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
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). Figure 1 shows the relationship between components of accessibility and mobility. Accessibility and mobility have been examined in

2.3 Equity
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. 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

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

(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

IJUS, 13(2) 2009

191

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.

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

193

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)

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(

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

e Vk )

k =1

(3)

194

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

E ( CS ) =

ln(

e Vk )

k =1

(4)

E (CS ) =

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

(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)

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

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

IJUS, 13(2) 2009

195

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.

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

Individual Transport Temporal Demand Supply

Usability for evaluation b

Economic Social + + + + + + + 25* 30* 20**

Accessibility measure

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
Car Two wheeler Three wheeler Bus

Occupancy
2.6 1.6 1.8 52

Fuel Efficiency (Km/lit)

10.9 44.4 20 4.3

Vehicle utilization (Km/year)

9500 9000 25000 70000

Speed (Km/hr)

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 Rs 2 Rs 10 Rs 10 Minimum Maximum

MRTS
Rs 6 Rs 22

<Table 4> Generalized cost for different modes

Modes
Bus Car Two wheeler Metro

Without metro (Rs)

35 89 63

With metro (Rs)

32 80 51 34

Benefit (Rs)
3 9 12

Benefit/month (Rs)
120 360 480

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

Equity measure
Gini coefficient

Bus
-0.00523

Car
-0.0153

Two wheeler
-0.0198

<Table 6> Estimated model coefficients for two scenarios

Without metro
Travel time value (min) Travel cost value (Rs) Mode Constant Car Two Wheeler Bus Metro Car Two Wheeler Bus Metro -0.0103 (-1.93) -0.0207 (-7.34) -9.84 (-8.55) -4.61 (-4.30) 0 -

With metro
-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)

Destination Zone CBD (dummy variable)

198

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

Without metro
Log Household Income (Rs/month) Summary Statistics Value of Time Car Two Wheeler Bus Metro No of Observations 2 2.28 (7.62) 0.847 (3.07) 0 1249 0.434 Rs/hr 28.57

With metro
1.74 (2.25) 0.915 (1.61) 0 2.54 (4.92) 309 0.163 Rs/hr 62.31

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

Equity measure
Gini Coefficient

No metro
0.399

With metro
0.221

Change in equity
-0.178

<Figure 1> Relationship between components of accessibility and mobility

IJUS, 13(2) 2009

199

<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)

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

201

(a) Consumer surplus

(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

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.

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

IJUS, 13(2) 2009

203

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/.

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