Nearly one-third of Mumbai lives with poor access to public transport: IIT-B study – Hindustan Times

Report on Public Transport Accessibility in Mumbai and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary

A study conducted by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay reveals a significant deficit in public transport accessibility in Mumbai, directly challenging the city’s progress towards key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The findings indicate that nearly one-third of the city’s population, approximately 3.95 million people, experiences poor access to essential public transit services. This report analyzes these findings, focusing on their implications for SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and outlines the study’s recommendations for fostering a more equitable and sustainable urban transport system.

2.0 Key Findings: A Challenge to Sustainable Urban Development

The research quantifies the gap between public transport supply and demand, highlighting critical areas of concern that impede the creation of an inclusive and sustainable city.

2.1 Overall Accessibility Deficit

• Poor Access: 31.8% of Mumbai’s population (3.95 million people) lives in areas with inadequate access to public transport.
• High Transit-Gap Zones: 52.2% of residents (6.5 million people) live where the demand for public transport significantly exceeds the available services.
• Transit Deserts: 13.6% of the population (1.7 million people) resides in areas with high demand but extremely limited access to transit networks.

2.2 Disproportionate Impact on Vulnerable Populations (SDG 10)

The study underscores a severe disparity in transport access, which exacerbates existing social and economic inequalities, a core concern of SDG 10.

• Slum vs. Non-Slum Disparity: Only 17.3% of slum residents enjoy excellent transport access, compared to 31.4% of the non-slum population.
• Vulnerability Overlap: A significant 32.5% of socially vulnerable residents live in areas characterized by both low transport accessibility and high transit gaps, indicating that those most dependent on public transport are the least served.

2.3 Geographical Disparities

The accessibility gap is not uniform across the city, revealing a clear geographical divide that impacts progress towards creating sustainable communities for all.

• Well-Served Areas: Southern and western Mumbai, which are more affluent, benefit from dense and well-connected rail, bus, and metro networks.
• Underserved Areas: Northern and eastern areas, which have high concentrations of low-income households and industrial workers, face significantly lower accessibility. Wards such as M East (Govandi), P North (Malad), S (Bhandup), and T (Mulund) consistently record poor accessibility scores.

3.0 Methodology

The research team employed a multi-faceted approach to assess urban mobility equity, utilizing three key analytical frameworks:

1. Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTAL): This metric measures the connectivity of an area to the transit network based on proximity to stops, service frequency, and reliability.
2. Transit Gaps: This analysis identifies the mismatch between the supply of public transport services and the demand from the resident population.
3. Social Vulnerability Index (SVI): This index captures the socio-economic challenges and dependencies of different population groups, identifying communities that rely most heavily on public services.

4.0 Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The study’s findings have profound implications for Mumbai’s ability to meet its commitments under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

1. SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The widespread lack of access directly contravenes Target 11.2, which calls for “safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all.”
2. SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The data provides clear evidence of urban inequality, where access to the fundamental service of transportation is unevenly distributed, marginalizing slum dwellers and low-income groups.
3. SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): Inadequate transport acts as a significant barrier to economic opportunities, limiting the ability of vulnerable populations to access jobs and participate fully in the urban economy.

5.0 Recommendations for Achieving SDG-Aligned Urban Mobility

To address these challenges and align urban planning with the SDGs, the researchers propose a series of targeted interventions:

• Implement targeted improvements in neighborhoods with low PTAL scores and high concentrations of socially vulnerable populations.
• Enhance first- and last-mile connectivity to bridge the gap between homes and transit hubs.
• Increase the frequency and reliability of services in underserved northern and eastern wards.
• Foster better coordination between planning agencies like the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to ensure equitable infrastructure investment.
• Integrate new metro projects seamlessly with local bus systems to create a cohesive and accessible public transport network for all residents.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article directly addresses inequality by highlighting the disparity in public transport access between different socio-economic groups. It explicitly states that “slum residents worst hit,” with only 17.3% having excellent access compared to 31.4% of the non-slum population. This focus on the unequal distribution of essential services among the city’s population, particularly affecting vulnerable and low-income groups, is a core theme of SDG 10.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The entire study focuses on urban public transport, a key component of sustainable cities. The article discusses issues like “poor access to public transport,” “transit deserts,” and the need for “equitable investment in transit infrastructure” to make Mumbai more inclusive and sustainable for all its residents, which aligns perfectly with the goals of SDG 11.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 11.2: Provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all

  The article is centered on this target. The study’s finding that “Nearly one in three Mumbaiites—about 3.95 million people, or 31.8% of the city’s population—live in areas with poor access to public transport” directly relates to the goal of providing accessible transport for all. The study’s recommendations to improve “last-mile connectivity” and increase service frequency in underserved areas are aimed at achieving this target, with a special focus on vulnerable populations as mentioned in the target’s description.

• Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of economic or other status

  The article connects poor transport access to social vulnerability, stating that “32.5% of highly vulnerable residents live in areas that have both low PTAL and high transit gaps.” This lack of access is a barrier to social and economic inclusion, as it limits opportunities for employment, education, and other essential services for the city’s most vulnerable populations. The transport expert quoted in the article reinforces this, describing the situation as “social inequality that exists in terms of public transit accessibility.”

• Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome

  The study’s findings reveal a significant inequality of outcome, where affluent areas in southern and western Mumbai have dense transport networks while northern and eastern areas with high concentrations of low-income households face poor accessibility. The recommendation for “equitable allocation of resources” and prioritizing planning for wards with vulnerable populations is a direct call to action to reduce this inequality of outcome, aligning with Target 10.3.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTAL)

  The article explicitly mentions that the research team “assessed Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTAL)” to measure how well areas are connected. PTAL is described as a measure based on “proximity to stops, service frequency, and reliability.” This serves as a direct indicator for Target 11.2, measuring the proportion of the population with convenient access to public transport. The article provides specific data points using this indicator, such as “31.8% of the city’s population falls below what the researchers classify as a ‘good’ level of transit accessibility.”

• Transit Gaps

  The study introduces the concept of “transit gaps,” which “reflects the mismatch between supply and demand.” The finding that “6.5 million people (52.2%) live in high transit-gap zones” is a powerful indicator of where the transport system is failing. Measuring the reduction of these transit gaps over time would be a clear way to track progress in providing adequate transport services.

• Social Vulnerability Index (SVI)

  The article states that the study used a “Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) to capture the socio-economic challenges faced by different population groups.” By cross-referencing SVI with PTAL, the study identifies the most disadvantaged groups. The statistic that “32.5% of highly vulnerable residents live in areas that have both low PTAL and high transit gaps” uses SVI as an indicator to measure the extent of inequality (Targets 10.2 and 10.3) and to identify priority areas for intervention.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: hindustantimes.com