Economic and Equity Evaluation of Delhi Metro

This paper examines the economic and equity implications of the introduction of a metro system in Delhi. Generalized cost of each mode is used as an indicator of mobility, where as, accessibility is measured in terms of consumer surplus. A combined mode destination choice model is employed to assess the change in the generalized costs of existing modes after the metro introduction. The accessibility benefits of a metro are estimated using the logsum approach to estimate the consumer surplus of transit riders. The well established quantitative measure of equity, the GINI coefficient, is used to link mobility and accessibility to equity. Results indicate a reduction in the generalized costs of three existing modes, i.e. bus, car and the two wheelers. The magnitude of change is the lowest for bus and the highest for two wheelers. The estimated average change in welfare according the calibrated model is 45.32 Rs/trip (0.923 $US) which equals 90.64 Rs/day (1.85 $US), assuming two work trips per person per day. The results of the equity measure indicate a shift towards the line of perfect equality, concluding that the introduction of metro shows a positive impact on equity (of mobility and accessibility).

[1]  J. Black,et al.  PUBLIC INCONVENIENCE : ACCESS AND TRAVEL IN SEVEN SYDNEY SUBURBS , 1977 .

[2]  Bert van Wee,et al.  Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions , 2004 .

[3]  Rahul Bose,et al.  Policies to reduce energy use and environmental emissions in the transport sector--a case of Delhi city , 1997 .

[4]  Maria Manta Conroy,et al.  Accessibility Measures and the Social Evaluation of Urban Structure , 1977 .

[5]  J. Levine,et al.  Congestion pricing's conditional promise: promotion of accessibility or mobility? , 2002 .

[6]  Maureen E. Penfold Social Justice and the City , 1974 .

[7]  J Bird,et al.  MIDLAND METRO: MONITORING THE IMPACTS , 2000 .

[8]  Allan F. Williams,et al.  GRADUATED LICENSING IN THE UNITED STATES , 2003 .

[9]  William Ross,et al.  Mobility abd accessibility: the yin and yang of planning , 2000 .

[10]  Susan L Handy,et al.  Accessibility- vs. Mobility-Enhancing Strategies for Addressing Automobile Dependence in the U.S , 2002 .

[11]  John Golias,et al.  Analysis of traffic corridor impacts from the introduction of the new Athens Metro system , 2002 .

[12]  Todd Litman,et al.  MEASURING TRANSPORTATION: TRAFFIC, MOBILITY, AND ACCESSIBILITY , 2003 .

[13]  David Banister,et al.  Transport investment and the promotion of economic growth , 2001 .

[14]  Karst Teunis Geurs,et al.  Accessibility, land use and transport. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport developments and policy strategies , 2006 .

[15]  P. Alpkokin,et al.  POLICIES, COMMUTING PATTERNS AND ACCESSIBILITY IN A NON-MONOCENTRIC CITY: CASE STUDY OF DELHI , 2007 .

[16]  J. Preston,et al.  Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion , 2007 .

[17]  Todd Litman,et al.  Rail Transit In America A Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits Report Summary , 2004 .

[18]  Susan L Handy,et al.  Planning for Accessibility: in Theory and in Practice , 2005 .

[19]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand , 1985 .