Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/pplann
Abstract
Urban planners are faced with the decision of what planning policy to pursue in order to achieve the best possible future. Many
cities in developed nations use comprehensive models that simulate various aspects of the urban system, capable of predicting
implications of a given set of policy inputs, to assist the planning process. However, in developing countries, demographic and
socioeconomic data with appropriate spatial disaggregation are difficult to obtain. This constrains the development of such
comprehensive urban models to support planning decisions. In the absence of models, the plan-making process usually inclines
towards a more intuitive approach.
Using simplified urban models adapted to the data constraints, this paper explores the prospects of enhancing
planning in developing countries, with the aim of shifting the plan-making process from being purely intuitive towards
being more scientific. The SIMPLAN (SIMplified PLANning) modelling suite has been developed for the case study city of
Ahmedabad, India (the calibration per se is not discussed) to test alternative urban planning policies (combinations for land
use and transport) for the year 2021. Model outputs are evaluated for key economic, environmental and social indicators. It
should be noted that such a research study, in the context of developing countries, represents a first generation of studies/
models, owing to the simplicity of the model structure and its accompanying limitations and data availability constraints. The
modelling framework developed in this study has a visually driven user interface. This makes the model easy to understand,
operate and update. Due to this attribute, it allows local planning authorities to carry out testing of several alternative planning
policies themselves, without having the need to outsource modelling work to private consulting firms, usually at much higher
cost.
Key model outputs indicate that dispersing cities proves to be economically beneficial to society as a whole. Compact
development may prove to be better in terms of environmental and social aspects, but it may be possible to tackle the undesirable
effects of dispersal by appropriate combinations of planning and management measures. The modelling outputs informed the wider
debate on compact vs. dispersed urban forms. It was shown that neither of these diametrically opposite forms provide an outright
winwin solution. They are likely to perform differently in different economies and sociocultural contexts. Therefore, it would
appear that each city needs to test out the pros and cons of such alterative urban planning policies before pursing a plan for the future.
Learning from such modelling exercises, cities can prepare their own tailor-made policy that best satisfies their objectives, making
the planning process more rigorous and transparent.
# 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Urban planning; Urban modelling; Land usetransport interaction (LUTI) modelling; Urban form; Compact city; Dispersed city;
Developing countries; Ahmedabad; India
114
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Paper outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Context of developing countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1. Urban development and planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2. Overview of urbanisation: India, Gujarat and Ahmedabad . . . . . . .
2.3. Background of planning in the Indian context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4. The need and relevance of this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
General introduction of the case study city of Ahmedabad . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1. Location, topography and climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3. Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4. Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction to modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1. Definition and types of models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.1. Descriptive models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.2. Explanatory models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.3. Predictive models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2. Descriptive conceptual models of spatial organisation of land uses.
4.2.1. Concentric zone theory (1925) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.2. Sector theory (1939) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.3. Multiple-nuclei theory (1945) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.4. Application to Ahmedabad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3. Explanatory analytical models of location and land use . . . . . . . .
4.3.1. Isolated state (1826) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.2. Industrial location theory (1909) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.3. Central place theory (1933) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.4. Urban bid-rent theory (1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4. Introduction to LUTI models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.1. The land usetransport relationship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.2. The Lowry model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.3. The MEPLAN model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.4. The TRANUS model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.5. The DELTA model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.6. A brief discussion on LUTI models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SIMPLAN model: a brief introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Development of alternative policies for the future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2. Key modelling inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3. Trend policy 2021 (TR21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3.1. TR21 land use inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3.2. TR21 transport inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4. Compaction policy 2021 (CC21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4.1. CC21 land use inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4.2. CC21 transport inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5. Dispersal policy 2021 (DS21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5.1. DS21 land use inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5.2. DS21 transport inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of modelling outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1. Land use outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2. Transport outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sensitivity analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.1. Variation in dwellings and employment allocation . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2. Variation in income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Assessment of alternative planning policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.1. Economic assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
115
115
115
117
119
121
122
122
123
123
123
124
124
124
124
124
124
125
125
126
126
128
128
130
131
134
137
137
138
139
140
141
142
142
146
146
147
149
149
152
153
153
153
154
154
157
157
157
158
162
162
164
164
165
10.
11.
1. Paper outline
This paper begins by looking at urban development
and planning in the context of developing countries and
how it differs from developed countries. An overview of
urbanisation is presented, followed by the background
of planning in the Indian context. Following from this,
the necessity of the study is established. A general
introduction to the case study city of Ahmedabad is
presented. Since this recommends the use of models to
assist planning, a general introduction to models is
presented, followed by an introduction to land use
transport interaction (LUTI) models. A brief introduction to a simplified modelling suite called SIMPLAN
(SIMplified PLANning) is provided. However, its
calibration is a separate topic and is being considered
for a shorter paper, and it is therefore not discussed here.
Alternative urban planning policies for a future year
(2021) are then discussed and tested using SIMPLAN.
A summary of modelling outputs is presented, followed
by an assessment of alternative urban planning policies,
including a section on sensitivity testing. The approach
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
115
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
165
167
171
172
173
174
174
175
176
177
179
181
183
186
187
187
187
188
189
190
191
191
193
194
194
194
198
198
203
116
117
118
Total population
Urban population
% Urban population
Millions
Millions
1901
1911
1921
1931
1941
1951
1961
1971
1981
1991
2001
238.4
252.1
251.3
279.0
318.7
361.1
439.2
548.2
683.3
846.3
1,028.7
0.56
0.03
1.05
1.34
1.26
1.98
2.24
2.23
2.16
1.96
25.9
25.9
28.1
33.5
44.2
62.4
78.9
109.1
159.5
217.6
286.1
0.04
0.80
1.77
2.81
3.52
2.37
3.29
3.87
3.16
2.75
10.8
10.3
11.2
12.0
13.9
17.3
18.0
19.9
23.3
25.7
27.8
2006
2011
2016
1,094.1
1,178.9
1,263.5
0.63
0.75
0.70
332.1
377.1
425.4
1.53
1.28
1.21
30.0
32.0
34.0
Data source: Census (1991) for 19011991; Census (2001b) for 2001; Census (2001c) for 20062016 projections (shown in italics).
119
Table 2
Distribution of urban population in Indian cities.
Year
1901
1951
1961
1971
1981
1991
2001
Class of city
I
100,000 plus
population (%)
II
50,00099,999
population (%)
III
20,00049,999
population (%)
IV
10,00019,999
population (%)
V
5,0009,999
population (%)
VI
Below 5,000
population (%)
Total (%)
26.0
44.6
51.4
57.3
60.6
65.3
68.3
11.3
10.0
11.2
10.9
11.6
10.9
9.6
15.6
15.7
16.9
16.0
14.3
13.2
12.4
20.8
13.6
12.8
10.9
9.5
7.8
6.9
20.1
13.0
6.9
4.5
3.6
2.6
2.6
6.1
3.1
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.3
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
120
121
122
3.2. History
Archaeological evidence suggests that the area
around Ahmedabad has been inhabited since the 11th
century, when it was known as Ashaval or Ashapalli. At
that time, Karandev I, the Solanki ruler of Anhilwara
(modern Patan, which is the capital city of Patan
District, is north of Ahmedabad District), waged a
successful war against the Bhil king of Ashaval and
established a city called Karnavati, located at the
present area of Maninagar, close to the Sabarmati river.
Solanki rule lasted until the 13th century, when Gujarat
came under the control of the Vaghela dynasty of
Dholka (in the southern part of Ahmedabad District)
and Karnavati was conquered by the Sultanate of Delhi.
In 1411, the rule of Sultan Ahmed Shah of the
Muzaffarid dynasty (which ruled Gujarat from 1391 to
1583) was established, which is how the city got its
current name (the word abad means founded or
populated). In 1487, Mahmud Begada, the grandson of
Ahmed Shah, fortified the city with an outer wall 10 km
(six miles) in circumference. The area enclosed within it
is what is now known as the walled city. The Muzaffarid
dynastys rule in Ahmedabad ended in 1573, when
Gujarat was conquered by the Mughal emperor Akbar.
During the Mughal reign, Ahmedabad became one of
the empires thriving centres of trade, mainly in textiles,
which were exported as far as Europe. Ahmedabad
remained the provincial headquarter of the Mughals
until 1758, when the Mughals surrendered the city to the
Marathas. The Marathas form an Indo-Aryan group of
Hindu warriors hailing mostly from the present-day
state of Maharashtra (south of Gujarat), who created the
expansive Maratha Empire, covering a major part of
India (north and central regions), in the late 17th and
18th centuries. During the Maratha governance, the city
lost some of its past glory and was at the centre of
contention between two Maratha clansthe Peshwa of
Poona (also written as Pune, a city in Maharashtra about
120 km south-east of Mumbai) and the Gaekwad of
Baroda (a city in Gujarat about 100 km south-east of
Ahmedabad). The British East India Company took
over the city in 1818 as part of the British conquest of
India. A military cantonment was established in 1824
and a municipal government in 1858.
Indias movement of independence (from British
rule) developed strong roots in Ahmedabad when
Mahatma Gandhi established two ashrams (the
Kochrab Ashram near Paldi and the Satyagraha
Ashram, now known as the Sabarmati Ashram) on
the banks of Sabarmati river during 19151917. Both
these Ashrams became centres of intense nationalist
123
124
125
126
127
128
(1)
4.3.1.2. Pattern of cropping for the isolated state. Based on the actual data collected by von Thunen for a
period of five years for Tellow town in Germany, and
using the principle developed above, he calculates the
distances of the different rings around the town that will
grow the various types of crops as discussed below.
The first ring from the town (or the market) will have
crops that are perishable in nature (i.e., those that cannot
survive long journeys). Examples are cauliflower,
strawberries, lettuce, etc. Milk will also be produced
in this ring. It should be noted that no land would ever lie
fallow in this ring. It is profitable to get manure from the
town for these crops. However, as distance from the town
increases, a point is reached when the transport costs of
fetching the manure from the town are more than the cost
of producing manure in the farm. This point marks the
end of the first ring and the beginning of the second.
129
Fig. 10. Agricultural land use pattern and effect of grain price.
130
are of the pure type (the one that imparts its total
weight into the product), the weight to be transported
from the place of production to the place of
consumption is one ton. Weber here uses an analogy
from mechanics, in that the weights to be transported
are treated as weights hanging down from the three
corners of the location figure (the actual mechanical
device used is known as a Varigons frame). These
weights represent the force with which the corner of the
location figures will pull (or attract) the location
towards them in order to minimise transport costs. Thus,
the point at which the weights stabilise mathematically
represents the location, P, where production will take
place.
Labour and agglomeration factors: Having had the
location fixed based on least transport cost, the second
factor, i.e., labour cost, is then introduced. In doing so,
the deviation caused by introducing this factor is
examined to ascertain their combined effect. Finally,
agglomerative factors are considered, to arrive at the
final deviation. Such a method allows an elegant and
simple analysis of the factors of location and how they
would work when acting together.
4.3.2.3. Comments. Webers theory helps us understand how transport costs influence the location of an
industry. Based on the location of raw material deposits
and the place of consumption of a finished product, the
optimum location of an industry can be easily found
such that the overall transport costs are minimal. This
orientation may be attracted to other places, either by
cheaper availability of labour or cheaper production
costs, due to agglomeration of industries.
In general, this theory explains how industries locate
and move to different regions (or even countries) with
changes in availability of raw material and labour and in
the nature of coexistence of industries. Although this
theory is specific to a particular type of land use (i.e.,
industries), it provides a useful theoretical construct for
131
out from the central place, while that for cinema would
cease at a very short distance.
The other two important factors that influence range
are size of the central place and the density of
population. The larger the central place, the greater
will be the range as compared to smaller central places.
This is because in a larger central place, the production
costs are relatively lower and a larger amount of sales
permits a lower unit cost. Higher population density
implies greater range, as again higher densities make
production cheaper.
The range of a good has its upper and lower limits.
The upper (or outer) limit denotes an area beyond which
there will be no buyer for that particular good from the
central place (i.e., it will be cheaper to buy a good from
some other neighbouring central place). In other words,
it is the maximum distance people are willing to travel
to purchase a good. The lower (or inner) limit denotes
an area need for a firm/individual selling a good to exist
in business and make normal profits. In other words, it
denotes a minimum radius of a market area needed to
generate sufficient demand to support the supply of a
good. In the literature produced by the followers of
Christaller, upper limit came to be known simply as
range and the lower limit as threshold (see Fig. 12).
4.3.3.2. The distribution of central places. Christaller
proposes three principles that could determine the
distribution of central places in a region, which are
discussed below.
The marketing principle: if the distribution is entirely
based on the range of the good, then it would result in
evenly spaced central places with hexagonal markets
areas (see Fig. 13(a)).
The traffic principle: if any of the cities distributed as
per the market principle are smaller in size than
expected, then this could be attributed to it not being on
a major transport route. Conversely, if a smaller city
were on a major transport route, then it would be bigger
in size than expected by the market principle. If
distribution were to adhere solely to the transport
principle, then central places would be lined up on a
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
Table 3
Four-way classification of land use and transport.
Land use
Transport
Function
Form
Activities
Flows
Buildings
Channels
139
140
141
142
activities deal with household transitions and employment growth or decline, location or relocation and
competition for space (the property market), and the
employment status of individuals. The location or
relocation model is the main locus of interactions, both
between activities and space and between land use and
transport. The influence of transport operates through
sets of accessibility measures and through environmental variables. Fig. 23 shows the main linkages
between the sub-models in DELTA model within a oneyear period.
DELTA consists of six urban and three regional submodels. The urban sub-models estimate:
1. The development of buildings on land.
2. Demographic change and economic growth (applying growth rates which are either exogenous or
predicted in the regional components of DELTA).
3. Changes in car ownership.
4. Location and relocation of households and jobs.
5. Employment and status changes.
6. Changes in the quality of urban areas.
The regional sub-models represent:
7. Migration between different labour market areas.
8. Investment in the regional economy (long-term
decisions affecting the future location of employment).
9. Production and trade in the regional economy
(shorter-term effects on employment and freight
transport).
4.4.6. A brief discussion on LUTI models
As seen in the preceding sections, LUTI models
allow the planning process to be carried out in a more
143
E
ij
j
m m
m
i Xi expb ci j
(1)
where Rm
i j is resident worker of SEG type m locating in
zone i with a job in zone j; Emj is employment in zone j
by SEG type m; cm
i j is the a composite measure of
generalised cost converted to Rs/day to avoid huge
magnitude of values. It is calculated as shown below:
m
m
cm
i j ri n i j f i j
144
riunit
u
Di
Si
(3)
It is acknowledged that in terms of safety and comfort, twowheelers and cars are perceived differently. However, these have been
amalgamated based on their common characteristics of being private
(i.e., available on demand). In addition, it should be noted that paratransit modes are rarely used for work trips on a regular basis and
hence have not been included in the model. However, for some work
trips within and between peripheral areas of Ahmedabad, a particular
type of para-transit mode called chakda does exist (see Fig. 46). In the
future, such special modes could be included in the model should
observed data on their usage become available.
(4)
(5)
Rm
i j ; and Ri j is from Eq:1
(6)
145
planning officials, which not only lends more transparency, usually not associated with planning projects
involving mathematical modelling (wherein specific
tasks are outsourced to private consulting firms), but
also implies less financial burden on local authorities for
outsourcing work.
The interrelationship between the four SIMPLAN
modules is shown schematically in Fig. 24, and the
overall structure of second and third modules, which
146
bad, year 2021 has been adopted as the horizon year for
the urban planning policy alternatives in this study.
An urban planning policy generally has two key
components: the urban form and transport. There can be
a variety of theoretical possibilities for these two
components themselves and how they can be combined,
as shown schematically in Fig. 29.
In this study, it was thought prudent to examine two
extreme urban planning policies: compaction and
dispersal. As Banister (2005) puts it, even making no
change needs to be placed in the same context (of other
potential choices), as this would have important
implications. Therefore, in addition, a trend policy is
also developed, which, by and large, represents
continuation of current trends both in terms of spatial
development and transport policies. However, committed projects like the Bus Rapid Transit System for
Ahmedabad (BRTS), the implementation of which
began in 2007, has been included in all future policies.
Thus, three alternative urban planning policies have
been developed, as described in Sections 6.36.5.
147
148
149
Table 4
Workers and population 2001 (modelled vs. observed) (thousands).
Zone
Resident workers
Obs
Mod
Households
Population
% Diff: mod
vs. obs
Obs
Mod
% Diff: mod
vs. obs
Obs
Mod
% Diff: mod
vs. obs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 a
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
111.3
59.3
41.3
117.8
62.3
162.6
66.3
180.9
55.2
105.0
109.2
6.0
3.5
16.3
26.1
15.2
14.9
87.0
86.2
38.0
135.9
111.3
59.3
41.3
117.8
62.3
162.7
66.3
180.9
55.2
105.0
109.2
6.0
3.5
16.3
26.0
15.2
14.9
87.0
86.2
38.0
135.7
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
69.5
38.0
26.5
77.5
37.7
110.6
38.7
105.7
46.8
65.5
75.7
2.9
2.1
11.1
17.7
9.1
9.4
57.5
60.0
27.8
96.1
73.1
39.0
27.1
77.4
40.9
107.0
43.6
118.9
36.3
69.0
71.8
3.9
2.3
10.7
17.1
10.0
9.8
57.2
56.6
25.0
89.1
5.2
2.6
2.5
0.1
8.6
3.3
12.6
12.5
22.5
5.5
5.1
36.1
6.3
3.7
3.5
9.7
4.4
0.5
5.6
10.0
7.3
372.6
178.5
127.4
369.5
205.2
585.6
194.1
557.5
226.8
345.3
357.7
14.7
10.6
54.7
84.3
44.4
48.2
270.6
290.4
136.8
467.3
366.5
195.4
136.0
388.2
205.2
536.4
218.7
595.9
181.9
346.0
359.6
19.8
11.4
53.7
85.8
50.1
49.0
286.6
283.9
125.3
446.6
1.6
9.5
6.8
5.1
0.0
8.4
12.6
6.9
19.8
0.2
0.6
34.3
7.5
1.8
1.8
13.0
1.8
5.9
2.2
8.4
4.4
Tot.
1500.1
1500.1
0.0
986.0
986.0
0.0
4941.9
4941.9
0.0
R2021
w2021
(7)
(8)
where d2021 is dwelling units in 2021 obtained by assuming one household consumes one dwelling and 2%
vacancy rate of dwellings; d2001 is dwelling units in 2001.
150
Table 5
Average trip distance (modelled vs. observed).
SEG
bm
Modelled
ATD (km)
SEG1
SEG2
SEG3
SEG4
0.200
0.235
0.300
0.510
8.69
7.53
5.74
5.12
All SEG
6.22
Observed
ATD (km) a
6.006.50
Fig. 28. Average zonal housing rents 2001 and 1996 land prices.
151
(9)
shown in Eq. (10). The floor space index (i.e. the ratio of
total built-up area to plot area) for each zone is kept the
same as base 2001, as this remains unchanged for trend
policy.
Ec RRv SC x PTQSI
di20212001 d 20212001 P i c i v i x
(10)
152
153
154
Table 6
Summary of land use and transport inputs.
S#
Input
Base 2001
Land use
L1 Employment (taken up
by workers resident in
modelled area, i.e.,
zones 121)
Proportion of
employment
by SEG
DS21
1,500,068
2,038,434
Per zone: calculated based on Eq. (9), see Appendix A for details
(different employment distribution per zone tested for sensitivity
analysis, see Section 9)
Modified to account for increases in SEG1 and SEG2, based on trend analysis
SEG1:
SEG2:
SEG3:
SEG4:
8.4%
22.5%
41.2%
27.9%
SEG1:
SEG2:
SEG3:
SEG4:
10.2%
25.3%
38.5%
26.0%
L3
Distribution of
employment by SEG
by zone
Assumed based
on local knowledge,
but adjusted to
match totals in L2
Unchanged
L4
W-city: 3.0
Inner: 1.8
Outer: 1.0
Gngr: 1.8
Same as base
W-city: 3.0
Inner: 2.5
Outer: 1.0
Gngr: 2.0
W-city: 3.0
Inner: 1.8
Outer: 2.0
Gngr: 1.8
L5
Land suitable
for residential
use (LSR)
Estimated based
on existing land
use map and
satellite images
L2
CC21
155
156
Table 6 (Continued )
S#
Input
Base 2001
L6
Dwelling
floorspace supply
45,684,830 m
(966,323 dwelling units).
Calculated based
on observed
households (Census, 2001a)
Per zone: see Appendix B
for details
CC21
DS21
Per zone: different for each zone calculated based on Eq. (10),
see Fig. 32 and Appendix B for details (Also, different dwellings
distribution per zone tested for sensitivity analysis)
Calculated from map (revising base year values after considering network changes)
T2
Average travel
speeds OD matrix
Harmonic mean
of zonal speeds
(see Appendix C, Tables C1C3).
T3
Average travel
time OD matrix
Calculated from
T1 and T2 above
T4
Out of pocket
expenses
PA: Rs 1.86/km
PA: Rs 2.13/km
Generalised cost
of travel
Calculate from
T3 and T4 using
value of time estimated in T6
T6
Proportion of trips
by PA, PT, SL for
calibration of modal split
P
Rij (i.e., m Rm
i j ) from the residential location model is fed in to the modal split model
to obtain person work trips by mode
Key: W-city: walled city (zone 1); inner: area within AMC 2001 boundary (i.e., zones 111); outer: area outside AMC 2001 boundary (i.e., zones 1221); Gngr: Gandhinagar city (zone 21); OD:
origindesignation pair (of zones); PA: private automobile (two-wheeler, car); PT: public transport (bus); SL: slow (bicycle, walk); and MNL: multinomial logit.
Transport
T1 Average (network)
distance OD matrix
157
158
and modal split. Expectedly, both the passengerkilometre and average trip distance and time are lowest
in compaction policy and highest in dispersal policy.
Although the average trip time (ATT) is highest in
dispersal policy, its percentage change with respect to
trend is much lower than average trip distance (ATD),
because of higher average travel speeds. The pattern
reverses in compaction policy, but not with a
corresponding decrease in ATT, due to lower speeds.
However, in case of public transport the proportionate
159
Table 7
Average housing rents by zones.
Zone
Base 2001
TR21
% Change: TR21
vs. base 2001
CC21
% Change: CC21
vs. TR21
DS21
% Change: DS21
vs. TR21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12a
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2,380
2,957
3,531
2,566
2,355
1,950
2,447
2,282
1,438
2,152
2,045
2,675
3,195
3,499
2,718
2,519
2,156
2,542
2,507
1,689
2,165
2,072
12.4
8.1
0.9
5.9
7.0
10.6
3.9
9.9
17.5
0.6
1.3
2,663
3,187
3,731
2,670
2,502
2,073
2,524
2,392
1,558
2,023
2,052
0.4
0.3
6.6
1.8
0.7
3.8
0.7
4.6
7.8
6.5
1.0
2,663
2,904
3,482
2,653
2,439
2,207
2,722
2,551
1,787
2,318
2,263
0.4
9.1
0.5
2.4
3.2
2.4
7.1
1.8
5.8
7.1
9.2
2,606
1,705
1,913
2,196
1,783
2,828
2,199
2,378
2,386
2,711
1,950
2,169
2,335
2,103
3,121
2,987
2,663
2,344
4.0
14.4
13.4
6.3
17.9
10.4
35.8
12.0
1.8
2,594
1,976
2,173
2,672
2,353
3,559
3,344
2,565
2,411
4.3
1.3
0.2
14.4
11.9
14.0
12.0
3.7
2.9
3,001
1,997
2,214
2,246
1,728
2,875
2,741
2,364
2,338
10.7
2.4
2.1
3.8
17.8
7.9
8.2
11.3
0.3
Avg.
2,313
2,520
8.9
2,538
0.7
2,508
0.5
Table 8
Housing rents and dwelling floorspace consumed by SEG.
Zone
Base 2001
TR21
% Change: TR21
vs. base 2001
CC21
% Change: CC21
vs. TR21
DS21
% Change: DS21
vs. TR21
4,188
2,929
2,359
1,776
2,538
5.8
1.2
0.8
1.4
0.7
3,726
2,903
2,401
1,803
2,508
5.9
0.3
1.0
0.1
0.5
75.0
58.5
48.5
36.8
50.7
2.5
0.8
0.7
1.9
0.0
79.0
58.7
47.6
36.3
50.7
2.6
0.3
1.0
0.4
0.0
160
Table 9
Households by income groups in sub-regions.
Sub-regions
Base 2001
Trend 2021
Compaction 2021
Dispersal 2021
290,784 (61%)
182,349 (39%)
473,133
323,032 (68%)
150,101 (32%)
473,133
220,813 (47%)
252,320 (53%)
473,133
648,728 (75%)
211,690 (25%)
860,418
679,725 (79%)
180,693 (21%)
860,418
570,235 (66%)
290,183 (34%)
860,418
Total
986,043
1,333,552
1,333,552
1,333,552
Table 10
Summary of key demographics.
Item
2001
2021
Employment
Resident workers
Households
Population
1,570,399
1,500,068
986,043
4,941,905
2,131,828
2,038,434
1,333,552
6,410,819
Table 11
Populationbase 2001 and alternative policies (thousands).
Base 2001
TR21
CC21
DS21
% Change
TR21 vs. base 2001
By sub-regions
Inner
3,520
Outer
1,422
Total
4,942
By zones
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Total
372.63
178.53
127.35
369.48
205.16
585.63
194.11
557.47
226.77
345.28
357.67
14.71
10.61
54.73
84.28
44.37
48.17
270.57
290.36
136.77
467.26
4,942
4,517
1,894
6,411
425.16
278.53
214.60
533.65
227.75
562.74
314.87
682.88
217.44
509.81
549.12
27.11
22.89
68.87
108.71
86.79
87.29
447.31
315.12
205.78
524.40
6,411
4,821
1,590
6,411
434.40
298.20
261.46
576.32
231.17
569.52
348.85
708.21
216.76
563.54
612.14
21.84
17.32
46.23
81.93
57.14
62.69
396.06
307.22
153.24
446.56
6,411
3,803
2,608
6,411
407.56
204.16
159.80
411.27
218.09
531.55
245.81
646.41
195.64
377.59
404.95
25.06
41.89
99.84
143.59
139.51
128.11
792.20
374.87
278.73
584.18
6,411
28
33
30
7
16
0
16
38
0
14
56
69
44
11
4
62
22
4
48
54
84
116
26
29
96
81
65
9
50
12
2
7
22
8
2
1
11
4
0
11
11
19
24
33
25
34
28
11
3
26
15
4
27
26
23
4
6
22
5
10
26
26
8
83
45
32
61
47
77
19
35
11
30
161
Table 12
Population densitiesbase 2001 and alternative policies (gross density in persons per hectare).
Sub-region
Base 2001
Trend 2021
Compaction 2021
Dispersal 2021
Inner zones
Outer zones
Overall
190
40
92
243
54
119
260
45
119
205
74
119
Table 13
Summary of transport outputs by SEG.
Item
Base 2001
Trend 2021
Compaction 2021
Dispersal 2021
208,381
514,838
784,663
530,552
2,038,434
208,381
514,838
784,663
530,552
2,038,434
208,381
514,838
784,663
530,552
2,038,434
1.59
3.48
4.08
2.60
11.75
26%
1.35
3.27
3.93
2.60
11.15
20%
5%
2.45
3.61
4.17
3.67
13.91
49%
18%
7.63
6.75
5.20
4.90
5.76
7%
6.46
6.36
5.00
4.89
5.47
12%
5%
11.77
7.01
5.32
6.93
6.82
10%
18%
49.40
45.54
37.78
37.30
40.81
5%
40.76
41.60
35.74
36.19
37.85
12%
7%
65.27
43.65
35.58
44.96
43.09
0%
6%
55.37
49.00
40.15
38.86
43.06
higher speeds. However, since a network-based congestion assignment model is beyond the scope of this study,
this effect is not modelled accurately, and is therefore a
limitation. However, any standard commercially available transport model with network modelling capability
could be used for this purpose.
The variations by sub-regions are also generally as
expected. For shorter commutes (i.e., inner to inner
zones) the share of private automobile and slow modes
has decreased for all alternative policies, compensated by
and attributable to a better public transport system than
base year. For the second category of shorter commutes
(i.e., outer to outer zones) the simulated existence of a
162
163
Table 14
Summary of transport outputs by mode.
Item
Base 2001
Trend 2021
Compaction 2021
Dispersal 2021
3.68
4.07
4.00
11.75
2.98
4.63
3.54
11.15
4.87
4.46
4.59
13.91
5.61
7.31
4.84
5.76
4.99
7.21
4.43
5.47
7.03
8.57
5.56
6.82
26.23
54.97
42.82
40.81
24.83
47.47
39.85
37.85
27.06
60.67
45.47
43.09
12.82
7.98
6.79
8.47
12.05
9.12
6.67
8.67
15.58
8.47
7.33
9.50
Table 15
Average work trip lengths by origindestination (km).
Policy
Living in
Job in
ALL
Inner
Outer
Base 2001
Inner
Outer
ALL
4.04
21.30
5.91
12.19
7.43
7.44
4.05
11.64
6.21
Trend 2021
Inner
Outer
ALL
4.49
19.10
5.51
14.24
6.48
6.54
4.52
8.72
5.76
Compaction 2021
Inner
Outer
ALL
4.77
17.75
5.03
16.70
6.32
6.83
4.96
7.01
5.47
Dispersal 2021
Inner
Outer
ALL
3.73
18.37
6.87
12.97
6.68
6.68
3.74
11.33
6.82
164
Table 16
Modal split aggregated by OD (work trips).
Item
Modal split
a
BS01 (%)
TR21 (%)
CC21 (%)
DS21 (%)
BS01
TR21
CC21
DS21
28.9
17.4
53.8
32.2
27.3
40.5
29.3
31.5
39.3
34.0
25.5
40.5
6.68
7.58
5.13
5.61
7.31
4.84
4.99
7.21
4.43
7.03
8.57
5.56
32.6
28.1
39.3
29.0
32.7
38.3
33.6
24.1
42.2
4.37
4.33
3.62
4.53
5.58
3.68
4.38
6.33
3.73
3.91
4.06
3.41
28.4
40.1
31.6
19.3
60.0
20.7
35.3
30.2
34.4
12.21
12.17
12.19
13.74
15.10
13.62
14.69
18.12
14.46
12.93
13.27
12.74
29.2
40.4
30.4
23.5
50.1
26.4
36.6
36.0
27.4
21.16
23.66
18.98
18.38
20.94
17.35
16.29
19.61
15.52
18.31
19.53
16.92
31.7
22.2
46.1
31.0
24.9
44.2
33.1
22.0
44.9
7.55
9.62
6.50
6.19
8.15
5.87
5.93
7.93
5.67
6.47
8.66
5.86
Overall
PA
PT
SL
Key: BS01: base 2001; PA: private automobile (two-wheeler, car); PT: public transport (bus); and SL: slow (bicycle, walk).
a
Base year values are from LBGC (2001).
trip distance and time is noticed. A plausible explanation that could be offered for this is that to compensate
for lower incomes, households locate a bit further
(implying cheaper housing rents) in order to satisfy their
total household budget, whilst deriving the same level
of satisfaction (or utility). The increase in work travel
costs are in line with the increase in average trip
distance and time. The change in modal split is
insignificant. Changes in the economic benefits for both
the scenarios are discussed in Section 9.4.
9. Assessment of alternative planning policies
Assessment, in the context of planning policies, is
the process in which various pro and cons of the
outcomes of alternative policies are estimated (quantitatively and/or qualitatively), in order to create a
comparative picture of the alternative policies. The term
assessment is usually used ex-ante, while evaluation
is preferred ex-post. The assessment process produces
distilled information that helps improve the decisionmaking process by providing decision makers with an
objective framework from which a desired policy could
be chosen for adoption, or combinations thereof can be
developed for further testing.
165
166
Table 17
Summary of inputs for 2021 policies.
Items
TR21
ED63-37
(%)
CC
D80-20
(%)
CC
D90-10
(%)
DS
D20-80
(%)
DS
D10-90
(%)
CC
ED92-08
(%)
DS
ED22-78
(%)
CC
D100-0
(%)
DS
D0-100
(%)
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
92
22
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
78
80
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
83
65
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
17
35
63
80
90
100
20
10
92
22
37
20
10
80
90
100
78
70
68
73
75
78
57
55
52
76
58
30
32
27
25
22
43
45
48
24
42
Totals: Employment 2001 = 1,500,068; 2021 = 2,038,434; dwellings 2001 = 966,323; 2021 = 1,301,806.
Increments: Employment 2021 = 538,366; dwellings 2021 = 335,483; Key: diff = different; emp = employment.
Employment increment:
inner zones
Employment increment:
outer zones
Employment total:
inner zones
Employment total:
outer zones
Dwelling increment:
inner zones
Dwelling increment:
outer zones
Dwelling total:
inner zones
Dwelling total:
outer zones
Base
2001 (%)
167
(11)
Zqe
pmax expbqdq pe qe
(12)
0
3
This may not be entirely true, as even at some unit price greater
than zero, producers would not be willing to supply housing if that
unit price is lower than unit production costs. However, this threshold
value (which is the intercept of the supply curve on the unit price axis)
will vary depending on the location, as the land cost is one of the
biggest components of unit price (while construction costs are usually
fairly uniform across the city). In addition, there could be changes in
the threshold value if zoning regulations vary by location. Therefore,
it would not be appropriate to have an average threshold for the study
area as a whole. In absence of any substantial information, based on
which such a threshold for each zone can be estimated, this rather
simplistic assumption has been made.
1
pq
2 e e
(13)
168
Table 18
Sensitivity analysisdwellings and employment variations.
Base 2001
TR21 ED63-37
CC D80-20
d
CC D90-10
e
CC D100-0
f
DS D20-80
g
DS D10-90
h
DS D0-100
i
CC ED92-08
j
DS ED22-78
k
Passenger-km [millions]
% Change vs. trend
ATL [km]
% Change vs. trend
ATL [min]
% Change vs. trend
Speed [km/h]
% Change vs. trend
Modal split: PA [%]
Modal split: PT [%]
Modal split: SL [%]
Rent [Rs/month]
% Change vs. trend
Transport cost [Rs/month]
% Change vs. trend
Cost of living [Rs/month]
% Change vs. trend
9.32
6.21
43.05
8.66
28.9%
17.4%
53.8%
2,313
2,749
5,061
11.75
5.76
40.81
8.47
32.2%
27.3%
40.5%
2,520
2,613
5,132
11.49
2.2%
5.64
2.2%
38.7
5.1%
8.73
3.1%
29.3%
31.5%
39.2%
2,531
0.5%
2,469
5.5%
5,000
2.6%
11.15
5.1%
5.47
5.1%
37.8
7.2%
8.67
2.3%
29.3%
31.5%
39.3%
2,538
0.7%
2,412
7.7%
4,950
3.5%
11.06
5.9%
5.42
5.9%
37.7
7.6%
8.64
1.9%
29.2%
31.8%
39.0%
2,544
1.0%
2,401
8.1%
4,945
3.6%
13.46
14.6%
6.60
14.6%
42.1
3.1%
9.42
11.1%
33.9%
25.4%
40.6%
2,512
0.3%
2,761
5.7%
5,273
2.7%
13.91
18.4%
6.82
18.4%
43.1
5.6%
9.50
12.1%
34.0%
25.5%
40.5%
2,508
0.5%
2,832
8.4%
5,339
4.0%
14.40
22.6%
7.07
22.6%
44.3
8.5%
9.58
13.1%
34.0%
25.7%
40.3%
2,502
0.7%
2,912
11.4%
5,414
5.5%
11.71
0.3%
5.75
0.3%
39.7
2.6%
8.68
2.4%
29.1%
32.3%
38.6%
2,522
0.1%
2,527
3.3%
5,049
1.6%
11.43
2.7%
5.61
2.7%
36.3
11.0%
9.27
9.4%
33.6%
24.3%
42.1%
2,525
0.2%
2,373
9.2%
4,899
4.5%
Note: Results for CC D90-10 and DS D10-90 are given for comparison; Key: diff: different; emp: employment.
Items
169
Table 19
Sensitivity analysisincome variation.
Items
% Change
TR21
TR21
77.0
58.9
48.1
36.2
11.75
5.76
40.81
8.47
32.2%
27.3%
40.5%
2,520
2,613
5,132
CC21
75.0
58.5
48.5
36.8
11.15
5.47
37.8
8.67
29.3%
31.5%
39.3%
2,538
2,412
4,950
DS21
79.0
58.7
47.6
36.3
13.91
6.82
43.1
9.50
34.0%
25.5%
40.5%
2,508
2,832
5,339
71.6
54.9
45.0
34.0
12.11
5.94
41.78
8.53
32.1%
27.6%
40.2%
2,361
2,676
5,037
CC21
69.9
54.5
45.4
34.5
11.42
5.60
38.5
8.72
29.2%
31.8%
39.0%
2,376
2,456
4,832
DS21
73.3
54.7
44.6
34.0
14.27
7.00
44.0
9.55
34.0%
25.7%
40.2%
2,349
2,894
5,244
TR21
CC21
DS21
7.0%
6.9%
6.4%
6.0%
3.1%
3.1%
2.4%
0.7%
0.1%
1.1%
0.7%
6.3%
2.4%
1.9%
6.9%
6.8%
6.4%
6.3%
2.5%
2.5%
1.8%
0.6%
0.2%
0.9%
0.6%
6.4%
1.8%
2.4%
7.2%
6.8%
6.3%
6.2%
2.6%
2.6%
2.1%
0.5%
0.1%
0.8%
0.6%
6.3%
2.2%
1.8%
Table 20
Summary of housing rent and work travel costs (Rs, 2001 prices).
Indicator
Base 2001
TR21
CC21
DS21
2,313
2,520
8.9%
2,538
9.7%
0.75%
2,508
8.4%
0.47%
[b] Monthly households transport cost for work trips (incl. time)
Total
2,749
% Change vs. base
2,613
4.9%
2,412
12.3%
7.7%
2,832
3.0%
8.4%
5,132
1.4%
4,950
2.2%
3.5%
5,339
5.5%
4.0%
XX
m
PSm
i
(15)
(16)
(17)
where DCSm
i is the change in housing rent consumer
surplus in zone i by SEG type m; q, p are demand (m2/
dwelling) and price (monthly unit rent in Rs/m2),
respectively (from Fig. 31); Him is the households in
zone i by SEG type m; T, A are sub-scripts indicating
170
Table 21
Change in housing rent consumer and producer surplus (million Rs/
month, 2001 prices).
Indicator
50.24
9.88
15.16
12.00
32.96
15.83
1.56
5.94
0.35
7.98
16.81
24.98
Total (welfare)
Base 2001
TR21
CC21
DS21
SEG1
Inner zones
Outer zones
ALL
3,993
3,564
3,800
3,989
3,924
3,958
4,030
4,435
4,188
4,097
3,639
3,726
SEG2
Inner zones
Outer zones
ALL
2,797
2,634
2,743
2,927
2,832
2,894
2,856
3,111
2,929
3,067
2,679
2,903
SEG3
Inner zones
Outer zones
ALL
2,235
2,162
2,214
2,393
2,336
2,377
2,311
2,518
2,359
2,474
2,241
2,401
SEG4
Inner zones
Outer zones
ALL
1,673
1,634
1,665
1,802
1,801
1,801
1,753
1,883
1,776
1,834
1,752
1,803
Overall
Inner zones
Outer zones
ALL
2,292
2,364
2,313
2,466
2,648
2,520
2,425
2,883
2,538
2,496
2,525
2,508
171
Table 23
Summary of consumer surplus in transport.
Indicator
TR21
CC21
DS21
3.68
4.07
4.00
11.75
2.98
4.63
3.54
11.15
4.87
4.46
4.59
13.91
[p] Generalised cost per trip including timea (Rs/km) (2001 prices)
Private auto
5.60
Public transport
6.24
Slow
6.65
ALL
6.18
5.82
5.56
6.77
6.01
4.98
5.87
6.16
5.65
Change in transport consumer surplus (million Rs one-way per day, 2001 prices)
Private auto
Public transport
Slow
0.74
2.98
0.44
2.63
1.60
2.09
1.80
6.32
Total
a
Value of time (VOT) is from the MSM. This is different from the VOT in RLM, which is by SEG. As a sensitivity test, using the weighted average
VOT from RLM, the change in transport consumer surplus (vs. trend) for compaction and dispersal works out to be 1.59 and 4.29, compared to 1.80
and 6.32, respectively. Although the magnitudes are different, as expected, the direction of change is the same.
172
Fig. 39. Housing consumer and producer surplus by SEG and sub-region.
then given as
k DCS
1
DCSk qkT qkA pkT pkT
2
(19)
173
Table 24
Estimates of transport costs (million Rs, 2001 prices).
Item
BRTS costs
Capital cost (basic) [2006]
Capital cost (basic) [2001]
Cost increase factor
Capital cost (modified) [a]
O and M cost (@5%) [b]
Total cost [a +b]
Total additional BRTS cost (vs. trend) [I]
Road costs
Length in 2001 (km)
Average width in 2001 (m)
Road area in 2001 (m2)
Capacity increase factor
Road capacity enhancement per annum
(values in brackets are for 20012021)
New road area required 20012021 (m2)
Capital cost of new roads (@Rs 781.75/m2)b [c]
O and M cost (@5%) [d]
Total cost [c + d]
Total additional road costs (vs. trend) [II]
Total additional transport costs (vs. trend) [I + II]
a
b
TR21
CC21
9,901.49
7,758.08
1.00
7,758.08
387.90
8,145.98
1.86a
14,446.47
722.32
15,168.80
7,022.81
3,111
25.00
77,770,000
1.00
0.26% (5.36%)
4,171,819
3,261.32
163.07
3,424.38
3,424.38
0.00
0.00% (0.00%)
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,598.43
3,598.43
DS21
1.00
7,758.08
387.90
8,145.98
0.00
2.00
0.52% (11.00%)
8,555,672
6,688.39
334.42
7,022.81
3,598.43
Estimated to achieve the same difference in total costs vs. trend as dispersal.
Rs 1110/m2 in 2008 prices discounted to 2001 prices @5%.
174
Table 25
Annual estimates of benefits and costs vs. trend (million Rs, 2001 prices).
Item
Annual benefits
Change in housing rent consumer surplus
Change in housing rent producer surplus
Change in transport consumer surplus
Total
Annual costs
BTRS additional cost (values in brackets are total costs)
New roads and capacity augmentation additional cost
(values in brackets are total costs)
Total
Net benefit (benefitscosts)
a
b
Compaction
2021
Dispersal
2021
563.53 (7,022.81)
274.78 (3,424.38)
0.00 (0.00)
288.75 (3,598.43)
288.75
288.65
547.04
3,649.91
Monthly values are rounded so it will not give exact annual values.
Two work trips per day 24 working days in a month = 48 trips in a month.
175
Table 26
Estimate of land required for new dwellings (annual estimates in ha).
Sub-region
Trend 2021
Compaction 2021
Dispersal 2021
Inner zones
Outer zones
Total
195
188
384
245
39
285
31
388
419
26
Table 27
Estimate of CO2 emissions for private automobiles (annual estimates, except mentioned otherwise).
Item
Passenger-km
Units
10
Base 2001
TR21
CC21
DS21
2104.61
2117.47
1714.82
2803.96
1940.09
1670.05
270.04
1922.96
1529.54
393.42
1557.30
1238.69
318.61
2546.39
2025.42
520.97
133,604
43,206
176,810
124.23
122,363
62,948
185,311
100.37
Vehicle-km
Of which, two-wheeler (2W)
Of which, car
10
106
106
2W CO2
Car CO2
Total CO2
Daily CO2 per capita
Difference with trend 2021
ton
ton
ton
g
ton (%)
99,095
50,978
150,073
81.28
35,238 (19%)
162,034
83,356
245,389
132.91
60,078 (32%)
176
Table 28
Distribution of each SEG by sub-region.
SEG1 (%)
SEG2 (%)
SEG3 (%)
SEG4 (%)
Base 2001
Walled city (zone 1)
Inner West (zones 24)
Inner East (zones 511)
Outer East (zones 1216)
Outer West (zones 1720)
Gandhinagar city (zone 21)
3
27
25
2
25
18
7
20
40
4
15
14
8
13
51
5
15
8
8
10
62
6
12
3
Trend 2021
Walled city (zone 1)
Inner West (zones 24)
Inner East (zones 511)
Outer East (zones 1216)
Outer West (zones 1720)
Gandhinagar city (zone 21)
2
25
26
3
32
13
5
20
40
4
17
14
9
13
51
6
14
7
6
13
60
5
13
3
Compaction 2021
Walled city (zone 1)
Inner West (zones 24)
Inner East (zones 511)
Outer East (zones 1216)
Outer West (zones 1720)
Gandhinagar city (zone 21)
4
30
27
3
26
10
7
23
42
3
15
11
9
14
54
4
13
6
4
14
64
4
11
3
Dispersal 2021
Walled city (zone 1)
Inner West (zones 24)
Inner East (zones 511)
Outer East (zones 1216)
Outer West (zones 1720)
Gandhinagar city (zone 21)
0
9
10
2
60
19
5
19
34
6
21
15
10
11
47
7
18
7
5
8
51
10
24
3
Notes: (1) Columns total 100%. (2) Grey cells in trend denote values higher than base 2001, while in compaction and dispersal they indicate values
higher than trend policy. (3) Based on trend projections, the overall proportions in 2021 of SEG1 and SEG2 have increased and those of SEG3 and
SEG4 have decreased.
177
Table 29
Proportion of SEGs in each sub-region.
Sub-region
SEG2 (%)
SEG3 (%)
SEG4 (%)
4
2
6
0
21
20
25
20
47
53
53
61
28
25
16
19
15
16
17
8
30
32
32
39
36
32
30
36
19
21
21
17
4
5
5
2
18
21
21
21
43
41
41
44
35
33
33
32
4
7
8
3
18
21
20
20
42
44
41
39
36
29
31
38
14
20
19
25
23
26
26
22
41
33
36
28
22
21
20
25
17
16
15
21
36
42
41
42
38
34
35
29
10
8
9
8
SEG1 (%)
Notes: (1) Rows total 100%. (2) Based on trend projections, the overall proportions in 2021 of SEG1 and SEG2 have increased and those of SEG3
and SEG4 have decreased.
178
179
Table 30
Gini coefficients of mix of socioeconomic groups.
Zone
Zone name
TR21
CC21
DS21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Walled city
Vasna-Paldi
Navrangpura-Gandhigram
Naranpura-Vadaj-Sabarmati
Dudheshwar-Madhupura-Girdharnagar
Saraspur-Asarwa
Naroda-Sardarnagar
Bapunagar-Rakhial-KokhraMehmdabad
Nikol-Odhav
Maninagar-Kankaria
Vatva-Badodara
Cantonment
Bhat-Chiloda-Nabhoi
Kathwada-Muthiya
Singarva-Vastral-Ramol
Aslali-Lambha-Piplaj
Sharkej-Gyaspur-Okaf
Thaltej-Vastrapur-Vejalpur-Makarba-Ambli-Shilaj
Sola-Gota-Chandlodia-Ghatlodia-Ranip
Adalaj-Chandkheda-Kali-Motera-Zundal-Khoraj
Gandhinagar City
0.11
0.23
0.06
0.11
0.15
0.08
0.04
0.19
0.11
0.31
0.09
0.06
0.13
0.07
0.07
0.10
0.33
0.18
0.25
0.06
0.28
0.02
0.25
0.16
0.09
0.12
0.09
0.01
0.18
0.13
0.39
0.12
0.21
0.28
0.03
0.07
0.09
0.30
0.17
0.27
0.07
0.25
0.09
0.14
0.34
0.03
0.20
0.10
0.09
0.18
0.13
0.22
0.08
0.02
0.08
0.21
0.12
0.33
0.68
0.20
0.34
0.04
0.33
3.02
3.30
3.95
1.48
1.54
1.57
1.73
1.60
2.34
Note: [1] Value as nearer to zero indicate SEG mix in a zone is closer to SEG mix of the study area.
(20)
i yi
m
where Gi is the Gini coefficient for zone i; x is the
cumulative proportion of SEG type m in the study area;
ym
i is the cumulative proportion of SEG type m in zone i.
In Eq. (20), the absolute value is taken into account,
as by definition the Gini coefficient ranges from zero
to one, with zero denoting total equality of distribution
(i.e., in this case the SEG mix in a zone is identical to
the study area) and one denoting total inequality of
distribution (i.e., in this case the SEG mix in a zone is
in stark contrast to the study area). Table 30 shows the
value for each of the alternative policies by zone. In
this case, the problem with Gini coefficients is that
these are given for each of the zones. Although each
zone can be compared across alternatives, this does
not give an overall effect of the distribution of
households by SEG, as can be seen for the shaded cells
in Table 30. Therefore, as the second step, to obtain an
overall picture, it proposed to sum the Gini coefficients for the study area (and also by inner and outer
180
Table 31
Distribution of change in consumer surplus in housing rent (million Rs/month, 2001 prices, vs. trend 2021).
SEG
% of households a
Compaction 2021
Dispersal 2021
SEG1
SEG2
SEG3
SEG3
10.2
25.3
38.5
26.0
38.01
16.30
12.12
12.81
50.24
9.88
15.16
12.00
ALL
100.0
29.38
32.96
181
182
j
jE j
The overall accessibility calculated using Eq. (24),
represented as index values (with trend as 100), is
presented in Table 32. It can be seen that, overall,
compaction policy offers higher accessibility, and
expectedly, it is higher in inner zones and lower in
outer zones, with vice versa for dispersal policy.
Fig. 42 gives accessibility calculated by Eqs. (22)
and (23), for each of the zones, converted to index
values. It can be seen that, as compared to trend,
Table 32
Accessibility indexes (index numbers).
Sub-region
Trend 2021
Compaction 2021
Dispersal 2021
Inner zones
Outer zones
Overall
100
100
100
121
97
117
95
155
104
183
Table 33
Public transport quality score.
Item
Base 2001
TR21
CC21
DS21
Average PTQS
Percentage change (TR vs. BS and Alts vs. TR) (%)
2.70
3.72
38
4.79
29
3.57
4
184
Table 34
Assessment indicators from sensitivity analysis (part 1). Dwellings and employment variations.
Items
TR21 ED63-37
CC D80-20
d
DS D20-80
g
DS D10-90
h
DS D0-100
i
CC ED92-08
j
DS ED22-78
k
CC D90-10
e
CC D100-0
f
1.220
0.093
1.335
0.208
0.353
0.151
1.038
0.836
0.769
0.196
0.863
0.290
0.526
0.058
3.259
3.728
0.396
0.096
3.639
3.939
0.125
0.137
3.997
3.986
0.320
0.023
1.053
1.396
0.587
0.047
2.576
3.210
0.564
0.275
0.289
0.081
0.564
0.275
0.289
0.547
0.564
0.275
0.289
0.002
0.000
0.289
0.289
3.439
0.000
0.289
0.289
3.650
0.000
0.289
0.289
3.697
0.564
0.275
0.289
1.108
0.564
0.289
0.852
2.358
384
300
285
275
425
419
415
284
418
185
22
154
17
26
150
19
28
148
20
11
237
28
9
245
32
8
254
37
26
154
17
9
197
6
Social indicators
Social
P equity
squared deviations
53
78
122
47
100
196
35
1.48
1.54
3.02
1.53
1.57
3.10
1.57
1.73
3.30
1.63
1.92
3.56
1.58
2.28
3.86
1.60
2.34
3.95
1.61
2.39
4.00
1.72
1.53
3.24
1.36
1.96
3.32
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.72
118.2
102.5
115.9
4.77
120.6
97.4
117.3
4.79
121.9
91.6
117.5
4.80
97.7
147.2
104.9
3.59
95.2
155.1
103.9
3.57
92.3
163.1
102.5
3.54
135.2
69.4
125.6
4.82
81.7
204.6
99.5
3.57
Note: Results for CC D90-10 and DS D10-90 are given for comparison.
Economic indicators
Benefits (vs. trend) [billion Rs/year]
DCS in housing rent
DPS in housing rent
DCS in transport
Benefits total (A)
Table 35
Assessment indicators from sensitivity analysis (part 2). Income variation.
Items
CC21
DS21
% Change
TR21
CC21
DS21
CC21
DS21
0.353
0.151
1.038
0.836
Environmental indicators
Residential land for new development (ha/year)
Annual Co2 emission (thousand tons)
185
150
Social indicators
Social equity
P
squared deviations
0.396
0.096
3.639
3.939
0.365
0.128
1.023
0.786
0.474
0.088
3.617
4.002
3%
15%
1%
6%
20%
8%
1%
2%
2%
3%
78
100
59
73
24%
27%
1.48
1.54
3.02
1.57
1.73
3.30
1.60
2.34
3.95
1.53
1.71
3.24
1.60
1.84
3.44
1.63
2.39
4.02
2.9%
11.2%
7.2%
2.1%
6.3%
4.3%
1.9%
2.0%
2.0%
Accessibility indexes
Inner zones
Outer zones
Overall
100.0
100.0
100.0
120.6
97.4
117.3
95.2
155.1
103.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
121.2
96.9
117.6
94.8
155.6
103.8
0.5%
0.6%
0.3%
0.4%
0.3%
0.1%
3.72
4.79
3.57
3.71
4.78
3.56
0.1%
0.2%
TR21
a
185
186
187
188
5.
6.
7.
8.
189
190
Table 36
SIMPLAN simplifications limitations, and possible solutions.
S. No.
Simplification
Possible solutions
comparison. However, for comparing alternative policies for the same city, this limitation is not particularly
significant. As and when more observed data are
collected to calibrate the model, the addition of nonwork travel can be carried out incrementally without
major structural changes to the model, given its
spreadsheet-based structure.
The third simplification is lack of calibration of the
modal split model without SEG disaggregation.
However, this is simply an issue related to lack of
availability of observed data by SEG. This limitation
implies that the estimates of consumer surplus in
transport are indicative. However, it is fairly easy to
recalibrate the modal split model if such data is
available.
The fourth simplification is ignoring the assignment
of trips onto actual transport network. Again this
simplification is sought on the grounds that, for
academic study, it was thought impractical (both in
terms of funding and time constraints) to build a
transport network of Ahmedabad. This limitation
implies that network congestion cannot be modelled
and hence cannot be fed back into the residential
location model. In addition, localised estimates of CO2
emissions cannot be made. This limitation can be easily
overcome (if adequate funds are available with the local
authority) by dovetailing SIMPLAN with commercially
available transport model with network assignment
capability (which includes the highly resource-consuming task of building the transport network, say in a
GIS environment).
The fifth simplification is that employment inputs are
only by SEG, without sub-categorisation by industry
sector (e.g., primary, secondary and tertiary), due to a
lack of economic census data. This limitation implies
that economic vitality (usually measured by the mix of
jobs by sector) and its social implications cannot be
estimated. However, if an economic census (or even a
sample survey on a regular basis) is carried out by the
local authority, then employment inputs by SEG and
sector (creating a two-way matrix) could be easily
introduced into the model with minor structural
changes. The above discussion is summarised in
Table 36.
11. Conclusions
11.1. On alternative urban forms
At this point, an understanding of the merits and
demerits of alternative urban forms, as reported by
academics and professionals, would provide a useful
191
192
193
194
3.
4.
5.
6.
interaction tradition (e.g., Lowry, etc.) and microeconomic theory of demandsupply (e.g., MEPLAN,
etc.) to developing countries with data availability
constraints.
Applying the classical theories of spatial organisation to Ahmedabad, it was seen that Ahmedabad does
not conform to the concentric zone theory, but does
exhibit the formation of wedges of sectors along
transport routes, as suggested by sector theory. The
formation of multiple centres is also evident in
Ahmedabad, as suggested by the multiple-nuclei
theory.
Though Ahmedabad is relatively more compact
compared to some other cities of the developed
world, analysis of the past 30-year data indicates that
the city has a tendency towards dispersal. In addition,
a reduction in population density in central areas and
an increase in peripheral areas is observed for
Ahmedabad. These trends are likely to continue for
some time in the future.
Analytical models of location and land use were
applied to Ahmedabad. In that, it was shown that the
monocentric bid-rent theory was not applicable
directly to Ahmedabad, owing to its polycentric
character (see Fig. 15). However, the distribution of
settlements in the Ahmedabad sub-region did show
some sort of formation, as suggested by the central
place theory.
In the context of Ahmedabad, dispersing the city in
terms of dwellings is more beneficial economically,
and the more extreme the dispersal policy, the
better it is. If compaction needs to be pursued, then it
appears to perform better when both dwellings and
jobs are considered. In terms of consumption of land
for new development, obviously, by definition
compaction policy consumes least land. In addition,
CO2 emissions are least in compaction, because of
shorter average trip distances (but bearing in mind
that road congestion is not modelled). With regard to
the mix of households by income group, trend policy
is optimum, followed by compaction and then
dispersal (with milder versions of both performing
relatively better). In terms of social equity, it appears
that compaction and dispersal policies perform
relatively better if both dwellings and employment
are altered. Fig. 45 provides a snapshot summary of
key assessment indicators.
195
196
197
198
Table A1
Employment inputs2001 and 2021.
Zone Zone name
PTQS
Base
2001
Trend
Compaction and dispersal
Trend 2021
(LBGC, 2001) policy 2021 policies (with same employment)
not useda
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Walled city
Vasna-Paldi
Navrangpura-Gandhigram
Naranpura-Vadaj-Sabarmati
Dudheshwar-MadhupuraGirdharnagar
Saraspur-Asarwa
Naroda-Sardarnagar
Bapunagar-RakhialKokhraMehmdabad
Nikol-Odhav
Maninagar-Kankaria
Vatva-Badodara
Cantonment
Bhat-Chiloda-Nabhoi
Kathwada-Muthiya
Singarva-Vastral-Ramol
Aslali-Lambha-Piplaj
Sharkej-Gyaspur-Okaf
Thaltej-Vastrapur-VejalpurMakarba-Ambli-Shilaj
Sola-Gota-ChandlodiaGhatlodia-Ranip
Adalaj-ChandkhedaKali-MoteraZundal-Khoraj
Gandhinagar City
Dispersal
with
different
employment
DS 22-78
4
4
3
3
2
5
5
4
4
3
6
6
5
5
4
211,805
49,169
129,851
92,779
75,891
272,829
52,344
133,660
98,684
79,592
296,477
65,109
162,515
117,185
90,806
296,477
65,109
162,515
117,185
90,806
313,478
72,842
181,924
129,841
100,225
236,965
54,900
141,871
101,556
81,339
2
4
3
3
5
4
4
6
5
124,326
66,315
209,700
131,074
71,861
219,251
149,112
88,202
263,422
149,112
88,202
263,422
164,342
98,304
293,910
133,374
74,310
229,883
4
4
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
2
5
5
3
3
2
2
2
3
4
3
6
6
4
4
3
3
3
4
5
4
46,597
93,205
100,730
13,862
7,532
6,480
13,894
10,523
15,086
78,538
49,495
97,321
108,845
15,794
16,471
16,008
35,649
26,136
42,224
182,128
61,631
122,680
121,743
15,774
11,562
10,588
23,165
17,876
28,195
129,192
61,631
122,680
121,743
15,774
11,562
10,588
23,165
17,876
28,195
129,192
69,079
137,890
133,162
15,775
8,380
7,209
15,457
12,097
17,904
90,270
52,218
104,234
108,070
15,298
15,160
13,042
27,963
26,687
46,157
198,543
57,702
165,071
106,304
106,304
66,874
147,086
26,534
75,550
46,849
46,849
29,518
53,401
69,548
148,444
110,047
110,047
79,954
176,378
1,500,068 2,038,434
2,038,434
2,038,434 2,038,434
2,038,434
Total
1
2
3
4
5
CC
CC
CC
DS
DS
DS
80-20 90-10 100-0 20-80 10-90 0-100
Compaction
with
different
employment
CC 92-08
200
Table B1
Dwelling inputs2001 and 2021.
Zone
Zone name
Base (total
dwellings)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Total
Walled city
Vasna-Paldi
Navrangpura-Gandhigram
Naranpura-Vadaj-Sabarmati
Dudheshwar-MadhupuraGirdharnagar
Saraspur-Asarwa
Naroda-Sardarnagar
Bapunagar-RakhialKokhraMehmdabad
Nikol-Odhav
Maninagar-Kankaria
Vatva-Badodara
Cantonment
Bhat-Chiloda-Nabhoi
Kathwada-Muthiya
Singarva-Vastral-Ramol
Aslali-Lambha-Piplaj
Sharkej-Gyaspur-Okaf
Thaltej-Vastrapur-VejalpurMakarba-Ambli-Shilaj
Sola-Gota-ChandlodiaGhatlodia-Ranip
Adalaj-ChandkhedaKali-Motera-Zundal-Khoraj
Gandhinagar City
Dispersal variations
(with same employment)
CC80-20
CC90-10
CC100-0
DS20-80
DS10-90
DS0-100
Compaction with
different
employment
CC92-08
Dispersal with
different
employment
DS22-78
68,140
37,262
25,947
75,977
36,944
3,192
18,205
7,979
32,876
3,482
10,871
20,773
14,755
38,261
4,770
15,288
22,250
18,653
41,359
5,511
10,000
24,211
23,828
45,471
6,495
1,000
3,042
9,698
7,503
1,846
1,000
1,498
4,777
3,696
909
0
0
0
0
0
10,000
22,889
20,347
42,616
5,803
2,000
3,486
5,000
8,823
2,243
108,414
37,962
103,567
12,809
22,162
11,682
15,889
27,507
18,898
17,662
30,581
23,049
20,014
34,662
28,559
3,828
5,674
7,112
1,885
2,795
3,503
0
0
0
18,351
31,885
24,824
4,646
6,486
8,421
45,909
64,149
74,139
2,840
2,096
10,909
17,379
8,943
9,188
56,314
8,585
27,559
64,715
1,085
1,567
5,314
6,301
8,726
6,835
33,004
9,592
33,979
77,151
100
746
605
1,180
2,328
3,297
20,108
10,172
37,673
84,305
100
365
292
584
1,161
1,646
10,048
10,941
42,576
93,801
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
962
6,709
20,738
1,000
5,000
10,000
12,000
15,000
12,000
111,579
474
3,305
10,214
1,000
5,000
10,000
12,000
15,000
12,000
126,209
0
0
0
1,000
5,000
10,000
12,000
15,000
12,000
140,839
10,428
39,339
86,920
78
308
235
449
898
1,193
7,996
1,106
7,734
24,977
1,000
5,000
10,000
12,000
15,000
12,000
113,939
58,833
9,128
3,185
1,590
25,464
31,124
36,783
1,140
22,434
27,221
15,954
5,083
2,539
27,689
33,485
39,280
1,825
17,863
94,187
39,398
31,481
15,732
52,714
60,685
68,656
13,033
56,399
966,323
340,558
340,558
340,558
340,558
340,558
340,558
340,558
340,558
340,558
1
2
3
4
5
201
Table C1
Private automobile (PA) speeds (base values in km/h and alternative policies in % change over base).
Zone
Zone name
Base 2001a
TR21 (%)
CC21 (%)
DS21 (%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Walled city
Vasna-Paldi
Navrangpura-Gandhigram
Naranpura-Vadaj-Sabarmati
Dudheshwar-Madhupura-Girdharnagar
Saraspur-Asarwa
Naroda-Sardarnagar
Bapunagar-Rakhial-KokhraMehmdabad
Nikol-Odhav
Maninagar-Kankaria
Vatva-Badodara
Cantonment
Bhat-Chiloda-Nabhoi
Kathwada-Muthiya
Singarva-Vastral-Ramol
Aslali-Lambha-Piplaj
Sharkej-Gyaspur-Okaf
Thaltej-Vastrapur-Vejalpur-Makarba-Ambli-Shilaj
Sola-Gota-Chandlodia-Ghatlodia-Ranip
Adalaj-Chandkheda-Kali-Motera-Zundal-Khoraj
Gandhinagar City
10.0
15.5
15.5
15.5
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
15.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
20.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
15.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
0.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
10.0
202
Table C2
Public transport speeds.
Base year 2001
Code
Base
Code
TR21 (%)
CC21 (%)
DS21 (%)
1 = Good PT
2 = Moderate PT
3 = Poor PT
85% of PA
80% of PA
75% of PA
1 = Exclusive BRTS
2 = Normal BRTS
3 = Ordinary bus
20
10
5
50
35
15
20
10
5
Notes: [1] Each zone is assigned a code and accordingly the speeds are calculated. [2] For year 2021, percentage change over base is applied as
shown.
Table C3
Slow mode speeds (bicycling and walking).
Base year 2001
Code
Base
Code
TR21 (%)
CC21 (%)
DS21 (%)
1 = Walled city
2 = AMC
3 = AUC-AMC
85% of PA
60% of PA
50% of PA
1 = Walled city
2 = AMC
3 = AUC-AMC
10.0
5.0
2.5
7.5
2.5
0.0
5.0
2.5
5.0
Notes: [1] Each zone is assigned a code and accordingly the speeds ares calculated. [2] For year 2021, percentage change over base is applied as
shown.
Table C4
Vehicle operating and maintenance costs calculations and assumptions.
Item
Unit
2W
Car
Bicycle
Life
Average km driven in
vehicle life
Capital cost
Salvage value a
[a] Capital cost/km
Maintenance
and repairs
[b] Unit maintenance
cost
Mileage
Fuel cost
[c] Unit fuel cost
Final unit cost
[a + b + c]
% Share
Average unit cost
(weighted)
Average unit cost
(2001 prices)
years
km
7
60,000
12
100,000
5
10,000
Rs
Rs
Rs/km
Rs/year
20,000
7,519
0.21
500
275,000
51,399
2.24
1,000
600
298
0.03
100
Rs/km
0.06
0.12
0.05
km/l
Rs/l
Rs/km
Rs/km
30
31
1.02
1.29
10
31
3.06
5.42
0
0
0
0.08
Rs/km
86
1.86
14
0.08
Rs/km
1.86
0.08
2001
% Increase assumed
Period
2W
Car
Bicycle
10
10
20 years
20 years
8
66,000
13
110,000
6
11,000
6
6
pa
pa
pa
64,143
24,114
0.61
1,604
881,962
164,845
6.52
3,207
1,924
957
0.09
321
0.19
0.38
0.16
35
98
2.84
3.64
15
98
6.54
13.45
0
0
0
0.25
80
0.25
20
5.64
2.13
0.09
15
6
20 years
pa
2021
203
Table C5
Public transport (bus) fares (2001 prices).
Distance (km)
Fare (Rs)
Distance (km)
Fare (Rs)
Distance (km)
Fare (Rs)
Distance (km)
Fare (Rs)
02
24
46
68
810
1
3
4
5
6
1012
1214
1416
1618
1820
7
7
8
8
9
2022
2224
2426
2628
2830
9
10
10
11
11
3032
3234
3436
3638
3840
11
12
12
12
13
P r2
(A2)
i
i
i
i
i i i
where Pi is the population of the ith zone; Ai is the area
of the ith zone; ri is the population density of the ith
zone (i.e., Pi =Ai ); ri is the straight-line distance of
centroid of the ith zone from the centroid of the
CBD (or centroid of the study area).
By definition, if H is increasing over time, then it can
be concluded that the city is dispersing and vice versa.
Further to this, a relative concentration measure Hrel is
introduced to assess how outer areas are changing in
relation toPcentral areas. Hrel is calculated by using
Pi =1=n i Pi instead of Pi in Eq. (A2). Thus, if Hrel
is increasing over time, it indicates that the outer urban
ring is growing faster in relative terms than the urban
(or H rel ) can be calculated as the
centre. Lastly, H
percentage difference between H (or Hrel) for the year
204
Cambridge Futures. (1999). Cambridge futures. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Carter, H. (1995). The study of urban geography (4th ed.). London,
UK: Arnold.
Census (of India). (1991). General population tables, part II-A(i).
New Delhi, India: Office of the Registrar General and Census
Commissioner.
Census (of India) (2001a). Primary census abstract for Gujarat,
Daman & Diu, and Dadra & Nagar Haveli: Census of India
2001 (CD-ROM). New Delhi, India: Office of the Registrar
General and Census Commissioner.
Census (of India) (2001b). Table 1, Series A. New Delhi, India: Office
of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner.
Census (of India) (2001c). Table 30. New Delhi, India: Office of the
Registrar General and Census Commissioner.
CEPT (Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology University) (2006). Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS), Ahmedabad (Final
Report). Retrieved from http://www.egovamc.com/BRTS/
BRTS.ASP. Accessed 9 December 2009.
Chadwick, G. (1971). A systems view of planning: Towards a theory of
the urban and regional planning process. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Chapin, F. S., Jr. (1965). Urban land use planning (2nd ed.). Urbana,
IL: University of Illinois Press.
Chatterjee, L. (1983). Urban and regional policy issues in developing
countries: An introduction. In L. Chatterjee & P. Nijkamp (Eds.),
Urban and regional policy analysis in developing countries.
Aldershot, UK: Gower.
Chatterjee, L., & Nijkamp, P. (1983). Urban and regional policy
design in developing countries. In L. Chatterjee & P. Nijkamp
(Eds.), Urban and regional policy analysis in developing countries. Aldershot, UK: Gower.
Christaller, W. (1933). Die Zentralen Orte in Suddeutschland, Jena.
English translation by C. W. Baskin (1966). Central places in
Southern Germany. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Clark, C. (1951). Urban population densities. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society, 114, 490496.
Cohen, M. A. (1976). Cities in developing countries: 19752000. In P.
K. Ghosh (Ed.), (1984). Urban development in the Third World.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
de la Barra, T. (1989). Integrated land use and transport modelling:
Decision chain and hierarchies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
DfT (2003). The wider economic impacts sub-objective. Transport
analysis guidance unit 3.5.8. London, UK: Department for Transport. Retrieved from http://www.webtag.org.uk/webdocuments/
3_Expert/5_Economy_Objective/3.5.8.pdf. Accessed 9 December
2009.
DfT (2004). Measuring accessibility for the appraisal of wider
economic benefits. Transport analysis guidance unit 3.5.11. London, UK: Department for Transport. Retrieved from http://
www.webtag.org.uk/webdocuments/3_Expert/5_Economy_Objective/3.5.11.pdf. Accessed 9 December 2009.
DfT. (2005). Land-use/transport interaction models. Transport analysis guidance unit 3.1.3. London, UK: Department for Transport.
Retrieved
from
http://www.webtag.org.uk/webdocuments/
3_Expert/1_Modelling/3.1.3.htm. Accessed 9 December 2009.
DMRC (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation) (2004). Ahmedabad metro &
regional rail system (Phase-1). Detailed project report. Prepared
for Gujarat Industrial Development Board (GIDB), Gandhinagar.
Domencich, T. A., & McFadden, D. (1975). Urban travel demand: A
behavioural analysis. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing.
205
206
Lin, J.-J., & Yang, A.-T. (2006). Does the compact-city paradigm
foster sustainability? An empirical study in Taiwan. Environment
and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33, 365380.
Lowry, I. S. (1964). A model of metropolis. Santa Monica, CA: The
Rand Corporation.
Mackett, R. (2002). Integrated land usetransport models. Lecture
notes for Unit T5: Transport demand and its modelling. Intercollegiate MSc Transport course, Imperial College London and
University College London.
Mackett, R. L. (1985). Integrated land use transport models. Transport
Reviews, 5(4), 325343.
Mackett, R. L., & Mountcastle, G. D. (1997). Development of the
Lowry model. In A. G. Wilson, P. H. Rees, & C. M. Leigh (Eds.),
Models of cities and regions: Theoretical and empirical developments. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
McLoughlin, J. B. (1969). Urban and regional planning: A systems
approach. London, UK: Faber & Faber.
Mikkelsen, E. I. (2004). New economic geographyan introductory
survey. Tromso, Norway: NORUT Samfunnsforskning AS.
www.nfh.uit.no/dok/norut_notat_eirik_im_-_new_economic_
geography_survey.pdf. Accessed 9 December 2009.
Modelistica (2006). General description of TRANUS system. http://
www.modelistica.com/download.htm. Accessed 10 September
2007.
Molai, L., & Vanderschuren, M. J. W. A. (2003). Optimising settlement locations: Land-use/transport modelling in Cape Town.
Paper presented at 22nd annual Southern African transport conference, Pretoria. http://www.utrg.uct.ac.za/publications/downloads/molaivander2003.pdf. Accessed 22 October 2006.
Newman, P. W. G., & Kenworthy, J. R. (1989a). Cities and automobile
dependence: A source book. Aldershot, UK: Gower.
Newman, P. W. G., & Kenworthy, J. R. (1989b). Gasoline consumption and cities. Journal of the American Planning Association,
55(1), 2437.
Newman, P. W. G., & Kenworthy, J. R. (1992). Is there a role for
physical planners? Journal of the American Planning Association,
58(3), 353362.
Nijkamp, P., & Voogd, H. (1983). A survey of multicriteria analysis in
development planning. In L. Chatterjee & P. Nijkamp (Eds.),
Urban and regional policy analysis in developing countries.
Aldershot, UK: Gower.
Perloff, J. M. (2004). Microeconomics (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Addison Wesley.
Potter, R. (1992). Urbanisation in the Third World. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Rivkin, M. D. (1976). Land use and the intermediate-size city in
developing countries: With case studies of Turkey, Brazil, and
Malaysia. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Samuelson, P. A., & Nordhaus, W. D. (2001). Economics (7th ed.).
New Delhi, India: Tata-McGrawHill.
SCATTER (2005). Final report of Sprawling Cities And TransporT:
From Evaluation to Recommendations research project. http://
www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/scatter/download_final.html. Accessed 10
September 2006.
Simmonds, D. C. (1999). The design of the DELTA land-use modelling package. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design,
26(5), 665684.
Bhargav Adhvaryu completed his PhD at the Martin Centre for Architectural and Urban Studies, Department of
Architecture, University of Cambridge, UK in May 2009, and was a member of Churchill College. He has about 11
years of experience in teaching, research and consulting. From December 2004 to January 2007, he worked as
207
Research Associate at the same department. Prior to that, he taught post-graduate planning students at CEPT
University, Ahmedabad, India for three years; undergraduate architecture students at SCET, Surat, India for one year,
and undergraduate civil engineering and post-graduate planning students at SVRCET, Surat for a year. He was also
Project Manager at EPC, Ahmedabad, an urban planning consulting firm, for four years. Dr Adhvaryus additional
qualifications are: MSc Transport & DIC (Imperial College London & University College London, UK); MTech
Planning (CEPT University, Ahmedabad, India); BEng Civil (SVRCET, Surat, South Gujarat University, India), and
DipCEng (Surat, India).