Abstract No.

: 196

Bicycle Use in Indian Cities: Understanding the Opportunities

and Threats
Premjeet Das Gupta1 +, Kshama Puntambekar2
Abstract
The study explores the opportunities and threats with respect to bicycle use in India, with reference to the recent
literature on bicycle use. The study attempts to understand the role of bicycles with respect to livelihoods and
the urban poor in India, trip characteristics of bicyclists in India, variation in bicycle use in Indian cities, future
of bicycle use in Indian cities in do-nothing scenario, and the potential market for bicycle use in India.
Keywords
Bicycle, urban poor, livelihoods, trip length distribution, ‘other workers’, modal share
1. Introduction
Bicycles have a role to play in supporting the mobility and livelihoods of the urban poor (Anand, Tiwari, &
Ravi, 2006), in making public transport accessible to more people at lesser cost and curbing harmful automobile
emissions (Replogle, 1992b). Efficient polycentric metropolitan structure can be achieved through integration of
bicycles with Public Transport (PT) and it is possible to augment the catchment area for access to transit stops
and stations by up to forty times in this way (Replogle, 1992b). Jain and Tiwari (2011) estimated the impact of
improved PT and Non Motorized Transport (NMT) facilities on CO2 emissions in Delhi, Pune and Patna. The
study indicated that a combined strategy for improving PT and promoting NMT is likely to result in greater
reduction in CO2 emissions than isolated strategies for each. From the point of view of sustainable transport, it is
necessary to promote bicycle use especially in cities of the developing world where economic growth is
accompanied by increasing use of personal motorized transport. Indian cities offer favourable condition for
bicycle use in terms of mixed land use and relatively high proportion of short trip lengths (Tiwari, 2011), but
there are barriers to bicycling in the form of affordability-related issues, bicycle-hostile street environments,
bicycle theft, social attitudes to Non Motorized Vehicles (NMVs), regulatory suppression of NMV traffic, etc.
(Replogle, 1992b). In this context it is necessary to review the scenario of bicycle use in urban India. In this
paper an attempt has been made to study the opportunities and threats with respect to bicycle use in India, with
reference to the recent literature on bicycle use.
The objectives of this paper are to understand the following:
 Role of bicycles with respect to livelihoods and the urban poor in India
 Trip characteristics of bicyclists in India
 Variation in bicycle use in Indian cities
 Future of bicycle use in Indian cities in do-nothing scenario
 The potential market for bicycle use in India
2. Bicycles, livelihoods and the urban poor in India
Bicyclists in Indian cities are mainly ‘captive users’, who use bicycle because of affordability issues (Tiwari &
Jain, 2008; Arora, 2011; Jain, 2012; TRIPP, IIT Delhi, 2012). In India, the economically weaker section of
society typically locates itself very close to work opportunities, whether by legal or illegal means (Tiwari,
2011). Squatter settlements near the place of work of the urban poor are major trip generators and high-income
households are major trip attractors for the bicycle-borne urban working class (Jain & Tiwari, 2009). Certain
occupations were found to be dependent on cycles for mobility in a survey of slum dwellers and the low income
working class in Delhi by IIT Delhi (Anand, Tiwari, & Ravi, 2006). These may be classified as: home-based
service providers (sweeper, stove-cooker repairing, etc.), delivery men (newspaper, courier, etc.), and vendors
(cloth, cooked food, etc.). As far as the urban working class was concerned, 79% of the sample was found to be
active cyclists. Among the places of work reported by the respondents, cyclists outnumbered non-cyclists in
almost all the categories, indicating a clear preference for cycle among those whose livelihoods depend on
constant mobility.

1
Assistant Professor, School of Planning and Architecture, Bhopal
2
Assistant Professor, School of Planning and Architecture, Bhopal
+
Corresponding author; e-mail: premjeet@spabhopal.ac.in

1
Bicycles have been associated with the urban poor in India over the decades. In a study dating back to 1979 the
overwhelming majority of cyclists in Delhi, Jaipur and Hyderabad were found to be from the lowest income
groups, belonging to the unskilled category (Replogle, 1992a). In 1999 the share of walk and cycle among the
low income households in Delhi was more than ten times that among the high-income households (Tiwari,
2002). A recent survey of cyclists in six Indian cities including Delhi shows that the majority of them earn less
Rs.10,000 per month. Between 20% in Delhi and around 70% in Lucknow, a significant proportion of cyclists
earn between Rs.3,001 and Rs.6,000 per month (TERI, 2014).
Motorized personal modes are difficult to afford by low income groups, which leads one to question the
affordability of public transport. A person living in any Indian city or town can be called poor if she or he does
not have the means to spend more than Rs.1,407 per month (at 2011-12 prices) for basic needs. This is the
Monthly Per Capita Expenditure (MPCE) considered for defining the Urban Poverty Line in India (Planning
Commission, 2014). The share of conveyance in the urban Poverty Level Basket is taken to be 7.3%, which
means that the monthly expenditure on transport by a ‘poor’ person living in India’s cities or towns would be
around Rs.103 only. The minimum one way fare for Intermediate Public Transport (IPT) or PT in Indian cities
is around Rs.5, which translates into a monthly expenditure of Rs.250 considering 25 days of work a month.
Thus IPT or PT would be out of consideration for the majority of the urban poor, who have no option, but to use
non-motorized modes like walk and bicycle for their daily travels. The urban poverty ratio in India in 2011-12
was 26.4%, which puts the number of urban poor in India in 2011-12 at a staggering 102.47 million persons,
indicating the sheer magnitude of trips possibly made by captive cyclists in urban India.
Plotting the share of bicycle in trips made by ‘other workers’ in urban areas in each state of India (Census of
India, 2011) against the urban poverty ratio of the corresponding state (Planning Commission, 2014), one
observes a distinct association between the two (Figure 1). In India ‘other workers’ can be taken to be the largest
grouping of workers in urban areas.

50
Share of bicycle in trips by 'other workers'

45
in urban areas in Indian states (%)

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 20 40 60 80
Urban poverty ratio in Indian states (%)

Figure 1: Variation in modal share of bicycle in trips by urban ‘other workers’ with urban poverty ratio in Indian states (Source:
Census of India, 2011; Planning Commission, 2014)

3. How far are bicyclists travelling in urban India?

Most Indian cities have traditional cores where a high degree of mixed land use is observed. The trip length
distribution of a city, which is a function of land use and general cost of transport, is an indicator of the
opportunity for making non-motorized trips (Replogle, 1992a). As per Census of India (2011) the maximum
percentage of trips by ‘other workers’ in urban India (more than one third of the trips) are in the 1 – 5 km range
(Figure 2), where cycle is regarded as the most efficient mode (Replogle, 1992a). The plot for cumulative
frequency shows that almost 60% of all the trips take place within 5 km and, almost 80%, within 10km. These
are combined figures for all cities and towns of India, which has a very high number of small towns.

2
 40 100

Percentage of trips (cumulative)

35 90
80
30
Percentage of trips

70
25 60
20 50
15 40
30
10
20
5 10
0 0
0-1 2-5 6-10 11-20
20 21-30 31-50 51+
Trip length (km)

Figure 2:: Trip length distribution of trips by ‘other workers’ in urban India (Source: Census of India, 2011
2011)

Using Census 2011 data, trips by urban ‘other workers’ were classified by distance for each mode (Figure 3). As
expected for bicycle the largest share is of trips is in the 2 – 5 km range. However, it is worth noting that the
share of trips above 6 km is 30%,
0%, indicating the existence of a market for long distance commuting in India.

Figure 3: Trips made by ‘other workers’ in urban India classified by distance for different modes (Source: Census of India, 2011)

Analysis of the Census 2011 data on modal share of trips by ‘other workers’ in urban India reveals that share of
bicycles in the 21 – 30 km distance category is more than that in any other distance category (share in 2 – 5 km
category is second highest),, as shown in Figure 4.
4 Bicycle competes well withith other modes in the 1.5 – 5.5 km
category as expected, losing out to motorized two-wheelers
two in the 5.5 – 10.5 km and 11.5 – 20.5 km categories.
However, in the 21 – 30 km distance category bicycle dominates with a share of 29.4%.

Figure 4: Share of different modes in trips made by urban ‘other workers’ across distance ranges (Source:
Source: Census of India, 2011)

3
4. Variation in bicycle use in Indian cities
Modal share data made available by the Ministry of the Urban Development (MoUD, 2008) is use used to analyze
the variation in bicycle use in thirty Indian cities. It is seen that in smaller cities share of cycle trips is generally
high. In these cities bicycle competes favourably with car-based trips, but loses out to M2W. The share of
bicycle is relatively less in the six most populous cities even as the share
share of PT trips increases greatly in these
cities. This is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5:: Comparison of modal share of trips across thirty cities (Source: MoUD, 2008)

Cities where population is less than 2 million have very high share of cycle trips trips. Share of cycle trips is
relatively less in cities where the population is more than 5 million. Hill cities (along with Panaji) have low
share of cycle trips besides having low populations.
population This is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Comparison of share of cycle trips and population across thirty cities (Source: MoUD, 2008)

Share
hare of cycle trips is relatively low in cities where population is more than 10 million, but absolute number of
trips in these cities far outnumbers
tnumbers that in smaller cities. This is shown in Figure 7. Bicycle promotion strategy
should be framed for these cities with a view towards increasing the share of cycle trips since a small increase in
share would translate into
nto a large number of additional cycle trips.

Figure 7: Comparison of share of cycle trips and absolute number of cycle trips across thirty cities (Source:
Source: MoUD, 2008)

4
Average
verage trip length increases with increasing population in the thirty cities as shown in Figure 8. More populous
cities are larger in terms of area, hence it can be said that increase in trip length goes hand in hand with increase
in city area.

Figure 8: Comparison of average trip length (all modes) and population across thirty cities (Source: MoUD, 2008)

An inverse relation is observed between the share of cycle trips and the average trip length as well as the Per
Capita Trip Rate (PCTR) for the thirty cities as shown in Figures 9 and 10. However when the share of cycle
trips is plotted against the share of work trips accessible within 15 minutes in the thirty cities (MoUD, 2008), no
clear relation is observed (Figure 11).
11

35
Share of cycle trips (across thirty

30
25
20
cities) (%)

15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15
Avg. trip length (across thirty cities) (km)

Figure 9: Variation in share of bicycle trips with average trip length in thirty cities (Source: MoUD, 2008)

35
Share of cycle trips (across thirty

30
25
20
trips) (%)

15
10
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Per Capita Trip Rate (across thirty trips)

Figure 10: Variation in share of bicycle trips with PCTR in thirty cities (Source: MoUD, 2008)

5
 35
Share of bicycle trips (across thirty
30
25
20
trips) (%)

15
10
5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Share of work trips accessible within 15 mins. (across
thirty trips) (%)

Figure 11: Variation in share of bicycle trips with share of work trips accessible within 15 mins. in thirty cities (Source: MoUD,
2008)

5. The future of bicycle use in Indian cities in do-nothing scenario

A study by Interface for Cycling Expertise (I-ce, 2008) documents the change in the modal share of bicycle in
eight cities of India from the 1980s to the 2000s (Figure 12). Another study by IIT Delhi (2013) documents the
share of cycle trips in seven cities in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and post 2005 (Figure 13). It is seen that with the
exception of Patna, modal share of bicycle has declined over time in all cities. The decline is sharpest in Delhi,
Pune, Bangalore and Jaipur. Marginal improvement is observed in the modal share of bicycle in Delhi and
Bangalore post-2005.

Figure 12: Change in share of bicycle trips in eight Figure 13: Change in share of bicycle trips in eight cities (Source: IIT Delhi,
cities (Source: I-ce, 2008) 2013)

Replogle (1992) was concerned that most mid and small sized cities in India could lose their NMT dependent
modal orientation if the interests of NMT users were overlooked by government. Under this scenario, trip
lengths were likely to increase and the share of NMT was likely to decrease sharply. Not only the mid and small
sized cities, larger cities like Kolkata and Chennai, which could be classified as PT-dependent Mixed Traffic
System cities, were likely to transform into Motor Vehicle (MV) dependent cities.
Trip share of PT, NMT Private Vehicles (PV) and IPT was projected for thirty cities by MoUD (2008). In ‘do
nothing’ scenario share of NMT was projected to decline across all categories of cities (Table 1). Sub-million
cities were projected to be biggest losers in terms of percentage. Cities falling in the 1 – 2 milion range were the
next most vulnerable in terms of percentage loss in NMT share. In percentage terms the projected loss in share
of bicycle in bigger cities was relatively small, but given the large number of trips in these cities, the absolute
loss could be much bigger than that in the smaller cities.

6
Table 1: Projected trip share of PT, NMT and combination of PV and IPT for different size classes of Indian cities (for thirty cities)
(Source: MoUD, 2008)

2007 (base year) 2011 2021 2031

PT PV + NMT PT PV + NMT PT PV + NMT PT PV + NMT
IPT IPT IPT IPT
City Category
<0.5 mn with plain terrain 5 57 38 4 59 36 3 66 31 2 72 26
<0.5 mn with hilly terrain 8 34 58 7 37 56 5 47 48 3 57 40
0.5 – 1 mn 9 39 53 8 42 50 6 51 43 5 58 36
1 – 2 mn 13 43 44 12 46 43 10 52 38 9 57 34
2 – 4 mn 10 47 43 9 49 42 8 51 41 8 52 40
4 – 8 mn 22 42 36 21 45 35 15 51 34 12 54 34
>8 mn 46 24 30 42 28 30 31 40 29 26 46 28

Average 16 41 43 15 44 42 11 51 38 9 57 34

6. Identifying potential cyclists

It has been discussed that cyclists in India almost entirely fall under the ‘captive user’ category. While it is
important to ensure that the modal preference of captive cyclists is not affected, strategies should be drawn up to
encourage potential cyclists to take up cycling actively. Any person who is able to use a bicycle and has access
to one can turn out to be a potential cyclist, though there can be many hidden factors that discourage people
from cycling. Some of the trips where bicycle use can be induced are: access and egress components of PT trips;
educational trips; and, shopping/social/recreational trips.
In a study of bus commuters in Delhi 7% of the sampled commuters reported their total trip length (combined
length of access, main haul, and egress trip) to be less than 5 km (Tiwari & Jain, 2008). Also, Delhi Metro users
were reported to have longer and costlier access trips. This gives an indication of the potential for bicycle-based
access and egress trips.
In yet another study of bus commuters in Delhi it was found that 80% of the bus commuters owned cycles
(Advani & Tiwari, 2006). Among the cycle owners only 1% were found to be actually using cycle for access
trips. 97% of the cycle owners were walking to the bus stop. Out of these walk trips, 56% were more than 0.5
km in length. Of these people, 91% were earming less than Rs.10,000 per month. This group was identified as a
prime source of potential cyclists. Of the 20% bus commuters who did not own cycles, 98% walked to the bus
stop. Out of these trips, 48% were more than 0.5 km in length. This group was also identified as a source for
potential cyclists.
Bhamidipati (2008) observed that education trips constitute the second largest category of trips made in most
urban areas in India. To further explore the scenario in respect of non-work trips in general and education trips
in particular, data on modal share of trips was obtained for eleven cities from official Comprehensive Mobility
Plans (CMPs), Comprehensive Traffic and Transportation Plans (CTTPs), Integrated Mobility Plans (IMPs),
and Low Carbon Mobility Plans (LCMPs). When compared, it was seen that except for two of the cities,
education trips indeed form the second largest group of trips (Table 2). With the exception of Nagpur and Pune,
education trips range between 16% (Kolkata Metropolitan Area) and 44% (Amritsar). If Nagpur and Pune are
not considered, it can be seen that average share of education trips in the non-metro cities are more than that in
the large metropolitan cities (Kolkata and Bengaluru). As a whole non-work trips, which includes all trips other
than work trips and business trips, make up around 50% of the total trips in almost all cities.

7
Table 2: Modal share by purpose in eleven cities (Source: Chandigarh Administration, 2009; Punjab Municipal Infrastructure
Development Company, 2012; Rajkot Municipal Corporation, 2014; Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, 2014; Government of
Uttar Pradesh, 2011; Nagpur Improvement Trust, 2012; Jaipur Development Authority, 2010; Pune Municipal Corporation, 2008;
Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority, Government
of Gujarat, 2011; Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation, 2011; Kolkata Metropolitan Development
Authority, 2008)

Vishakhapatnam
(Urban Complex)

(Metropolitan

(Metropolitan
Ahmedabad
Chandigarh

Bangalore
Amritsar

Kolkata
Nagpur

(AMC)
Jaipur
Rajkot

Area)

Area)
Agra

Pune
Trip Purpose
Work 50 46 53 39 57 38 28 49 35 57 61
Business - - - - 1 22 19 24 7 - -
Educational 38 44 26 32 21 7 19 9 30 23 16
Social and Recreation - - - 27 9 15 7 - - -
Social - - - - - - 7 - - - 13
Shopping - - 16 - - - - - - - 4
Shopping/Social/Recreation - - - - - - - - 20 - -
Religious - - 4 - - - - - - - -
Cultural - - - - - - - - - - 2
Tourism/Pilgrimage - - - - - - - 4 - - -
Tourism - - - - 12 11 7 - - - -
Health - - - - - - - - - - 1
Others 12 11 1 2 - 7 20 6 9 20 3
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source CMP CMP LCMP LCMP CMP CMP Greater

CMP Ahmedabad
CMP Integrated MobilityCMP
Plan Interim
CMP
Report
Year 2009 2012 2014 2014 2011 2012 2010 2008 2011 2011 2008

There appears to be a dearth of published work on cyclists’ trip purpose in India. Comparing data from the
LCMPs of Rajkot, Vishakhapatnam and Udaipur it is seen that bicycle use is mainly confined to work and
education trips (Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, 2014; Rajkot Municipal Corporation, 2014;
Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, 2015). Proportion of bicycle in work trips was observed to be higher than
that of education trips in all the three cities. However, compared to trips by other modes, cycle trips are very less
in proportion, whereas walk trips have a significant presence in the overall trips. This is shown in Figures 14, 15
and 16.

Figure 14: Modal share by trip purpose, Rajkot (Source: Rajkot Municipal Corporation, 2014)

100%
80% Car
60% Bus
40% Auto
20% 2W
0%
Bicycle
Walk

Figure 15: Modal share by trip purpose, Vishakhapatnam (Source: Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, 2014)

8
 100%
Car
80%
Bus
60%
IPT + Mini Bus
40% 2W

20% Bicycle
Walk
0%
Work Education Other

Figure 16: Modal share by trip purpose, Udaipur (Source: Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, 2015)

When data for Nagpur and Pune on cyclicts’ trip purpose was compared, no similarity was observed. While in
Nagpur work/business accounts for most of the cycle trips, in Pune it was mostly school/college trips (Alando,
Brussel, Zuidgeest, & Durgi, 2013; Nagpur Improvement Trust, 2012). This is hown in Figures 17 and 18.
Bicycle use for non-work trips should be promoted in Indian cities but more research is required on the potential
scope for inducing bicycle use in non-work trips.

100
Share in trip purpose of

80
60
cyclists (%)

40
20
0

Trip purpose

Figure 17: Cyclists’ trip purpose, Nagpur (Source: Nagpur Improvement Trust, 2012)

60.0
Share of bicycle trip end

50.0
40.0
destinations (%)

30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0

Bicyle trip end destination categories

Figure 18: Cyclists’ trip purpose, Pune (Source: Alando, Brussel, Zuidgeest, & Durgi, 2013)

7. Conclusion
Bicycle is chosen by the urban poor in India because of affordability issues. Bicyclists in India are mostly
‘captive users’. There is a need to induce potential cyclists into active cycling. It is generally observed that
higher the level of poverty in a state, higher is the modal share of bicycle in trips made by urban ‘other workers’
in that state. Even though almost 60% of bicycle trips by urban ‘other workers’ occurs within 5 km, there is a
market for long distance commuting by bicycles as well in urban India. In large cities, especially the mega
cities, share of cycles is low but absolute number of users is high. Even a small decline in the share of cycle trips
in future in these large cities will lead to a large decline in absolute numbers. In view of the availability of
public transport in many of the large cities, there is a need to explore the possibility of integrating bicycle trips
with public transport. Modal share of bicycles is projected to decline most sharply in sub-million cities in a do-
nothing scenario. The medium sized cities are also transforming into MV oriented cities. In such a scenario,
there is a need to understand the public attitude and perception towards bicycle in small and medium cities.

9
Bicycle use is mostly confined to work and education trips in urban India. Share of education trips are second
only to work trip in Indian cities, but bicycle-borne education trips are a small fraction of all education trips. As
for the other non-work trips, bicycle use is almost insignificant. There is a need to explore possibility of
increasing the share of bicycle for non-work trips in general and education trips specifically.

Reference
Advani, M., & Tiwari, G. (2006). Bicycle - As a Feeder Mode for Bus Service. Paper presented at the Velo
Modial Conference 2006, Cape Town. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from
http://tripp.iitd.ernet.in/publications/paper/planning/mukti_VELO06%20paper.pdf
Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Gandhinagar Urban
Development Authority, Government of Gujarat. (2011). Greater Ahmedabad Integrated Mobility Plan.
Government of Gujarat.
Alando, W., Brussel, M., Zuidgeest, M., & Durgi, D. (2013). Exploring the Utility of the Spatially-Constrained
Accessibility Measure in Integarting Urban Cycling and Land Use in Pune, India. Proceedings of the 14th N-
AERUS Conference. Enschede, the Netherlands.
Anand, A., Tiwari, G., & Ravi, R. (2006). The Bicycle in the Lives of the Urban Poor (Case Study: Delhi).
Retrieved March 24, 2016, from http://www.gtkp.com/assets/uploads/20091125-112613-9693-
Anvita%20Anand%20presented%20by%20Ravi.pdf
Bhamidipati, S. K. (2008). Can social or spatial variation explain students' mode choice? Enschede, The
Netherlands: International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation.
Chandigarh Administration. (2009). Comprehensive Mobility Plan for Chandigarh Urban Complex. Draft Final
Report. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from http://chandigarh.gov.in/advt/cmp-mrts100809.pdf
Census of India. (2011). 'Other Workers' by Distance from Residence to Place of Work and Mode of Travel to
Place of Work. Government of India.
Government of Uttar Pradesh. (2011). Agra Comprehensive Mobility Plan. Government of Uttar Pradesh.
Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. (2014). Low-Carbon Comprehensive Mobility Plan,
Visakhapatnam. UNEP. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from
http://www.unep.org/transport/lowcarbon/PDFs/LCMP_Vizag.pdf
IIT Delhi. (2013). NMT Infrastructure in India: Investment, Policy and Design. UNEP.
Interface for Cycling Expertise (I-ce), The Netherlands. (2008). Bicycling in Asia. I-ce, The Netherlands.
Jain, H. (2012). Development of a Bicycle Demand Estimation Model Incorporating Land Use Sensitive
Parameters: A Case of Pune City, India. Delhi: Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (Unpublished PhD thesis).
Jain, D., & Tiwari, G. (2011, November). Impact of Improving Public Transport and NMT Facilities on CO2
Emissions in indian Cities. Presentation given at the Second National research Conference on Climate Change,
2011. New Delhi. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from http://www.cseindia.org/userfiles/deepty_jain.pdf
Jain, H., & Tiwari, G. (2009, May). Captive Riders, Informal Sector and Bicycling: Interrelation in Indian
Cities. Brussels, Belgium: Velo-City 2009 Conference. Retrieved March 24, 2016, from Velo-City 2009 Web
site: http://www.velo-city2009.com/assets/files/paper-Himani-sub6.3.pdf
Jaipur Development Authority. (2010). Comprehensive Mobility Plan for Jaipur. Jaipur Development Authority.
Retrieved March 26, 2016, from https://www.jaipurmetrorail.in/pdf/CMP.pdf
Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation. (2011). Comprehensive Traffic and
Transportation Plan for Bengaluru. Final Report. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from
http://wricitieshub.org/sites/default/files/Comprehensive%20Traffic%20and%20Transportation%20Plan%20for
%20Bangalore.pdf
Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority. (2008). Comprehensive Mobility Plan for Kolkata Metropolitan
Area. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from
http://wricitieshub.org/sites/default/files/Comprehensive%20Mobility%20Plan%20for%20Kolkata%20Metropol
itan%20Area.pdf
Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD). (2008). Study on Traffic and TransportationPolicies and Strategies in
Urban Areas in India. Government of India.

10
Nagpur Improvement Trust. (2012). Comprehensive Mobility Plan for Nagpur. Nagpur Improvement Trust.
Retrieved March 26, 2016, from http://nitnagpur.org/pdf/Nagpur_CMP_Draft_Final_Report.pdf
Planning Commission. (2014). Report of the Expert Group to Review the Methodologyfor Measurement of
Poverty. Government of India.
Pune Municipal Corporation. (2008). Comprehensive Mobility Plan for Pune City. Pune Municipal Corporation.
Retrieved March 26, 2016, from http://www.punecorporation.org/informpdf/CMP/CMP_July_2010/1-
iuisl_Pune-CMP-November-2008-chapters-1-6.pdf
Punjab Municipal Infrastructure Development Company. (2012). Comprehensive Mobility Plan fro Amritsar.
Government of Punjab. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from http://amritsar.nic.in/html/cmp/DFR-Amritsar-1.pdf
Rajkot Municipal Corporation. (2014). Low Carbon Comprehensive Mobility Plan, Rajkot. Rajkot Municipal
Corporation. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from
http://www.unep.org/transport/lowcarbon/PDFs/LCMP_Rajkot.pdf
Replogle, M. (1992). Non-Motorized Vehicles in Asian Cities. The World Bank, Asia Technical Department.
Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Replogle, M. (1992). Bicycles and Cycle-Rickshaws in Asian Cities. Transportation Research Record, 1372, 76-
84.
TERI. (2014). Pedalling Towards a Greener India. New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI).
Tiwari, G. (2002). Urban Transport Priorities, Meeting the Challenges of Socio Economic Diversities in Cities,
A Case Study of Delhi, India. Cities, 19(2), 95-103.
Tiwari, G. (2011). Key Mobility Challenges in Indian Cities. International Transport Forum.
Tiwari, G., & Jain, H. (2008). Bicycles in Urban India. IUT Journal, 59-68.
TRIPP, IIT Delhi. (2012). Planning and Design Guideline for Cycling Infrastructure. New Delhi: TRIPP.
Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur. (2015). Low-Carbon Comprehensive Mobility Plan, Udaipur. UNEP.
Retrieved March 26, 2016, from www.unep.org/transport/lowcarbon/PDFs/LCMP_Udaipur.pdf

11