Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
400
350
300
Motorcycle 3-Wheeler
Motorcycle 2-Wheeler
Bicycle
Walk
HGV
Rail
Bus
SUV
Car
250
200
150
100
50
0
2004
2010
2030
Scenario 1
(BAU)
2030
Scenario 2
2030
Scenario 3
2030
Scenario 4
Figure 5.22
Mode share (billion passenger km)
but here, in Scenario 4, car distance increases only slightly on 2010 levels, with the difference
taken up by a very large increase in bus (potentially a much wider Metro and bus rapid transit
network, but also more extensive use of a clean bus fleet), rail and cycling. The larger vehicles
in particular are restricted, for example SUV distance is restrained to below 2010 levels, so
a major effort is required to ensure future vehicle mobility is in clean and small vehicles.
Two- and three-wheelers also have most potential here, if fuelled cleanly (three wheelers are
currently fuelled with CNG, but there are other fuel options as well). The following proportions
are assumed in terms of market share by distance travelled by 2030 - car (12 per cent), SUV
(1 per cent), bus (31 per cent), Metro and rail (19 per cent), HGV (1 per cent), walk (6 per
cent), cycle (16 per cent), two-wheeler (12 per cent), three-wheeler (2 per cent). The subsequent
paragraphs describe the range of possible measures within Scenario 4.
Metro, rail and BRT
Public transport can also be further developed in Delhi to provide a more attractive option
for users. There are major efforts underway to develop a multi-modal transport system for
Delhi. The building of the Delhi Metro commenced in 1998, and the first link opened in 2002,
with Phase I being completed by 2006 with three corridors, a length of 65 km and around 13
km of the route underground. Phase II was completed by 2011, adding a further 53 km of
line, 9 km underground. The design and construction was by RITES, the government-owned
transport engineering company. The Metro has been expensive for Delhi, with a cost for Phase
I and II at Rs.64,060 million and Rs.80,260 million (a total of around US$2.4 billion, 2004
prices) (Murty et al., 2006; Cox, 2010). This investment, however, is inexpensive relative to
