Roadside vendors have often been treated as illegal occupants of road space by the authorities. Traffic and transport planners too view their presence as unnecessary and an impediment to the efficient movement of pedestrians and motorised traffic. Every now and then city authorities launch a drive to evict or shift them to different locations. All these decisions are taken by officials who don’t use the services of these vendors. Though it is somewhat fashionable these days to talk about participative decision-making, but decisions are often taken without the involvement of the stakeholders – the vendors and their customers.

In this paper we propose that, given the heterogeneous structure of our society, the presence of roadside vendors is inevitable. Once we accept the fact that they provide legitimate services needed by the road users, it is possible to design spaces for them on the road as an integral part of road development plans. Such designs can ensure efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians without causing hardship to honest hardworking citizens – the vendors.

 

 

With just 25.72% of its population living in urban areas, India is one of the least urbanized countries of the world.1 However, the total urban population of India exceeds the total population of all countries except China and the USA. Thus, in terms of the absolute urban population and the problems of urban development faced by India, the country is highly urbanized. Between 1901 and 1991, while the urban population increased nine times, the number of urban settlements doubled. The share of Class I cities in the total urban population in the same period increased from 26% to 65%, indicating greater migration to larger size cities.

Within Class I cities, 23 cities with a million or more population claim 51% of the population. The corresponding share of Class II and Class III cities has generally remained constant whereas that of Class IV, Class V and Class VI cities has declined. Urban concentration has taken place not only due to natural growth but also from migration, both from rural to urban areas and from smaller towns to larger cities, indicating the uneven spread of economic activities, concentrated primarily in larger cities.

The spatial spread of the cities has also changed. The city limit is now indicated by urban sprawl. A city may have more than one municipality; it may even contain villages and agricultural lands, and its area may transgress several states. Generally Class I cities, and metropolitan cities in particular, have outgrown their municipal boundaries. The sprawl in the four mega cities of the country has been phenomenal within the last two decades. The city now consists of a small old core which is congested, with narrow streets, old houses, its land use often mixed and unregulated. Then there are the unplanned and spontaneously developed parts of the city, usually beyond the municipal limits but also within it, particularly along the arterial road or the main highway going out of the city.

These spontaneous settlements are of two types: one inhabited by the lower and middle classes who, due to mismanagement of the land market, cannot afford to buy land for housing. The other category consists of squatter settlements which are spread all over the city. These are largely inhabited by the poorer sections of society, specially construction labourers and informal workers. The larger the city, the greater the number of slums and squatter settlements. In the mega cities and million cities of India, 40-50% of the population lives in these informal housing colonies.

 

 

The third category consists of planned residential colonies built by the public, private or cooperative sectors. These are high income residential houses and multi-storeyed flats with well laid out roads and other urban services. Public transport and private cars ensure easy access to the city centre as well as the shopping areas. The fourth category is commercial. It is planned and has multi storeyed buildings. These have been located to create multi-centred cities. The fifth and the final category is the urban fringe where the urban and rural divide becomes blurred. These heterogeneous urban patterns have resulted in varied travel demand and transportation systems in Indian cities. In all these areas there is ample space on the road to provide right of way for motorised traffic, while ensuring bicycle lanes, pedestrian paths, bus stand and spaces for vendors.

 

 

Most metropolitan cities in India prepared master plans in the 1960s. These were patterned along the following themes: (i) Demographic projection and decision on the level at which the population shall be contained; (ii) Allocation of population to various zones depending on existing density level, infrastructure capacity and future density levels; (iii) Land-use zoning to achieve the desired allocation of population and activities in various zones as projected; (iv) Large scale acquisition of land with a view to ensuring planned development.

The planning framework, as adopted in the preparation of master plans, is completely divorced from resource assessment. The process also does not invoke any procedures for involving the community and creating a consensus on contentious issues. The net effect of these inadequacies is that most urban growth has long taken place outside the formal planning system. Informal residential and business premises and developments increasingly dominate new urban areas. Even in our mega-cities, where half or more of the city’s population and many of its economic activities are located in illegal or informal settlements, urban planners continue to rely on traditional master-planning approaches with their role restricted to servicing the minority, high income residents. Only a few weak attempts have been made to bring some coordination of development and ‘services’ to informal areas through slum improvement schemes.

In most metropolitan cities transport and urban planners have followed standard textbook procedures and solutions in dealing with urban sprawl and traffic congestion. Large scale integrated land use transport models have been used to support policies and plan documents favouring high density planned neighbourhoods, and capacity expansion of arterial corridors to meet future travel demands. Despite efforts at promoting mixed land use planning, the presence and growth of ‘unauthorized settlements’ and pavement dwelling defies the master plans. Nearly 40-65% of the population of our mega cities lives in substandard living areas: in notified slum areas and slum rehabilitation colonies with minimal supply of drinking water, sewage disposal and electricity. Since the jhuggi-jhonpri clusters are spread almost evenly all over our cities, it becomes necessary that our plans take into account the needs of these citizens.

A large number of dwelling units have been set up by migrant workers at places not earmarked for residential units. Even the master plan does not envision a living area for workers earning low wages in city-based industries. Many factories and small scale production units work entirely outside the gamut of the law. The government agencies themselves admit failure and helplessness in enforcing the current minimum wages, which too do not account for housing costs. Therefore, a large section of the population with low incomes ends up in sub-standard housing on public land owned by various government agencies.

The rising cost of transport within the city and long working hours force workers to live close to their workplaces. A violation of the law thus becomes a pre-condition for their survival. A large number of people living in these units are employed in the informal sector providing various services to the outer areas of the city. However, due to lack of employment opportunities, people living in these areas have to commute long distances across the city in search of employment. Unlike the traffic in cities of high income countries (HICs), bicycles, pedestrians and other non motorised modes are present in significant numbers on the arterial roads and inter-city highways. Their presence persists despite the fact that engineers designed these highway facilities for the uninterrupted flow of fast moving motorised vehicles.

 

 

Urban transport in Indian cities reflects the heterogeneity in the socio-economic and land use patterns. It is dominated by walk trips, non motorised modes such as bicycles and rickshaws, and motorised para transit and public transport depending on the size of the city. A high share of non-motorised vehicles (NMVs) and motorized two wheelers (MTW) characterizes the transport system of Indian cities.

If access trips are ignored, the share of walk trips declines as population and trip lengths increase with city size. Public transport plays a limited role in cities with population upto 15-20 lakhs. Intermediate public transport (IPT) or para transit modes, both motorised three wheeler tempos and non-motorised cycle rickshaws, play an important role in intra-city travel. Motorised two wheelers satisfy more than 25% of transport demand in all city sizes, except for cities with population of 50 lakhs and above.2 Though the share of bicycle trips reduce with an increase in city size, absolute numbers of bicycles have neverthe less increased even in mega cities like Delhi. A recent survey in Delhi shows vast difference in commuting patterns of low income households living in JJ clusters versus medium and high income households living in DDA flats (Table 1).

 

TABLE 1

Modal Share in Delhi

 

 

Mode	1957	1969	1981	1994	1994*	1999**
Cycle	36.00	28.01	17.00	6.61	4.51	2.75
Bus	22.40	39.57	59.74	62.00	42.00	36.20
Car	10.10	15.54	5.53	6.94	4.74	28.35
SC/MC	1.00	8.42	11.07	17.59	12.00	29.29
Auto	7.80	3.88	0.77	2.80	1.91	1.74
Taxi	4.40	1.16	0.23	0.06		0.04
Rail	0.40	1.23	1.56	0.38	0.26
Others	17.90	2.19	4.10	3.62		2.47
Walk					31.77	1.62
Total	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00

Source: Household Travel Surveys in Delhi, 1994 ORG; * including walk trips; ** IIT survey of 2000 households living in DDA colonies.

 

TABLE 2

Mode Shares of Low Income Households (average income Rs 2000)

 

Cycle	38.87
Bus	31.43
Car	0.00
SC/MC	2.48
Auto	0 .96
Taxi	0.00
Rail	1.79
Others	2.34
Walk	22.12
Total	100.00

 

City	Population (1991) (Lakhs)	Average Share of Fast Traffic (%)	Average Share of Slow Traffic (%)
Shimla	1.1	100
Guruvayur	1.19	81	19
Agartala	1.57	35	65
Panipat	1.91	72	28
Tirupur	3.06	75	25
Udaipur	3.09	75	25
Rourkela	3.99	48	52
Guwahati	5.84	71	29
Hubli-Dharwad	6.48	83	17
Dhanbad	8.15	70	30
Vijaywada	8.45	51	49
Varanasi	10.31	46	54
Vadodra	10.31	71	29
Ludhiana	10.43	53	47
Vishakapatnam	10.54	81	19
Bhopal	10.63	83	17
Nagpur	16.64	59	41
Kanpur	20.37	40	60
Pune	24.94	79	21
Ahmedabad	33.12	71	29
Calcutta	110.22	84	16

Source: RITES Survey, 1994.

 

The number of bicycles and cycle rickshaws in the city are estimated at 1.5 million and 110,000-300,000 respectively. Except Mumbai, where suburban rail plays a major role in providing public transport, the other mega cities are primarily served by bus based transport. Skeletal bus services exist in a few other million plus cities also.

 

 

The road network is used by at least seven categories of motorized and non-motorised vehicles. Vehicles ranging in width from 0.60 m to 2.6 m, and capable of maximum speeds ranging from 15 km/h to 100 km/h, share the same road space. All these vehicles which have varied dynamics and static characteristics share the same carriageway. Thus traffic is characterised by a lack of effective channelisation, mode segregation or control of speeds. To a formally trained planner, it looks like chaos moving towards total gridlock. Yet the people and goods keep getting through and may, by some measures, actually be faring better than in some controlled conditions.

Generally, large cities have a smaller share of slow traffic in inner areas. Data from Delhi shows the presence of slow vehicles at the outskirts also. Since a large number of low income people commute from the city fringe to the inner city, slow moving vehicles constitute a major presence on intercity highways.

 

 

Bicycles, pedestrians and bus traffic attract street vendors. Often the side roads and pedestrian paths are occupied by people selling food, drinks and other articles which are in demand by road users. Vendors often locate themselves at places which are natural markets for them. A careful analysis of the location of vendors, their numbers at each location and the type of services provided clearly shows that they are needed since they work under completely ‘free market’ principles. If their services were not required at those locations, they would have no incentive to be there. Road and city authorities, however, view their existence as illegal.

Often, an argument is advanced that road capacity is reduced by the presence of street vendors and hawkers. If we apply the same principle that is used for the design of road environment for motorised traffic, especially private cars, then vendors have a valid and legal place in the road environment. Highway design manuals recommend frequency and design of service area for motorised vehicles. Street vendors and hawkers serve the same function for pedestrians, bicyclists and bus users. Pedestrians need cobblers on the road to have their footwear fixed, just as much as car owners need tyre repair shops. Bicyclists need repair shops to have their tyres, chains and pedals fixed. All commuters need cold drinks, snacks and other services on the roadside. These services have to exist at frequent intervals, otherwise walking or bicycling would become impossible, especially in summer. As long as our urban roads are used by these various sections, street vendors will remain inevitable.

The official position regarding vendors is that even if a few of them are allowed on our roads, then their numbers will proliferate. However, our survey shows that the number of vendors on a road is closely related to the density and flow of bicyclists, pedestrians and bus commuters.

 

 

A well functioning road infrastructure must satisfy the requirements of all road users. Pedestrians, bicyclists and non-motorised rickshaws are the most critical elements in mixed traffic in Indian cities. It is this group of road users that needs the services of vendors the most. If infrastructure design does not meet their requirements then all modes of transport will operate in sub-optimal conditions. An efficient and safe road-traffic system must satisfy two design principles:

1) Arterial roads which have more than 30 m right of way (ROW) must have physically segregated bicycle/non-motorised vehicle (NMV) paths, which cannot be used by motorised vehicles (especially motorised two wheelers).

2) Average speeds on roads which have less than 30 m ROW must be brought to 20-30 kms/h with the help of traffic calming measures.

 

 

Our survey of nearly all the arterial roads in Delhi shows that there is ample space available to satisfy the above criteria and provide space for vendors quite comfortably. We undertook an intensive exercise to do alternate road planning and prepared designs for actual road cross-sections and intersections, taking into account of extant ground reality on the basis of the following criteria:

– Physically segregated bicycle tracks on routes which have >30m ROW.

* Recommended lane width on main carriageway 3m (minimum).

* Recommended lane width for buses 3.3 m (minimum).

* Recommended lane width for bicycles 2.5 m (minimum).

– Separate service lane and footpath. Service lane should include services such as parking for non-motorised vehicles as well, and designed spaces for bicycle repair, shoe repair and other hawkers. These spaces should be included in bus stop designs.

* Intersection modification to include the following: Restricted free left turns; modified traffic signal cycle; roadside furniture to ensure safe bicycle movement and minimise interference from motorised two wheelers.

Such a road design allows for efficient flow of traffic, both motorised and non-motorised as also adequate space for vendors along the road. Figure 1 shows the layout for such a road design.

 

 

Bus stops should be placed around an intersection so that the walking distance from the crossing is reduced for commuters. The walkable distance in each direction can be reduced to as low as 50 ms. By removing all free left turns and placing the bus stops after the crossing (in each direction of traffic flow). Figure 1 shows a road cross-section with a redesigned bus stop. Bus stops have a 2.8 m wide bus bay, 2.5 m wide bus stop and 1 m wide footpath.

Hawkers have been provided space at the bus stop to minimize disturbance to the regular flow of pedestrian and cyclist traffic. The cycle track is diverted behind the bus stop in a gentle horizontal curve to reduce conflicts of cyclists with buses. This diverted path is raised to the footpath level and can be used by pedestrians too; hence it is widened from 2.5 m to 3 m. Our study shows that all bus stops do not have vendors. In general vendors are to be found only when the flow of bus commuters exceeds a certain level, which also corresponds to the need for providing two bus bays. Figure 2 shows the space made available for vendors between the two bus bays.

 

 

Policy-makers seem to be oblivious of the positive impact of street vendors on the social life of a city. The availability of work options on the street provides a positive outlet for employment and earning an honest livelihood to a large section of the population that is poor but with high entrepreneurial skills. Their presence makes streets relatively crime free and safer for women, children and the elderly. Cities which have a large number of street vendors seem to be far safer than those that do not.

A detailed study of vendors selling food on the streets of eight cities in Asia and Africa documents the important role these vendors play in a city.3 It found that street foods are frequently cheaper than home-prepared foods, especially when time spent shopping and cooking is factored in. This is important as the lower income groups spend 50-80% of their household budget on food. As our cities become larger and more congested, people spend more time on travel and also eat out more often. The street vendors make it possible for the poorer sections of society to obtain nutritious food at affordable prices.

This study showed that cooked cheap meals served by vendors represented outstanding bargains; also that more expensive meals sold in restaurants were not proportionately more nutritional. A surprising finding from Pune was that the cheapest street meals, cooked by the poorest vendors under the worst conditions, were equally or less contaminated with bacteria than samples taken from restaurants. The authors conclude that, ‘It is creditable on the part of women street food vendors who sell food in such degraded environment... that the quality of the food they sell is less unsatisfactory than that sold in restaurants.’4

 

 

Street vendors provide essential services in a city, help make our cities safer and make nutritious food available for the not so rich citizens. Therefore, they should not be considered as criminals and law breakers with attempts made to remove them from our streets. Instead, our roads and pavements need to be designed such that the street vendors can continue their trade without inconveniencing other road users. Our studies and attempts at redesigning the urban roads convince us that this is feasible. If these new designs are implemented, all road users (including those riding in cars) will find an improvement in the life they spend on urban streets.

 

 

Footnotes

1. R.P. Misra, ‘Urban India: Historical Roots and Contemporary Scenario’, in R.P. Misra and Kamlesh Misra (eds), Million Cities of India, Sustainable Development Foundation, Delhi, 1998, p. 52.

2. Traffic and Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban Areas in India, Final Report. Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, New Delhi, Government of India, March 1998, p. ES-3.

3. Irene Tinker, Street Foods: Urban Food and Employment in Developing Countries, Oxford University Press, New York, 1997.

4. Ibid., p. 192.