A typology of urban development around bus rapid transit stops in Indore and Ahmedabad India final version (1)

TRB 2015 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal 1

A typology of urban development around Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stops in Indore and

Ahmedabad, India

Paper submitted for presentation only at the 94th Annual TRB Meeting

ABE90 Transportation in the Developing Countries

Erik VERGEL-TOVAR, M.Sc.

PhD Candidate

Department of City and Regional Planning

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

[email protected]

Word count: 6444

Tables: 6

mailto:[email protected]


Abstract Despite the rapid dissemination of Bus Rapid Transit BRT systems in Latin America and Asia,

little is known about the type of urban development around stops of this mass transportation

system. This paper expands the methodology applied in Latin America to India in order to

identify a BRT typology based on built environment attributes collected around BRT stops

within a buffer area of 250 meters. A typology of urban development around BRT stops from a

sample of 33 BRT stops in Indore and Ahmedabad is developed based on factor and cluster

analysis using built environment characteristics and geographic information systems data. Some

BRT types identified in this study reflect the high-density environment characteristic of larger

Indian cities, while other types show the presence of slums in conjunction with commercial land

uses within a non-motorized transport urban environment. Other types identified suggest the

emergence of high-rise developments in close proximity to BRT stops with a mixture of land

uses, including high levels of parking. This paper seeks to inform policy makers, planners and

communities living in close proximity to BRT corridors regarding data collection techniques in

data-poor areas as well as the orientation of urban development towards bus rapid transit in

India.

Keywords: Bus Rapid Transit BRT, urban development, typology, transit-oriented development

TOD, India.


A typology of urban development around Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stops in Indore and

Ahmedabad, India

1. Introduction

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a cost-effective mass transportation system characterized by

exclusive bus lanes and reduction of travel times, high-passenger capacity and level boarding,

and a relatively short construction process. BRT systems have bus stops and terminals along

main transportation corridors where passengers can shift transportation modes or take feeder

routes that extend the service into surrounding neighborhoods (1). Currently, more than 180

cities in the world are implementing BRT systems mobilizing more than 31 million passengers

per day (2). The introduction of BRT systems has raised several questions regarding the BRT’s

city-shaping effects and its impacts on urban form (3).

As a mass transportation system built on the surface of cities, the conditions and factors that

explain the extent by which the introduction of BRT systems can generate land use changes and

urban development or redevelopment processes capture the attention of city and transportation

planners, developers and communities living in close proximity to BRT corridors. Within the

range of massive transportation investments, BRT systems have been seen by some local actors

as temporary investments without the capacity to generate transit-oriented development (TOD)

features along the BRT corridors and especially around BRT stops. Despite the remarkable

experience of Curitiba in the development of high density along BRT corridors, little is known

about the extent BRT systems can generate TOD (4).

Transit oriented development (TOD) is understood as an urban form with a mix of land uses with

various densities in close proximity to transit stops. TOD is also characterize by five goals:

location efficiency, rich mix of choices, value capture, place making and urban design (more

than a transit node, a public transportation stop can be a place) (5). The present study expands to

India the methodology developed in order to identify urban development typologies in seven

cities in Latin America with BRT systems under operation (6). The methodology was adjusted to

local characteristics by introducing new variables such as average block size, presence of

rickshaws and street vendors, presence of slums, parking on sidewalks, presence of sidewalks

and accessibility to the BRT stop within the buffer area.

The paper is structured in five sections. First, a literature review on the relationship between

BRT and urban development is followed by a description of transit typologies in relation to TOD

features. Second, the methodology developed is described including the list of variables and data

manipulation. Third, results are presented focusing on the BRT typology identified based on the

33 BRT stops studied. Fourth, a discussion regarding the BRT typologies identified in Indore and

Ahmedabad is developed looking at the level of transit orientation according to the built

environment factors and variables. Fifth, the conclusion includes a comparison of some TOD

features between the BRT typology identified in this study in relation to the typology identified

by previous research in Latin America. The main findings and suggestions for further research

also frame the conclusions.


2. Literature Review

2.1. BRT and urban development

Coordination between urban transportation and land use is one of the challenges faced by cities

experiencing accelerated urban growth. Rapid urbanization and fast motorization trends further

complicate these challenges in developing countries (7). This conundrum is exemplified by the

marked growth that characterizes many cities across Asia. The rate of urbanization in India has

increased from 17% in 1950 to 30.9% in 2010 and is expected to increase up to 51.7% by 2050

(8). Motorization trends in India demonstrate fast gains, not only in total number of two-wheelers

(from 3 million in 1981 to 42 million in 2002), but also in car ownership: from 4 cars per 1000

people in 1991 to more than 7 cars per 1000 people in 2002 (9).

The experience of cities in Latin America and Asia by introducing BRT systems have shown the

improvement of transportation conditions for commuters and the reduction of air pollution and

traffic accidents with a relatively lower capital investment in comparison to rail-based

transportation systems (10). The introduction of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems in India can

play a significant role in the improvement of not only the provision of adequate urban public

transport but also in the shift of transportation modes along high transportation demand corridors

in some cities in India. In 2008, New Delhi introduced a pilot BRT corridor. Since 2009,

Ahmedabad, Indore, Jaipur and Pune started the introduction of BRT systems (11). More

recently Bhopal and Rajkot started the introduction of BRT systems. the scope of the

intervention on the built environment by introducing BRT systems in Indian cities it is unclear

given the focus on transport infrastructure while it is expected that other BRT elements will be

provided by public-private partnerships (12).

Due to the rapid expansion of BRT systems worldwide; especially in the developing world, the

potential effects by this type of mass transport system on land development is considered the

“mode to watch” in the near future in terms of its capacity to guide urban development (13). The

relationship between BRT and urban development has been studied by looking at the

associations between BRT systems and property values with some findings suggesting property

price increments in close proximity to BRT corridors in Bogotá (Colombia) and others finding

with no impacts on property values as a result of the announcement of a new BRT corridor in

Ecatepec (Mexico) (14-18). Some studies have examined the relationship between BRT systems

and urban development with findings suggesting increments on urban density in Bogotá

(Colombia), the existence of physical barriers in order to access BRT stops in Jinan (China), land

use changes after the introduction of BRT corridors in Seoul (Korea), and concentration of land

development and redevelopment activities in close proximity to BRT corridors and stops in

Curitiba (Brazil), Bogotá (Colombia) and Quito (Ecuador) (19-22).

Empirical evidence on BRT’s effects on urban development, redevelopment, and land use

change is still limited. The capacity of BRT systems to promote TOD is still an open debate

characterized by some skepticism (23). Even though the emergence of these studies, the

literature is still limited about the city-shaping effects of BRT systems and the differences among

the results by previous studies suggests further research is needed (24).


2.2. Transit-oriented development –TOD typologies

Identifying TOD typologies constitutes an important element in urban transportation planning,

especially for decision makers and planners, in terms of providing a set of urban environments

that can take place around transit stops in order to guide urban development and guide place

making dynamics. Some benefits of developing TOD typologies provides advantages such as

determining development potentials, mixture of land uses, density, infrastructure standards, and

TOD performance assessment which facilitates comparisons and benchmarking between groups

and across transit stop types (25).

Several approaches have been developed in order to identify TOD typologies. The envision

approach suggested by planners and architects aims to previously determine what type of urban

development is desirable around transit stops or to implement one type of transit stop (down

town, neighborhood, suburban) in order to promote certain developments according to the

location within urban areas (26). The node-place approach seeks to explore development and

redevelopment opportunities by looking at the level of intensification of certain urban activities

around transit station areas (27). The performance approach developed mainly for the North

American car-oriented context, generates TOD types by looking at the travel behavior variables

such as vehicles miles travel (VMT) by residents in transit zones, levels and interactions between

residential and employment activities in terms of percentages of workers in the transit zone (28).

Emerging studies identifying TOD typologies have been developing empirically based

approaches looking at different attributes around metrorail and bused-based transit stops. Based

on land use and development data, 5 types of transit stops were identified in Hong Kong (29) by

looking at building area, development scale area, density and mixture of attributes within a

buffer area from 200m to 500m. 5 types of station areas based on built environment and

socioeconomic data were identified along the light rail corridor in Phoenix (Arizona) within one

mile buffer area (30). In Latin America, 10 typologies of urban development around BRT stops

based on built environment, population density and spatial location data collected in seven cities

(6) within a buffer area of 250m for single stops and 500m for BRT terminals. In Brisbane

(Australia), 4 neighborhood typologies were identified based on the density of built environment

indicators (employment, residential, land use, road type and intersections) and survey data of

residents living within a buffer area of 800m from transit corridors and within census collection

districts (CCD) overlapped with transit corridors (25).

TOD typologies have been defined based on the future vision of planners and architects or based

on empirical studies looking at built environment attributes around transit stops. Both approaches

have built environment variables in common such as land development, land uses, residential

and employment activity, density, population density, building area, mixture of attributes and

location (downtown, urban, neighborhood, suburban). Socioeconomic characteristics have been

introduced in emerging studies looking at travel behavior and TOD across typologies. The

identification of typologies has been developed mainly based on built environment attributes and

the introduction of socioeconomic variables constitutes an important step in the identification of

typologies and travel behavior studies. The identification of BRT typologies has been conducted

in Latin America(6). Little is known about typologies of BRT stops in other regions of the world.

The identification of BRT typologies and identification of TOD features based on local

characteristics contributes to identify opportunities to promote TOD around BRT stops.


3. Methodology

The present study relies on primary and secondary data collected in Indore and Ahmedabad

during fieldwork visits from June to August of 2013. Both cities are implementing BRT systems

but at different stages, while Ahmedabad started its first BRT corridor in 2009 and is

constructing a second corridor, Indore started operations of a pilot BRT corridor in the first half

of 2013. These two cities were selected according to the following criteria: the BRT system

should be in operation; the cities are medium or large cities; it would be feasible to undertake

primary data collection due to the presence of local contacts; secondary data is available; the

systems provide most of the features of a full BRT system such as exclusive bus lanes, reduction

of travel times, high-passenger capacity and level boarding. The BRT stops were selected in

consultation with local transportation planners based on the criteria to identify a sample of stops

that is heterogeneous in terms of the characteristics of the built environment around them.

3.1. Study areas

Indore, Madhya Pradesh

Indore is located in the state of Madhya Pradesh in the center of India. It is the largest city in this

state with an urban population of 2,367,447 inhabitants and a density of 3,727 hab/ km2. Indore

is the core of a metropolitan region with 3,272,335 inhabitants. Indore introduced a BRT system

known as “iBus” in the first semester of 2013. The BRT corridor denominated “pilot” has an

extension of 11 km and mobilizes 22,200 passengers per day (2). The BRT system in Indore has

in total 21 BRT stops and 12 BRT stops were selected for this study.

Ahmedabad, Gujarat

Ahmedabad is located in the state of Gujarat at the north west of India and it. Ahmedabad is the

fifth largest city in India with an urban population of 5,570,585 inhabitants and a density of

12,005 hab/ km2. It is the core of a metropolitan area of 6,240,201 inhabitants. Ahmedabad

introduced a BRT system known as “Janmarg” in 2009. The first BRT corridor currently under

operation has a total length of 39km and mobilizes 130,000 passengers per day (2). The BRT

system in Ahmedabad has in total 109 BRT stops. A total of 21 BRT stops were selected for the

present study.

3.2. Data collection

The data collection was developed in two stages. First, BRT stops were georeferenced by using

Google Earth and geographic information system (GIS). A buffer of 250 meters was determined

for all BRT stops on GIS. BRT stop maps were developed for each BRT stop identifying blocks

and segments within the buffer area. A block consists on a polygon with several attached land

parcels or public spaces and it is framed by segments. A segment is the side of one block that

goes from one intersection or corner to another as part of continuum of constructions, vacant

land or public spaces. Second, the author conducted fieldwork visits to all BRT stops selected

for this study. The fieldwork visits allowed the author to update the shape of blocks not capture

by Google Earth. Built environment data was collected at the segment and block level by using

an audit tool adapted from the Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS)1. Table 1 shows the

total number of segments and blocks examined per city. The total number of segments studied in

both cities is 4,744 which are part of 1,020 blocks.

1 The Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS) Tool http://planningandactivity.unc.edu/RP1.htm

http://planningandactivity.unc.edu/RP1.htm


3.3. Data Manipulation

The unit of analysis for this study is the BRT stop buffer area. Thus, all variables were

aggregated at the BRT stop level. At the stop level, distance in kilometers to the closest activity

node or central business district (CBD) was calculated for each BRT stop. In Indore, the CBD

was determined as the area around the Railway Station by measuring the distance along the

Mahatma Gandhi Road. In Ahmedabad, the CBD was identified by selecting the BRT Stop

“Lokmanya Tilak Bag”, a stop located in the Historical Center of the city. Segment density was

calculated based on the total number of segments in the BRT stop buffer gross area (total

segments/area 0.19635 sq-km). Population density was calculated based on the percentage share

of each block within the ward area (census tracts in India), then all population data was

aggregated at the BRT stop level and population density was calculated based on the BRT stop

buffer gross area in hectares (19.635 Ha).

At the block level, nine variables were calculated by counting the presence of facilities and

public spaces and dividing them by the BRT stop gross area (0.19635 sq-km). Public facility

index measures the presence of facilities from zero to seven, excluding the presence of big-box

developments (Malls). Public facility density measures the sum of facilities present in the BRT

stop per gross area. BRT-oriented facility index refers to the presence of supportive facilities for

the BRT system such as hospitals, libraries, markets/squares, temples, schools and others (i.e.

universities and transport hubs). BRT-oriented facility density was calculated by the sum of BRT

supportive facilities per gross area. Green area’s density, park density were calculated by the

presence of parks, squares, pocket squares, green areas and boulevards per gross area. Non-

motorized transport (NMT) friendliness measures the presence of parks, squares, pocket squares,

boulevards, pedestrian segments, pedestrian bridges, bike-paths per gross area. Rickshaws/street

vendor’s density was calculated by counting their presence per gross area. Average block size

was calculated in square meters on GIS based on the block size within the buffer area.

At the segment level, thirty seven variables were calculated. Land use index measures the

presence the ten types of land uses (institutional, industrial, commercial, mixed-commercial,

single residential, multifamily residential, mixed industrial commercial, mixed commercial

residential, vacant and open green area). The intensity of land uses was calculated by the

percentage of segments with each land use type in relation to the total number of segments. The

density of BRT supportive land uses (mixed commercial, single and multifamily residential and

institutional) was calculated by summing these types of land uses and dividing their presence per

gross area. BRT unsupportive land uses (industrial, industrial commercial and vacant) was

calculated by summing these types of land uses and dividing their presence per gross area. The

variables measuring building heights, vertical urban density, the development level, the condition

and maintenance of constructions were calculated by the percentage segment including each

variable in the relation to the total number of segments.

The presence of slums was calculated by the percentage of segments with this housing typology.

The intensity of parking was calculated by the percentage of segments with on-street parking,

off-street parking and parking on sidewalks. Commercial land uses and parking (on-street

parking, off-street parking, parking on sidewalks) was calculated in relation to the total number

of segments. Entropy was calculated by using the formula developed by Cervero and Kockelman


(31) in order to evaluate the evenness in the distribution of BRT-oriented land uses (mixed-

institutional, commercial, single and multifamily residential).

3.4. Data Analysis

Two data reduction strategies were developed given that the number of variables exceeds the

number of observations. First, 24 variables were selected for the exploratory factor analysis

(EFA) after excluding variables that were not adding new information to the analysis because

they were perfectly predicted with other variables within the same category (acting as dummy

variables without excluded category) or they were already included within other variables. The

10 land use types were excluded as raw variables because they were already included in other

variables such as land use index, BRT-oriented land uses, BRT unsupportive land uses, green

areas’ density, park density, NMT friendliness, Vacant & BRT. The low and medium variables

within categories were excluded because they are perfectly predicted by the high values on each

category with the exception of low building height (a variable with high variation across BRT

stops). The no-height variable was excluded because it is perfectly predicted with vacant land

use. The high values for building heights (high-rise), urban density and development level were

included in the analysis because they are related to TOD features. The three parking categories

(on-street, off-street and sidewalk) were not included in the factor analysis because they were

already included in the commercial & parking variable. The 24 variables were tested to confirm

there was no intercorrelation or collinearity between them.

Second, the study develops an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in order to subdivide the group

of variables (24) into a smaller group of factors where the covariance between variables is high

but the covariance between groups is low. EFA relies exclusively on the correlation between

variables where the weight between factors summarizes the correlation (32). The exploratory

factor analysis treated the variables as continuous with the aim to explore the structure of the

data by identifying the unobservable variables or factors.

Based on the factors identified in the previous step, a hierarchical cluster analysis was developed

by using the factor scores in order to establish groups of BRT stops that are more alike according

to the built environment factors. The cluster analysis seeks to group BRT stops that are more

alike within each cluster, but at the same time, it separates BRT stops based on the heterogeneity

according to the factor scores (33). Ward’s linkage cluster was used in order to identify the

groups of BRT stops. The number of clusters was determined by identifying in the Duda-Hart

stopping rule table the largest (Je(2)/Je(1) values in the same rows of the lowest pseudo-T-

squared (which have the larger T-squared values next to them) (34).

4. Results

Descriptive statistics of all built environment variables are shown in Table 2 for each city. The

density of non-motorized transport (NMT) infrastructure is higher in the sample of stops in

Ahmedabad, the mean values are statistically different between both cities, with a high variation

across stops in both cities (mean 195.23 and std. dev. 185.51 in Ahmedabad; mean 86.15 and std.

dev. 37.71 in Indore). The number of segments facing the BRT corridor within the buffer area of

the sample of stops is higher in Ahmedabad, the mean values are statistically different between

both cities (mean 15.81 and std. dev. 8.72 in Ahmedabad; mean 9.75 and std. dev. 2.26 in

Indore).


The density of BRT-oriented land uses (commercial, residential and institutional) is higher in the

sample of BRT stops in Ahmedabad (mean 0.83 and std. dev. 0.24) than in the sample of stops in

Indore (mean 0.62 and std. dev. 0.20), the mean values are statistically different. The results are

the opposite in terms of the density of BRT unsupportive land uses (industrial, industrial-

commercial and vacant) with a higher density in the sample of BRT stops in Indore (mean 0.48

and std. dev. 0.18) than in Ahmedabad (mean 0.26 and std. dev. 0.26). The mean values of

density of BRT unsupportive land uses are statistically different but there is a high variation

across stops Ahmedabad. The level of mixture of land uses in terms of entropy (evenness in the

distribution of land uses) is similar between both samples (mean 0.60 and std. dev. 0.17 in

Ahmedabad and mean 0.64 and std. dev. 0.13 in Indore).

Land development and consolidation differs in the sample of BRT stops between both cities. The

percentage of segments with undeveloped parcels (no height) is different with a higher

percentage in Indore (mean 0.36 and std. dev. 0.16) than in Ahmedabad (mean 0.16 and std. dev.

0.20), the mean values are statistically different. However, the variation in Ahmedabad is high

suggesting some BRT stops have several segments with undeveloped land parcels. This

difference between cities is confirmed by the percentage of segments with vacant land given that

it is higher in Indore than in Ahmedabad. The mean values are statistically different between

both cities (mean 0.14 and std. dev. 0.21 in Ahmedabad; mean 0.30 and std. dev. 0.12 in Indore).

4.1. Factor analysis results

Factor analysis was run with the 24 variables shown in table 3. The measure of sampling

adequacy for this factor analysis was adequate2. The exploratory factor analysis scree test

suggested the retention of 6 factors based on the eigenvalues criteria which consists on keeping

the number of factors scoring ≥1.00 (32). All variables loaded > |0.40| on at least one factor with

the exception of high-rise are shown in Table 4. The six factors account for 84.06% of the

variance of all 24 variables. Even though the Cronbach’s alpha for factors 5 and 6 are low, the

average standardized Cronbach’s alpha value for all factors is 0.77, within a range from 0.55 to

0.96.

- Factor 1, “BRT-oriented development with facilities in a high density built-up area with

mixed land uses”: is characterized by the high presence of facilities. This factor is also

characterized by a high urban density environment and a mixture of land uses.

- Factor 2, “Slums NMT friendly, low height and connected”: is characterized by a high

concentration of non-motorized transport infrastructure, small blocks and high connectivity.

This factor represents the presence of informal settlements with low building heights.

- Factor 3, “BRT-OD land uses, non-core consolidated and connected”: is characterized by

land uses oriented towards the BRT in non-core urban areas with segments provided with

urban infrastructure and high connectivity.

2 Bartlett test of sphericity, chi-square = 613.34; p-value = 0.000; H0: variables are not intercorrelated. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) = 0.514


- Factor 4, “Green spaces and parks”: represents the concentration of green urban spaces and

parks.

- Factor 5, “Vacant on BRT, unfilled and mixed land uses”: is characterized by the presence of

vacant land along the BRT corridor, low population density but with some mixture of land

uses.

- Factor 6, “Rickshaws, urban core high density areas”: represents the concentration of

rickshaws in a high density urban environment at urban core areas with low mixture of land

uses.

4.2. Cluster analysis results

The cluster analysis was run with the six built environment factors identified in the EFA and the

high-rise development variable (standardized), which is the only variable that did not load in the

EFA. Three types of hierarchical cluster analysis (average-linkage, single-linkage and ward-

linkage) were run in order to identify the most suitable for data grouping of BRT stops.

First, it was run the average-linkage or agglomerative cluster analysis, which is based on the

average of all distances between the elements of each cluster and then taking the mean distance

between them. This cluster analysis suggested 6 and 8 groups according to the Calinski-Harabasz

and Duda tests3 (33). Second, it was run the single-linkage or bottom-up cluster analysis, which

is based on the nearest neighbor clustering of single elements within each cluster, process in

which each cluster grows by adding elements. This cluster analysis suggested 8 groups according

to the Calinski-Harabasz and Duda tests (33). Third, it was run a ward linkage or agglomerative

cluster analysis which seeks to minimize the total within-cluster variance. This cluster analysis

suggested 8 and 12 groups according to the Calinski-Harabasz and Duda tests (33). After

comparing the results of these three cluster analyses, the 12 groups cluster analysis (ward-

linkage) was identified as the most suitable for the present study given the similarity between the

stops within each cluster in terms of regional geography (distance to CBD), built environment

attributes and population density. The number of BRT stops and the mean values per cluster are

shown in Table 5.

5. Discussion

12 BRT typologies were identified from a sample of 33 BRT stops in Indore and Ahmedabad,

two cities that have been introducing recently BRT systems. Table 6 shows the 12 BRT

typologies identified including 7 built environment factors and 7 key TOD features variables.

The emergence of these BRT systems implies this BRT typology might change in the future if

some land development and redevelopment changes occur after the introduction of the BRT. The

BRT typology constitutes a useful base line for local transportation and land use planners as well

as decision makers for current and future BRT corridors. The 12 BRT typologies identified in the

present study are described below:

1. Noncore commercial residential: represents an urban environment far from activity nodes

with low presence of NMT infrastructure with a mixture of land uses but mainly commercial

3 Distinct clustering is characterized by large Calinski–Harabasz pseudo-F values, large Duda–Hart Je(2)/Je(1)

values, and small Duda–Hart pseudo-T-squared values.


linked to parking and next to vacant land. This typology includes eight BRT stops, seven

from Indore and one from Ahmedabad (“Shivranjani”), and is characterized by the presence

of some commercial land developments of five or more floors linked to parking and some

green areas and parks.

2. High-rise and dense consolidated node: is characterized by high-rise developments in urban

areas with high population density, lack of NMT infrastructure including some vacant land

and parking. This typology is characterized by BRT stops centrally located with high

concentration of population and presence of rickshaws. This typology is represented by two

BRT stops from Indore (“Industry House” and “Palasia”) with presence of land

developments of five or more floors.

3. Institutional activity node pedestrian friendly: represents stops with presence of facilities

linked by NMT infrastructure within a mixed land use urban environment, especially

institutional without vacant land available. This typology includes two BRT stops

(“Lokmanya Tilak Bag” located in the old city of Ahmedabad; “Shivaji Vatika” in Indore)

with high presence of facilities, green areas and parks and mixed land uses with a significant

presence of non-motorized transport infrastructure, but high levels of parking associated to

commercial land uses.

4. Noncore pedestrian friendly commercial-residential: is a unique type represented by

“Shastrinagar” BRT stop in Ahmedabad characterized by a low mixture of land uses, mainly

commercial and residential connected with NMT infrastructure. This is a unique type

represented by BRT stop “Shastrinagar” in Ahmedabad. This stop is located far from the

CBD with presence of green areas and parks linked by a high concentration of segments and

non-motorized transport infrastructure, especially parks and BRT-oriented land uses.

5. Noncore industrial-commercial: is characterized by the presence of commercial land uses

with some industrial developments where there are high levels of parking within a high

density urban environment. This typology includes two BRT stops from Ahmedabad (“Soni

Ni Chali” and “Gurudwara”) which are characterized by the presence of slums; pedestrian

streets and low building heights with high levels of population density. This typology shows

a high concentration of commercial land uses associated to parking.

6. Noncore industrial: is a unique type represented by “Narol” BRT stop which represents the

industrial urban environment at the Southeast of Ahmedabad characterized by the lack of

NMT infrastructure and some levels of parking associated to commercial-industrial land

uses. This typology is represented by “Narol” BRT stop located in the industrial area of

Ahmedabad characterized by some presence of commercial and parking.

7. High-rise exclusively commercial node: represents an urban environment without NMT

infrastructure with presence of car-oriented commercial developments and some vacant land

as a result of redevelopment dynamics. This typology is represented by two BRT stops from

Indore (“MR-9” and “Vijay Nagar”) with a significant presence of commercial land uses

associated to parking and high rise redevelopments but some presence of vacant land as a

result of redevelopment dynamics.


8. Facilities and transfer-node pedestrian friendly: is characterized by a high mixed of land

uses with presence of facilities with considerable levels of parking mostly associated to

commercial land uses. This typology is represented by two BRT stops with a high

concentration of facilities such as “Maninagar Railway Station” in Ahmedabad and the Post

Office in Indore, which are centrally located with presence of several facilities, BRT oriented

land uses and access to other transportation modes.

9. High-rise commercial-residential consolidated: represents a high density and consolidated

urban environment with mixed land uses and presence of some facilities and parks. This

typology is represented by two BRT stops in Ahmedabad (“Kankaria Lake” and “Anjali”)

with a significant presence of facilities such as theaters or public buildings, mixed land uses

with transit orientation.

10. High-dense commercial residential: is characterized by a consolidated and connected urban

environment with high-rise residential developments with commercial land uses at the street

level. This typology includes four BRT stops from Ahmedabad that are characterized by land

uses oriented towards the BRT with a high concentration of the population in a well-

connected urban environment.

11. Satellite commercial & slum node: is characterized by the presence of slums in a NMT

environment with several pedestrian streets with high levels of connectivity. This typology

includes four stops from Ahmedabad that are characterized by a high concentration of slums

in an urban environment with high connectivity and several pedestrian streets.

12. Urban expansion areas: is characterized by urban expansion areas far from activity nodes

where there is still presence of large vacant land parcels without NMT infrastructure and

some presence of car-oriented commercial developments. This typology is represented by

two stops from Ahmedabad (“Jayantial Park” and “ISKON Mandir”) located at urban

expansion areas with a significant presence of vacant land where new developments are

taking place.

The present study has some limitations. The number of observations (33) is lower than the total

number of built environment variables (50) collected during the fieldwork visits, so that a data

reduction strategy was implemented in order to run the factor analysis. With an increase in the

number of observations (including additional BRT stops from other cities in India) this study

could identify built environment factors based on a richer data set. This study cannot claim

causality after the introduction of the BRT system, in other terms; it cannot be argued that the

BRT typology is a result of the introduction of this mass transportation system. This study also

has the limitation of not including socioeconomic characteristics of population living around

these BRT stops.

6. Conclusion

The concept of TOD in the context of Indian cities is still under discussion and the present study

seeks to contribute to this debate. The variation of TOD features such as NMT infrastructure,


entropy, vacant land, commercial and parking among the 12 BRT types identified in this study

suggests the high density and mixture of land uses characterizing Indian cities is not

homogeneous at the BRT stop level. BRT typologies 4, 5, 6 and 7 represent urban development

environments around stops without an even distribution of commercial, residential and

institutional land uses (entropy). The presence of vacant land is very low with the exception of

BRT typologies 2, 7 and 12, suggesting that these BRT types provide local planners an

opportunity to promote land developments oriented towards an investment in transit. BRT

typology 4 has a high transit orientation as a result of positive mean values in factors 3 and 4 as

well as on TOD features such as NMT, segment density, BRT oriented land uses and population

density. BRT typology 8 also has a high transit orientation given the positive mean values on

factors 1 and 3 as well as on TOD features such as entropy, NMT, segment density, and BRT

oriented land uses.

The BRT typology identified in this study captures city-specific factors. BRT typologies 2 and 7

are represented by BRT stops from Indore and BRT types 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 include BRT

stops exclusively from Ahmedabad. Only BRT typologies 1, 3, and 8 are applicable to both

cities. This finding suggests that while there are differences between BRT corridors, there are

also local characteristics specific for Indore and Ahmedabad with major implications upon

planning. Further research is recommended by increasing the sample of BRT stops from other

cities in India in order to test hypotheses related to the similarity between BRT corridors and

stops to confirm the level of heterogeneity of the urban environment around BRT stops that

seems to be the pattern for cities in India.

In relation to the BRT typologies identified in Latin America by previous research (6), this study

suggests there is a higher mixture of land uses in India (mean 0.61, n=33) than in Latin America

(mean 0.58, n=82) measured in terms of entropy at the BRT stop level. The presence of NMT

infrastructure is also higher in India (mean 155.5, n=33) than in Latin America (mean 57.06,

n=82) as a result of the high presence of slums in close proximity to BRT stops, especially in

Ahmedabad. The higher number of typologies in India (12) than in Latin America (10), despite

having a smaller sample of BRT stops (33 and 82 respectively), suggests there is a higher level

of heterogeneity of the built environment around BRT stops in India. Both regions differ in terms

of parking (on-street and off-street), the sample of BRT stops in Latin America (mean 0.30

n=82) shows higher levels of parking than the sample of BRT stops in India (mean 0.16, n=33).

This study identified built environment factors and variables in order to assess the level of transit

orientation of BRT types. Three built environment factors (1, 3 and 4) and 5 variables (entropy,

NMT, segment density, BRT-oriented land uses and population density) can be used to measure

the TOD performance of BRT stops based on local characteristics. The urban development

environment identified in BRT typologies 4 and 8 suggests a favorable environment for TOD if

some changes occur in those factors and variables that registered negative mean values. For

instance, local planners could increase the level of transit orientation in these BRT types by

encouraging the presence of facilities (factor 1) in BRT type 4 and promoting green areas and

parks (factor 4) in BRT type 8. This study recommends that local planners and communities in

Indore and Ahmedabad continue the assessment of TOD performance of BRT stops by

continuing the same measurement procedures developed in this study.


The lack of current land-use data and information about built environment features where BRT

corridors will be implemented or have been introduced implies several challenges to decision

makers and planners. The methodology developed in the present study seeks to contribute to data

collection and analysis techniques in data-poor areas by providing built environment factors and

variables as well as methodological procedures to collect them so that planners can continue to

collect this information and build a comprehensive data-base of urban development around BRT

stops in India.

The present study provides a BRT typology that can be used as a foundation for assessing future

land development around transit. The assessment of development potential thus becomes an

application of this work for local planners, with this study also being useful for highlighting the

development potential of the land around BRT stops in these cities. This study additionally

provides a set of built environment factors and variables to assess the performance of BRT stops

in terms of TOD features that can help planners to establish goals in terms of: increasing the

mixture of land uses (entropy), parking management around BRT stops, the provision of NMT

infrastructure, connectivity (segment density), and the presence of facilities and land uses

oriented towards the BRT. The BRT typology also becomes a useful tool for local planners when

evaluating which areas should become targets for increased density and which existing stops

have development potential. Local planners can also use the BRT typologies in the design,

planning and implementation of TOD station-area plans. For instance, BRT typology 11 offers

the opportunity to identify slum rehabilitation areas in order to promote inclusionary measures as

part of TOD station-area plans.

There are certainly emerging questions after the identification of the 12 BRT typologies

presented in this study. What is the relationship of these types with employment and land value

data? How can the presence of rickshaws in close proximity to BRT stop be or positively or

negatively associated with BRT ridership? What role does urban design play in relation to access

to BRT stops as well as the barrier effect of exclusive lanes? What changes have been or will be

introduced by the BRT system? These are empirically-based questions that require further

research; however, the BRT typology identified in the present study constitutes a point of

departure from which to answer them.

7. Acknowledgments

This research was sponsored by EMBARQ and received support from EMBARQ India’s staff in

Mumbai and Indore and the support from the Center for Environmental Planning and

Technology (CEPT) University’s staff in Ahmedabad.


References

1. Hidalgo, D. and P. Graftieaux, 2008. Bus Rapid Transit Systems in Latin America and

Asia Results and Difficulties in 11 Cities. Transportation Research Record, (2072), 77-

88.

2. 2014. Global Brt Data: http://www.brtdata.org/.

3. Suzuki, H., R. Cervero, and K. Iuchi, 2013. Transforming Cities with Transit: Transit

and Land-Use Integration for Sustainable Urban Development, in Urban Development,

The World Bank: Washington DC.

4. Gakenheimer, R., D.A. Rodriguez, and E. Vergel, 2011. Planning for Brt-Oriented

Development: Lessons and Prospects from Brazil and Colombia, in Sustainable

Transport and Air Quality Program, Clean Air Institute: Washington DC.

5. Dittmar, H. and S. Poticha, 2004. Defining Transit-Oriented Development: The New

Regional Building Block, in The New Transit Town : Best Practices in Transit-Oriented

Development, H. Dittmar and G. Ohland, Editors, Island Press: Washington, DC. xiii, 253

p.

6. Rodriguez, D.A. and E. Vergel, 2014. Urban Development around Bus Rapid Transit

Stops in Seven Cities in Latin America, in Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual

Meeting: Washington DC.

7. Cervero, R., 2013. Linking Urban Transport and Land Use in Developing Countries. The

Journan of Transport and Land Use, 6 (1), 7-24.

8. United-Nations, 2012. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision, D.o.E.a.S.A.

United Nations, Population Division, Editor, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011

Revision.

9. Pucher, J., et al., 2007. Urban Transport Trends and Policies in China and India: Impacts

of Rapid Economic Growth. Transport Reviews, 27 (4), 379-410.

10. Duduta, N., et al., 2013. Understanding Road Safety Impact of High-Performance Bus

Rapid Transit and Busway Design Features. Transportation Research Record: Journal of

the Transportation Research Board, ( 2317), 8-14.

11. Agarwal, O.P. and S.L. Zimmerman, 2008. Toward Sustainable Mobility in Urban India.

Transportation Research Record, (2048), 1-7.

12. Pai, M. and D. Hidalgo, 2009. Indian Bus Rapid Transit Systems Funded by the

Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission. Transportation Research Record,

(2114), 10-18.

13. Cervero, R. and C.D. Kang, 2011. Bus Rapid Transit Impacts on Land Uses and Land

Values in Seoul, Korea. Transport Policy, 18 (1), 102-116.

14. Rodriguez, D.A. and F. Targa, 2004. Value of Accessibility to Bogota's Bus Rapid

Transit System. Transport Reviews, 24 (5), 587-610.

15. Perdomo, J. and J.C. Mendieta, 2007. Specification and Estimation of a Spatial Hedonic

Prices Model to Evaluate the Impact of Transmilenio on the Value of the Property in

Bogota, in Documento CEDE, Universidad de los Andes: Bogota.

16. Rodriguez, D.A. and C.H. Mojica, 2009. Capitalization of Brt Network Expansions

Effects into Prices of Non-Expansion Areas. Transportation Research Part a-Policy and

Practice, 43 (5), 560-571.

http://www.brtdata.org/


17. Munoz-Raskin, R., 2010. Walking Accessibility to Bus Rapid Transit: Does It Affect

Property Values? The Case of Bogota, Colombia. Transport Policy, 17 (2), 72-84.

18. Flores Dewey, O. (2011) The Value of a Promise: Housing Price Impacts of Plans to

Build Mass Transit in Ecatepec, Mexico. Working Paper Volume,

19. Thomas, A. and E. Deakin, 2008. Land Use Challenges to Implementing Transit-Oriented

Development in China Case Study of Jinan, Shandong Province. Transportation

Research Record, (2077), 80-86.

20. Bocarejo, J.P., I. Portilla, and M.A. Pérez, 2012. Impact of Transmilenio on Density,

Land Use, and Land Value in Bogotá. Research in Transportation Economics, (0).

21. Jun, M.J., 2012. Redistributive Effects of Bus Rapid Transit (Brt) on Development

Patterns and Property Values in Seoul, Korea. Transport Policy, 19 (1), 85-92.

22. Rodriguez, D.A., E. Vergel, and W. Camargo, 2013. Brt-Oriented Development in Quito

and Bogota Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

23. Cervero, R. and D. Dai, 2014. Brt Tod: Leveraging Transit Oriented Development with

Bus Rapid Transit Investments. Transport Policy, 36 (0), 127-138.

24. Deng, T. and J.D. Nelson, 2011. Recent Developments in Bus Rapid Transit: A Review

of the Literature. Transport Reviews, 31 (1), 69-96.

25. Kamruzzaman, M., et al., 2014. Advance Transit Oriented Development Typology: Case

Study in Brisbane, Australia. Journal of Transport Geography, 34 (0), 54-70.

26. Dittmar, H. and G. Ohland, 2004. The New Transit Town : Best Practices in Transit-

Oriented Development, ed. H. Dittmar and G. Ohland, Washington, DC: Island Press.

27. Bertolini, L., 1999. Spatial Development Patterns and Public Transport: The Application

of an Analytical Model in the Netherlands. Planning Practice and Research, 14 (2), 199-

210.

28. (CTOD), C.f.T.-O.D., 2010. Performance-Based Transit-Oriented Development

Typology Guidebook.

29. Cervero, R. and J. Murakami, 2009. Rail and Property Development in Hong Kong:

Experiences and Extensions. Urban Studies, 46 (10), 2019-2043.

30. Atkinson-Palombo, C. and M.J. Kuby, 2011. The Geography of Advance Transit-

Oriented Development in Metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, 2000-2007. Journal of

Transport Geography, 19 (2), 189-199.

31. Cervero, R. and K. Kockelman, 1997. Travel Demand and the 3ds: Density, Diversity,

and Design. Transportation Research Part D-Transport and Environment, 2 (3), 199-

219.

32. Kim, J. and C. Mueller, 1978. Factor Analysis. Factor Analysis. Sage Publications, Inc,

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

33. Everitt, B., 2011. Cluster Analysis. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, Chichester,

West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley.

34. Rabe-Hesketh, S., 2007. A Handbook of Statistical Analyses Using Stata, ed. B. Everitt,

Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.


Table 1. Segments and blocks per city.

City No. BRT Stops Segments Segments/Stop Blocks Blocks/Stop

Indore 12 1,114 92.83 316 26.33

Ahmedabad 21 3,630 172.86 710 33.81

Total 33 4,744 132.85* 1,020 30.05*

Source: data collection, Indore (Madhya Pradesh) and Ahmedabad (Gujarat), India (2013).

*Average.


Table 2. Descriptive statistics BRT stops in Indore (N=12) and Ahmedabad (N=21)

Variable

Definition

Indore Ahmedabad diff mean

value Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

Public facility index index of 7 facility types, excludes big box

development (0-7) 12 3.17 1.11 1.00 5.00 21 2.71 1.23 1.00 5.00 0.45

Public facility

density

density of all facilities (except big box

development) 12 37.77 21.44 15.28 76.39 21 28.38 21.40 5.09 81.49 9.40

BRT-oriented

facility index

index of presence of hospitals, libraries,

markets/squares, temples (0-4) 12 1.33 0.78 0.00 2.00 21 1.19 0.81 0.00 3.00 0.14

BRT-oriented

facility density

density of hospitals, libraries, markets/squares,

temples 12 12.31 9.07 0.00 30.56 21 9.94 9.32 0.00 30.56 2.36

Green areas’

density

density of # parks, squares, pocket parks,

green areas, boulevards 12 92.95 42.56 56.02 213.90 21 58.21 54.61 0.00 203.72 34.74

Park density density of # parks, squares, pocket squares 12 43.71 23.13 20.37 106.95 21 35.17 40.26 0.00 157.88 8.55

NMT friendliness density of parks, squares, pocket squares,

boulevards, pedestrian segments, pedestrian bridges, bike-paths

12 86.16 37.71 30.56 168.07 21 195.23 185.51 5.09 651.90 -109.07†

Rickshaw/street

vendors density

density of on-street/sidewalk rickshaws

parking and street vendors 12 88.28 48.77 30.56 203.72 21 55.05 43.86 0.00 168.07 33.23

Average block size Average block size in square kilometers 12 6402.33 1777.30 3745.00 10580.00 21 7425.48 4659.21 1980.00 18052.00 -1023.14

Segment on BRT # of segments on BRT right of way 12 9.75 2.26 6.00 14.00 21 15.81 8.72 5.00 41.00 -6.06†

Land use index # of land uses in stop (1-10) 12 7.50 1.09 6.00 9.00 21 8.00 1.18 5.00 10.00 -0.50

Institutional % segments with institutional use in it 12 0.07 0.09 0.00 0.27 21 0.05 0.09 0.00 0.42 0.03

Industrial % segments with industrial use in it 12 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

Commercial % segments with exclusively commercial use

in it 12 0.10 0.11 0.00 0.33 21 0.07 0.08 0.00 0.24 0.02

Mixed commercial % segments with mixed commercial use in it 12 0.11 0.09 0.00 0.35 21 0.11 0.10 0.00 0.43 -0.01

Residential single

family (attached)

% segments with single residential use in it 12 0.31 0.17 0.02 0.62 21 0.44 0.28 0.00 0.80 -0.13

Residential

multifamily

% segments with multifamily residential use in it

12 0.18 0.10 0.00 0.36 21 0.20 0.18 0.00 0.74 -0.03

Mixed: Industrial-

commercial

% segments with industrial/commercial use in it

12 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.12 21 0.07 0.19 0.00 0.85 -0.06

Mixed: commercial

residential

% segments with commercial/residential use in it

12 0.21 0.11 0.01 0.44 21 0.23 0.13 0.02 0.50 -0.03

Vacant % segments with vacant use in it 12 0.30 0.12 0.14 0.49 21 0.14 0.21 0.03 0.81 0.16†

Open Green Area % segments with open green area use in it 12 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.35 21 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.20 0.02

BRT-oriented land

uses

density of BRT supportive uses -comercial +

residential+ institutional 12 0.62 0.20 0.18 0.94 21 0.83 0.24 0.15 1.20 -0.21

†

BRT unsupportive

land uses

density of brt unsupportive uses -industrial,

industrial & commercial, vacant 12 0.48 0.18 0.23 0.75 21 0.25 0.26 0.03 0.89 0.23

†

No building height % of Segments with Building Height = None 12 0.36 0.16 0.16 0.73 21 0.16 0.20 0.02 0.81 0.20†

Low building height % of Segments with Building Height = 1 12 0.28 0.14 0.10 0.51 21 0.28 0.24 0.01 0.77 0.00


Medium building

height

% of Segments with Building Height = 2_3 12 0.56 0.15 0.29 0.81 21 0.59 0.24 0.22 0.93 -0.03

High building

height

% of Segments with Building Height = 4_5 12 0.29 0.15 0.06 0.51 21 0.19 0.16 0.01 0.51 0.10

High-rise % of Segments with Building Height More than 5

12 0.11 0.09 0.00 0.26 21 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.21 0.05

Low urban density % of Segments with low density of built-up

area 12 0.57 0.12 0.35 0.76 21 0.65 0.20 0.34 0.96 -0.08

Medium urban

density

% of Segments with medium density of built-

up area 12 0.23 0.06 0.10 0.33 21 0.25 0.15 0.02 0.62 -0.03

High urban density % of Segments with high density of built-up

area 12 0.19 0.10 0.07 0.43 21 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.35 0.10

†

Low development

level

% of Segments with low development level 12 0.17 0.11 0.06 0.39 21 0.21 0.21 0.01 0.74 -0.03

Medium

development level

% of Segments with medium development level

12 0.29 0.07 0.19 0.45 21 0.18 0.14 0.03 0.57 0.11†

High development

level

% of Segments with high development level 12 0.53 0.13 0.16 0.66 21 0.61 0.27 0.17 0.96 -0.07

Urban decay % of Segments with low maintenance

condition 12 0.29 0.11 0.16 0.50 21 0.34 0.23 0.03 0.80 -0.05

Medium condition

& maintenance

% of Segments with medium maintenance condition

12 0.36 0.14 0.14 0.63 21 0.30 0.13 0.02 0.55 0.06

High condition &

maintenance

% of Segments with high maintenance condition

12 0.33 0.18 0.05 0.65 21 0.35 0.23 0.01 0.75 -0.01

Affordable Housing % of Segments with presence of Affordable Housing

12 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.05 21 0.05 0.13 0.00 0.59 -0.04

Slums % of Segments with slums 12 0.06 0.09 0.00 0.26 21 0.15 0.22 0.00 0.67 -0.09

On-street parking % of Segments with on-street parking 12 0.60 0.17 0.17 0.88 21 0.65 0.23 0.00 0.92 -0.05

Off-street parking % of Segments with off-street parking 12 0.15 0.12 0.00 0.34 21 0.21 0.16 0.02 0.55 -0.06

Sidewalk parking % of Segments with parking on sidewalks 12 0.14 0.12 0.03 0.48 21 0.13 0.09 0.00 0.36 0.01

Sidewalks % of Segments with sidewalks 12 0.32 0.14 0.12 0.58 21 0.35 0.19 0.10 0.78 -0.03

Local accessibility

BRT

% of Segments with access to BRT within the

buffer area 12 0.95 0.07 0.81 1.00 21 0.93 0.06 0.80 1.00 0.01

Commercial and

parking

% of Segments with Commercial and Parking 12 0.19 0.10 0.04 0.33 21 0.15 0.09 0.00 0.32 0.04

Vacant and BRT % of Segments Vacant and on BRT Corridor 12 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.09 21 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.19 0.02

Entropy evenness in the distribution of land uses 12 0.64 0.13 0.33 0.81 21 0.60 0.17 0.21 0.90 0.04

Distance to CBD distance to closest activity node (km) 12 4.47 1.53 2.26 6.82 21 9.98 3.48 0.00 15.26 -5.50†

Segment density density of segments -segs per sqkm- 12 472.80 128.16 259.74 682.46 21 880.35 405.47 188.44 1777.44 -407.56

Population Population within the block (share of block

within ward area) 12 3065.76 2158.61 468.16 7625.75 21 2870.90 1409.28 531.24 6220.98 194.86

Population density Population density (people over gross area) 12 15613.77 10993.73 2384.32 38837.63 21 14621.36 7177.42 2705.58 31683.20 992.41 †means are statistically different


Table 3. Descriptive statistics built environment variables used for factor analysis (N=33)

Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

Public facility index 33 2.88 1.19 1.00 5.00

Public facility density 33 31.79 21.57 5.09 81.49

BRT-oriented facility index 33 1.24 0.79 0.00 3.00

BRT-oriented facility density 33 10.80 9.16 0.00 30.56

Green areas’ density 33 70.84 52.67 0.00 213.90

Park density 33 38.27 34.85 0.00 157.88

NMT friendliness 33 155.57 157.59 5.09 651.90

Rickshaw/street vendors density 33 67.13 47.78 0.00 203.72

Average block size 33 7,053.42 3,860.48 1,980.00 18,052.00

Segment on BRT 33 13.61 7.62 5.00 41.00

Land use index 33 7.82 1.16 5.00 10.00

BRT-oriented land uses 33 0.75 0.24 0.15 1.20

BRT unsupportive land uses 33 0.33 0.26 0.03 0.89

Low building height 33 0.28 0.21 0.01 0.77

High-rise 33 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.26

High urban density 33 0.13 0.11 0.00 0.43

High development level 33 0.58 0.23 0.16 0.96

Slums 33 0.12 0.19 0.00 0.67

Commercial and parking 33 0.16 0.10 0.00 0.33

Vacant and BRT 33 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.19

Entropy 33 0.61 0.16 0.21 0.90

Distance to CBD 33 7.98 3.95 0.00 15.26

Segment density 33 732.15 384.76 188.44 1777.44

Population density 33 14,982.24 8,601.075 2,384.32 38,837.63


Table 4. Factor Analysis results (rotated factor loading >|0.40|, N=33).

# Variable

BRT-OD

facility-high

density built-

up area, mixed

land uses

(Factor 1)

Slums NMT

friendly, low

height and

connected

(Factor 2)

BRT-OD land

uses, non-core

consolidated

and connected

(Factor 3)

Green

spaces and

parks

(Factor 4)

Vacant on

BRT, unfilled

and mixed

land uses

(Factor 5)

Rickshaws,

urban core

high density

areas

(Factor 6)

1 Public facility index 0.87

2 Public facility density 0.82

3 BRT-oriented facility index 0.81

4 BRT-oriented facility density 0.81

5 Green areas’ density 0.93

6 Park density 0.94

7 NMT friendliness 0.80

8 Rickshaw/street vendors density 0.75

9 Land use index -0.41

10 Average block size -0.54

11 Segment on BRT 0.44

12 BRT-oriented land uses 0.89

13 BRT unsupportive land uses -0.71

14 Low building height 0.88

15 High-rise*

16 High urban density 0.62 0.43

17 High development level -0.53 0.41 -0.56

18 Slums 0.89

19 Commercial and parking -0.56

20 Vacant and BRT 0.82

21 Entropy 0.62 0.52

22 Distance to CBD 0.52 -0.41

23 Segment density 0.73 0.49

24 Population density -0.47 0.44

Eigenvalue 4.93 4.76 2.82 1.90 1.45 1.23

Cronbach’s Alpha 0.88 0.84 0.78 0.96 0.59 0.55 Note: Factors loading <|0.40| are left blank. *High-rise is the only variable did not load in any factor.


Table 5. Mean values for built environment factors and high rise developments per cluster.

Built environment factors

And high-rise

Clusters

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

# of stops in cluster 8 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 5 4 2

BRT-OD Facility-high density built-up area, mixed

land uses

-0.18 -0.25 1.08 -1.12 -0.09 -1.85 0.40 1.73 1.81 -0.27 -0.33 -1.14

Slums NMT friendly, low height and connected -0.16 0.24 -0.17 -0.51 0.60 -1.19 -0.17 0.32 -0.87 -0.78 2.21 -0.92

BRT-OD land uses, non-core consolidated and

connected

-0.25 -0.47 -0.28 1.19 -1.02 -1.69 -2.24 0.42 0.40 1.36 0.48 0.06

Green spaces and parks 0.37 0.03 1.90 3.43 -0.93 -0.64 -0.17 -0.61 -0.25 -0.80 -0.18 -0.47

Vacant on BRT and mixed land uses 0.20 -0.01 -0.16 -0.69 -0.60 -1.89 -0.39 0.30 -0.23 -0.78 0.21 3.11

Rickshaws, core high density areas 0.48 2.96 -0.07 -1.45 -0.83 -1.11 -0.44 0.48 -0.61 -0.09 -0.43 -1.02

High-rise developments* 0.23 1.23 -0.69 -0.64 -0.85 -0.95 2.02 -0.49 1.44 -0.66 -0.71 0.28

*standardized value


Table 6. BRT typologies by built environment type, clusters 1-12.

# Built environment factors and selected standardize variables (1) Morphology (2) BRT Stops

Cluster

1

Ahmedabad: Shivranjani

Indore: Satya Sai; L.I.G.;

Shalimar Township;

Bhanwarkuan; Geeta Bhawan;

Navlakha; Ramdev Nagar

Cluster

2

Indore: Industry House; Palasia

Cluster

3

Ahmedabad: Lokmanya Tilak

Bag

Indore: Shivaji Vatika

Cluster

4

Ahmedabad: Shastrinagar

Cluster

5

Ahmedabad: Soni Ni Chali;

Gurudwara

Cluster

6

Ahmedabad: Narol

(1) Standardized variables for comparison purposes (2) BRT stop map from one of the stops within the cluster that reflects the urban morphology

Factor 1 -0.18

Factor 2 -0.16

Factor 3 -0.25

Factor 4 0.37

Factor 5 0.20

Factor 6 0.48

High-rise 0.23

Entropy 0.27

Commercial-parking 0.12

NMT -0.28

Segment density -0.27

Vacant land 0.53

BRT-O landuses -0.25

Popdensity -0.41

Factor 1 -0.25

Factor 2 0.24

Factor 3 -0.47

Factor 4 0.03

Factor 5 -0.01

Factor 6 2.96

High-rise 1.23

Entropy 0.22

Commercial-parking -0.34

NMT -0.55


Vacant land 0.17

BRT-O landuses 0.11

Popdensity 2.41

Factor 1 1.08

Factor 2 -0.17

Factor 3 -0.28

Factor 4 1.90

Factor 5 -0.16

Factor 6 -0.07

High-rise -0.69

Entropy 0.57


NMT 0.60


Vacant land -0.59


Popdensity -0.62

Factor 1 -1.12

Factor 2 -0.51

Factor 3 1.19

Factor 4 3.43

Factor 5 -0.69

Factor 6 -1.45

High-rise -0.64

Entropy -1.00


NMT 1.44

Segment density 0.72

Vacant land -0.49

BRT-O landuses 0.70

Popdensity 0.23

Factor 1 -0.09

Factor 2 0.60

Factor 3 -1.02

Factor 4 -0.93

Factor 5 -0.60

Factor 6 -0.83

High-rise -0.85

Entropy 0.01


NMT -0.03


Vacant land -0.79


Popdensity 0.60

Factor 1 -1.85

Factor 2 -1.19

Factor 3 -1.69

Factor 4 -0.64

Factor 5 -1.89

Factor 6 -1.11

High-rise -0.95

Entropy -2.55


NMT -0.79


Vacant land -0.86


Popdensity -0.56


# Built environment factors and selected standardize variables (1) Morphology (2) BRT Stops

Cluster

7

Indore: MR-9 BRTS; Vijay

Nagar

Cluster

8

Ahmedabad: Maninagar

Railway Station

Indore: G.P.O. BRTS

Cluster

9

Ahmedabad: Kankaria Lake;

Anjali

Cluster

10

Ahmedabad: Bhairavnath Road;

CTM Cross Road; Vijay Park;

Bhuyandev; Mira Cinema Char

Rasta

Cluster

11

Ahmedabad: Ranip crossroads;

Ramapir No tekra; Sola Cross

Road; Sabarmati Police Station

Cluster

12

Ahmedabad: Jayantilal park;

ISKON Mandir

(1) Standardized variables for comparison purposes

(2) BRT stop map from one of the stops within the cluster that reflects the urban morphology

Factor 1 0.40

Factor 2 -0.17

Factor 3 -2.24

Factor 4 -0.17

Factor 5 -0.39

Factor 6 -0.44

High-rise 2.02

Entropy -1.17


NMT -0.53


Vacant land 0.85


Popdensity 0.30

Factor 1 1.73

Factor 2 0.32

Factor 3 0.42

Factor 4 -0.61

Factor 5 0.30

Factor 6 0.48

High-rise -0.49

Entropy 1.41


NMT 0.26


Vacant land -0.50

BRT-O landuses 0.56

Popdensity -0.09

Factor 1 1.81

Factor 2 -0.87

Factor 3 0.40

Factor 4 -0.25

Factor 5 -0.23

Factor 6 -0.61

High-rise 1.44

Entropy 0.74


NMT -0.53


Vacant land -0.28

BRT-O landuses 0.58

Popdensity -0.10

Factor 1 -0.27

Factor 2 -0.78

Factor 3 1.36

Factor 4 -0.80

Factor 5 -0.78

Factor 6 -0.09

High-rise -0.66

Entropy -0.60


NMT -0.57


Vacant land -0.73

BRT-O landuses 1.18

Popdensity 0.68

Factor 1 -0.33

Factor 2 2.21

Factor 3 0.48

Factor 4 -0.18

Factor 5 0.21

Factor 6 -0.43

High-rise -0.71

Entropy 0.00


NMT 1.93


Vacant land -0.63

BRT-O landuses 0.47

Popdensity -0.60

Factor 1 -1.14

Factor 2 -0.92

Factor 3 0.06

Factor 4 -0.47

Factor 5 3.11

Factor 6 -1.02

High-rise 0.28

Entropy 0.40


NMT -0.84


Vacant land 2.75


Popdensity -1.21

Documents

A typology of urban development around bus rapid transit stops in Indore and Ahmedabad India final version (1)