City growth:When big is not beautiful
The Economic Times, October 29, 2009, Page 13
INCREASING CITY SIZE COMES WITH ITS PITFALLS — HIGH COST OF LIVING, CRIME, POLLUTION & CONGESTION
KALA SEETHARAM SRIDHAR
INDIA has 35 cities with million-plus population, with Mumbai leading the pack with a population of about 17 million. The question arises —can individual cities grow forever and whether there is an optimum city size? This is an important question as development plans of cities frequently follow the direction of development rather than guiding them. Is the current size of cities justifiable in terms of greater efficiencies in the production of goods, services and amenities offered to their residents? General equilibrium models of city growth refer to the drawbacks of increasing city size — high cost of living, crime, pollution and congestion costs. For example, in Bangalore, the one-way commute time to work increased from about 24 minutes in 1991 to 40 minutes in 2001. Thus, city population can grow, but the city may or may not grow economically. This happens as a city will experience congestion and decline in its economic output if its population grows beyond a certain limit.
One manifestation of excessive city growth is the suburbanisation and urban sprawl we see in India’s cities. With decentralisation of population and jobs from the dense core of cities to less densely developed suburbs, monocentric cities have evolved into polycentric cities. While such decentralisation is caused by rising incomes, rising land costs at the city centre and problems with the central city (high taxes, poor public services, high crime rates), recent research also attributes urban sprawl to strong land use controls in India’s cities. A research shows that the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) — which refers to the ratio of built area to plot area — permissible in India’s cities is not even five whereas cities across the world have FARs ranging from well above 10. A higher FAR implies vertical city growth. Vertical city growth is more efficient if the infrastructure necessary to support it is in place — it would be poor public economics not to use fully-serviced plots of land with water and sewer networks, roads in the centre of the city. Low FARs lead to inefficient cities.
Efficiency of cities is partly determined by the mobility and access needs of the population as it has a direct relationship with the city’s economic activity such as commute to school, jobs and shopping trips. While Indian cities’ decentralisation has been caused by rising incomes and the use of the automobile, one direct outcome of the urban sprawl has been that Indian cities have become automobileoriented with little space for pedestrians and cyclists. For instance, Indians bought 1.5 million cars in 2007, more than double than that in 2003.
Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Bangalore have 5% of India’s population but 14% of its registered vehicles. Pedestrians and cyclists account for a substantial part of urban population. In Delhi, pedestrians and cyclists account for around 55% of the population. Pedestrian accessibility in Indian cities is poor – there are no sidewalks, and where they exist, they are taken over by parked vehicles, uncollected garbage, or encroachment by local businesses.
Rightly, a recent research points out that policymaking related to urban transport has focused predominantly on road infrastructure development such as the construction of flyovers. However, given the fact that pedestrians and cyclists are the most vulnerable road users, budgets for the provision of infrastructure for them have been minuscule. This is not consistent with their number. A 3.5 metre lane has a carrying capacity of 1,800 cars per hour while it can carry 5,400 bicycles per hour. Providing segregated infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists would not cost much, but would greatly improve the efficiency of cities by facilitating the mobility of masses.
The above does not imply that we do not need highways or expressways of international standards. We need them for long distances and for facilitating movement of public transport that is affordable, convenient and safe to use. Highways are efficient if they are used for high occupancy vehicles such as public transport as compared to cars.
What the above implies is that decentralisation and sprawl have occurred in India’s cities, with economic growth, rising incomes, rising land costs, and land use regulation playing a role. With rising incomes, the sprawl has also brought about increased usage of cars with poor access for pedestrians and cyclists. We have to consciously decide what kind of cities we want. Only innovative city planning and better infrastructure to support them, better space and planning for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport will ensure that we have efficient and equitable cities whose costs do not outweigh their benefits.
(The author is senior research fellow, Public Affairs Centre. Views are personal)
The Economic Times, October 29, 2009, Page 13
INCREASING CITY SIZE COMES WITH ITS PITFALLS — HIGH COST OF LIVING, CRIME, POLLUTION & CONGESTION
KALA SEETHARAM SRIDHAR
INDIA has 35 cities with million-plus population, with Mumbai leading the pack with a population of about 17 million. The question arises —can individual cities grow forever and whether there is an optimum city size? This is an important question as development plans of cities frequently follow the direction of development rather than guiding them. Is the current size of cities justifiable in terms of greater efficiencies in the production of goods, services and amenities offered to their residents? General equilibrium models of city growth refer to the drawbacks of increasing city size — high cost of living, crime, pollution and congestion costs. For example, in Bangalore, the one-way commute time to work increased from about 24 minutes in 1991 to 40 minutes in 2001. Thus, city population can grow, but the city may or may not grow economically. This happens as a city will experience congestion and decline in its economic output if its population grows beyond a certain limit.
One manifestation of excessive city growth is the suburbanisation and urban sprawl we see in India’s cities. With decentralisation of population and jobs from the dense core of cities to less densely developed suburbs, monocentric cities have evolved into polycentric cities. While such decentralisation is caused by rising incomes, rising land costs at the city centre and problems with the central city (high taxes, poor public services, high crime rates), recent research also attributes urban sprawl to strong land use controls in India’s cities. A research shows that the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) — which refers to the ratio of built area to plot area — permissible in India’s cities is not even five whereas cities across the world have FARs ranging from well above 10. A higher FAR implies vertical city growth. Vertical city growth is more efficient if the infrastructure necessary to support it is in place — it would be poor public economics not to use fully-serviced plots of land with water and sewer networks, roads in the centre of the city. Low FARs lead to inefficient cities.
Efficiency of cities is partly determined by the mobility and access needs of the population as it has a direct relationship with the city’s economic activity such as commute to school, jobs and shopping trips. While Indian cities’ decentralisation has been caused by rising incomes and the use of the automobile, one direct outcome of the urban sprawl has been that Indian cities have become automobileoriented with little space for pedestrians and cyclists. For instance, Indians bought 1.5 million cars in 2007, more than double than that in 2003.
Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Bangalore have 5% of India’s population but 14% of its registered vehicles. Pedestrians and cyclists account for a substantial part of urban population. In Delhi, pedestrians and cyclists account for around 55% of the population. Pedestrian accessibility in Indian cities is poor – there are no sidewalks, and where they exist, they are taken over by parked vehicles, uncollected garbage, or encroachment by local businesses.
Rightly, a recent research points out that policymaking related to urban transport has focused predominantly on road infrastructure development such as the construction of flyovers. However, given the fact that pedestrians and cyclists are the most vulnerable road users, budgets for the provision of infrastructure for them have been minuscule. This is not consistent with their number. A 3.5 metre lane has a carrying capacity of 1,800 cars per hour while it can carry 5,400 bicycles per hour. Providing segregated infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists would not cost much, but would greatly improve the efficiency of cities by facilitating the mobility of masses.
The above does not imply that we do not need highways or expressways of international standards. We need them for long distances and for facilitating movement of public transport that is affordable, convenient and safe to use. Highways are efficient if they are used for high occupancy vehicles such as public transport as compared to cars.
What the above implies is that decentralisation and sprawl have occurred in India’s cities, with economic growth, rising incomes, rising land costs, and land use regulation playing a role. With rising incomes, the sprawl has also brought about increased usage of cars with poor access for pedestrians and cyclists. We have to consciously decide what kind of cities we want. Only innovative city planning and better infrastructure to support them, better space and planning for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport will ensure that we have efficient and equitable cities whose costs do not outweigh their benefits.
(The author is senior research fellow, Public Affairs Centre. Views are personal)
Posts
