See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233471846

Economic and Equity Evaluation of Delhi

Metro
ARTICLE DECEMBER 2009
DOI: 10.1080/12265934.2009.9693657

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Kirti Bhandari
Nagoya University
12 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Kirti Bhandari

Retrieved on: 22 August 2015

IJUS, 13(2) 2009

187

Economic and Equity Evaluation of Delhi

Metro
Kirti Bhandari* Hirokazu Kato** Yoshitsugu Hayashi***
International Journal of Urban Sciences, 13(2), 2009, 187-203
(c)2009 Institute of Urban Sciences

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).
Keywords: mobility, accessibility, equity, GINI coefficient, Delhi metro

*Scientist, Central Road Research Institute of New Delhi; E-mail: kirti.bhandari7@gmail.com (corresponding author)
**Associate Professor, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University; E-mail: kato@genv.nagoya-u.ac.jp
***Professor, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University; E-mail: yhayashi@genv.nagoya-u.ac.jp

188

Kirti, et al.: Economic and Equity Evaluation of Delhi Metro

1. INTRODUCTION
In the face of rapid urbanization and increased
demand for mobility, new metro rail systems are
being planned, constructed, or are in operation in
several developing cities to overcome the problems
of traffic congestion and automobile pollution.
Many authors have examined the travel behavior
impacts of a new public transport system,
especially mode switching (Harper, 2000; Monzon,
2000; and Golias, 2002) in various studies, but
there is little published work on changes to
accessibility and mobility and their impact on
equity. These three terms are defined in the first
section of this paper. Accessibility takes into
account the difference amongst the people for
whom the measure is calculated, the activities
that people access, the mode used and the time
budget available to individuals to engage in
different activities. Table 1 shows the summary of
accessibility measures. Utility based measures,
which have been used in the present study, have
the advantages of capturing not only the
impedance factors such as time and cost, but also
the attributes of the individual concerned. The
Lorenz curve of accessibility is estimated and the
GINI coefficient is used to form a link between
accessibility and equity.
The remainder of the paper is organized as
follows. The second section gives a brief
description of the study area and the data used in
the study. The third section describes the
methodology of the study that includes the
disaggregate mode choice calibration and the
evaluation based on the measures and indicators
proposed. The fourth section presents the
estimated results of the model framework (Figure

6) and then applied it to the case study of Delhi

metro. Finally the conclusions of the paper are
drawn together.

2. DEFINITION OF MOBILITY, ACCESSIBILITY

AND EQUITY
2.1 Mobility
The term Mobility has several meanings.
Ross (2000) defines mobility as movement or
the amount of movement measured in terms of
vehicle kilometers traveled or per capita vehicle
kilometers traveled. In his study across 46 cities,
the author suggests that mobility and accessibility
share a relation of reciprocity. Based on these
definitions the term mobility may mean either
ability to move or the amount of movement. The
standard transport planning definitions relate to
the latter meaning the amount of movement.
Hence mobility is measured in distance traveled,
time spent in traveling and cost incurred. Viver
(2001) defines mobility as motorized mobility,
measured by average annual distances traveled
by city dwellers in automobiles, motorized twowheeled vehicles, taxis and public transport.
These definitions give certain negative
consequences of promoting mobility: the high
cost of motorized mobility and social exclusion.
Viver (2001) states that mobility, like consumption
of all other goods and services, is very unequally
distributed amongst city dwellers. One can even
say that the growth of urban mobility has been
accompanied by a worsening of the phenomenon
of exclusion, due to the development of lowdensity peripheral quarters which are devoid of

IJUS, 13(2) 2009

189

stores and local services and are poorly served by

public transport. In the absence of adequate
public transport, those excluded from automobiles
are thus also more excluded from employment,
services and leisure activities. According to
Litman (2003a) mobility is a subset of accessibility,
where the latter is a more comprehensive and
inclusive definition of transportation needs of a
society. His perspective assumes that automobiles
are the most important and it values transit,
ridesharing and cycling. Mobility has also been
defined as the ability to travel to destinations and
the freedom to undertake desired travel activities,
or simply the efficiency of movement (Levine and
Garb 2002).

the case of Delhi (Bhandari, et al. 2008).

Accessibility is composed of three main components:
land use, transport and individual components.
Mobility on the other hand has been defined here
as an individuals ability to access destinations of
choice. Introduction of a new transport infrastructure,
such as the metro, which has been examined in
this study, is found to lead to a decrease in the
generalized cost of travel by other modes. This
change in generalized cost is used as a measure
of mobility, since it enhances an individuals
ability to undertake desired travel activities.
Finally, the paper examines the relation between
mobility and equity using the established
quantitative measure of equity, the GINI coefficient.

2.2 Accessibility

2.3 Equity

Accessibility may be defined as the description

of proximity to destinations of choice and facilities
offered by transportation systems (Black, 1981;
Guers and Wee 2004) or alternately physical
mobility (Preston and Raje 2007). Work,
education, health and commercial activities may
be considered as the four destinations that people
need to access according to their needs. Increase
in the choice of modes of travel or destinations
lead to greater accessibility. Policies to increase
mobility will generally increase accessibility.
However, good mobility is neither a sufficient nor
a necessary condition for good accessibility
(Handy, S. 2005). Transit investment projects
have been identified as both accessibility and
mobility enhancing (Handy, S. 2002).

Equity, or fairness, refers to the distribution of

the impacts (cost and benefits) of a particular
transport planning decision. The equity aspects of
urban development have been underpinned by a
considerable body of theortical (for example
Harvey 1973) and empirical (for example Black,
1977; Black and Conroy, 1977) research.

Figure 1 shows the relationship between

components of accessibility and mobility.
Accessibility and mobility have been examined in

Litman (2007) has identified three types of

transport equity. First is horizontal equity (also
called fairness) which is concerned with the
distribution of impacts between individuals of a
group under consideration. Horizontal equity
treats everyone equally unless specific treatment
is justified for specific reasons. Second is vertical
equity with regards to income and social class. By
this definition, transport policies are equitable if
they favor economically and socially disadvantaged
groups. Third is the vertical equity with regards to
mobility need and ability This definition is

190

Kirti, et al.: Economic and Equity Evaluation of Delhi Metro

concerned with the distribution of impacts

between individuals and groups that differ in
transportation ability and need. In this paper,
estimation has been made the changes in equity
of existing modes of transport after the introduction
of a new mode.
The most well established quantitative measure
of equity, the Gini Coefficient is used (Corrado
Gini, 1912).
G = 1 /(2 N 2Wavg ).i =1 N j =1 N wi w j

(1)

Where wi and wj are the welfare levels for

individuals i and j respectively, and wavg is the
average welfare of all individuals, and N is the
number of individuals.
The Gini coefficient represents the area of
concentration (inequality) between the Lorenz
curve and the straight line of perfect equality. The
Gini coefficient ranges from zero where there is
no concentration (perfect equality) to one, where
there is an extreme concentration (perfect inequality).
The Lorenz curve, as shown in Figure 2, is the
graphical representation of cumulative distribution
function of a probability distribution. A perfectly
equal income distribution would be one in which
every person has the same income. This can be
depicted by the straight line y=x; i.e. like of
perfect equality. By contrast, a perfectly unequal
distribution would be one in which one person
has all the income and everyone else has none.
In that extreme case the curve would be at y=0
for all x<100%, and y=100% when x=100%.
This is the line of perfect inequality.
GINI coefficient is the area between the line of
equality and the Lorenz curve, divided by area

under the line of equality. GINI coefficient is

computed by dividing the area of the Lorenz
curve by the area under the diagonal, i.e.
G=A/A+B, where G lies between 0 and 1.

3. STUDY AREA AND DATA

3.1 Study Area
Delhi is the capital of India and is the
converging point for five rail lines and five
national highways. The growth of Delhi over the
years has been on a ring and radial pattern, with
reliance on a road-based public transport system.
The draft master plan for 2021 emphasizes the
need for a multimodal transport system, with an
optimal mix of rail and road based systems.
Integrated multimodal public transport has been
proposed for the city, which includes: metro (6
corridors), a grade High Capacity Bus System
(HCBS) (26 corridors), elevated LRT (6 corridors),
elevated monorail (3 corridors), integrated railcum-bus transit (IRBT) (2 corridors) (CDP, 2006
pp 11-22).
The development envisaged by the master
plans was poly-nodal with a hierarchy of
commercial centers located on either ring or the
radial roads (Bhandari et al, 2007). The proposed
metro network is anticipated to have a sizeable
impact on the urban form and the related
commuting patterns. The concept of the master
plan 2021 is based on a poly-nodal, polycentric
distribution of work centers, largely based on
road transport nodes. This essentially implies that
development should take place according to new
corridors of mass movement, especially along

IJUS, 13(2) 2009

major transport corridors and the mass rapid

transit system.
The metro rail network of Delhi has been
identified in various phases, which is composed
of a network of underground, elevated and
surface corridors aggregating to approximately
250 km. Delhi metro is planned in four phases.
Figure3 shows the metro network of Phase 1 and
part phase 2. Phase 1 of the metro network
constituting 62.16 km is fully operational and
construction of phase 2 (56.76 km) is underway
which is expected to be completed by 2010. The
metro rail network for the entire city has been
identified in The work of phase 1 and part of
phase 11 is now complete and phase 111 is in
progress. The first phase of DM consists of 3
corridors divided into eight sections with a total
route of 65.1 km, of which 13.17 km is planned
as an underground, 47.43km is elevated and
4.5km is at grade rail corridor. The second phase
covers 53.02 km of which underground, at grade
and elevated sections are expected to be 8.93 km,
1.85 km and 42.24 km respectively. Phase 3 and
phase 4 are expected to be 62.20 km and 69.68
km respectively.

191

metro and the reason for that shift. Evidently, at a

sizeable number of trips, 49% of the trips are
performed on a daily basis and 34% of the
respondents are using the metro occasionally. For
trip purposes, work trips cover 59% of the total
trips made by metro (Figure 4a). Analysis shows
that 82% of the commuters have shifted from
public modes which include, bus, charted bus,
Rural Transport Vehicles (RTVs), minibus, taxi
and auto rickshaw. The remaining percentage of
respondents shifts from private vehicle owners,
which includes two wheelers (scooters and motor
cycles) and cars.
The respondents were also asked to rank the
reasons why they shifted to metro. Out of the
seven main reasons of comfort, time saving,
economic, accessible, reliable, safe, and
environmentally friendly, the three main reasons
leading to the shift were comfort, time saving and
safety (Figure 5b). It was also observed that about
77% of the trips are originated within 2 km of the
metro stations and 82% of trips terminated within
2 km of metro stations.

4. METHODOLOGY
3.2 Data
A commuter survey was carried out at 14
stations with a total of 6771 respondents to assess
the benefits of the metro rail system in Delhi by
the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation from October
2006 to May 2007 (CRRI, 2008). The method of
collecting data was by direct administration of
survey through interviews by a trained set of
surveyors. Fig 4 and 5 shows the trip purposes,
trip frequencies, the shift from different modes to

The study framework is shown in Figure 6. RP

(Revealed preference data) reflects actually chosen
status while SP(stated preference data) are
collected presenting hypothetical scenarios to the
respondents and asking for their preferences. RP
data is the reflection of actual choice behavior so
the reliability of RP data used for model
estimation is certified. However it is sometimes
difficult to obtain precise estimates for all the
parameters with only RP data. On the other hand

192

Kirti, et al.: Economic and Equity Evaluation of Delhi Metro

it is essential for obtaining preference information

about attributes or alternatives not available in the
real market. Through designing stated preference
experiments, the preferences over hypothetical
alternatives are obtained because the choice
scenarios can be controlled, there are following
relative advantages of SP over RP are choice set
can be pre specified, range of attributes can be
extended and multicollinearity among attributes
can be avoided. RP data is employed in the
present study for model building. RP survey data
from two different sets are used to estimate the
mode destination models for work trips in Delhi
before and after the implementation of metro
lines (Phase 1).
The choice of modes before the introduction of
metro lines include, bus, car and two wheeler;
where as in the latter scenario an additional mode
of metro is added. All the individual data sets are
then distributed across the 208 traffic analysis
zones in Delhi. In order to estimate the cost for
the different modes, the following procedure is
adopted. First, the distance between the origin
and destination zones on the road network is
estimated by using TRANSCAD. Similarly the
distances between the given OD pairs on the bus
network and the metro are also estimated. Using
the information on the distance and the speed of
the particular mode (table 2), the values for travel
time are estimated. Finally, to estimate the values
of cost of each OD pair for car and two wheeler,
the data of fuel efficiency, given in table 4.4 and
distance traveled, is used. For the public transport
modes, the cost of bus and metro is estimated
based on the fare structure (table 3) and the
distance traveled. The average operating speed
for metro is taken as 33 km/hr. The values of
travel time and travel cost for car, two wheeler,

bus and metro in the two scenarios i.e. without

metro and with metro are used, along with the
other specified variables, to estimate the modedestination choice model. In the later scenario,
location specific terms in terms of significance of
work trips to the CBD, are also estimated.
Despite the comprehensiveness of this survey
and the use of a representative sample, there are
some important limitations to note. Within the
constraints of time and budget, the sample
surveys were conducted in Delhi. The total
sample survey consisted of 352 samples, which
was reduced to 309 for the purpose of model
building because of the incomplete and obviously
incorrect information provided. Certain OD pairs
which belonged to the zones outside the NCT
Delhi (208 traffic analysis zones) could not be
used for estimating the model. The selection of
survey sites was done by keeping in mind the
planned metro route. Two out of the five sites
were located at metro stations, one of them being
the CBD. The three other sites were selected to
also represent important work locations, but with
no planned metro stations. The purpose was to
capture an adequate sample of metro users and
non-metro users. The second data set consisted
of 6,771 respondents (all trips), from the Delhi
Metro Rail Corporation Survey, out of which, a
sample of 1,249 persons (work trips) were used
for model building.

5. RESULTS
5.1. Equity Index of Mobility with Gini
Coefficient

IJUS, 13(2) 2009

The change in generalized cost (GC) is used as

a measure of mobility. It is the amount of money
representing the overall cost and inconvenience
to the transport user of traveling between a
particular origin (i) and destination zone (j) by a
particular mode (m). In principle, it incorporates
all aspects of this inconvenience including
quality factors, like discomfort and reliability.
Generalized cost is usually limited to time, (and
the monetary value of time) user charges (e.g.
fares, tolls) and vehicle operating cost (VOCs) of
the vehicle.
GCijm = time cos t ijm + userch arg esijm + VOCsijm (2)

where, time cost is defined as the time in

minutes, * value of time in Rs/min
For estimating the generalized cost from the
above model, time cost and out of pocket cost of
the travelers for each mode has been used (Table
4). In order to estimate the gain in mobility due to
the implemented metro system, the established
quantitative measure of equity, the Gini
coefficient, is estimated (Wessa, 2008) and the
results of the change in equity for existing modes
after metro introduction is given in Table 5. For
drawing the Lorenz curve, the distribution of
consumer surplus is taken on the y axis and the
sample population is taken on the x axis. The 45
degree line represents the line of perfect equality.
The distribution of consumer surplus before and
after the introduction of the metro is used to draw
the distribution of the Lorenz curve in the two
scenarios. It is clear from the distribution that the
Lorenz curve shifts towards the line of perfect
equity after the introduction of metro. The
generalized cost of each mode is estimated in two

193

scenarios; i.e. with the metro and without metro.

For estimating the generalized cost in each
scenario, the value of time of each scenario is
applied. The change in generalized cost represents
the mobility benefit of each mode. The change in
generalized cost is Rs 3 for bus, Rs 9 for car and
Rs 12 for two wheeler vehicles, as shown in Table
4. In order to estimate the benefit /month, it is
assumed that a person works for 20 days in a
month and makes two work trips each day.

5.2 Logsum Measure of Accessibility

The measure of accessibility derived from the
random utility theory is the denominator of the
multinomial logit model, also called the logsum.
The logsum serves as a summary measure,
indicating the desirability of the full choice set
(Ben-Akiva and Lerman, 1985). However, since
there are no units associated with the value, it
makes it difficult to interpret. This difficulty can be
overcome by dividing equation (3) by the
coefficient of cost (Ben-Akiva and Lerman, 1985),
thus obtaining equation (4). The logsum measure
of accessibility may then be converted into
monetary units, allowing for the calculation of the
change in consumer surplus using equation 5
(Train, 2003). Consumer surplus for transit riders
is shown in Figure 7.
When using the multinomial logit model, the
consumers surplus may be estimated using the
logsum and a coefficient of cost as follows
A i = ln(

k =1

e Vk )

(3)

194

Kirti, et al.: Economic and Equity Evaluation of Delhi Metro

E ( CS ) =

E (CS ) =

ln(

e Vk )

k =1

1 m Vk1
m Vk0
ln e ln e
k =1
k =1

(4)

(5)

where, E is change in consumer surplus, is

coefficient of cost, V is systematic utility, k is
combined mode destination choice, and v1 and v2
are utility of scenario 1 and 2 respectively.
The following equation is used for estimating
the combined utility of each mode-destination
Vik = cos t cos t ik + timetimeik + incomeincomeik (6)

where,
Vik = Systematic components of utility for
individual i for combined mode destination
choice k.
cos tik = Out of pocket cost
timeik = In vehicle travel time
incomeik Household income
Table 6 gives the estimated parameters in the
model for each scenario. The parameters for time
and cost give intuitively correct signs. The transitspecific variable of the destination zone CBD for
work trips shows a significant coefficient when
compared to that of other modes. The overall
performance of the estimated models is significant
as indicated by the 2. Also the individual
coefficient estimates are significant and have the
expected signs. The log of household income
show significant results for both car and metro.
However, the metro model has a higher value
than car. From this, it may be inferred that the
preference of individuals for the metro is as a

faster and more comfortable mode as compared

to car, especially since car users may have to face
serious congestion condition on road. The
average income of travelers who use the rail was
found to be much higher than the average
income of travelers who use the bus (Winston et
al. 1998).

5.3. Linking Accessibility and Equity

This section discusses the results of accessibility
benefits estimated using the logsum formulation.
The estimated average change in welfare according
to the given 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. Since we are
assuming 20 working days in a month, the
consumer surplus or the accessibility benefits due
to the metro is 1812.8 Rs/month (36.94 $US).
(All conversions to US dollar are made based on
the exchange rate of 1$US is 49.08 INR, as of
September 2nd, 2009). In order to assess the
equitable distribution of accessibility, the established
quantitative measure of equity, i.e. the Gini
coefficient is used (Wessa, 2008), where a value
of one represents perfect inequality and zero
refers to perfect equity.
Table 7 gives the result of equity change in
accessibility distribution due to the Delhi metro.
The change in equity in both scenarios is negative.
The negative value indicates that the accessibility
effects due to the metro of1812.8 Rs/month leads
to a change in equity of the order of 0.178
towards equity (also shown in figure 8). Figure 8
shows the Lorenz curve of accessibility. The curve
shows the cumulative distribution of sample
population and consumer surplus on the x and

IJUS, 13(2) 2009

the y axis respectively.

6. CONCLUSIONS
In order to meet the expanding mobility needs
of the increasing urban population, metro
systems are being viewed as a viable option for
developing cities. Policy makers need to be
confident that the broad benefits of such
massively expensive systems that are also subject
of cost over-runs reach as wide a section of
community as possible. Litman (2005) presents a
comprehensive analysis of transportation system
performance in US cities indicating economic,
social and environmental benefits form rail transit,
which tend to increase as the transit expands and
matures. Banister and Berechmann (1999)
suggest that infrastructure investments will affect
accessibility in a system only in a marginal way in
developed economies, where as accessibility by
road and rail may already be quite high. However,
investment in transport infrastructure remains a
priority in developing cities and therefore
examining the equity implications of such large
investments is significant.
The major contribution of this study is that it
has related mobility and equity, using the
generalized cost as a measure of mobility and
applying the established measure of equity, which
is the Gini coefficient. This paper has examined a
welfare based accessibility measure using the
logsum approach to assess the benefits of the
introduction of metro in Delhi. The contribution
of the study is that it establishes a link between
accessibility and equity using the well established
quantitative measure of equity, the Gini coefficient.

195

A combined mode destination choice model has

been estimated for work trips in two scenarios, viz.
before and after the introduction of metro. The
estimated accessibility benefits are of the order of
1812.8 Rs./month (assuming 20 working days in
a month).
Investment in transport infrastructure projects,
such as the metro system dealt with in the present
case study, shows that the generalized cost of
each mode decreased after the implementation of
the project. The study shows that mobility
enhancement projects, like investment in transit,
show positive results for equity measure with
respect to modes. Further, these accessibility
benefits have been examined for their equity
effects by applying the Gini coefficient. Results of
equity measures indicate that the accessibility
benefits due to metro approach zero, implying
that there is a shift towards equity.

196

Kirti, et al.: Economic and Equity Evaluation of Delhi Metro

<Table 1> Summary of proposed accessibility measures

Components a
Land use
Accessibility measure

Transport

Demand

Supply

Temporal

Individual

Economic

Social

Usability for
evaluation b

Infrastructure based measure

Location based measure
Contour measure
Potential measure
Adapted potential measures
Balancing factors
Person based measures
Utility based measures
Log sum benefit measure
Space time measure
Balancing factor benefit measure

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/+
+
+
+

+/+
+
+
+

+
+
-

+/+/+/+/+

+/+/+/+

+/+/+/-

+
+
+
+

+
+
+

+
+
+

+
-

+/+
+/-

+
+
+

+
+
+

Note: 1. a. Score: + = criterion satisfied; - = criterion not satisfied; +/- = partly satisfied
2. b. Score: + = usable as an indicator; - =not usable; +/- = potentially usable as input for computations
Source: Guers, K. (2006).

<Table 2> Mode characteristics in Delhi

Vehicle type

Occupancy

Fuel Efficiency
(Km/lit)

Vehicle utilization
(Km/year)

Speed
(Km/hr)

Car
Two wheeler
Three wheeler
Bus

2.6
1.6
1.8
52

10.9
44.4
20
4.3

9500
9000
25000
70000

25*
30*
20**

Source: Bose and Srinivasachary (1997), * CDP (2006), ** CRRI (2003)

IJUS, 13(2) 2009

197

<Table 3> Fare structures of public bus service and Delhi metro

Bus
4 kms
20 kms
30 kms

MRTS

Rs 2
Rs 10
Rs 10

Minimum
Maximum

Rs 6
Rs 22

<Table 4> Generalized cost for different modes

Modes

Without metro
(Rs)

With metro
(Rs)

Benefit
(Rs)

Benefit/month
(Rs)

35
89
63

32
80
51
34

3
9
12

120
360
480

Bus
Car
Two wheeler
Metro

<Table 5> Equity measure for existing modes after metro introduction

Equity measure

Bus

Car

Two wheeler

Gini coefficient

-0.00523

-0.0153

-0.0198

<Table 6> Estimated model coefficients for two scenarios

Travel time value (min)
Travel cost value (Rs)
Mode Constant

Destination Zone CBD

(dummy variable)

Car
Two Wheeler
Bus
Metro
Car
Two Wheeler
Bus
Metro

Without metro

With metro

-0.0103 (-1.93)
-0.0207 (-7.34)
-9.84 (-8.55)
-4.61 (-4.30)
0
-

-0.0543 (-4.34)
-0.0521 (-6.21)
-6.61 (-2.02)
-2.86 (-1.21)
0
-10.30 (-4.70)
0.356 (0.823)
-0.715 (-2.12)
0
0.832 (2.51)

198

Kirti, et al.: Economic and Equity Evaluation of Delhi Metro

Log Household Income

(Rs/month)
Summary Statistics

Car
Two Wheeler
Bus
Metro
No of Observations
2

Value of Time

Without metro

With metro

2.28 (7.62)
0.847 (3.07)
0
1249

1.74 (2.25)
0.915 (1.61)
0
2.54 (4.92)
309

0.434

0.163

Rs/hr 28.57

Rs/hr 62.31

<Table 7> Results of equity measures before and after introduction of metro

Equity measure

No metro

With metro

Change in equity

Gini Coefficient

0.399

0.221

-0.178

<Figure 1> Relationship between components of accessibility and mobility

IJUS, 13(2) 2009

<Figure 2> Representative lorenz curve

Source: http://johomaps.com/as/india/delhi/delhimetro.html

<Figure 3> Phase 1 of Delhi Metro showing line 1 (red), line 2 (yellow) and line 3 (blue)

199

200

Kirti, et al.: Economic and Equity Evaluation of Delhi Metro

(a) Trip Frequency

(b) Trip Purpose

<Figure 4> Delhi metro user profile survey results for trip frequencies and trip purposes

Safe
Time saving
Comfort

(a) Shift from private and public transport modes

(b) Reasons for modal shift

<Figure 5> Modal shift shares and reasons for Delhi metro users

<Figure 6> Study framework

IJUS, 13(2) 2009

(a) Consumer surplus

201

(b) Change in Consumer Surplus

<Figure 7> Consumer surplus of transit riders

<Figure 8> Lorenz curve for accessibility

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation and Central Road Research Institute
for providing relevant data for the study.

REFERENCES
Banister, D. and Berechmann, Y., 2001,

Transport investment and promotion of

economic growth, Journal of Transport
Geography 9:209-218.
Ben-Akiva, M., and Lerman, S. R., 1985, choice
analysis: Theory and applications to travel
demand,
MIT
Press.
Cambridge.
Massachusetts. London. England.
Bhandari, K; Peng, J., Alpkokin, P., 2007,
Policies, Commuting patterns and accessibility
in a non-monocentric city: Case study of Delhi,

Proceedings of the 7th International Conference

202

Kirti, et al.: Economic and Equity Evaluation of Delhi Metro

of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation

Studies, Dalian.
Bhandari, K., Kachi, N., Kato.,H., Hayashi, Y.,
2008, Effect of Individual characteristics and
spatial configurations on accessibility and
mobility: case of Delhi, Proceedings of
Infrastructure Planning 37 (CD-ROM), Japan
Society of Civil Engineering, Hokkaido.
Black, J., 1977, Public Inconvenience: Access
and travel in seven Sydney suburbs, Research
School of Social Sciences, The Australian
national University, Canberra, Sydney.
Black, J., 1981, Urban Transport Planning,
Theory and Practice, Chapter 2, John
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA.
Black, J.A. and Conroy M.M., 1977, Accessibility
measures and the social evaluation of urban
structure Environment and Planning A 9:1013
1031.
Bose, R. K. and Srinivasachary, V., 1997,
Policies to reduce energy use and
environmental emissions in transport sector, A
case of Delhi city, Energy Policy 25(14-15):
1137-1150.
CDP., 2006, City Development Plan. Department
of urban development. Government of Delhi,
Delhi, India.
Central Road Research Institute., 2003, Urban
Road traffic and Air pollution. New Delhi
Central Road Research Institute., 2008,
Quantification
of
benefits
due
to
implementation of phase 1 of Delhi metro.
Technical report submitted to Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation.
Geurs, K. T. and Wee, B., 2004, Accessibility
evaluation of land-use and transport strategies:
review and research directions, Journal of
Transport Geography 12(2): 127-140.
Geurs, K., 2006, Accessibility, land use and
transport: Accessibility evaluation of land use
and transport developments and policy

strategies Eburon.
Golias, J.C., 2002, Analysis of traffic corridor
impacts from the introduction of new Athens
metro system, Journal of Transport
Geography 10: 91-97.
Gini,C., 1912, Variability and mutability,
Blogna, Italy.
Handy, S., 2002, Accessibility vs mobility

enhancing strategies for addressing automobile

dependence in the US, prepared for the
European Conference of ministers of Transport,
Paris, France.
Handy, S., 2005, Planning for accessibility: In
theory and practice, In Access to destinations
Eds. David M. Levinson & Kevin J. Krizek,
131-147 Elsevier. North Holland.
Harper, 2000, Midland Metro: monitoring the
impacts, paper presented in the European
Transport Research Conference, September
7-11, Cambridge, UK.
Harvey, D., 1973, Social Justice and the city.,
Edward Arnold, London UK.
Litman., 2003a, Measuring transportation.
Traffic, mobility and accessibility, The ITE
Journal 73(10): 28-32.
Litman, T., 2005, Rail transit in America: A
comprehensive evaluation of benefits, Victoria
Transport Policy Institute. British Columbia,
Canada.
Levine, J., and Garb, Y., 2002, Congestion
pricings conditional promise: promotion of
accessibility or mobility, Transport Policy 9:
179-188.
Monzon, 2000, Travel demands of a new
privately operated suburban rail in the Madrid
N-111 corridor, paper presented in the
European Transport Research Conference,
September 7-11, Cambridge, UK.
Preston, J. and Raje, F., 2007, Accessibility,
mobility and transport related social exclusion,
Journal of Transport Geography 15: 151-160.

IJUS, 13(2) 2009

Ross, W., 2000, Mobility and accessibility: yin

and yang of planning, World Transport Policy
and Practice 6(2): 13-19.
Vivier, J., 2001, Mobility and accessibility:
complementary or contradictory objectives,
Public Transport International 5: 4-11.
Wessa P., 2008, Free statistics and software, Office
for research development and education
version 1.1.23-r3, URL http://www.wessa.net/.

203

Winston, C. and Shirley, C., 1998, Alternate

route: towards efficient urban transportation,

Brookings Institution, Washington DC.
Received: November 27, 2009
Revised: December 11, 2009
Accepted: December 18, 2009