structures of taxes and other vehicle charges, such as annual registration fees,
should be carefully reviewed and revised if necessary where such structures do not
capture the cost of pollution. For example, the import tariffs or sales taxes on cleaner
alternatives to threeͲwheelers (whether new vehicles or parts for vehicle retrofitting)
shouldnotbesohighastodiscouragetheirpurchasesincethepublichealthbenefitsto
be gained are high. Similarly, the annual registration fees based solely on the market
value of the vehicle, rather than on market value and pollution emitted, would be too
low to discourage the use of older vehicles in urban areas. In assessing each of these
measures the policy makers need to weigh the socioͲeconomic cost of making it more
expensive to own old vehicles against the health benefits of reducing vehicular
emissions.
Creditavailabilityforreplacingoldvehicles
Governmenthelptoensuretheavailabilityofcreditthroughregularcreditandmicro
creditmarketstofacilitatethereplacementofoldertwoͲstrokeenginesorauto
rickshawswithcleaneronesislikelytoencouragetheprocess.Thisprovidesanincentive
topeopleowningoldervehiclestoswitchtonewerandcleanervehicles.
(Iyer,2008,TwoͲandͲthreeͲwheelers,Sourcebook,2009)

12.2SafeandEfficientUseofThreeͲWheelers
FatalityratesshowthattravellinginathreeͲwheelerisverysafecomparedtoatwoͲ
wheeler.Thevehicle’sdesignmakesitstablewhileonthemove.
i. FareStructure
AnexactfarestructureforthreeͲwheelersisnotformulatedorproperlyimplementedin
many of the cities in India. Even where they are put into practice, grievances like not
upgradingfarepriceswithfuelpricescropup andsome operatorschargeaccordingto
what the;y perceive as reasonable. Therefore, people believe the operators are
dishonestandalwayschargemorethatwhatisreasonable.(Mohanetal.,2003)
ii. ReviewingtheLimitImposedonThreeͲWheelers
DelhiseekstoreducecongestionbysettingalimittothetotalnumberofthreeͲwheelers
permittedtoplytheroads.However,suchlimitsarenotimposedonanyothervehicle
typeeventhoughtheyalsocontributetocongestion.Also,demandforthreeͲwheelersas
a paraͲtransit is also increasing with the population while supply remainsconstant. So,
the rationale behind this needs to be reviewed. If the emissions caused by the threeͲ
wheelers are the reason for the ban, then the limit must be in terms of the emissions
causedorthetechnologyusedbyanindividualvehicle.
iii. PoliciestoReduceEmissions
The same policies explained for twoͲwheeler emission reductions in section 13.1.2 can
beappliedreduceemissionseveninthecaseofthreeͲwheelers.

13 References
1. ArasanT.andKrishnamurthyK.,(2008)“EffectoftrafficvolumeonPCUofvehicles
underheterogeneoustrafficconditions”Road&TransportResearch,Volume17
Number1,pp.32Ͳ49
2. AnnualReport(2008)“AnnualReport2007Ͳ2008”DepartmentofRoadTransportand
Highways,MinistryorShipping,RoadTransportandHighways,NewDelhi
3. Bertraud,A.,(2002).“Theeconomicimpactoflandandurbanplanningregulationsin
India”,unpublishedmanuscriptaccessibleat:http://www.alainͲ
bertaud.com/images/AB_%20India_%20Urban_Land_Reform.doc.(accessedin
January,2009)
4. “DimensionsandWeightsofRoaddesignvehicles”IRC3Ͳ1983
5. “GeometricDesignStandardsforurbanRoadsinPlains”IRC86Ͳ1983
6. GeorgeS.,JhaR.,NagarajanH.K.,(2001)“TheEvolutionandStructureoftheTwoͲ
wheelerIndustryinIndia”JournalofEconomicLiterature
7. http://www.araiindia.com/cmvr_tap.aspx(accessedinMay,2009)
8. http://www.censusindia.net(accessedinDecember,2008)
9. http://www.jnnurm.nic.in/nurmudweb/missioncities.htm(accessedinJanuary,2009)
10. http://www.morth.nic.in/index2.asp?langid=2&sublinkid=204(accessedinJanuary,
2009)
11. http://www.morth.nic.in/related_catmain.asp?rellinkid=27&langid=2(accessedin
February2009)
12. http://www.siamindia.com/(accessedinJanuary,2009)
13. http://www.siamindia.com/scripts/regulatoryframework.aspx(accessedin
December,2008)
14. IndianRoadsCongress(1973)“TentativeRecommendationsontheProvisionof
ParkingSpacesforUrbanAreas”RCSP:12Ͳ1973
15. IndianRoadsCongress(1985)“GuidelinesforthedesignofinterchangesinUrban
Areas”IRC92Ͳ1985
16. IndianRoadsCongress(1990)“GuidelinesforCapacityofUrbanRoadsinPlainAreas”
IRC:106Ͳ1990
17. IndianRoadsCongress(1994)“GuidelinesfortheDesignofatgradeintersectionsin
ruralandurbanareas”IRCSP41Ͳ1994
18. iTransPvt.Ltd.,(2008)“PrimarySurveysdoneforComprehensiveMobilityPlanof
PatnaUrbanAgglomerationArea,NewDelhi”

19. IyerN.V,(2001)“PerspectiveofaThreeͲwheelerProducer”RegionalWorkshopfor
ReducingVehicleEmissions:ReductionofEmissionsfrom2–3Wheelers,Hanoi,
Vietnam
20. IyerN.V,(2004)“ManagingTwoͲandͲthreeͲwheelerEmissions”NationalWorkshop
ontheImprovementofUrbanAirQualityofPakistan,Lahore,Pakistan
21. IyerN.V,(2006)“EnvironmentFriendlyVehicles–theIndianExperience”National
WorkshoponUrbanAirQualityManagementandIntegratedTrafficManagementfor
Karachi,Karachi,Pakistan
22. IyerN.V.,(2008)“ProspectsofAchievingCoͲBenefitofLowerExhaustEmissionsand
ImprovedFuelEfficiencyonSmallTwoͲWheelersinIndia”BetterAirQuality
Workshop(BAQ)2008,Bangkok.www.baq2008.org
23. L&TͲRambollconsultingengineerslimited,(2003)“DevelopmentofHyderabadMulti
ModalSuburbanCommuterTransportationSystemonCommercialFormat”
Hyderabad.
24. MallikarjunaCh.andRamachandraRaoK.,(2006)“ModellingofPassengerCar
EquivalencyunderHeterogeneousconditions”,22ndARRBConference–Research
intoPractice,Canberra,Australia.
25. MargieP.,ScurfieldR,SleetD,MohanD,HyderAA,JarawanEetal.,(2004)“World
reportonroadtrafficinjuryprevention”WorldHealthOrganization,Geneva.
26. MarutiSuzukiIndiaLimited(2008)“MarutiSuzukidisplaysFuelEfficiencyofits12
brandsfromtheNewYear”http://www.marutisuzuki.com/MarutiͲSuzukiͲdisplaysͲ
FuelͲEfficiencyͲofͲitsͲ12ͲbrandsͲfromͲtheͲNewͲYear.aspx)
27. MinistryofUrbanDevelopment,(2008)“DraftGuidelinesandToolkitsforurban
transportdevelopmentinmediumsizedcitiesinIndia”GovernmentofIndia.
28. MinistryofUrbanDevelopment(2008)“StudyonTrafficandTransportationpolicy
strategiesinUrbanareasinIndia”GovernmentofIndia.
29. MohanD.andRoyD.,(2003)“OperatingonThreeWheelsͲAutoͲRickshawDriversof
Delhi”EconomicandPoliticalWeekly,January18.
30. MohanD.,(2004)“TheRoadAhead:TrafficInjuriesandFatalitiesinIndia”World
HealthDay,14thApril,NewDelhi
31. MohanD.,TsimhoniO.,ShivakM.,MichaelJ.FlannaganM.,(2009)“RoadSafetyin
India:ChallengesandOpportunities”TheUniversityofMichiganTransportation
ResearchInstitute(ReportNo.UMTRIͲ2009Ͳ1)
32. MoUD,NationalUrbanTransportPolicy,(2005)
http://urbanindia.nic.in/moud/programme/ut/TransportPolicy.pdfMinistryofUrban
Development,NewDelhi,(accessedFebruary2009)

33. CAIͲAsia,PreeventWorkshopBetterAirQuality(BAQ)Workshop,(2008)
“RecommendationsofPreͲEventonTwoͲandͲthreeͲwheelers”BetterAirQuality
(BAQ)WorkshopNovember,2008,Bangkok.www.baq2008.org
34. PucherJ.,KorattyswaropamN.,MittalN.,IttyerahN.,(2005)“Urbantransportcrisis
inIndia”TransportPolicy,12,185–198
35. Ramachandran,R.,(1989)“UrbanizationandUrbanSystemsinIndia”Oxford
UniversityPress,Oxford,England.
36. RITES,(2001)“FeasibilityReportonIntegratedMultiModalMassRapidTransport
SystemforDelhi(IMMRTS)”NewDelhi.
37. SikdarPK,ChandraS,(2000)“FactorsaffectingPCUinmixedtrafficSituations”Road
&TransportResearch.
38. TiwariG.,FazioJ.,GauravS.,(2007)“TrafficplanningfornonͲhomogeneoustraffic”
SĈdhanĈVol.32,Part4,pp.309–328.
39. TiwariG.,FazioJ.,GauravS.,ChatterjeeN.,(2008)“ContinuityEquationValidationfor
NonhomogeneousTraffic”JournalOfTransportationEngineering,ASCE,March2008,
pp.118Ͳ127.
40. TiwariG.,MohanD.,MuhlradN.,(2005)“TheWayForward”TataMcGrawHill,India.
41. TiwariG.,MohanD.,FazioJ.,(1998)“Conflictanalysisforpredictionoffatalcrash
locationsinmixedtrafficstreams”AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,pp.207Ͳ215.
42. TRIPP,IITDelhi&CIRT(2006)“Masterplanforbusrapidtransitsystemintegrated
withbicyclenetworkinpcmc(pimprichinchwad)”Pune.
43. SUTPͲGTZ,2009,‘TwoͲandͲthreeͲwheelers’,Module4c,SustainableTransport:A
sourcebookforPolicyͲmakersindevelopingCities
44. www.cpcb.nic.inaccessedinJanuary,2009
45. Chapter13,whichincludestherecommendedpolicymeasuresforthesafeand
efficientoftwoͲandͲthreeͲwheelershasbeenformulatedafterconsultingthe
followingexpertsworkinginthisfield:
a. Dr.GeetamTiwari,Associateprofessor,DepartmentofCivilEngineering,IIT
Delhi,NewDelhi
b. Prof.DineshMohan,Professor,CentreforBiomedicalEngineering,IITDelhi,
NewDelhi.
c. Prof.MadhavG.Badami,Professor,McGillUniversity,Montreal,Canada.
d. SunitaNarain,Director,CentreforScienceandEnvironment,NewDelhi
e. AnumitaRoychowdhury,CentreforScienceandEnvironment,NewDelhi


2 and 3 Wheelers in India

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

2 and 3 Wheelers in India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TwoͲandͲThreeͲWheelersinIndia

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

longer, walking and cycling

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

Modal Split of various cities

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .

I nnov at iv e Tra nsport So lut ions Pv t . Lt d .