7 Reasons Why Indians Live Too Close To Work

One of the most underrated facts about housing affordability is that most people would prefer to live in a well-located shanty than in a formal settlement in the periphery. If settled in suburbs, transportation costs would form a major fraction of the living expenses of a poor. This is why, and understandable so, few use motorised transport to travel to work in India. According to recently released census data, 46.35 per cent of India's total non-agricultural workers either do not travel to work, or travel less than one km. Most non-agricultural workers either walk to work, or use two-wheelers. While 14.9 per cent use public transport, 3.5 per cent travel by car, van or jeep.  This means that even relatively cheap public transport is used by less than one-sixth of India's non-agricultural workers. This workforce prefers living close to their work places.

A look at what could be the reasons behind this:

• Studies into urban planning often point out that for a public transport system to be viable, it should be affordable, available, accessible and acceptable. This means that:

A. Public transport should be relatively inexpensive when compared to the income levels of people.

B. It should be accessible within a short distance from their home. (Typically, mass transit stations should be within 800 metre distance from their home.)

C. The frequency of public transport should be higher across routes at times when people need it the most.

D. Public transport should be acceptable to people.

In some countries like the US, while the public transport system is affordable, available and accessible, it is not popular among high income groups. With its huge population and comparatively lower income levels, public transport systems have a greater acceptability among people. This leaves us with affordability, availability and accessibility as issues India's public transport system faces.

• Most low-income households, if they are allowed to decide for themselves, will live in a centrally located area. According to LSE Cities, the cost of public transportation is nearly 20-30 per cent of the incomes for nearly 50 per cent of the households that live in informal settlements. When the cost of transportation is such a huge fraction of the income of a low-income household, it is understandable why they prefer not to travel much. In the United States, in contrast, 86 per cent of the people used automobile, five per cent used public transportation, 0.8 per cent used bicycle or motor cycle and 2.8 per cent walked to work in 2012. This is because motorised transport is relatively affordable in that country.

• When compared to other major economies, public transport investment in India is low. By inviting more investments and garnering more revenues to build better networks, the government will be able to improve its public transport system to a great extent. 

• Roads in India are often poorly maintained, and not wide enough. Moreover, vehicles are not charged for driving through roads. This leads to traffic congestion, especially during peak hours. Even in large, dense cities, vehicles are charged an insignificant amount for parking. Sidewalks here are also illegally occupied by street hawkers. All this diminishes the advantages of using motorised transport or living in a city, as people cannot access labor markets easily in a short period of time. When road congestion lowers the possible amount of trips, taxis and autorikshaws are also likely to charge more. 

• Many Indian cities like Mumbai do not respond to the need for wider transportation networks. For instance, Mumbai does not have a ring road or a rapid arterial road, like comparable cities across the world. There are no ways to quickly reach from one side of the city to another. The Trans Harbour Link MTHL project, on which a formal report was prepared in 1962, has yet to be constructed. 

• Buildings in Indian cities are not tall. In most Indian cities, FSI ranges from 1-2. Low-rise buildings increase commuting trips because in cities that are densely populated, the built up area would be spread over a very large area. For example, Seoul has a population that is comparable to that of Mumbai. But, the built up area is a spread over a much lower area. When commute trips are too long, people would prefer to work near their home. 

• In India, land use ignores real estate prices. So, FSI is often low in areas, where the population density is high, while it is high in areas where the density of population is low. This raises the average commute because economic activity cannot be concentrated in the epicentre or the densest parts of the city. Moreover, mixed use is not permitted, as it is in many European countries.